2023-05-12 21:10:27
The traditional mass media have enjoyed a monopoly on shaping public opinion thanks, among other things, to their historical relationships and collusions with power. In their favor, I would point out that-at least-they tended to exercise a binding and moderating capacity in said opinion, going to the extreme (as President Felipe González pointed out) of confusing public opinion with “published opinion”. The contemporary emergence of digital media and new technological operators has caused information fragmentation and has been weakening that function, causing several effects (indicated by the political scientist Arias Maldonado in “The digitization of public conversation: social networks, political affectivity and democracy” .
These effects are: a) growing radicalization, b) acceleration of fragmentation, c) increase in pluralism and d) aggressiveness in messages and forms that very often lead to “vetocratic” ways (whose greatest current exponents could be found in the “woke” movement). ”, climate fundamentalism or some feminisms). However, let us recognize that this situation was already brewing in advance.
In addition to this fragmentation effect, another one of “centrifugation” is observed in the preparation of news and communications of a political nature, leaving less room for political marketing as a tool for persuasion and dissemination.
The traditional media make the contents go through a process of digesting, preparing, packaging and offering the political system and the voters more consumable and friendly messages, giving “sense and stability to communication” due to the sieves and filters derived from their experiences, knowledge and relations with the political system. They develop agglutinating and moderating capacities, after going through “media logic” processes in such a way that the final messages ended up adapting and conforming.
In this way, in the traditional relationship between both systems (political-media), political marketing and its usual tools (newspapers, radio, TV, interviews, referrals, advertising, debates, propaganda, billboards, spots with specific messages, etc.) there was a flow that was hardly interactive, fundamentally unidirectional and in which the relevant role corresponded to experts and technicians in communication tools.
This made it possible to forge more or less stable relationships and with a certain “status-quo” where the two main actors (journalists and politicians) knew and used some rules of the game and roles that they had been granting themselves. The third actor (the citizen) participated in a more passive way.
But the irruption of digital media and, especially, the emergence of “new channels” far from large corporations (digital media, blogs, specialized websites, youtubers, influencers, etc.) has caused a disruptive cataclysm: A LOT of news, a LOT of participants , ENDLESS recipients and INCALCULABLE repercussions. And all at high speed of emission and swallowing.
This atomized, disintegrated and uncontrolled multiplicity of actors can shock and endanger the current representative democratic regimes since they are not yet prepared for a participatory-deliberative democracy, in line with the proposal by Habermas. After all, generating a lot of information and having a great deal of political-informative content activity is not synonymous with having more democracy or being more participatory.
Rather, in extreme cases, it causes excessive pluralism, both disaggregated (due to its origin and content) and divisive (because each issuer is an ideologue and journalist at the same time; issuing ideas, opinions, and ideological advances with little or no empirical support. )
It is very logical to think, therefore, that -with such a level of disintegration- traditional political marketing strategies in their phases of preparation, strategic planning, analysis of all the variables of the competitive scenario with their corresponding “ad-hoc” communications and actions For each niche of potential voters, this new way of issuing has lost relevance before. This atomized “new journalism” not only does not enrich democratic development but also (thanks to the new expansive elements provided by ICTs) could drift, as has been observed, towards “negativist” political participation, hyper-critical and hating of the politics, politicians, the media and the system in general.
And although this corrupted relationship of collusion between the traditional media and the aforementioned political system is truncated, the filter, moderation and weighting provided by the traditional media system and experts in political communication are lost.
At this point I wonder about the impact of the Internet on politics and its contribution to citizen participation and greater democratization.
Does the Internet manage to make politics less exclusive? Does it enable any citizen? Does this type of participation contribute anything? is it democratizing?
Like all open and complex questions, the answer cannot be categorical or conclusive. There are studies and analyzes that coincide in pointing out that we would be in a similar revolutionary process – saving the distances – to the repercussion that Gutenberg’s printing press had for humanity; namely: increase and proliferation of the edition and issuance of knowledge, ability to reach more people and accessibility. At that time, his “technological barrier to entry” was knowing how to read.
In our era, the Internet can mean the same thing: unlimited editing and writing capacity, immense repercussion (“viral”, like a virus) that also has its technological barrier (being a user and having a technological tool).
But in its virtues it also has its defects and problems.
In my opinion, the main one is that political information, opinion and participation are not comfortable or digestible. They are not “friendly”. That is why the handicap of the Internet is that, since politics and the political, with all its connotations, are a public good and a subject that affects all civil society, its aspects and all its derivatives are not comfortable or easy to understand (and even less still, transform them into attractive news or commentary for the rest of the public).
That is why one of the traps of the new communication, with its ease of entry and exit, transmission and reception, is that any ordinary citizen acts and interacts without obstacles, limitations and-in many cases-not even knowledge. Far from constituting a process that enables more democratization, it is becoming a process that impoverishes knowledge and political participation, as all kinds of opinions are openly disseminated without filter, reasoning, control, or empiricism. In this environment, the traditional role of the scientific, intellectual or political elites has been overshadowed or directly relegated and replaced by a series of characters who – in most cases – do not seek transcendence or contrast of ideas but rather capture “likes”. And many political professionals have fallen into this trap, looking exclusively for their moment of glory, their downloads and their “likes”. The more the better.
In this sense – and to conclude – I subscribe to the most pessimistic theses that advocate that the “spectacularization” of the policy that the media have exercised in the first place with their economic-commercial logic; secondly, the new politicians with their simplistic populism of infantiloid messages for quick consumption and finally, the proliferation of new issuers of all kinds, without any control, launching hoaxes, “fake news”, memes and all kinds of poisoning, is not being nothing beneficial for the civic sense and the political participation of the citizens. On the contrary, it causes more disaffection and boredom because most of the issues that are edited and published are “anti”, rejecting something or someone. Not to mention the harassment, insults or threats to those who disagree, no matter how well argued their opinions or well documented their theses.
We find ourselves in an ideal space for the cultivation and promotion of political and social populism, thanks to the repercussions that are achieved with this type of media activism. Through these new transmission channels, the populists display their strongest weapon, although nothing new: the constant and insistent lie and the repeated attack on their critics and on democratic and guaranteeing institutions.
It is a permanent and pounding modern guerrilla war of harassment and demolition, in which each sympathizing citizen is a militant with a weapon in his hands: his keyboard or his mobile. If we add that many have not only flesh and blood activists but also modern shadow armies (bots) and state-of-the-art technology through robots and harmful propaganda message repetition algorithms, we already have defined the battlefield.
Precisely in this battle, democracies must become stronger and demonstrate, through adequate institutions, controls and laws, their true strength, independence and stability, offering guarantees to the democratic citizen. The main weapon must continue to be the rule of law and the defense of freedoms.
But even from that the populists take advantage with attempts to turn it around, pulling accusations such as “they do not respect the popular will” or “they want to silence the voice of the helpless”.
With this they attempt new ways of attacking everything that has brought us here and that they contemptuously call “the system”: representative democracy, freedom of thought, the right to participate and decide freely, compliance with the law, respect for the authority and the legitimate powers of the State, constitutional order, freedom of opinion and respect for discrepancy.
Exactly what is intended to be destroyed, fomenting confrontations and creating discomfort through short, forceful and widely distributed messages.
In conclusion, having a speaker like the internet provides the possibility of being more read, heard or seen. But that there are many downloads does not give you more reason. The fact that there are more critical voices or organized groups with “something to say”… does not mean that they have more capacity to reach and convince.
The Internet is not a means of communication but a network.
An increasingly connected and dense network (probably also more stupid in many of its contents). That provides data, but rarely provides knowledge if you do not have filters and certain deep-rooted convictions through vital training and experience, a general culture and previous political knowledge.
Network that, instead of freeing you, can trap you.
Miguel Angel Vegas
Concerned citizen currently busy trying to make things change (starting with Zamora)
#media #war #Internet #social #networks #politics #Zamoras #Day