I have my own media!

In this post I am going to provide a summary of my learning in the course of communicating policy and provide my final thoughts regarding the subject matter. Declining of the traditional media, use of social media and networking and its effect on the society as a whole and politicians' actions will be discussed.

According to Florian Sauvageau in the book "How Canadian Communicate IV" newspapers are, traditionally, the main producers of news – they set the public affairs agenda and if newspapers die, or if media sources continue to converge, it will adversely affect the functioning of democratic life. So, if newspapers set the public affairs agenda and if the crisis gripping newspapers worsens, it will affect all media and therefore the news system that nourishes democratic life. Nowadays, with all sorts of social media present, the news is covered by everyone with the same techniques, is written in the same style, is endlessly recycled from one medium to another and is remarkably similar. How does this affect our lives?

One of the major impacts of the declining traditional media is on the government. Elly Albiom suggests that because media coverage has a profound impact on the designs of government communications, and because media neither supports current democratic institutions or acts as an effective link in the process of governance, this results a circular process through which the government neglects to produce meaningful communication with the public, while the public becomes more and more disengaged from the democratic process. It is clear that media coverage has a profound impact on the design of government communications. The media have no interest in becoming a more effective link in the process of governance, nor do they currently have the ability to do so. This means ordinary people are intended to pay less attention to the politics and get busy with more entertainment. Moreover, the Government can worsen the problem when they determine that it is not in their interest to devote extraordinary efforts to engage the disengaged.  When there is no civic premium on sharing information and no practical way to encourage or enforce it—and worse still, when trying to connect demands a level of patience and commitment that people are unwilling to invest—logic says the likeliest outcome is more and more detachment from all but the most threatening or overwhelming kinds of information. That means a general fragmentation of knowledge about context, process, and even basic facts.

Besides the fact that ordinary people have less interest in politics with the increasing presence of the social networks, there are also some people who might pay more attention to the politics. Bloggers, activists and journalists are amongst this type of citizen and they have a lot of influence in the society. Is this enough? Can they help?

Richard Davis believes that political bloggers make up a small fraction of the total population and have limited use to politicians and political parties. The trend in blog readership has been toward blog aggregators: blogs like the Huffington Post and “RealClearPolitics” or “National Newswatch” in Canada that collect information for blog readers from a variety of sources. Such combining helps establish the blog as a one-stop source for information that appeals to a variety of tastes and ideologies. These aggregators likely will attract increasing amounts of blog traffic while independent and individual blogs may suffer. Political blogs—with their emphasis on political issues—offer the same diet of political News, as do national newspa­pers.

So, traditional media is declining and bloggers cannot help much! Imagine if politicians tried to engage people using social media to help solving the problem of the public being disengaged. Use of social media as was described in my previous post can have a huge impact on society and might be a suitable vehicle to be used by politicians. How influential is this tool and what is the best way to use it? David Taras and Christopher Waddell believe that social media played only a minor role in the 2011 election. The Quality of political discourse is declining and elections are less about policies and issues: “Journalism professor Jay Rosen once wrote that the primary mission of the communications media and, indeed, of journalism should be to “make poli­tics ‘go well’ so that it produces a discussion in which the polity learns more about itself, its current problems, its real divisions, its place in time, its pros­pects for the future.” If this is the standard by which media coverage of the”. Therefore, use of social media might not be as helpful as some politicians might think. However, in some cases the social media had a huge impact on decision makers’ decision. “The possibilities for social media to drive political communication and influence decision-makers are huge, but, as the 2011 election demonstrated, they remain little realized to date.”

I few assume using social media by government and politician can help engaging the public, we should dig a little more into this to find pros and cons. According to Christopher Waddell the new technology has actually contributed to a decline in the quality of journalism instead of increasing the quality: “Decisions to cut back on reporting staff, close bureaus, and replace reporters from local newspapers and TV stations with national news bureaus and national network reporters have broken the link between the public and the media that has been at the core of political communication.” Besides the quality of the news being sacrificed, a gap is also being created between voters and the media: “Instead of using technology to bridge the communications gap between voters in their communities and the media, the media has used it to turn its back on the public, forging closer links with the people reporters cover rather than with the people who used to read, watch, and listen to their reporting.”

Political parties are now in a state of constant combat and campaign readiness to manage the media, and this makes compromise difficult. So, the important question is why compromise is so difficult? Tom Flanagan has an answer to this question:  “The Canadian permanent campaign model, with its new emphasis on pre-writ advertising, was born of minority government, with public money serving as the midwife.”

Now that we found a couple of disadvantages of using social media by politicians, let’s look at some of the advantages of this besides engaging the public. The idea of permanent campaign can be introduced by using the social networking tools: “The permanent campaign, including prewire advertising, has shown itself to be potent political weaponry, useful for attracting new support groups, passing legislation, questioning the opposition’s policies, and undermining the image of the opposition leader—in short, for winning and holding on to power.”

Jonathan Rose supports the idea of permanent campaign in the book "How Canadians Communicate IV".  Permanent election campaigns have been transformative, resulting in a major shift towards political parties using advertising with greater intensity than they have in the past. “In the past, negative ads have been condemned in and of themselves; they have been seen as a poor form of communication that cheapens our democratic currency. A closer examination, though, suggests that they might have a legitimate role in providing information during an election campaign.” He also mentions “Negative ads are also justifiable if they further a discussion about a policy.” Therefore, it seems that using social media can help democracy and promote citizenship. Internet has changed the way in which Canadian political parties communicate in in that parties use the Internet to perform traditional campaign activities yet they have not embraced e-democracy. Tamara Small believes that “Like American politics, there is evidence that the Internet might become the venue for the dirtiest of attacks.”

Also, despite technological advances that can provide Canadians with more real time and accurate news in cases like military combats, evolution of official censorship under new regulations such “Operation Security” avoids Canadians to benefit from these advancements; “Sadly, it will probably be historians, not journalists, who will have to tell Canadians the whole stories of the Afghanistan and Libyan campaigns. That, in turn, and despite the best efforts of a courageous handful, speaks volumes about the gulf that still separates the Canadian military and the Canadian media in the fulfillment of their social and democratic responsibilities”.

As a conclusion, I think adapting with the all the changes that are happening these days is the only solution. "As the public no longer accepts the media playing that role and instead has created its own media, ignoring and undermining the institutional media along the way, the digital revolution creates the conditions and provides the tools for encouraging the same revolution in political communication."

Use of social media in political actions

Now after reviewing the course lectures and materials and  participating in the group discussions and presentations, some critical points become clearer regarding the book "How Canadian Communicate IV". The question that is still in my head is the exam question that was to describe whether or not social media should be used as the vehicle for mobilizing political actions.

Since this question is very general I am trying to find some examples for this to better answer this question. I would like to focus on one part of the world which has the highest number of bloggers in the world after Japan and probably one of the most complicate political systems in the world: Iran. The country has faced a lot of political challenges challenges in its very long history. One of the most interesting ones has happened very recently during the latest presidential election. The 2009 Iranian presidential election was held on 12 June 2009 in Iran, the tenth presidential election to be held in the country and many protestors believed a fraud has happened and the results was not based on true number of voters and their choice. Protestors was beaten by the revolutionary guard and "Basij" forces. Pictures and videos were takes by people and was broadcasted using their cell phones. Twitter, youtube and Facebook was used heavily by Iranian protestors.

In general, the increasing penetration of new communication technologies and social media into everyday life has attracted a growing interest in the social, economic and political implications of these technologies. At Western democratic societies the use of blogs and twitter is mostly around the cool subjects such as sports, wine tasting or the literature. The bloggers in Iran are mostly interested in social or political debates. Perhaps for this reason, the use of blogs and social media is substancial in developing countries such as Iran.

In 2009 Iran witnessed a political upheaval in the aftermath of the presidential election in which the Internet was utilized effectively by the political opposition. News and videos of police brutality and repression were uploaded online, including onto social networking sites, in what was called the ‘Twitter Revolution’. Expectations rose on the capacity of new media to bring about democratic change in Iran. I'd like to suggest that, firstly, new media has helped ordinary citizens and the political opposition challenge the government’s monopoly of information and propaganda. Secondly, I suggest that new media have paved the way for the emergence of a global public sphere for Iranians across the globe. Also looking at the social and cultural impacts of the satellite channels which have been an ongoing source of concern for the Iranian conservative regime and the number of text messages that was being sent everyday tells me that social media is not only a tool for communication but also influences people by sharing ideas. 1

When Jack Dorsey, Evan Williams and Biz Stone founded Twitter in 2006, they were probably worried about things like making money and protecting people's privacy and drunk college kids breaking up with one another in 140 characters or less. What they weren't worried about was being suppressed by the Iranian government. But in the networked, surreally flattened world of social media, those things aren't as far apart as they used to be — and what began as a toy for online flirtation is suddenly being put to much more serious uses. After the election in Iran, cries of protest from supporters of opposition candidate Mirhossein Mousavi arose in all possible media, but the loudest cries were heard in a medium that didn't even exist the last time Iran had an election. 2

The 2009 presidential election attracted global attention and gave rise to hopes for progressive change in Iran. However, the events that followed cast doubt on the realization of these hopes (Esfandiari 2010).

No matter the social media is being used as the main vehicle of mobilizing political actions, I believe social media is playing a vital role in new democratic movements in Iran since one of the biggest fears of dictators is from the people who understand their true power by uniting and social media is helping people to understand how powerful they are! Thank you twitter!

--------------------

1: Online journal of the virtual middle east: http://www.cyberorient.net/article.do?articleId=6187

2: Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905125,00.html#ixzz1ug4bJwdK

Funeral of traditional Media

Media is the fundamental of democracy. The statements “thanks to the internet, newspapers are dying!” has become one of the clichés of our lives. The concern is that media might not be as efficient with less attention it is receiving each day especially amongst the younger generation without the newspapers as the main source of the News. According to the book “How Canadian Communicate IV”; “As the public no longer accepts the media playing the old important role and instead has created its own media, ignoring and undermining the institutional media along the way, the digital revolution creates the conditions and provides the tools for encouraging the same revolution in political communication. “

The truth is that the Radio stations, newspapers, magazines, and even local television stations are struggling, and many are predicting their demise! But is this true?

Before we plan for the funeral, let's answer one question: In this world of smart phones and tablets becoming our primary computer, are mainframe computers dead? The answer is “no! We're still using mainframes”. Of course, the usage of the mainframes are changed and perhaps improved!

In order to define the problem statement and analyze it properly I would like to list the main functions that media are serving us by generating the news:

1-    Surveillance; Media as the dogwatch for monitoring the government etc.

2-    Cultural glue; To improve the culture and keep the society together

3-    Increase public engagement in politics and number of voters

4-    Inform; a teacher function

5-    Service the economic system

6-    Entertain

7-    Act as a community forum (media equivalent of town hall meeting or group discussion)

8-     Set the public agenda

9-     Service the political system

I believe most of these functionalities are transformed to other forms and people have made their own media to serve as the media. The focus is mostly on the “news” in this text. The point is that when new technology emerges, we tend to think that the old technology is completely dead, but that usually isn't the case. Rather, the old technology gets repurposed and integrated to add value to the future.

Some people tend to call radio the old media. Today, a radio station can have a website, which allows them to have video, interactivity, contests, and all sorts of things they couldn't have done in the past. Radio is no longer a physical device; rather, it's audio-sponsored content that can be delivered anywhere, at any time. As you see it is improved and not dead!

Therefore, I would like to assume each of the functionalities of the media mentioned above is going to be improved and embedded in a new medium. I would like to claim that the old doesn't always go away; often, it gets repurposed into the new. So let's forget the concept of big media versus the Internet. It's really big media AND the Internet! For each of the functionalities mentioned above we can find a few new media that is helping the traditional media to serve better.

Is the NEWS industry dying? Should one pay for News?

My initial thoughts and first response to How Canadians Communicate IV can be summarized under three different topics; how can news influence people’s lives and why they are not willing to pay for news, do people have enough trust in the news and what is the world look like after the last newspaper is read?

In general politicians are trying to control people's mind in order to achieve more power. One of the best ways to do so is to scare people about their future and to make them believe the politician have the solution! This is usually being done through media and by exaggerating -or even false- news! Therefore, what we hear on TV and generally in the news are some worrisome news that comes to us in different forms. For many people who are hearing and accepting the news without any research and without analyzing it, this is sufficient to vote for the politician who talks better! In this situation I do not see any reason for people to pay for the news. This is even more defendable when it comes to the younger generations. As it is stated in the book "how Canadian communicate" the young generation want the news fast, free and direct to the point. Moreover, with more available entertainment it is less likely that people are interested in politics or going out to vote. Therefore, the younger generation that has access to all these gadgets to play with are less likely to pay for news at all.

Beside the fact that there is less chance that people want to pay for news, people do not have a lot of trust in the news broadcasted by the media. Especially after 911 and the following wars that happened based on false news people have lost their trust in the media and the influence of the media might have drooped. This makes it even harder for media to sell news as one of their major products. In an attempt to better why the news industry may soon “sink like a stone”, I would like to examine one challenge the traditional media face; asking people to pay for news they receive. There are two possible viewpoints on why young people do not pay for news: either they do not feel that the news they would be paying for is worth the money they would spend  and is not changing their lives in a good way, or they feel that they should not pay for one source of news when they can get a comparable substitute from a competing source because of lack of trust.

According to above-mentioned book " The stark reality today is that every medium is merging with every other medium, every medium is becoming every other medium, and all media are merging on the Internet. Most critically, a new generation of digital natives, those who have grown up with web-based media, is no longer subject to a top-down, command-and-control media system in which messages flow in only one direction." which makes it even more difficult for people to distinguish between the reality and false news. This might result in more people resulting their trust in what they receive from media and what they hear on the news.

News has direct effect on people's lives. David Tras and Christopher Waddel say in their book that " Once a trend or idea becomes firmly implanted within a culture, it is only a matter of time before it permeates and affects public policy." I believe people are more aware of this fact these days which makes them more cautious about what they hear. Having said that, I have a hard time to believe that this might make people to pay for the news. However, in some levels of the society or between highly educated people we might be able to find some cases that are willing to pay for news that are coming from a trusted sources.