tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/new-media-and-democracy-3190/articlesNew media and democracy – The Conversation2019-12-16T13:37:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1272882019-12-16T13:37:48Z2019-12-16T13:37:48ZHow new media can be used to spark interest in elections among young Ghanaians<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304710/original/file-20191202-66994-9ijgld.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">University students have different motivations for their social media use</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia Commons</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been growing evidence around the world that young people are increasingly becoming apathetic about taking part in events such as elections, according to Ceron in a <a href="http://www.luigicurini.com/uploads/6/7/9/8/67985527/social_science_computer_review-2015-ceron-3-20__1_.pdf">study</a> conducted in 2015. Given that university students are also increasingly using social media, scholars have started to look at how it can be used to invigorate their diminishing interest in governance as well as in elections.</p>
<p>We conducted <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02500167.2019.1639782">research </a> on how students in Ghana used new media. The aim was to understand the motivations and political information needs that influenced them to use new media technologies for elections.</p>
<p>We found that young people were drawn to use new media technologies to have conversations on elections. Posts going viral gave them a sense of relevance and empowerment. Another reason was that it gave them the opportunity to engage in the comfort of their private spaces – offline. </p>
<p>The findings should enable more strategic targeting of university students by political actors and institutions. This could be in terms of turn out efforts, political messaging, communication as well as political campaigning. This has already been done successfully in a number of countries.</p>
<h2>How it’s been done elsewhere</h2>
<p>New media technologies have been used in a myriad of ways to mobilise people to vote in various countries. For example, in <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354068816654325?journalCode=ppqa">Italy</a> in 2014, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354856515577891">Sweden </a>in 2010 and in the 2010 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/30/social-media-election-2010">British</a> elections. </p>
<p>Astute use of technologies was also evident in <a href="https://jaaker.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj2966/f/tebrmay-june-obama.pdf">Barack Obama’s</a> campaigns for the US presidency in 2008 and 2012.</p>
<p>In Africa, social media was used during the mass protests of 2011 in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco. In all three cases, people uploaded photographs of the protests which then went viral. This reinforced global appreciation of the need for democratic change in the countries.</p>
<p>Social media has also been used to monitor elections and disseminate results. For instance in Nigeria, young Nigerians embarked on the “Enough is Enough” <a href="https://eie.ng">campaign</a> on election vigilance to hold politically elected leaders accountable. </p>
<p>In Ghana, some civil society groups launched the “<a href="https://mashable.com/2012/03/27/ghana-voter-registration-social-media/">the Voter Decides</a>” campaign in 2012. This sought to track the process of voting, monitor collation of results and ensure that the right results were announced.</p>
<p>But the deployment of various new media technologies by political actors for elections and other civil engagements hasn’t necessarily translated into reversing the dwindling interest in politics. This is clear from research by communication <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/digital-politics-western-democracies">scholars</a> like Christian Vaccari.</p>
<p>It raises the question: what motivates the young new media user to deploy the technologies from an informational and communications perspective?</p>
<h2>Why Ghanaian Students use new media technologies</h2>
<p>In our research on Ghanaian students, our main findings were that:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Students are drawn to deploying new media technologies for the currency and breadth of information they can access. </p></li>
<li><p>They are both consumers and producers of media content. </p></li>
<li><p>They are able to navigate their way around the gatekeeping or filtration process conducted by editors.</p></li>
<li><p>The opportunity to go viral or become virtual celebrities in seconds when they click the “enter” or “send” button is an experience they relish.</p></li>
<li><p>The virtual space is a safe haven for many.</p></li>
<li><p>They spend a great deal of time on social media. This is attested to when a student asserts: “my world is on the mobile phone.”</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>The potency of social media</h2>
<p>Our findings reinforce the view that social media is a viable resource that can be relied on for voter mobilisation, campaigning and voting. Students suggest that political candidates must find ways to woo Ghanaian students into conversations before election fever catches on. If the candidates delay, their efforts will be perceived by the youth as self-serving. </p>
<p>Practically, many young people want to be part of the process of constructing political narratives offline rather than on campaign platforms. They want to be in their safe haven – online and anonymous – where they can’t be reproached for their youthful exuberance.</p>
<p>These kinds of conversations have the potential of reducing apathy and getting young people involved in the political process. </p>
<p>Political actors and candidates should seriously look at how media technologies can be used for effective reciprocal political communication with university students. If they understand what motivates and influences students to use new media technologies for conversations on the elections, political actors are much more likely to be able to count on the involvement of young people in conversations on the elections and participation in the electoral process.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127288/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adwoa Sikayena Amankwah does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Political actors can actively engage with university students by taking cognisance
of their political information needsAdwoa Sikayena Amankwah, Senior Lecturer of Communication Studies, University of Professional Studies AccraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/624742016-07-21T10:08:08Z2016-07-21T10:08:08ZCan America’s deep political divide be traced back to 1832?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131294/original/image-20160720-31159-16b6rjv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The nation's political chasm – already wide – has grown even more since 2012. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-389333206/stock-photo-republican-democrat-political-division-concept-and-american-election-fight-as-as-two-mountain-cliff.html?src=pp-same_artist-411652531-aj_gn_N1JNyvPF3Kh1HYEg-1">'Partisanship' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>You’ve probably heard the popular aphorism “to the victor belongs the spoils of the enemy.”</p>
<p>But you might not know who first said it.</p>
<p>In 1832, the Senate debated President Andrew Jackson’s unpopular – and decidedly partisan – recess appointment of Martin Van Buren as minister to Great Britain. New York Senator William L. Marcy, a staunch ally of the president, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=6K4RAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA423&dq=martin%20van%20buren%20confirmation%20minister%20to%20great%20britain%201832&pg=PA453#v=onepage&q=enemy&f=false">defended the move with those words</a>.</p>
<p>Essentially, Marcy was justifying Van Buren’s appointment on the grounds that since Jackson had won the presidency, he could do whatever he wanted. </p>
<p>Marcy’s loyalty to Jackson and Van Buren helped Marcy to reap some rewards of his own: He would go on to become governor of New York and was eventually appointed secretary of war and secretary of state by Democratic Presidents James Polk and Franklin Pierce. He was even featured on the <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MtnKSnYgqbI/VD5483MnapI/AAAAAAAACqY/420ZEcFuyw8/s1600/1891%2B$1000%2BSilver%2BCertificate.JPG">US$1,000 bill</a>.</p>
<p>But Marcy’s aphorism also signified the growing partisanship taking place in 19th-century American political life, a divide that continues to frame how we think about politics today.</p>
<h2>The rise of the two-party system</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2015/">A recent Pew Research Center report</a> found that the average Republican is more conservative than 93 percent of Democrats and the average Democrat is more liberal than 94 percent of Republicans. <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-1-growing-ideological-consistency/">Pew has also noted</a> that the country has moved away from the center over the past 20 years: Democrats have shifted to the left by 30 percent and Republicans have shifted to the right by 23 percent, leaving little common ground between the two parties.</p>
<p>Political philosophers like Louis Althusser offer an explanation for this growing divide. <a href="https://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/marxism/modules/althusserideology.html">According to Althusser</a>, states – including democratic republics – will eventually position citizens as “always already subjects”: fractured, obedient and positioned by ideology to work against their own best interests. </p>
<p>In the United States, this may be what’s going on today. But it wasn’t always this way.</p>
<p>Writing in response to the British Parliament’s controversial 1767 <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/townshend-acts">Townshend Acts</a>, founding father <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/dickinson-empire-and-nation-letters-from-a-farmer">John Dickinson</a> helped colonial Americans see themselves as citizens rather than as subjects. American colonists, Dickinson argued, needed to begin acting as government “watchdogs.” </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ought not the people therefore to watch? to observe facts? to search into causes? to investigate designs? And have they not a right of JUDGING from the evidence before them, on no slighter points than their liberty and happiness? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the most ideal sense of the word, being a citizen meant combating corruption by squirreling out facts, investigating the motives of political figures and judging the actions of government through the lens of one’s own liberty and happiness. </p>
<p>The idea is to be independent, critical thinkers – not loyal and obedient subjects.</p>
<p>But between 1824 and 1828, Americans called for more political participation, only to cede some of this watchdog function, as new political leaders and new political parties ended up simply channeling these demands for political participation into political partisanship. During this period, politicians – including Marcy, Van Buren and Jackson – <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=JdVQmgnDv84C&printsec=frontcover&dq=emergence+of+the+party+system&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjclvzGofPNAhXm7YMKHTX6CRoQ6AEINjAF#v=onepage&q=emergence%20of%20the%20party%20system&f=false">helped establish the party system</a> we know today: two powerful parties, pitted against one another. (Today, it’s the Democrats and Republicans; back then, it was the Democrats and the Whigs.) </p>
<p>It wasn’t much different from being a subject, and advocates of this system demanded loyalty to the party above all else.</p>
<p>“We hold it a principle,” the Jacksonian newspaper the <a href="http://fultonhistory.com/Newspapers%2021/Albany%20NY%20Argus/Albany%20NY%20Argus%201824/Albany%20NY%20Argus%201824%20-%200054.pdf">Albany Argus</a> declared on February 17, 1824, “that every man should sacrifice his own private opinions and feelings to the good of his party and the man who will not do it is unworthy to be supported by a party, for any post of honor or profit.” </p>
<p>With the party system firmly established, it was difficult for any nonpartisan to win elected office. Voters and candidates would pick sides, taking for granted that a victory for the candidates of their party would protect their liberty and happiness. </p>
<p>Critical thinking, meanwhile, fell by the wayside.</p>
<h2>Your polarized news feed</h2>
<p>Early American newspapers served primarily to facilitate trade and commerce, being largely notices of goods for sale. In the 19th century, newspapers <a href="https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/Journalism/index8067.html?page_id=14">began to function as mouthpieces for political parties</a>. But by the turn of the 20th century, many newspapers switched their tack. Journalism adopted the “<a href="http://jou.sagepub.com/content/2/2/149.abstract">norm of objectivity</a>,” using muckraking and investigative reporting to hold those in power accountable. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, today, while <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2013/08/08/amid-criticism-support-for-medias-watchdog-role-stands-out/">the public still wants the media to act as a watchdog</a>, in many ways (<a href="http://niemanreports.org/articles/truth-or-consequences-where-is-watchdog-journalism-today/">but not all</a>) outlets have reverted to promoting partisanship. </p>
<p>The media, after all, is <a href="http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/22qxm7kq9780252024481.html">business</a> – and many outlets have become <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/03/are-fox-and-msnbc-polarizing-america/">increasingly partisan</a> because they’ve realized that it’s good for the bottom line. </p>
<p>And it’s not just news outlets that understand this, but news aggregators. For example, <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/users">66 percent of Facebook users</a> get the news primarily from their Facebook news feed. We know that the Facebook algorithm <a href="https://www.facebook.com/business/news/News-Feed-FYI-A-Window-Into-News-Feed">skews what we see</a> in order to keep us on the site longer. </p>
<p>So what impact does the algorithm have on the news we see in our feed? </p>
<p>Recently, the Wall Street Journal <a href="http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/?mod=e2fb#/obama">created an interactive graphic</a> (updated hourly) that shows the stark difference between news feeds for users the algorithm has labeled liberal and news feeds for those the algorithm has labeled conservative.</p>
<p>For example, on the day after Melania Trump’s controversial Republican National Convention speech, users whom the algorithm identified as liberal were “fed” an article calling Trump’s response to the plagiarism allegations “pathetic.” Meanwhile, conservatives received an article from Rush Limbaugh with the headline “Liberals Always Attack GOP Wives.” </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131161/original/image-20160719-7963-1rx67xe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A screen grab from the Wall Street Journal’s ‘Blue Feed, Red Feed’ interactive graphic shows the type of article you’ll be ‘fed,’ depending on how the algorithm has labeled your political preference.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/?mod=e2fb#/melania-trump">Wall Street Journal</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Who profits?</h2>
<p>Last month, <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/">Pew came out with another survey</a>: 45 percent of Republicans said that Democratic policies threatened the nation; 41 percent of Democrats said the same about Republican policies. It’s a sharp increase from just two years ago, when 37 percent of Republicans thought that Democratic policies were a threat to the nation and 31 percent of Democrats claimed the same about Republicans. </p>
<p>A “threat to the nation” is a far cry from simple disagreement. After all, who threatens the nation? </p>
<p>Enemies threaten the nation.</p>
<p>Let’s return to Marcy’s aphorism and think about how it positions us in relation to political parties.</p>
<p><em>To the victor belongs the spoils of the enemy.</em></p>
<p>What does it do to us, to our politics, when we think of the people who hold different policy views as “enemies”? Enemies are evil, not merely people with good reasons for thinking differently. Enemies cannot be trusted. Enemies are irrational because if they <em>were</em> rational, then they would think like we do. We can’t negotiate with evil, untrustworthy, irrational enemies – and so we don’t. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130480/original/image-20160713-12392-1i1qnfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Being a staunch partisan might get you on the $1,000 bill. But a system of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ is bad for democracy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/US-$1000-SC-1891-Fr-346e.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ultimately, Marcy’s “to the victor belongs the spoils of the enemy” assumes, first and foremost, that we’re partisans, not citizens.</p>
<p>So <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0018%3Atext%3DS.+Rosc.%3Asection%3D84">who profits</a> from voters who act like partisans instead of citizens? </p>
<p>Well, since they’re claiming the spoils of office, political parties benefit. During the Republican National Convention, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie hinted that Donald Trump, if elected, <a href="http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10003A">would seek a new law to purge the government of Obama appointees</a>. A partisan would believe that it’s Trump’s right to do so; he won, so he can rid the government of his “enemies.” What would a citizen think of Trump’s plan to rid the government of his enemies?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the rest of us lose.</p>
<p>Perhaps instead of “to the victor belongs the spoils of the enemy,” we could learn to think of politics as “to those entrusted with great responsibility belongs the obligation to work for the common good.” It isn’t as poetic, but it also isn’t as partisan. </p>
<p>As the political party spectacle of two back-to-back presidential nominating conventions plays out, think about how each party invites us to act. Is it as a loyal, obedient soldier or an independent thinker? </p>
<p>Is it as a partisan subject, or as a citizen? </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aEAG2dLEEuY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Author Jennifer Mercieca’s TEDx talk ‘Be a Citizen, not a Partisan.’</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62474/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Mercieca does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Elected officials and the media are in cahoots. Both have succumbed to a two-party system that treats voters not as independent thinkers, but as blind partisans.Jennifer Mercieca, Professor of Communication, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/404302015-06-05T08:07:07Z2015-06-05T08:07:07ZWhy you should care about the ‘Third Dimension’ of government information<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83987/original/image-20150604-3403-3cvfcy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">One of the biggest publishers you know.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">.gov via www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Government secrecy and the government’s collection of personal data on citizens are a daily part of the news we read. </p>
<p>Reporters cover these two subjects routinely, just as they do the Pentagon or Interior Department. Many days, such stories dominate the front page, as has been the case recently with the contentious congressional debates over the collection of bulk telephone records. This week, the Senate <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/02/patriot-act-usa-freedom-act-senate-vote/28345747/">passed the USA Freedom Act</a>, which removes some data collection powers from the government, and is expected to be <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/02/statement-president-usa-freedom-act?">signed by President Obama</a>. </p>
<p>Another aspect of government information, however, receives almost no attention at all. This is the government’s provision of it. </p>
<p>Despite its absence from the news, this “Third Dimension” (as I call it) of government information is as capable of subverting democracy as the other two.</p>
<h2>The visible pros and cons</h2>
<p>On a positive level, government information is indispensable to democracy.</p>
<p>The 18th-century political thinker <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1920">Jeremy Bentham</a> argued that government must make its deliberations known so ordinary people are “placed in a situation to form an enlightened opinion, and the course of the opinion is easily marked.” </p>
<p>The government’s provision of information, however, has grown beyond Bentham’s call for “publicity,” a term that once enjoyed more positive connotations than it does today. </p>
<p>Weather reports help us plan our Sunday outings or prepare for a hurricane; economic data help us invest more wisely; nutrition studies help us live healthier lives.</p>
<p>But the government communication apparatus can also be turned to less salubrious uses. It can insert blatantly political messages into public service announcements. </p>
<p>In 2004, for instance, the Internal Revenue Service issued <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32750.pdf">press releases</a> that ostensibly reminded citizens of the upcoming date for filing taxes but included this comment:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the president’s policies are doing or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also, the government can be deceptive. After the invasion of Iraq, a Pentagon program to promote democracy in that country <a href="http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/02/rumsfelds_infor.html">covertly funded news operations</a> that purported to be independent. </p>
<p>From time to time, reports surface about public money being used for self-promotion, as when the Department of Education created materials to accompany an address by President Obama to schoolchildren. </p>
<p>In it, children were asked to “write letters to themselves about what they can do <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/department-of-education-edits-out-help-the-president-from-classroom-materials-on-upcoming-speech">to help the president</a>. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.” </p>
<p>Reports such as these are episodic. In a strange sort of paradox, we know surprisingly little about our government’s programs to inform us.</p>
<h2>What we don’t know</h2>
<p>In 1913 Congress passed legislation forbidding, without its expressed approval, the expenditure of appropriated funds on publicity experts. </p>
<p>“It does not seem to me,” <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-105sdoc20/html/CDOC-105sdoc20.htm">said</a> an architect of the legislation, “that it is proper for any department of the Government to employ a person simply as a press agent.” </p>
<p>Indeed, the term “press agent” was made verboten as a government job title. But when the United States entered the Great War four years later, this law was a finger in a dike that overflowed with government information. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83963/original/image-20150604-3397-jv8npj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83963/original/image-20150604-3397-jv8npj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=905&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83963/original/image-20150604-3397-jv8npj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=905&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83963/original/image-20150604-3397-jv8npj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=905&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83963/original/image-20150604-3397-jv8npj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1137&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83963/original/image-20150604-3397-jv8npj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1137&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83963/original/image-20150604-3397-jv8npj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1137&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Influencing diets during World War I.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WWI_Cottage_Cheese.jpg">Washington, DC; scan by Pritzker Military Library</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This flood came from a new agency created by President Wilson, the Committee on Public Information (CPI). The CPI, the subject of a book I am writing, was the first government agency to attempt to systematically shape the views of American and foreign audiences through news, speeches, posters, films and ads, some of it covertly.</p>
<p>The CPI was abolished at the end of the war. Its policies lived on in such positive forms as the Federal Register, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/wilsons-long-shadow-over-obamas-white-house-33819">also</a> in the increasingly sophisticated manipulation of citizens’ opinions. </p>
<h2>A proliferation of communicators</h2>
<p>To this day, no government official carries the title of press agent, but communicating information is a full-time job for thousands of government employees, many of whom carry titles that seem divorced from such activity.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83960/original/image-20150604-3407-1p58t8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83960/original/image-20150604-3407-1p58t8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83960/original/image-20150604-3407-1p58t8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83960/original/image-20150604-3407-1p58t8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83960/original/image-20150604-3407-1p58t8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=896&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83960/original/image-20150604-3407-1p58t8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=896&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83960/original/image-20150604-3407-1p58t8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=896&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The senator from Arkansas asking questions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Fulbright.jpg/862px-Fulbright.jpg">Department of State</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>“It is unlikely that anyone in the Federal Government knows how many people are engaged in ‘opinion-shaping’ information activities,” Senator William J Fulbright <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-propaganda-machine-William-Fulbright/dp/0871405229">wrote</a> in 1970. He was particularly concerned about the Pentagon’s information machine, which has grown so much the brass cannot easily control it today.</p>
<p>Following the US’ invasion of Iraq in 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld increased the number of staff working on strategic communications, which many people considered shorthand for policy advocacy and spin. </p>
<p>Five years later, after Rumsfeld stepped down, the vice chief of staff of the Army, General Peter W Chiarelli, set out to determine how many people were involved in “stratcom,” as it was called. </p>
<p>“Couldn’t do it,” a military chief public affairs officer told me. Many working on strategic communications held unrelated job titles. Commanders did not cooperate. Senior officers relied on these people to promote their programs as well as themselves, and feared that Chiarelli would eliminate the positions.</p>
<p>To cite another example of the proliferation of communicators, consider the State Department’s relatively new enterprise, “<a href="http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/revolutionstate-spread-ediplomacy">ediplomacy</a>.” </p>
<p>In 2002, the Office of eDiplomacy employed six people; a decade later, 80. Altogether, 150 people scattered throughout the State Department worked on ediplomacy, connecting with more than 900 staffers overseas. </p>
<p>The State Department, said a <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/research/files/reports/2012/3/ediplomacy%20hanson/03_ediplomacy_hanson">2012 report on ediplomacy</a>, “now operates what is effectively a global media empire, reaching a larger direct audience than the paid circulation of the 10 largest US dailies and employing an army of diplomat-journalists to feed its 600-plus platforms.” </p>
<h2>Time for some definitions</h2>
<p>The Third Dimension of government information is all the more nebulous because much of it is anonymous. Twitter accounts, which can be found in every government agency, often do not state who is authorized to tweet. Government blogs often don’t identify authors.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"606233914567368705"}"></div></p>
<p>In addition, the government outsources propaganda to the private sector. </p>
<p>As one example, advertising contracts, estimated a Congressional Research Service report, <a href="https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41681.pdf">totaled US$892.5 million in fiscal year 2013</a>. </p>
<p>These expenditures, said the author of the report, Kevin Kosar, are difficult to calculate because there are no reporting requirements and “there is no government-wide definition of what constitutes advertising.”</p>
<p>Congress has passed a few additional anti-propaganda statutes since 1913. Partisan messages are forbidden, as is covert propaganda. But Congress also has not defined the terms “publicity” and “propaganda.” No federal agency monitors compliance. Only occasionally does a congressional committee or its Government Accountability Office look into a small corner of government information to see if these rules, such as they are, are being followed.</p>
<p>A starting point for managing the Third Dimension of government information is to define it, not simply in the dictionary sense (although that is needed), but in establishing baseline measurements.</p>
<p>How much is spent each year; how many people are engaged in the process and what do they do?</p>
<p>These data are unlikely to be collected unless Congress requires it. </p>
<p>At a minimum, citizens deserve to know how the government uses their tax dollars to shape their views. Once voters, Congress, and the news media realize how pervasive the Third Dimension of government information is, they are likely to ask for more accountability.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40430/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Maxwell Hamilton has received funding from Ford, Carnegie, and other such foundations for research, but receives none now.</span></em></p>How much money does the government spend on producing information? How many people are engaged in this? We don’t know the answers - here’s why we should.John Maxwell Hamilton, Senior Scholar at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC and Hopkins P Breazeale Professor, Manship School of Mass Communications , Louisiana State University Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/254212014-04-17T05:20:21Z2014-04-17T05:20:21ZAfter Pistorius, South African media won’t be the same again<p>The murder <a href="https://theconversation.com/total-recall-truth-memory-and-the-trial-of-oscar-pistorius-25496">trial of Oscar Pistorius</a> is changing South Africa’s media ecology. It is the country’s first criminal trial to be covered fully on social media and live television, and both journalists and judges have had to learn new rules and practices on the fly.</p>
<p>Previously, we have had television cameras covering the high-level legal debate of our Constitutional Court and the occasional judgement in a major case of national important or commission of inquiry. But a precedent was set when it was ruled in this case that almost all of it could be broadcast live. Only “private”, non-expert, witnesses could opt out of the television coverage, though their audio would still be run live.</p>
<p>This was a step forward for the notion of open justice, though there was also some backtracking when an irritated <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/video/2014/03/10/judge-bans-broadcast-of-postmortem-evide?videoId=291217614">judge stopped</a> all coverage during the presentation of post mortem results (which have previously been public documents), including tweeting from the court. She had to quickly backtrack on the Twitter ban, when it became obvious that she had not understood the difficulty of containing social media.</p>
<h2>Media explosion</h2>
<p>South Africa has three new 24/7 news channels, as well as one pop-up TV channel and one pop-up radio channel, the latter two created especially for the Pistorius trial. This has led to unprecedented levels of coverage, as well as analysis and debate on every aspect of the procedure and evidence. </p>
<p>Flip between talk radio and live television and you will hear analysts and commentators dissecting on every aspect of the trial. Much of it is trivia about Pistorius’ every gesture, but there is also discussion about the legal procedure, the meaning of evidence and the performance of the teams of lawyers.</p>
<p>British viewers would be surprised at some of the discussion, with <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-risks-credibililty-with-two-stories-1.1676031#.U0zSP8eM2xo">senior legal figures commenting</a> on the performance of witnesses and interpreting evidence with little restraint.</p>
<p>It appears that there are few rules and restrictions. South African law has been relaxed in this regard, with a <a href="http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2007/56.html">Constitutional Court ruling in 2007</a> that media could only be in contempt of court if: “the prejudice that the publication might cause to the administration of justice is demonstrable and substantial and there is a real risk that the prejudice will occur if publication takes place”. </p>
<p>This has opened wide the door to <a href="http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Pistorius-lied-to-the-media-Report-20140413">commentary and speculation</a>, especially in the absence of a jury system. The free-for-all which has followed has raised the question of whether this has served the public well.</p>
<h2>Better informed</h2>
<p>Dunstan Mlambo, the judge who <a href="http://ewn.co.za/2014/02/25/Oscar-Pistorius-murder-trial-to-be-broadcast-live">allowed the cameras</a> into the Pistorius court argued that it would educate the public on the finer points of the justice system and demonstrate that all are treated equally before the law.</p>
<p>There can be little doubt that many South Africans are now much better informed about the workings of the courts, and the realisation that it is much more tedious and complicated than the television dramas which usually dominate our screens. If the purpose was to get South Africans engaged in issues of the law and justice system, it has been a roaring success.</p>
<p>Less clear is whether the judge was right that South Africans would see a display of equal treatment before the law. On show is very clearly a rich person’s justice and the fact that a major court case will bankrupt even the well-off. What we are seeing on our screens every day – including the best lawyers of the land and the court officers on their best behaviour – is a far cry from any ordinary person’s experience of our justice system. </p>
<p>Two other cases have been highlighted during the trial. The first was another murder trial just up the court corridor from the Pistorius case, also one of intimate partner violence. It received almost no attention until a <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-trial-next-door-oscar-pistorius-gets-the-headlines-but-what-about-thato-kutumela-9194821.html">foreign correspondent wandered into that court</a> during a quiet moment in the Pistorius trial, and provided a much clearer demonstration of the extent of the problem of domestic violence.</p>
<p><a href="http://witsjusticeproject.com/2013/02/25/oscar-pistorius-case-highlights-plight-of-south-africas-disabled-prisoners/">A second case featured</a> another disabled accused, known only as Prisoner X for his own protection, a paraplegic who had been held without bail for two years under the most appalling conditions and without proper medical care.</p>
<p>What we have not seen much of yet in the South African media is an examination of some of the issues which arise out of the trial. These include the gun culture of much of South Africa’s elite which makes the carrying and firing of weaponry a routine part of everyday life; the high levels of gender-based violence, particularly between intimate partners; and the fear of faceless intruders which runs through a society with high levels of violent crime. </p>
<p>It is hard not to think about these things as the trial unfolds, but it often feels that South Africans are trying as hard as they can to ignore them. But it is clear that South Africa’s media environment will not be the same. Coverage – and the conversation around it – is being driven by social media. Conventional media tries to keep up by covering the Twitter and Facebook chatter second-hand. </p>
<p>And the daily newspapers are struggling to keep up, accelerating a serious decline which started a few years ago. Almost all of our daily papers have lost significant circulation in the last two years, which has led to large-scale newsroom cutbacks. The big story of <a href="https://theconversation.com/nelson-mandela-dies-man-who-reinvented-south-africa-as-a-rainbow-nation-15594">Nelson Mandela’s death</a> at the end of last year brought some relief for sales, but a glance at the <a href="http://www.abc.org.za/Notices.aspx/Details/35">dailies now show</a> that they are lagging behind the more nimble electronic media. Suddenly, the country has more live news broadcasting channels than ever before. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25421/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anton Harber is chair of the Freedom of Expression Institute in South Africa.</span></em></p>The murder trial of Oscar Pistorius is changing South Africa’s media ecology. It is the country’s first criminal trial to be covered fully on social media and live television, and both journalists and…Anton Harber, Caxton Professor of Journalism, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/210172013-12-10T01:28:15Z2013-12-10T01:28:15ZNew Zealand’s blogosphere is thriving, but will the party last?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36963/original/smw35x85-1386203830.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Blogging is in favour in New Zealand, with the major players taking on the mainstream media.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sue Richards/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Blogs are thriving in New Zealand thanks to threats to media freedom, an increasingly commercialised media environment, and shifts in media ownership. </p>
<p>The financial ownership of the major media companies, such as Fairfax and APN, has brought an exclusive focus on revenue streams and profits. As the <a href="http://www.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/427681/JMAD-2013-Report.pdf">JMAD New Zealand Media Ownership Report 2013</a> found, instead of concentrating on public interest stories, the mainstream media is trying to maximise page views and clicks. This, combined with the rapid decline in public affairs reporting, has left a gap in public interest reporting, which bloggers are now trying to fill.</p>
<p>The New Zealand government has given blogs powerful ammunition by threatening media and freedom of expression. Earlier this year, the government was caught spying on a Fairfax journalist with her phone records handed over to a parliamentary inquiry without her knowledge or consent. The government also passed <a href="http://parliamenttoday.co.nz/2013/08/gscb-bill-passes/">legislation</a> giving extra surveillance powers to the Government Communication Security Bureau (GCSB). By doing so, the security bureau has extended powers to gather intelligence on journalists as ordinary New Zealanders.</p>
<p>Against this backdrop, it’s not surprising political and current affairs blogs have started to gain prominence and influence. The blogs such as the right-wing Whale Oil and the Kiwiblog and left-wing The Standard and The Daily Blog, have reported to have increased their page views this year. The traffic to these blogs, as well as to some others, might continue to grow thanks to the parliamentary elections in 2014, but there is no way to forecast if the blogosphere will thrive beyond that. </p>
<h2>Landmark ruling: a blog is not a news medium</h2>
<p>Blogs gained more prominence again at the start of December, as a district court judge in Auckland ruled a blog is not a news medium, and therefore doesn’t have the same privileges as conventional news outlets.</p>
<p>The judge ordered Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater to reveal sources for his story. This court case relates to a defamation case against Slater brought by a local businessman. Slater has indicated he will take his case to the High Court.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36964/original/cgm43f29-1386204004.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36964/original/cgm43f29-1386204004.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=662&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36964/original/cgm43f29-1386204004.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=662&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36964/original/cgm43f29-1386204004.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=662&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36964/original/cgm43f29-1386204004.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=832&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36964/original/cgm43f29-1386204004.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=832&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36964/original/cgm43f29-1386204004.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=832&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cameron Slater’s Whale Oil political blog has reported spikes in its traffic this year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Whale Oil Beef Hooked</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The court ruling raised fundamental questions about how we define blogs and news media, and bloggers and journalists. What makes the ruling more compelling is the fact that it was Slater’s blog that broke the news of Auckland Mayor Len Brown’s extramarital affair earlier on this year. </p>
<p>The New Zealand Law Commission’s report <a href="http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/project/review-regulatory-gaps-and-new-media/report">The News Media Meets ‘New Media’</a>, published in March 2013, defines a news medium as “any agency whose business, or part of whose business, consists of a news activity”. It defines “news media” as an organisation that disseminates news, information and current affairs to public regularly and follows professional standards; respects truth and the public’s right to information; and is accountable to a code of ethics and a complaint process.</p>
<p>As an editorial in <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11165862">The New Zealand Herald</a> noted “some blogs meet all those criteria except the last”. The editorial argued that “regular publication of news and views of general interest can be regarded as a medium deserving the rights and protections - and legal obligations - of all media”.</p>
<p>The ruling is an important one, as it might impact on how blogs are able to break news stories. If they fear they can’t protect their sources, they might not be able to break controversial stories.</p>
<h2>What happens with more paywalls?</h2>
<p>Prominence doesn’t equal longevity for blogs. Page views might be growing, but most blogs have low advertising income, are self-funded, sponsored or have some income through reader donations. It’s safe to argue that none of the Kiwi blogs are financially sustainable. This is not to say that blogs can’t raise substantial funding. Recently in the USA, the reader funding of Andrew Sullivan’s blog The Dish exceeded US$800,000.</p>
<p>Yet at the same time as blogs are gaining in page views, the digital readership numbers of online newspapers are increasing. For example, The New Zealand Herald’s overall brand audience has grown at the rate of 3% over the past three years to 1,375,000, and this growth has almost entirely come from the growth of digital readership.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see what happens to blog and newspaper reading after the introduction of paid online content. APN has confirmed it will introduce a metered paywall for The New Zealand Herald early next year. </p>
<p>Some examples suggest the traffic from paid news sites, in the first instance, goes to their competitors with free access. For example, the British tabloid The Sun lost more than a third of its market share of internet visits just after it introduced a paywall. Not surprisingly, its competitor Mirror.co.uk gained 26% market share in the same period.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21017/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merja Myllylahti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Blogs are thriving in New Zealand thanks to threats to media freedom, an increasingly commercialised media environment, and shifts in media ownership. The financial ownership of the major media companies…Merja Myllylahti, Lecturer, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/75442012-06-12T20:24:00Z2012-06-12T20:24:00ZChallenge 4: Authoritarian rule and the internet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/11539/original/t4zn4pcn-1339055133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">China's citizens are catching up to the government-monitored web.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mike Licht</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In part four of our multi-disciplinary Millennium Project series, John Keane takes a look at the Chinese regime’s troubled relationship with the cyber world.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/Global_Challenges/chall-04.html">Global challenge 4</a>: How can genuine democracy emerge from authoritarian regimes?</strong></p>
<p>US President <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jamesmadison">James Madison</a> famously remarked that a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy. </p>
<p>Two decades ago, the government of the People’s Republic of China set out to disprove this rule. Rejecting talk of farce and tragedy, its rulers now claim their authority is rooted within a new and higher form of popular government, a “post-democratic” way of handling power which delivers goods and services, promotes social harmony and roots out “harmful behaviour” using state-of-the-art information-control methods more complex and much craftier than Madison could ever have imagined.</p>
<p>The phrases “resilient authoritarianism” and “authoritarian state capitalism” roll easily from the tongues of many China analysts but, in practice, state censorship and control in that country is no straightforward matter. </p>
<p>In contrast to the period of Maoist totalitarianism, the new Chinese authoritarianism does not demand total submission from its subjects. </p>
<p>In such matters as the clothing they wear, where they work and which social company they keep, most citizens are left alone by the authorities. Belief in communism is no longer compulsory; few people now believe its tenets and the ruling Party (as a popular joke has it) comes dressed in Nike trainers and a Polo shirt topped with a Marxist hat. The regime officially welcomes intellectuals, foreign-trained professionals and private entrepreneurs (once denounced and banned as “capitalist roaders”) into its upper ranks. </p>
<p>The Party is everywhere. It prides itself on its active recruitment strategy and its organisations are rooted in all key business enterprises, including foreign companies. The methods of governing are clever. Ruling by means of generalised in-depth controls, or through widespread violence and fear, mostly belong to the past. </p>
<p>While the authorities reject both independent public monitoring of its power and free and fair general elections, they actively solicit the support of their subjects. Protesters are crushed, but also bribed and consulted.</p>
<p>Obsessive controls from above are matched by stated commitments to rooting out corruption and the rule of law. There is much talk of democracy with “Chinese characteristics”. Top-down bossing and bullying are measured. The regime seems calculating, flexible, dynamic, constantly willing to change its ways in order to remain the dominant guiding power.</p>
<p>Nowhere is this trend more strikingly evident than in the field of information. Heavy-handed government censorship methods, popularly known as the “Great Firewall of China”, are still used frequently to suppress points of view that diverge from the dominant positions formulated by the information office of the state council (the cabinet) and the propaganda departments of the ruling Party. </p>
<p>Yet information flows in China are not simply blocked, firewalled or censored. The productive channelling of dissenting opinions into government control mechanisms is a basic feature of the political order. Especially remarkable is the way the authorities treat unfettered online citizen communication as an instrument for improving the ability to govern, as an early warning device, even as a virtual steam valve for venting grievances in their favour.</p>
<p>The co-option strategy draws upon the efforts of thousands of government employees who post anonymous online commentaries designed to support policies favoured by the Party. There is also a vast labyrinth of surveillance that depends on a well-organised, reportedly 40,000-strong internet police force. </p>
<p>Skilled at snooping on Wi-Fi users in cyber cafés and hotels, it uses sophisticated data-mining software that tracks down keywords on social networking sites such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renren">RenRen</a> and search engines such as <a href="http://www.baidu.com/">Baidu</a>, along the way issuing warnings to Web hosts to amend or delete content considered unproductive of “harmony.” A combination of URL filtering with the blanking of keywords labelled as “harmful” or “anti-social” is also a common strategy used to block tens of thousands of websites.</p>
<p>The 2012 concerted campaign against <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/bo-xilai">Bo Xilai</a> and his family shows that state media can be instructed to take a certain line on any particular issue; and that news websites can be told whether or how they should cover the matter, for instance by sensationalising reports in order to silence critics, or by keeping the coverage short, so as to bury it down deep memory holes. </p>
<p>Calls for “discipline” and “self-regulation” are commonplace. So-called “rumour refutation” departments, staffed by censors, pitch in. They scan posts for forbidden topics and issue knockdown rebuttals.</p>
<p>What are we to make of these techniques of repressive tolerance? They certainly confirm the paradoxical rule that the governments of authoritarian regimes are much more sensitive to popular resistance than those of democratic regimes. </p>
<p>Looking from the top down, likening the Chinese authorities to skilled doctors of the body politic, some observers wax eloquent about the new surveillance tactics of “continuous tuning” (<em>tiao</em>) of the body politic. The simile understates the ways in which the labyrinthine system of unusually well-coordinated do’s and don’ts is backed by pre-digital methods: fear served with cups of tea in the company of censors; reprimands, sackings and sideways promotions; early-morning swoops by plainclothes police known as “interceptors”; illegal detentions; violent beatings by unidentified thugs; disappearances and imprisonment, sometimes (reports suggest) in “black jails” operated by outsourced mafia gangs employed by the authorities.</p>
<p>Such restrictions breed public resentment and resistance, which (unsurprisingly) is most pronounced within the world of on-line communications. </p>
<p>China first hitched itself to the web in 1994; the country now has an estimated 500 million users, twice as many as in the United States. Two-thirds of them are younger than 30. </p>
<p>What is not officially reported is that the sphere of text messages, bulletin boards, blogs and other digital platforms nurture the spirit of monitory democracy, often with remarkable vigour. </p>
<p>The range and depth of resistance to unaccountable power are astonishing. The regime comes wrapped in propaganda, but counter-publics flourish. </p>
<p>Helped by sophisticated proxies and other methods of avoiding censorship, salacious tales of official malfeasance circulate fast, and in huge numbers, fuelled by online jokes, songs, satire, mockery and code words that develop meme-like qualities and function as attacks on government talk of the “harmonious society” (<em>hexie shehui</em>). </p>
<p>Digital media users commonly re-tweet their posts (a practice known as “knitting,” the word for which sounds like “<em>weibo</em>”). Messages easily morph into conversations, illustrated with pictures. The consequence: instantly forwarded posts tend to keep ahead of the censors, whose efforts at removing online material are countered by such tactics as re-tweeted screenshots.</p>
<p>The aggregate effect is that conversations readily go viral, causing large-scale “mass internet incidents” (<em>daxing wangluo qunti shijian</em>), as happened (during 2010) when a citizen nicknamed “Brother Banner,” a software engineer in Wuxi, was catapulted into online celebrity overnight after holding a banner that read “Not Serving the People” outside the gate of a local labour relations office to protest its failure to intervene in his pay dispute with his former employer. </p>
<p>The banner challenged the Party’s slogan, “Serving the People.” Officials were deeply embarrassed by a one-person protest that won national prominence through the internet and, eventually, coverage in official media.</p>
<p>The great significance of citizens’ initiatives of this kind is the way they put their finger on hypocrisy. Relying heavily upon networked media, they project locally specific goals that for the moment do not challenge the state’s legitimacy as such but instead call on the government to live up to its promises of “harmony”, to listen and respond to the concerns of citizens in matters of material and spiritual well-being. </p>
<p>The upshot is that the authorities now find themselves trapped in a constant tug-of-war between their will to control, negotiated change, public resistance and unresolved confusion. They may pride themselves on building a “post-democratic” regime which seems calculating, flexible and dynamic, willing to change its ways in order to remain the dominant guiding power. Yet they also know well the new Chinese proverb: ruling used to be like hammering a nail into wood, now it is much more like balancing on a slippery egg.</p>
<p>Whether the authorities can sustain their present balancing act, so proving James Madison wrong, seems at least an open question. </p>
<p>Within the China labyrinth, the 21st century spirit of monitory democracy is alive and well. Whether and how it will prevail, probably with Chinese characteristics, against the crafty forces of digital surveillance, is among the global political questions of our time.</p>
<p><em>A longer version of this piece appeared in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/opinion/the-china-labyrinth.html?pagewanted=all">New York Times</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Comments welcome below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7544/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Keane does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In part four of our multi-disciplinary Millennium Project series, John Keane takes a look at the Chinese regime’s troubled relationship with the cyber world. Global challenge 4: How can genuine democracy…John Keane, Professor of Politics, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.