A slide on Curtis and Buckingham's theories on today's democracy

1. Curtis and Buckingham
Adam Curtis is an English documentary filmmaker that works for the BBC. In one of his pieces of work, Curtis decides
to explore behind the science of communication (Cybernetics) and how it is affected by democracy in the media today.
After his project came to an end, Curtis suggested that todays media, and concepts such as twitter and general social
media adhere to a “non-political management of society”. He also argues that his research led him to believe that the
idea of social hierarchy can be completely replaced by social media and “self-organising networks”. However, although
he was full of praise for the potential of social media and it’s impact on society and today’s use of Democracy, he says
that there are too many naïve ‘Cyber Utopians’ who are blind to the fact that a connected network will not affect
democracy and society in a good way at all. As well as criticism for those that use the internet and technology, he is
also unsure of it’s running and ownership. This ownership, in his opinion, has restricted and limited the good use of
media for democracy alongside the behaviour of ourselves. Ownership of some of the largest technological organisations
has given those with power the opportunity to try and stop change. So in this sense, using media for democracy it isn’t
much more effective than political democracy. As well as this, Curtis states that democracy can be confused and
mistaken for connectivity. Referencing McLuhan’s line, “the medium is the message”, Curtis says the technology itself is
determining social action, rather than the it’s users, again adhering to the idea that those who have ownership control
what we see, a concept that Curtis again expresses in “Non-Linear warfare by Media”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOY4Ka-GBus
Adam Curtis’ views do not differ much to those of David Buckingham who also believes that there is a depressingly low
limit to the amount of change that new media and technology can cause. He says that “the most active participants in
the creative world of web 2.0 are the ‘usual suspects’”. This suggests that although anybody can attempt to create a
change in democracy and social hierarchy, media 2.0 will always struggle whilst the “usual suspects” are still around
(the owners). However, similar to Curtis, he believes that the ‘world of web 2.0’ provides a good platform for people to
cause change and there is potential within the concept of using media for democracy.