Internet Ionization Overcomes Audience Atomization
No longer the arbiter of opinion it once was, mainstream media finds itself marginalized by … whom?
Before beginning this post, I did exactly what I had resolutely determined not to do: I googled Jay Rosen, the author of PressThink, a weblog about journalism and its ordeals (www.pressthink.org), to find out his what his background was … who ‘his people’ were … what direction his overall slant took … in his article, Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press. I found, in reading, there is in it a certain positional mystique which might pass, if the reader fails to consider well, for the highly-touted journalistic autonomy one is lead to believe is the compass of ‘real journalism’. A master of his craft, Mr. Rosen got me over half way in before I realized his position was diametrically opposite what I had taken it for at the beginning. Though I didn’t look him up before reading the article, I wasn’t very far in before wanting to. I had a hard time getting a handle on what he was really saying.
Mr. Rosen, in approaching his position that the internet has weakened the power of the mainstream media to define the public discussion, draws from the 1986 book The Uncensored War by press scholar Daniel C. Hallin to lay a foundation from which to launch. Hallin poses the continuum of public opinion in spheres of acceptability for professional journalistic consideration, radiating outward from a core – the Sphere of Consensus – through the Sphere of Legitimate Controversy to what he labels a sphere, but graphically depicts as the unbounded area of Deviance. Polarizing nomenclature apart, Hallin’s discussion of traditional mainstream media’s sanctification power over the mere subject matter – let alone the acceptability of one’s position on matters of opinion – either identifies him as of the ‘old boy’ brigade or, like Rosen I only later in the article discovered – tongue-in-cheek – one of its detractors.
How interesting, I thought, when Mr. Rosen writes, “Journalists aren’t the only actors here. Candidates—especially candidates for president—can legitimize an issue just by talking about it … Powerful and visible people can start questioning a consensus belief and remove it from the “everyone agrees” category” that in the U.S. arena of public opinion, where freedom of the press is constitutionally guaranteed, freedom to entertain an opinion is arbitrated by so autocratic a professional journalistic community by means of denigration and silence. And – cynic that I am – the crystalline ring of truth became audible above the din of battle raging in my mind: Journalism is a business whose product is purchased for a specific use. At the core of the most basic human social interactions, engendering acceptance and dissipating opposition is most readily acceptable from an independent source.
People work in vocations and live with people that allow them to most successfully live by values they hold. Social beings by nature, most surround themselves with people of similar values, while others are energized by molding people’s opinions to their own. Not many are content to allow others their own autonomy and fewer, still, may be the number whose satisfaction lies only in being at the front, no matter the cause, they just need to be the leader. This continuum of influence has been played out across the stage of human existence and is the basis of human social organization. Alliances between people are established to exert influence upon others in the relationship group. From citing a drama critic to choose a movie to getting a second doctor’s opinion; from quoting political pollsters to referencing recognized authorities, most human interactions depend on the use unbiased authority to gain approval.
Mr. Rosen points out,
“Deciding what does and does not legitimately belong within the national debate is—no way around it—a political act … The press does not permit itself to think politically. But it does engage in political acts. Ergo, it is an unthinking actor, which is not good. When it is criticized for this it will reject the criticism out of hand, which is also not good.”
In addition to abhorring manipulation, Mr. Rosen writes that the media consumer demands relevance.
“one of the problems with our political press is that its reference group for establishing the “ground” of consensus is the insiders: the professional political class in Washington. It then offers that consensus to the country as if it were the country’s own”
It is only at this fourth page of his blog that Mr. Rosen explains his title.
Now we can see why blogging and the Net matter so greatly in political journalism. In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized— meaning they were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other.
Most human relationships are contractual in nature: if you do this, I will do that. As soon as the other crosses a certain line, the relationship is in jeopardy and may be nullified. People grant one another license to interact with them according to agreed terms.
Just as a manufacturer will find a new Ad Agency when sales begin to drop, a politician will let news out via the media outlet with the best spin, and consumers of news will seek out what fills their needs. Traditionally, young people just attaining voting age have felt marginalized by mainstream media’s, politician’s and their parent’s differing views from their own. Fresh from high school history class, newly away from home in college, this new part of the electorate are making decisions based on politician’s claims reported by the media, but have little experience seeing the touted political platforms at work in their own life. About to become eligible for military conscription (the draft), in my first election, I voted for the guy promising to end the war, George McGovern. Though today’s newest electorate has much greater access to issues in the media through the internet, I’m not sure they seek them out on their own any more than I did at my first. It wasn’t until the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) made their candidate’s position know to me that I even decided to vote at all.
In the 2008 presidential election, a new voter, away at college told me that the Obama campaign was the most media savvy. They seem to have garnered the greatest political real estate from the ‘Rock the Vote’ (RTV) campaign. Begun in 1992, RTV, “an American voter campaign … uses music, popular culture and new technologies to encourage young people to register and vote in elections.” Prepared by 16 years of popular social media “through celebrity advocacy and public education … Rock the Vote created and distributed over one million free copies of the pamphlet “Rock the System: A Guide to Health Care for Young Americans…(In 2004) Rock the Vote also launched, with Motorola, one of the first large-scale mobile phone political engagement projects; more than 118,000 people signed up to get information on their mobile devices…During the 2004 presidential election the group drew criticism … for sending a mock draft notice to over 600,000 e-mail addresses. The message included the words "Selective Service System" and read "You are hereby ordered for induction into the Armed Forces of the United States, and to report to a polling place near you" on November 2 (Election Day). The Rock the Vote logo and a facsimile of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's signature appeared at the bottom of the message. In addition, Rock the Vote created public service announcements featuring the subject of the draft." [Wikipedia]
The new American electorate has chosen their media, as have those who put it to use. These new media do not seem interested in making overtures to opposing political views. Though I’m still not sure I get Mr. Rosen’s reference to atomization as “meaning they (media consumers) were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other”, it did invoke an image of the result. The constituent elements of some chemical compounds can be broken apart and bonded with other elements creating entirely new compounds by the attraction of unstable electrons in the outer rings by other attractive electronically charged molecules. While Internet Ionization is an apt metaphor for the metamorphosis occurring in the mass media, at the expense of the traditional rigor of independence from political influence traditionally applied to journalism, these new media don’t even offer themselves to the highest bidder.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
John McLaughlin - Montreaux Jazz Festival
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9060763719855584589&ei=zI1PS4u4O46-rALeld3zAw&q=shakti&hl=en&client=firefox-a#
MLK 2010
The keynote speech by Dr. Julianne Malveaux, President, Bennett College for Women, for Lexington Kentucky’s Martin Luther King Day celebration – styled, MLK 2010, The Unfinished Agenda – was met with rousing applause and affirmations rarely heard beyond the amen corner on Sunday morning. With an affinity born of traversing teen age in the 1960s and 70s, stirred by my recollection of the impassioned speaking and fearless non-violent confrontation of this American giant, 2010 was my first attending the celebration of his work.
Hearing Dr. Malveaux characterize Dr. King’s work with the image of presenting a check written on an overdrawn account at the bank of inalienable rights, the familiar emotions rose up in me. I could recall how the melody of his voice, waxing and waning with the thrust of his message, prompted fellow Americans to respond with action, while, in my scant eleven years, I could but watch in awe, excited to live in such an exciting time. Imagine my surprise, yesterday, hearing Dr. Malveaux say, “Now I’m not calling Dr. King a socialist,” and go on to describe his advocacy of redistribution of wealth.
I was going to introduce this blog by positing: “The problem with someone else finishing what they call your, “Unfinished Agenda,” is that it becomes, by definition, their agenda,” and lay Dr. Malveaux bare as a historical reconstructionist having drunk too much of the current day’s political kool-aid. Turning to the internet to prove my point, I have just found:
“By 1964, King had reached the conclusion that blacks faced "basic social and economic problems that require political reform." But the vicious nature of northern ghetto poverty in particular convinced King that the best hope for America was the redistribution of wealth. In his 1967 presidential address to the Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC), entitled "The President's Address to the Tenth Anniversary Convention" (included in Testament of Hope, a collection of King's speeches edited by James Washington), King urged his colleagues to fight the problems of the ghetto by organizing their economic and political power. King implored his organization to develop a program that would compel the nation to have a guaranteed annual income and full employment, thus abolishing poverty, and he preached that "the Movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society." When such a question was raised, one was really "raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth," and thus, one was "question[ing] the capitalistic economy." These words mark a profound transformation in King's thinking.” No Small Dreams – The Radical Evolution of Martin Luther King’s Last Years by Michael Eric Dyson, 01.20.03; http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featdyson_mlk.shtml
Many men have found themselves in far worse torment and oppression for just being who they are than I’ve ever experienced. Others have made free-will choices of conscience with similar repercussions. So, who am I to say what should be done?
Maybe my ethics truly are situational: whoever tells the most heartrending story wins my vote.
How, during the McCarthy era, did they ever wean us on the story of Robin Hood? It must have been a holdover from a less commie-conscious era than the 1950’s, used to justify America’s political revolt against European monarchy.
As kids we cheered when the cavalry saved the wagon train from the murderous Indians. Then we read about the Trail of Tears watched Wounded Knee unfold on the television.
I used to believe that the Irish were no more than a gang of superstitious, drunken thugs with bombs. Then I read about English King Edward I’s conquest of Scotland and the collateral fallout for Ireland.
The first Christians were said to have had all things in common – that is, they pooled their resources that all might be sustained during the time when they were outcasts by the Jews and the occupying Roman Empire. The apostle John told first century Christians that a worse time was coming upon them. Who of them knew it would last 300 years?
What was the right thing to do? Would I have done better? What should I do now?
Hearing Dr. Malveaux characterize Dr. King’s work with the image of presenting a check written on an overdrawn account at the bank of inalienable rights, the familiar emotions rose up in me. I could recall how the melody of his voice, waxing and waning with the thrust of his message, prompted fellow Americans to respond with action, while, in my scant eleven years, I could but watch in awe, excited to live in such an exciting time. Imagine my surprise, yesterday, hearing Dr. Malveaux say, “Now I’m not calling Dr. King a socialist,” and go on to describe his advocacy of redistribution of wealth.
I was going to introduce this blog by positing: “The problem with someone else finishing what they call your, “Unfinished Agenda,” is that it becomes, by definition, their agenda,” and lay Dr. Malveaux bare as a historical reconstructionist having drunk too much of the current day’s political kool-aid. Turning to the internet to prove my point, I have just found:
“By 1964, King had reached the conclusion that blacks faced "basic social and economic problems that require political reform." But the vicious nature of northern ghetto poverty in particular convinced King that the best hope for America was the redistribution of wealth. In his 1967 presidential address to the Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC), entitled "The President's Address to the Tenth Anniversary Convention" (included in Testament of Hope, a collection of King's speeches edited by James Washington), King urged his colleagues to fight the problems of the ghetto by organizing their economic and political power. King implored his organization to develop a program that would compel the nation to have a guaranteed annual income and full employment, thus abolishing poverty, and he preached that "the Movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society." When such a question was raised, one was really "raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth," and thus, one was "question[ing] the capitalistic economy." These words mark a profound transformation in King's thinking.” No Small Dreams – The Radical Evolution of Martin Luther King’s Last Years by Michael Eric Dyson, 01.20.03; http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featdyson_mlk.shtml
Many men have found themselves in far worse torment and oppression for just being who they are than I’ve ever experienced. Others have made free-will choices of conscience with similar repercussions. So, who am I to say what should be done?
Maybe my ethics truly are situational: whoever tells the most heartrending story wins my vote.
How, during the McCarthy era, did they ever wean us on the story of Robin Hood? It must have been a holdover from a less commie-conscious era than the 1950’s, used to justify America’s political revolt against European monarchy.
As kids we cheered when the cavalry saved the wagon train from the murderous Indians. Then we read about the Trail of Tears watched Wounded Knee unfold on the television.
I used to believe that the Irish were no more than a gang of superstitious, drunken thugs with bombs. Then I read about English King Edward I’s conquest of Scotland and the collateral fallout for Ireland.
The first Christians were said to have had all things in common – that is, they pooled their resources that all might be sustained during the time when they were outcasts by the Jews and the occupying Roman Empire. The apostle John told first century Christians that a worse time was coming upon them. Who of them knew it would last 300 years?
What was the right thing to do? Would I have done better? What should I do now?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)