So I don't know how to start my research proposal; it's a five-pager

This is the premise:

People have been hailing the Internet as a tool that will enhance democracy. The prevalence of user-generated material and the plurality of opinions represented on the Web exposes users to a multiplicity of viewpoints that expands the limited scope of what tightly controlled (by virtue of scarcity) media, like radio and television, offers. (Hallins & Rosen) But the assertion of enhancement makes the vital assumption that when such diversity of opinion is put before a Web user, (s)he will consume all viewpoints and reach a conclusive personal opinion. However, I argue that rather than broaden a consumer's public consciousness, the Internet, with its rich, massive store of information, allows users to take initiative and tailor, choose and customize news for self-serving purposes. (Uses and Gratifications theory) Meanwhile, newspapers are more prone to preserving community sense, in that its coverage is focused on public welfare, whether or not the stories may be of novel interest to the reader.

If we take James Carey's model of communication as ritual, then news consumption is a practice that constructs social reality. Therefore, consuming self-serving news fosters a self-serving social reality, in which the individual becomes increasingly alienated from the larger community. The customizability of the Internet further compounds the problem of the individuals detachment from the wider public, as it not only enables but the plurality of viewpoints encourages hedonistic use, thus intensifying narrow communities.

This is a problem that, as the community narrows, then if according to Benedict Anderson, that the imagined community is the basis for the state, then inevitably, implications on political participation follows. Democracy is based on popular rule. If the populace is not unified by common goals, yet fragmented by distinct interests, then democracy is indubitably undermined.

Although the Internet has been used for successfully for affecting political unity and mobilization, it is dangerous to revere it unconditionally, as it has the potential--especially with the trend toward even more extensive usage--to splinter communities into narrow interests rather than forge solidarity by unifying individuals for wider public good.