Americas Quarterly - Winter 2012

A MIXED RESULT

It would have been quite remark- able if a utopia of participatory, in- teractive media had followed the arrival of new interactive technologies. But the excitement over technology ignores the extent to which power and old-media politics survive today.

Instead of a revolutionary leap forward, “media democracy 1. 5”—a combination of old and new media politics—better describes the current situation. Today, retrograde media politics blend with mobile telephony, social media and digital platforms. Opportunities for interactivity and participation overlap with barriers and actions to curb public expression and scrutiny. Colluding government and private interests coexist with citizen activism and innovative reporting.

Social media do open up innovative possibilities for citizen participation and the circulation of diverse information. Yet the notion that new digital platforms inevitably catapult citizens to the center of public expression should be viewed cautiously. Traditional media have shown a re-makable capacity to adjust to a new technological scenario, with governments and media businesses remaining formidable powers.

Social media also are unable to
counter government attempts to
suppress dissent or prevent access
to public records. Even without for-
mal censorship mechanisms such as
those in place under authoritarian-
ism, some governments apply legal
tactics to stifle criticism and discour-
age democratic expression. The dis-
cretionary allocation of public funds
encourages sycophantic news and de-
ters critical news. Social media can-
not offer much of a counter weight to
balance these heavy-handed tactics.
Moreover, social media do not nec-
essarily produce information that is
unavailable in traditional media out-
lets. As long as journalism—whether
traditional or social media—is con-
ceived purely as a business, substan-
tial investments in quality reporting
will not be a priority. If audiences and
advertisers can be reached through
low-cost news, then media companies
have few incentives to cast a wide net.

Although they offer new opportunities to produce and exchange information, social media do not solve fundamental deficiencies of media democracy.

In a region with no shortage of journalism that is beholden to governments or solely driven by commercial goals, rigorous and critical information that spotlights social challenges and scrutinizes power is still needed.

Random tweets and status updates supply quick news bites, offer vehicles for amateur journalism and occasionally support collective mobilization. But they are themselves used by governments and public officials for the same purposes. Nor do these tools fill the considerable information gaps created by the collusion of governments and media owners, by overly simplified news and by public officials with little patience for democratic dissent.

Silvio Waisbord is professor and associate director at the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. He is editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Press/Politics. He has published books and articles about media politics in Latin America.

is generally filtered by journalists, although in some cases it is posted without any editing.

News organizations are particularly receptive to user-generated information during emergencies, crises, natural disasters, and accidents. Coverage of the February 2010 earthquake in Chile and the annual Caribbean hurricane season show how the media can reposition themselves as communication networks for public exchanges during major tragedies. However, in a day-to-day news context, conventional journalism maintains limited connections with citizen-produced news, preferring instead to rely on professional reporting.

And access does not result in quality. With websites relentlessly focused on attracting traffic, solid reporting is frequently sidelined by breaking and/or sensational news. The content that generates the most hits is most rewarded. The public importance or proper fact-checking become secondary considerations.

It is debatable whether such constant flows of information have any significant implications for media democracy. It’s news, but it’s not obvious that it matters for public life. The kind of information necessary to dissect deep-seated problems, voice public demands and scrutinize political and market power doesn’t conform to sensational news flashes or 140 characters. One result: lower priority for important stories about employment, education, safety, health, or accountability of public officials.