User:MattDusenbury/sandbox

Media Democracy is a liberal-democratic approach to media studies that advocates the reformation of the mass media with an emphasis on public service broadcasting and audience participation, through the use of citizen journalism and alternative media channels. A media democracy focuses on using information technologies to both empower individual citizens and promote democratic ideals through the spread of information. Additionally, the media system itself should be democratic in its own construction shying away from private ownership or intense regulation. Media democracy exists in direct opposition to the rise of media cross-ownership by for-profit corporations, which has led to a perceived regression in public discourse and the marketplace of ideas, and a negative impact on democratic values.

Key Principles
The concept of a media democracy follows in response to the deregulation of broadcast markets and the concentration of mass media ownership. In their book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, authors Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky outline the propaganda model of media, which states that the private interests in control of media outlets will shape news and information before it is disseminated to the public through the use of five information filters. In this way, the construction of the mass media as a for-profit enterprise behaves in a way that runs counter to the democratic ideals of a free press.

A media democracy counters this system by advocating: * Replacing the current libertarian media model with one that operates democratically, rather than for profit * Strengthening public service broadcasting * Incorporating the use of alternative media into the larger discourse * Increasing the role of citizen journalism * Turning a passive audience into active participants * Using the mass media to promote democratic ideals

The competitive structure of the mass media landscape stands in opposition to democratic ideals since the competition of the marketplace effects how stories are framed and transmitted to the public. This can “hamper the ability of the democratic system to solve internal social problems as well as international conflicts in an optimal way.”

Media democracy, however, is grounded in creating a mass media system that favours a diversity of voices and opinions over ownership or consolidation, in an effort to eliminate bias in coverage. This, in turn, leads to the informed public debate necessary for a democratic state.

Media Ownership & Concentration
The last several decades have seen an increased concentration of media ownership by large private entities. In the United States, these organizations are known as the Big Six. They include: General Electric, Walt Disney Co., News Corporation, TimeWarner, Viacom, and CBS Corporation. A similar approach has been taken in Canada, where most media outlets are owned by national conglomerates. This has led to a reduction in the number of voices and opinions communicated to the public; to an increase in the commercialization of news and information; a reduction in investigative reporting; and an emphasis on infotainment and profitability over informative public discourse.

The concentration of media outlets has been encouraged by government deregulation and neoliberal trade policies. In the United States, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed most of the media ownership rules that were previously put in place. This led to a massive consolidation of the telecommunications industry. Over 4,000 radio stations were bought out, and minority ownership in TV stations dropped to its lowest point since 1990, when the federal government began tracking the data.

Cultural studies investigating the mass media have found that with increased convergence comes the tendency to blur the boundaries between journalism, entertainment, public relations, and advertising. This acts in opposition to the democratic ideals of the media, which state a free press is crucial to the functioning of a truly democratic state. A diverse range of media outlets is necessary so that citizens receive information that is not tightly controlled, biased, or filtered. By allowing citizens access to a variety of sources, attempts at mis- or disinformation campaigns can be prevented, thereby letting the public reach informed conclusions and opinions, and act accordingly. This is critical as individuals must be in a position to make choices and act autonomously for a democratic state to function properly.

A number of corporate media mergers have also taken place in Canada. In 2003, the shifting media landscape caused the Senate Standing Committee on Transport & Communications to launch a study of Canadian news media. The committee discussed concerns regarding several trends, including the potential of concentrated media ownership to reduce the diversity and quality of news; the Canadian Radio-television & Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and Competition Bureau’s ineffectiveness at stopping the concentration of media ownership; the lack of federal funding for the CBC and the uncertainty of its role in the national discourse; the diminishing employment standards for journalists (including less job security, less journalistic freedom, and new contractual threats to intellectual property); a lack of Canadian training and research institutes; and difficulties with the federal government’s support for print media, and the absence of funding for web-based news media.

In response to the tighter concentration of mass media outlets, media democracy calls for legislative policies that encourage stronger commitment to the public interest as well as a commercial framework that facilitates the independence of media entities. Proponents advocate supporting and engaging in independent or alternative media as a means of bolstering different opinions and viewpoints. By using citizen media (or through acts of citizen journalism), individuals can produce and disseminate information and opinions that may otherwise be marginalized by larger media sources. Democracy Now! is one such example of alternative media.

Media Democracy Movement
Several activist groups have formed on both local and national levels in the United States and Canada in response to the convergence of media ownership. Their aim is to spread awareness about the lack of diversity in the media landscape, and direct the public to alternative media. Additionally, these groups press for political solutions to the FCC in the United States and the CRTC in Canada to “oppose any further media consolidation.”

In the United States, the non-profit Media Access Project is a public interest law firm that advocates media democracy by “protect[ing] freedom of expression, promote[ing] universal and equitable access to media outlets and telecommunications services, and encourag[ing] vibrant public discourse on critical issues facing our society.” The group has raised numerous concerns with the neoloiberalization of media in the United States in recent years, particularly with regards to media ownership, net neutrality laws, and access to the wireless spectrum.

In Canada, OpenMedia.ca is a similar group that promotes media democracy by encouraging open communication systems through online campaigns, events, and workshops. In particular, the group’s “Stop The Meter” campaign to petition against proposed usage-based billing was the largest online appeal in Canadian history.

Feminism & Media Democracy
Though the model aims to democratize the opinions expressed within the mass media as well as the ownership of media entities themselves, feminist theory argues the mass media cannot be considered truly democratic as it relies on masculine concepts of impartiality and objectivity. This stems from the argument that “news” is treated as a genre of fiction, relying on a narrative to impose order on the material so that it may be interpreted. As such, the news narrative that is presented through the mass media is only one possible interpretation. Creating a more inclusive media would require a redefinition of the news and its guiding principles, away from a masculine focus.

It is argued that the distinction between public and private information that underpins how we define valuable or appropriate news content is also a gendered concept. The feminist argument follows that the systematic subversion of private or subjective information excludes women's voices from the popular discourse. Further to this point, feminist media theorists argue there is an assumed sense of equality or equalness implicit in the definition of the public that ignores important differences between genders in terms of their perspectives. So while media democracy in practice as alternative or citizen journalism may allow for greater diversity, these theorists argue that women's voices are framed within a masculine structure of objectivity and rationalist thinking.

Despite this criticism there is an acceptance among some theorists that the blurring of public and private information with the introduction of some new alternative forms of media production (as well as the increase in opportunities for interaction and user-generated content) may signal a positive shift towards a more democratic and inclusive media democracy. Some forms of media democracy in practice (as citizen or alternative journalism) are challenging journalism's central tenants (objectivity and impartiality) by rejecting the idea that it is possible to tell a narrative without bias and, more to the point, that it's socially or morally preferable.

The Web & Media Democracy
The World Wide Web, and in particular Web 2.0, is seen as a powerful medium for facilitating the growth of a media democracy as it offers participants, “a potential voice, a platform, and access to the means of production.” Because the web allows for each person to share information instantly with few barriers to entry across a common infrastructure, it is often held up as an example of the potential power of a media democracy.

The use of digital social networking technologies to promote political dissent and reform lends credibility to the media democracy model. This is apparent in the widespread protests in the Middle East and North Africa known as the Arab Spring where social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube allowed citizens to quickly connect with one another, exchange information, and organize protests against their governments. While social media cannot solely be credited with the success of these protests, the technologies played an important role in instilling change in Tunisia, Egypt,  and Libya. These acts show a population can be informed through alternative media channels, and can adjust its behaviour accordingly.

Criticism
Critics of media democracy note that in order for the system to function properly, it assumes each member of society to be an educated and active participant in the creation of media and exchange of information. In countries with a high illiteracy rate, for example, it would be next to impossible for average citizens to take part and fully engage with media, and adjust their behaviour accordingly in society. Instead of promoting democratic ideals, this would in turn fracture society into an upper-class that actively participates in creating the media, and a lower-class that only consumes it, leaving individuals open to the manipulation of information or media bias. This is not far from Nancy Fraser’s critique of the Habermasian public sphere, with regards to the bracketing of personal inequalities.

There is also a problem when trying to blend the role of journalists and traditional journalism within the scope of a media democracy. Although many media outlets are privately-owned entities, the journalists whom they employ are subject to intense training, as well as a strict code of ethics when reporting news and information to the public. Because a media democracy relies heavily on public journalism, alternative media, and citizen engagement, there is the potential that all information information exchanged be treated as equal by the public. Not only would this negatively effect an individual’s agency in a democratic society, but run counter to the notion of a free press that serves to inform the pubic.

Journals / Periodicals

 * Barker, Michael (2007). "Conform or Reform? Social Movements and the Mass Media", Fifth-Estate-Online - International Journal of Radical Mass Media Criticism.
 * Barker, Michael (2008). "The Liberal Foundations of Media Reform? Creating Sustainable Funding Opportunities for Radical Media Reform", Global Media Journal, 1 (2), June 2008.
 * Chester, Jeffrey, & Larson, Gary O. (July 23, 2002). A 12-step program for media democracy. The Nation Online.
 * Hackett, Robert A. (2000) "Taking Back the Media: Notes on the Potential for a Communicative Democracy Movement," Studies in Political Economy: A Socialist Review 63(3) pp. 61–86.
 * Hackett, Robert A. & Carroll, William K. (2004) Critical social movements and media reform. Media Development..
 * Shariatmadari, David (2006). "Is a Million Articles Proof of Authentic Information?" Intermedia (Vol. 34, Iss. 3)

Other

 * Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law, The Free Expression Policy Project. (2006). Fact sheets on media democracy.
 * Canada. Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communication. (June, 2006). Final report on Canadian news media.