Habermas' public sphere is the ideal where open access and full communication governed solely by rationality for a common public goal exist. However, it should be noted that the concept is a ideal communicative state rather than an actual place, though he attempts to find historical examples where public sphere has been taken place. The Internet is not and will never be a public sphere, but some communication forms(modalities) in it could have certain elements of it when moderated well. In short, PS for the Internet is a normative goal rather than a description or practical object. And as such, Papacharissi says the Internet can create a new public space, but does not ensure Ps per se. The question would be what then those elements are and how they can be fostered.
On the other hand, Garnham tries to apply the PS concept to broadcasting, and suggests the public service model to be implemented. However, he as well as most other theorists always seem to forget that though a channel is made public, it is still in competition with the commercial, and thus more attractive other channels. The same on the Internet too.
Then Keane argues that there is no single immense PS but a "complex mosaic of differently sized, overlapping, and interconnected public spheres". His different coexisting levels are important in understanding the complexity of the current society. However, he does not dig into how these spheres are or can be interconnected. I think that the media and communication could and should play an important role in that, which is one of the foci of my own research interests.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment