The Deweyan Ideal
I would, however, take some issue with Alterman's claim that the blogosphere represents a truly "democratic" challenge to the Lippmanite view of how newspapers should function:
This is true, strictly speaking. But I think it's hard to talk about the Internet as a democratizing force without acknowledging the stratification of the blogosphere into elite and non-elite circles. Everyone can hop on the internet and say whatever they want, but some people's voices are more amplified than others, and so some conversations will have more of an impact than others. Note that I'm not rendering a normative judgment as to whether this is or is not desirable or fair -- the people who populate what I'd call the elite blogosphere helped create and shape this medium -- but as a descriptive matter it's indisputably true.The birth of the liberal blogosphere, with its ability to bypass the big media institutions and conduct conversations within a like-minded community, represents a revival of the Deweyan challenge to our Lippmann-like understanding of what constitutes “news” and, in doing so, might seem to revive the philosopher’s notion of a genuinely democratic discourse. The Web provides a powerful platform that enables the creation of communities; distribution is frictionless, swift, and cheap. The old democratic model was a nation of New England towns filled with well-meaning, well-informed yeoman farmers. Thanks to the Web, we can all join in a Deweyan debate on Presidents, policies, and proposals. All that’s necessary is a decent Internet connection.
Also, "a genuinely democratic discourse" requires broad participation from people from across the demographic spectrum. The Pew Internet & American Life Project reported last year, however, that only 47% of Americans have broadband access and that "non-internet users as a group are disproportionately old and poor." Even if access is open to everyone, if these people aren't participating equally, is that "genuinely democratic"? To use a somewhat tired analogy, it has become much, much cheaper to publish your own pamphlet (i.e., blog), but it's still too expensive for some people.
That doesn't even probe the issue of racial demographics: Internet users are disproportionately white. I'm guessing the blogosphere skews even more white, and the elite blogosphere still more. I don't view this as a terrible indictment by any means, but we also shouldn't let ourselves get carried away talking about the broadly participatory features of the internet. In many ways, the promise of the internet as a force for democratization of political discourse has yet to be fulfilled.
All that said, I do think Alterman's article is an impressive piece of work. It's easy to be glib about the future of the newspaper industry, but there's more at stake than whether your news comes with a viewpoint or not. As Alterman nicely puts it in the last two sections of his piece, we may also lose out on some actual news -- important stories that newspapers have been critical in disseminating.
But I think it's hard to talk about the Internet as a democratizing force without acknowledging the stratification of the blogosphere into elite and non-elite circles. Everyone can hop on the internet and say whatever they want, but some people's voices are more amplified than others, and so some conversations will have more of an impact than others. Note that I'm not rendering a normative judgment as to whether this is or is not desirable or fair -- the people who populate what I'd call the elite blogosphere helped create and shape this medium -- but as a descriptive matter it's indisputably true.
As critics of deliberative democracy have pointed out, this is true for non-online deliberative forums as well. If I recall correctly, Lynn Sanders makes this point in her article
Against Deliberation (pdf version). The late Iris Marion Young made similar chages.
Also, "a genuinely democratic discourse" requires broad participation from people from across the demographic spectrum. The Pew Internet & American Life Project reported last year, however, that only 47% of Americans have broadband access and that "non-internet users as a group are disproportionately old and poor." Even if access is open to everyone, if these people aren't participating equally, is that "genuinely democratic"? To use a somewhat tired analogy, it has become much, much cheaper to publish your own pamphlet (i.e., blog), but it's still too expensive for some people.
Is broadband access really necessary at this point for accessing, say, Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo? Moreover, won't those demographic discrepancies partly take care of themselves over time? Not to say that the specific point isn't important, just that it will likely be solved.
You're probably right that it won't be democratic. One question is whether, even with access, people will want to participate? It's not self-evidently clear that they will (the old Lippmann fear I suppose). Insofar as these communities are actually cross-cutting and not the enclaves of one particular group, they might not (research by Diana Mutz indicates this might not be the case.)
Posted by: Josh R. | March 26, 2008 at 02:14 PM
Josh: I had forgotten my relevant political theory (my college major!), but you are absolutely right to draw the connection between the point I'm making and arguments you see in the work of people like Sanders and Young. If that had occurred to me, it would've been neat to have a more conceptually grounded response. Oh well.
As to the question re broadband, you know, I am always surprised at what today's sites actually require. For the last six months, I have had very slow and spotty internet access at my apartment (only recently fixed), and it was a HUGE pain even to get to sites like the Times and CNN. Professional sites, including places like TPM, do seem to demand a lot, especially when you consider how standard embedded audio and video have become.
Posted by: Ankush | March 26, 2008 at 02:27 PM