(Cross posted at Greater Democracy)

At the Journalism that Matters conference, JTM, in Memphis the other week, I was struck by the parallels of the second and fourth estates. For the second estate, I’m thinking of that political class that most resembles the nobility of the Ancien Regime.

For the past forty years, political discourse has been dominated by broadcast politics, the art of the sound byte. Starting somewhere between 2000 and 2004, the interest started to change these dynamics. Jock Gill has suggested we are moving into an era of post-broadcast politics, and Nathan Wilcox has refined this to talk about networked politics.

Whatever we call it, political discourse is moving from a broadcast monologue to a dialogue or perhaps even a multilogue where even lateral communications is encouraged. At JTM, I wondered aloud if we are seeing something similar happen in the fourth estate. No longer are the readers and viewers of the press satisfied to simply be told what local editors or the most trusted man in America thinks is important. We want to talk back. We want to engage in a conversation.

In 2004, Gov. Dean was noted for saying, “The biggest lie people like me tell people like you is that if you vote for me, I’ll solve all your problems. The truth is, You have the power.” Perhaps readers and viewers are looking for the same sort of transformation in the Fourth Estate. We can go to our conferences on Media Reform where one new organization or another tries to position itself as the group that will solve all our media problems, but perhaps what we are looking for is an editor or anchor to acknowledge that we have the power and to work with us in making the best use of that power.

Many people attribute the printing press as the tool that brought about fundamental changes to the First Estate. Will the Internet bring these changes to the Second and Fourth Estates? Will a leader in the Fourth Estate rise up and tell us we have the power of media reform and help us make the best use of that power?