Conclusion and Bibliography

To conclude, traditional print media is not as in demand as it once was 10-20 years ago. With the rapid development of technology and the digitalisation of the media, has the term ‘Public Sphere’ become outdated too? It has been argued that the ideal Public Sphere can be found on ‘the web’, providing a new dominant public sphere, one in which all have a voice and all have an opportunity to influence and make change. With Habermas’ term ‘Public Sphere’ or Öffentlichkeit meaning places in which the public can go to articulate and openly discuss opinions and views, this tells us that the digital public sphere has simply given a new ‘place’ for which many more people are able to go to, or log on as such, and do the same. As said in the book The Hyperlinked Society: Questioning Connections in the Digital Age, ‘maps help us make sense of the world, much as links do, and that it is dangerous to take both for granted…maps mediate the way we experience reality’ (Turow and Tsui, 2008: 179). The traditional print media, although not in such high demand, is still distributed nationwide every day, as is the news online, therefore the term ‘Public Sphere’ still encompasses its original meaning, there are now more places for the public to voice their opinions. The digitalisation has enabled people to spread news in a quicker fashion than previously, however the world-wide web should still be considered as a Public Sphere; just an online version.

 

Bibliography:

 

Butsch, Richard (2009) Media and Pubic Spheres, Palgrave Macmillan

 

Calhoun, Craig J. (1992) Habermas and the Public Sphere, MIT Press

 

Downey, John and Fenton, Natalie (2003) New Media, Counter Publicity and the Public Sphere, Article

 

Fenton, Natalie (2010) New Media, Old News: Journalism & Democracy in the Digital Age, SAGE Publications

 

Habermas, Jürgen (1992) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, MIT Press

 

Hauser, Gerard A. (1999) Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres, University of South Carolina Press

 

Loader, Brian and Mercea, Dan (2012) Social Media and Democracy: Innovations in Participatory Politics, Routledge

 

Nikolic, Vladan (2016) Independent Filmmaking and Digital Convergence: Transmedia and Beyond, Taylor & Francis

 

Squires, Catherine (2002) Rethinking the Black Public Sphere: An Alternative Vocabulary for Multiple Public Spheres, Article

 

Turow, Joseph and Tsui, Lokman (2008) The Hyperlinked Society: Questioning Connections in the Digital Age, University of Michigan Press

 

Online Sources:

 

Benkler, Yochai (2012) ‘The networked public sphere’: framing the public discourse of the SOPA/PIPA debate’, Online Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/video/2012/may/15/yochai-benkler-networked-public-sphere-sopa-pipa

 

Ding-Tzann, Lii (1998) Social Spheres and Public Life: A structural Origin, Research Article, Online Source:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026327698015002005

 

Hindman, Matthew, ‘What is the Online Public Sphere Good for?’  Online Source:

http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange/files/f/18730-2010-10-04T030532Z/hindman_online_public_sphere_pre.pdf  p.1-29

 

Hosein, Gus (2016) ‘There’s Still Time to Stop the Surveillance Society’, Online Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/18/government-collecting-personal-data-surveillance

 

Mahlouly, Dounia, Rethinking the Public Sphere in a Digital Environment: Similarities between the Eighteenth and the Twenty-First Centuries, University of Glasgow, Online source:

https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_279211_en.pdf

 

Sunstein, Cass (2017) ‘Neither Hayek Nor Habermas’, Online source:

https://123slide.org/neither-hayek-nor-habermas-cass-sunstein

 

Warner, Michael, Publics and Counterpublics, Online source:

https://counterpublics.wikispaces.com/

 

Images:

 

  1. BBC News Facebook Page Comment section, Video Link:

https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/1999656353384546/

 

  1. Crisis UK Twitter page, Twitter Link:

https://twitter.com/crisis_uk

 

  1. Change Petition Homepage, Website Link:

https://www.change.org

 

  1. World of Warcraft PC Game/Virtual World, Website Link:

https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/

 

  1. Snapchat Phone App, Website Link:

https://www.snapchat.com

 

  1. Olly Murs Tweets, taken from an article by The Independent Online, Website link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/oxford-circus-olly-murs-gunshots-selfridges-piers-morgan-a8075331.html

  1. Olly Murs Twitter link: https://twitter.com/ollyofficial

 

  1. Screenshot of Advert taken before a Zoella YouTube Video, Channel link:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWRV5AVOlKJR1Flvgt310Cw

 

  1. Screenshot of Youtuber JaackMaate’s video on Zoella advent calendar, Channel Link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA91BaJWYQw&t=33s

 

  1. Jeremy Corbyn’s public Twitter page, Twitter link:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn

The Digital World Taking Over Traditional Media and the Positive and Negative Views.

‘A fresh wave of technological optimism has more recently accompanied the advent of social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Wikis and the blogosphere. The distinctiveness of this second generation of Internet democracy is the displacement of the public sphere model with that of a networked citizen-centred perspective providing opportunities to connect the private sphere of autonomous political identity to a multitude of chosen political spaces…it thus represents a significant departure from the earlier restricted and constrained formulations of rational deliberation with its concomitant requirement for dutiful citizens’ (Loader and Mercea, 2012: 2).

 

The social sphere has developed rapidly in the past 10 years, with the rise of social media taking over main stream media and news outlets. The social sphere is described as ‘a societal self-organisation to create common cultural landscape on which various forms of performance and public drama are staged, and through which a social bond among strangers is created and public life maintained’ (Ding-Tzann, 1998, Online Source). With the rise of the social aspect of the internet as well as the move from traditional print media to online, people have a lot more access to information and are able to spread this information at a much quicker pace. However, this fast paced sharing of information can have its consequences. Due to social media and having the ability to send a message to thousands of people at a time, news is not always true. People become citizen journalists, informing people of situations that are happening live, although a few hours later the story that is released by news outlets is completely different. Online news outlets will have had the time to process events that have taken place, with the full and true story being told. An example of a recent situation that occurred in November 2017 is when a celebrity sent out a series of Tweets whilst in the shopping centre Selfridges on Oxford Street in London. The crowds of people on Oxford Street started to panic and run from the street when a loud noise was heard nearby, to which people thought was the sound of gun shots. Olly Murs, a British singer, was in the shopping centre when he noticed the crowds of people running. The Tweets shown below (Images 6 and 7) are a perfect example of fake news. Sending out messages of panic to 7.8 million people who follow his account caused fright in people from across the country to believe that there had been a terrorist attack in the capital. Later that evening the Metropolitan Police made a statement to say that there was no evidence of gun shots fired and nearby train stations were reopened a few hours later.

 

Images 6 and 7: Tweets posted by Olly Murs about a supposed terrorist attack on Oxford Street in November 2017

 

News and journalism can be spread within seconds across the world-wide web, whereas traditional print media is printed and distributed the following morning. As said by Natalie Fenton, ‘Many commentators have claimed that journalism is undergoing a fundamental transformation. One of the key reasons cited for this transformation is the changing nature of technology, which is claimed to impact directly upon the practice of journalism and access to the profession. The nature of this transformation is considered variably as a negative and positive development’ (Fenton, 2010: 4). Although the digitalisation of the media and news has helped make information more accessible and distributed at a much quicker pace, there are still negatives aspects to this.

 

Many people argue that due to a large portion of the media being owned by corporate conglomerates, the media are able to control the public sphere and share to the public what benefits their interests, focusing on what sells in place of giving the public information. One major media platform spoken about previously is YouTube. With over 100 million YouTube Channels live on the website, this has become not only one of the most popular social media sites, but also a huge opportunity for many brands and sponsorship deals. Corporate and media conglomerates saw the potential of the website, as ‘Google acquired YouTube in 2006, for $1.6 billion’ (Nikloic, 2016: 95). From this, ‘Hollywood Agencies starting signing up YouTubers to represent them. Brands and companies began courting YouTube “personalities” for endorsements’ (Nikloic, 2016: 95). A lot of YouTube viewers argue that this space for creators has become realistically a giant advert, trying to sell the viewers merchandise, company products and brands. It would seem that a lot of what these channels and creators now post to their channels is driven by profit, rather than to just create for their audiences (Image 8 below). A recent example of this is from the YouTube channel ‘Zoella’, who has over 12 million subscribers. Many of her fans as well as other Youtubers (Image 9) were upset at her recent merchandise which is an advent calendar that is sold in the high-street drug store Boots for £50, which the public agreed was overpriced for what you receive in the product. Zoella uploaded a video to her channel in which she defends her product and herself as a brand, who told her audience that she had no choice in the price of her advent calendar.

 

Image 8: This shows an example of an advert that is shown before you can watch a YouTube video, with these adverts ranging from 5 seconds to 30 seconds.

 

Image 9: Other Youtubers (JaackMaate) uploaded videos to their channel to discuss Zoella’s controversial calendar.

 

From this example, it shows how the digitalisation of the media and traditional media has changed, however not always for the better. As said by Richard Butsch, the ‘media have been captured by the state and corporations’ (Butsch, 2009). As well as choosing what is posted online and to the world-wide web through social media, online news outlets also have this same choice. News corporations decide what the public is informed about in the world, especially with politics and government issues, as different newspapers support different political parties. Rather than citizens being a part of the Public Sphere, the public has become consumers.

 

‘While the mass-media public sphere may be subject to periodic crises that may be exploited by groups in civil society, new information and communication technologies such as the world wide web may contribute to the fragmentation of civil society, as well as political mobilization and participation’ (Downey and Fenton, 2003: 189).

 

Although it has been said that news outlets can control what they chose to present to the public, it is the press that has played a massive part in exposing public figures, whether it has been celebrities or political figures, who have done wrong and have affected minorities or groups who may not be so predominant in the Public Sphere. It is journalists who help in making such stories appear and bring about discussion within the public in which all sides of the story are printed for all to see. In order for the Public Sphere to function, public debates are vital, with the help of the digital media being able to give people a voice to share their views. The digital media and social medias have had a massive impact and influence on the government and state in recent years. Through social media, The Labour Party and their leader, Jeremy Corbyn, were able to win 262 seats out of 650 in the recent 2017 General Election, 32 more than they had previously. The younger generation appealed to what the Labour party were campaigning for, and so throughout the internet, Jeremy Corbyn became not only a political figure, but an internet celebrity, with now having over 1 million followers on his Twitter page (Image 10).

 

Image 10: Jeremy Corbyn’s Public Twitter Page

 

As said by Turow and Tsui, ‘The Web brings three new characteristics…The Web is a global scope – and increasing its actual reach at a remarkable pace. Second, the Web turns the steep hill of broadcasting into a huge plain bordered by a cliff – once you’re on, you’re pretty much equal with everyone else, although if you’re not on, you’re pretty much off entirely. Third, the Web brings persistence not just to our communications but to the relationships our communications note; that is, the Web brings persistent links. In this, it is profoundly unlike other publishing media’ (Turow and Tsui, 2008: 188-9). The web has the power to influence politics, through internet users and being able to reach out to groups of the public who were not able to engage previously.

 

The digitalisation of the media and the public sphere has provided a way in which to change and move away from the traditional and dominant Public Sphere, one in which all voices can be heard. New communities have been created, news ideas and views are brought into main stream media and this digitalisation has completely changed the way in which media is created and consumed by the public.

Virtual Worlds, New Online Communities and Online Pessimism

With the new Digital Public Sphere comes new counter publicity, in this instance creating new communities. These new communities are known online as Virtual Societies, in which the public are able to create an Avatar of themselves and join a new world online in which they can meet people from all around the world and talk to and discuss opinions with them. Examples of such virtual societies include World of Warcraft (a role playing fantasy world), Second Life (virtual world where you can chat using voice and text), Club Penguin (virtual world primarily for young teens/children) and Habbo Hotel (a social networking service and online community primarily for teenagers). These worlds allow you to create your own online version of yourself, an avatar, in which you can become whoever you would like to be. These virtual worlds and counterpublics offer people a space in which to be free creatively and engage with like-minded people. As said by Catherine Squires, ‘many contemporary theorists describe multiple publics, mainly differentiated by group characteristics or group identities, such as ethnicity, gender, sexuality, race, or nationality…these theorists see multiple, coexisting counterpublics composed mainly of “subaltern” or what I will refer to as “marginalized” groups. These writers agree that people of color, women, homosexuals, religious minorities, and immigrant groups have created coexisting counterpublics in reaction to the exclusionary politics of dominant public spheres and the state’ (Squires, 2002: 446).

 

Image 4, Homepage of World of Warcraft PC Game/Virtual World

 

With these virtual worlds, people from all backgrounds of life are accepted. Your ethnicity, gender, sexuality, race and nationality do not define you in these virtual societies, which appeals to many people across the world. Another smaller example of an online community is the social media app called Snapchat, in which you can add people using their snapchat username and send pictures to each other, hold conversations, create a ‘story’ in which you make a picture or video public to everyone who follows you as well as being able to create a ‘Bitmoji’; a small avatar of yourself which you can put onto your picture and in your videos which is a representation of yourself. Snapchat, although not a virtual society, allows you to interact with people, whether you may know them or not, and communicate with them. Using what is called ‘geotags’, you are able to let people know your location by posting a sticker of your location onto your shared picture or video (Images 5,6 and 7). Not only are there location geotags, but also tags for certain events such as concerts, parades, premiers and when there is a parliamentary election going on. This lets people engage with others, let people know when certain events are occurring and how people may be feeling in certain situations. A said by Joseph Turow and Lokman Tsui, these Virtual Societies and online communities are ‘offering citizens exposure to political viewpoints not heard in traditional media’ (Turow and Tsui, 2008).

 

mages 5, 6 and 7: Screenshots taken from the Snapchat App displaying the use of certain geotags and Bitmoji

 

Other new online communities include blogs and bloggers, collectively known as the ‘Blogosphere’, described as Cass Sunstein as ‘a gigantic town meeting’ (Sunstein, 2017, Online Source). Bloggers are able to post on websites about either their own life, reviews of places or foods, or situations and events that are happening in the world. These blogs can gain a following of dedicated readers who can leave comments and give their own responses in a comment section, discussing with other readers. The website YouTube is the video version for a blogger, with the term being a ‘vlogger’; video blogger. These vloggers, much like bloggers, can film their day, give reviews and discuss with their audience worldly matters. These vloggers can also choose to have adverts at the start and in the middle of their videos as well as sponsored videos, promoting a product or website. By doing this, thousands, and in some cases millions of people watch these videos and have the option of liking, disliking and commenting on the video in a comment section below the video. The vloggers refer to their viewers as a YouTube community, who interact with one another and even hold gatherings in person with vloggers that they watch, making the digital aspect physical. These vloggers and bloggers, using the platform they have built, become influencers to many people, having the power to make people think a certain way and change opinions and views of the public.

 

However, one of the pessimisms of these virtual worlds and online communities is the fact that they are not always completely democratic. As said previously with the social media platform Twitter, vloggers and bloggers with a bigger following than others will have their voices heard louder than others. Similarly, in virtual realities, players can usually increase in levels and earn money on these games, subsequently making these players stronger and more powerful in these worlds, much like in the real world. As well, due to the freedom given to people in these virtual worlds and online communities, the government therefore tries to take control and monitor discussion within these places, leading the public to argue that the state is trying to censor them of information and control online debate and forums. Such countries as China have strict rules about online use, with a high number of popular social media websites being banned from the country completely, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Blocks and filters are put throughout the world-wide web by the Chinese government and state as a way to control the Chinese publics views and opinions.

 

Although there is pessimism, many people still agree that these virtual worlds and online communities do benefit the public. They provide an escape for people and offer and new place for discussion in which they can talk to people face to face virtually through their avatars. This brings together the traditional Public Sphere with the Digital Public Sphere as we can see the return of coffee houses through virtual reality.

What is the Digital Public Sphere? Exploring the development of the digitalisation of the Public Sphere, counter publicity and digital media

A democracy is based on the premise that public opinion should matter in deciding the course of society’ (Hauser, 1999: 1).

 

The Public Sphere has developed rapidly in the past 10 to 20 years, with ‘face to face’ debates changing to ‘screen to screen’, as people debate, discuss and articulate opinions and views with one another through typing on a keyboard and clicking a button to send. With this new space for the public known as the world-wide web, they are offered an alternative space, in which people who do not share the same views as the state and government are able to voice their opinions, which they would not have necessarily been able to do before. These new virtual coffee houses allow people immediate access to information, with multiple sources just one click away. This means that there is more political freedom; people are free to say what they want, voicing their opinions as well as bringing a participatory aspect to the public sphere. With the rise of social media, more and more people are finding ways to interact, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. Known as ‘citizen journalism’, through these socials people are able to post and share stories live as they see something happening. Whether it is sharing an article, sharing a photo or a video, creating a ‘vlog’ or typing out a 180 character ‘tweet’, more and more people have the freedom to engage and interact. The mass media plays a massive role in this new digital public sphere however, influencing the online culture and the way in which we communicate. Although the public have the sense of freedom online, there is still the presence of the state and capital. As said by John Downey and Natalie Fenton in their article New Media, Counter Publicity and the Public Sphere, ‘horizontal communication between citizens is increasingly replaced by vertical communication between mass media, greatly influenced by both the state and capital, and consumers’ (Downey and Fenton, 2003: 186). This communication through the new media can be seen in an example on Facebook, in which the news organisation, the BBC, shared a video on their page to the public. The video, titled, ‘Being the Only Brexiteer on Campus’, had Facebook users from across the United Kingdom holding debates in the comment section on the topic of Brexit, as well as discussing political parties and their policies. By posting a video about a topic that the whole nation is interested in talking about, the media and the government are influencing how we engage online and communicate with the online public. However, political topics do not only bring about debate and mediated discussions (image 1). As said by Immanuel Kent in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ‘If we attend to the course of conversation in mixed companies consisting not merely of scholars and subtle reasoners but also of business people or women, we notice that besides storytelling and jesting they have another entertainment, namely, arguing’ (Calhoun, 1992: 1). Political discussion and certain views and opinions are not always what a large portion of the public agrees with, therefore some discussions turn into arguments and turn away from the main topic at hand, something that is seen to happen a lot on social media. Being that these platforms are ‘social’ spaces, there is not the same etiquette that is expected when face to face with another person.  Political and other government issues are not always taken as seriously through social medias, with a lot of social media accounts turning government figures and certain situations into a joke, making the situation less serious and one that more people can engage with.

 

Image 1, BBC Public Facebook Page, Video: Being the Only Brexiteer on Campus

 

As people voice their difference in opinion, this creates ‘Counter Publicity’. Defined by Michael Warner, ‘Counterpublics are…formed by their conflict with the norms and contexts of their cultural environment, and this context of domination inevitably entails distortion. Mass publics and counterpublics, in other words, are both damaged forms of publicness, just as gender and sexuality are, in this culture, damaged forms of privacy’ (Warner, online source).  With these counter public views and opinions, they are able to sometimes be brought into the main stream media, and be heard by a larger public who may have not thought in the same way. Therefore, these alternative public spheres create tension and threaten the stability of the public sphere, creating different ways for people to express themselves. The digitalization of the Public Sphere gave these people and groups who had a different way of looking at situations an area in which they could exist and engage with one another and try to enter main stream media.

A lot of alternative Public Spheres can therefore be found online, however before the world-wide web there were such groups known as pressure groups and environmental groups which have since moved online. These groups are a part of Civil society; between private and the state, but not in the public sphere, yet these groups helped to create counter publicity in the public sphere. Before the world-wide web, these associations would gather to discuss their views and try to get them into the main stream. One example of these non-government agencies (NGA’s) is Crisis, which helps homeless people to have a safe place to go for Christmas and give them somewhere to sleep, eat and relax. Now, having their own website and social media accounts (image 2) and expanding their group, they are able to recruit more volunteers and spread the awareness throughout the internet, especially through social media and getting onto news platforms. As said by Dounia Mahlouly in the online article Rethinking the Public Sphere in a Digital Environment: Similarities between the Eighteenth and the Twenty-First Centuries, ‘mainstream media maintain an impartial power over the dissemination of cultural and political discourses. Yet the emergence of the internet and social media provided information consumers with the opportunity to become information producers and to shape their cultural environment.’  (Mahlouly, online source). With the help of the online public and these alternative public sphere spaces, these NGA’s are given a better opportunity to be heard globally.

 

Image 2, Crisis Public Twitter Page

 

As said, Social Media plays a massive role in the Digital Online Sphere, which offers multiple ways in which you can spread either news, opinions, certain views and enable you to get these into the public sphere. Websites such as Twitter and Facebook allow the public to create profiles, whether it be for themselves or a profile about another person such as a celebrity, they can then start trends using a hashtag which can become a global trend, as well as creating Twitter voting polls, used to bring the public together, as well as posting pictures and videos, using audiences to help spread messages by either retweeting on Twitter or sharing the link on their Facebook pages. However, as said by Richard Butsch in Media and Public Spheres, ‘the face to face public sphere is increasingly replaced by a mediated public sphere where, “everyone can observe…but very few speakers can participate” (Butsch, 2009)’. With social media, although everyone is given a voice, celebrities and people in the public eye are given more of a voice to spread news stories and what is important to them, including political matters and their countries government. The president of the United States, Donald Trump, has an extremely controversial Twitter account (@realDonaldTrump) in which he posts about important political matters, however has been known to have been in trouble over such tweets, making a lot of the public angry and upset. Although this may be an example of how social media may not be a positive for the Public Sphere, it is also allowing the public to know more about their state, their government and the politics of their country, something which may not have been possible if there was no Digital Public Sphere. Other websites which can change political views and government decisions are petition and crowdfunding websites, such as Change.org. As shown in the image below (Image 3), the website helps people to make public petitions which challenge the government and aims to change government policies and the example as shown below, the EU Tax on all sanitary products. Through the digitalization of the Public Sphere and media itself, more and more people’s voices are being heard.

 

Image 3, Change.org Website Front Page

 

The media, especially now online media, offers a mediated deliberation of such topics, helping spread news and therefore the public sphere across the globe. This digitalization of the Public Sphere shows the positive aspects of the internet and its effects on the public and the state.

 

With the development of digital public spheres, is a new term required to replace ‘public sphere’? Explore and illustrate with examples

The Public Sphere has changed drastically over the years. What started as men meeting in coffee houses to discuss political and societal matters has now become online chat rooms, online news media outlets, social media and speaking with people who live thousands of miles away within seconds. The term ‘Public Sphere’ is defined by Jürgen Habermas as being ‘made up of private people gathered together as a public and articulating the needs of society with the state’ (Habermas, 1992: 176). With the revolutionising of the internet and digital technology, the public sphere has changed from traditional print media and the bourgeoisie white men to the world-wide web and people of all ethnicities, genders and nationalities; making the digital public sphere the dominant public sphere. This ePortfolio will be exploring the development of the digital public sphere, looking at certain social medias such as Facebook and Twitter, how these websites give people a voice they may not have once had, virtual worlds offering a virtual Public Sphere to discuss matters of the online world, as well as the transition of print media to the online world and the accessibility and speed of the world-wide web and the effects of this in the public sphere.  With this new technology, the question raised is whether a new term is required to replace ‘the Public Sphere’, in order to stay relevant and engage with in the rapidly developing digital world. As said by Natalie Fenton in her article New Media, Old News: Journalism & Democracy in the Digital Age, ‘has technology revitalized the public sphere or become a tool of commerce for an increasingly un-public, undemocratic news media?’ (Fenton, 2010: 4). Has the online world changed the meaning of the public sphere or simply allowed others to be heard?