Miekle draws distinctions between strategic media and tactical media. The former, he asserts is “about exploiting place- a business, for instance, that defines its territory and then uses this as the basis for its relations with its customers, works from the privileging of a place over time. It’s about claiming turf and expanding it, and about using this to create and shape relations with others” (119).
It is easy to see the way in which astroturfing fits as strategic media. A large proportion of astroturfing is business simply seeking to expand its turf. However, the means in which that turf is claimed has parallels with Miekle’s definition of tactical media.
“Tactical media,” writes Miekle, “is about mobility and flexibility, about diverse responses to changing contexts” (119). “A tactic exploits time- a moment of opportunity and possibility made possible as cracks appear in the evolution of strategic place” (121).
Astroturfing is a subversive practice, as is much tactical media. However, Miekle asserts in his reading that tactical media is largely created by those outside the circle of mainstream power. The political parties and commercial enterprises engaged in astroturfing that we have come across in our research are definitely not powerless (the US government, anyone?) Miekle also argues that profit is not the primary motive of a lot of tactical media. Again this is a contrast with astroturfing, which has money on its mind.
So then, is astroturfing strategic or tactical media? Perhaps it exists in a new space between both concepts. Interestingly, the powerful who astroturf have had to engage in the practices of the powerless. Such is the democratic nature of the internet.
Miekle’s reading, written in 2002, shows its age. This serves to reflect the transient nature of web theory. However, applying our readings to astroturfing gives us a more theoretical framework; it shows us the nuance of internet practices and helps give us a detailed context as we undertake our web feature.
No comments:
Post a Comment