Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning The Internet Against Democracy

Having served nearly thirty years at CBS News, Mr. Goldberg had earned a reputation as one of the most original writers and thinkers in broadcast journalism. However, when he observed his own industry, he realized the liberal media had completely missed their mission to give honest news. After years of sharing his observations and promoting more balanced reportings, Goldberg soon realized that no one listened because they believed they were doing the right thing. The liberal bias continued, therefore Bernard Goldberg decided to take the situation into his own hands and expose the distortion of the media himself. Goldberg’s breathtaking and shocking best seller book, Bias, reveals the close-mindedness of the news culture and their mission to entertain rather than share facts.

Clay Shirky who wrote Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable (1993) argues that society doesn’t need newspapers society needs journalism to save society. Shirky supports this argument by giving a historical background to the problems newspapers face and how the problems have developed over time and the solutions society has came up with. The blogger concludes that in order for journalism to go farther new models must be created in place of past molds. Shirky directs this blog toward the current and future generations in attempt to motivate new models and methods of journalism.

Gladwell sends a very strong message about how social media cannot cause a major revolution in society; likewise, Baron is sending across the same message. Revolutions continue even after the internet is shut down. As crowds gathered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, Baron describes how they “continued to grow during the five days that the Mubarak government shut down the internet” (330). The crowds increased in size without the help of social media. Somehow, word got out and people came to support the cause. Also, Baron brings into realization that Americans are too involved in the world of social media. Americans fail to realize all of the news that they are missing because they “can’t seem to survive without the constant stimulus of digital multitasking” (Baron 330). American citizens are too busy tweeting about what they ate for breakfast to worry about the hungry that is going on overseas. They depend on social networking to tell them the news rather that picking up a newspaper and reading about what is going on in their country or maybe even overseas in a different country.

Does social media “shrink the world” by bringing us closer together? In his article Small Change, Malcom Gladwell asserts that social media might be connecting more people, but the bonds it forms allow us to stay comfortably separate and avoid impacting meaningful social reform. Gladwell makes it apparent that he believes social media and revolutions are unsuited for each other. His article, written just two months before the beginning of the Arab Spring, was written in response to what some contemporaries have dubbed, “The Twitter Revolution” in Moldova. This revolution, as well as another in Iran, was heralded as examples of the merits of social media, with some even nominating Twitter for the Nobel Peace Prize due to their belief that Twitter had played a major role in these uprisings. Gladwell writes against a sentiment of righteousness and accomplishment that advocates of social media maintain in an attempt to convince people that the true motivation behind social change is conviction. He raises the point that while it is exceedingly easy for someone to join a cause, such as hitting a ‘like’ button, it is far more effortless for them to quit. This sentiment seems to be fueled mostly by opinion, looking only at how social media did not cause revolutions and avoiding analysis regarding how

Since the launch of the Internet as a global communication network and the boom in communication technologies, our world has been overwhelmed by a new phenomenon – digital divide. It has gradually turned into a major, constantly growing world issue, threatening to further increase the gap between advanced and developing countries. Yet, is digital divide really an unprecedented occurrence or a natural and unavoidable trend? “Divide” is certainly a word whose meaning could be traced back to the mere dawn of human history. It goes even deeper – to human nature itself: to sex and racial differentiation, to unequal physical and mental powers, to different

In her call to action, The People’s Platform; Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age, Astra Taylor addresses underlying social and economic forces of the internet and differential perspectives towards it. Taylor discusses the new internet in which content is king and, people are now the product, this is called Web 2.0. She discusses this topic from a couple viewpoints; those who would believe that the internet is truly the new people’s platform and that it is the golden age of sharing and collaboration, called the Techno-optimists. The counterparts of this interpretation of the internet are what she calls the Techno-Skeptics, who have a similar mindset in that of Nicholas Carr, an author about technology in the modern age, with the

During the 2011 Egypt uprising protesters gained support through social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to help end poverty and unemployment in which they were experiencing at the time. This major flow of support from across the world helped strengthen the protesters cause and led to an eventual victory in Egypt (Brym 2014).

The internet is a powerful tool for activists, but can also be utilized by the other side by promoting propaganda and mobilizing their own supporters. Networking sites have revolutionized the way people activists approach revolutions. Moreover, the internet has connected people from across the world and has caused people in the states (like myself) to become invested in a civil war occurring in a part of the world I never knew existed. The internet has empowered and enabled people by connecting like-minded people, providing access to information, broadcasting events, and creating real connections between people. Alone, the internet is not enough to bring down an oppressive, authoritarian state; but when coupled with the power and will of the people, it can create real

In his article “A Farewell to Journalism?: Time for a rethinking,” media critic Robert McChesney focuses on the idea that professional journalism in America has been in a major decline—and if a solution is not agreed upon to save it, our democracy itself will be in peril. More specifically, McChesney attempts to convey the idea that government intervention is imperative in order to salvage professional journalism as a whole and save democracy in America. He argues that government intervention in the form of subsidization and nationalization of the media is required; he writes, “The future of journalism left to the market will likely approach what education would be like if all public subsidies were removed…. It would be a nightmare for any credible democratic or humane society…” (McChesney 619-620). It is apparent that McChesney believes that in order to have a functional democracy, a robust Fourth Estate must also be present. Throughout the article, McChesney defends his claim and warrant through credible research and analysis—yet he falls short at critical points, especially when he assumes transferability between European and American policies, attempts to quantify freedom, and fails to realize the true relationship between the free-press and the government. These discrepancies within the flawed research that he presents render his argument for a national media system unsuccessful.

Arguing that modern journalism is merging with the entertainment and online realms, James Fallows, in “Learning to Love the New Media,” compares and contrasts today’s modern press with the media of years past. The media’s role, Fallows believes, has always been to inform the public of information without sole concern for profit; however, due to industry deregulation and the advent of the Internet, journalists are increasingly writing stories targeted for public desire rather than for civic service. According to some, this shift in journalistic intention is causing American news to present fewer viable solutions to real-world problems and has ultimately made it less objective. Fallows, considering the past, highlights how historical

Until the 1980s, the control of the media was in the hands of the national government. From then, the control shifted to private outlets and by the 1990’s, there were more than fifty multinational companies who controlled it (“Mass Media”). Today, only about six major companies control the larger fraction of media in America (Williams, Par. 1). Norman Solomon wrote in the New Political Science Journal that most reporters and editors work for just a few huge companies. These journalists and editors are on the payroll for “mega-media institutions”, of which, only about six exist (Solomon 297). How much will the public learn if these companies generally control the output of information?

History is a repetition of events: war after war, economic crisis after economic crisis, technology outdoing itself as we speak. A line of events that for centuries have been reported by the world’s oldest storytellers: journalists. Yet, the future of journalism itself has never been as uncertain and unpredictable as it has been in the past decade and the role of ‘gatekeepers’ of news has never been more precarious.

Theorists contend that representative government is headed for direct democracy by way of the Internet. Essentially what will happen is that representatives will no longer be needed because citizens will be able to use the Internet to make decisions. Grossman contends that “the more power [citizens] have to control their government and to involve themselves in making its decisions, the better” (41). Over the years citizens have been obtaining information through the media, newspapers, and other forms of mass media. The issues that arise with obtaining information through these sources are that the government can easily censor them. With the Internet comes “vastly expanded capacities for data collection, for computation, and for automation” (Kamark & Nye 22).

The 2011 uprising in Egypt was in many ways a traditional brick-and-mortar revolution, but with a cyber-twist to it: based on their statistical analysis of a large body of tweets related to the 2011 uprising in Egypt, Starbird and Palen (2012) observed that activists used Twitter as an important tool to share ideas and information with like-minded people, because Twitter allows a high number of activists interact using its retweet and other mechanisms. In this case, Twitter was used among participants and supporters of a traditional mass movement to bypass government controlled

In today¡¦s society journalism is under close scrutiny and is losing its credibility. Sensationalism effects both those who receive it in addition to those who report it. This essay will review the history of sensationalism in the media, clearly demonstrate how sensationalism effects ours views on journalism, and confront the ethical dilemmas that journalists must face between reporting objectively and reporting what sells. This will be accomplished by investigating various sources, including articles published on the Internet as well as those published in newspapers and magazines.