The tone of and findings of the Tufekci and Wilson article seem to fit more with the readings of last week (acknowledging that this is week two of civic engagement and new media). What I mean is that the underlying conclusion is that new communication technology is a facilitating tool rather than an instigating tool.  It enables participation or lowered resistance to participation to those that were excluded or discouraged previously (like women), and made communication and dissemination easier for those already engaged in the process.

The Loveland and Popescu was irritating in its overt ideology and naive assumptions.  “…to foster liberty without allowing it to become license” is a trite platitude but does not inform the discussion of democracy or media theory.  Not only do the authors fail to acknowledge the realities of democracy in practice, they assume that not deliberating publicly is somehow not fulfilling your civic obligation.  “Rule and patterns of behavior need to be reinforced…”  So, what you are really saying is if we don’t do it your way, we aren’t doing it right.  Perhaps most disturbing of all is the clinging to and preponderance of the myth of power of deliberation.  While deliberation has been shown to have a moderating effect on group outcomes (meaning neither too bad nor too good), there is little evidence to support the idea that deliberation generally improves the quality of those outcome.  A deliberated policy is no more likely to succeed than one derived unilaterally.  It is only less likely to be a catastrophic failure, or a spectacular success.  Ok, I’m just griping now.  I’m going to take my opinion and go home.

But before I go, two more things: Gerodimos findings about youth and online civic participation seem to mirror the finding of other studies about youth and civic participation off line and generally.  And, I don’t think Castells is describing a new phenomenon such much as increase in scope and awareness of a the phenomenon.