Advertisement

Information Abundance and Media Credibility in a Fragmented Public Sphere

  • Stephen M. E. Marmura
Chapter

Abstract

WikiLeaks strives to inspire grassroots activism and facilitate political change by revealing the secrets of powerful interests. Its early strategies included recruiting citizens to interpret and distribute leaked information, and the pioneering of “scientific journalism”. These efforts were plagued by problems of information overabundance and ultimately proved insufficient for countering the influence of dominant ideology on media discourse. WikiLeaks may address mass audiences by cooperating with major news organizations while sacrificing its radical agenda, or operate independently, preserving its mission while risking irrelevance. The dilemmas facing WikiLeaks are compounded due to the increasing fragmentation of the public sphere, and related attempts by industry to cultivate disparate “truth markets”.

Keywords

Information abundance Activism Journalism Interpretation Ideology Truth markets 

References

  1. Andrejevic, Mark. 2013. Infoglut: How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know. New York/London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assange, Julian. 2006. Conspiracy as Governance. me @ iq.org: 1–4. http://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/julian-assange-conspiracies.pdf.
  3. Bimber, Bruce. 2003. Information and American Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brevini, Benedetta, and Graham Murdock. 2013. In Beyond WikiLeaks: Implications of Communications, Journalism and Society, ed. Benedetta Brevini, Arne Hintz, and Patrick McCurdy, 35–55. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castells, Manuel. 1997. The Power of Identity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2013. Communication Power. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dahlgren, Peter, and Michael Gurevitch. 2005. Political Communication in a Changing World. In Mass Media and Society, ed. James Curran and Michael Gurevitch, 375–393. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
  8. Dean, Jodi. 2002. Publicity’s Secret: How Technoculture Capitalizes on Democracy. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2009. Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellul, Jacques. 1965. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  11. Fenster, Mark. 2012. Disclosure’s Effects: WikiLeaks and Transparency. Iowa Law Review 97: 753–807. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1797945.Google Scholar
  12. Fish, Adam, and Luca Follis. 2016. Gagged and Doxed: Hacktivism’s Self-Incrimination Complex. International Journal of Communication 10: 3281–3300. http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5386/1707.Google Scholar
  13. Fuchs, Christian. 2014. WikiLeaks and the Critique of the Political Economy. International Journal of Communication 8: 2718–2732. http://fuchs.uti.at/wp-content/IJOCWL.pdf.Google Scholar
  14. Giddens, Anthony. 1991. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, Stuart. 1984. Encoding, Decoding. In Culture, Media, Language, ed. Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul Willis, 128–139. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  16. Hallin, Daniel. 2000. Commercialism and Professionalism in the American News Media. In Mass Media and Society, ed. James Curran and Michael Gurevitch, 218–237. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
  17. Harsin, Jayson. 2015. Regimes of Posttruth, Postpolitics, and Attention Economies. Communication, Culture and Critique ISSN: 1735-9129. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libproxy.stfx.ca/doi/10.1111/cccr.12097/epdf.
  18. Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. 1988. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  19. Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lievrouw, Leah A. 2014. WikiLeaks and the Shifting Terrain of Knowledge Authority. International Journal of Communication 8: 2631–2645. http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2667/1240.Google Scholar
  21. Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  22. Lynch, Lisa. 2012. “That’s Not Leaking, It’s Pure Editorial”: WikiLeaks, Scientific Journalism, and Journalistic Expertise. The Canadian Journal of Media Studies (Fall): 40–67. http://cjms.fims.uwo.ca/issues/special/Lynch.pdf.
  23. Lynch, Lisa. 2014. “Oh, WikiLeaks, I would so love to RT you:” WikiLeaks, Twitter, and Information Activism. International Journal of Communication 8: 2679–2692. http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/2665/1236.Google Scholar
  24. McChesney, Robert W. 2008. The Political Economy of Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  25. Milan, Stefania. 2013. WikiLeaks, Anonymous and the Exercises of Individuality: Protesting in the Cloud. In Beyond WikiLeaks: Implications of Communications, Journalism and Society, ed. Benedetta Brevini, Arne Hintz, and Patrick McCurdy, 85–100. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Newton, Kenneth. 2006. May the Weak Force Be with You: The Power of the Mass Media in Modern Politics. European Journal of Research 45: 209–234. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00296.x/full.Google Scholar
  27. Porter, Gareth. 2014. Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. Charlottesville: Just World Books.Google Scholar
  28. Roberts, Alasdair. 2011. The WikiLeaks Illusion. The Wilson Quarterly (Summer).Google Scholar
  29. Russell, Adrienne. 2016. Journalism as Activism: Recoding Media Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Schudson, Michael. 2001. The Objectivity Norm in American Journalism. Journalism 2 (2): 149–170. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/146488490100200201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. 2003. The Sociology of News. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  32. Snickars, Pelle. 2014. Himalaya of Data. International Journal of Communication 8: 2666–2678. http://pellesnickars.se/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/int_journal_communication_snickars_wikileaks1.pdf.Google Scholar
  33. Steinmetz, Kevin F., and Jurg Gerber. 2015. Hacking the State: Hackers, Technology, Control, Resistance, and the State. In The Routledge International Handbook of the Crimes of the Powerful. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Swift, Art. 2016. Americans’ Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low. Gallup News, September 14. http://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx.
  35. Topnonprofits. 2016. Top Nonprofits on Twitter. August. https://topnonprofits.com/lists/top-nonprofits-on-twitter/.
  36. Wilhelm, Anthony G. 2000. Democracy in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen M. E. Marmura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologySt. Francis Xavier UniversityAntigonishCanada

Personalised recommendations