In order for a public sphere to be considered as such, the group or groups must engage in rational critical debate, free of status or control. What Habermas wanted was for what was being said to be more important than who was saying it. Secondly, these groups should draw attention to problematic areas that weren’t discussed or questioned within the political arena (and in this case, mainstream media and the way they report on politics). Lastly, Habermas wanted the debates to be open to everyone and accessible to everyone who wanted to participate in them.
This fits with the way the Internet acts as a neutral zone, free of dominant control by media conglomerates. Blogs (the Internet) have really revitalized the idea of a public sphere because it really revolves around Habermas’s first and third values which define the public sphere as being free and inclusive to all and blogs allow for this. One of the Internet’s dominant roles is to provide access to information. Kees Brants claims that “because of its horizontal, open, and user-friendly nature, the Internet allows for easy access to, and thus greater participation in, the public sphere. Time, place, and money are less of an issue…Moreover, the psychological barrier of speaking in public and the private hesitation to come out with specific ideas, claims, and blame are less pressing” (Brants). People turn to blogs because it is a convenient way to be able to discuss issues as well as find information relevant to the topics in which they are trying to learn more about.
I'll source the Habermas and Brants article soon.
But there's the theory that I feel blogs are based around.
EDITED: One of the topics we discussed in class in reference to blogging, was how instead of diversifying people's ideas, it actually narrows people's viewpoints because then people can choose what they want to read and see. This, then, completely undermines what Habermas wanted from his public sphere. He wanted people to actively engage with other people, other groups and actively discuss issues that support and oppose what a person's viewpoints may be.
When you are reading blogs that discuss issues, do you read blogs that oppose your viewpoints or support it? Or both? Do you engage/comment with either or do you just read blogs?
1 comment:
Excellent, Mai. This is the central concern for communications scholars about the internet: Is it a help or hindrance to the public sphere? Does the fact that we have greater access to information make up for the fact that this information is now less reliable and more partisan? What tips the scales in either direction?
Blogs are right in the middle of the hopes and fears about the internet. And there is evidence for either position. Ultimately, I think it is important to remember that technology never completely changes society in and of itself. Technology serves as a tool which allows us to make certain choices for or against democracy. The internet has certain allowances which could potentially improve and increase democracy, and certain allowances that reduce and diminish democracy. The political choices that people, individually and as a society make are what tip the scales in either direction.
Post a Comment