Citizens 153
remain the largest disseminators of information across the globe, the
ways in which individuals in very different countries make use of them
can vary enormously.
Before considering a single example of this participation between citizens and journalists in a manner that is not dictated by cynical consumerist demands, it is worth returning briefly returning to some of the
themes and issues regarding the relations between digital media, the
public sphere, and citizen journalists that were explored in the introduction. In particular, the gap between the optimism that was often on
display from commentators in the 1990s and what is more frequently
witnessed today is worth considering. Figures such as Sclove, Dahlberg,
and Moore, even if they were sometimes critical of the role that the Internet had to play in the transmission of public goods, seemed to have
been affected by the opening of new communication channels outside
of mainstream media that coincided with the view, in the words of
Held, that “democracy has become the fundamental standard of political legitimacy in the current era”.
121
A mere 20 years later and the end
of history as a triumph of liberal democracy as envisaged by Fukuyama
seem much less certain. Criticism of the democratic potential of digital
technologies – which increasingly begins to appear as a deficit – is commonplace and, in her recent study of the public sphere in China, Ya-Wen
Lei describes a much more contentious space that is often (although not
always) controlled by the authorities, a state of affairs that will only
become more significant as the power of China extends across the international stage.
122
As Balnaves and Willson observe, one reason for
a sense of dissatisfaction may ultimately stem from extremely positive
demographic changes in online usage: early Internet users were more
homogeneous – overwhelmingly white males, usually younger – and
part of the challenging discourse online today stems from the fact that
digital media is much more diverse.
123
Nonetheless, if the form of the
public sphere celebrated by Habermas was liberal, that encountered online today is more frequently described by critics as a neoliberal space.
Such views, however, should be tempered by the recollection that,
aside perhaps from a brief interlude in its initial form, the public sphere
was always subject to interference by powerful organisations, typically
governments in the earlier stages then commercial entities later. While
people focus on the coffee shops and salons, Habermas himself is more
concerned in his book with the structural transformation of that early
space into something more suitable for the commercial and political requirements of organised elites, something that could better display the
“Janus face of enlightenment and control”.
124
My argument throughout this book has often been that control and neoliberal greed for profits has gained the upper hand in the public sphere, creating new, even
more powerful tech monopolies: yet, the face of technology is always
double-sided, providing potential enlightenment as well as control.
remain the largest disseminators of information across the globe, the
ways in which individuals in very different countries make use of them
can vary enormously.
Before considering a single example of this participation between citizens and journalists in a manner that is not dictated by cynical consumerist demands, it is worth returning briefly returning to some of the
themes and issues regarding the relations between digital media, the
public sphere, and citizen journalists that were explored in the introduction. In particular, the gap between the optimism that was often on
display from commentators in the 1990s and what is more frequently
witnessed today is worth considering. Figures such as Sclove, Dahlberg,
and Moore, even if they were sometimes critical of the role that the Internet had to play in the transmission of public goods, seemed to have
been affected by the opening of new communication channels outside
of mainstream media that coincided with the view, in the words of
Held, that “democracy has become the fundamental standard of political legitimacy in the current era”.
121
A mere 20 years later and the end
of history as a triumph of liberal democracy as envisaged by Fukuyama
seem much less certain. Criticism of the democratic potential of digital
technologies – which increasingly begins to appear as a deficit – is commonplace and, in her recent study of the public sphere in China, Ya-Wen
Lei describes a much more contentious space that is often (although not
always) controlled by the authorities, a state of affairs that will only
become more significant as the power of China extends across the international stage.
122
As Balnaves and Willson observe, one reason for
a sense of dissatisfaction may ultimately stem from extremely positive
demographic changes in online usage: early Internet users were more
homogeneous – overwhelmingly white males, usually younger – and
part of the challenging discourse online today stems from the fact that
digital media is much more diverse.
123
Nonetheless, if the form of the
public sphere celebrated by Habermas was liberal, that encountered online today is more frequently described by critics as a neoliberal space.
Such views, however, should be tempered by the recollection that,
aside perhaps from a brief interlude in its initial form, the public sphere
was always subject to interference by powerful organisations, typically
governments in the earlier stages then commercial entities later. While
people focus on the coffee shops and salons, Habermas himself is more
concerned in his book with the structural transformation of that early
space into something more suitable for the commercial and political requirements of organised elites, something that could better display the
“Janus face of enlightenment and control”.
124
My argument throughout this book has often been that control and neoliberal greed for profits has gained the upper hand in the public sphere, creating new, even
more powerful tech monopolies: yet, the face of technology is always
double-sided, providing potential enlightenment as well as control.