Sunday, March 22, 2009

Yukun's questions

In the Networked Public Sphere

1 in page 21 the author proposed two objections toward Benkler’s opinion. One is hierarchy and concentration of network. I am wonder how and why does this hierarchy or concentration form. Does it mean that news organization or group still control the power of setting the agenda like before?

2 in page 23, Benkler argued that “this phenomenon represented more of an internal forum than an echo chamber, as like-minded people develop their arguments with each other.” He believes polarisation will be deleted through filtered, strengthened and tested.
However, supporters of those polarized opinions are more eager to promote than common people. Media always like the singularity of a story. Dose those polarized opinion be moderated? I doubt. Otherwise, those polarized opinions are always manifested in the mainstream media. Then they create some effects like the spiral of silence.

Hidden Debates
3 Cultural Citizenship VS Political Citizenship
In page 32, the author discussed the topics about cultural citizenship which is different from political citizenship. I am wondering is there any relationship between political identity and cultural citizenship. Is there any conflict between cultural citizenship and political citizenship?

4 in page 36, “the Roswell fans moved to political discussion of terrorism but also of American foreign policy.” Does it mean that cultural citizenship can change identity and impact political citizenship? However, I know America pop culture is very popular is some countries. But people in those countries still dislike America. This is a very interesting and paradoxical issue.

Why Conversation is Not the Soul of Democracy?

5 in page307, the author said “I prefer two-person conversations to larger gatherings.” “I prefer seminars to large assemblies.” “The larger the group, the more I want rules of engagement because I am slow of speech.” In page 308, democracy may require withdrawal from civility itself.

Does the author prefer direct democracy rather than representative democracy? I guess his opinion will attract the critique of elitist. What is other scholars’ opinion about that?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.