Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. Hindman, Matthew Scott, The myth of digital democracy / Matthew Hindman. p. cm. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Matthew Hindman . From law to public policy, democratic theory to party politics, interest in the Internet has begun from the. The Myth of Digital Democracy has 73 ratings and 11 reviews. Maru said: Mentioned in this excellent article in the NYT on the influence of the internet o.
|Published (Last):||25 July 2008|
|PDF File Size:||2.64 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.67 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
He goes on to talk about the fact that this belief is also connected to an evolution of our democracy from a representative to a deliberative one. Exactly — the whole focus of the book is just too narrow — though at least it was a detailed analysis C Reply. We need systematic knowledge about a broader swath of the blogging community. All in all — am delighted!! The different opportunities we have in the democrxcy world trickle down to the virtual plane.
To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. Jan 30, Vera rated it really liked it Shelves: But he does highlight one big danger of political activism online being dominated by the highly articulate and educated bloggers: The book is useful but his argument is weakened by some in mytn opinion poor assumptions. In practice, power is likely to flow to the deans and directors, the professors and pundits, and all those who, by virtue of advanced education, quickness of thought, and fluency of speech can persuade others of their prowess in the high deliberative arts.
It is one thing if the top ten bloggers, who serve as filters for the rest of the blogosphere, come from relatively elite backgrounds. He shows how, despite the wealth of independent Web sites, online news audiences are concentrated on the top twenty outlets, and online organizing and fund-raising are dominated by a few powerful interest groups.
The author examines the idea nyth the Internet leads to a broadening of political discourse and gives new voice to individuals who have not been part of the discussion in the past.
The Myth of Digital Democracy – Matthew Hindman – Google Books
hinxman Hindman is looking to examine this underpinning belief that the internet is of necessity a democratising force in the world.
He wanted to see if it does in fact democratize, as popular opinion would lead us to believe.
But what of the second- and third-tier bloggers? Hindman consistently proves that the Web does not diversify political discourses by shifting power away from professional, political and technical elites; quite the opposite, it maintains traditional social hierarchies. Tom from my iPad, which i love dearly Reply. This book is not yet featured on Listopia.
However, it would certainly be interesting to see data that tried to calibrate any change that has already happened. Exactly — the whole focus of the book is just too narrow — though at least it was a detailed analysis. Hindman studied the political blogosphere.
The arguments for the buzz-worded democratization that is mostly mentioned is the inherent infrastructure and equality of the Web, but really, there was always going to be optimism, because it is a new technology, more advanced than ever before. Hi Peter — glad you liked it!
The Myth of Digital Democracy
Be the first to ask a question about The Myth of Digital Democracy. Third, Googlearchy suggests that this dependence on links should make niche dominance self-perpetuating. If we are to take seriously the trickle up theory of online debate, we need to know who these ideas are trickling hindmxn from. Kent Jennings and Vicki Zeitner found that Internet use had little effect on civic engagement.
Princeton University Press- Computers – pages. Hard to keep up with all your writing! Quick round up of The Myth of Digital Democracy This post is a Dave Briggs appreciation post for two reasons — one is that I promised him I would read and blog about this book and I am a woman of my word and the other is that its thanks to him that I read it on my shiny new Kindle.
Instead, it preserves the patterns of concentrated control that have existed in the media for decades. He found that it does not. It might be easy to speak in cyberspace, but it remains difficult to be heard.
His concept of the political is rather narrow, and could be expanded to include blogs and other media that provide critical commentary on social issues but do cover such traditional poli sci topics as governance, elections etc. Or are you using it as a PDF reader? This second definition of democratization presumes first and foremost that the technology will amplify the political voice of ordinary citizens. Is the Internet democratizing American politics? So the specific claim here is that the Internet is increasing the volume of citizens talking to each other — which is a vital democratic activity particularly if they are talking to the people they disagree with.
I agree with you that this book gives itself too easy a target.
Sep 21, Natali rated it really liked it. Yet political sites remain a small niche amid the larger Web.
And here is more of it: Lack of empowerement of backbenchers? I was particularly struck by the point you highlight — who said that blogs are a tool for democratic participation?
He finds that while the Internet has increased some forms of political participation and transformed the way interest groups and candidates organize, mobilize, and raise funds, elites still strongly shape how political material on the Web is presented and accessed. Maddie Duhon rated it really liked it Jan 18, His work is very quantitative and many of the statistical models are over my head, but his conclusion is still clear: Hoyt rated it really liked it Mar 16, Thanks for telling us about the problem.