Current Public Sphere???

For a presentation in class today I was required to read a critique of Habermas. I have read Habermas in another class but never quite understood it like I did this time around. In comparing Habermas’ work to other theorists and analyzing what he said from a critically contemporary viewpoint the information became far more interesting. While I do see value in critical analysis of more historical theorists I feel as if I have been required to focus too much on the history of communications in too many classes. Possibly just because of my interests, I am far more concerned with the applicability of different research and conclusions on my life and the future. For this presentation, I more or less evaluated what was said based on its applicability today. While it is a tall order expecting people who theorized even 10 years ago to be remotely accurate in today’s media environment, we take lessons about contemporary media and the public sphere from their work. While many of the academics presented very valid and unique arguments, there was a trend that seemed to be similar among all: It is vital to keep corporate interest an arm’s length away from reporting and the news. This seems logical as reporting integrity seems to have suffered throughout history when corporate interest gets involved.
Coming to today’s evolving public sphere and media environment I believe the blog presents great potential. From this class alone I have learned much about blogging and can see why people get very involved with blogging. If the right people talk about the right things and discuss important issues respectively, there is essentially no end to the limits of blogging. For me, keeping corporate interest out of the blog will be vital. With the huge size of the internet, for once the users have the ability to boycott corporate influence, but how long will this hold true? Only time will tell how history will judge the blog, but my guess is pretty favourably.

Media Regulation

In a democracy such as Canada the media and governments regulation of the media has always been a very touchy subject. Most agree that having an unbias and consistent core media to report to the public is crucially important. In the days when newspaper and television were the main news mediums, regulating the media was a relatively reasonable task. Today there is such a crazy amount of information on tons of different mediums in which many people have contributed. Even beyond simple news reporting the government is asked to manage other aspects of the media in which people consumer. The music industry, the internet, filesharing, blogging etc are all areas that can have different effects on the public and alter political viewpoints. At what point do politicians give up on regulation of news and media? At what point does the focus of regulation shift to different mediums? For example, tons of attention has traditionally been given to newspapers and television. The CBC was essentially created for the purpose of fair and regulated news. Now that the CBC budget has been cut is that a sign that the government is giving up on regulation, switching effort to different mediums, or just to broke to keep up?

Hacktivism???

Hacking is something that the mainstream media and generally respected societal institutions have condemned. Hacking is illegal in many forms but it has often been difficult or impossible for law enforcement to apprehend or punish talented hackers. The “definition” of ‘hacktivism’ on Wikipedia was not surprising to me. Being a publically built and maintained website, the connotation of anything related to activism is likely to draw contribution from supporters not opponents. I was left with a similar overall impression after exploring the website hackblog.org. The website is essentially a blog about hacking that stresses its use in a positive manner. Their mission statement in summary talks about the use of technology in a liberating manner, strengthening local communities through education and manner and supporting and defending a free and positive internet and society.

To most readers such goals would seem positive and attract very positive attention, what would be less appealing to many is the way in which they go about attaining these goals. In summary much that is spoken off goes against the grain of society and popular culture. It is originally shocking but when further examined the viewpoints and stories displayed are not nearly as radical or ridiculous as many judge hacker culture to be.

As Jim Thomas put it hackers have often been referred to as criminals and people who are detrimental to the social fabric society functions on. Hackers were lumped into one category that unfairly labelled them as threats to society. To someone new to the idea of hactivism, I am impressed with the content of “hackblog.” For the most part their intentions did seem in tune with their mission statement seem legitimately politically motivated. It is important to understand both sides of the argument on hacktivism. Original goals of hacking are in support of free and unlimited access to the internet and in support of free speech. Both of these ideas are central to much of what I have learned constitutes a healthy public sphere. While I do not say that hacking is always positive, voicing oppositional viewpoints is crucial to a healthy public sphere and keeping both corporate and political power in check.

Why shouldn’t we question institutions and society more rigorously? The tone of the website is relaxed and oppositional. Cursing, criticism and even spelling mistakes are present, yet most arguments have merit and are well thought out.
I personally was surprised to see a story about underpaid, overworked women labour in China producing keyboards. This along with other stories exemplified to me that the goal of this blog is not what many popular conceptions of hackers is, but embodies a high degree of social responsibility and is very reluctant to conform to a society in which they feel controlled. Freedom seems to be at the root of the website and their mission statement hold surprisingly true.

Short-Sighted politics

Politics in Canada has often been criticized for being very short sighted. Promises are often made with intent, but if not upheld are quickly forgotten. Personal issues of politicians are often made public, then forgotten. Government often deploy very short term strategies and tax cuts in order to buy votes even if they are aware of long term consequences. In Canada our system of government puts a lot of trust in the people we elect, therefore making it very important that they are doing what they know is best for the country.

My question is what is to blame for the public's, or politician's lack of long term accountability. Firstly I believe that a 4-5 year term, or even shorter recently is a problem. It can take far longer to truly realize the impact on economic or social policy that even half a decade. Another issue which I believe might play a role is the abundance of information the public is exposed to. With an increase in political stories by mainstream media, massive expansion in citizen media and a generally busier public, people are exposed to tons of information. It becomes very difficult for people to keep their lives, as well as their work, families, and politics in check. Will this issue grow as citizen media and the amount of information available to us expands?