“Evaluate the Democratic Values of ‘We Media’ in Relation to the Past”

Though lacking a dictionary definition, the term ‘We Media’ refers to a concept developed by Dan Gillmor (2004). We Media is described as a form of democratic media which is produced by the public, and not by the traditional mass media institutions. An example of this would be an ametuer video posted on YouTube, without the means of corporate investment & marketing. It is a certainty that We Media has become more evident in contemporary society, and is a relatively modern revolution. The origin for the rise of We Media is most noticeable with the introduction of the internet, and more importantly broadband, to the public. Because of the speed and technological innovation of broadband, and the lack of an official internet regulatory body, virtually anyone with access to the internet and appropriate technologies can upload, share & distribute media products which have been created themselves, at no real cost. The various elements & principles of Web 2.0 (a phase in internet development) allow for not only the viewing of information, but also for users to add information, and thus express individual or collective opinions. In a democratic sense then, it would seem evident at first that the introduction of We Media has brought along a new form of democratic expression, which can be distributed virtually anywhere, because of the internet’s elimination of geographical boundaries. Other evidence illustrating the democratic values of We Media would be the case study of the alleged rigged elections in Iran. The public were able to voice their opinions and alert other nations of the corruption which was occurring, seeking to put a stop to it. Without the accessibility of We Media platforms and broadband, this would not be possible, or at least not as effective and widespread. The other aspect of We Media which can arguably eliminate bias would be through amateur media products gaining more relative popularity than products released by mass media corporations, which can render such theories as the Hypodermic Needle outdated, because now the audience can actually choose to ‘ignore’ these products, focusing on more democratic productions. An example of this can be seen in the infamous September 11th New York events. The film documentary ’9/11′ uses footage gathered by amateur film makers, who happened to capture the events before any mass news corporation, e.g. Fox or CNN. Because it was unintentionally captured, the footage avoids the principles of propaganda which can be manipulated by the various news channels, and have so been throughout the ages. Also, with the principles of broadband & web 2.0, individuals can seek out whatever news they want, on-demand, thus avoiding bias induced by mass-marketing.

However, although We Media is certainly a democratic format, and with the development of the internet has lead to evident changes in the voice which people have, there is one major criticism of this argument. This critique does not deny the facts, but points out that these democratic applications are only available for those who actually have access to the internet. The webpage http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm indicates that there is an estimated world population of 6,845,609,960 in total. At the end of the year 2000, approximately 360,985,492 had access to the internet, equating to around 5.3% of the population in total. In the space of 10 years, this increased to 1,966,514,816 internet users, which although indicating a massive growth, still only means that 28.7% of the world could access the internet in 2010. This is still therefore, despite significant increase, a minority, meaning that the majority of the world cannot access We Media to the same extent that citizens of more economically developed countries can. This therefore leads to a potential bias in the voices expressed, and leads to an ever-widening gap between Western society and the developing world. However, this criticism is not definitive, mainly because it is based around statistics – which can be subject to manipulation and inaccuracy, making them less valid & reliable.

The concept of We Media has actually been suppressed in certain communist countries, e.g. China & North Korea. This is because of heavy government regulation attempting to limit democracy, in a bid for equality. This therefore poses another problem to the locality of We Media, where it is only permitted in certain regions & political geolocations.

In conclusion, the evidence suggests that We Media has had many democratic values in relation to the past, however they have not been universal. These values have only been attained mostly by those with access to the internet, i.e. Western society and thus has perhaps excluded or neglected the facilitation of We Media in less economically developed countries. It is perhaps uncertain as to how We Media will develop in the future, but perhaps we will see, with the spreading of internet accessibility, more forms of We Media being created and distributed, however it will arguably never be a universally consumed product. The long-tail theory could be applied here, as we may see a shift from traditional, mass-media consumed products to more individual products being the audience’s preferred choice of consumption.

Advertisement

---