‘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.