I think the internet has changed this a lot to a certain extent, although I’m not sure what that extent is. Movies that don’t make it to the theatres or aren’t available for rental or even that are banned in a country are available, usually fairly easily, for download on the web. Same with music. Live events are no longer being missed by people who don’t have access to a television at 8pm when the Grammys start playing because they can watch a live feed from their computer. Similarly, any news that gets published to the internet can be spread to thousands of people, more than if we relied on only the television and paper for news.

It is very hard to censor people on the internet, and it is hard for anyone to try and control what gets spread and what gets deleted or hidden. Naked pictures of celebrities, for example, now get posted all the time. If people do something like make a popular Facebook group, it gets talked about in the news. If someone does something funny or interesting or shocking in their blog or over YouTube, even that gets in the news. The people with the most money aren’t deciding these things, but this type of media gets attention because of the thousands or millions of viewers that are using the internet for the same purpose.

Politicians are under closer scrutiny now that they are using Twitter and Facebook, plus people who care about politics now have really easy ways to all get together and discuss, critique, and share political news with each other. There are plenty of political forums on the internet where hundreds of people share news from different parts of the world and discuss them, and this allows the discussion to keep going even outside of the internet.

The internet is causing more people to be able to spread information, even useless information like what they are eating or dangerous information like personal addresses and phone numbers. No matter what is being downloaded, uploaded, linked and discussed, the elites are not able to control it. Some may try controlling downloads or websites but for the most part it is not working at all. The internet is too large, with too many users and there are too many people out there who know how to sidestep any barriers.

This website, called politics4all, is “the social community where citizens, candidates and politicians can connect, collaborate, and effect change on every political level.” The website points out that “as current campaign trends have demonstrated, online campaigning is growing in popularity and effectiveness, yet the cost of campaign software [and hassle] can be prohibitive.”

This also relates to discussions in class about the divide between those who want consumers to pay for all media and those who believe media will become more and more free. As said in class, it is not likely people will be willing to pay for something that they can get for free, even though people like Rupert Murdoch’s daughter want to eliminate free media.It is very difficult to shut down every source of illegal downloads, although of course there have been several attempts made to stop illegal downloading. This affects other parts of the internet, and it affects political campaigning and networking. The major parties running for office can put money into forming a website, ensuring their Twitter or Facebook is active, and it can be a very effective tool as we have discussed. However, smaller regional parties and people running for office may not have enough money to design and uphold a professional and active website, so they need a FREE outlet for doing so. Just as the majority of society here feels like we need a FREE way to socially network, to listen to music, to watch television, and on our own time, as people live such busy lives nowadays.

The politics4all website is an example of how people can create something on the internet that appeals to the masses, and with that appeal the cause behind the website can actually gain momentum and have a real effect that is desired.

Politics4All is the social community where citizens, candidates and politicians can connect, collaborate, and effect change on every political level.

As current campaign trends have demonstrated, online campaigning is growing in popularity and effectiveness, yet the cost of campaign software–not to mention the hassle–can be prohibitive. With over 420,000 elected offices in the United States, we think that our neighbors, friends, and co-workers who run for those offices should be able to mount effective online campaigns without pouring a lot of money into web software or hiring technical staff.

I am going to quote most of Geist’s blog entry here, as it fits directly with my blog topic and the discussions we are having in class about new media and how the internet is changing the structure of control in the media.

When the Prime Minister announced he was proroguing parliament in the midst of the holiday season, political commentators applauded the tactic, confident that few Canadians would notice or care.  In less than three weeks, Christopher White, a university student from Alberta, proved the experts wrong, building the largest Facebook group in the country, one that’s the focal point for national discussion and voter discontent.

As the group began to take flight, it was surprising to see political leaders and analysts blithely dismiss the relevance of Facebook advocacy. Editorials pointed to other large groups to demonstrate the group’s irrelevance, noting that joining a Facebook group was too easy – just click to join – to mean much of anything.

This represents a shocking underestimation of the power of digital advocacy, which today is an integral part of virtually every political or business advocacy campaign.

- Critics Misjudged Power of Digital Advocacy, Jan 18, michaelgeist.ca

Yes, it is very easy to join a Facebook group. To insinuate that that means the number of members is irrelevant, however, is not correct. Not all 220,000 members of CAPP are actively posting, commenting or even checking the group. As I type this though, there are still approximately 15 comments going up every minute. It is by far the most active group I’m a part of on Facebook. That being said, I personally would never join a group if I didn’t…support it. I know some join groups so they can voice their opposing opinion, but I would hazard a guess and say that the majority of people who join groups have at least some idea of what the group is about and they support it. Therefore, that means about 200,000 Facebook users are Canadians who are against proroguing parliament. It’s that simple. If people didn’t care about the prorogation, as Mr. Harper seems to believe, they wouldn’t join the group.

I have not specifically decided whether I should focus on this group or just incorporate the different kinds of social networking that affects politics. However, I want to stress that I believe this movement was – is – an important one, and the “elites” should not disregard such a large number of people using the media to voice such a strong and conflicting opinion.

There are 1,341 guests who say they are attending the Facebook event “C.A.P.P. Rally on Parliament Hill” which has started earlier today.

The RCMP has estimated that there are approximately 3,500 people on the hill right now, more than 2000 that said they were attending the event over Facebook. Another 2,250 at least are at the Toronto rally, and who knows how more around the country.

More definitive numbers will likely come up later in the day, but the numbers so far are impressive. I have been seeing some comments claiming that the group has failed because “200,000 people sure aren’t rallying today” but that is a relatively irrelevant point. 200,000 is the number of people who are against the prorogation of parliament, none of them agreed to go to any rally by joining that group. There were separate events made for the rallies themselves, and as I said, 1,000 Facebook members said they were attending the one on Parliament Hill and many many more showed up.

While Facebook admittedly does have a ton of “rallies” that fail (like the Facebook Against College group, where 356 people swore to walk out of class and protest but less than 20 actually showed up. However, I just checked again for Ottawa and the numbers look to be more like 4,000 now. Would the numbers be so high if it weren’t for the Facebook group? No way. The events were primarily organized through the heads of the Facebook group in the various representative cities, money was earned to hold these rallies, have speakers, music, signs, etc by Paypal donations from Facebook members.

There are 168 views watching this live feed of the hill (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/kevinodotnetversion1) with many chanting “Back to Work”, the comments on the Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament go up every second, etc. Are all 200,000 members active in the group? No. Are they all aware of the prorogation enough to know they are against it? Probably. Did Facebook help them become aware of this? Definitely. Not everyone  reads the news, not everyone pays attention to Canadian politics but when it is all over your Facebook news feed and you hear the prime minister is shutting down parliament AGAIN, you start to listen.

The internet and other media should not be disregarded when it comes to having a nationwide or worldwide impact. Thousands of people would not be rallying if there wasn’t such an organized and easy way to do it, and Facebook was that source. Ten million dollars would not have been raised in what, two days for Haiti if everyone hadn’t posted the number to text through Facebook and other sources of the internet. The internet is an effective tool for spreading information, and as I have already discussed, it is changing the way society hears about and views politics.

My last blog discussed how more and more politicians are using the internet to campaign and represent themselves and their ideas. While use of social networking is a helpful tool for reaching the masses in a simple way, it at times can have negative consequences. This relates, of course, to the notion that Dr. Strangelove discusses in his lectures about things becoming more and more public. Politicians are already in the spotlight, and with the added access to their Twitter, blogs, and FaceBook pages they must be careful about their activities at all times, because one move could change their career and put them directly into not only the media spotlight, but the internet spotlight as well.

I will use the example of Rick Dykstra to explain what I mean when I talk about backlash politicians could receive. The picture above is of Conservative MP Dykstra on his Blackberry during the Remembrance Day ceremony. This picture was almost instantly in news articles across the country, as the Liberal party were quick to accuse him of being disrespectful towards the veterans. The Conservative party were quick to defend and explain his actions, yet the widespread media attention was enough for people following the news to remember it. All it took was the Liberals to paint the picture one way to portray Dykstra in a negative light, and this kind of backlash is bad for the politician and their party no matter how quickly they redeem themselves. As Mary Douglas says in her normative debate theory, the ideas that are discussed in the media decide the future. The media decided to publish this story, so it becomes important to those reading it. They later publish another article with the Conservative side of the story (as seen here, in the Globe and Mail).

Dykstra really was live-blogging the event, posting about it to his website’s blog. The Conservatives argued that this proved he was not being disrespectful, he was merely sharing the happenings of the ceremony with his followers. The Liberals had backed down afterwards, as they initially had accused him of being disrespectful and playing on his Blackberry during the ceremony. Some debate remained over the topic, but once the Conservative party shared their side of the story things cooled down. However, the picture of Dykstra remains and if he is ever caught doing something similar or even something unrelated in the future, it is more likely that he will be in the news because viewers and readers of the news will recognize his name, they will remember what he did, and it’s because of how mass media controls and spreads information.

This story that happened back in November is an example of how anything can be displayed in a certain way and affect society’s judgements based on how the media is portraying it.

Although he deleted the account he used throughout his presidential campaign, John McCain remains one of the most active politicians on Twitter, even updating all his posts himself.

Fairly recently, politicians have been participating in the internet trend of tweeting to campaign as well as to use it in the informal manner that millions of other people do. Dr. Strangelove believed the media makes things much more public, with less opportunity for it to be controlled and regulated. Even politicians who choose to participate in social networking phenomenons such as Twitter are risking controversy on a very public level if they word something in the wrong way or give too much information that would be bad for their party.

An article in The Economist said

Most politicians tweet to promote themselves. They (or their staffers) use the service to distribute press releases and friendly editorials. But others have embraced the informal nature of the medium.

As listed at the beginning of this blog, many politicians are using Twitter and the trend appears to be continuing. I first noticed this happening during the American election where both the Democrats and the Republicans used Twitter to share stories, opinions, speeches, etc and anyone could follow them. Therefore, it was an effective way of reaching out to society, specifically the younger members of society who tend to participate in politics less and have a lower voter percentage than other adults.

Next, I will discuss the backlash to this social networking from prominent figures such as politicians when their lack of privacy becomes too much. There have been several instances that have reached the news where politicians receive negative media attention for what they say on these sites  (or when they say them). Is using such a public method of communication effective for campaigning, or is it more risky than helpful?

The objective of this blog, as well as the corresponding documentary, is to examine an aspect of the media and to relate it to Dr. Strangelove’s book “Empire of Mind”. This blog will discuss how the internet and related media are affecting politics in the Western world, and how the general population can play a more active and influential role in politics due to new technology.

I will relate various aspects of this phenomenon to Strangelove’s ideas that the internet is transforming society from being passive consumers of media to active, influential ones. I will examine the importance of social networking sites such as FaceBook and Twitter and their use in politics, not only by society but by politicians themselves as well.

My main focus will be on Canadian politics; most likely on  Stephen Harper’s recent decision to prorogue parliament until March and the resounding backlash his government has received – not only from the opposition, but from hundreds of thousands of Canadians using the media to express their displeasure in his actions.

While this blog will focus on these current events, it will also examine past ways the media has proven to be powerful enough to grow, expand and influence such a fundamental aspect of Canadian society as politics.