Does YouTube offer a space for public debate in the manner suggested by this week's reading? Why or why not?
YouTube is a new cultural phenomenon that has a lot of potential in engaging civic participation. I think that it is a medium through which public debate is possible because it is accessible to pretty much everyone and offers a way through which to communicate with one another on varying issues.
Anyone can make a video and post it, allowing others to view and comment on it. Its popularity also makes it possible to spread messages around. This is why even politicians use it in their campaigning - they realize how incredibly important mass media is in reaching their audiences. It's pretty much an online forum for people to engage in discussion and debates. This social engagement is a vehicle for democracy in the sense that it is a "wonderful new tool for use by the mass citizenry that will promote an open flow of information and exchange of ideas."
In a sense, it is almost like McLuhan's ideal of the "global village" - it can be used for the benefit of "increasing mankind's collective and individual experiences of the world." It allows us to "hear, see, and know the world, and, moreover, helps us connect ourselves to geographically distant communities and bodies."
This instant interconnection is essential in strengthening democracy in that it provides regular people with the ability to participate in it. It has a lot of power to shape civic engagement. As our culture continues to advance technologically, it is only natural that our methods of discussion evolve as well. YouTube is an example of how this is true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment