This passage is excerpted from Yupei Zhao, “New Media and Democracy: Three Competing Visions from Cyber-Optimism and Cyber-Pessimism.” ©2014 by Yupei Zhao.
Political communication scholars are keenly concerned with
the extent to which new media is affecting politics...
Accordingly, the following sections present the respective
positions of cyber-optimists and cyber-pessimists in relation to
three key areas of the debate: how new media enable minor
parties to have a greater [or lesser] presence; how new media
could make it possible to strengthen citizens’ attempts in
political participation; how citizens are using (micro) blogs to
participate in political communication.
The first area of debate to be considered here is to what
extent new media are able to put minor parties on a par with
their larger counterparts, in terms of exposure. Minor parties
are able to make use of new media technologies to disseminate
information and promote themselves; typically, these new
technologies not only provide broader exposure for minor
parties but also act as additional channels through which to
challenge major opponents and break into the political debate.
However, cyber-pessimists argue that a higher number of
communication channels does not equate with more
democracy. Both minor and major parties tend to approach the
Internet in utilitarian terms, using it as a tool to provide
information about policies rather than as a new platform for the
promotion of interaction and interorganizational links.
However, political cyber-optimists have criticized cyber-
pessimists for being too extreme and maintain that new media
might be the decisive element in pushing the democratic
agenda of elections nowadays. For instance, based on data
published by the Pew Research Center, sixty-six percentage of
social media users have participated in at least eight online
political activities, such as encouraging people to vote or
posting their comments on politics through social media. Thus,
Internet voters may shape election campaign agendas to some
extent. The fact that Barack Obama obtained an electoral
victory following a triumphant grassroots campaign and
successful use of social media such as Facebook and MySpace
is a case in point.
The third area of the debate to be considered here is the
phenomenon of citizen (micro) blogging. Citizens are using
social media, such as blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and Weibo, as a
channel for participation in political discussions, aiming to
directly or indirectly influence public concerns or even reshape
the public agenda, promoting the democratic public sphere.
Voltmer, in his empirical study of political communication,
revealed the interdependencies between politicians, citizens
and the media, and highlighted why some media are more
successful channels for democratic public communication than
others. Voltmer cites the example of a Chinese blogger named
Lixiaode, who was the first successful case of using a blog as a
‘watchdog’ to expose numerous official corruptions in China in
2004 and 2005, thereby broadening the channel of political
participation through blogs. This example illustrates the
potential power of new media, which has already started to
challenge the existing political system.
Looking at the three key areas of debate outlined above, it is
apparent that there is nothing inherently democratic about the
new media; the extent to which they are being used to enhance
democracy depends on who is using them and why. . . [But
whether] or not new media technologies are enhancing
democracy, they are the driving force behind some radical
shifts which are taking place in politics, and these changes are
inevitably bringing with them both benefits and limitations.
Political communication scholars are keenly concerned with
the extent to which new media is affecting politics...
Accordingly, the following sections present the respective
positions of cyber-optimists and cyber-pessimists in relation to
three key areas of the debate: how new media enable minor
parties to have a greater [or lesser] presence; how new media
could make it possible to strengthen citizens’ attempts in
political participation; how citizens are using (micro) blogs to
participate in political communication.
The first area of debate to be considered here is to what
extent new media are able to put minor parties on a par with
their larger counterparts, in terms of exposure. Minor parties
are able to make use of new media technologies to disseminate
information and promote themselves; typically, these new
technologies not only provide broader exposure for minor
parties but also act as additional channels through which to
challenge major opponents and break into the political debate.
However, cyber-pessimists argue that a higher number of
communication channels does not equate with more
democracy. Both minor and major parties tend to approach the
Internet in utilitarian terms, using it as a tool to provide
information about policies rather than as a new platform for the
promotion of interaction and interorganizational links.
However, political cyber-optimists have criticized cyber-
pessimists for being too extreme and maintain that new media
might be the decisive element in pushing the democratic
agenda of elections nowadays. For instance, based on data
published by the Pew Research Center, sixty-six percentage of
social media users have participated in at least eight online
political activities, such as encouraging people to vote or
posting their comments on politics through social media. Thus,
Internet voters may shape election campaign agendas to some
extent. The fact that Barack Obama obtained an electoral
victory following a triumphant grassroots campaign and
successful use of social media such as Facebook and MySpace
is a case in point.
The third area of the debate to be considered here is the
phenomenon of citizen (micro) blogging. Citizens are using
social media, such as blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and Weibo, as a
channel for participation in political discussions, aiming to
directly or indirectly influence public concerns or even reshape
the public agenda, promoting the democratic public sphere.
Voltmer, in his empirical study of political communication,
revealed the interdependencies between politicians, citizens
and the media, and highlighted why some media are more
successful channels for democratic public communication than
others. Voltmer cites the example of a Chinese blogger named
Lixiaode, who was the first successful case of using a blog as a
‘watchdog’ to expose numerous official corruptions in China in
2004 and 2005, thereby broadening the channel of political
participation through blogs. This example illustrates the
potential power of new media, which has already started to
challenge the existing political system.
Looking at the three key areas of debate outlined above, it is
apparent that there is nothing inherently democratic about the
new media; the extent to which they are being used to enhance
democracy depends on who is using them and why. . . [But
whether] or not new media technologies are enhancing
democracy, they are the driving force behind some radical
shifts which are taking place in politics, and these changes are
inevitably bringing with them both benefits and limitations.