Democracy Online - Pushing the limits or creating a new frontier (Video Blog Post)

I think that any form of communication that is in the hands of the people is a good thing. In the past we had only the MSM media to provide information to the masses and we trusted that what we were being told was true. We now know that the MSM are the most ethically corrupt and politically biased organizations in the country and it was the internet that allowed us to realize it and do so in real time. We now do not take what we are told at face value. We research it and talk it over with those around the country and the world before making a decision on what to believe. Knowledge is power and giving access to information to people is never a bad thing and can only serve to strengthen our democracy.

[updated Fri Jul 04 00:19:29 -0400 2008]

Nik--I believe the instant access to the internet has improved the degree of accountability / honesty of government and its agencies. For example, and there are many, the taser death of the Polish traveller, Dziekanski, at the Vancouver Airport caught by cell phone photographs, removed any ability of the RCMP to cover up and, I believe they tried by reporting in terms favourable to themselves that they had to retract when the film "evidence" became known. Another example has been the many "different" views of the Afghanistan War that are not the government's preferred view. Political parties, of course, can manipulate the internet to push their views and the current frenzy over climate change may be an example----this seems to be an obstruction, a negative, to a reasoned and informed debate of the issue.

If you wish, the internet has moved the activities of government from the cover of the woods to the exposure of the open field. I am sure the internet will cause government to know they are under greater scrutiny and I generally see this as a positive for better governance in the future.

[updated Fri Jul 04 04:04:41 -0400 2008]

Nik, I would agree that the internet is still a more transactional than transformative agent right now.

My personal interest in the internet originally was to make use of the features that allowed me to have my work interpreted and commented on by others in a more instantanaeous and detailed view. I then got very much into on line banking, stock trading and travel related stuff among other transactional things I do on line.

However, now that my transactional stuff is more day to day and even more instant with better on line interactive communications I have turned into an information gatherer particularly on our Country's political life among other things and explore other interests I have as well.
I also travel frequently,100 nights plus a year, and love to tune into my favorite Jazz station when I'm on the other side of the world. I don't use facebook for some reason I can't yet explain although it might be simply a generational thing. I do read many blogs mostly politically oriented and always read Bourque as a starter before my on line daily newspaper rounds.

So, in your context I am more than ready for the transformational part of the internet as a politcal venue so to speak.

However, one caveat is that the anonimity of the internet does allow people to spread false stuff that can easily become gospel in a hurry much like the press does now. Those things can be hard to put down at times.

Great subject for discussion though.

[updated Fri Jul 04 05:09:32 -0400 2008]

One of the upcoming issues of our times will be electronic or on line voting to increase the use of our democratic privileges. That will be the real transformative event.

This will entail a whole new generation of thinking and probably a remake of how politics are done and governments are run. We might in some future time even be able to vote on major issues as a larger on line parliament. That is direct democracy. However, I would agree we are not there yet, not even close.

The bad start in Florida with electronic voting has made everyone skeptical but I do believe the internet can be made foolproof enough for internet voting to be a wave of the future.

[updated Fri Jul 04 05:17:39 -0400 2008]

Nik, having listened to your discourse one cannot but agree with your judgment of the impact of the internet on the political situation in any country for that matter.It must also be said that your methods of research and the participation of the public at large has a profound effect for the better.You have opened the door for participation like no one else.
It was a pleasure to listen to what you had to say.

[updated Fri Jul 04 07:49:15 -0400 2008]

Nik I agree with your comments. While the internet may not have had a large impact on the democratic process yet, I believe the results of the impact will be indicated in the future. It takes time. One reason the change is not noticable in Canada is because we have had a reasonable amount of freedom and our communication was not so constraint.
In underdeveloped countries the situation, or even some developed countries there was not such free communication. The average citizen had to be very careful of what he/she expressed. There the impact is much more noticable. It is arguable whether this results in greater democracy. Personally I believe it will , but there is the argument that terorists groups grow and become more sophisticated as a result of the internet and cell phones.

Are far as politic blogs are concerned I thinkl most Canadians ignore their biases. Even when those blog info is regurgitated by others on their political commentary most of us just ignore it.
I remember a youinger time when people would often comment "I saw it on TV" or "I read it in the paper" as if that was proof of acccuracy or thruthfulness. That is no longer the case or at least not as significant.
Thrue the internet I have found source that have proven to me that their infiormation is accurate and trustworthy. If I'm not sure, from my own knowledge, I tend to rely on them.
I ignore all the rest.

Re engagement. I have never taken party in any political party, nor attended meetings or townshouse events. I have written to politicians. The results of that was very disappointing.
The individual replies to that which may not turn you off as a voter, nothing to do with the problem you asked about. The party is even worse, all I've ever got is a form letter, so juvenile as to insult me. They are mostly l hopeless.
I once offered my services to the NDP , whose policies I generally agree with, but I did not get a response. So I never tried again.

To summarize I belive the internet has beneficial impact on democracy but it's results will be in the furture.

[updated Fri Jul 04 08:42:25 -0400 2008]

Nik, Here are a few examples where the net has clearly transformed politics:
1) election campaigns (are now even more scripted because parties trail candidates and leaders with video cameras)
2) fundraising: all the parties are trying to figure out how to emulate Obama style fundraising.
3) attack ads are now tested as much online than they are in focus groups.
4) partisan bloggers serve as unofficial channel of "leaks" and trial balloons from the parties to the press
5) two words: journalist-bloggers (political reporting that is)
6) The green party -- look back at the Ontario election. They had no money, so where did they turn? The internet, facebook, etc.
-Greg Elmer, Infoscape Research Lab

[updated Fri Jul 04 15:26:49 -0400 2008]

The internet only hurts the political discourse in Canada, largely due to the intensifying and radicalising effect that characterises any sort of forum or blog that attracts ideologues and limits the availability and/or the integrity of opposing views.

It's no shock that people feed off of agreement, and where before ideologues and extremist elements were largely marginalised and isolated in any sort of public forum, they now instead reinforce, amplify, and radicalise each other as they convince each other of the merit of whatever ideology they might espouse and the folly or stupidity or ignorance of the general public.

When you add in the dangers of the self-selection of "unbiased" news sources, the peril of people cherry-picking information (the claim of the "self-educated) and the framing of that information, what you end up with is the creation of new culture warriors -- people fully convinced of the righteousness of their crusade, motivated to act against the evil of those who would dare think differently, have different ideals, or worst of all, be normal enough to retain some basic perspective and not hyperventilate over things that just aren't important in the bigger scheme of things.

And these folks are already self-immunised against dissenting views; the internet has allowed them, after all, to become so entrenched in their worldview that they can no longer fathom or sympathise with an alternative. More to the point, the only time they ever engage any dissenting views is in the context of groupthink -- someone who disagrees with the community's general consensus (or even worse, has a worldview in which an issue doesn't correspond to the dichotomy that they frame it in) is quickly tarred-and-feathered, dismissed as "biased", or silenced.

Everyone interested in politics has at some point run into the horror that is talk radio, and the internet operates in the same way, only is worse because it is more accessible. Any sort of medium that lets people of a general persuasion congregate and lets them cut themselves off from their larger community suffers from the same radicalisation, the same intolerance, and the same groupthink. If this is the product of democracy (or maybe it is more accurate to say the product of the commercialisation of ideology, where people pick and choose what they listen to and who they interact with), then I can't say I think we need more democracy online.

[updated Fri Jul 04 19:56:15 -0400 2008]

I say there should be internet voting using you sin and other information to Vote, but Public Servants have to be more accountable for messages,complaints etc etc from their e-mails from Canadian Citizens, you do online banking, should be online complaining and accountability, Something those in Ottawa are lacking! Pay attention to online comments or lose in the next election is the way it is going to be. That is why I'm voting for Mayor who proposed the "Speculator Tax" in Metro Vancouver, 18,000 empty units. Obscene!

Question of the Day: If your representing Canada at the Beijing Olympics you have a responsibility on behalf of other Canadians to tell them about Human Rights and other things the Thugs in Beijing are doing. The greater responsibility is on the Chinese Canadian to tell the Beijing leadership, did you think you were going there just for a free trip? Yes or No, Comment. Note: Do not expect David Emmerson to do anything, with him as Foreign Affairs, Canada will be a Province of China in No Time. Proposing a 30% tax on things "Made in China" including newspapers, TV and Radio Media and other things I missed. This is to Offset "The Carbon Tax in BC" Scam of Year.

[updated Sun Jul 06 14:36:33 -0400 2008]

Good Day Nik and all bloggers. The internet as it applies to politics has positives and negatives, but I agree that the jury is out. The positive is that it provides a "Town Square" where anyone who wants to can speak their piece.

The negative is that it is open to manipulation.

As a frequent visitor to political blogs, I am quite convinced that most fora are inundated with organized (and probably paid) commentators who regularly visit their Party's website to get their talking points for the the day and then mindlessly spew them out post after post.

They viciously attack anyone with opposing viewpoints. They do everything they can to prevent reasonable debate.

This blog is not free of the phenomenon I describe, but remains surprisingly open. If you'd like to see a really good example of what I'm talking about, check out the comment sections on the Globe and Mail website.

[updated Sun Jul 06 23:33:52 -0400 2008]

I agree, we are still in transition, but the tools provided by the 'net are the key to all this. I've been running a site fromheridings.ca, for a few years now, just so I can examine the press releases form the major political parties,side by side, and to have the ability to track positions historically, for helicopters, against helicopters etc etc. I think it is that type of impartial aggregation of information that is of real value. while we all have opinion, it is important to be able to compare position, let the parties speak for themselves.
Second point - the actual voting process becomes less a measure of democratic participation in an environment where the polls and perceived public opinion sway the politicians, by informed comment online, politicians, followers by nature, can be lead.

[updated Mon Jul 07 09:45:08 -0400 2008]

About the talk in MTL…very interesting, but for whatever (superficial) value democracy has in this country, at least this moment-to-moment uncertainty means some sort of debate is on-going. In the US, they get into power, then spend three of their four years politicking for the next November watershed. That said, it's true the Bloc and the Liberals aren't going to vote out the gov't., because they have too much to lose. In fact, Dion is leading us down a dead-end by pretending to be the opposition, because he knows as soon as there's an election, he will lose and get dumped unceremoniously, but the Democrats let Americans down just as badly in recent years, didn't they?

Also re. Facebook, etc.--yes, the contact is social, if by that you mean the shallow, individualistic exhibitionism that is inherent in US culture (“check out my board game and tattoo”…I hear this from well-educated forty-somethings!), but how POLITICAL is it; rather indirect and RE-actionary if anything, right?

Here-today-gone-tomorrow sound-bites have been happening for a rather long time. You’re right that the public is disconnected by this…both from politics and from themselves.

What the underside of Canadian political culture (are we all developing ADDS, for example!): how many of us know we spent fifteen (i.e. nearly all) of the Trudeau years under martial law from 1970 to 1985, when Mulroney---of all people—finally revoked the Public Order Bill? What can we say about the political or psychic health of a people who didn’t know that at the time or even in retrospect?

[updated Wed Jul 09 09:10:00 -0400 2008]

Thank God 4 the internet or we'd have to take "THEIR" word 4 it !! ...Tell me if this sounds a little odd!....
- Olympics starts in China......
-Bush goes on a tour to stir up human rights issues...like freedom of religion...During the olympics ...
-Media helps in the Negative smearing(warranted or not).....China takes offence...
-Russia stirs up a deversion to get in on the games..Perhaps Trying to humble Bush's " U.s./western propaganda tour".Take some heat ofF China?
-..So Russia hits a weak democracy ,that perhaps ,rightfully belongs to Russia anyway( argueably)
-......On it goes...All at a time where we are suppose to be peacefully competeing ,and cheering our countries on, in good faith and good fun!......Oh what a world self interested politicians lead at the expense of the rest of us!!!

Bush/Putin...... Take it out in an olympic areana! ..Get in the ring! .I pay BIG$$$$$$$ to see that live or online!..Just Please Leave the rest of us out of it.. So we can enjoy the games in peace !

Thank you for this space and time.....

B.GreenFish66

Over and out there from here!

[updated Mon Aug 11 19:28:24 -0400 2008]