PBS:POV Is there such a thing as American identity online?

[whimsicaldeb]

I find this interesting; thought I'd share an excerpt....

Source:
http://www.pbs.org/pov/borders/2006/fr_ ... nline.html

We rounded up the Internet's foremost opinion-makers and pulse-takers to ask them: what's the latest Web-think about America?

Part I | Part II: Internet and Politics

P.O.V.'s Borders: Is there such a thing as American identity online?

(excerpt:)

Bruce Kushnick: The use of the Internet — the places people go to get informed, hang out, the listserves we're on, or blogs we create, may occur in a geographical territory known as the United States, but there's no identity that could define it. Online, we've become a land of niches, and the sum can be greater or less than the whole. Our "onlineness" is what happens on the listserves, blogs and web pages, and much of the opinions there preaches to its own choirs. On the great side, it builds a community for even the most trivial of pursuits, but on the policital side, theses communities are talkative walled gardens of interest. Is this "diversity" purely American, and does it drape our online souls with a new, diverse American identity?

Whatever our online identity, it is probably not what America looks like on TV. Ironically, while we thrive on diversity online, our major media, cable and phone networks are consolidating the programmming so the news we get has more control of the message, investigative news stories become more entertainment pieces made to titillate. Stories don't get told nationally. More to the point, voices of dissent get marginalized, stories of national importance don't get told, and large corporations who contribute billions in advertising dollars have created an artifical wall to not tell stories that might investigate one of the media's major funders. Do we only see a sanitized US on television? And can the Internet provide an alternative version of America?

The web has it's own voices, but they only raise above the din every so often. The idea that the web 'rules' is simply not true today. It has not supplanted the TV screen. So, as I watch TV and see an American flag or other icons, I imagine what I would think of America from the outside - Is the rest of the world seeing us as our online identity (a diverse group), or do they view us as a TV show?

Howard Rheingold: As in many issues, where you stand on "American identity" depends on where you sit. I regularly participate in a small (600 people) virtual community that is populated by a majority of Americans and a minority of Europeans, Asians, and Australians, and the non-Americans often complain about the American-centric discussions of world affairs. However, "American" is a pretty gross generalization when you examine it. When a European makes a remark to me about Americans, I ask whether this refers to a Brooklynite, a rural Arkansan, a San Franciscan, a rancher in Wyoming, a shrimp fishing family on the Gulf Coast, a teenager in West L.A.... and when I say "European," am I talking about a Swede, a Pole, or an Italian?

--end excerpt

[stilltrucking]

Whatever our online identity, it is probably not what America looks like on TV. Ironically, while we thrive on diversity online, our major media, cable and phone networks are consolidating the programmming so the news we get has more control of the message, investigative news stories become more entertainment pieces made to titillate. Stories don't get told nationally. More to the point, voices of dissent get marginalized, stories of national importance don't get told, and large corporations who contribute billions in advertising dollars have created an artifical wall to not tell stories that might investigate one of the media's major funders. Do we only see a sanitized US on television? And can the Internet provide an alternative version of America?

That is a good question.

excellent Discussion

thanks for posting

[whimsicaldeb]

Part II questions ...

http://www.pbs.org/pov/borders/2006/fr_ ... line2.html

Do you think that the Internet will be a place for people to discuss important social and political issues as individuals nationally (within America), or internationally, and also to effect change at the government level? Will the system be re-organized?

excerpt:

Jeff Yang: People have long talked about how the Internet is a disruptive force in commerce, communications, and media; they've only recently started to become broadly aware of how much it's transforming politics. The insurgent Howard Dean campaign, the now-established role of the blogosphere as a force for swarming punditry and for fundraising, the increasing influence of online political communities like DailyKos on the left and FreeRepublic on the right—these are just the tip of the iceberg.

The even bigger story is how the Internet is helping individuals to feel newly empowered. I recently wrote a short observation on "flash protests"—rapid-response virtual rallies that use the Internet to organize, and often to deliver, political activity, via email letter-writing campaigns, information and protest sites, and the like. The biggest problem that America's political system faces today is that voters don't feel engaged; they don't believe their voices can be heard, or that their actions have meaning.

The Internet offers immediacy, so users can see the direct consequences of their behavior. It provides a forum for open and largely uncensored dialogue. It gives them a way to magnify their voices, with the promise that a well reasoned comment or a particularly passionate rant might be heard around the world, and even in the halls of power.

----end excerpt

I find I agree with all their POVs, they all make sense to me and between them all, I think they've covered the full territory.

They have another section, an interactive section...

The US in Three Words: How would you describe America in three words?
http://www.pbs.org/pov/apps/threewords/ ... ds_rec.php

I put in

Captivating
Complicated
Compassionate

~~~ your turn

[stilltrucking]

BBC reporter talking about American culture. He said he could not imagine any other country that would have a song like
16 Tons.

If you see me comin', better step aside
A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died
One fist of iron, the other of steel
If the right one don't getcha, then the left one will

The lyrics so cheerfully belligerent and violent.

religious, violent, and dangerous.

But I did not submit them. Just the first words that came to mind.
Negativity comes so quickly. I need another turn to think of some more helpful words.
I agree too. But I am no expert on the internet, Someone on studio eight mentioned a Two Tiered Internet. He said we should be wary of it.
Network Neutrality is being lost.

This bit here was troubling. Maybe he is right.

Bruce Kushnick: I see the political environment as polluted. The idea of enacting change using the Internet is a mirage, because the powers that be watch TV, and have the attention of the public through all means, not simply online. Unfortunately, elecommunications and broadband issues are essentially non-issues to the average joe. But did you know that the US is 16th in the world in broadband access? Or that in Korea, customers have access to 100 Mbps high speed Internet for $40 a month? In the U.S., DSL is usually less than 1 Mbps.

ISPs Race to Create Two-Tiered Internet
Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Dec 19, '05 01:00 PM
from the guess-which-tier-you'll-be-on dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The ISP race toward a two-tiered Internet is picking up speed. This article from Michael Geist points to a wide range of examples involving packet preferencing, content blocking, traffic shaping, and public musings about premium charges for faster content downloads. ISPs are now reducing access to peer-to-peer applications, blocking Skype, and, scariest of all, lobbying Congress to let them do it."

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid= ... 0&from=rss

[whimsicaldeb]

religious, violent, and dangerous

They fit too. I say go back and submit them.

[abcrystcats]

This is interesting.

I especially liked this:

much of the opinions there preaches to its own choirs. On the great side, it builds a community for even the most trivial of pursuits, but on the policital side, theses communities are talkative walled gardens of interest.

"talkative walled gardens of interest" -- what a brilliant metaphor, and how very true!

I personally would like to see the internet message boards and chat rooms STOP being "talkative walled gardens of interest" and start being mediums for real exchange between diverse groups. I seem to be in the minority. I see very few message boards where real debate takes place. Most people prefer agreement. I was recently directed to a message board where there were separate rooms for conservatives and liberals. I had been told that was a great place to go for political discussion! How can we have discussion when the two sides (and everyone in between and outside of them) have such limited opportunities to commingle?

That's the real problem with the internet today, IMO.

I think the internet CAN be a powerful tool for political change. The question is, will it be allowed to develop freely? And if it's changed, who's going to change it, and why? We've already seen that it's human nature to seek people of like interests. That limits us. Internet message boards and chat rooms do a disgracefully good job of censoring themselves. If, on top of that, other forms of censorship are imposed, by ISPs, or what-have-you, you can forget it.

The internet is supposed to be the ultimate demonstration of freedom of speech, but it isn't. It's the ultimate demonstration of the freedom of the GROUP and/or the freedom of the webmaster or mistress.

Yes minority voices get drowned out, or kicked out. They will, in turn form their own "walled gardens" and yes, we ultimately become "a land of niches."

I think the "flash protests" -- and other uses of the internet to disseminate information rapidly and gain support for various causes and candidates -- are fantastic! I think we will be seeing more and more of this, but again, if we insist upon being these "walled gardens of interest" no matter what new tools of protest the internet helps us to invent, we/it will never be more than a minor annoyance politically. We need to learn how to learn from each other, first.

Without this, there will only be a bunch of splinter groups, each acting on their own, if they act, at all.


I don't think the TV is what "America" looks like. It's what America looks at. But not even the most ignorant, complacent and politically disinterested TV watcher is fooled into thinking that what he/she sees on there represents a form of reality. It's not even an ideal form. TV just isn't. Anything. Except a drug for the masses.

The internet can take over politically, but what I find is that we're becoming guilty of the same practices we already hate television for exercising:

voices of dissent get marginalized, stories of national importance don't get told, and large corporations who contribute billions in advertising dollars have created an artifical wall to not tell stories that might investigate one of the media's major funders.

Kushnick said this of television, but what I think is ironic and frightening is that is applies to the internet, more and more.

"voices of dissent get marginalized" Well, don't they?

"stories of national importance don't get told" or in the case of internet chat rooms and message boards they're dumbed-down, dragged-down to the lowest common denominator of interest in the group.

"large corporations who contribute billions in advertising dollars have created an artifical wall"

Artificial walls are created by the people in control of the chat rooms and message boards -- in short, those with the money and the power are abusing it, not using it to encourage the free flow of information. Who's to stop them? It's a question of personal choice and power.

Stilltrucking: Yeah, that was interesting article, although I got confused because you posted the link to the quote that HAD the link to the article inside it.

Isn't it true that in China and some other countries people have selective access to services and certain words like "freedom" (for example" are filtered out? This sounds like a thing that has similar potential, and if the ISPs were to have that much control over what we are able to access, it would kill the whole thing.

Am I understanding this correctly?


Does anyone know which countries have the MOST people online? I think the United States and Canada have the most people with online access, but if anyone knows of a link to statistics about this, I would like to see it. Obviously, the people with the most internet access are going to have the most power in shaping online communities.

[stilltrucking]

Click map to enlarge


Here is another link listing it in a table form. But it does not break it down by country.


http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

[whimsicaldeb]

I personally would like to see the internet message boards and chat rooms STOP being "talkative walled gardens of interest" and start being mediums for real exchange between diverse groups. I seem to be in the minority. I see very few message boards where real debate takes place. Most people prefer agreement. I was recently directed to a message board where there were separate rooms for conservatives and liberals. I had been told that was a great place to go for political discussion! How can we have discussion when the two sides (and everyone in between and outside of them) have such limited opportunities to commingle? -- abcrystcats (emphasis added by me)

Oh my gosh... originally, back in 1998 when I created PlanetDeb my original goal was to have exactly that ... a place for "real exchanges between diverse groups." So I started it up, and it went for a little bit and then died due to various reasons all of which are summed up nicely in this old article "A Group Is It's Own Worst Enemy."

In fact, the experience of my dream’s demise became the impetus for my creating my own "walled garden" in which I hung out for many years with a few friends. Again, as you stated.

While S8, for me, has been a most recent "re-entry" (of sorts) back into an environment that, at times becomes a place where there are actual exchanges between diverse thinking, it’s not a group effort – it’s singular … basically, on various occasions and issues I find myself to be that/an alternative POV. I've seen the same of you, and knip, and a few others.

But S8 was not designed for that purpose anyway, its purpose is for the sharing of the arts primarily, and all this other stuff is secondary. Still, I’ve found myself using this place as a place to come back (as it were) and in the process I've noticed I've gained/polished my skills of expression.

William D. Brown says “failure is an event, never a person.” Knowing you had this similar vision, dream… makes me wonder if perhaps it won’t still come to pass, someday, some place, some time. Because that's how new ways of thinking and being happening, begin, grow ... they start out being the minority. Learning and growing from the mistakes and failures.

As usual abcrystcats, I enjoy your insights, perspectives. Nice to see you back.

~~~~

ST – great map and links.

[e_dog]

obviously the internet is marginally more democratic than the biased corporate controled television/radio media. but it is still a distortion of reality.

the truth is that Americans are stupid, most people in the world who get registered in the media are stupid, i.e. the rich white people and their traitorous cohorts or the censored media of the Google-Yahoo-Micsoft-complicitwithChinesegovt media.

[stilltrucking]

You are welcome cat, glad I could help

Quote: I think this is me quoting you quoting WD quoting the original article

much of the opinions there preaches to its own choirs. On the great side, it builds a community for even the most trivial of pursuits, but on the policital side, theses communities are talkative walled gardens of interest.

On the down side
That is pretty much what we do here I think. We go on about freedom of speech. But in the rest of the country no one really cares. It is the price of gasoline that matters

We go on about the NSA wiretaps, but about sixty five percent (according to my faulty memory) of the population could care less. I am so dam cynical cat I can hardly stand myself. I think it is about the trains running on time, a full lunch pail, a chicken in every pot, cheap gasoline, bread and circuses.

On the upside

Well now that I got that got that whine off my chest I got to say I do believe in Margaret Mead. The important thing is that we are building communities.

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

Margaret Mead

The Crashing The Gate Post below gives me hope.


http://www.studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=7153


e-dog, if I could give you a little homework
I would be very interested
in your take on this article
from Harper's Magazine.


He talks about Plato and the noble lie, I know nothing about Plato

Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the philosophy of mass deception –
Earl Shorris, Harpers’ Magazine, June 2004

One of the great services that Strauss and his disciples have performed for
the Bush regime has been the provision of a philosophy of the noble lie, the
conviction that lies, far from being simply a regrettable necessity of political
life, are instead virtuous and noble instruments of wise policy. The idea's
provenance could not be more elevated: Plato himself advised his nobles,
men with golden souls, to tell noble lies-political fables, much like the
specter of Saddam Hussein with a nuclear bombto keep the other levels of
human society (silver, iron, brass) in their proper places, loyal to the state
and willing to do its bidding. Strauss, too, advised the telling of noble lies in
the service of the national interest, and he held Plato's view of aristocrats as
persons so virtuous that such lies would be used only for the good, for
keeping order in the state and in the world. He defined the modern method
of the noble lie in the use of esoteric messages within an exoteric text, telling
the truth to the wise while at the same time conveying something quite
different to the many.

http://www.embeddedlive.com/pdfs/Harpers.pdf

I would appreciate any feed back. It is also available as a html file if you don't have A Dopey Reader.

Maybe I should have put this on Anti-academy.

Not to Hi Jack WD's post. But maybe
it does relate tangentially.


Never mind e-dog I will repost my question to the AA board.

[abcrystcats]

You are welcome cat, glad I could help

Stilltrucking, I didn't say "thank you" but I thought it That was very useful, indeed. Appreciate!

Quote: I think this is me quoting you quoting WD quoting the original article

Yes, true. How did you know? I get lazy and go to the nearest source of the quote, when I want to pull it.

On the down side
That is pretty much what we do here I think. We go on about freedom of speech. But in the rest of the country no one really cares. It is the price of gasoline that matters

Yes, but it's the ones that care about the issues that can make the most difference. And those who don't care much are also easily swayed. Your M. Mead quote said that ....

[stilltrucking]

Blackberry Winter: My Earlier Years (Paperback)
by Margaret Mead

Talk about an American POV. She has it in spades. If I had a daughter I would want her to read that book. It would be my sweet sixteen birthday gift to her.