Saturday, October 16, 2010

The role and importance of Listening in online communities


Listening is a key element in building and maintaining diverse, informed and engaged online communities. Virtual communities play a central role in modeling behaviors and best practices for citizens to participate in a healthy and thriving democracy.

If people are given the proper education to function in our virtual worlds - and they're informed about how to build and participate in healthy online communities - we can empower principled centered people and businesses to locate data,  interpret it, create meaning, and disseminate relevant knowledge.

In order to achieve this a solid education in new media literacy, including an equal emphasis on listening to speaking in our virtual worlds, is critical. Only then can citizens empower themselves to help shape collective reality of the masses.

In the book Listening, Wolven and Coakley outline that factors that influence the quality and effectiveness of the communication process include variables such as skill, knowledge, attitudes, frame of reference, message structure and context, language code and symbolism, channel selection and environment.

William and Coakley lay out a compelling argument that listening is undervalued, under taught, and little understood in reference to its importance in the communication process and the shaping of the self and community (William and Coakley, 1996). I agree with their assessment and further assert that research around these subjects is even sparser in relation to communicating in virtual communities.

One can view the role of the “speaker” in virtual communities as the person posting the link to a form of media, or status update containing some thought or opinion. The role of the “listener” comes into play when you attempt to disseminate and make sense of the information shared in your virtual communication networks and communities.

I agree with many communication scholars who assert the subjugation of the role of the listener to the role of the speaker in the communication process is more harmful than ever, especially online. 

Our physical world is increasingly integrated with our virtual world. People are doing more things, and spending more time on the Internet. We are constantly bombarded with information presented on various media platforms that are shared in our virtual networks online. It is harder than ever to confirm the validity or relevance of much of this data.

For example, advertising is targeted to our personal Facebook pages that are specifically tailored to our individual tastes, based off information mined from our online habits. Further, we are exposure to a world where an abundance of information and ideas are spread virally and much of this data is untested, unverified, or flat out false.

It is critical that listeners take responsibility for filtering, and making sense of all this data so they can make informed decisions for their life. They must help construct meaning and reality for the masses and protect and cultivate democracy.

In this effort, one cannot underestimate the power of our virtual communities, (such as Facebook or Twitter), and the role they play in the spread of ideas, information and meaning creation.

In the article Listening and Community: The Role of Listening in Community Formation, Michael Purdy highlights how communities form around what we have in common with others in our group and “through listening we interpret, share in and give personal meaning to that commonality. We also help create and shape the essence of the community in the interpretive process of listening.”

The role that community serves in teaching us who we are, and what our role in society is, cannot be understated. Purdy goes onto make a compelling case for the need to equalize the role of speaker and listener in Western culture in order to empower proactive, informed, critical citizens rather than cultivate a public dependent on the authority of the speaker (Purdy).

I believe this theory to be especially salient when considering how the nature of communication is changing in the new online media age. On the Internet, it’s possible to find a group for dog lovers who like to Tango, or bikers who enjoy knitting which is what makes online communities so compelling. People are better able to identify and interact with like-minded individuals and form communities around common interests. 

Having common interests does not mean having the same political, spiritual, or other like qualities. We are exposed to more viewpoints and perspectives than ever before in human history.

The role of the listener in this environment is to filter through the barrage of data and stimuli we encounter on the Internet and interpret, discover meaning, and disseminate relevant knowledge, as well as expose and admonish inaccurate or misleading data.

Works Cited
Purdy, Michael. "Listening and Community: The Role of Listeing in Community Formation." Journal of the Internatinal Listening Association: 51-67. Print.
Wolvin, Andrew D. Listening. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 1996. Print

Reclaiming reality: Online Interactive Multiplatform Media puts people in the drivers seat

Welcome to the revolution. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, will require you to responsibly engage in the evolution of the massive interactive media landscape.


Online interactive multi-platform media has changed the way we consume, create and disseminate information. New media platforms and tools are developed daily. More people have access to publish and participate in information architecture than ever before.


People formerly known as “the audience” have annihilated the linear flow of information. They are now creators of content; governments, institutions, corporations and legacy media conglomerates are losing control of shaping our reality. Individuals are connected to massive interpersonal virtual networks, which often lead to face-to-face relationships.


This media revolution is not without challenges. We now worry about identity and privacy in ways we never conceived before. We struggle to organize the massive amount of information we’re exposed to, and filter out credible content from the noise. The people formerly known as the audience have yet to realize the power they now share over shaping reality for the masses.


All of this begs the question: Does online interactive multi-platform media make information and society more democratic? If so, is this good or bad?


I decided to include my online social media networks on Twitter and Facebook in my research and recently asked their opinion on whether or not online interactive media makes information and society more democratic. Overnight I collected nearly 50 replies to my inquiry.


One commenter responded, "It certainly does democratize information. I have stopped watching news for the most part - and absolutely stopped watching the local News at 9. Political campaigns, citizen journalism, consumerism, reviews, meeting people, creation of ads and creative ideas - all open, conversational, searchable and free."


The Internet has become a space where information runs free. In the book Cyber-Culture Pierre Levy sees the World Wide Web as an open, flexible, and dynamic information environment, which allows human beings to develop a new orientation to knowledge, and thereby, engage in a more interactive, community-based-, democratic world of mutual sharing and empowerment. The Internet provides virtual meeting places that expand social networks, create new possibilities for knowledge, and provide for a sharing of perspectives worldwide (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008).


In order to understand what this means and why its important to making information and society more democratic, it helps to know how media has evolved. Mark Poster published a landmark book, The Second Media Age, which heralded a new period in which interactive technologies and network communications, particularly the Internet, would transform society. This theory challenges the way we consider media as "mass" communication to instead consider that it is an expansive variety of media and can be quit broad or very personal in scope. New Media theory reevaluates media use, showing that if can be individualized information, and acquisition to interaction. It also renewed interest in characteristics of the dissemination of media and broadcast media (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008).


New Media theory breaks the evolution of media into two ages. The first media age was said to be characterized by 1) centralized production (one to many); 2) one-way communication; 3) state control, for the most part; 4) the reproduction of social stratification and inequity through the media; 5) fragmented mass audiences; and 6) the shaping of social consciousness (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008).


The first media age was more on the critical side of the epistemological continuum. Institutions, and dominant ideologies communicated reality to the media. The media then communicated that reality to segmented audiences, in a one-to-many linear model. Audiences based their idea of reality off of the messages they received from the media, as dictated by institutions and dominant ideology, thereby shaping social consciousness.


In this age, citizens had little power to influence the media and institutions, save a rare letter to the editor making it into the newspaper, or discussions with friends about bad service from a company, or bad even bad decisions in government.


The second media age is more on the practical side of the epistemological continuum. It's more democratic; information flows two ways, and is more individualized. We have more opportunities to disseminate messages from the media and interact with our interpersonal networks to decide how what we're hearing measures up to our reality, and the reality of those we interact with online, and in face to face interactions.


The second media age is described as: 1) decentralized; 2) two way; 3) beyond state control; 4) democratizing; 5) promoting individual consciousness; and 6) individually orientated (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008).


In this age, people are informed about the new health care law and lawsuit from a variety of sources; the government, businesses, institutions, media, and their virtual and physical interpersonal networks. According to New Media Theory, you have the ability to educate them with what you know, and possibly influence their opinion. You and they have a say in shaping reality. You share, interact and create various forms of media, mixing, matching, recycling, and innovating. People are participating in this process of information creation and sharing at an unprecedented level.


To illustrate what this looks like, I’ll use a recent example from my online community. I received an email via Facebook from Daniella, a fellow student at BSU, who was upset about an article she read that a friend had posted to Facebook. It was the night that President Obama signed the health care reform bill into law. People were posting links to CSPAN so that folks could watch the debate in the Senate live. They posted news articles, podcasts, opinion polls, blogs and various other forms of media that gave information or weighed in on the Health Care debate.


Facebook and Twitter were both teaming with people talking about it, debating what it meant, and trying to figure our what to do about it. The article Daniella was upset over was a news article explaining that Idaho was preparing to sue the federal government over the new health care law on the basis it was against States rights to demand every citizen purchase health care.


Her email asked me, "Can we do something about this? Spread the word? Have a protest? I'm extremely shocked by this and I feel like something needs to be done." She posted a link to an article in her email.


I have only met Daniella once in person; we met because she used to date one of my employees. We rarely talk online, so I was surprised that she reached out to me on Facebook, but happy to offer my opinion on what she could do.


I wrote her a rather lengthy reply outlining different action items I thought she might try. I encouraged her to be informed on the issues she wishes to protest by organizing a public discussion with experts who can provide context about how health care reform and the lawsuit will impact citizens. I advised her to reach out the community and find allies who would want to organize with her. I pointed out various forms of media she can use to reach the community, the government and the media and explained how she could make this process interactive, to involve the most amount of people as possible.


I then posted her email, (which included a link to the article about the lawsuit) along with my reply to my blog and asked my social network to weigh in on her thoughts and my response. I tagged local politicians, journalists, activist, business owners and students in the blog – people I thought would give a broad perspective on the issue, or might be interested in helping the student organize.


The blog on Facebook accumulated 15 replies from my social network, some in support of the lawsuit and others shared the Daniella;s concerns. Some talked about how the new health care law was unconstitutional, others pointed out how dominate culture was afraid of this bill because it would mean more marginalized people would be healthy, and therefore, better able to participate in our democracy. Some clarified what the bill would and wouldn’t do. Others offered to help the student organize an informational debate, and if needed, a protest. A few posted links to various forms of media that offered more information about the health care law and the lawsuit.


In addition to my Facebook community, I also asked my Twitter community to see if there were folks who wanted to help this student organize. One local online media outlet, Idaho Reporter responded, informing me that the American Association of Retired Persons was strongly opposed to the lawsuit and may be interested in organizing something with the student. Idaho Reporter asked that if I learn that this student is able to organize a protest that I tell them because they could, "use the news tip."


Daniella emailed me back that evening and said she would begin the process of educating herself more on the issues so that she could determine what to do next. She wrote me again a few days later to say she had networked with fellow students and professors and was excited to be taking action on addressing her concerns. The experience of interacting with her online community about a news article she read online empowered her to take action.


I believe this series of events illustrates how interactive multi-platform media is making information and society more democratic. In the first media age this student may have read the article in the newspaper, and never been exposed to as many views on the issue through the discussions that took place on Facebook. She might not have been as easily connected to fellow activists, the media, etc., to ensure her voice was heard. She may not have felt access to the resources she needs to take action were so readily available, some were just one "friend request" away.


According to New Media theory, the second media age may provide openness and flexibility of use, but it can also lead to confusion and chaos. Although it has an abundant amount of information, it lacks structure and order, and can lead to division and separation (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008).


I witnessed examples of this that night on Facebook and Twitter as well. People posting blogs claiming Armageddon had begun, and calling President Obama the anti-Christ. One person commented on a question I posted about the health care reform saying that they hoped the people that vote for it die. On the whole, I’d guess that the information and rhetoric on Facebook over the new health care law about 30% credible information, and 70% unconstructive rhetoric. So if interactive multi-platform media does indeed make information and society more democratic, one has to wonder if that is a good or bad thing, given those numbers.


According to New Media theory, in the first media age, reality is dictated to the audience by institutions and the media. The second media age promotes more individual conciseness, access to alternative opinions, more interaction - the audience has more say in what reality is. We share the drivers seat with governments, corporations, and institutions in shaping reality.


Does interactive multi-platform media give us the ability to dictate reality to dominate culture and institutions, or does it give them more tools to assimilate us into its reality? One man shared his observations about how the health care law was being marketed to the masses by some leadership in America. He said, "The leadership of our country who are in opposition to this bill have never had to worry about health insurance. They have tapped into a base of people with health and other issues and have demonized Obama, liberals, progressives, underrepresented groups, etc. and generated hate and confusion."


bell hooks's would say that we must take responsibility for combating that message. In her Critique of Media, hooks advocates for the use of communication to disrupt and eradicate the ideology of domination - what she refers to as white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.


For hooks, media is not the one to blame for our oppression. We are. Even those individuals who are marginalized or oppressed; in fact, they have even more of a responsibility to challenge oppression and bring about "the possibility of radical perspective from which to see and create, to imagine alternatives, new worlds" (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008).


Daniella’s exchange with me would indicate she felt oppressed. She felt powerless. "It isn't fair for us residents living in the state of Idaho, to have absolutely no say about the law against this health reform. I was never informed that I had an option to sign against this, and now because of it, Idaho now has the possibility of not attaining health insurance? When was this signed and how come none of us had a say in this?”


Daniella also expressed that she wanted to do something about it. Because of interactive multi-platform media, Daniella now has access greater access to the resources she needs in order to get answers to her questions and let the government know what action she wants to take. She indicated that she feels empowered by the knowledge that there are others in her virtual and real interpersonal network that feel like her, and also want to take action.


hooks wants us to take responsibility for our oppression, and, like Daniella, take action. She wants us to challenge our assumption. She wants us to question the reality and face the oppression that marginalized groups internalize because it is projected to us incessantly by the media. In other words, she wants us to engage in decolonization, which involves critical, analytic, and strategic creation of alternative models of non-dominate reality; hooks proposes two forms of decolonization - critique and invention (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008).


I believe a platform in which we can evaluate our assumptions, question dominant culture, and plant and nourish possible alternatives is in the new interactive multi-platform media landscape, and the networks we create as we build them. We can reject the reality that is forced upon us, like Daniella and those who are organizing now with her (that she met on Facebook) are doing.


To hooks, critique is crucial because of the pervasiveness of the media: "the politics of domination inform the way the vast majority of images we consume are constructed and marketed." When television is on, whites "are always with us, their voices, values and beliefs echoing in our brains. It is the constant presence of the colonizing mindset passively consumed that undermines our capacity to resist" (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008).


One blog commenter on Daniella's letter touched on this concept as he addressed his feelings about the new health care law, and why many in the elite class oppose it.


"Lets go beyond the rhetoric and be honest...this bill means more health among people from marginalized groups, which means they will be able to participate more, which means we are moving to a more representative government...which will mean people who look like, worship like, think like, shoot like, and F*CK like Dick Cheney and George Bush don't get to make all the decisions from everyone."


The second key to decolonization, according to hooks, is invention of non-dominating cultural forms. The primary means for creating such forms is through enactment, or living and acting as non-dominating and non-exploitative ways in ones own life. hooks wants us to examine our individual media choices, and lifestyle. She believes decolonization is a thoroughly personal and personalizing process enacted in everyday life (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008).


This is what I think social media provides us. The opportunity to escape what institutions, the government and the media tell us is beautiful, moral, successful, normal, etc., and build networks of people with whom we can identify, without having to completely assimilate. Through our online interpersonal networks we can locate and communicate with a vast diversity of people, who engage and share information and perspectives.


As one member of my Facebook community pointed out it, "[social media] challenges my sense of place in the world, open my eyes to other perspectives, challenge my world view, etc. And for sure it has increased my awareness of news/events."


New Media Theory tells us that we help shape reality. Bell hooks Critique of Media says we are not only can, and do contribute to reality, but we must do so in a way that frees us from oppression, both obvious and unexamined. Because of this, I believe interactive mulit-platform media does indeed democratize information and help shape society. And this can be a good or bad thing, depending on how audience puts this power to use.


As I stated earlier, the online interactive multi-platform media revolution is not without challenges. Our role is to be informed, active and engaged so that we are better able to shape reality and participate in a meaningful way.


In my view, Daniella accepted her part in the new media revolution and the responsibility that comes with it when she said, “I need to become more educated on this issue to really know what is going on. I want to educate others and myself about the legalities of this reform. I want to hear both sides and understand why they are defending [their perspectives]."


The question remains, will we all?


Works Cited

Littlejohn, Stephen W., and Karen A. Foss. Theories of Human Communication. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2008. Print.

Informed, Empowered, and Engaged: Introducing 21st Century Citizens to the Information Age.

In 2009, Pew Research Center – Internet and American Life Project, released a study titled, The Impact of the Internet on Institutions in the Future. 895 technology stakeholders and critics participated in the online, opt-in survey. Pew found 72% of the total sample agrees that by 2020, innovative forms of online cooperation will result in significantly more efficient and responsive governments, businesses, non-profits, and other mainstream institutions.


These predictions are optimistic, and must be viewed alongside their risks and challenges. Jim Witte, director, Center for Social Science Research at George Mason University, told Pew:


Social, political and economic organizations will become increasingly responsive. But the target of that responsiveness will be the online citizenry. Increasing commercialization and intellectualization of content and tools will deepen the class-based digital divide. In many forums – social and economic as well as political – public opinion expressed through technology will have a louder voice. As democratic as this sounds, it may also leave those who are not online with no voice whatsoever (Anderson).


Lack of access to media production tools, the Internet, and an education that emphasizes critical thinking skills will spell disaster for people all around the world if not addressed. This fact has been widely acknowledged by the United States Department of Education. In 2003 they released a study called Benefits of Technology Use. According to the study,


"In 1992, the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills focused the nations attention on the fact that more than half of all high school students leave school without the problem-solving and reasoning skills necessary to find and advance in a good job. Fortunately, teachers have found that interactive educational technology is an invaluable ally in moving all students beyond the basic skills. Access to computer-generated simulations, videodiscs, the Internet, and software on CD-ROM offers students experiences available nowhere else--experiences students need for the 21st Century. In fact, students with extensive access to technology learn how to organize complex information, recognize patterns, draw inferences, and communicate findings. Not surprisingly, they exhibit superior organizational and problem solving skills as compared to students in more traditional high school programs." http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/national/benefits.html


Knowing this highlights the importance of helping educators and parents get the training they need to seamlessly integrate technology use in the classroom, and at home, without students having to take a specialized media literacy class (although that would be ideal).


This reality is not only for First World citizens; people all over the globe are beginning to benefit from 21st Century tools and education. Efforts are currently underway to inexpensive and easily accessible tools and technology can be integrated into marginalized and under represented groups of people in America and abroad.


One such effort is taking place in Africa. The Millennium Cities Initiative (MCI), the Millennium Villages Project (MVP) and CyberSmart! Africa, an education NGO that provides teacher training and related ICT interventions designed to narrow the learning divide between Africa and the developed world, are presently integrating technology in schools in Africa to help narrow the digital divide. According to a blog written by Susan Blaustein for the Earth Institute at Columbia University:


MCI, MVP and CyberSmart! Africa have partnered in both Louga, Senegal, and in the nearby rural community of Leona, to provide teacher training and technology solutions that have the promise to be inexpensively and easily replicated in all schools – requiring minimal, if any, infrastructure investment. CyberSmart! Introduced an individualized 21st century learning tool – the Livescribe Pulse Smartpen. This SmartPen represents an eye opening learning intervention in a world where technology integration has always been associated with installing expensive school computer labs, and learning ICT skills, which often have little bearing on everyday teaching and learning activities.

The SmartPen records and links audio to what is written in a special ‘dot paper’ notebook. Then, after touching the pen tip to whatever was written, the linked audio plays back though the pen’s speaker or plug-in earphones. The power of the rechargeable SmartPen lies in its ability to simultaneously combine four ways of learning – reading, writing, speaking and listening (Blaustein).


According to the article, all aspects of this program correlate to 21st-century teaching and learning standards adopted by UNESCO and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).


The ripple effect of this initiative taking place in Africa is tremendous. The variety of inimitable, low-cost Internet Computer Technology tools – including the SmartPen – can be molded to suit specific needs of underprivileged communities. Success can be replicated, as teachers are better able to collaborate and share information with each other globally. The cost of the technology is getting cheaper and access to it is growing more available (Blaustein).


There are of course many challenges ahead, but the 21st Century holds limitless opportunity for marginalized and oppressed groups of people to engage more fully in the global marketplace of ideas and commerce.




Works Cited

Anderson, Jana. "The Impact of the Internet on Institutions in the Future | Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project." Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project. Pew Research Center, 31 Mar. 2010. Web. 26 Sept. 2010. .

Blaustein, Susan. "Fostering 21st Century Learning in Sub-Saharan Africa." Weblog post. Stsate of the Planet: Blogs from The Earth Institute. The Earth Institute at Columbia University, 07 July 2010. Web. 24 Sept. 2010. .

"Archived: National Educational Technology." U.S. Department of Education. 23 Sept. 2003. Web. 26 Sept. 2010.


Free the Press: Why media has failed democracy and must liberate itself from advertising

Legacy media failed democracy. It surrendered its place as a forum for free speech and the dissemination of ideas to lap at the feet of corporate and government masters. There are many examples from the War on Terror that demonstrate how the government has turned the media into a propaganda machine, used for the promotion of its economic interests to create a more expansive, imperialistic, war-hungry nation.


The only solution is to find a way to free the press from slaving for advertising revenue. Journalists and the free press must also learn to harness the Internet as a way to virally spread news, culture and ideas and create intelligent discourse, as a healthy democracy requires. Only then can it serve as a watchdog for the people, a check on corporate or government malfeasance, and a challenge to national ideological narratives.


There are multiple reasons for the current crisis in journalism. One: the power-elite manipulate the media, telling Americans what issues to think about and how to think about them, garnering support for policies directly supporting the interests of the ruling class. They do this in part by using “binary constructs” such as “war on terror” which suggest America is locked in a moral war of good vs. evil, and it's simple really: we are the good guys and there is no middle ground. We are on the side of God and therefore anything we do is ordained by the almighty. Many Americans are incapable of seeing the world from any perspective that violates this national narrative (Conroy, Hansen, 51).


Media confirms it by failing to provide contexts for events such as the 9-11 terrorist attacks, parroting the government’s pro-American rhetoric. Nearly eight years later, Americans are still asking, “Why do they hate us?” This is evidence our media system is dangerously flawed and undemocratic.


People and institutions with power capitalize on media routines and its dependence on official sources to enslave it. The nature of the 24-hour news cycle and pressure for journalists to deliver information on multiple platforms at a quicker pace makes them rely on press releases, prefabricated video, graphics and multimedia as well as official government and corporate sources to give their work credibility and to meet deadline requirements.


The media industries dependence on advertising revenue makes it beholden to the almighty dollar, rather than the democracy it’s meant to serve. It rarely questions the status quo or ruling class because that would challenge the worldview and economic interest, of those in power. Corporatized media has no vested interest in serving the people or reporting on issues that might harm its true master, Wall Street (McChesney).


Distrust of the media, the economic downturn, and a mass exodus of citizens away from traditional means of consuming media have caused both funding and credibility crises in journalism. Newspapers are closing shop because audiences go online where they can read content for free; a new revenue model to sustain journalism has yet to be developed. There are now precious-few investigative journalists left because they are too expensive to finance.


Democracy is damaged because there are fewer news sources for information and fewer trained professionals reporting the news. There is still a high demand for the news, however. The space where journalists once reported the news has been filled by pundits, untrained citizen journalists, and bloggers. The danger is in people being able to determine what is good investigative reporting, and what isn’t (Luscombe).


However, another example of how media has failed democracy is the fact that we have to question if what professional journalists report to us is real. In the case of Iraq, the government saw two war fronts: one on the battlefield and one in using the media to win the hearts and minds of Americans to support the war. They saturated the news with information and stories that supported their prerogatives; this made it easy for the media to access only information the government wanted them to have and difficult or impossible to get information they didn’t. Journalists repackaged and distributed information they were given and rarely questioned its validity (Conroy, Hansen, 41).


Newspapers have historically been the engines that move media by providing in-depth reporting on substantive issues that television and radio pick up and summarize to their audience. Television in specific fills space where those reports once were by adding commentators, who use sound bites to form media frames and control what the news is. 80% of air time is spent talking about how they feel about an issue, what their experience was reporting it and talk more about the horse race than providing informative, substantive reports on the issues (Farnsworth, Lichter).


They also manufactured narratives to control the way Americans thought about the war and how they viewed our country. The rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch, a 19-year-old white, female soldier, who was said to have fought “Rambo style” almost to her death, after being shot and stabbed while trying to avoid capture by Iraqi forces, is one such narrative. The “evil doers” held her hostage in a hospital where she waited for American forces to come and save her, like a damsel in distress.


In all actuality, after her Humvee crashed she was taken to the hospital and was well cared for. Doctors even tried to return her to Americans but were deterred when they encountered gunfire. The Lynch narrative indulged the need for Americans to be heroic and macho. We saw our fighting men storm the hospital with big guns and night vision goggles to save our frail, wounded, captured damsel and return her to the safety and protection of our brave and fearless American soldiers.


In order to push this narrative the government used the press to immediately started circulating unsubstantiated stories of her capture. The press mediated the prepackaged stories to Americans so we could unite against a common enemy in defense of our values and way of life in a battle of “good versus evil.” Americans view war as a “mediated narrative” often not distinguishing between what they see in movies and the real thing, something the Bush Administration took full advantage of when planning war in Iraq.


We might get to closer to motivation and to understanding the manipulation of our narratives about war by examining the approach of the military to the news media coverage of its combat operations. It should be said that the military has, for some time, had a strategic approach to its representation in both dramatic and news media. This approach focuses on the contemporary military’s approach to news coverage, as well as the rhetorical strategy of the George W. Bush administration in gaining popular compliance with its war plans for Iraq (Conroy, Hansen, 111).


Americans were glued to their TV’s to watch the heroic rescue, almost as if they were watching Bruce Willis save his love interest from evil terrorists who held her captive. Television media has become more of means of entertainment and punditry than solid investigative journalism that would question the Lynch narrative and verify sources before reporting the story to the public (Farnsworth, Lichter). Instead journalists raced to the governments million-dollar press complex to wait like hungry dogs to snatch up government edited media and be the first to break them online and on television for an eager and anticipatory audience (Conroy, Hanson, 41).


The government used Lynch’s manufactured story in order to satisfy Nascar Dads who are unwittingly indoctrinated into the Strict Father Model by the government and media. This model teaches respect for male authority and strict rules that must be adhered to so that a stern, disciplined Father can protect the family and restore order when “evil doers” whom we are morally superior threaten us (Conroy, Hanson, 70).


Those in power with a conservative worldview embraced this ideology in order to manipulate Nascar Dads into identifying with the Republican Party, whose policies historically favor the rich. Using powerful metaphors and creating a common enemy, (such as a terrorist who attacks us for no reason,) they’re able to turn Nascar Dads anger away from the true culprit of their discontent, the ruling class in America.


Iraq and Saddam seemed ready and available as the target for the hatred of many Americans and especially the economically besieged Nascar dads. One of the political motives for the Iraq War, this essay contents, was to provide this important demographic with yet another folk devil to contemplate. The anxiety over general social decline, bad jobs, even the loss of a pension could be redirected towards Arabs, Iraqis, and Saddam along with any Americans who challenged his logic (Conroy, Hansen, 74).


Americans and the press are reticent to question government objectives for the war for fear of being labeled as unpatriotic. Instead, media parrot the government’s narrative and compromise the journalistic code. The government has to appear transparent in order to earn Americans trust. To obtain this objective, they embedded journalists with soldiers on the battlefield so that they would be dependent on the military for their survival and empathize with the military that protected them. This made it impossible to report objectively on what they were witnessing. The public's sees our soldiers as heroic defenders of freedom, and were as sheltered as journalists were from experiencing the war or understanding the culture we are at war with (Conroy, Hansen, 114).


Scandals like Abu Grab made Americans start to question our government’s narrative of America as a righteous nation who does no wrong. Journalists who talk more about their spin on the news rather than the issues, report mostly on sensational or negative news and have shown they no loner engage in true investigative substantive journalism all are reasons Americans distrust the media and are examples of how it’s failed democracy.


New avenues of media are opening up for Americans who don’t invest in the mainstream narrative and corporate media system. Anti-war activists, (who were shut out of mainstream media coverage and delegitimized to the public as unpatriotic softies,) turned to the Internet for refuge. Unable to get access to an outlet for their perspective, they abandoned television. Angry at pundit anchors, repetitive news stories, and false narratives, which with time expose themselves as blatant manifestations of the government, these citizens invested in the Internet to spread their ideas and find outlets for activism (Nah).


Online they had free access to newspapers where they could get in depth reporting on the war and a wealth of information to understand it in context. They link to stories so friends in their online communities could virally spread them to others. They interacted with blogs and commented on articles, creating a more democratic way of consuming information, engaging in discourse both face-to-face, and online.


These interactions were sometimes with opposing viewpoints, but most often in communities that agreed with their perspective. People involved in these communities were more likely to go to an anti-war rally or become politically active through some other avenue, because they had access to alleys in which those things were possible and they could join their friends in taking action against the war (Nah).


To some the Internet is seen as hope for the future of media to sustain a more democratic society. There are immense advantages to citizens having access to perspectives of people in the countries we are at war with, or other cultures demonized by our government. Access to information in the Internet makes it easier for Americans to form their own opinions on those cultures rather than take the word of mainstream media pundits, or government (Dahlgren).


The downside to the Internet is a citizen blogger writing an opinion based off something they heard a pundit say doesn’t serve to inform the public. Discourse in blogs and online forums is not always intelligent or reasoned, so it’s hard to say whether or not people achieve reciprocity in an effort to create a more “deliberative democracy” (Dahlgren).


Newspapers can use online journalism to create a fertile environment of intelligent debate on informed issues because they are already a trusted, professional source of information for the public. They can engage the disenfranchised audience who has abandoned television and have grown tired of advertisers, and begin to create intelligent debate in issues in the web forums of their websites (Dahlgren).


However, to make media return to its roots of serving as the forth pillar of democracy, media will have to find a way to fund journalism externally from advertising revenue and return to its place as a watchdog on the rich power elite, question the status quo and the narratives we are told by the government. The only way this can be accomplished is through creating a way to finance online viral journalism that can afford to invest in journalists to do the work the American people. This will help create the connective community that engages in reciprocity, which is required to maintain a healthy and viable democracy.



Works Cited

Bradshaw, Paul. "When Journalists Blog: How it Changes What They Do." Nieman Reports Winter 2008: 50-52.

Conroy, Thomas, and Janice Hanson. Constructing America's War Culture: Iraq, Media, and Images at Home. Lanham: Rohman and Littlefield Inc., 2008.

Dahlgren, Peter. "Political Communication." The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation 22 (2005): 147-62.

Farnsworth, Stephen J., and Robert S. Lichter. "WHO ELECTED YOU? Candidates versus Reporters." The Nightly News Nightmare" Television's Coverage of U.S. Presidential Elections 1988-2000. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefeild, 2002. 75-106.

Kinsley, Micahel. "Do Newspapaers Have a Future?" Time 05 Sept. 2006. TIme Magazine. 05 Sept. 2006. Time Inc. 04 Apr. 2009 .

Luscombe, Belinda. "What Happens When a Town Loses its Newspaper?" TIme Magazine 22 Mar. 2009. Time Inc. 04 Apr. 2009 .

McChesney, Robert W. The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century. New York: Monthly Review P, 2004.

Nah, Seungahn, Aaron S. Veenstra, and Shavan V. Shah. "The Internet and Anti-War Activism: A Case Study of Information, Expression, and Action." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (2006): 230-47.

Stephey, MJ. "State of the Media: Not Good." Time Magazine 16 Mar. 2009. Time Inc. 04 Apr. 2009 .