The Mediapolis Discussion Lead Oct. 2nd

The Mediapolis
The beginning chapter focuses on defining the positives and negatives of global communication and interactivity, what is the moral feedback and audience participation that must happen in order for us to have an effective media. The idea is analyzing the media from a moral standpoint and moral framework. Silverstone demonstrates a concern for the world, for the united states and what will be of the media and in turn our everyday lives if we do not begin to view our world in terms of a Mediapolis and how viewing the world as a Mediapolis can shape our judgments of ourselves and the other.
“The media are both contained by, and are the container of, the everyday” (p. 20). Silverstone makes the case that the media plays a key role in everyday life in society, so it is essential that we look at the morality issues of the media because they are so influential. Media interconnects with our reality, and that interconnection forms Silverstone’s “Mediapolis.” Silverstone argues that readers, citizens and audiences need to take responsibility for the media; that responsibility requires active participation and judgment of the Mediapolis. Silverstone suggests the media lost their roles as guardians to the public good, the commercial aspect and capitalism has supercede the attention of the media. With modernity, post modernity, the fragmented way of society has caused media to “undermine the quality of the public, democratic life” (p. 22). Silverstone reminds us of the influential strength of the media, but also the larger part that the community must play to get the media to hold some moral weight in what they are designed to do.
“We see the world through the media,” Silverstone brings up a good argument that based on the channel you watch, you will see the world in a certain way and make decisions based on what you see and what you don’t see. “This space of Mediapolis is a mediated space, and the space of appearance is provided by the screen and the speaker” (p. 32).
Silverstone argues that we need to take a different approach as media scholars than to go back to the debate of the mediated public sphere (p. 29). The media is similar to the polis in that it is elitist and exclusive, not everyone has access, for example the financially underprivileged, and non technologically savvy. Is the access that difficult? We have a 24-hour computer lab open to the public past a certain time. If a homeless person wanted to search through the Internet for help, he has an available resource at walking distance to get information. So in that sense the media and technology is available, but what do people use it for? It goes back to the uses of the media to help us understand the world, create the world through our eyes.
Silverstone references Hannah Arendt in that our humanity exists because of our presence among other human beings (p. 36). He makes a case as though we are at risk or in danger of something that is coming, if we don’t take a moral look at media it will chew us up and spit us out. Based on Silverstone’s discussion, it is difficult to decide whether the Mediapolis is a good thing or a bad thing. It could be that it is both, but it is up to the audience and the moral judgment they have to make that decision. A concept of this reading goes into the “state of appearance” in relation to the media. What is on the media and the channels you watch shapes your world and shapes the opinions you have of the “other.” They appear in the media and because of this, it creates our world for us based on the appearances that it shows. “Political status is measured according to that appearance. Status leads to influence, and influence to power” (p. 30). The appearance in the media creates those water cooler discussions, but it also creates the way in which we hold judgment of things that we cannot relate to.

Silverstone dives into the rhetoric of evil and the media’s articulation of events to perpetuate the notion of evil and other. He builds on the media’s constant connection of Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center attacks when there is an example of evil. According to Silverstone, “evil is becoming a taken-for-granted category for analysis and judgment, it is a category for our enemies. It seems like we are only connected when we can define the “other” as evil and therefore we are the good guys.