On the grounds of contemporary society, it is conspicuous and manifest that the public is less engaged and interested in matters of sincerity. This low level of engagement can be distinguished from the characteristics of a more politically concerned national community many years ago. As Poor (2005) notes the public sphere which existed has been corrupted by the commercialisation of the press through advertising and entertainment. Modern Newspapers and press releases now tend to contain merely a small fraction designated to political affairs and occurrences. It may be biased to assume that the majority of the general public have been ‘dumbed down’ by the media and are more interested in celebrity gossip, but from a realist perspective political discussion is minimal.
This week’s lecture reconnected me with a unit studied last year; ‘Contemporary Media & Popular Culture’ where similar topics regarding the public sphere were studied. McQuail (2000) outlines in his mass communication theory that mass media is an essential element for wide political debate, where politicians may attempt to exercise power but it needs to be seen in terms of the public character, political, social, and economic importance. At micro level, mass media acts as agents of socialisation, social meaning, and uses a high amount of people’s leisure time but it must stress the capacity audiences have to engage. The public are now perceived to be less committed to their role as citizens and discussion of public affairs now seems to be composed by informed elite according to critiques. This basically implies the best educated and wealthiest citizens in the world are engaged. But despite the ideology that civic life may be a minor area of interest for many there are various spaces of discourse (areas where discussion and ideas are given voice) existent.
Digital Activism
‘The internet has created a brave new world of digital activism by providing forums for organising, communicating, publishing, and taking direct action’ (Spinello & Tavani, 2004, 527). But when Spinello and Tavani state ‘new’, they fail to apprehend that digital activism has been occurring for many years, as online campaigns have been created. Awareness levels may have been low because campaigns can be very targeted. Certain spaces which are available online support people who are looking to converse on about serious, and matters. Due to the effects of the media, discussions normally concern topics people are already in engaged in rather than new agenda. In an online environment, discussion can be formed on the basis of ideas and these ideas are given a stronger voice. There is potential to become engaged but also potential to become visible e.g. through online campaigns/competition, especially because online spaces tend to be inclusive with few barriers to entry. These views reflect the public sphere approach to analysing communicative spaces. By expressing views in an online space, news coverage can be generated from doing very little in terms the number of people who get involved and share discussion, and huge levels of conversation move across different sites.
Poor (2005) based on his analysis of Slashdot clarifies that the majority of discussions tend to be political with Slashdot stories involving law, with discussions always pertaining to computer issues. With a various range of sections to suite the interests of different visitors, the website only creates sections for topics which generate a great number of stories e.g. open source software. Even though this website is very target to particular segment, it demonstrates high levels of civic engagement and commitment to public affairs.
Activism vs Corporate Communications
Activism is about is about change whether politically, economically, or socially. The people/organisations that endeavour to make a change by generating awareness for certain issues, and forming a democracy to stand for a belief/controversy are the ones who wish to make change happen actively. Even though activism is synonymous with protest it can encompass a wide range of activities. In the world of marketing, companies can adopt an activist attitude to support in generating awareness for a product, or gaining support from consumers in a different way which may complement the development of products. But activism tends to play a stronger role in either supporting or damaging the values associated with a brand/corporate depending on their CSR activities. Greenpeace formed a campaign against Indonesian palm oil producer Sinar Mas (Crane & Matten, 2011), with the aim of stopping companies such as Unilever and Nestle buying from them, utilizing a video ad published on youtube and social media e.g. facebook.
In a way Greenpeace generated significant awarenessfrom the public who were ‘for’ the political/ethical issue, not to help support the rainforest but allow Nestle to improve their CSR. Nestle may have benefited in different ways through the source of activism, e.g. changing to a new supplier to support their product quality, and also by understanding the issues the public sphere value, which could reinforce the strength of their brand image/values and complement marketing strategies.
References
1) Crane A, & Matten D. 01/03/2011, ‘Anti-corporate activism through social media: how Greenpeace is leading the way’, IT & Communications, GreenConduct.com, http://www.greenconduct.com/articles/2011/03/01/anti-corporate-activism-through-social-media-how-greenpeace-is-leading-the-way/
2) McQuail, D. 2000, ‘McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory’, 4th edition, Sage, London, pp. 16-34
3) Spinello, R & Tavani, H. 2004, ‘Readings in CyberEthics’, 2nd Edition, Jones and Barlett Publishers, Sudbury
4) Poor, N., 2005. ‘Mechanisms of an online public sphere’: The website Slashdot. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 4
The Relevant Element 