Communication is an integral part of the everyday lives of humans. It helps to foster good relationships and disseminate information. Communication can be mediated through communicative devices and technology or through face to face interactions. The evolution of communication to include mass communication and mass self-communication has seen communication as an important aspect of any democracy. There are many reasons people use the internet and social media; some of which includes access to news to stay updated, make friends, and to have alter egos. However, there have been calls for the restriction and ban of mass communication in some countries. To what extent does mass communication aid or limit in the promotion of democracy? This paper would seek to answer this question with the help of readings from Stalder, Sunstein, Gerbaudo, and Dean.
To begin with, Stalder defines democracy as involving “public deliberation and contestation of the issues affecting the “demos” (the people) as a collectivity” and “allows to express those opinions and interests in a way that leads to a decision regarding the future that is binding for, and accepted by, all” (2018, p. 3). He argues that the rise of the mass media has changed the democratic way of communication to a less democratic and commercialized one; a commercialized media that is established for profits at the expense of public’s interests (Stalder, 2018, p. 4). Also, Sunstein explains the concept of “cybercascades” and the role of the internet in creating panic and fear by spreading false information, undermining democracy. (2017, p. 13).
Again, Gerbaudo focuses on the relationship between social media and populism. He mentions that populists’ movements, through the mass media “pose a challenge to the neoliberal order”, which also undermines democracy. (Gerbaudo, 2018, p.747). Dean highlights communicative capitalism of the mass media so that individuals are limited in expressing their political views. She also defines democracy as when “Governance by the people is exercised through communicative freedoms of speech, assembly, and the press; it relies on norms of publicity that emphasize transparency and accountability; it consists of the deliberative practices of the public sphere” (Dean, 2009, p. 21).
127 our experts are availableright now
Mass media, which includes social media has provided a digital and mediated space for the promotion and expansion of democracy. Even though Stalder, Sunstein, Gerbaudo, and Dean criticize social media, they do not totally write off the importance of this technology. I agree with these scholars that social media has been beneficial to the public. Stalder mentions its importance in providing a public sphere for the spread of information and the deliberation of national and international issues. This has promoted democracy since one feature of democracy is freedom of speech and expression. Also, according to Sunstein, social media is used to rally support for ideologies and policies.
The use of hashtags on social media can be used by people as a tool of resistance to oppose bad policies or dictators. For instance, Sunstein writes, “…millions of people can form a movement in this way. And indeed, processes of this general kind seemed to have played a role in the collapse of authoritarian nations in North Africa…” (2017, p. 10). Sunstein also advocates for the use of “deliberative opinion polls” which would serve as a platform for diverse views to be heard (Sunstein, 2017 p. 31). Deliberative opinion polls devoid of polarization would be a great way to ensure tolerance for divergent views. In addition to that, Gerbaudo writes that it “…cannot be denied that social media has also supplied a channel for individual expressions and for constituencies who were previously marginalised, allowing them to express themselves” (2018, p. 749).
Social media has given the chance for minority groups to be heard and it has also increased the political consciousness of individuals who stay up to date with local and international issues; thus, providing a platform for the expression and deliberation of views in a public sphere. He again mentions that social media can be used to bring diverse individuals sharing the same worldviews together (Gerbaudo, 2018, p. 751). Dean also states that access to the internet has promoted democracy in that people are now engaged in “political participation” (Dean, 2009, p. 23). Freedom of speech and expression, a tenet of democracy would be achieved if people are allowed to tolerate and express their different opinions.
However, the mass media, which is the fourth arm of government playing the role as a watchdog has been criticized for various reasons. Stalder posits that the rise of the mass media which initially included information being sent from one source to the public (“one-to-many-media”) undermined democracy (2018, p. 4). The public were just passive receivers of the information who were not allowed to contribute to any information. He also mentions the political ownership of the mass media further ensured the undermining of democracy so that most governments regulated and manipulated the content of information disseminated.
Here, the mass media is used as a tool for propaganda purposes to push the agendas of particular political actors and parties. Stalder again mentions the problem of “confirmation bias” where individuals are more receptive to their own beliefs and views and are not ready to look at the full picture (2018, p.6). I believe this statement by Stalder is valid because social media does not provide a platform for diverse views to be shared as people already have their pre-existing views; this limits the realization of democracy.
Moreover, social media negatively influence people’s views through reputational cybercascades. Reputational cybercascade is a form of cybercascade which involves the spread of information, irrespective of one’s true belief or view (Sunstein, 2017, p. 3). Reputational cybercascades undermine democracy in that it does not allow all views to be brought to the table and for fear of being rebuked, people are forced to accept a view or policy. This leads to individuals having an indirect influence on electoral processes.
One feature of democracy is free and fair elections and if social media, through propaganda is negatively influencing people’s views and choices, then it is undermining democracy. It is for this reason Sunstein writes, “We can undoubtedly reach broadly similar conclusions about how social media might promote or undermine political candidates.” (2017, p. 8). Democracy is about respect and tolerance for opposing and diverse views. Social media creates division through “ideological segregation” amongst the public and division is not a principle of democracy (Sunstein, 2017, p. 16). Sunstein states that this division does not augur well for the achievement of democracy so that the use of social media leads to individuals being divided along opposing political lines (2017, p. 19).
Also, Gerbaudo focuses on social media as a platform to rally the public to promote democracy and also to spread populist ideas. Populism can be seen as channeling democracy through “providing a voice to a voiceless and unifying a divided people” (Gerbaudo, 2018, p. 746). This definition of populism by linking it to democracy is problematic because indeed, populism allows for the expression of views and ideals; however, it has been argued that it undermines democracy as it serves as a backdrop for radical groups to be formed.
Gerbaudo also mentions the presence of “filter bubbles” which allows social media users to be aligned to a particular viewpoint at the expense of others, which, Gerbaudo states, “…are worrying because they can exacerbate social divisions.” (Gerbaudo, 2018, p. 750). Filter bubbles can lead to extremism and radicalism which does not augur well for a democracy. The problem of online trolling is another criticism of social media. Online trolling occurs when people are attacked on the internet. It destroys people’s reputation and can lead to psychological problems and even suicide. We hear stories of individuals who commit suicide to avoid facing trolls on the internet.
I also share the same viewpoint with Dean that the mass media has played a role in undermining democracy by limiting the expression of people’s views. She writes, “The proliferation, distribution, acceleration, and intensification of communicative access and opportunity result in a deadlocked democracy incapable of serving as a form for political change.” (Dean, 2009, p. 22). Even though many people now have access to the internet, can participate freely and share their views, information is still seen to be manipulated at the expense of the public so that the wide range of information available on the internet does not necessarily mean democracy is at its peak.
In conclusion, mass media has evolved with the expansion of democracy. Even though scholars such as Sunstein, Dean, Gerbaudo, Stalder, and Habermas, agree social media is causing more harm, the benefits of it cannot be underestimated. It has created a public sphere where diverse people can freely express their views and it also creates public awareness about issues faced in our global world. Also, to answer whether social media is doing more harm than good depends on the use of the mass media by internet and social media users because even though social media can be used to share relevant information and to educate the public on issues, it can simultaneously be used to cause atrocities.
One role of the mass media is to promote democracy by serving as a watchdog and providing free access to information but ironically, to an extent, it is fostering the spread of fake news, division and extremism. It is also worth noting that the mass media which includes social media is here to stay; hence, the need for the appropriate institutions to filter whatever is put on the internet to ensure the internet is safe and used for its rightful purposes.
References
- Dean, Jodi (2009). “Technology: The Promises of Communicative Capitalism.” Ch. 1 in: Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. (pp. 19-42 only). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
- Gerbaudo, Paulo (2018). “Social Media and Populism: An Elective Affinity?” Media, Culture, & Society 40, no. 5. (745-753).
- Stalder, Felix (2018). “Rethinking the Public Sphere under the Digital Condition.”. Notes and Nodes Blog [PDF file]. Retrieved from http://felix.openflows.com/node/509
- Sunstein, Cass R (2017). “Cybercascades.” Ch. 4 in #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media (pp. 98-136). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
