Media & Participation: Citizenship

[joe]

The session on 12 Dec will be on citizenship and participation, and once again, the session will consist largely of your suggestions for discussion. So the online assignment, to be completed in advance of 12 Dec is:

* identify a media space (traditional or new) which allows members of the public to participate in political debate, and explain the extent to which you believe that space empowers people / influences decisions or fails to do so.

Post your work here (or post the link to your blog post here...)

Joe

[jimirich]

The media space that I have chosen for the second online assignment is ‘Question Time’, a political show hosted by David Dimbleby. Here, members of the public are given the opportunity to participate in political debates and quiz top decision makers in parliament. As well as political figures on the panel, there are members of the media and entertainment industry. If you are not a member of the audience you still have the opportunity to participate through email and text. The extent to which this medium empowers and influences people’s decisions and views really depends on the strength and validity of their argument. I also feel that if the panel share a similar POV with the audience it can strengthen others views. In terms of significant political figures, it may make a difference it may not, it all depends on whether they watch the show and if they agree with what the audience member is arguing.

[wmjb87]

http://wmjbutler.wordpress.com/

[Patrick]

I believe that the rise of 'Citizen Media' over the past decade, and more specifically 'Blogging' is the greatest form of media that allows members of the public to participate in political debate.

As Dan Gillmor, the author of the radical We the Media, told the English newspaper, The Guardian:

[cboakes]

http://www.labour.org.uk/

The Labour Party have a discussion section on their website whereby users are able to comment and discuss various themes and issues to do with the labour party.
It authorises the user to contribute and empowers them to a certain extent: It is unlikely that their comments will influence Labours actions. But it does allow the user to portray their political views within the public sphere, and it also empowers them to influence the reader’s decision; whether it influences them to agree or influences them to publish their disagreement. However it is heavily dependant on the level of participation of each individual. Some users may read and comment on the majority of posts, however other individuals may choose not to discuss but to keep their political views to themselves.

The user is unable to create new topics, and is therefore confined to discussing only the topics, which the labour party allow them to discuss. So users are unable to comment on certain other political stances which Labour may posses- only the issues, which the administrator allows.

I believe that The Labour Party discussion thread has the ability to influence readers, but at the same time it is heavily dependant on the individual as to what they gain out of the space. Some users use it to engage in serious political debate, however other users can simply use it to disrespect other users views:

[claire.gumbrell]

http://news.myspace.com/ is a place where news articles are placed and where users of MySpace can log on and comment. There is a section specifically for Politics in the panel on the left hand side, which then breaks down into sub categories, e.g.left politics, right politics. I believe that due to the subcategories it is not aiming at one particular side, therefore it is not influencing visitors as much as it could do if it were to be one sided. It is giving the option to see stories in the eyes of different people, therefore not necessarily looking to empower people, making it hard to influence.

[rosiebarker]

My blog is www.ro5ie.wordpress.com

and King's is www.khau.wordpress.com

[obourneo]

Protest.net is a site for people who feel that they should be angry about something but aren't sure what. You can add events that other people should be angry about and you can create a calendar so you can organise a schedule to siphon off your bile to.
In London I could be angry about these things:

[wrackham]

Again, sorry for the ridiculous delay in writing this, but I have decided to discuss the relevance of Facebook, in providing a platform for Political discussion and debate. When Facebook exploded and everyone had seemed to sign up, even my nan, there wasn't really a stage for any sort of discussion. You could argue that the 'Group' function would allow some discussion, via the wall or discussion threads, but they were not being used to their full potential.
When Facebook had an overhaul in April of 2007, it began allowing users to produce and publish applications for all other users to use. This included the 'Fan' and 'Supporter' tabs. If you were a massive fan of S Club 7 and wanted the whole of Facebook to know, then the 'Fan' application would allow this. A box would appear on your profile saying that you were indeed a fan of S Club. Similarly if you were a supporter of the Labour Party or more specifically, Tony Blair, then you could also add a box which shouted this out loud and proud. These have been growing in use, especially in the United States, as users of a Political persuasion can show who they are supporting in the race for the Democrat or Republican Presidential candidature (is that even a word?).
Recently, Facebook sponsored an ABC broadcast of a debate between the 4 main candidates. This public sign of Facebook getting involved in Politics, rather than a bored user making an application, shows that they want to get involved in high brow discussions.
Undeniably, Facebook's sponsorship is bringing younger people closer to politics and even getting some of them involved. During the ABC broadcast, the presenter was using statistics from the national newspapers, pollsters and Political experts. And forums and interactive polls hosted on Facebook. I would argue that this a positive tool as most young people, who make up the majority of Facebook's active users, don't really care about Politics. This blog from the New York Times shows in more detail how Facebook and young people have got involved with 'Vote '08' http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/youth-enter-debate-through-facebook/ Will.

[temieast]

For this weeks example I will be taking about “Wright stuff�, which is a talk show, which is broad casted on channel five. The show occasionally provides political topics for the members of the public to participating in. This is a call in show and the members of the public are able to discuss live on the show. There is also an active audience, and they are also able to contribute. The extent that this space influences peoples decisions can be said to be very highly, I say this because viewers are able to hear the contributors level of involvement in the issue and could have a persuading voice.

[dean cadwallader]

NB I did this for the lecture in question, posted on my Blogger blog, which due to fate, was aggregated to my BU IMP blog. I think one blog is more than enough, personally.


"Lets have a heated debate"

Until the advent of the Internet, political debate, as with other types of debate / chat / forum / rant was confined to the pub / office / smokers lounge / classroom. Then they banned smoking, and the smokers lounge was converted to a nursery and the smokers had to moan about the government out in the rain (government conspiracy anyone?)

The fact is debate, political or otherwise (http://www.thismagazine.ca/ "Because everything is political") was, prior to the 'Net, conducted in a public place, face to face, out on the street, or at least between 4 walls. Even if those 4 walls were the walls of a TV studio (Anyone remember Brian Waldon? Me neither).

Televised Political debate continues to this day, with BBC's Prime Ministers Question Time, but the problem is thus: its conducted, mediated, filmed and edited by the BBC, with the
exception being live House of Commons PMQ's, which despite being broadcast unedited is missing a key ingredient: Normal People.

But before they banned smoking, we were given the Internet. I say ‘given’ because the Internet is a gift of unrivaled benevolence.

Never before in the history of human communication has so much information been given to so many by so many, for free.

So those Normal People finally found their voice....even if their voice was really a keybored. The UGC gave us YouTube etc and we could film ourselves slagging off those people we didn’t even bother voting for.

So, political forums....the internet has given us plenty.
Put ‘political debate forum’ into Google and about 892,000 results pop up.

But, of those, democracyforums.com is the best, God Bless America.

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=9804

So how does it empower people? Does it empower people?
Apart from not recognizing my email address, twice, it has some ace commentary on urine tests and welfare checks etc.

and it snows, very seasonal!

As for influencing decisions....it looks like it was designed by Dick Cheney and programmed by George Bush, so don’t get your hopes up.

But as for freedom of speech and becoming part of this ‘revolution’ thats gonna happen one day, it beats TV.

“The Revolution will Not be televised�

DC

[masterluke]

In my opinion, the best place to hear political debate with genuine members of the public is on talk radio shows. My personal favorite is 'The James Whale Show' (mon-fri, 10-1) on TalkSport. (1089/1053AM)

The show consists of Whale speaking to callers about their view of the world today, often focusing on problems in British society and the way the country is run. Most of the callers are normal people who have strong views that they feel that no-one listens to. They are empowered by the fact that they can air their views and have them validated by Whale.

James only takes callers with sensible arguments - callers who turn out to be nobheads are swiftly cut off and berated by James. A lot of callers are people on the outskirts of society such as people with a mental illness, wounded soldiers or people with serious criminal convictions. These people don't usually have a voice but are empowered by being listened to by 100,000+ people.

[Captain]

http://ukdebate.co.uk/

This site allows debates on a most subjects, focusing on politics.
It allows a certain freedom of discussion, with a headline "The UK Debate - Welcome to Free Speech!"
There are a variety of debates started, open to conflicting viewpoints.

[jimboready]

http://b3ta.com/

b3ta is a photoshop forum. Essentially it allows people upload images to a board and comment on them. Each week there is an image challenge and a newsletter that involves an idiotic approach to current affairs and politics. While it is all just for fun, it does allow members to express their opinions.

X

[joelle]

http://joellesblogspace.wordpress.com/

A space to be empowered by
January 4, 2008 • 1 Comment

&

before i became sidetracked…
January 4, 2008 • No Comments