Indeed, it is very ironic that people live in the age of information abundance, yet some lack crucial knowledge, as indicated in “Are People Better Informed in the Information Society” reading. Many researchers have been done and proved that people now know as much as before or maybe less; two experts in public opinion and political behavior find that many citizens are remarkably informed about the details of politics, while equally large numbers are nearly ignorant of political facts. (Carpini, 1997). But the question here is, why lacking information is a big issue?
Archive for the ‘Reflection’ Category
Since many online services are scoring the greatest success based on the remarkable nature of the interactivity and accessibility of the internet, political researchers, with respect to electronic voting, regard voting no differently than other online services. While reading “Voter-Centered Design: Toward a Voter Decision Support System”, I came across the notion of creating internet-based electronic voting system.
We all know that the internet has reinforced services/businesses such as e-commerce and effective social interactions (Social Media). On the other hand, Digital democracy (online voting) is a double-edged sword by all means.
While reading “A Nation Divided: How Technology Influences the American Political Process” (Cannon et al., 2001), I came across many important principles regarding Digital Democracy. Without a doubt, the notion of internet voting, which will increase the number of voters due to the availability and accessibility of the internet, is valid, but this number might increase in favor of one party than the other based on the online population, the availability of political information on news sites and security issues (Kanter, 1999; Cannon et al., 2001). Many things seem to interfere with the validity of online voting such as selling online votes, lack of privacy while voting, or the attack of viruses to change or forward votes to third parties. Politicians along with online voting critics are torn apart between the effectiveness and the total adoptability of this tool and the possibility of fraud.
In Christensen’s “Breaking the Wire”, he clearly suggests that our ways of communication are moving toward online and wireless worlds. With no doubt, consumers now are more precise about what they want; they want to be able to communicate remotely and effectively at the same time with no constraints. Therefore, telecommunication companies have to adopt what is more convenient to customers in terms of portability and quality.
In the last few years, the internet has become the most reliable medium in many fields. By using the internet, everyone mainly can socialize with each other, sending emails, buying or selling goods with limited governmental control. Satisfyingly, commoners utilize this tool to serve their needs, they explore different online communities and engage themselves in many online activities.
The online world is a very complicated and interlaced way of communication. It is not very easy to define the online communities or even to discriminate between them. Despit the overlapping, I will try to narrow down my perspective. My first attempt, in the interactional web world, was creating a private e-mail address. I believe this method of interacting is so basic and standard communication tool. Nowadays, many people check their e-mail accounts regularly just like checking their mail boxes.
In Gillmor’s “The Gates Come Down”, I found a lot of useful information. Some of them are facts that I totally agree with and I don’t agree with some other provided information. First, I believe that the rules for newsmakers and journalists have changed not only because everyone is able to make news, but, actually we are forced to adopt a new tool and a new technique to cope with an age of new and young audience in order to deliver effective messages. Indeed, I totally agree that we still live in an industrial age of manufacturing news, (especially in Saudi Arabia), government and/or political organizations ought to control news. News must be under a moderated control, so, we don’t experience chaos in news world_ everyone is saying anything anytime. Having a freedom of speech to talk about the most controversial matters and having a limited control on news are two different things.
As I noted before in one of my previous assignments, technology is a double-edged sword. Many governments sometimes tend to hide a particular piece of news from the public, but even though the public can always find their own ways to spread the news; for example, by cell-phones. On the other hand, cell-phones are very important devices to the public, as history showed many crime prevention cases. I remember that a girl was raped in Saudi Arabia and the media never spoke about it because the rapist was a prince, but thanks to the rapist, who recorded his crime and spread it (by a cell-phone with a digital camera), the public reacted very quickly to the incident and the government made a very serious procedure.
- How we assess the impact of an open news technique on societies with different backgrounds?
- What do we need/lack to deliver effective news? Can those requirements be adopted by all societies? If no why and how?
- Why governments around the world are more likely to hide important information and block its sources? Is it part of controlling the citizen?