Cyber Spheres

As I prepared to critique Sunstein's essay "Is the Internet really a blessing for democracy" I noticed that it was written in 2001 and since much has changed since then, I decided to cut the author some slack.  Sunstein gives the mainstream media far too much credit by describing it as a source for facts and unbiased opinion rather than acknowledging the fact that mainstream media has actually contributed the need for people to search elsewhere for facts and create new public spheres.  The internet and social media have replaced the old physical public spheres such as town meetings and public gatherings with a new cyber sphere where average citizens have access to more information than ever and can share this information with people all over the world in a matter of seconds.

We've described the public sphere as the social space where information and ideas can circulate freely, debate can take place, and opinion can be formed and this space is critical for democracy to function.  But the "physical" public space is something of the past.  When was the last time you actually saw a public debate amoung citizens taking place at a park or other public area? I think back to the previous city that I lived which was experiencing a huge scandal with it's public officials, if you read the social media's pages and blogs filled with opinions and heated debates criticizing the city's public officials, you would think that there would be lines out the door at the village meetings waiting to confront the officials.  Surprisingly the meeting I attended had very low turnouts and very little debate or confrontation.  The internet has made it much more convenient for people to gather and share their opinions with others so much so that I predict that the existing format of town meetings will soon be obsolute and replaced by cyber meetings in which people can gather and discuss important topics without even leaving their house.

Rather than highlighting the benifits this new cyber space creates for citizens, it's surprising that Sunstein's essay doesn't support the idea that the internet is good for democracy.  Instead she provides support for mainstream media and television as the ideal outlet for citizens to gather facts and unbiased opinions. This couldn't be further from the truth. As I mentioned in previous blogs, the News on the major media channels does very little to provide enough facts or unbiased opinions for the average citizen to learn about a current issues and form their own educated opinions about those issues.  When it comes to the public space that Sunstein describes, I would argue that these have actually forced people to these cyber worlds rather than conventional physical spaces.  If you watch any major channel's morning or evening news, the major stories, especially in Chicago are reports of what seems to be senseless murders or other crime that has taken place.  This does very little to entice people in those areas to feel comfortable being out in their neighborhood let alone engage in debates or discussions with neighbors.  The news does provide individuals with very high level reports of current events but doesn't provide nearly enough information for viewers to form educated opinions.  For this additional information, there is no better resource available than the internet.  Of course all information on the internet isn't always accurate or unbiased, but at least it gives the individual the opportunity to decide what information they want to read instead of what the elites who control mainstream media choose for them.

Deepa Kumar - "Muslim Enemy" 9/26 NCC Lecture

Deepa Kumar presented unique and informative critique of the way in which the image of Muslims, history of the Muslim culture, and the relationship between the East and the West are communicated throughout mainstream media.   Much of the information and facts supporting this critiques were never mentioned to the majority, if not all of the audience.  The reasons behind this are precisely what her speech and book reveal. Her argument is that the elites and mainstream media have constructed their own image of Muslims, an image of uncivilized, violent and terroristic and use this constructed negative image as a way to advance political agenda and justify their political actions. This is especially appearant after the events that took place on 9/11.  Additionally Kumar provides detailed analysis and facts that discount the West's historical timeline describing the history of East and West as a "clash of civilizations."  Her critique of this reconstructed historical timeline provides support and examples of history that included mutual development the East and the West worked together for mutual development where both civilizations respected and learned from one another.

So why are so many Americans unaware of this historical account of the East & West and only see Muslims predominately as this negative image of terrorists?  Kumar argues that the elites and American politicians have recreated the history of the East and West and portrayed Muslims as "evil" to make it easier to justify their political actions being taken to what Kumar refers to as "advance their political agenda".  Also because these elites and politicians have the most access and control over mainstream media, counter arguments like ones Kumar present are rarely, if ever, made available throughout the Space of Opinion in the US. Instead mainstream media has created this image of Muslims as one of a violent and terroristic group that America should fear.  An interesting statistic she shared was that according to recent analysis done by PEW Research, less than 1% of US population is Muslim yet there is this overlying understanding among US citizens that we should fear Muslims and that they pose a huge threat to our nation. It was very interesting to learn about this information that is not easily attainable (by design) to average citizens today and this has definitely made me interested in exploring this option further and I look forward to finishing her book.

Key Political Intellectuals in Today's Media

Americans today are constantly reminded of the pressing issues facing our nation including a struggling economy, high rates of joblessness, increases to cost of living expenses and lingering memories of the recent wars and terrorist attacks just to name a few.  Unfortunately finding unbiased information or even the facts surrounding these issues or  proposed policies that address these issues in language that the average American citizen can understand is extremely difficult in today's media space. Intead they are subject to partisan writings and commentaries that focus placing the blame or attacking the other side.  By now, I think that many Americans are turned off by this type of reporting and just want to be able to understand the issues that affect them, the key players who are proposing changes to address the issues, and the facts surrounding those changes so that they can form their own opinion and ultimately cast an educated vote. This lack of autonomy and complexity of material in the public media space have pushed a large portion of the general public to other outlets such as political satire shows for their political information.

Two of these political satire shows that play an important role in reaching out to a wide variety of individuals within the public sphere include The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. The hosts, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are two PI's who report out on the same issues as the other public intellectuals, journalists, and political commentators, but their messages are delivered in a language and format that the average citizen as well as an elitist can understand as well as enjoy.  In a style that Jacobs and Townsley would classify as "infotainment" Stewart and Colbert use their media platforms to poke fun at the personality-driven political opinion shows that saturate the mainstream media channels.  The intents of the shows are not to make light of the pressing issues facing America but rather to poke fun at the way in which the current political media space covers them.  Posner would be quick to point out that these intellectuals have no influence and wall statements lack any sort of accountability but they do provide the most important piece which is providing facts in language that the general public can understand and use to form their own opinions. And it's those educated opinions that will spark debate and discussion with other informed citizens.

News Makeover

Since the mainstream media is already flooded with reality makeover/improvement shows and it seems that people enjoy watching programs that improve the appearance of either an individual or other entity that has not kept up with the times, now would be a great time to change the appearance of something that really needs it.....the News.  Now by news, I am not talking about CNN, Fox News, or any of the cable channels, I'm talking about the major network news programs that everyone with a television has access to.  Many Americans don't have the free time needed to research the various media outlets and understand the issues affecting them while others cannot afford cable or the internet that provides access to this educational information, so these news programs provide an outlet for them to be caught up to speed with what is going on around them.  The media needs to take advantage of this space and use the small amount of time in front of this public space wisely. Instead, using this morning's news as an example, viewers were reminded that there were more murders in the city during the middle of the night with no suspects, there was segment where a reporter spoke with the CEO of Lamborghini regarding cars that 98% of the viewers can't afford in their lifetime, and listened to opinions about who the best dressed celebrities at the Emmy's were.

Did this news program teach me anything new or provide me with facts that would challenge me to think and perhaps engage in a debate with my peers about major events taking place in America today?  Absolutely not.  Now in fairness, they did provide a brief segment about upcoming Presidential election with a quick recap of the recent speeches during which the news anchor spoke over what the candidate was saying before heading to a commercial break.  And leading into commercial right they made mention that Obama Administration would be releasing a series of media spots this week criticizing Romney's statements in recent interviews but that was it.  It's sad to think with all the issues that America is facing today, the major media news outlet I watched felt that conversations about Sofia Vergara's dress should be alotted more time than providing facts about the upcoming election.

Posner's Critique of PI

   Posner's critique of Public Intellectuals, although extreme, does provide some valuable agruments worthy of acknowledgement.  Do I agree that ALL Public Intellectual's are careless with facts and rash in their predictions as Posner states? No. But his critique that PI's predictions lack accountability and aren't held to tight scrutiny is justified, especially in the case of Public Intellectuals of the past.   This makes you wonder if some PI's are providing predictions based of valid data and trends or just merely making extreme predictions to get a reaction from people and draw attention to their work.  This is somewhat different today though. With all the new outlets available for both the intellectuals and the Public Sphere, debates and comments can pop up on the internet even before the public intellectual is done speaking.  Additionally, the public now has access to nearly anything and everything that has ever been said or done in the public arena so those individuals making predictions or providing controversial opinions need to worry now more than ever about losing credibility.
    Posner's arguement about PI's lack of influence is also an interesting one.  I don't agree with the notion that they don't have influence but I would argue that their influence is restricted to those in the public sphere characteristics and beliefs similar to that intellectual.  This is great for the elitists and informed older white male segmentation (that both Jacobs and Posner would agree make up the public intellectual masses)  but what about the rest of the Public Sphere?  Individuals or groups that don't connect with a public intellectual are much more likely to make that decision based off a candidate's personality rather than their policies.  I've heard of people that had no knowledge of a candidates interests or policies but voted for them because they thought that they were better looking than the other candidate.  This failure to influence and reach out to all individuals in the public sphere is not due to the failure of public intellectuals but rather the lack of diversity in the PI field.

  

Media 10 Accuracy 0

Americans are skeptical in what they hear in the media.  In a 2011 survey done by The Pew Research Center, negative opinions about the performance of organizations surpassed all-time highs on 9 of 12 core measures. What's even scarier is the fact that those same surveys show that news organizations are more trusted sources of information than other institutions, including government and business.

So when Richard Posner talks about the lack of accountability when it comes to public intellectuals, I think that theory can be expanded across all media outlets.  Now after about 50+ failed predictions about the world coming to an end, the public has, for the most part discounted these claims.  But the sad thing is that Americans don't have an outlet where they can go for unbiased truth and reporting.  We have now become a nation where the facts take a backseat to obtaining ratings and votes.  News stations are reporting what they are being told to report rather than presenting the facts and our Political campaigns are filled with candidates who spend the majority of their time and money attempting to challenge the credibilitiy of the other candidate.  So we end up choosing the elected official who seems to be the lesser of the two evils according to how they are portrayed during the campaign.

Richard Posner's idea of an accountability scorecard seems promising in theory however finding an unbiased 3rd party to regulate the scorecard is most likely impossible.  After all, would we expect the same media that we currently don't trust to provide data regarding the accuracy of what it reports?  And who would provide the oversight for this scorecard, a Government who people are just as skeptical of?

Reason For Concern...

I am very concerned about the fate of public life and rightfully so.  We now live in a world where Snooki's baby is more news worthy than the Presidential race or the countless issues our nation is dealing with.  I understand that news stations are only reporting out on what its viewers want, but what point did we become so out of touch with caring about issues that will affect our lives and our children's lives and instead caring about the Mr. Lohan's legal troubles.  Rational debate has now been replaced with debating on which celebrity's outfit looked the best.   It's time that credible media outlets get back to reporting out on what really matters in this country as we depend on you to provide us with knowledge and accurate facts instead of wasting our time with nonsense.  The fate of public life has been deteriorating and there is a great deal of blame to go around.

Public Intellectuals and Weathermen

Posner’s main criticism of public intellectuals was that they lack accountability.  Although very few public intellectuals have a good record of  predictions, this doesn’t deter the public from reading their work or hearing what they have to say. Since there is no recourse or penalties, public intellectuals aren’t extremely worried about being incorrect and for those reasons the public doesn’t take their predictions too seriously.

In reading Posner’s critique I couldn’t help but to compare public intellectuals to weathermen.  Both public intellectuals and weathermen reach out to the general public with information they are interested in and both groups struggle with the accuracy of their predictions.  Many public intellectuals are often incorrect with their predictions but still survive as Posner puts it, “the falsifications of their predictions.”  The public protects themselves by not taking their predictions too seriously.  I think the same goes for weathermen.  As many times as their predictions have been incorrect, we will still tune in to our favorite weatherman or weatherwoman to hear their forecast, and if that forecast happens to be incorrect we aren’t too upset. They have almost built the reputation where we expect them to be incorrect and when they aren't we are pleasantly surprised. So in a sense, the public is also protecting themselves by not taking those that provide weather forecasts seriously either.  When it comes to record keeping neither the public intellectual nor weathermen post their successes vs. failures so it’s very hard for the public to have access to that information and make associations between credible resources and those that aren't.

Now I understand that there are some very big differences between the way that public intellectuals and weathermen make predictions, but I thought the similarities were worth mentioning.  The folks that predict the weather obviously use a much more scientific approach and are most likely right more times than they are wrong.  Additionally there is much more at stake for weathermen to be accurate in their predications because although the public doesn’t keep score, I’m sure that the news stations do, at least to some extent.  Additionally the folks that predict the weather through the public outlets have much more influence over the general audience than public intellectuals do.  If a weatherman tells you its going to storm, you are highly likely to plan accordingly whereas if a public intellectual is predicting dates for when the word is going to end, you are much less likely to take that prediction seriously. 

            Posner mentioned creating a public scorecard for public intellectuals which I think is a great idea, and I would also like to see those same scorecards created for weatherman.