One question that found itself into our discussions on Thursday was the nature of mass media as a deliberative or exploitative force. Defining the role of media in such polarized terms seems a difficult task, but as a prompt for a broad discussion on how mass media has evolved in the time of blogs and social networking, I think it is an intriguing starting point. Particularly in the instantaneous media environment that surrounds us, the ability to create such networks and communities with common interests is an unparalled phenomenon with an infintely positive upside. Deliberative voices have the potential to be heard louder than ever. For those with causes to promote, there are instantly accessible listeners and plently of mediums through which to communicate. Media can be seen as a vehicle of empowerment, as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines has illustrated.

On the other side of the spectrum, as easy as it is for campaigns such as the ICBL to impact positive change, the tools and rules of media do not change in the hands of those whose wish to use it for exploitative means. Mattelart points out a new era of rhetoric which stemmed from the energy and successes of the international expositions of the late nineteenth century, the age of "Western Civilization" had found a foothold. Not to say this new language had negative intentions, but I do think that it was the foundation of the North & South, East & West dichotomy that continues today, and is often used in a suppressive way. Rather than be a voice for emerging nations and disempowered populations, mass media in the wrong hands is often used as a tool to maintain imbalanced and unfair social and political hierarchies. The most obvious example in international arenas, is North Korea, whose propaganda and system of social-through-media-control (does that make sense?) has now cycled through several generations. Other examples can be seen in the perpetuation of negative ethnic stereotypes all throughout Western media channels. As media conglomerates grow in stature due to mergers and buyouts, the exploitative potential of mass-media grows as well.

As quickly as new social mediums are emerging and taking hold, the same consolidation of mass-media power seems to be occurring in nations all around the world. As empowering a place as the blogosphere can be, the population as a whole is still exposed to the rhetoric created by a shrinking number of voices in mass media. As MSNBC skewers Jan Brewer, Fox News takes a swipe at Rahm Emanuel and in between all of it, we digest five or six commercials without ever really benefitting from any of it. One positive possibility that comes from the rise of the new social networking/blog era is the establishment of an arena to voice and respond to criticisms of the mass media. Will this force mass media (in the US, at least) to become more accountable? In this respect can it inflict social change in a positive way? In a super-distilled way, it can even be framed in a "will the new powerful tool be used for good or evil?" lame-storyline kind of way...