Utilitarianism: More votes to clever people
In 1861, the philisopher John Stuart Mill wrote: the exercise of any political function, either as an elector or representative, is power over others.
We live in tumultuous times. The United State Presidential Election is scheduled to take place on November 4 this year.
The question remains relevant today: Do voters have a moral duty to be informed about politics?
The majority of Americans rely on the television for their political information, not realising that most news networks are highly partisan, owned by corporations and biased.
John Stuart Mill argued that the impact of political ignorance should be offset by giving extra votes to the most highly educated portions of the population.
Who is responsible for generating an informed population? Is it the moral responsibility of the individual? Perhaps – It’s rarely (if ever) in the interests of the political elite or governing party to educate the electorate about its shortcomings and failings.
Edmund Burke coined the term, the Fourth Estate. He is quoted in Thomas Carlyle’s book:
“Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all”.
Journalism is seen as having a critical role to play as an institution that holds the other institutions to account. Sadly, our society has lost faith in the media.
2b or not 2b informed
A Pew Research Centre Study found that 66 per cent of people consider the press “one sided” while only 9 percent of journalists are concerned with the media’s credibility.
Technology is challenging and transforming the Fourth Estate.
The Internet is perceived to have democratised information. It has placed the means of production in the hands of the consumer, hence User Generated Content. It has enabled the audience to engage in conversation, to provide feedback and to challenge one sided arguments and vested interests.
The Internet presents fantastic possibilities and potential as means of sharing information and mobilising communities around a cause or issue but I don’t think its safe to assume that this potential will necesarily be realised to the benefit of all.
I think we can draw parallels between free markets and de-regulation and the impact of the Internet on media and information. Recent events clearly demonstrate – if proof were needed – that a laissez-faire attitude does not always lead to a positive or sustainable outcome. Fundamentally, free markets (of information or finance) may be self correcting but often that process is too painful to bare.
We cannot claim that traditional print media has been effective in establishing an informed population (whatever one of those is) but my fear is that new media, digital media will have a downward effect on the degree to which the community as a whole is achieving an acceptable level of informed-ness.
Contained conversation
Sure, it will expose active and aware audiences to a much wider and active array of content and opinion but that’s an echo chamber. A situation in which information, ideas or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission inside an “enclosed” space. This was one of the primary objections to the role of the media in the lead up to the Iraq War.
History tells us that the general public has no inclination and accepts no moral obligation to be informed about events in the world and in the world of digital media where the reader is the editor this concerns me.
For the majority of the population, the Internet means memes, it means funny videos, it means games, it means shopping, it means entertaining news and opinion. It has little or no relationship with political consciousness.
The following table captures the characteristics of traditional print media as I see them and compares them with that of digital and new media.
My fear is that if we move to a world where the characteristics of the media and the way that we engage with media reside in the right hand collumn we will utlimely become less informed and not more.
I don’t know what the solution is to this problem given the fact that media is moving irretrievably along a digital path but I think it’s worthy of discussion.
Related posts:
The implications of the digital media on a presidential election… Perspectives. Lots of them! It is a pool of perspectives and information on which to form our own opinions.
That is assuming of course, that the individual cares enough to go to more than one source. Or to be somewhat discerning of the information consumed.
As for having a moral responsibility to be informed – sure. But being informed doesn’t mean everyone will come to the same meaning or understanding. How do you measure ‘informed-ness’ anyway? When are you considered ‘informed’? After how many column inches, or screens or blogs? And which ones?! And who decides?!
The digital media in my opinion, plays such a crucial role in finally allowing – or broadening – a really important part of communication. And that’s feedback. The ability to question what you’re reading or watching or hearing, and get a quick response. Generate debate and test ideas amongst the rest of society. Prove to the distributor’s of information that we’re not just passively accepting what’s presented to us anymore – we are going to challenge and question them.
New media facilites discussion and the ability to question information that is being presented to us – regardless of who it’s from. This way, people can find meaning in the information presented, as it relates to their lives.
By allowing publishers of content – regardless of who they are – to be challeneged and questioned – it may even improve the quality of the information that’s put out there. Or at the very least, quickly separate the men from the mice.
E. J.L.
I agree with E. J.L. The luxury of feedback provides opportunity to be more, rather than less, informed – new media is the catalyst for greater awareness and ultimately truth.
The NY Times political blog by Brian Stelter notes the Biden vs. Palin debate was the most-watched V.P. debate in television history while CNN set a 28-year record among young viewers (18- to 34-year-old demographic). Combining digital news media with an intense distaste for Washington politics has resulted in unprecedented levels of interest among voters of all ages, including me. After watching Sarah Palin wink and reference “maverick,” countless times on Friday, I was keen to participate in public discourse during lunch with colleagues as well as the online world. New media allows opportunity to digest information from sources across the globe – before reading our daily newspaper 24 hours later.
To further support this notion, let’s try a different example. Suppose one is planning to buy a new camera. Would she trust the company’s Web site, a CNET blog, a friend’s opinion or a mention in a print feature story? Surely the informed consumer seeks multiple sources (e.g. validating a friend’s endorsement with positive comments posted to credible bloggers sites) before making a decision.
J.S.
The idea of a digital media future has its pros and cons. I don’t think if people become their own editors of news that this would necessarily lead to them being any less informed. I agree with Joyce that the ability of the internet to provide information from global sources has if anything made people think more widely about world issues. For instance without the internet a majority of Australian’s wouldn’t be as knowledgeable about the American political election. I was able to watch the vice presidential debate from my computer at work, something that I most likely wouldn’t have tuned into without digital access. Whilst I initially started out using the internet for entertainment purposes, increasingly I now use it to check online news sources, or visit forums because it’s free, easily accessible and there is an array of opinions. I think the internet is a really important educational medium. I don’t expect it to force-feed me views that I can claim as my own, but I do rely on it to have access to a wider variety of information and outlooks from which I can then form my own judgments.
Online news doesn’t negate the problem of journalistic influence, such as certain headlines being emphasised more than others, or articles written subjectively rather than objectively and facts being omitted. There is definitely a risk that if news were to become purely digital that perhaps some of the depth and standards would be sacrificed due to content needing to be faster and more concise.
I guess, for those that want to be informed they will ensure the sources will be there and for those that don’t care they can remain ignorant. In that respect the future of news won’t be any different than now. However I think it’s a little bit bleak to think we will all become oblivious cretins in the age of digital media. If anything we can see through examples like science and philosophy that it’s in our nature to want to be informed and to challenge norms. Hopefully we’ll continue to demand a news source that educates.