Is there really something fundamentally different between digital/social media and the traditional press? The Brookings Institution thinks so, positing that the recent Brexit vote in England arguably represents “the first major casualty of the ascent of digital democracy over representative democracy.”
Many technology optimists have assumed that globalization would lead to the democratization of information and decision-making, and also greater cosmopolitanism. Citizens would be better informed, less likely to be silenced, and able to communicate their views more effectively to their leaders. They would also have greater empathy and understanding of other peoples the more they lived next to them, visited their countries, read their news, communicated, and did business with them. Or so the thinking went.
It is hard to dispute the authors’ contention that this world of enhanced democratic decision-making has failed to materialize.
Instead, digital democracy — the ability to receive information in almost real time through mass media and to make one’s voice heard through social media — has contributed to polarization, gridlock, dissatisfaction and misinformation.
In our “post-fact world,” thanks to social media and the internet, a lie (or–as the article notes– “better yet a half-lie) if told enough times becomes truth.”
A third result of digital democracy…is the political echo chamber. Social media, rather than creating connections with people who possess differing views and ideologies, tends to reinforce prejudices. As the psychologist Nicholas DiFonzo has noted, “Americans across the political spectrum tend to trust the news media (and ‘facts’ provided by the media) less than their own social group.” This makes it easier for views and rumours to circulate and intensify within like-minded groups. Similar digital gerrymandering was evident in the EU Referendum in Britain and the polarization is palpable in the Indian online political space.
Finally, instant information has increased the theatricality of politics. With public statements and positions by governments, political parties and individual leaders now broadcast to constituents in real time, compromise, a necessary basis of good governance, has become more difficult. When portrayed as a betrayal of core beliefs, compromise often amounts to political suicide. Political grandstanding also contributes to legislative gridlock, with elected representatives often resorting to walkouts, sit-ins, or insults — all manufactured for maximum viral effect — instead of trying to reach solutions behind closed doors. Even as ease of travel allows legislators to spend more time in their constituencies, making them more sensitized to their constituents’ concerns, less gets done at the national or supranational level. It is a trend that, once again, applies equally to the United States, Europe, and India.
The unintended consequences of digital democracy — misinformation and discontent, polarization and gridlock — mean that the boundary between politician and troll is blurring. The tone of democratic politics increasingly reflects that of anonymous online discourse: nasty, brutish, and short. And successful politicians are increasingly those who are able to take advantage of the resulting sentiments. Exploiting divisions, appealing to base instincts, making outlandish claims, resorting to falsehoods, and pooh-poohing details and expertise.
“Exploiting divisions, appealing to base instincts, making outlandish claims, resorting to falsehoods, and pooh-poohing details and expertise”… certainly describes Donald Trump.
When I was a new lawyer, the partner for whom I was doing most of my work had a saying: “There’s only one legal question, and that’s what do we do?”
If it is difficult to argue with the Brookings critique of digital democracy–and it is–his question becomes not just pertinent, but critical. What do we do?
What can we do?
Regardless of how we communicate, we are still responsible for the government we choose. If we don’t increase active participation, we are screwed.
Brookings critique is backward looking. Our job is to look beyond ‘unintended consequences’ and accept ‘what is.’
There was a rumor going around yesterday that Trump would step down from running for President. All my liberal friends thought it was wonderful news?
Why? He represents his constituency well.
This is American politics and it needs to be played out.
Why can’t we think beyond immediate response?
Alan Watts, author of many popular “self-help” books in the 1960-1970’s, warned us. “Man is going to computerize himself out of existence.” We are quickly reaching the point of no return to fulfill his prophecy.
We receive more “schmooze” than news in our local and national newscasts and in our corporate-owned newspapers who seem to rely on digital sources before “going to press”.
“What can we do?”
We can’t unring those bells because we have ignored them long enough for them to get a stronghold and the old warning “garbage in/garbage out” has been ignored for too long. My question is, “Is there anything that CAN be done?”
I don’t think there is any way to stop the madness at this time, or possibly for many more years. Far too many people have found a way to gain power and wealth by spreading lies and creating uprisings.
If it wasn’t for the internet, I doubt I could handle living abroad. How else would I be able to keep up with local news from my hometown, emails from family and friends and finding out the latest bombastic thing that thumplethinskin says? I was even able to vote digitally for the primary. I’ve learned more about civics from your blog than I did in school so that has been priceless. As I mentioned yesterday, I still go to locations online that show me how others think so that when faced with a question, I can respond in kind. I remember one of my colleagues that said back in the ’00 that the internet was the devil but I think it’s just part of the 21st century globalization, so for me, it’s a good thing.
In this time of growing internet news communication we are each called upon to be our own editor. Way too many of us are not up to the task. Like children of the past century, we only want to see and read the funny page.
“Exploiting divisions, appealing to base instincts, making outlandish claims, resorting to falsehoods, and pooh-poohing details and expertise.”
Let’s be honest,the press has been doing the above for decades. The Indianapolis Star & News was always a mouthpiece for the Pulliam clan. To Misinform,to garner support for an agenda, et al,is nothing new. Judith Miller comes to mind. What also comes to mind it was information outside the MSM that brought Miller’s false claims to light.
Again,when it comes to appealing to base instincts and exploiting divisions,Trump isn’t exclusive in this regard. Thanks to digital media,here’s an example in critical thinking thanks to the advent of digital media from Ted Rall wrt the Clinton/Trump/Khan media narrative. Btw,I agree with Ted.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-and-the-triumph-of-democratic-militarism/
An excerpt:
Hillary’s vote for an illegal war of choice that was sold with lies, was a major contributing factor to the death of Captain Khan, thousands of his comrades, and over a million Iraqis. Iraq should be a major issue in this campaign — against her.
the Khan controversy is yet another spectacular example of the media distracting us with a relatively minor point in order to make a much bigger issue go away.
It has been widely remarked, always approvingly, that this year’s Democrats have successfully appropriated images of patriotism and “optimism” – scare quotes because this is not the kind of actual optimism in which you think things are going to actually get better, but the bizarro variety in which you accept that things will really never get better so you’d might as well accept the status quo
Next time you see a panel of experts discussing a foreign crisis, pay attention: does anyone argue against intervention? No. The debate is always between going in light and going in hard: bombs, or “boots on the ground.
JoAnn,
“Is there anything that can be done?”
The Hubble Space Telescope’s launch in 1990 sped humanity to one of its greatest advances in the journey to understand the universe. Hubble is a telescope that orbits Earth.
Its position above the atmosphere, which distorts and blocks the light that reaches our planet, gives it a view of the universe that typically far surpasses that of ground-based telescopes.
We need the same capacity to understand our socio/political culture. The mission of the Hubble Space Telescope is much like a root cause analysis. Its mission is to go back far enough into the history of the universe so that scientists can reconstruct how our planet was formed.
Similarly, we must go back in time to reconstruct how we ended up in the terrible socio/political mess we are now in. There is no other way.
“the Khan controversy is yet another spectacular example of the media distracting us with a relatively minor point in order to make a much bigger issue go away.”
William 1; the “Khan controversy” was started and continued by Trump’s ongoing insults. Mr. Khan posed a legitimate question to Trump when he asked if he had ever read the Constitution. Which is another question Trump has not answered; but his campaign platform and unstoppable mouth continue the issue because HE feel justified in his comments and the media feels a deep need to report every word that pours forth from his lips. As his out of control, unbalanced, unfit, unending rambling rants continue on air; I can’t help but wonder what his campaign members and family must deal with on the rare occasions he is off air. I also wonder why the media keeps his idiocy in the spotlight; they have supported him and his issues by favoring him over all other candidates during the past year. Is it because he is the loudest or the most bizarre? Is he paying them?
Marv; know where we can find any of Alan Watts’ books? Or any of the many that were so popular when people wanted answers but were unsure what the questions were. We were naive during those years but it was a time of awakening for many. Could the books provide a look at our future from our past and they would probably provide a list of historical issues (historical NOW) to research…and compare with how the history books report it today. IF they include the information.
JoAnn,
“Marv, know where we can find any of Alan Watts’ books?
Amazon has many of Watts’ books. Some are available on kindle. Like Watts, we need to incorporate more Eastern ways of thinking into our quest to better understand the terrible mess we are now in.
Most Christian religions claim that God gave man free will. We choose whether to do good or bad. The internet gives us access to all that is good in the world and all that is bad. Again, we choose how we use it.
Theresa, don’t knock the “funny pages”. They sometimes provide great wisdom, but more often they provide a good laugh. We need a great deal more of both of those.
Peggy; right on!
“I have met the enemy and he is us!”
Pogo many years ago
JoAnn,
But remember, I was a 1st generation hippie. I wasn’t into reading Allan Watts. My experiences were more like the movie “Love Story” with Robert Redford and Barbara Streisand. Our rebellion, in the early 50’s, was more of a middle to upper-class rebellion, mainly in Ivy League universities, against our, as in my case, millionaire fathers.
That’s why my principal political target has always been the Bush family which has been “in bed” with the Koch family all these years. Donald Trump is no way responsible for the terrible mess we are now in. He has only brought it to the surface, hopefully too early.
Peggy, I must not have made myself clear. I was not knocking the “funnies”. I was pointing out that too many of us claim to go to the internet for our news but really only want entertainment.
JoAnn,
Re your comment :
“I also wonder why the media keeps his idiocy in the spotlight; they have supported him and his issues by favoring him over all other candidates during the past year. Is it because he is the loudest or the most bizarre?”
They keep him in the media because his actions and words draw in readers and listeners. I do not believe that he could have become the Republican presidential nominee without the constant attention that the media has given him.
I am, perhaps wrongly, less worried about “digital democracy” than some of you appear to be. Millennials are, generally, much more technologically savvy than their parents, and they are also more Internet savvy. Their BS detectors have been honed since childhood, and they aren’t as easily taken in as are their more naive elders.
They have developed their own sources of information, and have developed or are developing rules for this new digital society. Reddit is a good example.
They are much more adept at collaboration – the Occupy movement is a good example of that. And they tend to be more inclusive, more aware of social justice issues, and more practical about change. If our institutions fail them, they don’t spend a lot of time on hand-wringing, they just go around the problem, and find their own ways to cope.
Hillary Clinton will probably win this election. But she won’t win in 2020, because, by that time, the Millennials will be well on their way to creating an alternative political system that works for them, and will have NO interest in participating in the current system.
We need to join them, or we’ll be left behind.
There is always upheaval going on. Always. Every single day.
We respond to that by adapting. We adapt physically and culturally. Physical adaptation is very slow because it is random. We mutate without purpose and natural selection over generations eventually incorporates what works better over that long time into our DNA. What doesn’t work better just as slowly is discouraged and dies out.
Cultural evolution is also pretty random and much more dramatic. The world upheaves, we run around like chickens fretting, we try some stuff here and there, and eventually it becomes increasingly obvious that some things work better than others and we settle into a comfortable rut until the next upheaval.
Technology is only one of the causes of upheaval but it’s a reliable one because it changes much faster than we do.
Another factor is in the word “we”. The collective we is an abstraction. There is no average person. And the individual we is temporary and constantly changing. For instance I got up today older, and with an additional set of memories from yesterday.
Also upheaval is not one at a time. There are millions of things that can and do upheave and we are caught in the confluence of them. We are each a tiny boat in an infinite ocean of huge random waves. No wonder we’re nervous.
So what calms upheaval is time but over time more things will additionally upheave and that’s just life.
The upheavals going on when our government was designed are entirely different than now. It’s a wonder it works as well as it does still as everything else is drastically different.
Long slow wind up but here finally comes the pitch.
We can, do and will adapt as conditions change. We are collectively intelligent, we’ve continued to progress through some awful times, even though as Don the con and Pence the dense remind us every day we can be individually colossally stupid. And we take turns doing that.
To me global democracy in an overcrowded ubber-connected world is a given because it’s the only thing that will work sustainably. The path from here to there is not obvious and plenty of bushwhacking will be required.
Please fasten your seatbelts and remain seated and calm as we can expect to encounter severe turbulence over the next, well, forever.
Marv, I just saw your last post from yesterday and I concur. Things can get dysfunctionally rude around here.
When that happens the cause is usually that we attribute motivation to people rather than just accept their words at face value.
We need to be better at debating ideas instead of dismissing diversity.
William 1, I agree with your comments. You would never read in The Star or hear on the Local McMega-Media any objections to lining the pockets of the Colts or Pacers with tax dollars. I could say the conversation about Professional Sports Corporate Welfare is bent favor of it. However, there is no dialogue or discussion about Professional Sports Corporate Welfare from the McMega-Media or our local Republicrat Party.
I have no intention of voting for the Trumpet or Clinton, both are repellent in their own way. The deaths of the Americans in Iraq and probably a million casualties (dead, wounded, missing and refugees) as a result of the Iraq War 2 should weigh heavily on the souls and the political careers of Bush the Younger and all those who voted to put a gun in his hand.
Our current President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) can be counted on to lament the violence and lack of gun control in our streets whenever there is another mass shooting. Strangely enough though according to Time Magazine – The United States remains the world’s preeminent exporter of arms, with more than 50 percent of the global weaponry market controlled by the United States as of 2014. Arms sales by the U.S. jumped 35 percent, or nearly $10 billion, to $36.2 billion in 2014, according to the Congressional Research Service report.
A quote from Fortune Magazine – Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James put it somewhat more bluntly, stating “we’re in the business of killing terrorists, and business is good.” Can you believe anyone would actually say this out loud?????
Almost every week we hear or read about another attack by the US with drones, or airstrikes. Do you really think when there is a drone strike or airstrike that only the “bad” guy is killed?? The explosive force of the drone or bomb detonating is enough to kill a person, let alone the shrapnel.
Pete,
“Things can get dysfunctionally rude around here.
When that happens the cause is usually that we attribute motivation to people rather than just accept their words at face value.
We need to be better at debating ideas instead of dismissing diversity.”
Thanks. You’re better with words than I am.
“Hillary’s vote for an illegal war of choice that was sold with lies, was a major contributing factor to the death of Captain Khan, thousands of his comrades, and over a million Iraqis. Iraq should be a major issue in this campaign — against her.”
Wow. Just wow. Here’s the whole truth.
“Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration’s proposals,[3][8] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[9] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.”
So even though the President lied to Congress about the reasons for the war, lies credible enough to fool the vast majority of Congress and the American people, the responsibility for every American casualty in the Middle East falls on Hillary.
This is pure desperation talking.
Pete,
You’re right again.
We all know that unprecedented weather consequences lead virtually every daily news report now. We know that the need for FEMA regularly outdoes the revenue for FEMA. The catastrophic floods, winds, precipitation, droughts, tornados and hurricanes have become one of the greatest burdens on us tax payers and all us who share risk through all kinds of insurances.
Science has determined conclusively and carefully and at great length explained why.
But there’s one group who still makes more money worsening the impact on us than lessening it. The fossil fuel industry.
As their culpability has become better and better known by the man on the street their tactics have evolved.
They used to ally primarily with underground advertising powers to fool us. The ultimate failure of that has now pushed them to rely on good old fashioned oligarchy to keep their hands in our pockets.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/08/04/3803911/who-is-behind-pro-fossil-fuel-ags/
Read and weep. You still have money that they feel entitled to.
There is no problem with digital democracy, the difference being only in how we are spoon-fed propaganda. The real problem is in education. If ordinary Americans are well educated and up on current affairs and history, they will be well able to distinguish between fact and lies. The Lone Star state has figured it out – you keep the populace dumb. How? Your State School Board removes Civics from the high school curriculum. Well-educated people are more difficult to manipulate, so keep ’em dumb as a matter of policy.
Those of you of my era like me have seen the rise and fall of Communism. It was an intriguing idea to some but totally failed in practice. It joins other ideas in the history museum of things that looked good on paper but just don’t work.
I think that they are making room on the shelf next to it for another like idea, Neolibralism. It also might have worked but didn’t. The pain of the reality of Communism was inflicted more on others while we watched, but Neolibralism is our own cancer.
For some reason we tended to see and call it by different names. Conservatism, Rushism, Reagonomics, the Tea Party, trickle down, oligarchy, corporatism, Republicanism, rightist, and others.
Like Communism it’s hard to fault those who fell for it on paper or to forgive those who can’t let go after it’s failure in practice.
Here’s what it is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
I love new ideas but accept not all ideas are good regardless of the brainpower behind them. Some just don’t work out and when the experiential evidence says no you learn from it and move on.
Let’s leave Neolibrslism in the dust bin and go back to what works.
The only way to discuss politics is with long-form journalism (Sheila qualifies because regular journalism these days has to fit on a cell phone screen & is therefore 100 words, max) and non-anonymous comments. So the short answer is no, Digital Democracy can never work. Another requirement is good will among parties to an online debate. So again the answer is no.
What do we do? There was an interesting piece on Medium where the writer claimed that eventually people will tire of hit-and-run online “discussion” and will gravitate to more serious sites with high standards for commenting. This is the usual free-market orthodoxy; what it will really take is site management stepping up & insisting that all commenters be validated. Could happen, but don’t expect it soon.
“So the short answer is no, Digital Democracy can never work. ”
Nor will it ever go away. It’s not a replacement for anything it’s in addition to everything that preceded it.
“So even though the President lied to Congress about the reasons for the war, lies credible enough to fool the vast majority of Congress and the American people, the responsibility for every American casualty in the Middle East falls on Hillary.”
She voted for it. And,she was SoS a few years later. Can you say Ukraine? Libya? Syria? Honduras? What about Haiti? I guess the lives outside of US Caucasian suburbs don’t count?! Hillary Clinton is a proven warmonger. She is the only current candidate that has voted for worthless wars. Worthless interventions. That’s what you get when your mentor is none other than Henry Kissinger. Rall is correct. The Democrat establishment has become everything they claimed to abhor about the Bush administration. Whodathunk the Democrats would be the jingoistic party of 2016?
Again,your blind allegiance to brand loyalty and the Goldwater Girl is showing.
Here’s a history lesson for you.
First a war is declared by one country. Everything else is a response.
Second the Secretary of State doesn’t declare war. Congress does. That’s why the Congressional vote that I referenced earlier took place. The issue in that decision is that the President and all his men lied to Congress.
BTW I agree that Trump was too busy planning his next default to participate in public service.
William1 keeping Trump far from the nuclear codes is not brand loyalty, it’s common sense.
You sound really bummed that the GOP offered no alternative to Hillary.
Me too.
We do not have a democracy in fact, but a representational republic that means each person has to put his or her name on every single work and purchase order — even for getting a $15 arrest record clearance by Indiana appointed civilian police officers.
We change push button machines all the time, televisions (Admiral) to calculators (Texas Instruments) to all the brands of home-office appliances, clothes irons, and do so democratically at polling places, too. USA demands for electrically-powered products mean that even children have to pay off loans to university officials when they come of political-military-majority workers’ years and statures for using furnishings of factories, food laboratories, plant-handling (controlled alkaloids), preservation and canning places included, operating heavy duty equipment lawfully for IRS:SSA:VA income records.
Marv, I don’t know if you’ll be back tonight but I found this and thought that you might find it interesting and/or useful.
http://organizingchange.org/guide-to-dismantling-neoliberalism/
Pete,
Thanks a “million” for the link. Send me a bill. There’s no doubt, your batting average for 8/4/2016 was 1000.
“So the short answer is no, Digital Democracy can never work. ”
“Nor will it ever go away. It’s not a replacement for anything it’s in addition to everything that preceded it.”
It’s our lifesaver. We would be dead without it.
Pete,
There’s no doubt, now is the time “to go in for the kill.”
The following is from “You Can’t Do Business with Hitler: What a Nazi Victory would mean to every American” by Douglas Miller (New York: Little, Brown & Company, 1941) page 158:
“I have known literally thousands of Germans in government and private circles. I never met one who was fully confident of the Nazi experiment. I never met one except Hitler himself who gave me the impression that he was so loyal to the Third Reich that he would cheerfully give his life in its defense.”
“The German people are still obedient, but not enthusiastic. They will follow Hitler as long as he seems to be victorious, but with fingers crossed. If disaster comes, if they face defeat, then the latent, hidden distrust will rise quickly to the surface. Then the moral defects of the Nazi system will be felt in a widespread betrayal and repudiation of National Socialism.”
“The Nazis have taught the Germans to be selfish. They have been only too successful in such instruction. Their pupils and followers will one day callously abandon Hitler. I can well believe that the day may come when no German will admit that he ever was a Nazi or wore a brown shirt.”
This was written before Hitler, unfortunately, led the German people into total warfare and its dire consequences for all of them.
I believe the book has a very contemporary ring. Am I wrong?
Another well written commentary on digital democracy with striking parallels to our own coming elections: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/john-lanchester/brexit-blues