In this week’s article readings, the prevailing topic was access to the media and the “digital divide.” Among topics discussed were who has access, who controls media production, and the power consumers have over their media.

Several articles focus on the “digital divide,” defining what it is, how it persists and ways to close it, if possible.

The results of Deursen and Dijk’s study in "Internet Skills and the Digital Divide” support findings that the ‘original digital divide of physical internet access has evolved into a divide that includes differences in skills to use the internet’ (p. 893).

I believe there’s a significant difference between having basic access to internet and possessing the skills and ability to effectively use platforms like Twitter or Facebook to connect to others and to create and control internet content. Likewise, in “The Digital Divide,” Rogers acknowledged that a ‘access-divide” exists, and that in the future this it could ‘evolve into a ‘learning-divide’ or a ‘content-divide’ based on 'individual ability to use the internet in certain ways’ (p. 100). I think it’s going to become increasingly important to understand that this disparity exists.

We are not all equal when it comes to using the internet because our individual skills cover such a wide range. Some people are comfortable using every internet platform possible, while others can barely log on to Facebook. Finding ways to reach all groups in this range is the challenge. We have to figure out why there is such a difference in the individual skills we use on the internet, why the differences persist and continue to do research if this gap continues to grow.

There are so many questions to ask. I believe the level of education each person has plays a role in our internet usage. What specifically is the difference between the internet skills that less educated individuals learn and those that people with a higher education use?

There were several important points raised in these articles. For me, the most interesting was the effect the internet has in political discourse and political change.
In “The Virtual Sphere,” Papacharissi notes that Hill and Hughes concluded the internet ‘will not be a historical light switch that turns on some fundamentally new age of political participation and grassroots democracy’(p. 21). I respectfully disagree with this. We’ve already seen a huge rise since the last presidential election in the political activism of our generation with the access to the Internet and social media, in organizing grassroots movements, in rallying groups of people around a political cause.

Of course, I don’t think the Internet is the only cause for this. Changes in the social climate and the desire for a change in the direction the country had been headed after eight years under the Bush Administration played a role, too. But the developments in social media, in bringing together groups of people who share the same political ideals, helped drive that desire for change and convert that desire into action.

Additionally, in Convergence Culture, Jenkins & Deuze said that the ‘’democratization' of media use signals a broadening of opportunities for individuals and grassroots communities to tell stories and access stories others are telling, to present arguments and listen to arguments made elsewhere, to share information and learn more about the world from a multitude of other perspectives’ (p. 6). In the 2008 presidential election, President Obama’s campaign was innovative because it used social media through grass roots organizations to gain momentum and support. Some of the foremost leaders in social media and developing digital media technology were working with his campaign.

Papacharissi noted that the internet as a public sphere ‘makes it possible for little-known individuals and groups to reach out to citizens directly and restructure public affairs and connects the government to citizens’ (p. 13-14). I think it’s become increasingly important for people to feel connected. Papacharissi said there’s ‘no guarantee that direct feedback from voters will lead to policy formation’ (p. 13). While Papacharissi notes that Bowen said the internet provides numerous avenues for political expression and many ways to influence politics & become politically active, I’d like to know if there could be a way to quantify or find a direct correlation between internet interaction and feedback from voters and citizens and actual policy formation or reform. I’d be interested to investigate new research into the real ability for political activism through the Internet to effect formation of political policy.