Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The
poli)cs
and
economics
of
the
new
media:
uncertain
impact
on
democracy
Manuel
Panizo
Vanbossel
Supervised
by
Dr.
Pedro
Schwartz
Table
of
Contents
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Introduc)on
New
Media
Economics
Public
Opinion
ICTs
as
Helps
and
Hindrances
for
Democracy
Conclusion
Introduc)on
Introduc)on
Conclusion:
due
to
the
existence
of
dierent
forces
tugging
at
democracy,
it
is
not
possible
to
rigorously
assess
the
impact
of
the
new
media.
4
ICTs allow for such low cost, high quality produc)on that many online communicators nd incen)ves enough to remain open even when monetary returns are lower than costs.
Network eects: as the number of users of a good or service increases, the more valuable that good or service becomes.
Marginal u)lity for consumer i (Uim) increases as the number of other users (xj) increases.
Keeping prices constant, an increase in the number of other users shids consumer is demand outwards. Result: lower prices
11
In reality, technological improvements have allowed a higher output for given prices, but the demands shid has been larger than that of the supply, resul)ng in lower prices.
12
Digital Divide refers to inequali)es in access to ICTs and their social consequences.
Source: Internet World Stats 2011 and World Bank 2011, data for 2010. 13
Web analy)cs: collec)on, processing and analysis of data for understanding and op)mizing website usage.
Social
networks:
capable
of
gathering
large
groups
of
people
on
the
web
and
on
the
streets.
14
15
Public
Opinion
Why
public
opinion
magers
Public
opinion
at
the
polling
sta)on
16
Public
Opinion
Why
public
opinion
maJers
Condorcets
Jury
Theorem
1)
The
decision
of
a
group
is
more
likely
to
be
correct
than
the
decision
of
one
single
person.
2)
The
competency
of
the
group
will
increase
as
the
number
of
competent
individuals
increases.
17
Public
Opinion
Public
opinion
at
the
polling
sta*on
The vote: imperfect cons)tu)onally backed measure of public opinion Ra)onal voter hypothesis
18
19
20
Conclusion
21
Conclusion
Dierent
forces
tugging
at
democracy
not
possible
to
rigorously
assess
the
impact
of
the
new
media.
The
hindrances
cited
hint
at
the
issues
that
must
be
solved
in
order
to
take
advantage
of
the
full
poten)al
that
ICTs
and
new
media
oer
for
democracy.
22
23
Reference
list
(1
of
2)
AIMC
2011,
Resumen
general
de
resultados
EGM,
Asociacin
para
la
Inves)gacin
de
Medios
de
Comunicacin,
Madrid.
Albarran,
A.
B.
(2002):
Media
economics:
understanding
media
markets,
industries,
and
concepts,
Blackwell,
Ames.
Apezarena,
J.
(2005):
Periodismo
al
odo:
los
condenciales:
de
las
cartas
manuscritas
a
internet,
Debate,
Barcelona.
Becker,
G.S.
1962,
Irra)onal
behavior
and
economic
theory,
The
Journal
of
Poli*cal
Economy,
vol.
70,
no.
1,
pp.
1-13.
Bridges.org
2001,
Spanning
the
digital
divide:
understanding
and
tackling
the
issues,
Washington,
DC,
viewed
30
April
2011,
<hgp:// www.bridges.org/publica)ons/65>.
Buchanan,
J.
M.
and
Tullock,
G.
(1999):
The
collected
works
of
James
Buchanan,
Vol.
3.
The
calculus
of
consent:
logical
founda*ons
of
cons*tu*onal
democracy,
Liberty
Fund,
Indianapolis.
Cameron,
R.
and
Neal,
L.
(2003):
A
concise
economic
history
of
the
world:
form
paleolithic
*mes
to
the
present,
New
York,
Oxford
University
Press.
Canadians
Against
Proroguing
Parliament,
Facebook,
accessed
22
April
2011,
<hgp://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=260348091419>.
Castells,
M.
(2005):
La
era
de
la
informacin.
Vol.
1:
la
sociedad
red,
Alianza,
Madrid.
Chinn,
M.
D.
and
Fairlie,
R.
W.
(2004)
The
determinants
of
the
global
divide:
a
cross-country
analysis
of
computer
and
Internet
penetra)on.
Economic
Growth
Center,
Yale
University.
Discussion
paper
881.
CIA
2011,
World,
prole,
8
march,
Central
Intelligence
Agency,
viewed
9
April
2011,
<hgps://www.cia.gov/library/publica)ons/the-world- factbook/geos/xx.html>.
Coase,
R.
H.
(1974)
The
market
for
goods
and
the
market
for
ideas,
The
American
Economic
Review,
Vol.
64,
No.
2.
Dawkins,
W.
(mod.)
2001,
Are
the
new
media
good
for
democracy?:
media
round
table
report,
Democracy
and
the
Informa*on
Revolu*on,
Interna)onal
IDEA,
Stockholm,
27-28
June,
accessed
19
April
2011,
<hgp://archive.idea.int/df/2001_forum/media/mrt_papers/ round_table_report.pdf>.
Elias,
C.
(2011)
Emergent
journalism
and
mass
media
paradigms
in
the
digital
society
in
Kalantzis-Cope,
P.
and
Gherab-Marqn,
K.
(eds.),
Emerging
digital
spaces
in
contemporary
society,
Palgrave
MacMillan,
New
York.
Estlund,
D.
M.
(1994)
Opinion
leaders,
independence,
and
Condorcets
Jury
Theorem,
Theory
and
Decision,
36,
pp.
131-162.
European
Parliament
2011,
Can
e-vo*ng
increase
electoral
par*cipa*on?,
ar)cle,
accessed
21
April
2011,
<hgp://www.europarl.europa.eu/ en/headlines/content/20110321STO15986/html/Can-e-vo)ng-increase-electoral-par)cipa)on>.
Fidler,
R.
(1998):
Mediamorfosis:
comprender
los
nuevos
medios,
Granica,
Barcelona.
Internet
World
Stats
2011,
Miniwags
Marke)ng
Group,
accessed
16
April
2011,
hgp://www.internetworldstats.com.
24
Reference
list
(2
of
2)
Kaufmann,
L.
and
Reimann,
F.
(dir.)
(2007):
Connec*ng
the
real
and
virtual
world:
Sony
BMGs
market
entry
into
Second
Life,
WHU-Ogo
Beisheim
School
of
Management
No.
507-138-1,
Ecch.
Key,
V.O.
(1961):
Public
opinion
and
American
democracy,
Knopf,
New
York.
Kim,
J.
(1997):
On
the
interac*ons
of
news
media,
interpersonal
communica*on,
opinion
forma*on,
and
par*cipa*on:
delibera*ve
democracy
and
the
public
sphere,
Disserta)on.
Lippmann
(1997):
Public
opinion,
Free
Press,
New
York.
Lister,
M.,
Dovey,
J.,
Giddings,
S.,
GRANT,
I.
and
Kelly,
K.
(2006):
New
media:
a
cri*cal
introduc*on,
Routledge,
London.
Mackay,
H.
and
OSullivan,
T.
(eds.)
(1999):
The
media
reader:
con*nuity
and
transforma*on,
SAGE,
London.
Malone,
M.
2010,
TVB
Study:
adults
spend
twice
as
much
)me
on
TV
than
web,
Broadcas*ng
&
Cable,
25
May,
viewed
9
April
2011,
<hgp:// www.broadcas)ngcable.com/ar)cle/453033-TVB_Study_Adults_Spend_Twice_as_Much_Time_on_TV_Than_Web.php>.
McDougal,
D.
and
Edney.
K.
(2007):
Howards
way?
Public
opinion
as
an
inuence
on
Australias
engagement
with
Asia,
in
Australasian
Poli*cal
Studies
Associa*on
conference,
September
2007,
Melbourne.
McLuhan,
M.
(1962):
The
Gutenberg
galaxy,
University
of
Toronto
Press,
Toronto.
Moore,
G.
A.
(2002):
Crossing
the
chasm:
marke*ng
and
selling
high-tech
products
to
mainstream
customers,
Harper
Collins,
New
York.
Mueller,
D.
C.
(2003):
Public
choice
III,
Cambridge
University
Press,
New
York.
Noelle-Neumann,
E.,
(1995)
Public
opinion
and
ra)onality
in
Glasser,
T.
L.
and
Salmon,
C.
T.
(eds.),
Public
opinion
and
the
communica*on
of
consent.
The
Guilford
Press,
New
York.
Noelle-Neumann,
E.
(1995):
La
espiral
del
silencio,
Paids,
Barcelona.
Peters,
J.
D.,
(1995)
Historical
tensions
in
the
concept
pf
public
opinion
in
Glasser,
T.
L.
and
Salmon,
C.
T.
(eds.),
Public
opinion
and
the
communica*on
of
consent.
New
York,
The
Guilford
Press.
Postman,
N.
(1986):
Amusing
ourselves
to
death:
public
discourse
in
the
age
of
show
business,
Penguin
Books,
New
York.
Snchez-Tabernero,
A.
(2008):
Los
contenidos
de
los
medios
de
comunicacin:
calidad,
rentabilidad
y
competencia,
Deusto,
Barcelona.
Thornton,
A.
L.
(2001)
Does
the
Internet
create
democracy?,
Ecquid
Novi:
African
Journalism
Studies,
22
(2),
126-147.
Tullock
(1967),
The
general
irrelevance
of
the
general
impossibility
theorem,
The
Quarterly
Journal
of
Economics,
vol.
81,
no.
2,
pp.
256-270.
Voltmer,
K.
(ed.)
(2006):
Mass
media
and
poli*cal
communica*on
in
new
democracies,
Routledge,
New
York.
Zickuhr,
K.
2011,
Genera*ons
and
their
gadgets,
Pew
Research
Center,
Washington,
D.C.
25