To What Extent Do the News Media Fulfill Habermas Definition of the Public Sphere - Literature review Example

TO WHAT EXTEND DO THE NEWS MEDIA FULFILL HABERMAS’ DEFINITION OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE? Habermas’ (Habermas, 1999) ideas of public sphere revolutionized the idea of civic engagement and participation. Various scholars still pay their close attention to this concept and apply it to various social phenomena: from revolutions and demonstrations to online activism. Public sphere is a place where individuals can freely exchange ideas and experiences and it is not necessarily limited by the boundaries of the nation-state (Dahlgren & Sparks, 1991). Habermas points several conditions for the public sphere to emerge. First of all, there should be a space for debate and discussion (e.i. coffee houses and salons in the past) between individuals regardless of their social and economic status (Habermas, 1999). These discussions or debates should be of rational-critical character and unbiased nature (Calhoun, 1992). Debates should not be limited by the scope and people should feel free to discuss vital issues of social and economic governance. Governments all over the world enjoyed their full monopoly to control the decision-making process in political and economic spheres, whereas now citizens have tools to affect it and engage in political debates through the new communication technologies. Internet represents a transparent space that grants inclusiveness to its members. The effective development of the media contributed to the development of the public sphere. However, politicians realized its potential and used media as an effective manipulative tool for their own benefit thus limiting the access to the public domain and creating a consumerist society. Despite the state and corporate control over the media, Habermas was optimistic about the revival of the public sphere (Habermas, 1999). John Downey and Thomas Koenig argue that a controversial speech by Silvio Berlusconi in 2003 sparkled debates over it and created a unique European public sphere (Downey & Koenig, 2006). These debates were created and maintained by various international newspapers and magazines thus engaging a vast audience of readers. European Union does not have a common language shared by all member states hence it is difficult to create a common media platform or a common space for debates where everyone will be included. This also limits European public sphere. Debates over Berlusconi-Schulz case were intensified by the netizens who have access to blogs and articles online. Online news platforms and blogs created a unique environment with the sense of total inclusiveness. Some social groups that were neglected and silenced before now are able to participate in political debates and propose suggestions to actual issues. At the same time every blog or news portal has a moderator that would filter the racist, abusive content based on the editorial preferences of the outlet (Poor, 2005). Dahlberg compares the cyberspace community with ideas of Habermas and comes to a conclusion that a successful performance of the online public sphere cannot be achieved without active participation of netizens from various socialization groups (Dahlberg, 2001). Indeed, online community is extremely diverse and is divided along the lines of commercial and non commercial content based on the common interests of the users. According to Poor’s research online public sphere satisfies the basic Habermas’ criteria of public sphere (Poor, 2005). The matters of “race, ethnicity, class, gender, language, nationality, and religion (Poor, 2005)” do not affect the inclusiveness of web users, unless it is a web portal aiming at a specific audience. Most of the news sites and blogs contain a discussion board where readers or users can debate over relevant subjects. These discussions can go along any subject: legal issues, governance, politics, social dilemmas and may more and everyone can find an interesting topic for conversation. Poor also points out that existence of open software represents another crucial aspect of the online public sphere and democracy (Poor, 2005). Cyber-utopians believe that these advancements in online communication are revolutionizing; that online activism could bring bottom-up solutions and changes in society (Brants, 2005). Concepts of e-governance or e-democracy are popular among bloggers and cyber activists. However, there is an opposite view to that opinion. So called “cyber-pessimists” do not see the development of the internet as something fundamentally democratic and good. They point out that most of the governmental initiatives are not seeking to receive the citizen’s feedback and assistance (Brants, 2005). There is also a cleavage between the ones who have access to the internet and ones who don’t. State intervention represents a threat for the online social sphere. As it happened before to the coffee shops, salons and many newspapers, the state has affected their activity through various methods and techniques: spying, censorship and oppression. Cyberspace is not an exception and is threatened by the governmental involvement. Censorship and surveillance techniques represent a great danger for the web community but there are also some other aspects to consider. Increased commercial involvement in the online world threatens to ruin the online public sphere. Corporate interests and consumer-oriented approach provides online users with the content they did not ask for. Corporate and state interests cannot leave internet function autonomously (Dahlberg, October 2001) that is why netizens have to deal with it and learn how to bypass commercialization and control. Internet space is not always peaceful and friendly either, countless heated debates occur every now and then. Clashes on the grounds of political, social and religious views are inevitable when people with polarized opinions get together in chat rooms (Hill, 1998). Dahlberg points out several aspects of the public sphere: reflexivity, ideal role-taking, sincerity, equality and inclusion (Dahlberg, October 2001). Reflexivity is closely connected to the ideal role-taking, but neither of them is actively present online. Ideally people are supposed to change their opinions when facing the valid opposing argument. However, when people debate online it is difficult to stay reflective and understanding and it is easier to express the anger hiding behind the fake online identity. This leads to isolation of certain interest groups from others on the matters of interest. Sometimes it is very difficult to find a constructive debate on any controversial topic when people don’t insult each other. At the same time it proves that internet has absolute plurality and diversity of opinions and no particular authority or mediator. I believe that the new media has all the potential to fully incorporate Habermas ideas of a public sphere: it is interactive, engaging and provides a two-way connection unlike TV, radio and newspapers. Its decentralized structure creates various platforms for discussion without any particular narrator. However, there is still a threat of the governmental intervention and control as well as commercialization. Internet has great potential to implement and suggest the new ways of e-governance and e-democracy. In fact it could become an alternative for those democratic institutions and initiative that are difficult to achieve. For example on-line translation of the parliament debates could enhance transparency of the political process (Herbert, 2006). It is clear that online public sphere is far from being perfect and has its flaws and downsides. Habermas concept of the public sphere is rather idealistic and hardly achievable as there are many obstacles for its implementation and survival. That is why I believe that internet is the closest medium for the existence of the public sphere where even the language barriers can be bypassed with the help of modern technologies. References Brants, K. (2005). Guest Editors Introduction: The Internet and the Public Sphere. Political Communication, Volume 22(Issue 2). Calhoun, C. J. (1992). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press. Dahlberg, L. (2001). The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere. Information, Communication & Society, Volume 4( Issue 4), 615-633. Dahlberg, L. (October 2001). Computer-Mediated Communication and The Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 7( Issue 1). Dahlgren, P., & Sparks, C. (1991). Communication and citizenship : journalism and the public sphere in the new media age. London: Routledge. Downey, J., & Koenig, T. (2006). Is There a European Public Sphere?: The Berlusconi–Schulz Case. European Journal of Communication vol. 21, 165-187  Habermas, J. (1999). The public sphere. In P. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.), (pp. 92-99): Media studies: A reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Herbert, D. (2006). Media Publics, culture and democracy. In M. Gillespie (Ed.), Media Audiences. London: Open University Press. Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the age of the Internet: Lanham : Rowman & Littlefield. Poor, N. (2005). Mechanisms of an Online Public Sphere: The Website Slashdot Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2)(article 4). Read More