2009/4/30 Pranesh Prakash <[email protected]> > I'm interested in this > especially from the perspective of transparency in elections. In the > U.S elections we saw tons of sites (including <factcheck.org>), and the > same here in India. Are some large positive effects identifiable, > though? Or should they be satisfied with being cogs in a larger > process, and performing that role well?
I read an article (print) which puts the online media surge around this election primarily due to the fact that many born a little before the economic reforms of the 90's come of voting age now and one of the most powerful ways of reaching this group is through the internet. This might be applicable in some degree to the US as well, and might partly explain their prominence in this election. But to your question, it is another form of media, and while it might take some time and much more effort, it is not impossible to influence opinion using it and turn it to your advantage. Other forms of media are also ostensibly "independent", but I remember hearing somebody opine on this list that NDTV has a bias towards Congress. How long before popular sites, bloggers start publishing with a bias? And we're back to square one? As for the article, I found "(Never mind that there's no evidence that terrorists rely on photos to plan their attacks – outside of technothrillers and 24, that is.)" to be a very weak argument against the bill, this at a time when people are furiously opposing "Big Brother" having greater authority for looking into their own private lives to better tackle terrorism. The government and security agencies are also composed of individuals whose privacy needs to be respected. However, making it illegal may be going too far in my opinion and a middle ground might be reached without harming the quality of life of those who take up public service. Kiran
