The Centre for Digital Citizenship, Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds
At their best, democracies should be noisy, reverberating with pluralistic voices, competing explanations, diverse values, ever-broader sources of information and illumination, all competing to fill the public sphere with their calls to attention and urgent demands to make a difference.
But more than just noise. To be truly effective, democracy requires structure, so that speaking can lead to hearing; so that articulations of unexpected and unwanted views are not drowned out by the blindingly obvious; so that the nuance of qualification is not crushed by the blunt force of dogma; so that the voices of the marginalised, neglected and unconfident are allowed room to emerge and impress; so that the ratio between volume and meaning can favour the latter. In short, democracies should be noisy, but not cacophonous. Out of the incessant buzz of storytelling and debate, discernible outcomes must transpire.
Contemporary democracies are too often characterised by the frustrating vacuity of the angry headline, the over-dramatised incident, the denunciating mob and a prevailing mood of cynical resignation. From the US healthcare reform debate to the public furore surrounding EU deficit controls, the prospect of effective civic reflection has all too frequently been abandoned in favour of a carnival of unrestrained uproar or virulence. All of this has had troubling consequences for the practice of citizenship. Firstly, when politics is made to seem either fraudulent or futile, the most likely public response is to disengage. Secondly, even when citizens do feel motivated to engage with public affairs, there is a growing gap between the long-term character of socio-political problems and the short-term pressures that tend to dominate the political agenda. This leads too often to a public discourse framed by the pragmatic priorities of immediacy, with both politicians and journalists strategising in ways that ignore underlying problems and durable consequences. Thirdly, as the media have come to be characterised by intensified competition for public attention, their messages have tended to become increasingly consumed by sensationalism (in the case of mainstream, offline journalism) and extremism (in the case of online blogging and debate). None of this looks good for the prospects of a democratic public sphere, within which citizens ought to be free to engage in an informed, balanced, meaningful and consequential consideration of important public issues.
read more »
