One of McChesney’s principal claims in this chapter is that big corporations are able to dominate new media by getting control over two “killer apps”: the web-browser and the Internet portal. Think about your own habits online. Do you depend overwhelmingly on a web-browser that is produced by a large media corporation (e.g. Microsoft Explorer)? Do you frequently visit a portal, relying on it to sort information for you (e.g. cnn.com or webmd.com)? Does your reliance on these outlets allow large corporations to limit your access to the Internet’s democratic potential?
Submitted by longaker on Fri, 11/04/2005 - 12:43pm.
login or register to post commentsprinter friendly version
Longaker RHE 330e
I also like to think of myself as a browser-independent web surfer. My primary source for news (aside from the Washington Post) is Google News. Ever since I started debating in high school Google has also been my primary resource for research. It's the first place I go for most of my web searches and it's the last place I go every night when I check my e-mail (thanks to Gmail). In short, I love Google. I don't think it limits your ability to search for information at all. In fact, (as David mentions), it provides quite an overwhelming amount of resources (links) for technically any search term you can think up. I don't mean to come off as such an ardent fan--but I am.
What else can you expect from a business whose motto is "Don't Be Evil"?
In fact, Google spells out the meaning of their slogan in their company philosophy, which you can find at http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/tenthings.html
#6 says: You can make money without being evil.
The revenue the company generates is derived from offering its search technology to companies and from the sale of advertising displayed on Google and on other sites across the web. However, you may have never seen an ad on Google. That's because Google does not allow ads to be displayed on our results pages unless they're relevant to the results page on which they're shown. So, only certain searches produce sponsored links above or to the right of the results. Google firmly believes that ads can provide useful information if, and only if, they are relevant to what you wish to find.
"So, only certain searches produce sponsored links above or to the right of the results." Yahoo and Google are both pay per click search engines. Companies can pay a fee based on where their website will appear in the search results. The most expensive rates appear at the top of the search results. Advertisers also spend a lot of money conducting research on internet positioning, identifying what key terms will get them into the top ten. They know that most people won't look beyond the first page. That means that every time you search online for a product, whichever company that has bidded the highest amount will appear in the top search results.
What I've found says that Yahoo! uses search sponsorship the most.
This may not impair new media democracy as much as it impairs my ability to shop online, but it does exemplify the growing presence of deceptive corporate practices.
This explains why I have always been disatisfied with search engines. I used to work in a library with an actual card catalog and some kind of primitive computer searching tool - I think it was called ERIC - or something like that. I swear that I found way more legitimate information that way. The internet search engines have become more useful to me as I ever so slowly learn how to direct my searches, but it really should be easier. I've been suspicious for a while that there was something to the ineffectiveness of yahoo.
I only use internet explorer to access the internet. The only search engine that I use is google. Many of you mention how bad IExplorer is. I have not had many problems with it. Is there something I should know? I do not think that my democratic potential is limited by using IExplorer primarilly because I have always been able to access whatever websites I have searched for. If anyone could provide an example of when IExplorer has failed to allow access to a certain website, I would love to hear about it. Until then, I can't say that it is problematic.
No one mentions the extreme obvious reason why internet explorer sucks ass compared to firefox and mozilla: pop-ups and viruses. Firefox has less users and so less viruses are written for it and less pop-ups are attached to it. by switching to the fox you get like 90 percent less pop-ups
Internet Explorer does not necessarily limit your access to certain websites. What it may do is guide you to whatever website Microsoft wants to promote. If you're using IE, it is more likely that you will look to Microsoft for compatible plugins and other software. I don't know if you've noticed this, but downloading anything from Microsoft is tantamount to providing a detailed history of where you've been on the internet--as well as what you have stored on your computer. If you disable cookies or reject their spyware, you cannot download. With this information, IE can target you for specific advertisements. I wanted to test some RSS readers in IE (for the presentation) but utimately decided against it because my firewall detected a whole crapload of spyware. I use Mozilla Firefox for everything. It is free, open-source, frequently updated, and compatible with the firewall that I use. Also, the latest version has an RSS reader built in! Firefox lets me know whether or not there are any RSS feeds on any website, as well as sounding an alarm whenever a site is trying to get info from my computer. Also, if you decide to abandon Windows, Firefox works just fine on other platforms, like Linux (which is free, open-source, and supports free, open-source software).
So, they got some money from Time Warner? That's not cool, but I trust that other browsers will come along and improve upon the Firefox app. In the meantime, Firefox does not appear to be favoring any Time Warner-AOL sites. Who knows, that could change.
i also use iexplorer, and have never had any problems with it. and with it, i've accessed all sorts of sites with all sorts of different political stances. so, i don't think i'm being prevented from information. i use google a lot, but i've used other search engines if i can't find what i'm looking for w/ google. sometimes that works, sometimes not. i mostly use the internet to check email, all school related stuff, to get directions to places and movie times, and news. i've joined different blog communities, but never blog or check the sites much. i used to use it to download music, but not so much since i have a new computer and want to keep it as clean as possible. so, yeah. Internet explorer seems fine for me.
Yeah, I'm basically a Google whore, too. Does Google have any ties to big corporations? Or did it become so popular because it's so easy to use? Because it is, which is why I use it. Bringing technology to the people, one Google service at a time...
I have had Internet Explorer crash on every computer I have owned just like most other microsoft products :( so I use Firefox which I believe is a much superior browser and does not limit or inluence my internet use whatsoever. I am also a user of Google and their new email service gmail (which by the way is great). I think it is a great tool and offers great search results and sure hope it isnt filtering out web pages and hindering democratic potential of the internet.
I use firefox and Gmail as well. I think you have to worry less about these programs invading your privacy and your right to democracy than a big corporation like microsoft. Microsoft could be argueably one of the biggest companies in the world, I don't know if they are still considered a monopoly. Gmail is free however, and started from a private company only a few years ago. It is my feeling that Google/Gmail works more for the people than the big-wigs. Their product has always been straightforward, honest, etc. I feel like Microsoft programs are always invading privacy (their back-doors for pop-ups, etc) and stupid things like not being able to take some of their programs off of your computer. Tell me how that is right. Firefox is a free program that works many times better than IE, and you don't have to pay a thing for it. Obviously they make their money somehow, but there is a difference between the goals of a respectable company and a monoloplist like Microsoft.
Have you ever noticed that gmail will post advertisements to the right of the email that basically corresponds to the content of the email?
Say for instance my friend's dog dies, and she writes me to tell me because I knew her dog or what not - true story actually and I'm a big softie when it comes to the death of a dog for whatever reason - anyway, the advertisements to the right will be on books for dogs or websites for cheap pet supplies. 7 out of 10 times the ads are right on target content wise. It's freaky, at the least.
If you go to FAQ for gmail, it explains how this doesn't invade your privacy, but I don't think they explain how to prevent it from making you feel dirty.
Otherwise I would love my gmail, too. I mostly love it. I think that yahoomail is a bit better in some aspects (they allow nicknames), but mostly gmail is more functional. This really has very little to do with democracy, so I will end this post.
I think google is the only search engine I use too. I use firefox because my explorer is completely destroyed and yet I can't delete it off my computer because I have windows. Firefox is better anyway. You can open tabs and search faster. I hate using computers with explorer now. I don't really see how using explorer limits democracy though, it just limits someone's ability to search the internet better because it sucks. Firefox is really popular now as well as some other browsers. It's definately a plus for democracy when there are more options.
I use IE, and I really don't think that simply because it's designed, marketed and sold by a major corporation, that it limits my access to the internet. I'm just guessing here, but the software and servers needed to run this forum are most likely from major corporations, and it hasn't limited our ability to discuss democracy. McChesney beats this drum again and again, and I disagree. Major corporations want one thing, and one thing only: to make a great deal of money. The only real collusion corporations undertake are to decry competing products, in admittedly nefarious ways. My point is, big corporations ARE NOT attempting to thwart democracy. Big corporations ARE attempting to keep the profit margins thick. This is the natural order of the market. Just because Microsoft wants to sell you a comprehensive software package that may or may not be better than the competition, does not mean they wish to install a tyrannical government. I don't think big corporations limit ones access to the internet. I think they seek ways and means to persuade more users to visit their sites, but there is no shadow-government-evil-corporations antics going on here, and I wish I could get this across to McChesney before he starts seeing black heliocopters and armies of Starbucks baristas coming to wipe democracy off the face of the earth.
I think that McChesney effectively argues that in order to make more money, corporate media has been able to thwart what were supposed to have been otherwise democratic processes by getting the government to favor them. On page 127, he states that "the U.S. policy-making experience with the Internet follows the undemocratic historical pattern prevalent since the mid-1930s." He then proceeds to explain how the Telecom Act formed essentially a cabinet of computer firm CEOs that made policy recommendations not necessarily focused on how media can serve the public interest. Are you honestly unbothered by his contention that "government policies are instrumental in determining who the winners will and will not be..." (pg. 143)?
This was basically my response as well. It doesn't matter truly what the motivation is if the end result IS a thwarted democracy. If, in order to amass more wealth, they circumvent the democratic process using their power, then they are the problem. I think that McChesney was able to make the case for this.
Just to make sure I wasn't being doped by a vast corporate conspiracy, I used the two search engines that I think are most popular, Yahoo and Google, to see if I could find easy access to an 'anti-corporate' browser. I did, using both engines, out of a massively corporate browser. And before you start feeling to good about supporting a supposedly non-corporate browser like Mozilla, check the background on the company. Mozilla was a spin-off of Netscape, est. 1998. It started of as a non-proft organization, to develope an open-source browser. During that time, it recieved a $2 million pledge from Time Warner Inc, roughly as corporate as you can get. I found all of this information using hoovers.com, the site of Hoovers Inc, a subsidiary of D&B. CORPORATE IS NOT A BAD WORD!!!!!
I use internet explorer primarily because I'm too lazy to download a corporate free web browser. So in asfar as explorer is limited, I too am limited in my ability to aquire the internet's democratic potential. In searching for material online, I typically just do a google search and hope that what I'm looking for is on the immediate page that pops up. And I get my news by seeking it specifically. If I feel like reading the NY times I go to their website, and the same for the washington post or my hometown newspaper the San antonio express-news. Google limits my search only because it typically provides so many possible choices for each search I use. I will rarely search past two pages of options, so If i'm looking for blogs with a certain slant or topic, I'm as limited in that I am typically interested in my search, but not usually devoted enough to continue searching too long.
I use Firefox, a browser released by Mozilla. I just did some quick research on the history of Mozilla, and it actually had started out as an open source project of Netscape. The mozilla foundation was created in 2003 out of $2 startup funds from AOL/Netscape, and has been on its own ever since (as far as I can tell). I think it's interesting that I had no idea AOL had anything to do with Mozilla; there is never any advertising or mention whatsoever of the corporation. I'm a big fan of open source, and I think this is a good example (although, I haven't studied Mozilla/open source extensively, so if I'm wrong about any of this, let me know).
I guess I never really got into the web portals either; I like to think of myself as a free spirit I suppose?
I do think that relying too much on one corporation's handle of the internet (yahoo, MSN) can limit the kind of news you get, the types of websites you go to - depending on what kind of web surfer you are.
And if any of you have never used Firefox, you should download it and try it out - I think it's a better browser than both Explorer and Safari, partly because of its tabbed browsing and also, it just looks nicer :)
I google and use internet explorer, but if there is a better way I am all about trying it! Tabs do sound nice.
I use firefox instead of internet explorer. I rely on google news to sort news stories for me so in that way I am reliant on the corporation that is google. As a citizen who relies on this system, I honestly cannot tell if it limits me or not. I have no idea whether it is limiting my scope of news sources and information. But to the Internet's democratic potencial? I think the bar has been met for democracy. I think I have a very wide range of information. I may well not have all the information but is this system something other than democratic??? I doubt it. I think the public has access to an overwhelming amount of information that is unbiased and offers different perspectives and could never go through them all and discover that there is not enough there. That the information is not from enough different news sources or that all the information it is getting is somehow corporately slanted is bologna. At least in my experience with google news, corporation or no corporation, it is still more democracy than I have time for.
Just some comments on the reading.
I'd like to begin with a Simpson's reference. "Buy him out boys!" Who said this and when? I have no prize to offer, but you win if you said Bill Gates when Homer opens up his bogus internet service. If you don't watch the Simpsons, simply ignore this portion of my post.
Some difficulties with conglomerates and the internet as a promoter of democracy: racism and class discrimination in internet accessibility, discriminatory or unfair practices in location, and the increased difficulty to maintain editorial integrity within the system.
If the market is only profitable when addressed to affluent, then access will only be focused to the affluent. Although this situation isn't quite so severe, I do think that with the poorest and most marginalized it is a problem. I have no evidence, proof, or background knowledge to back up McChesney's claim that minorities seem to be excluded regardless of class. I think it's an interesting area to research more closely. How horrible to think there would be technological segregation!
As far as location, I thought the analogy to the small store that nobody ever could get to was an interesting one. If the conglomerates snap up control to portals they can relegate any possible competition to a desert, where no one will go. If the product is information then this can impact the ability of the internet to be used for democracy.
McChesney mentions somewhere in the chapter that the internet makes editorial integrity much more difficult, and I do think this could definitely prevent the dissemination of quality information. It actually could do a lot of damage if it should mean that information can come across as official but be driven by corporate or capitalist interests.
I actually still have hope for the internet, mainly because I agree "it can, at the very least, be an enormous and mostly uncensorable soapbox, open to a plethora of voices to speak, and be heard" (McChesney 175).
I do have worries that McChesney is ultimately right and that as a whole the internt will just provide the same structural and content existence as the media has outside this realm. I think the only way to prevent this is by using the blogger, livejournals, wikis, and forums more effectively, and to lobby to make sure that everyone has access to these sites.
I have been discussing this idea of internet as savior for democracy to friends, families and even strangers. I am always surprised at the same reaction I get: fear that corporations and people in power will put plants that will misguide the process. It just think that's interesting. It's actually something I've always been afraid of too, but what can you do?
McChesney also worries about the loss of traditional journalists, but I think that there will always be a place for them for the very reason McChesney says they are so vital. Bloggers, wikis, and forums will rely on actual articles to use as springboards for opinions and ideas. I also think there is room for a greater degree of clarity, so he needn't worry about the loss of a high caliber of journalism. What I mean is that eye witness reports and/or discussions can be read first hand - which can encourage more criticism or anaylsis.