152 Citizens
played by the Internet and social networking sites in “democratizing
participation for radio publics” in Malawi.
117
As such, this particular
instance offers a very different perspective on social media in general –
and Facebook in particular – than has been the case for this chapter, or,
indeed, the majority of this book. Throughout the preceding chapters,
I have regularly criticised Facebook as part of the digital duopoly that
is restructuring the public sphere in the early years of the twenty-first
century, and have frequently been sceptical of the company’s objective
to “bring the world closer together”. Nonetheless, while the social media company has clearly – and very much to its surprise – emerged as a
divisive factor in recent years, there are times when, quietly and without
much attention from major media outlets, it achieves precisely this task.
With its 70,000 followers on Facebook (a tiny fraction of the 18 million
population living in Malawi, admittedly), it has managed to overtake
the larger radio station Zodiak Broadcasting Station (ZBS) online by
engaging in a conversation with its audience that better understands the
promise – if not always the practice – of social media as a move away
from simple broadcasting.
118
The relationship between journalistic media and its audience has thus
far been a somewhat ironic, even cynical one. If Alex Jones is the charlatan who exploits the unregulated boundaries of social media to sell
snake oil (or dietary supplements) to its citizens, Jeff Bezos is the Citizen
Kane who is far removed from the ordinary concerns of an audience
even as he transforms them from readers into customers for a particular
vision of democracy that he wishes them to receive gratefully. Jones is essentially a blip, a passing case study demonstrating the stranglehold that
big tech has over communication at present, but Bezos is likely to be a
lasting influence on media in the USA and, to a lesser degree, the world.
When dealing with mass effects of the media, it is Bezos and his ilk who
form the new monopolies of the information age and a familiar theme of
this book has been how Amazon, along with Facebook, Google, Apple,
and a handful of others, have replaced Time Warner, Bertelsmann, and
Sony as the titans of the new media age.
Yet, the temptation is to view the influence of such monopolists as
actually greater than it is – which is always the case with all monopolies. In the 1990s, the great fear was that American corporations were
leading to the “coca-colonization” of world culture;
119
yet by the end
of the decade, it was clear to figures such as Bagdikian that the cartel
was more complex, taking in Europe, Australia, and even Japan as part
of its formation.
120
Much of the content of this book has been very focussed on US examples because, for the best part of a decade, the shift
of media monopolies has been to the large American tech companies,
but this is not inevitably an enduring state of affairs: in ten years’ time,
it is very likely that at least one Chinese company will be challenging the
Big Four for media domination, and while Facebook and Google may
played by the Internet and social networking sites in “democratizing
participation for radio publics” in Malawi.
117
As such, this particular
instance offers a very different perspective on social media in general –
and Facebook in particular – than has been the case for this chapter, or,
indeed, the majority of this book. Throughout the preceding chapters,
I have regularly criticised Facebook as part of the digital duopoly that
is restructuring the public sphere in the early years of the twenty-first
century, and have frequently been sceptical of the company’s objective
to “bring the world closer together”. Nonetheless, while the social media company has clearly – and very much to its surprise – emerged as a
divisive factor in recent years, there are times when, quietly and without
much attention from major media outlets, it achieves precisely this task.
With its 70,000 followers on Facebook (a tiny fraction of the 18 million
population living in Malawi, admittedly), it has managed to overtake
the larger radio station Zodiak Broadcasting Station (ZBS) online by
engaging in a conversation with its audience that better understands the
promise – if not always the practice – of social media as a move away
from simple broadcasting.
118
The relationship between journalistic media and its audience has thus
far been a somewhat ironic, even cynical one. If Alex Jones is the charlatan who exploits the unregulated boundaries of social media to sell
snake oil (or dietary supplements) to its citizens, Jeff Bezos is the Citizen
Kane who is far removed from the ordinary concerns of an audience
even as he transforms them from readers into customers for a particular
vision of democracy that he wishes them to receive gratefully. Jones is essentially a blip, a passing case study demonstrating the stranglehold that
big tech has over communication at present, but Bezos is likely to be a
lasting influence on media in the USA and, to a lesser degree, the world.
When dealing with mass effects of the media, it is Bezos and his ilk who
form the new monopolies of the information age and a familiar theme of
this book has been how Amazon, along with Facebook, Google, Apple,
and a handful of others, have replaced Time Warner, Bertelsmann, and
Sony as the titans of the new media age.
Yet, the temptation is to view the influence of such monopolists as
actually greater than it is – which is always the case with all monopolies. In the 1990s, the great fear was that American corporations were
leading to the “coca-colonization” of world culture;
119
yet by the end
of the decade, it was clear to figures such as Bagdikian that the cartel
was more complex, taking in Europe, Australia, and even Japan as part
of its formation.
120
Much of the content of this book has been very focussed on US examples because, for the best part of a decade, the shift
of media monopolies has been to the large American tech companies,
but this is not inevitably an enduring state of affairs: in ten years’ time,
it is very likely that at least one Chinese company will be challenging the
Big Four for media domination, and while Facebook and Google may