A Critical Look at The Impact of New Media on The Public Sphere

Introduction

The concept of the public sphere was first explained by Habermas, who pointed out that citizens in this neutral space between a private realm and a sphere of public authority were supposed to behave "with the freedom to express and publish their opinions – about matters of general interest" (Habermas, 1989). In spite of the fact that the public sphere should be neutral, Habermas argues that it faced a decline, especially with improvements in mass media. Numerous authors discuss this concern and outline various aspects. Therefore, this essay will concentrate on how new media influences the public sphere. Evaluating three articles, a critical review implies different positions about new media’s impact on the public sphere.

The Internet as a Public Sphere

In "The virtual sphere: the internet as a public sphere," Papacharissi (2002) claims that although new technologies are easily accessible, "moving political discussion to a virtual space excludes those with no access to this space." This means that ideally, every citizen should have a chance to participate in the public sphere, but in the virtual sphere, it is not possible for everyone, as not every person has internet access. Therefore, this situation becomes similar to Habermas’ proposal about the decline in the public sphere because of the bourgeois, considering the fact that it was mostly white bourgeois men who were participating in discussions, while, for example, women were excluded. The similarity here is clear when Papacharissi outlines that online technologies are reachable and used by a relatively narrow segment of people, and this availability of new media is comparable to Habermas’ idea discussed above. In other words, this accessibility to the internet "by a small fraction of the population contributes to an electronic public sphere that is exclusive, elitist, and far from ideal," suggesting that it is not that different from the bourgeois public sphere of earlier centuries. It is also indicated that "new technologies facilitate greater, but not necessarily more diverse, participation in political discussion since they are still only available to a small fraction of the population." Yet some authors believe that "the internet is an easily accessible medium with low entry barriers." However, Papacharissi’s article was written 16 years ago, which means it is outdated and may not apply to the concept that well, as internet access has become much more available nowadays. Yet not only Papacharissi, but also Kruse et al. (2018) in "Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media" agrees with the statement that for some people, it is not that easy to use new technologies and the internet: "While social media sites are free to join, a device and/or an Internet subscription are cost-prohibitive for some." Although at some point, Kruse et al. indicate that free access to the Internet is essential for the development of better political discourse online.

Challenges in Online Participation

Approachability to new technologies is not the only problem concerning authors. One of the reasons why the internet has a negative impact on the public sphere is that people do not express themselves because of fear. Kruse et al. argue that sometimes users might hesitate to honestly state their opinion about, for instance, their political leanings "for fear of online harassment and the potential effect it has on their employment or relationships with family and friends." This means that some people do not want to affect the connection between them and someone they care about, as sometimes posting one’s point of view can lead to a conflict. Part of the individuals do not "self-censor" their opinions when they participate in a discussion anonymously. Papacharissi also assents to this idea, saying that "anonymity online assists one to overcome identity boundaries and communicate more freely and openly, thus promoting a more enlightened exchange of ideas." Even if people have an opportunity to participate in a discussion anonymously, not everyone is willing to try, although "the internet has the potential to extend the public sphere, at least in terms of the information that is available to citizens" (Papacharissi, 2002).

Hegemony and Fragmentation in the Public Sphere

Kruse et al.'s (2018) "Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media" develops Habermas’ idea about hegemony in the public sphere. Habermas implies that in modern times, the public sphere barely exists because of the importance of money and power within mass media. Not only money, but also the opinions of citizens who are assumed to be more powerful may stop others from expressing themselves. Apart from that, "news media inadvertently define which issues are newsworthy and deserving of public attention." Kruse et al. say that in this case, "civil discourse in the pursuit of truth is most certainly not occurring" and that "social media are not revitalizing a public sphere because the requisites for a public sphere are absent from social media." Hence, according to Kruse et al., it is evident that there are many reasons why the public sphere in new media does not actually work as it should. Given that this article is recent, it can be assumed that the public sphere is still witnessing a decline, which is why this article is useful for understanding new media’s impact on the public sphere.

The Role of Big Data

Harper, in "The big data public and its problems: Big data and the structural transformation of the public sphere," agrees with the concept and states that people who fragmentize audiences "are quite happy to make power-laden normative judgments about who and what should be included in the conversation" (Harper, 2020). This problem becomes essential when discussing media’s impact on the public sphere, whereas the public sphere, as stated above, should be a neutral place where every citizen could be able to express themselves. In his article, Harper highlights that new media and big data are mostly used not for improving the public sphere, but for gathering information about "personal interests, demographic information, and purchasing behavior" and for tracking "media consumption." When that is done, it is easier to structure people and ensure that different messages reach different individuals, and this is because of "the ability to target (and tailor) media messages according to our pre-existing values and beliefs." However, this fragmentation, according to Papacharissi, has a negative aspect, as she claims that "as the virtual mass becomes subdivided into smaller and smaller discussion groups, the ideal of a public sphere that connects many people online eludes us" (Papacharissi, 2002). Terje and Goldfarb write likewise that public structuring implements an unstable platform for discourses, reducing individuals’ unity in the public sphere.

Harper also discusses the fragmentation of publics created by big data and argues that this "has ushered in a new structural transformation of the public sphere: fundamentally reshaping the way we come together to make meaning" (Harper, 2020). In other words, because of new media, the form of the public sphere has changed. Harper discusses that this different type of public sphere is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when talking about fragmentized publics. The main problem Harper outlines about structured audiences in "The big data public and its problems: Big data and the structural transformation of the public sphere" is that it prevents people from sharing their ideas and opinions with those who are in other groups, as it is difficult to approach them. Similarly to what was mentioned before in Papacharissi’s article about how hegemony appears in the public sphere, Harper also perceives the problem in hegemony as he states that "Big data cause problems in the public sphere not because they fragment public debate but, conversely, because they tend to impose a powerful hegemonic epistemology upon each fragmented public." As this article is recent and it analyzes individuals’ engagement in public discourse, it is helpful to realize how it relates to the contemporary public sphere.

Conclusion

All things considered, this essay analyzed three main articles and critically reviewed how they have employed the concept of the public sphere. Through the evaluation of Harper’s, Papacharissi’s, and Kruse et al.'s articles, we have reached the conclusion that although the internet is an easily accessible virtual sphere, it does not necessarily make it a better public sphere. It is clear that Habermas’ concept is noticeable in all of the analyzed articles, and his idea about the decline in the public sphere still exists in the contemporary world. The reason for this is mostly because new, digital media structures publics and hegemony in the public sphere remains even now.

References

• Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press.
• Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27.
• Kruse, L. M., Norris, D. R., & Flinchum, J. R. (2018). Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media. The Sociological Quarterly, 59(1), 62–84.
• Harper, T. (2020). The big data public and its problems: Big data and the structural transformation of the public sphere. Media, Culture & Society, 42(7-8), 1530–1546.