Has Digital Media made the world a more democratic place?

This is a very common case study question. It could also come up in Section A as the impact of digital media is a very relevant issue in Media Studies.

You have one hour for the case study question of the exam so it's worth spending some time planning. I would start by thinking of 4-5 general points. They need to address the debate in  the question - ways in which digital media is more democratic and ways in which democracy is restricted.

To get a good mark you need to illustrate these general points with more specific examples. Your examples should provide a sense of a case study, of a particular area that you've looked at in more detail. My examples are more wide-ranging (because I want you to widen your knowledge!).

Then you need to start linking in your media debates, issues and theories. If you do this at the planning stage you know you won't forget to include them.

Now you're ready to start writing your answer. Don't worry about a long introduction, just state what your case study is and what you're going to argue. Remember to keep relating you points back to the question and the debate within it. Theory doesn't have to be applied in a clunky way - you don't need to say 'Marxist' to show that you're applying Marxism, just use the vocabulary of Marxist theory.

So, has digital media made our society more democratic? The best way to start is to think about the media we had before Web 2.0 made the internet accessible, cheap and interactive. We have always had newspapers, but they aren't the most democratic form of media, because...

• They are self-regulated and allow for political bias (unlike TV and radio). The Sun newspaper made it very obvious during the last election campaign that they were supporting Cameron. Papers like The Mail and The Express tend to promote more right-wing views. Whilst the Guardian claims to be impartial its representation of events tends to be more liberal and left-wing.
• The ownership of newspapers can lead to political bias, as the recent Leveson enquiry revealed. The close relationship between Cameron and Rebecca Brooks/Rupert Murdoch was exposed.
• Newspapers offer limited opportunities for audience members to comment. The views expressed are those of journalists and those views are edited by editors, who are politically biased (see above points).
• The content of a newspaper is limited by the number of pages, something which is not a restriction online. Therefore the stories presented to us have to be prioritised according to the paper's news agenda and news values. So the audience only get a version of news which the editor wants them to see.

None of these factors make for a particularly democratic media. Broadcast media claims to be impartial, and according to the OFCOM code it has to be. 

However the above diagram, which you've seen before, shows that audiences don't necessarily perceive it that way.

So, the utopian view of digital media is that it breaks down all of these barriers to democracy. The internet creates media plurality by allowing a range of views to be presented. Rather than the audience being passive absorbers of messages, they can actively contribute and access a range of views. There are no barriers to presenting these views because anyone can blog, Tweet or get involved in a discussion forum. We can easily read the same story in three different newspapers without needing to go and buy paper copies. Moreover, we can read alternative versions of the story which do not come from politically biased sources. 

You need to learn a list of all these advantages and make sure you can mention specific examples.

• During the Iran elections, there was a 'Twitter Revolution' where social media was used to report from within the country. Shocking videos and images were posted. Traditional media would not have made this possible. Read more about it here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8505645.stm
• Minority groups who struggle to have views represented in traditional media can find a voice because the 'gatekeeper' has been removed.
• Audiences can even choose which adverts to watch and ignore rather than being brainwashed.
• Images which the press would previously have censored can be accessed. For example, the images of Prince Harry in Las Vegas were available online while the press (initially, until The Sun changed their minds) refused to print them.
• It is free to upload images, videos or text to the internet and they reach large audiences. Google+ reached an audience of 50 million in a year, it took radio over 30 years to do the same. The audiences who engage with social media tend to be young and active.
• It enables audiences to prevent rich, privileged people from protecting their privacy with expensive superinjunctions. No amount of money could stop Ryan Giggs from being named on Twitter.
• It allows people to share information about political campaigns, like the Equal love Equal rights campaign to legalise gay marriage in the US https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM or the Kony 2012 campaign  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc (just look at the number of views!)

However, this utopian view of the internet can be misleading. You have to be able to argue the other side of the debate.

• The internet cannot bring true democracy in authoritarian states where social media is blocked and the internet is used for Propaganda. Some critics believe that the Twitter revolution in Iran was over-hyped by Western media http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/09/iran-twitter-revolution-protests
• Turkey censors sites which in any way attack the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. They demanded that Google blocked youtube videos breaking this rule in all countries (Google refused, but YouTube was completely blocked in Turkey.
• In Russia, bloggers are rumoured to be paid to spread propaganda.
• Even in this country, the political views shared on Facebook can be misguided and based on the moral panics created by newspapers. This slightly random forum has lots of examples of internet gullibility http://www.thefootballramble.com/forum/viewthread/7257
• Kony 2012 turned out not to be all it seemed, and the word 'slacktivism' developed to describe the way in which people think they are helping a cause by hitting 'share' or 'like'. Very relevant article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-bailyn/kony-2012-activism_b_1361791.html
• Google and Facebook are increasingly shaping the content we get from newsfeeds and searches, so that what we think is impartial information is actually now subject to gatekeepers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAMP1Wu_M2U
• The internet provides anonymity for people who want to troll and bully, meaning that we may not feel free to express ourselves.
• Increasing regulation and control means that freedom of speech online could be under threat. You need to know what SOPA and PIPA are, this video will help http://www.fightforthefuture.org/pipa/
• Hefty sentences have also been handed out to people who organise riots or Tweet abuse. You might feel that this is justified but you need to consider how the delicate issue of privacy/freedom of speech will be affected, and how police decide what is 'abuse' and what is simple expression of a view. Exmaples here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls-men-jailed  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19059127    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/22/muamba-twitter-abuse-student-sorry

So, the answer to the question is that yes, digital media has made the world more democratic, but there are lots of 'buts' which make the statement in the question too simplistic. You all need to learn all of this!