Evaluate the View that the New Media is Controlled by the Rich and Powerful

The question of who controls the new media and how this control is wielded is a complex and contested one. While digital optimists celebrate the democratising potential of the internet, digital pessimists and proponents of Marxist theory argue that the new media landscape is dominated by the rich and powerful, who use their influence to shape narratives and maintain existing power structures. This essay will evaluate both sides of this debate, ultimately arguing that while the new media does offer some opportunities for dissent and activism, it remains largely controlled by elite interests.

Arguments Supporting Elite Control

There is significant evidence to support the view that the new media is controlled by the rich and powerful. Ownership of key new media outlets is highly concentrated, with a handful of corporations and billionaire individuals controlling vast swathes of the digital landscape. For example, Facebook, Google, and Amazon collectively dominate social media, search engines, and e-commerce, giving them unparalleled power to shape online discourse and access to information. These companies can and do exert control over the content shared on their platforms, often prioritising profit-making algorithms over ethical considerations.

Furthermore, these powerful entities set the parameters for how the new media can be utilised. By controlling algorithms, these companies can influence what information users encounter, potentially creating filter bubbles that reinforce existing biases. Access to the internet itself is also unevenly distributed, with a significant digital divide existing both within and between countries. This digital divide disproportionately affects marginalised communities, limiting their ability to participate in the digital public sphere and access the opportunities it offers.

While the new media undoubtedly offers individuals avenues to amplify their voices, the scope for exerting influence comparable to that of the elite is often limited. As McChesney (2013) argues, the internet has become a powerful tool for propaganda and manipulation, with governments and corporations alike using sophisticated techniques to shape online discourse and influence public opinion. This is particularly evident in the rise of fake news and disinformation campaigns, which have been used to sow discord, undermine trust in institutions, and manipulate elections.

The argument for elite control is further bolstered by the actions of authoritarian regimes, which have become increasingly adept at curbing the emancipatory potential of the new media. Through censorship, surveillance, and the spread of propaganda, these regimes are able to control the flow of information and limit the ability of citizens to organise and dissent online. For example, China's "Great Firewall" effectively blocks access to a wide range of foreign websites and social media platforms, while the government employs a vast army of censors to monitor and control online content. In such contexts, claims of the new media democratising society seem overly optimistic.

Challenges to Elite Control

Despite the strong arguments for elite control, it is important to acknowledge the ways in which the new media can challenge entrenched power structures. Digital activism has emerged as a powerful force for change, enabling individuals to connect with like-minded others, raise awareness of social injustices, and mobilise support for their causes. The Arab Spring uprisings, for example, demonstrated the power of social media to facilitate protests and challenge authoritarian regimes, even if the long-term outcomes in many cases were disappointing.

The new media also facilitates decentralised forms of organisation, allowing protest movements to emerge organically and circumvent traditional gatekeepers. This can be seen in the rise of online activism networks like Avaaz and Change.org, which have successfully mobilised millions of people around a variety of issues. Similarly, the rise of citizen journalism, enabled by smartphones and social media, allows individuals to document events, share information, and hold powerful actors accountable in ways that were previously impossible.

Furthermore, the increasing scrutiny of corporate media ownership and the growing demand for transparency and accountability from tech giants suggest that the power of these actors is not absolute. Governments around the world are grappling with how to regulate the new media and address concerns about misinformation, hate speech, and data privacy. While the effectiveness of these efforts remains to be seen, they do indicate a growing awareness of the need to address the challenges posed by concentrated media ownership and the potential for online harms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the new media undoubtedly offers some opportunities for dissent and activism, the evidence strongly suggests that it remains largely controlled by the rich and powerful. The concentration of ownership, control over algorithms, and the ability to shape online discourse give elites significant power to influence public opinion and maintain existing power structures. While digital activism and citizen journalism offer some hope for challenging these dominant narratives, these efforts are often constrained by the very platforms they seek to utilise. Ultimately, the question of who controls the new media is not easily answered. It is a complex and evolving landscape, where power is constantly negotiated and contested. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that the digital revolution has not fundamentally altered the power dynamics that shape our world.

**References**

McChesney, R. (2013). Digital disconnect: How capitalism is turning the internet against democracy. New Press.