Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy

Call me irresponsible – oh hell, call me a cyber-utopian, throw in celebrant – but it’s undeniably true that I regard the admittedly messy, chaotic, confusing and upsetting digital information revolution as, on balance, a good thing, particularly when it comes to issues of democracy and power. After all, as noted in a recent book on the subject, one result of that revolution has been that “new methods of creating content and new channels to distribute it have become available to everyone and between everyone.” As networked technologies proliferate, they rapidly transform “our political, commercial and communications environments” – including “the very nature of our democracy itself.”Sounds good, don’t you think? But two new books about the effects and implications of that ongoing and all-encompassing revolution – especially with regard to the role of journalistic institutions – suggest such optimism is increasingly obsolete. Instead, the authors believe, a scary digital dystopia awaits us.The End of Big by Internet pioneer Nicco Mele, is about the nature of power in the digital age, and has as its thesis that the radical connectivity of the new information revolution – “our breathtaking ability to send vast amounts of data instantly, constantly and globally”– is upsetting traditional big institutions and empowering upstarts. It is “toxic to conventional power structures” such as Big Media, Big Business, Big Government, Big Education, etc, and ipso facto, “the end of big is at hand.”One might think this power shift presents us with what Mele describes as “unprecedented opportunities to reshape our future for the better.” But unfortunately, he says, we may rather be “doomed to a future inconsistent with the hard-won democratic values on which our modern society is based… a chaotic, uncontrollable, and potentially even catastrophic future.”Although he concedes that many traditional institutions are flawed and corrupt, and says “they deserve to die,” Mele is more concerned about what he calls the “destructive consequences” of radical connectivity, which puts “unprecedented power in the hands of every individual.” At first glance this may seem to be “potentially a good thing,” but Mele warns, “radical connectivity is altering the exercise of power faster than we can understand it.” The consequences are “disruptive, confusing, even dangerous.”Why? “Without realizing it, citizens and elected leaders have abdicated control over our political and economic destinies to a small band of nerds like myself,” explains Mele. This “revenge of the nerds” scenario worries him because he fears that technology is outstripping the ability of our institutions to keep pace with it.The End of Big makes big claims – sometimes too big. In trying to support an overarching premise, Mele sometimes overreaches; describing what is at stake as “nothing less than the continued progress of the human race” or claiming that the “end of big in business represents one of the greatest hopes for saving our civilization” detracts from his otherwise cogent analysis. Another problem with his “end of big” metaphor is the problem of how to account for the “bigger than big” new tech giants like Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple – which briefly became the world’s largest company last year when it passed Exxon in market capitalization until the oil giant regained its premier status a few months ago.But the biggest flaw in The End of Big may be simply that Mele takes on too much. He offers too many examples from too many sectors, such as Big Media, Big Politics, Big Brands, Big Government, etc. – many of which have already been considered elsewhere. Mele may have profited instead by biting off far less and chewing more just on technology, education, government and politics, areas where he has ample top-flight, real-world experience and is most insightful. If his book’s focus had been narrower – dare I say smaller? — he could have drilled deeper as well.Like Mele, media reformer and scholar Robert W. McChesney fears for the fate of our democracy at the hands of the digital revolution. His new book Digital Disconnect also offers some helpful history and a clear, useful analysis, but it too suffers from large claims and sweeping arguments in service of a thesis.McChesney’s concern, per his subtitle, is that “Capitalism is turning the Internet against democracy,” and that its “colonization of cyberspace has…made the Internet a disturbingly antidemocratic force.” He splits the world of Internet writers into two opposing camps: celebrants and skeptics, bringing to mind earlier divisions between supposed “cyber-utopians” and such self-satisfied “cyber-realists” as Evgeny Morozov and Malcolm Gladwell – who like to deride their opponents as “digital evangelists.”But McChesney finds both camps wanting. Instead, he proposes “to take the best of what each side has to offer and make it part of a far more serious discussion” of democracy and its discontents, which he sees as having been so undermined that “one could logically wish the computer had never been invented.”To McChesney, the celebrants, (which include the likes of Clay Shirky, Jeff Jarvis and, full disclosure, myself) naively see the Internet as a force for democracy and good worldwide, ending monopolies of information and centralized control over communication.” He even quotes from my book Friends, Followers and the Future: “Watch out, Big Media, Big Business, and Big Government – here come our friends, our followers, and out future!” and adds, per Jeff Jarvis, “Resistance is futile.”Other so-called skeptics, including the likes of Jaron Lanier and Eli Pariser, have previously pointed out that technology is as capable of being destructive as it is progressive. Echoing the concerns of Nicco Mele, McChesney approvingly quotes one dystopian thinker, Virginia Eubanks, author of Digital Dead End, as saying “many of us…have engaged in a massive, collective, consensual hallucination about the power of technology” and another, Viktor Mayer-Schonberger, as fearing “something very important to being human is being lost.”Both celebrants and skeptics share “a single, deep and often fatal flaw,” McChesney believes — “ignorance about capitalism and how it works.” The naive and ignorant celebrants, he says, “often believe digital technology has superpowers over political economy.” But anyone who wants “to make big claims about how the digital revolution is fundamentally invigorating democracy…must start from a stronger foundation.” His proposed solution? The application of “political economy – an understanding of capitalism and its relationship to democracy,” which McChesney says, “should be the “organizing principle for evaluating the digital revolution.”Like Mele, McChesney spends a good deal of time analyzing the interplay between journalism and democracy. He says that “it is of singular importance in democracies.” And like Mele, he worries about the collapse of institutions and the effect on journalism and democracy. But neither is an experienced journalist, and both their analyses suffer from a lack of actual practice in that field.Mele, for example, extols journalism’s “historic role as guardian of the public interest” and says “we need to keep the iron core of journalism vibrant and strong.” McChesney, for his part, cites the “glory days of Sixties journalism…the high-water mark for professional journalism” and summarily dismisses most other analyses as “vacuous because of the lack of a political economic critique of journalism.”But both authors fail to offer a truly professional critique of journalism. Each bemoans the passing of the supposed “glory days” of investigative reporting, and is too believing in and reliant on a remembrance of a halcyon era in media and political history that simply never existed. In my experience, which includes several stints as an investigative reporter, such journalistic activity was never popular or much supported by bosses or owners, since it is by definition costly, time-consuming and uncertain in outcome, with no guarantee of success. And even if you do deliver the goods as an investigative journalist, the odds remain high that your reporting will inevitably alienate someone powerful, such as advertisers or the politically well-connected. So no, investigative reporting was never a top priority for journalistic institutions in my experience – even back in the so-called glory days!McChesney’s book also suffers from a plague of sweeping over-statements. Cavalierly mentioning the “fact” that both the Democratic and Republican parties are “effectively owned by communications corporations” or claiming that “what is emerging veers toward a classic definition of fascism” only undercuts his larger and more salient criticisms.Still, both Mele and McChesney make valuable points about the need for stronger institutional reactions to our current crisis of media and democracy, and both their books are well worth the read. As McChesney accurately concludes, “the Internet is not the cause of journalism’s problems.” Like Mele, he believes it is up to us to imagine and build” institutions that will save it. His approach to doing so, however, is to recommend that since journalism is a public good, it receive large public investments in the future—a view he also espoused in earlier works such as The Death and Life of American Journalism.But as much as I might favor obtaining more resources for both institutions and journalists themselves (especially his call for “living wages for reporters”) I don’t see billions of dollars in public subsidies flowing my way any time soon, any more than I do free beer and ice cream…Instead, I think we must, ironically, look instead to the Internet itself, in all its destabilizing and disruptive glory, to deliver a new and improved journalism. Both Mele and McChesney admit the possibility that, as McChesney puts it, “the Internet could provide the basis for a radically improved democratic journalism.” After all, as he also writes, “The Internet is the ultimate public good…and is profoundly disposed toward democracy.” Like McChesney, Mele ends on a promising note, saying that although “at first glance, the End of Big does seem dark, maybe even apocalyptic,” the future “will belong to those who gaze beyond the chaos of the End of Big, glimpsing one last big that stands unscathed” Big Opportunity.”So why all the naysaying and doomsday predictions? The digital information revolution has already greatly democratized media and commerce. Why can’t it next democratize democracy itself

What do Internet "celebrants" (Clay Shirkey, Henry Jenkins, Michael Nielsen, Yochai Benkler, Jeff Jarvis) and Internet "skeptics" (Jaron Lainer, Eli Pariser, Evgeny Morozov, Nicholas Carr) miss in their analysis? Well, capitalism, duh.This is the central thesis of Robert W. McChesney's book Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy. Drawing on his analysis of the contemporary economy in a previous work, The Endless Crisis, McChesney "attempts to connect the digital revolution... to the overriding crises of our times." McChesney believes that "most assessments of the Internet fail to ground it in political economy; they fail to understand the importance of capitalism in shaping and, for lack of a better term, domesticating the Internet."In the first chapter, McChesney sets the stage by assessing why both Internet celebrants and skeptics fail to account for the capitalist elephant in the room: "Whenever scholars examine their own society, it is generally taboo to challenge the prerogatives and privileges of those who stand atop it and benefit from the status quo, even in political democracies." Seeing as how the Internet has become of paramount social importance, McChesney concludes "The democratization of the Internet is integrally related to the democratization of the political economy. They rise and fall together."Chapter 2, "Does Capitalism Equal Democracy?" ("As you may have already guessed, the short answer to the chapter title's question is no.") gives a whirlwind tour of how capitalism is affecting contemporary American society. It briefly covers the historical origins of capitalism before diving into the topics of growing inequality, labor disempowerment, monopoly capitalism, political corruption, advertising, technology, declining growth, and public and private goods. McChesney then references many formative Americans who recognized the threats of capitalism to democracy (one highlight is Lincoln's State of the Union address in which he warns against the "returning despotism" of capital over labor). The chapter ends with a discussion of how capitalism has produced a "golden age of insincere communication" which is "a toxic environment for democracy, and it flames the flames of cynicism," leading to mass depoliticization.Chapter 3 introduces the subfield of Political Economy of Communication (PEC). McChesney introduces the idea of "critical junctures" (abrupt structural transformations that produced previous phenomena such as professional journalism) and suggests that we in the throes of another communication critical juncture. Whether this can lead to a communication transformation on par with the printing press, he opines, remains to be seen. McChesney blasts the entertainment media for not delivering what people want, contrary to conventional wisdom, and inundating children with harmful advertising. He also reviews the various giveaways to media corporations, notably copyright, that keep them afloat. The chapter then turns to an interesting history of journalism in America, and how capitalism has eroded the profession. Finally, McChesney notes that "American history is rich with popular involvement with communication policy making" and "in the coming decade there will be a series of policy debates that will be crucial for the fate of the Internet."Chapter 4 describes "how capitalism conquered the Internet." McChesney recalls the non/anti-capitalist history of the early Internet, and its sudden privatization in 1995 amidst a fury of deregulation. The Internet Service Provider market, once very competitive, is now dominated by a cartel of firms that are providing comparatively poor service by international standards and continuously lobbying the government to exclude potential competitors. The rest of the chapter relates how old-guard media companies continue their dominance in the Internet age: copyright, Digital Rights Management, proprietary systems, etc.Chapter 5 chronicles the new Internet markets that have gone "from competitive to oligopolistic at breakneck speeds." Google, for instance, has 70 percent of the Internet search market and 97 percent of the mobile search market. The Internet giants form monopolies through network effects, patents, proprietary technical standards, anticompetitive pricing, buying out competitors, and large startup costs that raise barriers to entry to potential competitors. These monopolies are dependent on favorable regulation, taxation policies (and their evasion thereof) and lack of antitrust activity for their survival. Also, they are heavily dependent on advertising which calls for "violating any known understanding of privacy." Even though this book was written before the breaking of the NSA surveillance scandals, McChesney presciently ends the chapter with details about the intermingling of Silicon Valley and the military industrial complex, and how the monopolists really don't have a choice in cooperating with the national security state.Chapter 6 tackles the subject of journalism in the Internet age. It is no news to anyone that journalism is in decline, but the Internet is not the root cause -- the Internet is only "[finishing] off the job that the market began." Declining budgets for reporting are leading to substituting corporate PR for news. Scandals abound, such as local news sites farming out reporting to low-wage countries and algorithms generating editorial content. McChesney singles out online nonprofit news media as a small bright spot among the sea of darkness that is Internet news. He proposes public investments in journalism to remedy the dismal situation, noting there are plenty of precedents in American history and sensible policy proposals for doing so.Chapter 7 finishes the book with a series of policy recommendations. He also engages in much more radical musings: "If capitalists oppose reforms to make their own system functional, why exactly do we need them?" McChesney sees a critical juncture coming for both the Internet and society as a whole, and the fortunes of the two will likely track each other.I fear that such a short summary can not do justice to this book because it is overflowing with argument, information and insight. It is truly one of the most dense books I have ever read -- dense as in having a high concentration of useful facts and commentary. It clocks in at just over 200 pages but in that space manages to squeeze the knowledge of maybe ten Internet policy books between its covers.A strength, and perhaps a fault, of the book is that it spans so many topics -- the Internet, democracy, journalism, advertising, capitalism, etc. -- that it can feel like the narrative is wandering at times. Nevertheless, the history and data presented are so enthralling that it is hard to care too much when things seem to be headed slightly off the rails.This work truly sets the standard for Internet policy books. Anyone serious about Internet affairs would be well served to master the content in order to have a realistic grasp of what the current state of the Internet is and where it is headed.

McChesney is one of the best-informed writers on media, and this is a book of enormous interest and authority. He is among the Net sceptics and fears the corporate takeover of the Internet, what has been celebrated as a force for public empowerment, and an agency of democracy. Rare among American academics, he is an advocate of public ownership but sees 'corporate political power' having 'basically eliminated public ownership as well as credible regulation in the public interest'. Readers are advised to pour themselves a stiff drink as they approach chapter 6 of 'Digital Disconnect' - Journalism is dead! Long Live Journalism! This offers a bleak vision of the state of the profession in the States. Journalism introduced the public over the centuries to democracy, yet democracy in its present form in America (ie. dysfunctional!) appears to have let one of its best servants down.A must for academics, students of media and for members of the public who have doubts about the direction of contemporary media.James WatsonAuthor of 'Media Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Process' (Palgrave Macmillan) and co-author with Anne Hill of 'The Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies (Bloomsbury Academic).

On time delivery. Book as described.

Das Buch behandelt mehrere Aspekte die fuer das Verständnis des aktuellen Zustands der US Amerikanischen Demokratie von grosser Bedeutung sind: (i) die Bedeutung einer freien und lebendigen Presse fuer die Demokratie, (ii) die "Übernahme" (hold-up) des Internets durch die Telekom Monopolisten und der damit verbundene Verlust dessen was das Internet an Versprechen in sich trug, (iii) die Auswirkungen des Internets auf die Presse und der beschleunigte Tod vieler Zeitungen nachdem ihre wichtigste Einkommensquelle (Geld aus Anzeigen) weggebrochen ist, und (iv) ein Ausblick wie eine freie Presse im 21-ten Jahrhundert aussehen könnte.

This book will make you throw away your cell phone once you know how people and the internet are spying on you.

A deep discovery