For example, new media allowed the Syrian uprising to be viewed by the rest of the world. Syrians have shown the world what was going on through the use of amateur footage of protests and their violent aftermath. Mobile phones and small cameras were used to capture footage which was then uploaded by computers on a 3g mobile. this is important because people need to be informed to promote democracy. the public sphere is a central aspect of good governance. Without a functioning and democratic public sphere, government officials cannot be held accountable for their actions, and citizens will not be able to assert any influence over political decisions.
However new media can encourage or allow misinformation where some people can be biased, and anonimity as some people can pretend to be someone they're not. This has weakened the public sphere as these issues can cause unwanted stress to the various consumers.
For example, a Syrian 'lesbian blogger' was revealed to actually be a married American man living in Edinburugh. The blog released in the first place to explain what it was like to be a lesbian in Syria. The blog had many followers from Syria. There was a post in the name of Amina's cousin stating she had been snatched by armed men in the streets of Damascus. This news on her blog sparked internet campaigns to release her. this was until they found no evidence or key details that could be corroborated. This put some of the Syrian gay community's safety at risk and seriously harmed their cause. This was because they were openly campaigning for her release putting themselves at risk of getting 'snatched' also if they were found, which is more likely to happen whilst this campaign was happening.
This is important because anonimity can cause misinformation to occur and on a big scale, such as the Syrian lesbian, can be fatal.
New media has anonimity within it as people cannot immediatly be discovered online therefore more people are likely to make extreme and irrelevant comments on an issue. This weakens the public sphere as we would question whether everything we read is true or not, or rather not question the information and be mislead.
The public sphere has been strengthened by new media as it allows us to debate the news with a wide range of people. this has been made possible by allowing viewers/audiences/consumers to comment on various pieces of news from around the worlds freely.
For example during the Syrian uprising journalism was banned. However new media allowed protestors to upload footage from the protests and even videos taken by members of the army, often mocking and abusing dead bodies were also leaked out. This allowed viewers from across the worlds to see the protests and how the army operated. This could then be debated online worldwide, Syria would have been seen in a bad light due to the exposure of these videos and the fact that people were able to debate it so openly with others. This is important because it makes people feel more free to express their opinion on matters in various places around the world.
The public sphere is strengthened by this as it encourages people to debate the news and the public sphere is where people discuss ideas and views. Again, new media is promoting democracy within the public sphere by allowing people to debate the news with each other. I think that new media does more good than bad as it allows people with similar opinions/interests to communicate from all over the world, in a free and easy way.
On the other hand, new media has weakened the public sphere as the validity of some of the information in the public sphere can be questioned, meaning that not all the information published to the public sphere can be trusted and taken as true all the time.
For example, the case of the Syrian lesbian blogger who turned out to be a 40 year old man living in Edinburgh shows how some information cannot be valid and therefore not trustworthy for the consumers. Once there was evidence on the 40 year old man social websites such as twitter and blogger reacted in outrage to this. More information was being discovered on 'Amina's' supposed relationships with various women. Amina was who the Syrian lesbian blogger was known as. Direct emails with the Guardian and pictures, passed off as Amina, but were not available to comment. Those who were frustrated with this outcome were unable to specifically comment on the supposed relationships Amina was having.
This is important as the validity of information can hinder the spread of democracy in the public sphere. This is because less people trust what they are consuming and therefore, are reluctant in participating in what could turn out to be a pointless discussion.
From these points discussed above I feel that new media does strengthen the public sphere far more that it weakens it. Even so, there are various issues surrounding the validity of the information and who is saying what in the public sphere. These points do no necessarily hinder the progression on democracy in the public sphere they simply point out the problems. Democracy is still able to spread and continue through the public sphere, this shows that these problems may not necessarily be a great issue as of yet.
For example, a Syrian 'lesbian blogger' was revealed to actually be a married American man living in Edinburugh. The blog released in the first place to explain what it was like to be a lesbian in Syria. The blog had many followers from Syria. There was a post in the name of Amina's cousin stating she had been snatched by armed men in the streets of Damascus. This news on her blog sparked internet campaigns to release her. this was until they found no evidence or key details that could be corroborated. This put some of the Syrian gay community's safety at risk and seriously harmed their cause. This was because they were openly campaigning for her release putting themselves at risk of getting 'snatched' also if they were found, which is more likely to happen whilst this campaign was happening.
This is important because anonimity can cause misinformation to occur and on a big scale, such as the Syrian lesbian, can be fatal.
New media has anonimity within it as people cannot immediatly be discovered online therefore more people are likely to make extreme and irrelevant comments on an issue. This weakens the public sphere as we would question whether everything we read is true or not, or rather not question the information and be mislead.
The public sphere has been strengthened by new media as it allows us to debate the news with a wide range of people. this has been made possible by allowing viewers/audiences/consumers to comment on various pieces of news from around the worlds freely.
For example during the Syrian uprising journalism was banned. However new media allowed protestors to upload footage from the protests and even videos taken by members of the army, often mocking and abusing dead bodies were also leaked out. This allowed viewers from across the worlds to see the protests and how the army operated. This could then be debated online worldwide, Syria would have been seen in a bad light due to the exposure of these videos and the fact that people were able to debate it so openly with others. This is important because it makes people feel more free to express their opinion on matters in various places around the world.
The public sphere is strengthened by this as it encourages people to debate the news and the public sphere is where people discuss ideas and views. Again, new media is promoting democracy within the public sphere by allowing people to debate the news with each other. I think that new media does more good than bad as it allows people with similar opinions/interests to communicate from all over the world, in a free and easy way.
On the other hand, new media has weakened the public sphere as the validity of some of the information in the public sphere can be questioned, meaning that not all the information published to the public sphere can be trusted and taken as true all the time.
For example, the case of the Syrian lesbian blogger who turned out to be a 40 year old man living in Edinburgh shows how some information cannot be valid and therefore not trustworthy for the consumers. Once there was evidence on the 40 year old man social websites such as twitter and blogger reacted in outrage to this. More information was being discovered on 'Amina's' supposed relationships with various women. Amina was who the Syrian lesbian blogger was known as. Direct emails with the Guardian and pictures, passed off as Amina, but were not available to comment. Those who were frustrated with this outcome were unable to specifically comment on the supposed relationships Amina was having.
This is important as the validity of information can hinder the spread of democracy in the public sphere. This is because less people trust what they are consuming and therefore, are reluctant in participating in what could turn out to be a pointless discussion.
From these points discussed above I feel that new media does strengthen the public sphere far more that it weakens it. Even so, there are various issues surrounding the validity of the information and who is saying what in the public sphere. These points do no necessarily hinder the progression on democracy in the public sphere they simply point out the problems. Democracy is still able to spread and continue through the public sphere, this shows that these problems may not necessarily be a great issue as of yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment