Reflections on the Mirror of the Media

Reflections on the Mirror of the Media

Gwenyth Jackaway, Ph.D.

Fordham University

17 March 2011

Human beings are remarkably predictable. Throughout history, we have, again and again marveled – or trembled -- at our own technological innovations, certain that this time , at last, we’ve come up with the ultimate solution to our problems, or have finally ushered in our inevitable downfall. We either cheer or run in fear. And, we usually do both, in an age-old yin/yang dance of utopian and dystopian discourse that can be heard with the invention of each new channel of communication.

Evgeny Morozov’s sobering observations, in The Net Delusion , on the dark side of digital communication, are an important wake-up call for those of us prone to techno-romanticism and cyber-utopianism. Of course, he’s right. It makes perfect sense that centralized, authoritarian governments can take full advantage of the internet for their purposes, just as would-be revolutionaries can use it for theirs. It is naïve, and indeed foolish, for those of us who imagine ourselves to be on the side of freedom to think that these technologies can only be used to liberate. Binary code knows no political philosophy.

Computers do not have a bias towards or against particular forms of government. Giving everyone a user name and a social network account does not mean that democracy – or capitalism—will automatically follow. Indeed, the case could be made that if anything, networked communication might tend towards a sort of ‘hive-mind’, a Borg-like collective consciousness as envisioned in Star Trek, a state of cyber-sharing in which there is no privacy, everyone’s location is known at all times, and all information is pooled for the ‘good of the whole’. In that case, China, with its emphasis on the priority of the group over the individual, may in the end find that the interconnectedness of the internet is ultimately quite compatible with their political philosophy. What better way to reach the entire nation with what we, in the West would see as ‘Chinese propaganda’?

It is, obviously, disappointing, for those with technophilic tendencies, to have to recognize, as Morozov so effectively argues, that social media and the internet can be used by dictators in chilling ways for frightening purposes. Upon any serious consideration, this becomes immediately obvious. The interesting question is: why would we imagine it could be otherwise? Why do so many, in the West, almost automatically expect that communication technologies are inherently liberating? There is, in fact, abundant evidence to the contrary.

History makes it clear that new communication technologies can be used for ill as well as for good. Even more troublesome, what one nation might see as an oppressive use of media might be seen by another nation as good common sense. Propaganda can just as easily be produced by democratic, capitalist governments as dictatorial ones, and indeed, one could argue (and many have) that one of the main functions of mass mediated culture both within America, and exported around the world, is to promote ‘our way of life’. It is no secret that the United States government has long made use of the (once new) technology of broadcasting to help spread democratic ideals around the world. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, funded by the U.S. Congress, established during the Cold War, and still in operation in many nations, is seen by many as a liberating force, a positive use of communication technologies to aid in the cause of freedom.

As Americans, we like to imagine such uses of radio – or indeed Facebook or Twitter -- as benign, or helpful ‘intervention’. According to this view, propaganda is what ‘the bad guys’ do. We disseminate information. They brainwash their people. But imagine our reaction if China or Iran set up a broadcasting system aimed at the U.S. to help ‘liberate’ Americans from our capitalist, secular ‘oppression’? Why is it that when ‘we’ use communication technologies towards ‘our’ own ends, we see it as a liberating, but if ‘the other side’ takes advantage of the reach of new media, we tend to see it as manipulative and repressive? Why is it that very same government (ours) that claims to be in favor of a ‘free and open internet’ was not more grateful to Julian Assange for his use of Wikileaks, to help create an even MORE open flow of information on the internet? Freedom of speech, it seems, is ever a relative concept, as are the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ uses of communication technologies.

In the now classic text , Four Theories of the Press, (Siebert, et al, 1956), the basic argument is as follows: Governments around the world use the media in ways that are consistent with, and an extension of, the basic assumptions and goals of their national political philosophy. This, of course, makes perfect sense. Given the power and reach of the tools of mass – and now social – media, those in power would want to see these channels used to support the aims of the nation. It has long been thus. The first book published on the new printing press, in the 1450’s, was a Bible. At that time, the Church and State were joined, and so it was only fitting for the leaders of Germany to use the remarkable device of mass printing to disseminate the faith. Ever since then, governments and religious institutions around the world have employed the available tools of communication to help reinforce their power. One approach is to censor any dissenting voices. Another is to use the media to help shape the worldview of the public. This can take the form of propaganda, or it can take another form, one that at first seems more benign.

In his discussion of the current nature of the internet in Russia , Mozorov observes that “simply opening up the information gates will not erode modern authoritarian regmines, in part because they have learned to function in an environment marked by the abundance of information.” (Mozorov, chapter two, emphasis added). It seems that the Kremlin has learned much from studying American media. Apparently, a popular internet television program currently produced by Russia.ru (supported by the Russian government) is a program with the catchy title of “The Tits Show”, which features a “horny and slightly overweight young man, traveling around Moscow nightclubs in search of perfect breasts’”. Not surprisingly, the show has an enthusiastic following.

In the 19^th century, Karl Marx warned of the role of religion as a ‘opiate’ to the masses. In the 20^th century, neo-Marxist scholars theorized that commercial media, in the US and in Capitalist nations around the world, serve to keep the ‘workers of the world’ narcotized on dreams of salvation through consumerism. In the 21^st century, it seems, the latest drug of choice is digital distraction. One of the least expensive (and least violent) ways to prevent political uprising is to keep the population amused – with ‘bread and circuses’, or in this case, with tits and vodka. No need to blanket the nation with formal political propaganda. Just feed them eye candy. Combine that with news stories framed in a manner that serves the interests of the nation, and an educational system that discourages individual thinking, and you’ve got an easy way to keep people tranquil.

In addition, the reality is that many people are not driven by dreams of revolution. As disappointing as it may be for the cyber-utopians among us, according to Mozorov, “the most popular internet searches on Russian search engines are not for “what is Democracy” or “how to protect human rights”, but for “What is love?” and “How to lose weight” (Mozorov chapter three). Working toward political and economic transformation is hard work, and political blogs are not light reading. Why do we expect that people in other countries are busy blogging their way towards freedom when so many of us fail to do the same? Clearly, millions of Americans have access to Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, but we often seem far more interested in sharing silly cat videos, tweeting our whereabouts, and gaping at at celebrity meltdowns than in examining the role of the US in perpetuating various forms of oppression around the world, or rising in revolution against the excesses of Wall Street.

So we return to the question: Why do so many academics, journalists and policy makers in the West, almost automatically expect that communication technologies are inherently liberating? Why is Washington passionately pursuing a new doctrine of ‘internet freedom’? Why do we hear so much talk of the “Twitter Revolutions” sweeping the Middle East? Why do we love telling the story that all we need is the right technological solution to social problems?

The world faces many challenges. Solving them will take hard work and much cooperation. In listening to predictable, repeating patterns of technophilic rhetoric that so often accompanies the arrival of new media, it seems that we are waiting for the solutions to be delivered to us from the outside. Whether we expect we will be delivered by a Diety, or transformed by technology, we have, for so long, seen the answers as coming from without, not from within. Perhaps we project our most inspired yearnings and longings onto the machines… imaging that they can save us from ourselves. We peer into the mirror of the media, hoping to find in their screens a reflection of our highest selves. But like any good looking glass, the media reflect all sides of human nature, as we are, not just our brightest visions of who we could be. Communication technologies don’t have an inherent bias to liberate or oppress. The hard truth is that the media are neither good nor bad. It’s all there, because it’s all in us. In the end, the media can be no more or no less than we are. We are the handles of our tools. How we use them is our choice.