In a recent article elaborating the concept of media participation (Bucy & Gregson, 2001), we reconsider the dilemma of civic decline documented by Putnam (2000) and others. In contrast to conventional but sporadic activities such as voting, volunteering, and direct legislator contact, we describe the ongoing political involvement of citizens — and the civic rewards they receive — through new media use.

Classical theories of democracy place the onus of civic vitality on the citizenry, requiring popular interest and self-initiated participation in public affairs. The electorate, in this view, should not only be informed and judge political realities rationally but also engage in thoughtful deliberation, possess a democratic disposition tolerant of diverse points of view, and consider community interests over individual concerns (see Berelson, 1952).

These high standards are rarely met. Instead of political omnicompetence, most people have little interest in public affairs and few participate actively (Neuman, 1986; Schudson, 1998). Occasionally, the semi-attentive and politically unsophisticated citizenry can be mobilized into action, when prompted by alert others or by extreme media attention.

Reconciling Theory with Reality

To reconcile theory with reality, one response is to redouble efforts to activate everyday citizens in civic affairs. Many well-intentioned democracy projects have this goal. Another is to regard low interest and participation as normal, a sign of general satisfaction. Elite pluralists who would rather see complex political decisions handled by experts accept this explanation.

A third response is to rethink active citizenship. Graber observed that “media do more than depict the political environment; they are the political environment” (1997, p. 274). Applied to the individual citizen, this observation points to a form of involvement in which a growing segment of the public regularly engages: media participation.

New media formats with civic potential include the Internet and World Wide Web, talk radio, call-in television, and electronic town-hall forums, as well as entertainment programs that host informal discussions about politics with political and nonpolitical guests.

Beyond facilitating chats, these venues expose citizens to political information, put them in touch with leaders and candidates, involve them in civic discussions and agenda building, accept their financial contributions to political causes, and, in some states, allow them to vote.

Criticisms of New Media

Skeptics charge new media formats with sacrificing interpersonal deliberation, increasing the potential for manipulation, and contributing to social isolation. Interactive media are said to have little effect on policy, and their use is sometimes slighted as a form of pseudo-participation, a watered-down or thin form of democratic involvement.

These problems are not unique to new media formats. Traditional media tend to encourage passive spectatorship, not interpersonal deliberation, and do little to prevent manipulation and isolation. Everyday citizens in a mass democracy have very few opportunities to act as citizens and many consider the political system unresponsive.

Yet conventional political participation seldom brings immediate results from government. A political system that is highly orchestrated, professionalized, and exclusionary (see Dionne, 1991) is inaccessible to most citizens.

The Political Impact of New Media

After weighing the evidence, Margolis and Resnick (2000) argue that a vibrant, electronic republic will not replace the existing world of politics any time soon. The traditional party system tends to normalize political activity, making a radical transformation of politics unlikely, even in cyberspace.

Media participation accommodates a large number of actors and voices. If the din of public opinion grows loud enough, some response will presumably be forthcoming. But the impact of new media formats should be measured at the individual level and not at the system level. The civic contribution of new media formats is to make the political world accessible and easily experienced.

Benefits of Media Participation

For the individual, engaging with new media formats offers social and psychological rewards. Citizens benefit from the awareness that media participation —

• provides proximity to political elites,
• makes politics continuously accessible,
• offers open-mike access to a wide audience,
• socializes them to participate in public affairs, and
• permits them to cultivate a civic identity as voters.

These benefits are immediate and ongoing, and they may contribute to positive citizen evaluations of the public sphere. Mediated involvement may in turn influence actual politics, if only by encouraging others to register their opinion. Media participation helps maintain the perception that the system is responsive, serving as a legitimizing mechanism of mass democracy.

The arrangement benefits the individual and the system. Through media participation, previously inactive political spectators may be spurred to initiate some limited forms of conventional engagement. Already-active citizens may be motivated to increase their involvement. New media use has been empirically associated with heightened feelings of efficacy (Hollander 1995/96; Newhagen, 1994), which in turn predicts conventional forms of involvement.

For the system, media participation enhances governmental openness without overburdening the system. New media formats expose elites to views and opinions they might not otherwise have heard. Citizens are afforded the regular opportunity to act as citizens, something considered vital to the health of the republic since Jefferson’s time. Media participation helps turn audiences into citizens, benefiting democracy.

Erik Bucy, an assistant professor in the Department of Telecommunications, Indiana University, is editor of Living in the Information Age: A New Media Reader (Wadsworth, 2002) and co-editor of Media Access: Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use (Erlbaum, forthcoming). Write him at the Radio-TV Center, 1229 E. 7th St., Indiana University, Bloomington, 47405-5501, or send E-mail: <ebucy@indiana.edu>

References

Berelson, B. 1952. Democratic Theory & Public Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly 16.3: 313–30.

Bucy, E. P., & K. S. Gregson. 2001. Media Participation: A Legitimizing Mechanism of Mass Democracy. New Media & Society 3.3: 359–82.

Dionne, E. J., Jr. 1991. Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Graber, D. A. 1997. Mass Media & American Politics, 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Hollander, B. A. 1995–6. The Influence of Talk Radio on Political Efficacy & Participation. Journal of Radio Studies 3: 23–31.

Margolis, M., & D. Resnick. 2000. Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace “Revolution”. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Neuman, W. R. 1986. The Paradox of Mass Politics: Knowledge & Opinion in the American Electorate. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Newhagen, J. E. 1994. Self-Efficacy & Call-in Political Television Show Use. Communication Research 21.3: 366–79.

Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse & Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Schudson, M. 1998. The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life. New York: Free Press.