I first posted this on June 24, 2004 on the www.jregrassroots.org forums, then republished on August 23, 2004 on Science And Politics, then a couple of times on this blog.
Why did I decide to re-post it today?
Because I have been thinking and reading about the current state and potential future of journalism, including science journalism, and writing (still in my head) a post about it. So, I am forcing myself to go through my evolution of thinking about the topic, digging through my categories on the Media, Science Reporting, Blogging, Open Science, onlin Technology, etc. and this essay was the first time I ever wrote on anything related to this topic.
It is interesting to me, first, how my writing got better over the years. Then, it is interesting to see where I was prophetic, where I was over-optimistic, and where I was just plain wrong. Then I can start thinking about the way my ideas have evolved over time and what precipitated that evolution. I hope you also find it thought-provoking (especially the new readers) - under the fold:
In the beginning there were grunts, tom-tom drums, smoke signals, and the guy on the horse riding from village to village reading the latest King's Edict. That is Phase I in the evolution of media.
Phase II was ushered in by Gutenberg. Remember the beginning of Protestantism? Luther nailing copies of his pamhlet on the doors? That was also the beginning of the first great Universities, such as those in Genoa, Padua and Firenza. That was the first time in history when literacy started spreading from clergy to all the others: professional classes, ruling classes, and beyond.
It took a couple of more centuries, and the Industrial Revolution, before the Phase III kicked in - the invention of the daily newspaper! Another century passed before radio was invented, followed by television another half-century later. This Phase is the time of the real "media". What are the crucial aspects of the media?
First, it is expensive to produce for a mass market. Beyond entertaining a couple of dozen closest friends, neighbors and relatives, one needs a lot of money to finance a widely-read newspaper or a popular radio show or TV show. Thus, media business is inherently un-democratic. Only people with substantial amounts of money can afford to run a media outlet. Throughout history, including today, people with money can and do buy political influence. Thus, the media is the voice of the ruling class.
Second, media is one-way communication. The owner of the media makes news, while the silent masses are recievers. Sure, you can try to write a letter to the editor, but remember it has to be short, you cannot complain it is further cut and edited, and forget seeing it in print if you write something that the owner does not like to be widely known. You can try calling a radio call-in show, but you will be screened. If you manage to get on, you can have a couple of sentences, then you will be ridiculed by the host. You can sign up to be on "Jenny Jones" show if that's your liking. Or you can send a letter to the producer of the TV show, a letter which, even if it is read, will have absolutely zero influence on the future installments of the same show. Give up, the media is one-way, and all pretense to the contrary is just that - a pretense.
Phase IV begins with the invention of the Internet. Major media outlets start making online editions. In some very rare cases, there may be a way to post a comment on some hard-to-find link to the forum that nobody reads. It is still one-way top-down media, technology notwithstanding.
Enter the blog. There seem to be millions of blogs out there. Have you tried to sample them? Most of them are written by illiterate teenagers about their angst, boring people post what they had for breakfast, lost souls with deep existential problems and low self-esteem write New Agey mystical nonsense. And of course, there are superstars: the political commentators, the likes of Drudge, Instapundit, Daniel Drezner, Mickey Kaus, or Wonkette. Mini-celebrities!
How do their blogs look like? Well, they are the owners. Many do not allow comments. The others may have a small link to "comments". If you click on that you'll recoil in horror at the level of discourse there. If you try to post something intelligent, you'll realize that your post is limited to 100-200 words. After a couple of days, when you check back in, you realize that your effort was for nothing - nobody read your comment except some weirdo who used profanity as the sole commentary on your work. Thus, these blogs are just like the main media - one-way, top-down communication.
Sure, some of the blog owners are smart, educated and informed, and they all are good writers. They like to think about themselves as revolutionaries against the mainstream media, but they ARE the mainstream media. The only difference between Paul Krugman and Atrios is that the former has an office at the New York Times, a salary and a health-care plan, while the other has to keep his day job. The former has deadlines, the latter does not, the former has an editor, the latter does not, the former sees his name printed on paper as well as online, the latter is just online. Otherwise, both can be trusted to provide information and interesting commentary, but you read both with a healthy dose of scepticism, too. Recently, some of them realized they can make money, either by selling their souls to the mainstream media, or by buying blogads. My friend Henry Copeland, the main provider of blogads, is getting rich fast. He used to be my neighbor - he has moved now to a much bigger house.
Phase V begins in summer 2003. Professional demonstrators, anti-war and anti-globalization crowd already well versed in online organizing, are looking for a Democratic candidate to beat Bush. They look for one who has a blog. They find the only one is Howard Dean. They all flock there and start posting THEIR, quite extreme leftist views there. Dean, much more centrist than that, gets intrigued and starts reading the blog. Being an Internet novice (as well as a relative political novice) he allowed the bloggers to shape his agenda.
Campaign managers, just like all the candidates, are all political dinosaurs, born and raised in the previous political era. They barely know how to plug in a computer. Yet, they see how much money Dean is raking in online, and they decide to start blogs, too. That is the beginning of a new era in politics. Thousands, perhaps millions of Americans, for the first time in their lives, start using the Internet for more than just reading the weather report. Dean blog is soon matched in size and activity by Kerry blog, Edwards blog, Clark blog, even Gephard had a few people blogging on his website.
Most of the people logging in daily for their dose of blogging are comparative political novices. Many, to this day, do not know if Slate or The New Republic do or do not have print editions on newsstands. The same poster may provide a link to a NYT article and an Oliver Willis article. The difference between mainstream media and online media (the first generation old-style bloggers) is gone. The professional bloggers now ARE mainstream media.
The new bloggers, the Democratic primaries activists, have redefined blogging, as well as redefined the very definitions of the words "blog", "blogger" and "blogging". Blogging does not mean owning an online diary any more. Blogging means meeting the like-minded people online, exchanging information, and co-ordinating political action to be executed in the real world, offline.
Blogging inspired people to go canvassing in Iowa and New Hampshire. This is the way to exhange information about online polls, to energize each other to write thousands of e-mails to media outlets and elected politicians. Every time Adam Nagourney writes one of his un-professional slander-pieces in the NYT, his editors receive not dozens, but thousands of protest letters. Does that make them think? I bet the busiest server this year is the one that holds the e-mail inbox of Terry McAuliffe. I bet he has received at least tens of thousands of angry e-mails from Americans protesting the primary calendar which disenfrenchised more than half of the nation's primary voters and resulted in less-than optimal nominee.
What's next? It's already happenning. MoveOn.org, supporting Fahrenheit 911, thousands of letters to elected officials protesting touch-screen technology, almost instantenious spread of information across the country about new petitions, online polls, important news and editorials, letter-writing efforts. The political landscape is quickly changing as people are taking the action in their own hands. I bet there will be millions of people coming out of their homes on election night after the winner is announced, either to cheer for Kerry victory, or to protest the repeat of election theft by Bush. If Bush gets elected, the power of the Internet will really come to the fore. Demonstrators, letter writers, and petition signers, counted in millions, will give the Congressmen courage and power to start the impeachment proceedings against the whole Bush mafia. A few months later, with the Bushies in jail (Abu Ghraib sounds like an appropriate place), how do you think that will affect the blogosphere? Only then will the people of America really realize the huge potential they have to shape the American politics with enormous consequences. Ane the elected officals will learn that, too.
What will that mean in the future? Elected officials will, on one hand, have lobbyists and other big donors pumping money for their re-election campaigns and TV ads. On the other hand, the people elect them, and now their constituents have the power to tell them, in no uncertain terms in thousands of daily e-mails, what they think. The politicians will soon realize that their constituencies are watching their every move, speech and vote, voicing their opinions, and organizing swiftly to mete out the consequences. Who is the politician going to listen to: the rich donors, or the people who elect them? No brainer. This is the beginning of people's democracy in America.
Fast-forward another 10 years or so. Instead of 50%, the full 100% of Americans have online access. Several years of experience in deciding elections, as well as specific political issues, will energize the population. Instead of apathy due to dis-illusionment with the process, there will be millions of people aware that they CAN make a difference. Millions of people will log in every day and voice their opinions about a piece of legislation and woe to the Congressman who votes against the will of his constituents. So, what are the politicans for, if they are forced to listen to their constituents all the time. They will become more and more dispensible, as the system shifts from representative towards direct democracy. This is the first time in history when the technology allows teh entire population to participate in every decision, at every level of government.
So, one day in the future, Congress will be disbanded. Legislative business will happen online. Anybody can write and propose a piece of legislation by posting it online. Over a number of days, as lawyers change the wording to be more precise, various experts write their predictions about consequences, intended and unintended, of the law, millions of people chiming in with their opinions, the legislation will assume its final form and will be open for voting. After a few hours or day, when the online voting is closed, it either becomes the law or it does not. If there is such a thing as a President any more, that person's job is quite ceremonial - to sign on the laws crafted, discussed and voted for by the people of America.
Do you think the USA will ever wage a war again? I bet not. Do you think that the rich guys will get all the neat tax-cuts and loopholes? I don't think so. Do you think the Pentagon will keep getting all that money? Oh, no - that kind of money can be used much better for education, eradication of poverty, universal health care, environmental protection, building of infrastructure, creating jobs, aiding poor countries, investing in medical research, etc. The American people will pick and choose their own Supreme Court judges, as well as Ambassadors to foreigh countries - if you are ineterested in the position, just post your Resume online.
What will happen to political parties? GOP will die first. It is too dependent on top-down party discipline and manufacture of lies and Orwellian language by think-tanks. A party that depends on lies for its survival cannot survive open discourse. The Democratic party will, at first, be able to reform itself to accommodate the early changes in the political landscape. The party apparatchicks and career politicians will be pushed aside and replaced by grassroots leaders. Yet, in the end, with direct democratic involvement of the whole population, there will be no need for political parties and they will all dissolve. Online communities will form around a particular issue (often local) and dissolve once the issue is resolved. Organizing will be much more fluid and temporary.
Is this going to be good or bad? Right now, the liberals have an upper hand online. But it is to be expected that extremist zealots of all stripes and colors will be the most active participants in the daily politicking of the nation. The leftists and the rightists will, to some extent, neutralize each other. Still, most of Americans are rational intelligent people, and will quickly log on whenever their friends warn them that something fanatical is being proposed and the sheer numbers of regular sane folks will always be able to over-rule the minority extremists. Right now, extremists are most likely to expend vast amounts of energy in political activism, but in the future, it will take only a couple of minutes and a couple of clicks of the mouse for the regular folks to respond with rhyme and reason - it will not take too much time or energy away from peoples' jobs, families or leisure.
What a future!
- Log in to post comments
I think you're right on. Not only are you prescient, you're downright prophetic. That is, up until the part about Congress disbanding. As John Dewey famously stated, "As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance." Now, if we were to start making business decisions in Web 2.0 (even if it was as limited as having employees vote for their boss online or twittering their input to the Board during stock holder meetings) perhaps then we would see fundamental change in our political system. But so long as we continue to focus our energy on the shadow we will find ourselves excluded, even if we are able witness the erosion of our freedoms in real time. We have a terrific tool at our fingertips but, until we use that tool to dismantle the entrenched structures of power and control, we might as well be writing "OMG! I saw Rahm Emmanuel on Larry King last night. He looked SOOOOOO fat. BTW, what's all this about privatizing water?"
Interesting. As in "may you live interesting times" ;-)
But what intrigues me is the bit about "thousands of letters to elected officials protesting touch-screen technology". What are you talking about? As can be deduced from my nick, I'm an HCI buff so the theme interests me quite a bit and I would like to know more about this thing. Could you give me more info about this protest, why is was done and such?
That was about Diebold voting machines to be used in the 2004 election.
The congress may well be dismissed one day but it will be by your "president," not by the geeks of the world. Nor would you wish to abolish the congress: it would be extreme. The only way to avoid extremism is to muddle along.
I somehow don't believe representatives are going to give up their power so easily. I do, however, think direct law making by citizens will become more prevalent. Already about half the states allow laws by initiative, but the other half no, and nothing exists at the federal level. I liken this to the age when women or non-white people could not vote. Not being able to propose a law directly is a form of incomplete suffrage. There is hope though. There are proposals on the table such as The National Initiative (ni4d.us) which aim at giving people the right to make initiatives at all levels of government. With such a system in place, people could do exactly what you you've wrote about. I don't know if people would vote to eliminate congress, congress certainly deals with a lot of nitty gritty stuff, but the popular decisions could certainly move to the people.
I agree that the National Initiative is a better plan than pure democracy. A kind of hybrid democracy with the people writing some laws and Congress writing the rest would provide some much-needed checks and balances. On the one hand, there will not be complete "mob rule" by the people. On the other hand, legislators will be kept in check by the ability of the people to hold them accountable.