Democratic Creative Destruction? The Effect of a Changing Media Landscape on Democracy

R. Nielsen, R. Fletcher
{"title":"Democratic Creative Destruction? The Effect of a Changing Media Landscape on Democracy","authors":"R. Nielsen, R. Fletcher","doi":"10.1017/9781108890960.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The move to a more digital, more mobile, and more platform-dominated media environment represents a change to the institutions and infrastructures of free expression and a form of “democratic creative destruction” that challenges incumbent institutions, creates new ones, and in many ways empower individual citizens, even as this change also leaves both individuals and institutions increasingly dependent on a few large US-based technology companies and subjects many historically disadvantaged groups to more abuse and harassment online. That is the argument we advance in this chapter, where we will aim to step away from assessing the democratic implications of the Internet on the basis of individual cases, countries, or outcomes to focus on how structural changes in the media are intertwined with changes in democratic politics. We will set aside considerations of (important) individual phenomena like the Arab Spring, the indignados movement, and #MeToo, or (important) individual outcomes like the 2014 Indian general elections, the UK (Brexit) referendum on EU membership, or the 2016 US presidential elections, and instead identify a few key changes at the institutional level and the individual level that are part and parcel of the rise of digital media and discuss how this rise is in turn changing the institutions and infrastructures that enable free expression. Inspired by James Webster (2014) and his work on structuration, we examine structural change by considering the interplay between institutional change on the supply side and aggregate individual-level behavior on the demand side. We will do so through the lens of news, first the news media as an institution and second news as part of how individual citizens engage with public life. We focus on news as one of several key aspects of democratic politics, key to how we imagine it in its ideal forms and key to how we realize it imperfectly in practice. The structural changes we analyze are not dictated by technology but","PeriodicalId":378598,"journal":{"name":"Social Media and Democracy","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Media and Democracy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

The move to a more digital, more mobile, and more platform-dominated media environment represents a change to the institutions and infrastructures of free expression and a form of “democratic creative destruction” that challenges incumbent institutions, creates new ones, and in many ways empower individual citizens, even as this change also leaves both individuals and institutions increasingly dependent on a few large US-based technology companies and subjects many historically disadvantaged groups to more abuse and harassment online. That is the argument we advance in this chapter, where we will aim to step away from assessing the democratic implications of the Internet on the basis of individual cases, countries, or outcomes to focus on how structural changes in the media are intertwined with changes in democratic politics. We will set aside considerations of (important) individual phenomena like the Arab Spring, the indignados movement, and #MeToo, or (important) individual outcomes like the 2014 Indian general elections, the UK (Brexit) referendum on EU membership, or the 2016 US presidential elections, and instead identify a few key changes at the institutional level and the individual level that are part and parcel of the rise of digital media and discuss how this rise is in turn changing the institutions and infrastructures that enable free expression. Inspired by James Webster (2014) and his work on structuration, we examine structural change by considering the interplay between institutional change on the supply side and aggregate individual-level behavior on the demand side. We will do so through the lens of news, first the news media as an institution and second news as part of how individual citizens engage with public life. We focus on news as one of several key aspects of democratic politics, key to how we imagine it in its ideal forms and key to how we realize it imperfectly in practice. The structural changes we analyze are not dictated by technology but
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
民主创造性破坏?不断变化的媒体格局对民主的影响
向更数字化、更移动化、更以平台为主导的媒体环境的转变,代表了自由表达的制度和基础设施的变化,也是一种“民主创造性破坏”的形式,它挑战现有的制度,创造新的制度,并在许多方面赋予公民个人权力,尽管这种变化也使个人和机构越来越依赖少数几家美国大型科技公司,并使许多历史上处于劣势的群体在网上受到更多的虐待和骚扰。这就是我们在本章中提出的论点,我们的目标是在个别案例、国家或结果的基础上评估互联网的民主含义,而不是关注媒体的结构变化如何与民主政治的变化交织在一起。我们将不考虑(重要的)个别现象,如阿拉伯之春、愤怒者运动和#MeToo,或(重要的)个别结果,如2014年印度大选、英国退欧公投或2016年美国总统大选。而是在制度层面和个人层面找出数位媒体崛起的关键变化,并讨论数位媒体的崛起如何反过来改变使言论自由得以实现的制度和基础设施。受詹姆斯·韦伯斯特(James Webster, 2014)及其结构化研究的启发,我们通过考虑供给侧制度变革与需求侧个人总体行为之间的相互作用来研究结构性变化。我们将通过新闻的镜头来做到这一点,首先是作为一个机构的新闻媒体,其次是作为公民个人如何参与公共生活的一部分的新闻。我们将新闻视为民主政治的几个关键方面之一,是我们如何想象其理想形式的关键,也是我们如何在实践中不完美地实现它的关键。我们分析的结构变化不是由技术决定的,而是
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Online Hate Speech Bots and Computational Propaganda: Automation for Communication and Control Dealing with Disinformation: Evaluating the Case for Amendment of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Misinformation, Disinformation, and Online Propaganda Comparative Media Regulation in the United States and Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1