Oct 27 2010
Response Questions: Week 9
1. Traditional journalism companies and even companies in general that have connectional ties with citizen journalists, I don’t believe can afford to not acknowledge the persistent contemporary pervasiveness of citizen journalism and therefore need to recognize their benefits instead of trying to compete. Big players like CNN and BBC, therefore should maintain their citizen journalism portions of their site, such as CNN’s iReport. In the article we read for Monday, “Social news, citizen journalism and democracy” by Luke Goode, it stated that (1) alterity is always relative and (2) the political economy of citizen journalism is in flux with large-scale commerce and advertising dollars (and in some cases traditional media corporations) and therefore are encroaching steadily into this area. Therefore, I think it would hurt mainstream sites, such as CNN and BBC, if they did not include the citizen journalism portion of their site because it draws in viewers and dollars. Therefore, instead of focusing on ways to beat alterity, more mainstream news companies should be observing and learning how to incorporate citizen journalism into their sites. I also think its more beneficial for citizen journalists to post their material on these mainstream sites, not only for recognition reasons, but also for credibility. Therefore, this situation is more of a win-win than the other alternatives.
2. Today we covered the topics mentioned in my second question. From class, I learned that political websites are more of what is called “infoenterpropagainment” which is a whole mixture of things. Essentially, in my notes it was described as meaning, “politicians and media blend political information with aspects of propaganda, including media or political bias, and present it to the audience in a way that entertains.” Therefore, I feel that even though the web may present itself as a more personal, transparent experience while connecting with a political figure on their page, it really is just another platform stage in which to get across their political agendas, whether that be their support for the next election or the next bill they wish to sign. Although, in some ways, the Internet has made it easier for the population to become closer in a public forum when discussing political ideas, as well as the feedback loop to change into three way interaction. It has also helped voters determine political figure’s personal character and personal life more so than ever before. I realized this after watching how McCain, during his presidential election, was inconsistent in his personal marketing strategy when it transitioned from preliminary nominations to the national election. If it weren’t for the Internet to store this information within the same portal, YouTube, than I would have never known both of these videos, that promoted very different messages, had ever existed.Therefore, I will have to say that the Internet is great at documenting tool for political information and multimedia because it not only stores information, but allows available access to the information at anytime. This allows people to make more of an unbiased judgment about certain political parties and political figures because they have an unlimited amount of resources, regardless of branding, at their fingertips.
3. In response to my third question about crowdsourcing inducing innovation in the political realm, in which I believe I touched a little bit on this in my second response, crowdsourcing allows for three way interaction between political parties and the population in regards to political agendas and the like. In class we have briefly discussed how Iceland is currently in reform after their economic collapse and how they are currently building and using a similar procedure to gain governmental support for parties and political agendas. Traditional political feedback would usually consist of a supporter or constituent handwriting mail or telephone calling a political figure, which would then usually be responded by that figure’s team, rather than the figure themselves. It was rare to have a political figure address you personally. However, on the Internet, in public discussion forums on their websites, it is now capable for political figures to address the needs and concerns of their constituents more easily. Although Iceland is just now currently experimenting with this, I hope that the process works fairly well between the governmental body and the people because if so, then a new form of direct democracy may occur and may possibly catch on by other larger nations. Although it may cause problems and has the possibility of becoming another fifth estate political watchdog, it is still an alternative to representational democracy, and therefore it may actually be more beneficial with the people. However, with this said, it is always easier in smaller groups (aka smaller nations) to agree than it is for larger numbers of people. Therefore, it could be successful in Iceland, while completely unsuccessful in the United States.