Writings: Essays
		Habermas’s Public Sphere: An Ideal for Open, Truthful Media In attempting to understand the role of the media in society, it is useful to use the concept of the ‘public sphere’ as an ideal, serving as a model or guide for what the media could potentially be. In this exploration we need to examine the following: What does an ideal public sphere look like and what purpose does it serve? What is needed for its success, and what critiques are held about this concept? How much of our current media can be described as a genuine public sphere? Is the internet leading the way? Can a media with private interests truly be an effective public sphere forum, and what duty or obligation does it have to be one? Is it possible to increase the degree to which the media play an ‘ideal public sphere’ role, and if so how do we create significant media reform?  The concept of the public sphere is most often associated with Jurgen Habermas, author of “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” (1962) – an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. His work took the position that the public sphere in its simplest and ideal form is a realm where opinions particularly focusing on the needs of society are freely and openly exchanged between people, unconstrained by external pressures. (Habermas 1991: 176) It can be a “virtual or imaginary community” (Soules 2001: para 2) not necessarily existing in any one space. In today’s world of ever-increasing mass global communication networks, the media in all its forms whilst far from ideal is widely regarded as the closest thing the world community has to the existence and further attainment of a public sphere. However, how comfortably does this role sit with a vehicle that is driven, fuelled and controlled by the private interests of media owners, corporate sponsors and state influence? The public sphere has a number of interlinking functions. Through dialogue, particularly through critical discussion and debate, the public sphere generates opinions and attitudes (Soules 2001: para 2) and is a foundation for “emancipatory social thought” (Holub 1997: para 7). Ideally it is a mediator between society and state, the source of public opinion needed to affirm and guide the affairs of state (Soules 2001: para 2), and challenge and legitimize governments and authority (Rutherford 2000: 18 ).  Habermas discovered that the first reference to the public sphere, in Germany at least, emerged in the 18th century through the growth of coffee houses, literary and other societies, voluntary associations, and the growth of the press. (Soules 2001: para 4). He also acknowledges the ancient Greek origins of the public sphere where “In the discussion among citizens, issues were made topical and took on shape…citizens interacted as equals…(and) only in the light of the public sphere did that which existed become revealed, did everything become visible to all.” (Habermas 1991: 4). Habermas has been criticized for idealizing the rational discussion of the 18th century bourgeois ignoring “ ‘the extent to which its institutions were founded on sectionalism, exclusiveness and repression.’” (Eley, 1992: 321 in Crossley 2004: 11).  Habermas has stated that newspapers and magazines, radio and television are the media of the public sphere. Today of course we can include the internet as part of this media.  The internet is perhaps the best example of a modern day bourgeois public sphere. It is a global space that gives ordinary people the opportunity to express and share opinions, news and information. Never before have people had the opportunity to gain previously unavailable information, share opinions and news so rapidly, and challenge authority so openly. However only around 10% of the world’s population have home access to the internet (BBC 2003: para 11) thus excluding 90% of the world’s population from having a voice in this so called global conversation. So far it doesn’t measure up to Habermas’s “ideal speech situation” which requires freedom and equality not always in existence in every society. It is however a step toward the direction of the ideal. Access is steadily increasing and it remains to be seen how much of humanity will eventually be included under this ‘public sphere’ umbrella. Habermas’s theory makes clear that “the public sphere is not a given for every type of society; nor does it possess a fixed status.” (Holub 1997: para 3) Habermas believes Communicative Action is a primary part of the Public Sphere. This involves people coming together in discussion, responding to a particular crisis when society is not meeting their needs, or when institutions are manipulating individuals. (History of the Frankfurt School: para 3). This is openly happening on the internet with entire sites, message boards, chat rooms and blogs devoted to issues like public criticism over the invasion of Iraq and subsequent public suspicion over the U.S’s motives, debate concerning the legitimacy of the recent U.S elections and online activism dedicated to political, social and environmental change.  Millions of people marched on the world’s streets in protest about military action in Iraq, primarily as a result of the power of the internet to inspire action, with sites like MoveOn.Org taking the lead. This call for action is also used for personal causes. In April this year it took only a few days before millions of people around the world had received an email urging them to write to the Australian Foreign Minister to increase his assistance in the Schapelle Corby case, a young Australian at risk of being put to death in a Balinese jail allegedly falsely accused of importing drugs into the country. It has the ability to unite the global community like never before with the recent tsunami effort being a prime example. It also has an affect on the unity of local community. The creator of PlanetWaves.Net writes that he heard about a fire a few streets away from his Paris home by scanning the internet news that morning. (Planetwaves.net). The internet allows for connection that is immediate, providing a tremendous potential for the empowerment of society, taking back control over their own voice and movement forward. It is problematic that the minority with access to global media, particularly the internet, are in the power position of making statements and decisions on behalf of those without access. On one hand this approach can be seen as a rather condescending and elite one. It does not match up to the ‘late-modern’ school of public sphere thought which stresses the Habermasian pre-requisites of general accessibility to information and the eradication of privilege, although the other pre-requisite of a common quest for truth does seem to be being met. (Crossley 2004: 13) On the other hand “social movements can positively construct voluntary associations” (Crossley 2004: 14) and responsible social movements can ensure that whilst the majority do not have a voice then at least the problems and issues of the majority can be heard, acknowledged and discussed. This is admittedly a very Habermasian idealistic view, one that has understandably been criticized for taking the position that participants will have shared assumptions about communicative practice. (Bass & Gaynor 1996: para 3) It is also not a realistic, productive approach with different cultures having different beliefs, traditions, values and needs. How can someone outside one’s culture possibly understand the issues inherent within it? Ideally there would be “a single public sphere…made up of a series of subsidiary public spheres, each organized around its own political structure, media system and set of norms and interests.” (Garnham 1993: 371). The online E-Parliament project, set up to give all world citizens a voice, is an example of what is possible. (E-Parl.Net). Whilst the current situation is far from ideal, the internet does have a powerful potential for creating the ideal, however for it to do so we need to have a dramatic increase in global access. Critics of the potential of the internet focus on its increasing commercialization and expansion. They argue that rather than the internet setting us free “it is largely being incorporated into the dominant commercial media and communication system” (McChesney 1999: xiii) run by the media giants who are in the process of colonizing the internet. (McChesney 1999: xxii) The public sphere not only serves to form public opinion but also designates an ideal of how public opinion ought to be formed. It sets as its goal a sphere that is open to all citizens, where information is unrestricted and where free, critical and self-critical discussion goes on. (Poole 1989: 13)  It is commonly held that the ideal has never fully been achieved. Habermas identifies issues like the evolution of private interests as deforming the ideal of the public sphere for example large newspapers devoted to profit have turned the press into agents of manipulation, propaganda and misinformation. “It became the gate through which privileged private interests invaded the public sphere.” (Habermas 1991: 185.) In a 1998 interview Habermas recognized that we should not “harbour any illusions about the condition of a public sphere in which commercialized mass media set the tone.” (McChesney 1999: 245). Biased reporting, combined with factors like manipulative publicity and mass advertising have been described as “the colonization of the public sphere by systems of authority.” (Soules: 2001). Critics feel it is unfair to suggest this is a modern day problem using the example of the manipulated bias found in reportage of such events as the French Revolution. (Hartley 1996: 87 in Crossley 2004: 11). If critics believe that bias has always existed then at least we can argue that the amount of bias has increased, if only for the fact we have more media than ever before, with a medley of corporate, public, independent and internet sources to choose from. As the smorgasbord increases, so too does our awareness of different angles of truth, and our ability to make comparisons between one kind of media and another. We can clearly see, where before it was not so obvious, that the media are being used as active participants in political processes rather than reporting and questioning them. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has been widely “accused of running partisan media coverage for political parties that promote policies and decisions which favour his commercial interests.” (Howell 2005: para 26) During the build-up to the 2003 Iraq War all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers editorialized in support of the war, and his Fox television network has been accused of political conservatism.  Events and stories are manipulated and repressed more regularly than we know, portrayed in a way to provide maximum television impact and encourage minimum social action and debate that is not in alignment with the agendas of the elite. Rather than serving the public interest of ‘right to know’, they instead serve the media’s need to make a profit, the corporate sponsor’s need to ensure information shown doesn’t conflict with their sales, profits and reputation, and the state’s need to retain control and influence.  Critics of the corporate media argue that “crucial political issues are barely covered, or else are warped to fit the confines of elite debate, stripping ordinary citizens of the tools they need to be informed, active participants in a democracy.” (McChesney 1999: 281). Habermas posits that the media only portray “an illusion of participation”. The book ‘Into the buzzsaw: Leading journalists expose the myth of a free press’ is a plethora of mind-boggling accounts from respected well-known journalists, detailing how state and corporate interference has resulted in the muzzling of their stories. It is important to highlight, they are not talking about mere influence or preference being exerted on them, but what seems to be direct interference and pressure with uncomfortable consequences if not adhered to. In one case a journalist working for a U.S newsweekly magazine tells a story of when he was working independently along the Saudi border during the first Gulf war. He was getting support from his editor and received the first surrender of Iraqis when they came over a sand dune and he was the only American around. All of a sudden he got the message to go back into his hotel room and not come back out until he had joined one of the government pools. He later discovered that the congressional liaison from the Pentagon had contacted the conglomerate that owned the magazine he worked for. The liaison said “You know that bill, that communication bill that’s going through Congress? If you would like that bill to emerge in any form that you would find favorable, you tell your reporter to get in his hotel room and not to come out of that hotel room unless he’s in a pool.” (Borjesson 2004: 18) According to Robert McChesney, author of Rich Media, Poor Democracy, there are a number of crucial issues currently in the way of allowing today’s media to become an ideal public sphere, namely: the concentration of media ownership; the hypercommercialization of culture; the decline of journalism (particularly investigative journalism); globalization of the corporate media system and its relationship to the neo liberal global economy; the corrupt nature of U.S media policy making; the collapse of public service broadcasting; and the evolution of the First Amendment into a tool for the protection of corporate privilege. (McChesney 1999: xiii). This public vs private issue is a problematic one. The public sphere is defined as something that is universal, open, accessible to all and representative of the whole. Conversely the private sphere is something particular, specific and representative of a select group. (Poole 1989: 8-9). Can a privately-owned media ever truly be a public sphere, when by the very nature of its business it places commercial values over public interest values? When it prioritises commitment to advertisers, shareholders, corporate and state ties over their commitment to the people who buy and digest their media?  McChesney feels the media is not at this time being a true public sphere, quite conversely “the corporate media system is undermining the necessary conditions for effective democratic governance. A media system set up to serve the needs of Wall Street and Madison Avenue cannot and does not serve the needs of the preponderance of the population.” (McChesney 1999: xiii) What duty does the media have, if any, to represent public interest and be a public sphere forum? For many the obligation is an ethical and moral one. “The freedom of a citizen or social groups to have access to communication, both as recipients and contributers, cannot be compared to the freedom of an investor to derive profit from the media. One protects a fundamental human right, the other permits the commercialization of a social need.” (MacBride 1980: 18) However it is argued that the infiltration of the market into the media need not mean the end of public debate. The solution lies in combining “market imperatives with collectivist approaches” (Curran 1991: 48 in Crossley 2004: 12). Public Broadcasting is non-commercial and so in theory should be a model of ideal public sphere. Public broadcasters such as the UK’S BBC and Australia’s ABC are open to “certain kinds of scrutiny and accountable in various ways…(their) operations must be legitimized as being ‘in the public interest’ and it may be criticized for failing to carry out its public responsibilities.” (Poole 1989: 11)  In the essay “Public Spheres” author Ross Poole argues an Enlightenment based philosophy that a defense of public broadcasting goes with a defense of the role of reason in social, political and cultural life. Poole states that the practice of reason is connected with openness, equality and freedom. It invokes and encourages these values, and is a way of expressing difference and plurality. (Poole 1989: 8) McChesney however does not hold the public broadcasting system on a pedestal as our ultimate saviour with his thoughts being largely similar to his beliefs on the direction of the internet. He writes that “public broadcasting systems always face implicit – and sometimes explicit – pressures from corporate media and advertisers (and that) the island of public service eventually will be overwhelmed by the tidal wave of commerce.” (McChesney 1999: 245).  It seems that if we are to have any possibility of the media playing a true public sphere role then we need to have a radical reform of the media. This existence of a genuine public sphere is more than a matter of preference, it is a democratic right and state of being without which the entire fabric of society will eventually collapse for it is only so long that we can sustain a situation where “the wealthy and powerful few make the most important decisions with virtually no informed public participation.” (McChesney 1999: 281) Without media reform, “the prospects for making the United States a more egalitarian, self-governing, and humane society seem dim to the point of non-existence.” (McChesney 1999: 281)  In presenting his ideas on how we can go about media reform McChesney identifies the most important need as the changing of government media policies. McChesney feels that “the core problem with the U.S media system relates to how it is owned, its profit motivation, and its reliance on advertising.” (McChesney 1999: 304). He believes the media system is the “direct result of explicit government subsidies and policies.” (McChesney 1999: 304). McChesney offers the following media reforms as ideas that can be discussed and improved upon: the building of nonprofit and noncommercial media; a system of real public broadcasting without any advertising or private grants that serves the entire population; the increase of regulation of commercial broadcasting in the public interest; amd finally to break up the largest firms and establish more competitive markets. (McChesney 1999: 304-311) Whilst we as a society are yet to achieve the ideal of the public sphere it at the least provides a standard for public involvement in local and global affairs that we must make an attempt to reach, through a complete reform of the media – the media already having the networks needed to connect as many people as possible. Clearly “This will be no easy task. There is no guarantee of success. But…the only alternative is to accept the impossibility of liberation..” (Garnham 1993: 375). Rather than criticise the ideal for what it has not yet become, perhaps we can use it for what it was always meant to be; a vision showing us what is possible with belief and action. Bibliography Bass & Gaynor (1996), Habermas’ Public Sphere, Georgetown University, http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/bassr/gaynor/ publics.htm BBC News, 21 February 2003, US Powers Internet Growth, www.bbc.co.uk Bohman, James, (2004) ‘Expanding Dialogue: The Internet, the public sphere and prospects for transnational democracy’ in Grossley, Nick & Roberts, John Michael (eds) After Habermas, New Perspectives on the Public Sphere, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford  Borjesson, Kristina (ed) (2004) Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press, Prometheus Books, New York Brown, Merrill, 2005, Abandoning the News, Carnegie Reporter, Vol 3 No 2 Spring 2005, Carnegie Corporation of New York, New York Crossley, Nick, (2004) ‘On systematically distorted communication: Bourdieu and the socio-analysis of publics’ in Grossley, Nick & Roberts, John Michael (eds) After Habermas, New Perspectives on the Public Sphere, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford  Deflem, Mathieu, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of South Carolina, Scholarly online resources on the work of Jürgen Habermas, Habermas Online http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/HabermasOnline/ default.html E-Parliament, Global Democracy in Action, http://www.e-parl.net/ Francis, Eric 2005, PlanetWaves, www.planetwaves.net Garnham, N (1993) ‘The Media and the Public Sphere’ in Calhoun C (ed) (1993) Habermas and the Public Sphere, IMT Press London Gring-Pemble, Lisa, (1997) ‘The Public Sphere Problem’ in Contemporary Rhetorical Theory, University of Maryland, http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jklumpp/comm652/unit3.html Habermas, Jurgen (1991), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger with Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Help Schapelle Corby Forum, http://www.schapellecorby.com/ History of the Frankfurt School, Jurgen Habermas, On Society and Politics, http://home.cwru.edu/~ngb2/Authors/Habermas.html Holub, Robert C. Habermas, Jurgen (1997) The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory & Criticism, Edited by Michael Groden and Martin Kreiswirth, The Johns Hopkins University Press http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopkins_guide_to_literary_ theory/jurgen_habermas.html Howell, Landon. (ed) 2005, ‘Who is Rupert Murdoch’, Juice News Daily, http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/0405/news/ who_rupert.html Lunt, Peter and Stenner, Paul, 2005 ‘The Jerry Springer Show as an Emotional Public Sphere’, Media, Culture & Society Journal, Vol 27, No 1 pp59-81 Sage Publications, London MacBride Sean (1980) Many Voices One World, UNESCO/Kogan Page, London McChesney, R W (1999) Rich Media Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times, University of Illinois Press, New York McLaughlin, Lisa, (2004) ‘Feminism and the Political economy of transnational public space’ in Grossley, Nick, Roberts, John Michael (eds) After Habermas, New Perspectives on the Public Sphere, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford  Move On, www.moveon.org Rutherford, Paul (2000) Endless Propaganda: The Advertising of Public Goods, University of Toronto Press, Toronto Schultz, Julianne (1989) ‘Failing the Public: The Media Marketplace’ in Wilson, Helen (ed) Australian Communications and the Public Sphere, MacMillan, Melbourne Soules, Marshal, (2001) Jurgen Habermas and the Public Sphere http://www.mala.bc.ca/~soules/media301/habermas.htm Thornton, Alinta, (2002) Does the Internet create democracy? Masters Thesis, MA in Journalism, University of Technology Sydney http://www.zip.com.au/~athornto/thesis2.htm [Back to top]
		© Copyright 2006 Dana. Site Development + Design: Lelfly