Chapter 11 demonstrates that online media are not as necessarily democratic as Gillmor might have us believe. (Remember chapter 5 when he sed that the Internet had leanings towards a populist version of direct democracy, not unlike what one found in the Howard Dean campaign?) As we learn about corporate efforts to control copyright protection and to curtail fair use, we find that perhaps the technology is not all we need to enjoy democratic exchange. Does this chapter’s concession that anti-democratic (read, corporate) forces can use new media just as well as citizen activists undercut Gillmor’s argument that there is something inherently valuable and democratic in new media? In light of chapter 12, can we still say that new media made grassroots journalism possible?
The bookshelves of doom blog comments on a situation that seems to pertain to the accuracy and copyright issues discussed in Gillmor's book. It concerns Chris Elliot - who you will likely know if you are over 30 - lifting information he thought was public domain, erroneously lifting it from a fake "historical" site and including it in his new book. It has a happy ending. You can read about it here: http://bookshelvesofdoom.blogs.com/bookshelves_of_doom/2005/11/oh_man_ch...
Gillmor spends a lot of time explaining how people got around the technology of the corporations: the DVD software, for one, peer-to-peer file-sharing programs like Napster, torrents, and other examples i can't remember, but were basically that people ripped the product apart and made it better. Whatever step corporations make, the past suggests smart citizens will remain a step ahead. A real life example: my friend Patrick couldn't find any RSS feeds for baseball, so he wrote his own. He hasn't proactively shared it, but if someone asked him for it, he would share it. Gillmor says that corporations should exploit this citizen expertise because it *is* so valuable.
Now that we've gotten a taste of democracy that we haven't had before with the advent of the internet and other technologies and developments, I think citizens will be unwilling to give that up. With their expertise, it's entirely possible that they'll outsmart the corporations.
I think that it is important for citizens to remain involved because of the possible improvements, like Patrick's, that can be made. Kind of like the blogs, technology and almost limitless communication and access allows the citizen to think outside of the box, something that corporations can't do as much because of liability and their focus on profits. So instead of trying to hinder this creativity, which could have very positive results, they should embrace it and in some cases provide financial backing to these individuals to further their product. However, even if they don't, I don't think that citizens will ever go back. As David said in one of the other posts on this forum, corporations still have TV, radio, newspapers, etc, so citizens now realize how powerful the internet and other forms of communication that became because of it, and will NOT allow anyone to take that away from them. And I think that it is important that they don't because it promotes communication of thoughts, interaction with others, and in some cases the healthy deliberation that Dewey calls for. It still has a long way to go, and I think that the only way for it to reach its full potential is for it to remain with the citizens and only encouraged/funded by corporations.
“The forces of central control – governments and big businesses, especially the copyright cartel – are pushing harder and harder to clamp down on our networks”(238), says Gillmor. Gillmor argues corporations’ attempts at gaining more power through tighter copyright laws only part of a greater evil meant to stifle “creativity” and “innovation”.
Does this potential threat undercut his claim that there is something inherently valuable and democratic in new media? No, I don’t think so. I think it means there are attempts by corporations to limit reproduction and resale of full length films and cds. There is a possibility that Corporations would like more control over fair use, and the DMCA could be abused. But could it be said that there are always people trying to limit or unlimit rules and laws? that is democracy.
If Corporations don’t want their products/works used in a blog, then the blogger can put a link to a site that gives more information on the product/work, or can discuss where people can find the product/work. Corporations can create sites where you can download and view movies online, like you can with music and iTunes.
New media is valuable and democratic. It reaches a huge population in a click. So, the entertainment industry doesn’t want you to copy their products/works in full. That doesn’t mean you can’t talk about them on websites.
Grassroots journalism is still possible with new media. “You can make your own news”(241), says Gillmor. “People are better informed today because of mail lists, web sites, blogs, SMS, and RSS”(238), it will continue to grow and be valuable.
I agreed with Gillmor's arguments against copyright abuse, all the way, but I agree with you in that it won't stop the internet as a means to conversations. I think that whether they like it or not, there are now too many blogs to make it cost effective to monitor and go after all of them. Er, except did you read the article Shannon linked to in the last discussion. Some companies are actually starting to pay people to search through blogs.
To me, this new concession does not undercut Gillmor's argument that there is something inherently valuable and democratic in new media. Despite the restrictions layed out by corporations to control copyright protection, it cannot prevent the masses from having open discussion about the topic in a casual manner. Shannon mentioned the open discussion of 9/11 and how despite the consequences, democracy was ultimately upheld because people were openly participating in deliberation. I could not agree more. Corporations can chose to limit media, but that does not make it necessarilly unattainable. We have the choice to either abide by the limitations of these corporations or find other means with which to go beyond them. Technology only increases our ability to do this. Since technology increases the ease with which we are able to participate in democratic deliberation, I have little doubt that grassroots journalism is possible. It has existed for many years and will only improve because of how easilly people are able to communicate with the help of the internet.
It doesn't undercut the argument that new technolgy will increase democray among citizenry. The fact that not that many more people are going to care undercuts that one. It simply says that both citizen and corporate media producers have equal opportunity. It equates to citizens have their own version of CNN. A corporation can start a blog and so can I and we're competing for the same readership and there is no guarantee that the corporation site will win out. It is just as likely the people will like my news etc...
but I also think it is hard to honestly claim that corporations and citizens could compete on a complete equal basis. Multinational corporations have resources that dwarf those of an average individual. In addition, corporations have the some of the same legal rights and protections that citizens have. I think that, in a theorhetical vacuum, both citizen and corporate media producers have equal oppurtunities, but unfortunately, not in our world.
I don't think that there is any way that citizens can compete with corporations either. While corporations use the internet to their advantage, I think that most people visit websites made by corporations and those created by individuals, but probably not equally.
Corporate news can seem stodgy and impersonal at a time when citizens are feeling more and more isolated and helpless against such stodginess and faceless giant entities who claim ultimate authority - or maybe that's just me and my experience with my health insurance company, credit card companies, apartment complex, long distance carrier and, alas, UT.
I do not think that it undercuts his argument at all - I think that one of the advantages new media has over traditional outlets is that it provides the opportunity for immediate discussion to more people, a point that is crucial to moving towards a more democratic society. Gillmor says citizen agency exists - it just needs the technology to be put to use. Making up-to-date information more available for everyone in a way will always put the anti-democratic institutions at a disadvantage, as knowledge is power. If you think just about the blogs that were posted after September 11, there was a wealth of discussion happening across the country and across the globe. Whether some discussion led to good or bad consequences (donating blood vs. promoting discrimination) is not the point, the point is that there was deliberation and in some small way, people could participate.
That being said, I think that although there is definitely something valuable to new media, it is not the only answer and has never been. Grassroots journalism, or a movement of ordinary people going out of their way to educate/better the public, has existed long before new media. The newer technology has, again, made it more accessible, but it is not the only factor that made this movement possible. Community involvement is a major part of grassroots journalism, and I feel that because of new media people stay home and update their blogs rather than get out and actually take action on something. The same way how some people who vote believe that once they cast their ballot their responsibility to civil society is over, I think that some bloggers feel that by disseminating their personal biases to the world, their duty to the public is fulfilled. For ordinary people who provide community, grassroots journalism, new media is part of the solution, but there is more to it than that. It’s about knowing and helping your community and knowing and helping your fellow man.
I agree with several of your points. I trust that the technologies that Gillmor supports (rss, blogging, wikis) will only improve, change, and morph into still unimaginable uses that may advance the cause of grassroots journalism. The technology did not invent citizen journalism, but it did provide more space for the roots, more space for the increase in perceptible possibilities that are the result of the exponential increase in participation on a global level. I understand how it would be (and has been) possible for a government or corporate interest to limit or block democratic deliberation through censoring or controlling printed/televised media. Those people who are affluent enough to enjoy access to the internet have a unique opportunity to actually create their own space on the web and/or "massage" internet content to meet their own needs. I don't see how television or printed material can make this possible on the same global scale. The enormity of that scale is, I think, the deciding factor in the fight between the citizen journalist and moneyed corporate interest. Whether outside forces seek to control software (encryption, limited access to key software functions) or access to the internet (SBC monopoly, interference from ISPs like AOL), users have consistently found ways to circumvent those limitations and then relay that new info to the world. Still, this is an innovation in communication and, unless the communication elicits action in the "real" world, grassroots journalism will fall short of its intended goal. If we rely too much on the internet as our means of giving it to the man, then what will happen at all of those community gatherings that we are no longer attending? Will airing our grievances on blogs and forums take the place of yelling at city hall, protesting in the street, or organizing real-world social programs? For example, people may use blogs to discuss their arguments for/against the "gay marriage" amendment--they may even vote. Even if online discussion compels the media to report on the issue, is an increase in coverage, whether online or in print, a substitute for direct public action? May I be corny and quote a song? Wise Le Tigre say "get off the internet/I'll meet you in the street/destroy the right-wing." Maybe you want to destroy something else. Either way, you'll have to eventually leave your chair to do it.
This isn't the first time I've been reminded of that song this semester. But I think that's what Gillmore's implying in this chapter- that if we intend to use new media to create more democracy, we should be concerned about the ways that the government and corporations patrol it. If the government has the ability to track online protesting it will generate fear and prevent people from openly voicing their concerns. I do think that increased surveillance will hamper freedom of speech.
As long as copyright laws are treated as they are now, big business will have the upper hand in deciding what technologies exist and how they function. I think the cookies are an example of how freedom on the internet is already being infringed upon. I think we should be wary of the control that corporate interests exert over the the new media.
I do agree with the majority of the class that citizen journalism will continue to be force to reckon despite what measures corporations may take to control media outlets. Gillmor notes that "[t]he Net is overturning so many of the things we've assumed about media and business models that we can scarcely keep up with the changes" (pg. 236). In this sense, I would imagine that it would be hard for Big Media and politicians to even keep up with the innovations and circumvention of rules that citizen journalists may come up with. More importantly, Gillmor says that Big Media is still not listening--they don't seem to realize the value of our conversations and grassroots journalism.
I agree with Kelly that if we are to continue using the media as a grassroots tool, we need to be concerned with how government and corporations patrol it. In my view, it is not realistic to think that corporate/governmental power to undercut the potential of more democratic media outlets will be overwhelmed by simply by increased use of the outlets Gillmor discusses. I believe citizen journalists (those contributing to the grassroots tools) will need to hold Big Media and the government accountable and keep up with/ fight potential threats to their publishing freedoms.
Blogs do indeed take up a lot of time, but people tend to blogs (and their ilk) and yet still do attend concerts, have jobs and participate in many other activities. I don't think it makes people less inclined to go to city hall, engage in protests, or what not. It can make them more informed when they do so, though. It can help alleviate the whole thing where opposing sides just state the same argument over and over at increasing volumes.
Gillmor is not undercut by his concession because, corporations by their nature will try to enter and dominate all new markets in order to maintain their stockpiles of cash. However, as Gillmore points out, new media is tremendously easy to create as a civilian (so to speak) and not a member of a corporation elite media. We can creat blogs and edit wiki's with ease, and to a certain extend, broadcast online. What we can't do is enter the realms of older media and start our own tv stations, or start new radio stations. So with the ease, both mechanically and fiscally, of new media, it is still effective in democratizing society.