The internet has a long history of promises of reviving and spreading democracy. One of the ways in which it does this is through the invigoration of the public sphere, which some critics see as necessary for a healthy democracy (McNair, 2006: 135). Aspects of the internet and surrounding technology and software contribute to the promise of the internets potential as a public sphere. First, data storage and recovery introduce usually unavailable information into political discussion; second, the internet, due to its nature as a network, allows discussion between people in all corners of the globe; and third, it has the capacity to ‘make everyone a publisher’, which gives citizens a voice they have not felt that they had in the past (Papacharissi, 2002: 9 and Simon, 2002: vii). It is these qualities of the internet that have enabled the rise of participatory culture and blogging, which has impacted the public sphere by disrupting old paradigms of power and entrenching new mechanisms of control. This essay aims to suggest how participatory culture has impacted on the public sphere by focusing on two blogs that represent different ends of the blogging spectrum. The first one is celebrity gossip blog PerezHilton.com by self-titled ‘Queen of Media’ Perez Hilton aka Mario Lavandeira (PerezHilton.com, 2007). The second blog is a political opinion blog called In the Middle by an Iraqi, Raed Jarrar, who lives in the United States (In the Middle, 2007). The reason why I have chosen to focus on two very different blogs is to demonstrate how participatory culture impacts the public sphere through the whole blogosphere, not just the blogs that are overtly political, and suggest that even blogs that seem apolitical are actually engaged in politics (see Jenkins, 2006). This will be explained more fully later. However, before I can start to look at how participatory culture has affected the public sphere, the terms participatory culture and public sphere need explanation.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Participatory Culture
Participatory culture has its roots in fan culture (Jenkins, 2006). It moves away from the idea of disrupting the flow of media to actively shaping it – from culture-jamming to blogging (Jenkins, 2004: 36). The fundamental idea behind participatory culture is that audiences are no longer merely active or interactive consumers. Rather, due to the prevalent use of new media, audiences are now able to annotate and circulate content from mainstream media. Audiences are no longer simply consumers of media. They are also engaged in the text, actively producing, selecting and distributing texts based on media products which they find to be important or interesting (Jenkins, 2006: 240). This culture, while having roots in popular culture and fan culture, has had the effect of politicizing audiences in two ways: it has re-engaged citizens and democratized the public sphere.
The Public Sphere
The concept of the public sphere is one that is extremely contested. Habermas, considered an important figure in discussions of the public sphere, suggests that (Habermas, 2006: 27):
The bourgeois public sphere may be conceived above all as the sphere of private people come together as a public… to engage them in a debate over the general rules governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labor.
This means that the public sphere can be thought of as a space – both virtual and material – where citizens find out about the social, cultural and political issues that face their communities (McKee, 2005: 5). However, critics suggest that the ‘deterioration’ (or ‘trivialisation’) of the media has led to the deterioration of the public sphere (McKee, 2005: 1). On the other hand, I would argue that the fact the media is becoming democratised and decentralised, especially in blogs, actually improves the public sphere in terms of representativeness, as more views are being represented (McNair, 2006: 144). Habermas’ notion that the ideal public sphere ‘should be unified and homogenous, refusing the fragmentation of niche markets’ is one that explicitly ignore public spheres outside of the main sphere, one that is conscious of ignoring others’ ideas that do not fit the white male middle-class ideals, and to me, this is a problem (McKee, 2005: 14). Thus, this essay works from the assumption that the public sphere should aim to represent as many views as possible in order to make meaning of politics in community, and that media that is considered ‘trivial’ (such as Perez Hilton’s celebrity gossip blog) is just as essential to the public sphere as those considered ‘serious’ (such as Raed Jarrar’s blog).
The bourgeois public sphere may be conceived above all as the sphere of private people come together as a public… to engage them in a debate over the general rules governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labor.
This means that the public sphere can be thought of as a space – both virtual and material – where citizens find out about the social, cultural and political issues that face their communities (McKee, 2005: 5). However, critics suggest that the ‘deterioration’ (or ‘trivialisation’) of the media has led to the deterioration of the public sphere (McKee, 2005: 1). On the other hand, I would argue that the fact the media is becoming democratised and decentralised, especially in blogs, actually improves the public sphere in terms of representativeness, as more views are being represented (McNair, 2006: 144). Habermas’ notion that the ideal public sphere ‘should be unified and homogenous, refusing the fragmentation of niche markets’ is one that explicitly ignore public spheres outside of the main sphere, one that is conscious of ignoring others’ ideas that do not fit the white male middle-class ideals, and to me, this is a problem (McKee, 2005: 14). Thus, this essay works from the assumption that the public sphere should aim to represent as many views as possible in order to make meaning of politics in community, and that media that is considered ‘trivial’ (such as Perez Hilton’s celebrity gossip blog) is just as essential to the public sphere as those considered ‘serious’ (such as Raed Jarrar’s blog).
PerezHilton.com
There are arguably many paradigms of power at play in the public sphere, so, for clarity, this essay will focus on the power that the media holds in the public sphere, and how participatory culture has shifted traditional shackles. Many of the characteristics of the media shape how we view and discuss the world, and media audiences have traditionally been held in a vice-like grip of the many facets of power within the media. For example, there is little doubt that oligopolies rule the media, and, as a result, have a dominant influence on media product. Hassan highlights the power that media tycoons (or media tyrants) have, arguing that ‘with fewer players around the media product tends to have limited diversity’ (Hassan, 2004: 44). This means that the same viewpoints, formulas and agendas are being espoused over and over again simply because the media is not democratic, but is controlled by no more than a handful of tyrants. The concentration of media ownership creates a homogenic, ‘sanitised’ view of issues, and (Jenkins, 2004; Hassan, 2004: 45). Lavandeira’s blog, however, exemplifies how participatory culture in blogs shifts the power that traditional media had over to media consumers. For example, while many traditional media have condemned Paris Hilton, criticising her for starting a petition to keep herself out of jail, Lavandeira supported Hilton with this photo:
Here is a clear example of participatory culture at work. As blogs are cheap and easy to maintain, anyone with access to the internet can create a blog and broadcast their ideas and set their own agenda. Media audiences no longer have to go through traditional media to get their ideas heard. Blogging allowed Lavandeira to express his viewpoint without having to write in to newspapers that, due to space restrictions and gatekeepers, may not even have printed his views.
Another way in which power has shifted from media producers to media consumers is in the subjective nature of blogs. Bloggers such as Lavandeira are free from professional obligations of objectivity that journalists are tied to, hence why Hilton is able to align himself with a “cause” – freeing Paris Hilton. Through the use of subjectivity, Lavandeira is able to engage – even push – others into ‘the fierce heat of online debate’ (McNair, 2006: 122; PerezHilton.com, 2007). Debate and discussion are important for a healthy public sphere, and the shift of power from “objective” journalists to ordinary “subjective” citizens stimulates a much more heated debate, and therefore a much more dynamic and healthier public sphere. In this way, we see how blogs are much more conducive to engaging citizens into public debate with the ability to instantly post and reply to comments, which facilitates discussion in a much larger, more global way than traditional media ever could. Again, this suggests the way in which power in the public sphere is shifting from traditional media producers to media consumers through participatory culture.
The second screenshot here is an example of how the use of participatory culture and blogs in identity creation becomes political, creating an explicit link between “trivial” media and the public sphere. Although discussion on this particular comments page is somewhat superficial and does not scratch past the surface, the media audiences are grappling with a very real question here about participatory culture and its impact on the First Amendment. The owners of L.A. photo agency X17 Inc sued Lavandeira for infringing copyright laws, claiming that he obtained, altered and distributed their photographs without permission or credit (Abcarian, 2006). It is an example of a current struggle of power between a blogger’s right to participate, and corporate right over intellectual property. This is an important political issue, Jenkins suggests, as ‘participation is an important political right’ (Jenkins, 2006: 257). Jenkins argues that the First Amendment, in protecting rights such as freedom of speech, press, assembly and belief, protects the right to participate in democracy. Thus this incident becomes a prime example of how the increasing power of individual citizens in the public sphere has caused tension between old elite forces of power and new collective forces of power. It also suggests a new mechanism of control that traditional paradigms of power are exercising in order to control their loss of power to media consumers. This is not the only incident where a corporation has attempted to use copyright laws as a mechanism to control participation. Jenkins points to the Harry Potter Wars where fan fiction writers saw this as an attack on their right to free speech (see Jenkins, 2006: 169-205). However, as Jenkins, in the fight for participation, media audiences no longer have to remain passive because they now have an outlet for their own agenda and are active contributors to the public sphere (Jenkins, 2006: 205). Nevertheless, the potential that corporations have to establish such a restricting mechanism of control should not be ignored.
In the Middle
As McNair suggests, ‘the internet, like no other communication medium, allows the formation of “diverse networks of opinion, and active participation” by non-professional, non-proprietal voices’ (McNair, 2006: 151). It has been a conscious decision to exemplify that argument by studying two blogs that apparently have different networks of opinion to show how participatory culture in all blogs shifts and entrenches new power in the public sphere, and the diverse and fragmented network of opinion is necessary for a democratic media. As already demonstrated and argued, a homogenous viewpoint from traditional media can sanitize our view of the world, and traditional media can decisively mold our view of the world (Hassan, 2004: 44). Access to diverse opinions helps to produce a less sanitized, less molded understanding of the world and issues. A key moment for the blogosphere was the hijacking attacks on 11 September 2001, where ordinary citizens felt that they had a motive and a means to enter the debate on the War on Terror, free of gatekeepers that “protect” traditional media (McNair, 2006: 124). In the Middle is an example of such blogs. Raed is an Iraqi who blogs about the developments of Iraq from the US. Again, as PerezHilton.com demonstrates how blogs and participatory culture can shift paradigms of power by offering a different view than the main agendas set by tyrants, gatekeepers and journalists, In the Middle does the same in an arena that is overtly political. This leads to an expansion of the range of views available, as media consumers now participate in agenda setting. Agenda setting is the ability to put forward ideas to discuss, and traditional media has traditionally held this power to tell people what to think about (Hassan, 2004: 46). This was clear in the US media after 9/11. Many media outlets, for whatever reason, were unwilling to delve deeper into US policy and question the legitimacy of invasion, especially invasion of Iraq. This gave rise to blogs such as In the Middle who were able to set their own agenda and not be tied down to the politics of traditional institutionalized media.
However, while the absence of a gatekeeper was originally considered an improvement, it is also a disadvantage. Without gatekeepers, there is the potential that offensive remarks are posted and even threats. This led to the current model of publishing a blog first and then filtering it later. For example, In the Middle has this rule on its site (In the Middle, 2007):
Any comment that espouses violence, hatred, racism, sexism, and/or generally abusive language is subject to removal. Any comment that aims to silence other points of view through intimidation, ad hominem attacks, and/or other methods is subject to removal. Any spam, advertisements, and lengthy posts flooding the section are subject to removal.
Throughout this essay it has been argued that, in terms of blogs, participatory gives media audiences a voice and re-engages citizens by allowing them to participate in discussion and as an extension, democracy. However, the fact that the administrators are able to remove comments is a new mechanism of control. It is an old mechanism of control in the fact that it is a form of gatekeeping, which is customary in traditional media production, but it is also a new mechanism in that the control is being enforced by an ordinary citizen on other ordinary citizens. Without the claim of objectivity, Jarrar has the potential to silence any voice he disagrees with. In fact Jarrar has taken this further, and has arguably removed reader’s right to participate by actually disabling readers to comment (In the Middle, 2007). Where traditional media has the ability to mold how we see the world, bloggers have the ability to completely silence others’ views.
However, while the absence of a gatekeeper was originally considered an improvement, it is also a disadvantage. Without gatekeepers, there is the potential that offensive remarks are posted and even threats. This led to the current model of publishing a blog first and then filtering it later. For example, In the Middle has this rule on its site (In the Middle, 2007):
Any comment that espouses violence, hatred, racism, sexism, and/or generally abusive language is subject to removal. Any comment that aims to silence other points of view through intimidation, ad hominem attacks, and/or other methods is subject to removal. Any spam, advertisements, and lengthy posts flooding the section are subject to removal.
Throughout this essay it has been argued that, in terms of blogs, participatory gives media audiences a voice and re-engages citizens by allowing them to participate in discussion and as an extension, democracy. However, the fact that the administrators are able to remove comments is a new mechanism of control. It is an old mechanism of control in the fact that it is a form of gatekeeping, which is customary in traditional media production, but it is also a new mechanism in that the control is being enforced by an ordinary citizen on other ordinary citizens. Without the claim of objectivity, Jarrar has the potential to silence any voice he disagrees with. In fact Jarrar has taken this further, and has arguably removed reader’s right to participate by actually disabling readers to comment (In the Middle, 2007). Where traditional media has the ability to mold how we see the world, bloggers have the ability to completely silence others’ views.
Bloghosts, however, have reserved the same rights as Jarrar has to remove blogs and blog pages that are considered offensive, thus silencing participants in the same way that Jarrar did. This links back to my argument that corporations are gaining a much more extensive ability to control the public sphere, despite the apparent shifting of power within the public sphere. As media ownership concentrates, corporate reach extends, and conglomerates hold the power to potentially silence citizen voices in the public sphere by removing their ability to be heard. This can be done through lawsuits, or even simply removing “offensive” pages. This argument may seem cynical or exaggerated, however when media tycoons/tyrants give speeches that talk of the potential of the net to “expand our reach,” as Rupert Murdoch did in 2005, it is hard not to be (McNair, 2006: 120).
Conclusion
Lévy suggests that the ‘emerging power to participate serves as a strong corrective to those traditional sources of power’ (Jenkins, 2006: 245). This essay has attempted to argue that same thesis. In terms of blogs, participatory culture has impacted the public sphere by shifting old paradigms of power and entrenching new mechanisms of control in a number of ways. Blogging has enabled the shift of power in the public sphere from old elites – such as media tycoons, gatekeepers and professional journalists – to citizens. In this way, blogging and participatory culture have re-engaged citizens into the public sphere, even where blogs are not overtly political, such as gossip blogs. Jenkins suggests that participation is an important political right that can, in effect, be considered the right to participate in a democratic culture ((Jenkins, 2006: 257). Participation is democratic in the way that it allows people to participate more fully in the democratic process – discussion in the public sphere – and it expands access to the means of media production, thus allowing different agendas to be discussed in the public sphere. However, here lies on mechanism of control: the information haves have power over the information have-nots. A participation gap means that the power in the public sphere is in the hands of those who can and will participate, as exemplified in Jarrar’s choice to shut down the ability for audiences to comment. Jarrar had the power to silence voices that were not direct contributors to his site. Furthermore, there is also currently tension between the old and new sources of power in the public spheres. As media audiences gain more control, so do the media corporations and this has led to battles over the use of intellectual property. This is an example of a new mechanism of control that corporations are using in attempt to silence others’ voices. Perhaps the most significant point to argue about participatory culture is that it has created tension between media producers and media consumers, and it shall be interesting to see how that tension develops and resolves.
Work Cited
- Abcarian, R. (2006) 'Perez Hilton Take their Best Shots' in LA Times Dec 17, http://www.latimes.com
- Habermas, J. (1992) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of a Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity Press
- Hassan, R. (2004) Media, Politics and Network Society. Maidenhead: Open UniversityPress
- In the Middle (consulted 22 May 2007): http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com
- Jenkins, H (2004) 'The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence', International Journal of Cultural Studies 7(1): 33-43
- Jenkins, H. (2006a) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press
- Jenkins, H (2006b) Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York University Press
- McKee, A. (2005) The Public Sphere: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambride Universityu Press
- McNair, B. (2006) Cultural Chaos: Journalism, News and Power in a Globalised World. London: Routledge
- Papcharissi, Z. (2002) 'The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere', New Media and Society 4(1): 9-27.
- PerezHilton.com (consulted 22 May 2007): http://perezhilton.com
- Simon, L. (2002) Democracy and the Internet: Allies or Adversaries?. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)