Response for Thursday, January 29th

What struck me most about our readings this week was the overarching analysis of how power operates in both corporate and alternative media. What is problematic about the power dynamic of these two tiers of media is that corporate media fail to be authentically representational of the public, while alternative media's power often stops at deliberation without reaching true political impact.

Corporate media present the issues through a narrow ideological lens that privileges an elite few, such as those in political and economic power. This first tier also perpetuates what Bruns refers to as a "conflict-based narrative," in which deliberation is illusionary; if only two oppositional perspectives are represented, true democratic discourse, which is multipartisan, cannot occur. This political polarization is exemplified well in the Crossfire video Josh shared with us. Another problem with corporate media lies in its capacity to withhold or misconstrue information, as we discussed last time in reference to Moeller's piece. The result of such misrepresentation is a less-informed citizenry. If knowledge is power, then corporate media’s willful withholding of information and deceitful representations leave the public powerless to effect social justice.

Alternative media, on the other hand, offer new approaches to the ways in which power is distributed amongst citizens. Increasingly, alternatives to the hierarchical model of corporate media are emerging in which power circulates amongst producers and audiences operating collectively to challenge the dominant narrative. Socially inclusive and participatory media have been viewed by some as the answer to corporate globalization because they undermine corporate media's authority. Grassroots media production is multiperspectival, empowering citizens to create representational media that reflect diverse, authentic perspectives. As Amy Goodman relates, the more we hear a multitude of voices, the more we feel empowered to speak up ourselves and challenge the status quo. Nevertheless, even as new alternatives open up possibilities for a more just and democratic media, they are not independent of mainstream ideologies and practices. Furthermore, tactical media efforts to influence the mainstream are ephemeral, most often leaving no lasting effect. Therefore, it will be imperative for scholars to not merely be advocates for participatory media, but to also keep a critical eye on emerging media structures and their processes of production.

The power dynamics of both corporate and alternative media need further exploration. In his piece, "Gatewatching, Gatecrashing," Axel Bruns rejects a Gansian mediasphere where the second tier (alternative media) merely reinterprets news gathered by the first tier (mass media). Instead, Bruns moves theoretically beyond the Gansian model, imagining a media climate in which the two tiers inform and influence each other cooperatively. Bruns believes that when the established and activist media work in conjunction, there is great potential for emergent hybrid "industry/citizen" media, as seen in Ohmynews. (Bruns, p. 259). Perhaps it will be in the negotiation and, ultimately, the fusion of these channels of power where a lasting, democratic mediasphere thrives. It may be that powerful media organizations must become more flexible with their structure and content, allowing formerly underrepresented voices to be heard. At the same time, alternative and tactical media strategists might necessarily adopt some of the processes of established media organizations in order to have long-term credibility. How then can this be accomplished without our democratic ideals being swept away by the mainstream? That remains to be seen.





In light of our discussion about empowering minority voices, this blog,
Blogging their Dreams of Citizenship, from Global Voices Online exemplifies cyber-activism and its power to unite people in a common cause, and take political action. I find the video (taken from the blog) interesting because it stands in stark contrast to the celebrity pundits of corporate media; the "correspondents" are anonymous, yet powerful in their collaboration.