In his essay ‘Public opinion and the internet’ Peter Murphy argues that rather than merely democratising public opinion, the Internet fundamentally changes the way that public opinion emerges. The following post seeks to explore Murphy’s arguments and assess their accuracy with regard to today’s new media economy.
Firstly, communication is essential to the business of everyday living in the twenty-first century. In light of this reality, it is important to understand that the Internet is arguably the most significant form of communication to date and influences the lives of people around the globe. The impact of this technological advancement is immeasurable and it has become a vital ingredient of contemporary culture.
As Murphy (2005) comments on the specific role of the Internet, it is first necessary to understand and briefly explore its function and impact in a more generic sense. The internet has not only revolutionised communication; reshaping society as we once knew it, but it has also altered the way people network within society via one-to-many and many-to-many interactions. We have never before been faced with such a magnitude of information or such efficiency of communication, fundamentally shifting the way individuals live and express themselves. Furthermore, the Internet is becoming increasingly difficult to censor, providing freedom of speech, and dissolving both geographic and political boundaries (Flew, 2004).
It is undeniable that an increasing number of opinions are being expressed thanks to the freedom of the Internet. The internet’s evolving impact on public opinion originates from its initial role as a powerful document delivery system, enabling a fresh way of producing, collecting, altering, and distributing documents and information (Murphy, 2005). This system has grown into a provider of communication and media, and is fundamentally changing people’s interaction with society and in turn, the emergence of public opinion.
Not only has the Internet provided a haven for freedom of speech, but it has also provided the facilitation of likeminded communities, providing social and cultural power to its users. Murphy (2005) argues that self-expression on the Internet is often mistaken for discussion. Furthermore he suggests that online dialogue is inconsequential as it is short lived. However, the information gathering and processing activities that have emerged in Internet communities are of great significance. Pierre Levy refers to this as ‘collective intelligence’ (Jenkins, 2004). Levy believes that “No one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity”, arguing that individuals utilise their personal strengths towards mutual goals and objectives. As such, society itself is being redefined by shifting cultural norms and expectations, breaking away from more traditional forums of social interaction. Therefore, Murphy’s assessment appears inaccurate, as open dialogue between individuals and communities is evident, and is not simply a one-way stream of opinion.
As argued by Murphy (2005), the Internet’s primary function is an archive for information, identifying that even posting is archival transmission rather than a peer-to-peer interaction. Contrary to Murphy’s opinion, online communication can lead to functional discussion as individuals read one another’s postings and commentaries as well as respond to each other. This is exemplified by news blogging whereby online discussion is monitored by mainstream media outlets who often take on board information in order to reflect audience opinions (Bruns & Jacobs, 2006).
According to Murphy (2005) the self-censorship encouraged by governments such as China in relation to their citizens’ Internet use is evidence that it has not been able to succeed in acting as a tool for liberation. Murphy (2005) is suggesting that this is another way in which the Internet has failed to act as an agent for democratising public opinion. This assessment appears to be accurate, however, only for countries whose governments insist on political and ideological censorship. For more liberal nations, the Internet acts as a forum for individuals to present their opinions and views within the public arena. Murphy (2005) also believes that the large ‘world wide’ nature of the Internet makes it unsuitable for peer-feedback. This statement however, neglects to take into account the countless number of discussion forums, blogs and user generated content which function on constant discussion between community members.
Although Murphy (2005) draws on a number of interesting points, he does not entirely acknowledge the strong virtual communities that the Internet contains. These forums thrive on discussion and the exchange of information and knowledge. Murphy has in fact identified that rather than merely democratising public opinion, the Internet fundamentally changes the way that public opinion emerges. Despite this, it appears that he does not fully appreciate the avenues through which public opinion now surfaces. It is essential to note that the Internet is now the backbone of public opinion, which is largely formulated through the intrinsic operation of virtual communities. Furthermore, it is apparent that the democratic nature of the Internet will strengthen in proportion to its size and influence on the day-to-day lives of its users.
References
Bruns, A. and J. Jacobs, 2006. Uses of Blogs. New York: Peter Lang.
Flew, T. 2005. New media: an introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Henry. (2004). The cultural logic of media convergence. International
Journal of Cultural Studies.
Murphy, P. 2005. Encyclopedia of multimedia technology and networking: Public opinion and
the Internet. VIC: Monash University.
3 comments:
This was an extremely refreshing blog to read as you have tackled the course content from a perspective outside the set materials but addressed the content extremely well. I feel this entry functions as a useful discussion in KCB201.
I believe a critical evaluation of Murphy’s argument was appropriate and you have addressed this aspect with thought. I agree with your statement that Murphy fails to acknowledge “the countless number of discussion forums, blogs and user generated content which function on constant discussion between community members” and feel the expansion to include the information exchange that occurs within these forums was a significant point to make. Overall I enjoyed your perspective of the internet as a “vital ingredient of contemporary culture” and public opinion.
Again, I cannot criticize your use of references; all are appropriate, hold academic weight and strengthen your argument. Your writing style is easy to read, cohesive and enjoyable. I have taken a more personal approach to my blog and would enjoy your feedback because of your clearly, good grasp of writing and course content. I hope you submit this entry as it was strong, unique and highly significant to the course content. Overall, it is a great entry.
Your article is so interesting.
Your article focused on the public opinion. Public opinion can be seen a main part of democracy. It is undeniable that the Internet brings much more freedom to users. You also mentioned it. "An increasing number of opinions are being expressed thanks to the freedom of the internet" (Koppenol, 2008). According to Bruns' point of views, one of the impacts of online communities is that it can be seen as media practitioners. It means "citizen journalism providing a corrective to mainstream news" (Bruns, 2008). Bruns (2008) pointed out that citizen journalism news were "discussing, debating, deliberating on the news". It can be said a kind of free speech on the virtual world.
Flew (2005) stated that new technologies "have been identified as being important to strengthening the relationship between governments and citizens, thereby improving policy-making, public trust in governments, and good governance". However, in my mind, some of governments failed in it. You also mentioned it in the article. China is a good example for the issue. There is a serious censorship in China. In fact, the Internet is not a liberation tool in China.
All in all, I really enjoyed reading your entry. In fact, you made a tough discussion in the entry. This is a big issue for the Internet. In addition, in my mind the freedom of exchange and transmit information is essential to the Internet.
Reference：
Bruns, A. 9 April. Online Communities. [Lecture: QUT KCB203]
Not to sound like a hippie, but honestly this blog is a completely accurate and intricate exploration of public opinion and the internet from a western first world country perspective. Your argument here is flawless in regard to how it affects us in our comfortable western lifestyle with our convenient computers in our households. However, it fails to address how the internet affects the whole world, which is particularly interesting because the internet is supposed to be the ‘world wide web’. I do agree with everything that you have said in this blog, I just think that it is important for us to reflect on how it really affects the whole world as well and not just us.
“Furthermore, the Internet is becoming increasingly difficult to censor, providing freedom of speech, and dissolving both geographic and political boundaries”
This phrase particularly stuck out to me. While the Internet has allowed many of us in Australia, the US and the UK to feel as though it provides freedom of speech and dissolves both geographic and political boundaries. Yet, we are still amidst a war on terror and we are most certainly still border protective. If the internet has empowered us with political freedom of speech then why are we still fighting are war that NOONE agrees with?.
I believe that while we are expressing these ideas we have online, we are failing to recognise that they will innately change nothing other than our own opinions. For example, Ghandi didn’t put his peace movement into act through a networking structure.
Also I note that “Not only has the Internet provided a haven for freedom of speech, but it has also provided the facilitation of likeminded communities, providing social and cultural power to its users” is only applicable to western societies as well.
Do we honestly think that the internet will provide us the platform to break away from traditional cultural norms ? Will it help us stop wars and help us alleviate the poor conditions of Africa?
Post a Comment