Inquiry Essay

A Room with No View

              We call it the Parlor Room of Ideas, an open forum where people can learn new ideas and contribute their opinions and knowledge to help evolve our knowledge of everything. In the Parlor Room, we all have an opportunity to influence ideas and contribute to any issue being discussed. However there’s only one problem, the Parlor Room does not exist. At least, not in the idealized way we believe it should be. This is because as technology changes, so too do the requirements for entering. Before Gutenberg created the movable-type printing press, most people, save the very wealthy and the clergy, were illiterate. This meant that the only requirement for entering the parlor room was an idea. However as books became the common media of the time, the ability to read and write became a criterion for contributing ideas. Each time the technology of the media develops, so too does the necessities of participating in the discussion. While such constraints were not amazingly limiting while the print media reigned supreme, as anyone could contribute their ideas by writing about them, as radio became the media with those who spoke on the radio had a disproportionate say both in which issues should be discussed and which opinions were expressed. The number of people holding disproportionate say in the parlor continued to increase as television became the preferred source of information with the power of many radio station consolidated into comparatively few television channels. Thus we come to crossroads as the internet becomes the new media of the times. With even fewer providers of the internet than there were television station owners, has power been consolidated even more into the hand of corporations with their own interests? Furthermore, if greater payment is required for greater quality of access to the digital technology that has become the major media, then has the digital divide become a socioeconomic divide?

There are plenty of examples of the disproportionate influence of those who can afford entrance into the parlor room most obviously when it comes to political issues. Since it costs money to send a message on television, only those who can afford the cost can make their message heard. Thus the issues that affect those who can afford entrance frequently take precedent over the issues that affect those who cannot. We can see this in the role estate taxes can play in the voting decisions of the people unaffected by such taxation. Despite the fact that such taxes only apply to inheritances of greater than 3.5 million dollars, it is an issue that many across the nation, even those in the lower class consider when making voting decisions. When corporations are able to contribute money to political action committees to present their a political issue then these corporations have a disproportionate role in the parlor room. This can be seen when groups such as the Center for Union Facts that are funded by companies such as Wal-Mart which pay for commercials attacking labor unions. These companies are able to pervert the parlor room by using their fund to have greater say both on what should be talked about and which side of an issue should be taken.

Our technological switch to digital media in place of television has the possibility to perpetuate the current separation or to close it. The existence of open forums in which everyone is able to provide their take on an issue important to them allows them to play their important role in the parlor room. However, when companies are able to pay to have preferential treatment -- as seen by the sponsored links shown at the top of any Google search -- then companies can continue to have disproportionate power. Furthermore, the ability of large companies to spend large sums of money to present specific sides of issues while funding for opposing or fact-checking sites is often limited allows falsehood and bias to denigrate the parlor room. We can see this in sites such as that of Chipotle, a tex-mex fast food company owned by McDonalds, that hides this association with claims of healthy and organic food while failing to note that a standard burrito (about 850 calories) sold by this company has more calories than a Big Mac (about 540 calories). As long as companies are able spend large sums presenting their side of an issue or stressing specific issues over that of others then the technologic era we are entering will only serve to perpetuate the uneven distribution of say that deep pocketed corporations have in the parlor room of ideas.

If access to the internet is cheap and fast, then everyone can have an opportunity to express their opinion and have a role in the parlor room of ideas. However, when the fastest, highest quality internet service is available only to those willing to pay a premium for such access, then those with the most are able to play a greater role in the parlor room of ideas. Thus we find that the digital divide has become a socioeconomic divide in which the wealthy are more likely to be both technologically savvy and have access to the medium that has become the current home to the parlor room of ideas. This chasm between availability and quality of internet access for the upper classes compared to that of those in lower socioeconomic standing is perpetuated by mergers such as that between Verizon and Google in which users are able to pay a premium on faster internet for users or greater site traffic for specific websites. In this way, the wealthy are able to have the greatest access to the internet and are able to direct more people to their websites. Because payment is required for quality internet

Let us imagine a situation in which speech is limited and only the wealthy can afford to have a say both in the issues discussed and in the decisions made by society. In this plutocracy, not only are the poor unable to have a say in the decisions made by their government, but they are also helpless as the wealthy are able to propagate their wealth at the expense of the lower classes. When only the wealthiest can enter the parlor room of ideas, the interests of the rest of America and the world are at best ignored and at worst completely opposite to the actions of the plutocracy. However, if we imagine the converse, a situation in which we all can fill our role in the parlor room of ideas then the result is quite different. When everyone is able to make their views heard, then the interests of the many rather than the interests of the few is the determining factor in political decisions. Furthermore, because the many are able to have a voice to speak out against injustices, no course of action can take place in which such rights to entry to the parlor room can be removed. In both situations, events conspire in a cascading effect, the rate of people gaining entrance to the parlor room increases when more people already are allowed to take part.  Conversely, the more people are barred from their role in the parlor room of ideas, the faster power is shift from the hand of the majority into the hands of the select few.

Thus, we are at a crossroads. As we make a shift to an internet focused media we perpetuate the short comings of the medium. By shifting our focus even further to a medium in which money greatly determines ones role in the parlor room of ideas, we give disproportionate power to the haves at the expense of the have-nots. Even more so, these short comings allow large corporations with virtually unlimited funds to determine the issues discussed in the parlor room while simultaneously blocking the opinions of those who contradict their claims. As long as we maintain a laissez-faire attitude towards internet policy letting the profit motive rule the practices of the internet then the digital divide will become equivalent to the socioeconomic divide and corporations will continue to have a disproportionate say parlor room of ideas.