ePluribus Media Community || citizen journalism, for the people, by the people

Mediating Democracy: Discussion

Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 10:57:37 AM EST

David Gabbard begins his ePluribus Media Journal opinion piece Mediating Democracy: What Robert Putnam Wouldn't Tell Us in Bowling Alone with the statement:

Speaking on the necessity of a free press in a democratic society, Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
Similar sentiments run strong today as grassroot networks struggle to stop Congress, from passing the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006. In spite of these efforts, it has already passed through the House of Representatives.

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

Gabbard looks at what he deems the true reason our voices are isolated, and why we need to look at how corporate ownership of the airwaves and civic spaces.

Read his analysis Mediating Democracy and let us know if you think his review of Putnam's book Bowling Alone is valid and his conclusions sound.

If you like what ePMedia's been doing with research, reviews and interviews, please consider donating to help with our efforts.

Mediating Democracy: Discussion | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)

Links (5.00 / 2) (#1)

The book's webpage
Wikipedia write up
Amazon's Searchable & Readable Online Version

by intranets on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 10:12:42 AM EST

: Summary on DailyKos (5.00 / 1) (#3)

At this link Mediating Democracy -- Bowling Alone, Programming Thought and the COPE Act

by Cho on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 11:13:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Privatization, etc (5.00 / 2) (#2)

Very timely. I spent part of today reading up on the government's A-76 program. I'd be very curious to know what role A-76 has had on union memberships. While A-76 says it's intent is to encourage competition and seek the most cost effective means of delivering services, recent events suggest otherwise as the governemnt looks to larger and larger external support contractors to, in essence, act as government.

Which brings me to privatization.

Well, really, it's not. The government (really the taxpayer) is still paying for the services even though the private sector is providing the service. All that's happened is a middle man has been added. It's cheaper at first but is it really cheaper over the long run? Once companies get used to having governemnt contracts, do they become complacent with innovation? They no longer have to try to please anyone but whoever pays the contract--which opens the door to cronyism--which definately opens the door to fraud and cost over runs. The government no longer gets best value for its dollar as a result. There no longer is competition in the real sense of the word.

So, "smaller government" just ends up costing more. I don't see anything cost effective about that.

I wonder if the overall intent is really to limit all competition at all levels and on all playing fields. That's what COPE will do.

by susie dow on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 01:32:47 AM EST

: do they even have to wait before complacency (none / 0) (#7)

sets in.
You're familiar with my favorite target's woman-owned, disadvantaged, small business bridge across the government-contract moat, all one has to do is present the right face to open the door and be complacent (or whatever) from the start.
Of course, it might also be helpful to have cronies already in the highest places.
Just for those folks who think I'm picking on a demographic or several, the reference I'm making here is a very particular business concern. I'm not generalizing although I've learned from exploring that example that this path to accessing government contracts is considered to be widely abused.

by luaptifer on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 07:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think much like bowling leagues... (5.00 / 1) (#4)

...another social network that allowed for people to come together and talk about all things personal -- and political -- is the card club, where groups of friends meet on a regular basis to play bridge, or pinochle. My impression is that people just aren't doing that much anymore -- especially those of my generation (40's) and down.

Meanwhile, my mother-in-law (80's) still gets together with her (admittedly thinning) group. And our next-door neighbors also do the card club thing and have for decades (they're in their late 50's).
On PTSD Combat | Email list | Book
by ilona on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 01:11:27 PM EST

I am dismayed that... (5.00 / 3) (#5)

...this diary has had so little comment on DKos and does not appear to be making the recommended list.

I am not just dismayed - I am angered. That our primary netroots progressive blog is so engaged in considering its own navel, as it has been recently, that it cannot give time and consideration to a broader analysis of the context in which it is operating is an indictment of how we are using the internet.

Congradulations to David Gabbard and ePluribus Media on this article. The issues with which it deals deserve more than this irritated response of mine to how another blog is responding to it. I will try and do so when distracting family matters allow time.

by Welshman on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 01:25:07 PM EST

: Summertime (5.00 / 1) (#6)

It's getting shrill and stupid isn't it, Welshmann. I don't know what it is - exasperation? frustration? burn-out? summer weather? The only thing the navel gazing is accomplishing is the identification of s ome lint needing picking.
The privatization of everything scares the bejeebers out of me. Where does all the accountability go? I keep thinking of the Sarbannes-Oxley rules, which all went to good governance and how they are hitting at those also at the behest of those same corporations regulated by them. "It's hard work" to follow those rules.

by kfred on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 02:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]