David Sirota, writing in Salon.com, claims that the social net arena is dominated by well-educated elites, skewing and limiting the kind of political and issue debate that occurs.
Drawing from a study by Jen Schradie reviewing Pew Internet Research data, he notes that education level is by far the most significant predictor of participation with the ‘social Web’ versus age or any other factor. The study tracked the relationship between socio-economic status and 10 online activities (using Facebook, blogging, video sharing etc) most likely to influence the public, opinion shapers and policy makers.
In an article titled Is the Internet for elites?, he concludes:
“The most vocal and active segments of the Internet are disproportionately debating, discussing and promoting the most elite-focused and elite-themed content. The logical result is that the ‘social Web’ seems less like a desperately needed haven of dissidence, envelope pushing and new thinking, and more like just a bigger but equally poorly produced version of ‘Hardball’ — a place dominated by talking points, gossip, status-quo worship and general politician star-f***ing, not by what rank-and-file America is generally interested in or worried about.”
What do you think? Is the ‘social Web’ just another Hardball or is it a venue for ‘envelope pushing and new thinking’.
If you’re only looking at political and issue debate, perhaps Sirota is right.
But many nonprofits and their fundraisers are not focused on that debate. Instead they are focused on a mission that is far removed from politics, be it digging wells in Africa or generating support for the arts in Boston. For them, social media are simply another channel to develop and engage with an interested community of believers. To say nothing of the individual empowerment social media enable … as demonstrated in our post earlier this week … If This Doesn’t Inspire You …
Tom
P.S. Sirota’s latest book is “Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live in Now.”
This article was posted in: communications, Don't Miss these Posts, issue fundraising, media usage, nonprofit management, nonprofits, online activism, online advocacy, online fundraising, online publishing, pew internet project, politics, research, social networking.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I sort of bristle at the idea that there’s something wrong with more education – that intelligence or education is something to be ashamed of. So maybe I’m not the best person to comment.
As far as political/news talk goes, television often turns into an elitism of the loudest in the room, or of deep, but hidden pockets with agendas of their own pushing their messages to the masses in the guise of news. So I think the web offers more variety of opinions, and asks us to sort through things ourselves – a better way of doing things.
In the nonprofit sphere, I’ve found a world of information, helpfully offered and shared – wide-open, not at all exclusive. And as we all learn together how best to use these new media, we’re able to share our messages with more people. How can that be a bad thing?
There’s always the issue of accessibility – to hardware and to connection. But that’s hopefully becoming less of an issue.
And if the domination of elites means I get the chance to interact with the smartest people in the room, I’m all for it!