New media and the politics of the economy

New media is mainly thought of as a positive influence on the human race and cultures of each nation. Because it allows for communities of people to come together regardless of time and space, information such as ideas of politics are thought to evoke “active engagement and dialogue” between users as opposed to mediated information forced on people (Lister et. al. 177). For example, political views and information regarding presidential candidates is open to the public, whereas before, mass media would only divulge specific information; however, the world wide web (once thought to solely be used for an academic purpose) is littered with an equal amount of advertising comparable to older media forms like newspapers or magazines.

The political aspect of online deals with whether or not the medium itself has created a space open to debates or if it is just a different way of being fed the same information. This calls into question its validity of being an active form that strays away from central control. Questions then arise of technologies (such as the internet) influence on the economy and whether or not it is truly setting people free from constraints or becoming one itself. 

After looking at the overall economic and political picture, new technologies are a definite part of a culture and bring about opportunities to voice opinions and economic change. But, with this change comes the cost of relinquishing freedom from unfiltered information. Take for example weblogs and chat rooms. Granted, there is much information that normally would not surface through other mass mediums, but the site itself is still littered with advertisements. Going along with them is their ability to control and monitor what is posted. This takes away from the concept of creating a public sphere open to everyone without control (Lister et. al. 180).

Moreover, this community does not encompass everyone. According to Lister, a public sphere must allow for “maximum access” to everyone (Lister et. al 180). In the big picture, accessing the internet is only done through a monetary standpoint. Computers are only accessible to people in wealthier areas. Having a computer costs money as well as paying for a monthly phone service to get online. Because of this, the “public sphere” means the wealthy “public sphere” and does not encompass everyone. Realistically, companies such as phone services and computer retailers own the internet. They make profit off it, and in turn are able to monitor what goes on sites, who uses it and so forth.

Thinking of it from an economic stance, the politics of online cover a much broader spectrum than just political policies and elections. It also forms the global economic cycle which makes the world go round. When an economy is hurting, new technologies are introduced. These new technologies create opportunities for business and jobs which boost an economy. After boosting the economy, the technologies also become the problem by taking over other businesses not up to date on online advancements. Just the sheer dependency on technology becomes a problem. This causes economies to fall once again only to wait for the cycle to start all over.

From a political viewpoint, being online and the internet can be thought of as positive. The medium allows for information to be transmitted that normally wouldn’t be by other mass mediums. Open debates can be formed which makes online communities. But, at what price must we pay for access to such luxuries? Who is actually in control of these communities? Is it fair to put a price tag on information and to allow mega companies to control the online political stance?

links
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-now-controls-69-of-online-advertising-market/6632/
http://www.slate.com/id/2131182/