Essay on "The online age has made media more democratic"

“The online age has made media more democratic”

First of all, I agree with this statement, and I will discuss why. I will also discuss the Gramsci’s theory of Hegemony and give an opposite opinion to that of my own.

Democracy is the idea that everyone has an equal say in something, whether it be who will be the next president, who wins the ‘X Factor’, or simply who should be elected as the head of house at a school. It draws its roots from one ideal; equality, and the dream that in an utopian world we all get a fair chance to voice our opinion, every last one of us. Hegemony however can be seen as an opposite of democracy. Although Gramsci’s theory of Hegemony applies to media, the online age is the object being discussed as the way of making media more democratic, so it applies perfectly. Hegemony is the theory that what is broadcast by the media is simply the view of a small controlling group, demonstrating an idea of a small group having a greater say than us (the audience/general public) over what is broadcast, making us seem less powerful, and those within the group more powerful. It creates this idea of “top down communication”; a hegemonic form of communication in which the powerful elites (i.e. media conglomerates) communicate to those without power (i.e. what was the general public/audiences). Traditional media, e.g. television, radio, newspapers, etc. are kinds of “top down communication”. However, the online age has changed everything.

“If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change”

-          Wayne Dyer

With the online age came Web 2.0, and with Web 2.0 came media democracy. Web 2.0 draws on interactivity and the user as its prime source of power. It encourages involvement through user generated content of every kind i.e. blogs, videos, music, etc. all thanks to the ability to post these things online for the world to see. This gave the audience a say in the content on the web, an example being the number one popular video sharing website ‘YouTube’, since its content is vastly made up by the audience, even though there is a slight presence of large companies on the site. An ability to post videos meant everyone could give their say on anything I wanted, be it food, politics, driving, gaming, the possibilities are endless. But not only had the ability to post videos, simply the ability to comment on a video has given a more democratic feel to media, as everyone’s comments are shared equally for others to see, allowing opinion to be voiced in an even simpler way. In terms of ‘YouTube’ the audience could now affect what people could view, giving birth to the idea of “Bottom Up/Grassroots Communication”. This form of communication means a movement driven by a community, thus grassroots communication is a bottom up form of communication in which the audience become media producers as well as consumers, which is an example of what is mean by the term “prosumer”.

“I think it’s fair to say that personal computers have become the most empowering tool we’ve ever created. They’re tools of communication, they’re tools of creativity, and they can be shaped by their users”

-          Bill Gates

So what are the strengths of the abilities brought about by the online age and Web 2.0? First, it gives us, the audience, more freedom, as before the online age came about the media really did seem like this hegemonic system, where we simply absorbed what one small group deemed worthy of broadcast across multiple platforms. Now we have the chance to be the broadcasters of the world, which draws directly to the idea of “citizen journalists”; that members of the public (the audience) playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing and giving opinion on the events going on in the world around us, offering us a different view of world-changing events, or simply subtler everyday goings on in the world.

“Journalism is popular, but it is popular mainly as fiction. Life is one world, and life seen in the newspapers another”

-          Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Second, it brings democracy to those that need it most. Because in giving people the ability to make their voice heard equally, we are giving freedom to those who in physical-space might not be able to express it, but in cyberspace can make themselves heard. This ability has allowed us to find out first-hand about some of the injustices that are going on in the world that countries try to hide, such as the videos put online by the civilians within Bahrain during the riots in 2011, as the government kicked out all media crews while the riots occurred, effectively making the country go dark, except of course for those who felt what was going on should be known, and took to the internet with their first-hand phone and camera footage.

Finally, it changes lives. Simply the ability for someone to start a blog and let the people hear their voice has changed their lives forever. Some have been able to let out years of anger supressed inside, others have finally been able to express the deepest love or hatred for absolutely anything, and whether someone else pays attention or not doesn’t matter, because at least knowing  that that exact person has the exact same capabilities as anyone else is such an incredible freeing feeling, that has improved the lives of so many.

As of February 1^st 2012 there are an estimated 450 million “active” English language blogs. If that isn’t proof the people appreciate their new found ability, then I don’t know what is.

But now, the weaknesses brought on by the online age and Web 2.0. In giving everyone an equal say it has also given companies and large corporation a chance to have an equal say, meaning they, just as much as anyone else, can take to sites such as ‘YouTube’ to post videos make themselves known. This leads to, among user-generated-content, videos by companies promoting their latest products and deals, which for the most part seem harmless, but annoy the users, as they are an eyesore on the safe haven from advertising that were once “our” websites (I say our as an audience member myself). Also thanks to the online age it has allowed companies to intrude upon us even when we’re not watching their videos. As thanks to ‘Google’ buying ‘YouTube’ back in 2006, from then on countless videos by the audience have been flooded with advertisements, meaning if we want to watch a video we now are forced to sit through 30-second long advertisements, and have the knowledge that if we want to watch something else we have to endure that process nearly every time, as well as having massive interactive adverts constantly moving in the top right hand corner of the webpage, and sometimes even playing sound.

But in conclusion, there will always be more audience members than companies. Meaning no matter how many company’s videos are uploaded, ours will always drown them thanks to sheer numbers. And we will always persevere when being forced to sit through adverts before watching what we want to watch, and when given the opportunity, will always skip the ads. The online age and web 2.0 have brought far more good than they have bad. Even if companies have been given the ability to invade more of our lives, we persevere in ignoring them where possible, and in all honesty, the power we now have to connect to the world and make ourselves known in an equal and fair manner, is most definitely worth a bit of advertising being shoved in our face. And in relation to the question of whether web 2.0 is “really liberating or empowering ordinary people to take control of the media?” – I believe it is, as to have our own voice and say in the world of media, is democracy in itself, by disproving the theory of hegemony. We are the people, and now we can decide what the world knows.