Evaluate the view that the New Media has been beneficial for society. (20 marks)
Neophiliacs argue that society has seen political and economic power being redistributed to the masses,
making them free consumers and democratic participants. On the other hand, cultural pessimists note
that this is an illusory belief which, alongside creating new social problems, has only ‘modernised’ elite
power. On balance, it seems that the benefits of the new media do exist but only as theoretical ways to
improve society that are dulled by the superficial, consumerist and chauvinistic culture the new media
creates.
Neophiliacs suggest that there has been a transfer of media control and agenda setting from established
media corporations and politicians to the audiences themselves. Seaton observed active audiences online
whereby political discourses were being led and scrutinised as a form of ‘many-to-many communication’.
For example, social media sites like Twitter or user-led/managed streaming platforms like Nebula or
Curiosity Stream allows the regular citizen to educate others and galvanise movements that would not
otherwise be possible in the traditional media landscape. Traditionally, partisan media outlets like The
Sun (right wing) or The Guardian (centre left) have been more concerned with advancing the goals of
their favoured party/party faction/politician as opposed to advancing the interests of the people these
parties claim to represent. So, having user-led platforms that do not have grander ‘big business’ agendas,
allows issues, solutions and ideas that are not yet mainstream to become part of the political agenda and a
concern for voters. In fact, one may suggest that the Black Lives Matter movement wouldn’t have seen its
global reach (USA, Canada, UK, France, South Africa and etc) in 2020-21 without the #BlackLivesMatter
on Twitter or organisations like the Black Curriculum and Colours of Change being mainly online. By
raising awareness of institutional racism - as it happens and historically - voters can now scrutinise how
effective governments are at tackling this issue because it is more and more being seen as social injustice.
Therefore fostering a ‘participatory culture’ (Jenkins) wherein large internet communities are
encouraged to form and use their ‘collective intelligence’ alongside confront and resolve issues in the
future, rather than letting the past actions of states or the powerful fall to obscurity - the BLM movement
drew more attention to Johnson’s past racism like his use of derogatory terms against Black people and
Muslims. Although this seems like the media creates a culture of political empowerment (for the masses)
and accountability (for the elite), in practice it has weakened democracy in some respects. Cultural
pessimists are sceptical of the idea that the new media has democratised media ownership and advanced
progressive politics. As outlined by Cronford and Robin’s study, the ‘new’ media is still in elite control as
effectively 6 conglomerates own all media from the news to film and television. Elites have found new
ways to control the media by horizontally and vertically integrating various industries and modes of
production to continue making profits. It is not in the interests of major businesses, like Disney or
Comcast, to advance anything but capitalist ideology and so leftist ideas are unlikely to be platformed on
outlets they own like CNN. In this way the neophiliac view that the new media has revitalised democracy
falls short because if media companies need to preserve capitalism then they will ensure their own
exploitative and greedy business practices are unscrutinised by users. This can be seen with major fast
fashion companies ‘greenwashing’ their marketing to appear environmentally friendly or big businesses
performatively posting black squares in support of Black Lives Matter but not donating or advocating
Neophiliacs argue that society has seen political and economic power being redistributed to the masses,
making them free consumers and democratic participants. On the other hand, cultural pessimists note
that this is an illusory belief which, alongside creating new social problems, has only ‘modernised’ elite
power. On balance, it seems that the benefits of the new media do exist but only as theoretical ways to
improve society that are dulled by the superficial, consumerist and chauvinistic culture the new media
creates.
Neophiliacs suggest that there has been a transfer of media control and agenda setting from established
media corporations and politicians to the audiences themselves. Seaton observed active audiences online
whereby political discourses were being led and scrutinised as a form of ‘many-to-many communication’.
For example, social media sites like Twitter or user-led/managed streaming platforms like Nebula or
Curiosity Stream allows the regular citizen to educate others and galvanise movements that would not
otherwise be possible in the traditional media landscape. Traditionally, partisan media outlets like The
Sun (right wing) or The Guardian (centre left) have been more concerned with advancing the goals of
their favoured party/party faction/politician as opposed to advancing the interests of the people these
parties claim to represent. So, having user-led platforms that do not have grander ‘big business’ agendas,
allows issues, solutions and ideas that are not yet mainstream to become part of the political agenda and a
concern for voters. In fact, one may suggest that the Black Lives Matter movement wouldn’t have seen its
global reach (USA, Canada, UK, France, South Africa and etc) in 2020-21 without the #BlackLivesMatter
on Twitter or organisations like the Black Curriculum and Colours of Change being mainly online. By
raising awareness of institutional racism - as it happens and historically - voters can now scrutinise how
effective governments are at tackling this issue because it is more and more being seen as social injustice.
Therefore fostering a ‘participatory culture’ (Jenkins) wherein large internet communities are
encouraged to form and use their ‘collective intelligence’ alongside confront and resolve issues in the
future, rather than letting the past actions of states or the powerful fall to obscurity - the BLM movement
drew more attention to Johnson’s past racism like his use of derogatory terms against Black people and
Muslims. Although this seems like the media creates a culture of political empowerment (for the masses)
and accountability (for the elite), in practice it has weakened democracy in some respects. Cultural
pessimists are sceptical of the idea that the new media has democratised media ownership and advanced
progressive politics. As outlined by Cronford and Robin’s study, the ‘new’ media is still in elite control as
effectively 6 conglomerates own all media from the news to film and television. Elites have found new
ways to control the media by horizontally and vertically integrating various industries and modes of
production to continue making profits. It is not in the interests of major businesses, like Disney or
Comcast, to advance anything but capitalist ideology and so leftist ideas are unlikely to be platformed on
outlets they own like CNN. In this way the neophiliac view that the new media has revitalised democracy
falls short because if media companies need to preserve capitalism then they will ensure their own
exploitative and greedy business practices are unscrutinised by users. This can be seen with major fast
fashion companies ‘greenwashing’ their marketing to appear environmentally friendly or big businesses
performatively posting black squares in support of Black Lives Matter but not donating or advocating
