Please check this out if you are considering reading for your Spring courses, or simply have an interest in the many social issues surrounding digital media. From Manuel Castells’ Foreword to Vint Cerf’s concluding chapter, you find a diverse mix of contributions that show how students and faculty can study the social shaping and societal implications of digital media.
Thanks for your own work in this field, at an incredible period of time for Internet and new media studies of communication and technology.
An engaging but provocative article in the Guardian suggested that a woman’s daughter said ‘no’ to Oxbridge institutions by choosing to join an innovative programme at Leeds University. I simply would like to suggest that her daughter did not reject the Oxbridge universities. Instead, she positively pursued a degree programme she found more attractive and most relevant to her interests – a history of art degree at Leeds University’s School of Fine Art. Her mother said is was ‘radical’ and was right up her daughter’s street. Wonderful. That is a win for Leeds.
Too often, universities and educational institutions can forget that it is not simply their general reputation or brand that attracts students. The best students are looking for programmes of direct relevance to their vision of their future. It will be the institutions that are continually seeking to strengthen programmes and innovate in their educational offerings that will succeed in attracting these students who are making informed choices.
Having been a former faculty member at Oxford, as well as a number of other institutions, including a visiting professorship at Leeds, it is possible for me to argue that this focus on educational degree programmes is one of the major reasons that Oxford has been so successful. Many examples come to mind, but consider two that are most obvious to me. First, it has continued to build on its strengths, such as its PPE (Philosophy, Politics, and Economics) degree, and secondly, innovate, such as in establishing the Oxford Internet Institute (OII). At the OII, where I taught, I was continually and pleasantly surprised to speak with applicants and students who convinced me that they only applied to Oxford to study at the OII. They were truly interested in the societal implications of the Internet and related media and a post-graduate degree programmed designed to address their particular interests.
So congratulations to Leeds University for putting together a programme that attracted this parent’s daughter. Faculty at Leeds, and Oxford, are doing exactly what they need to do in order to continue climbing in the rankings of UK universities. General university reputations matter, but exciting and innovative degree offerings can matter more.
It is such a pleasure to see the publication today of the second edition of Society and the Internet by Oxford University Press. My co-editor, Mark Graham, and I worked long and hard to assemble a wonderful set of authors to build on the first edition. The success of the original volume led to this new edition. The pace and scale of changes in the issues surrounding the Internet led to almost a completely new set of chapters. Information about the 2nd edition is available on the OUP web site for the paperback edition here, and the hardback here.
Our thanks to OUP and the many professional staff who helped us produce this new 2nd edition, and particularly to my friend Steve Russell for the brilliant art work on the cover. Thanks as well to the OII, which inspired our lecture series that led to these volumes, and OII colleagues who launched much of the research that informs them. I hope you can read the acknowledgements in full as we owe thanks to so many individuals and institutions, such as MSU’s Quello Center, which together with the Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, supported my own contributions to this second edition.
We owe incredible thanks to our colleague Manuel Castells for his insightful foreword and all the authors of the book’s 24 chapters. These colleagues endured our many requests and most importantly accepted our call to contribute to what we hope will be a perfect reader for courses on Internet studies, digital technology and society, new media, and many other courses dealing with society and the Internet. The authors include junior and senior researchers from around the world. To all, we send our appreciation. No more deadlines, we promise. The authors are:
Maria Bada, Cambridge Cybercrime Centre Grant Blank, University of Oxford Samantha Bradshaw, University of Oxford David A. Bray, People-Centered Internet Antonio A. Casilli, Paris Institute of Technology Manuel Castells, University of Southern California Vint Cerf, Google Sadie Creese, University of Oxford Matthew David, Durham University Laura DeNardis, American University, Washington, DC Martin Dittus, University of Oxford Elizabeth Dubois, University of Ottawa Sandra González-Bailón, University of Pennsylvania Scott A. Hale, University of Oxford Eszter Hargittai, University of Zurich Philip N. Howard, University of Oxford Peter John, King’s College London Sílvia Majó-Vázquez, University of Oxford Helen Margetts, University of Oxford Marina Micheli, European Commission Christopher Millard, Queen Mary University of London Lisa Nakamura, University of Michigan Victoria Nash, University of Oxford Gina Neff, University of Oxford Eli Noam, Columbia Business School Sanna Ojanperä, University of Oxford Julian Posada, University of Toronto Anabel Quan-Haase, University of Western Ontario Jack Linchuan Qiu, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Lee Rainie, Pew Research Center Bianca C. Reisdorf, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Ralph Schroeder, University of Oxford Limor Shifman, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Ruth Shillair, Michigan State University Greg Taylor, University of Oxford Hua Wang, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Barry Wellman, NetLab Renwen Zhang, Northwestern University
So, if you are seriously interested in the societal implications of the Internet and related social media and the mobile Internet, please consider this reader. You will see a variety of methods, data, and theoretical perspectives in play to address important issues in ways that challenge conventional wisdom and punditry about the Internet. You can get a paperback edition from OUP here or from your favourite bookstore.
I spent a full day at the OII for my first time since being back in Oxford. It was in part enjoying my new affiliation as an OII Senior Fellow and also participation in a meeting of the Advisory Board. But it also included attending the Awards Day ceremonies that featured a conversation with Professor Judy Wajcman, interviewed by OII’s Dr Victoria Nash (photos). Judy received a well-deserved Lifetime Achievement Award. The day concluded with a dinner at Balliol, where all awards were formally presented to the recipients.
Having been away from Oxford for four years, only returning for short visits to the UK, I was struck by the phenomenal progress of the OII. Since I stepped down as Director in 2011, and retired in 2014, Professor Helen Margetts, and now, Professor Phil Howard have taken over direction of the Institute – a department in Oxford’s Social Science Division. The number of faculty (now around 50) and students have expanded significantly – dramatically, with new degrees and new directions and affiliations, such as with the Alan Turing Institute in London. The visibility and impact of the OII has also been growing dramatically, such as around Phil Howard’s work on computational propaganda and the role of bots in elections, which has been showcased repeatedly by The New York Times.
So the size and shape, but more importantly, the impact and reputation of an increasingly strong faculty has been progressed beyond what I could have expected – or even envisioned. One of the members of the Advisory Board put it best when he said that it is clear that the OII has reached escape velocity. No one is questioning the very idea of an Internet Institute at the University of Oxford – it has put the Internet on the agenda of the University and has continued to innovate and adapt with the rapid evolution and global impact of the Internet, Web, social media, and related information and communication technologies, such as AI and the Internet of Things.
I had the pleasure of speaking with a prospective MSc student before OII’s Open House on 23 November, and felt so pleased and confident in supporting her decision to study at the OII. She took little convincing – it was the only program she was considering.
Pack journalism is not only alive and well in the digital age, it is arguably more prominent than it could ever be in the analogue era of print journalism. There is clearly a need for multi-disciplinary research on the sociology and politics of digitally enabled pack journalism.
The concept of pack journalism was coined in the midst of the Nixon-McGovern election campaigns of 1972 through observations made of journalists riding on the campaign buses, leading to the book entitled The Boys on the Bus by Timothy Crouse (Random House 1973).
It is not difficult to imagine how reporters travelling together on a campaign bus would interact in ways that shaped the definition of the story and undermine the diversity of viewpoints that might otherwise emerge from multiple reporters covering the same campaign. Recall Kurt and Gladys Lang’s classic, Television and Politics, which demonstrated how different people watching the same parade or demonstration would have very different perspectives from different vantage points, such as being there in person versus watching it on television. Despite blogging and Tweets galore, the news is likely to present one perspective on a demonstration, as well as most other political events, as journalists are more networked – not just on the bus, but – nationally and globally, than ever before possible.
Pack journalism was seen as a problem as it created a more homogeneous coverage of stories, but it also homogenizes the news agenda, every paper covering the same story in similar ways. This is dangerous in creating a sense of THE news agenda and THE truth about a story, rather than a healthier view of multiple perspectives on the news. It is important to remember that TV is still king, and sets the agenda for most other media.
The driving forces behind networked pack journalism are not simply technical, but also economic and socio-political. As news organizations are more financially stressed, in part due to the rise of online and the decline of revenues for traditional media outlets, then reporters are more likely to rely more than ever on other journalists. This is not only a recipe for more reliance on press releases, what has been called ‘churnalism’ rather than original reporting, but also for reliance on the increasingly networked pack of journalistic reporting. It saves money and time. News organizations are also increasingly operating in a highly partisan setting in which journalists might well be increasingly concerned with how their stories are politically categorized. It is safe to travel in the company of other journalists, creating another incentive to stick with the pack, or packs, as in the polarized news political news coverage of today.
Good journalists are alert to the value of diversity in reporting, but it is possible for even good journalists to drift into pack journalism without being aware of the degree there interaction with their peers is homogenizing the news. So beware of pack journalism in the digital age. The ‘boys on the bus’ are an anachronism, but pack journalism is not, and could well be an even greater problem in the digital age of networking.
In this respect, I would argue a need for more multidisciplinary research on the networking of journalists. This requires sociologists, academics in Internet studies, political scientists, and others to study how journalists use networks and with what effect on the diversity or homogeneity of the news. With all the attention being directed on how Internet users are networked into echo chambers, or filter bubbles, it is surprising indeed that journalists are not a stronger focus of critical research.
I’ve argued on this blog that the idea of enabling the press to ask questions from outside the White House Press Office, in fact, outside the Washington DC Beltway, was a good idea. Some anecdotal evidence is being reported that the strategy is working. USA Today reported that over 13 White House press briefings, Sean Spicer has taken questions ‘from 32 outside-the-Beltway outlets’. This is a great example of using the Internet to enable more distributed participation. The Washington press is obviously defensive when people complain about the ‘media bubble’ in the briefing room, but the potential for what was once called ‘pack journalism’ is real, and location matters. Geographically distributing contributions is symbolically and materially opening the briefings up to more diversity of viewpoints and issues.
Inevitably, more voices means more competition among the journalists in asking questions. But there are already too many in the room, and why it is fair to give more access to the outlets that can afford to station staff in Washington DC is not clear to me. That said, the Skype seats will always be the cheap seats, and be less likely to get their turn in the question and answer sessions.
Apparently, the President has blocked users who may have made rude or critical comments to one or more of his Twitter posts. Regardless of the specifics of Donald Trump’s tweets, and specific individuals blocked, the general question is: Should any American politician who tweets be able to block any user without violating the user’s first amendment rights? I would say, yes, but others, including the lawyers posing this question, would disagree.
I would think that any user has a right to block any other user, particularly if they appear to be a malicious user, bot, or simply obnoxious. I’d argue this on the basis that these are the affordances of Twitter, and the rules of the site are – or should be – known by users. Moreover, the potential for blocking is a means of maintaining some level of civility on one’s social media. Having rude or obnoxious users posting harassing comments could frighten other users off the site, and thereby undermine a space for dialogue and the provision of information. If there is no way for a social media site to moderate its users, its very survival is at risk.
I actually argued this in the mid-1990s, when the issue surrounded electronic bulletin boards, and some of the first public forums, such as Santa Monica, California’s Public Electronic Network (PEN).* Essentially, I maintained that any democratic forum is governed by rules, such as Robert’s Rules of Order for many face-to-face meetings. Such rules evolved in response to difficulties in conducting meeting without rules. Some people will speak too long and not take turns. Some will insult or talk over the speaker. Democratic communication requires some rules, even thought this may sound somewhat ironic. As long as participants know the rules in advance, rules of order seem legitimate to enabling expression. Any rule suppresses some expression in order to enable more equitable, democratic access to a meeting. Obviously, limiting a tweet to 140 characters is a restriction on speech, but it has fostered a rich medium for political communication.
In this sense, blocking a Twitter user is a means for moderation, and if known in advance, and not used in an arbitrary or discriminatory way, it should be permitted. That said, I will post a Twitter poll and let you know what respondents believe. Bryan M. Sullivan (2017), an attorney, seems to argue a very different position in his Forbes article.** I respectively disagree, but wonder what the Twitter community thinks, while it is easy to guess that they will be on the side of not being blocked. But please think about it, before you decide.
*Dutton, W. H. (1996), ‘Network Rules of Order: Regulating Speech in Public Electronic Fora,’ Media, Culture, and Society, 18 (2), 269-90. Reprinted in David, M., and Millward, P. (2014) (eds), Researching Society Online. (London: Sage), pp. 269-90.