Participatory Journalism, an Institution of Civil Society
Participatory journalism seems to be back in fashion after many years of an exile imposed by powerful media corporations. It’s a tremendous comeback, given its potential impact on the meaning of democracy.
For some 2500 years now, political scientists have found it hard to converge on a crisp definition of democracy, even though they agree on several universally acceptable connotations of the term. Perhaps the most central of these connotations is citizen-participation in politics. This is the context that participatory journalism frames.
Participatory journalism is a campaign tool of the autonomous individual, helping the fragmented, de-unionized consumer navigate the postmodern global media. Coming to technology, I find it noteworthy that the United States Supreme Court, no less, has pronounced the Internet as an electronic soapbox. (Two thumbs up to computer-mediated participatory journalism!)
Besides, given that I’m willing to squint a little, I also see participatory journalism as an institution of civil society — the network of associations and groups including clubs, religious networks and other guilds that act as a buffer between citizen and government.
Much has been written about civil society as it emerged from industrialization and capitalism in post-Enlightenment Europe, in the 19th century. Less material seems to be available about the origin of civil society elsewhere, for example, in India, which emerged as one of democracy’s great bastions in the 20th century. I do not find it hard to imagine that medieval India with its culturally rich milieus (not to speak of the splendidly wealthy India of the era 1200-1700) had a powerful civil society. And some thriving, if fragmented, participatory journalism in an avatar consistent with that age. Any pointers from fellow-bloggers in this regard will be welcome.
