BYN369

DIGITAL LITERACY NOTES

Dr. Simge Süllü Durul
Fall 2021/2022

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY

What is digital democracy?

Democracy is not easy to define. That’s because democracy is a cluster of practices, structures,
institutions and movements. It’s an assembly of many different elements – and it’s the combination or
totality of those elements that we understand to mean democracy.

In this context, it’s not surprising that there are numerous definitions of digital democracy. For some it
refers to the use of digital tools to provide information and promote transparency, for others it
describes the ways in which information and communications technologies (ICTs) can broaden and
deepen participation, while others talk of promoting empowerment by enabling citizens to make
decisions directly through online tools. We simply define the term as “the practice of democracy using
digital tools and technologies”.

Within the literature, there aren’t any agreed definitions of digital democracy. In part this is because
the term overlaps with notions of citizenship, participation, transparency, accountability, governance,
e-government, civil society and the public sphere.

However, we can draw a distinction between ‘minimalist’ and ‘maximalist’ definitions
of digital
democracy. The former focuses on giving citizens access to governmental information and enabling
them to interact with government through, for example, online consultations and transactional services
online. The latter envisages a more participatory role for citizens, enabling them to collaborate with
government officials as well as make their own decisions about how they and their local communities
are governed.

Also, when people do use the term, they’re often doing so in different ways, referring
to different
models of democracy – such as representative, participatory (deliberative
or collaborative) or direct
democracy. For example, part of the rationale behind ‘open government’ was that democratic
structures and processes, and trust in those structures, could be improved through the provision of
information and greater transparency. These discussions relate most closely to discourses about
representative forms of democracy.

More recently, the term ‘open government’ has come to include a range of initiatives and policies, from
improving internet connectivity, transparency and access to institutional data, to novel ways for citizens
and governments to interact for achieving better outcomes. Democratic innovations in this space have
included the involvement of citizens in solving specific challenges (e.g. challenge.gov in the USA),
creating petitions (e.g. We The People
in the USA), making proposals (e.g. Your Priorities in Reykjavik),
collaborating with public officials to draft policy (e.g. the Estonian Citizens’ Assembly) or carrying out
tasks that had hitherto been the preserve of public employees (e.g. Peer to Patent). These examples
speak to participatory forms of democracy – or what some have most recently described as
collaborative democracy.
 BYN369 DIGITAL LITERACY NOTES
Dr. Simge Süllü Durul
Fall 2021/2022

There are then numerous discussions about how ICTs could enable direct forms of democracy - through
for example, referendums and participatory budgeting, where local residents vote directly on how local
resources are spent.

In more recent decades, political discourses have focused on deliberative democracy. This is known as
the ‘deliberative turn’ in political philosophy, and is best exemplified in the work of Habermas, Rawls
and Fishkin. For these and other theorists, true democracy entails participation, and specifically,
discussion and debate among citizens. The assumption
that deliberation is a good thing is pervasive in
the field of democratic theory and
practice. Discussions about how ICTs can democratise the public
sphere, enabling citizens to deliberate amongst themselves and with public officials, link most clearly
to these discourses.

At Nesta, we don’t favour any particular model of democracy. We’re interested in how digital tools can
be used to support representative, participatory and direct forms of democracy. Since democracy
comes in so many guises, we’re also interested in how these tools can be used outside the formal
structures of governance and politics. Many of these tools could be used in the workplace or by civil
society organisations - such as membership organisations or community groups - to support
deliberation and collective decision-making.

A typology for digital democracy

Since our definition is so broad, we’ve developed a typology for identifying different aspects of digital
democracy. We wanted this typology to be grounded in practice so that it would be useful for
practitioners, policymakers and citizens. It is based on different types of activity, but also takes into
account issues of power (i.e. decision-making authority) and flows of communication.

Within the field of digital democracy, relatively little research focuses on how our democratic
institutions can make use of digital technologies and how citizens themselves can be involved in the
practice of everyday democracy – such as raising specific concerns, developing and scrutinising
legislative proposals, making decisions or holding public officials to account. The typology we set out
below aims to set out these ‘everyday’ activities.

We’ve also focused on activities which are organised or at least mediated by power centres – such as
governments, parliaments and political parties – since one of our criticisms of the literature is that it
has tended to focus on relatively broad and abstract concepts, such as democratising the public sphere,
rather than the structures and practice of governance.
 BYN369 DIGITAL LITERACY NOTES
Dr. Simge Süllü Durul
Fall 2021/2022

Nesta (2017) – Digital Democracy - nesta.org.uk

 BYN369 DIGITAL LITERACY NOTES
Dr. Simge Süllü Durul
Fall 2021/2022

Online News & Democracy

Democracy necessitates media to be widely available and accessible; reflect the pluralistic nature of
society; not be dominated or controlled by certain interest groups; provide necessary information for
citizens to make informed decisions; and provide the means for public debate. Evaluation of traditional
media reveals that it fails to perform this role in democracy. In this sense, online news is considered to
provide a medium that is not controlled by one group; to offer faster and more convenient access for
citizens; to present information for citizens in a diversified manner; and to enable public debate through
the technological features of interactivity, participation, hypertexuality, polycentrality, and multiplicity.

Media, the Internet and democracy

Held (1996) and Dahl (1998) assert that democracy requires open availability of information to help
ensure informed decisions of citizens. In this sense, media has a vital role in democracies because of
the idea that it makes the concept of informed citizen possible; it represents the issues of the public as
a whole; it acts as a watchdog, and it provides the means necessary for public debate (Beetham and
Boyle, 2009; Carpentier, 2003; Nordenstreng, 2000; Keane, 1999; Kışlalı, 2006; Oreja et al., 1998).
However, theories on the relation of democracy and media are not feasible at all times. As Giddens
(1999) points out, even though the media is considered as an essential element of democracy, it is again
the media that cause the loss of trust in political systems. Similarly, McChesney (2008) puts forth a
paradox of rich media and poor democracy, asserting that the corporate media system is considered to
be democratic in itself; however the very issue of who controls the media and for what purposes is not
a part of political debate. Even if deregulation is supported for freedom of the press in democracies,
the accompanying concept of market liberalism carries political censorship and censorship by the
market within itself (Curran, 2002, 2005; Keane, 1999). This is apparent in today’s media, where
institutions are obliged to act in accordance with economical concerns. Because of this, media’s pivotal
role in serving the public good takes a secondary place.

In this regard, the Internet comes forth as a communication tool, which provides the means for
democratic constituents – suggested by MacBride (1980) and his colleagues – of multiple information
sources, a two-way flow between participants, and increased participation.

Early research indicates that the Internet is considered as the communication milieu of a global system
where it mediates a new type of citizenship. In this sense, the Internet meets the criteria necessary for
public sphere, through open access, voluntary participation, and public opinion formed through
rational discussion (Kellner, 1995 cited in Timisi 2003; Rheingold, 2000; Tambini 1999).

Conceptually, the Internet maintains the possibility of providing a definitive public sphere, where
voluntary participants form public opinion through rational discussion with the opportunity of open
access; however, in practice, this possibility is not actualized so far. First of all, the idea of voluntary
participation is difficult to attain because the ability to participate does not entail that citizens want to
participate in democratic debate. Second of all, formation of public opinion on the Internet assumes
 BYN369 DIGITAL LITERACY NOTES
Dr. Simge Süllü Durul
Fall 2021/2022

that citizens engage in a democratic dialogue, which generates rational discussion but observing any
kind of participation in the online environment reveals that a dialogue between participants does not
occur. Finally, the notion of open access is debatable. The Internet is open for everyone to access in
theory; nonetheless, not every citizen has the skills or the means to attain this kind of access.

In this regard, the Internet is accused to cause information aristocracy by sacrificing people with
insufficient equipment and education; create digital tyrants; and maximize surveillance practices
(Dolgun, 2011). Furthermore, claims like new media will replace existing political hierarchies with new
egalitarian and democratic civil society are misleading. New media’s role in democracy depends on how
it is regulated and who has access (Tambini, 1999). Regarding the thought that the Internet provides a
new public sphere, Timisi (2003) points out that there is not sufficient data to define the Internet as the
new center of public sphere due to the lack of visible identities. The concerns about the relationship
between the Internet and democracy also include a panoptic society, exclusion of poor people and
antisocial behavior (McChesney, 2008), voyeurism (Nalçaoğlu, 2004), group polarization (Nagel, 2002
cited in Dolgun, 2011), extremist movements (Dolgun, 2011) impossibility of direct democracy,
populism and information inequality (Van Dijk, 2012).

Overall, it can be said that the Internet provides a channel for citizens to be much better informed;
however, the question of whether an extensive amount of information brings along informed citizens,
which is required for democracy, remains unanswered. Moreover, although the interactivity of the
Internet makes it possible for citizens to communicate with each other much more easily, it does not
result in collective decision-making (Van Dijk, 2012). In addition, it is possible to say that existing power
dynamics of groups in society dominates online debates, where minority opinions tend to remain silent
and majority opinions are freely expressed (Sunstein, 2008).

Despite of these, it would not be right to conclude that the Internet has no benefit in terms of
democracy. Even though it does not – or did not, so far – transform the understanding of democracy,
Internet’s capacity to offer diversity and reciprocity is noteworthy.

Online news

Evaluating the relationship between media, democracy and the Internet reveals a junction point, which
is online media. And discussing that media on the Internet has a connection to democratic standards
leads to online or digital news. News in general is considered to be a vital element of democracy
because it offers necessary resources for process of information gathering, deliberation and action.
What is expected of news journalism in democratic societies is to monitor, to hold to account and to
facilitate and maintain deliberation. These expectations do not differ for online news. Journalism
practice has always been accountable in terms of providing information for the public good.

Considering news’ role in democracy and its development within the digital age, the question of
whether online news helps improving democratic conditions becomes a necessary inquiry topic. As a
matter of fact, the arguments regarding online news’ impact on democracy are very similar to those
 BYN369 DIGITAL LITERACY NOTES
Dr. Simge Süllü Durul
Fall 2021/2022

about the relationship of the Internet and democracy. There are both optimistic and pessimistic
perspectives regarding online news’ role in democracy. Various studies claim that online news has an
interactive nature (Bosch, 2010; Fenton, 2010; Rojo and Ragsdale, 1997 cited in Jankowski and Van
Selm, 2000); its content is complex in terms of volume and variety (Fenton, 2010); it is easily accessible
(Palmen and Erikson, 1999); it offers a chance to make news outside the newsroom (Bosch, 2010); and
it is fast and open (Fenton, 2010; Joseph, 2011). Negative views, on the other hand, indicate that the
ownership issues (Curran, 2005; McChesney, 2008) and commercial concerns (Flew, 2009; Goode,
2009; Noci et al., 2012; Poor, 2005) still discredit reinvigoration claims of news – both traditional and
online – on democracy.

In an extensive study exploring how technological, economic and social changes have reconfigured
news journalism and the consequences of these transformations for a vibrant democracy, Fenton
(2010) explains pros and cons of three main characteristic groups that are prominent in terms of the
Internet’s role in news production, namely speed and space; multiplicity and polycentrality;
interactivity and participation.

Speed and space

The space that the Internet offers for news journalism has two aspects. The first one explains how there
is literally more space for news compared to hard copy; and the second one covers geographical reach
(Fenton, 2010). In terms of speed, journalists can collect data and publish news much faster; and online
readers can access news that is relevant, up-to-date and immediate. Nevertheless, producing more
articles in less time may cause journalists to overlook certain controlling mechanisms and may result in
only using articles released by reporters of news agencies (Fenton, 2010; Gunter, 2003). Overall, it can
be said that more space and speed is an advantage for online news only if they are used to produce
more valid and reliable news in terms of content, amount, and diversity.

Multiplicity and polycentrality

Characteristics of multiplicity and polycentrality come forth on the basis of the vast amount of space
available online. By accepting a vision of ‘multiple publics’ instead of a notion of the public as a single,
“online journalism is claimed to offer a view of the world that is more contextualized, textured, and
multidimensional than traditional news media” (Fenton, 2010:8). However, multiplicity does not
necessarily mean diversity. Newspapers usually use the same content for both their hard copy and
online editions (Redden and Witschge, 2010) and the formation of online news media that targets a
specific group, region or demographic segment, does not guarantee opportunities for diversity by
challenging media monopolies (Flew, 2009).

Interactivity and participation

With the characteristics of interactivity and participation, everyone can be involved in the news from
participating in discussions to producing their own news (Fenton, 2010); a “public fact-checking body”
has emerged, which increases accountability (Joseph, 2011: 710); and the concepts of interactivity and
 BYN369 DIGITAL LITERACY NOTES
Dr. Simge Süllü Durul
Fall 2021/2022

participation give rise to the discussion of an online public sphere, where citizen journalism can be
practiced, as well (Bosch, 2010). On the other hand, there are concerns that these features of
interactivity and participation do more harm than good for journalism. It can be argued that the values
of news are replaced by populist concerns; anonymity and the lack of accountability raise the questions
of verification and accuracy; the issues of unequal access, literacy and audience fragmentation still
stand (Poor, 2005). Moreover, active contribution of users/readers is questionable (Fico et al., 2012;
Rebillard and Touboul, 2010; Van Dijk, 2012) and allowing user/reader contribution is mostly
commercial (Goode, 2009; Noci et al., 2012).

As discussed above, these opportunities that the Internet provides for journalism practices should be
greeted with caution. It needs to be reminded that online news creates a “communication continuum
that stretches between the interests of multinational news corporations (where online news is first and
foremost a commodity defined by profit-maximization), at the one end, and the spontaneous actions
of ordinary citizens compelled to adopt the role of a journalist in order to participate in the making of
online news, at the other.” (Allan, 2006:10). Overall, it is necessary to emphasize the potential rather
than actual democratic impact (Goode, 2009) because so far, as Rebillard and Touboul, (2010: 331) puts
it, the conception of a “digital revolution in journalism does not stand up to empirical verification for
all its cultural power”.