As I mentioned in There Is No Disinhibition Here: Blogging The Mind, former US vice president Al Gore has been instrumental in creating Current TV, an independently owned and operated news and documentary channel. In fact, Mr. Gore is the chairman of that new network.
I bring to your attention Mr. Gore's October 5, 2005 speech given near the launch date of Current; a speech delivered to the Associated Press. In that fine oration Mr. Gore both laments and lambasts the loss of democracy in much if not most of the media today.
I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse . I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions. ...
Gore holds up this marketplace of ideas as something wonderful and ancient (he journeys to classical Rome and Athens to bolster his point); he believes that a true democracy must maintain this marketplace by fair means, by the "Rule of Reason." With a quick overview of how that marketplace has been handed down through the generations, primarily through print media, radio and then television, Gore reacts strongly to the consolidation of power in the TV media, calling it a restructuring, even destruction of that democratic marketplace of thought:
And here is my point: it is the destruction of that marketplace of ideas that accounts for the "strangeness" that now continually haunts our efforts to reason together about the choices we must make as a nation.
Whether it is called a Public Forum, or a "Public Sphere", or a marketplace of ideas, the reality of open and free public discussion and debate was considered central to the operation of our democracy in America's earliest decades.
Those of you who will take the time to be informed by Gore's speech should discern the irony of Al Gore's remarks, even his worldview. For Mr. Gore laments the consolidation of power within media, particularly TV media; and yet his answer to that is to turn to the most consolidating power (perhaps) on the planet, Google. Lest we forget, Current TV is a joint venture between Mr. Gore's TV studio and the world's most powerful and popular search engine.
***
Permit me to comment on my very first encounter with Current TV. It was late last fall or early winter. I tuned into a "Zeitgeist" moment, I believe, a scheduled break in programming in which a Google spokesman was discussing the most popular searches on Google the morning of September 11, 2001. The Google page at this link decribes some of the trends during that desperate, terrifying week (before and after). It is worth studying, though it is not quite as interesting as the young man noted on Current, as he listed searches that were popular right up until the first plane hit the North Tower in lower Manhattan. I find it amazing that by the end of the week of September 11, Nostradamus was the number one search query on Google. Curiously, though Current TV's own FAQ section says it is non-partisan (Al Gore is chairman, after all), the Google spokesperson ended his commentary with this (I paraphrase): It is interesting to note that after September 11 no one was querying for links between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. That this statement is factual and yet is offered in an allegedly "non-partisan" way is, to say the least, a distortion of language. But let's forgive it. For now.
What, really, is Google? It is a tool, indeed, for those of us on this side of the keyboard. But what is it on the other side, on the underbelly of the Internet? It also is a tool: it is a tool of incredible power, for it is truly omniscient regarding Internet use, knowing everything each of us queries, enters, posts, deletes. It is watching, shaping not only efficiency protocols to assist us, but marketing protocols to assist those who want to directly market products to each of us. Imagine that not only does Google know our queries, it owns Blogger, and thus is a repository for opinion, analysis, and too-often intensely personal data; and it also owns Gmail, where it reportedly screens every email so as to more finely-tune its marketing strategies (and Gmail deletes nothing, apparently). Some folks, of course, find this all rather creepy. Amazingly, most of us permit such creepiness without a word of complaint (yet we shout loud about President Bush's "domestic" wiretapping, while this [dated] report suggests that Google may be in breach of wiretapping laws.).
My point in belaboring this is simple: Al Gore has found the perfect means of consolidating media power by using the Internet, and our Google behaviors, for shaping opinions, news, and markets. Moreover, with Google owning Blogger, it is evident that Google holds the power to promote some blogs over others, as it in fact does on its "Blogs of Note" sidebar offered to Blogger members. Who, pray tell, really determines a blog of note? Is it notable because it is popular, or is it made popular by being noted? In other words, is it really true that some ideas, or some opinion-makers, are promoted democratically? Who knows?
Please, this is not about me either being paranoid or resentful. It is about asking an intelligent question of Al Gore and his Plan: Is Mr. Gore actually creating a monstrous, powerful tool that is shaped not by events on the ground, like REAL news in REAL time in REAL history, but by the actions of keyboard queries, blog discussions, and any other manner of elusive (and potentially nefarious) digital activity? Is Mr. Gore's enterprise actually just another form of control, though disguised as liberty? Is Mr. Gore really just one or two steps ahead of the rest of us, proclaiming "democracy" when he actually intends to suppress it; to subdue it by silencing, marginalizing or otherwise rendering someone extraneous whose views do not achieve the elevated status his plan gives mere lip-service to? If certain blogs are not of note, are certain truths, certain people, certain lives similarly unnotable?
Do with this as you will. I have offered nothing much. I have (at least) merely pointed out Mr. Gore's glaring contradiction: he has turned to the consolidation of power to wrest from others what he believes is too much power. And what if Gore is wrong? What if it is his venture that portends the death of democracy?
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Al Gore, Current, Google, Democracy
What, really, is Google? It is a tool, indeed, for those of us on this side of the keyboard. But what is it on the other side, on the underbelly of the Internet? It also is a tool: it is a tool of incredible power, for it is truly omniscient regarding Internet use, knowing everything each of us queries, enters, posts, deletes. It is watching, shaping not only efficiency protocols to assist us, but marketing protocols to assist those who want to directly market products to each of us. Imagine that not only does Google know our queries, it owns Blogger, and thus is a repository for opinion, analysis, and too-often intensely personal data; and it also owns Gmail, where it reportedly screens every email so as to more finely-tune its marketing strategies (and Gmail deletes nothing, apparently). Some folks, of course, find this all rather creepy. Amazingly, most of us permit such creepiness without a word of complaint (yet we shout loud about President Bush's "domestic" wiretapping, while this [dated] report suggests that Google may be in breach of wiretapping laws.).
My point in belaboring this is simple: Al Gore has found the perfect means of consolidating media power by using the Internet, and our Google behaviors, for shaping opinions, news, and markets. Moreover, with Google owning Blogger, it is evident that Google holds the power to promote some blogs over others, as it in fact does on its "Blogs of Note" sidebar offered to Blogger members. Who, pray tell, really determines a blog of note? Is it notable because it is popular, or is it made popular by being noted? In other words, is it really true that some ideas, or some opinion-makers, are promoted democratically? Who knows?
Please, this is not about me either being paranoid or resentful. It is about asking an intelligent question of Al Gore and his Plan: Is Mr. Gore actually creating a monstrous, powerful tool that is shaped not by events on the ground, like REAL news in REAL time in REAL history, but by the actions of keyboard queries, blog discussions, and any other manner of elusive (and potentially nefarious) digital activity? Is Mr. Gore's enterprise actually just another form of control, though disguised as liberty? Is Mr. Gore really just one or two steps ahead of the rest of us, proclaiming "democracy" when he actually intends to suppress it; to subdue it by silencing, marginalizing or otherwise rendering someone extraneous whose views do not achieve the elevated status his plan gives mere lip-service to? If certain blogs are not of note, are certain truths, certain people, certain lives similarly unnotable?
Do with this as you will. I have offered nothing much. I have (at least) merely pointed out Mr. Gore's glaring contradiction: he has turned to the consolidation of power to wrest from others what he believes is too much power. And what if Gore is wrong? What if it is his venture that portends the death of democracy?
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Al Gore, Current, Google, Democracy
No comments:
Post a Comment