Originally, the ‘Public Sphere’ was formulated by Habermas (1962) during the 18th century as a means of connecting the public with democracy, giving a voice to those who were before isolated from any opinion sharing. Habermas describes it as “The coming together of people and the discussion of ideas, often related to governance and demographic ideals.” Poor, N (2005). This firstly occurred as a form of socialising and topic conversation in public meetings, yet as commercialisation grew from the press, so did its corruption through advertising and the entertainment industry. Poor N (2005).
Today, with technology advances constantly evolving arguments have been created surrounding the Public Sphere being linked to the internet in areas such as the blogging entries that you are reading now. However, many scholars have discussed its legitimacy regarding the connection of people from all around world.
Habermas (1962) states originally that for a public sphere to exist it must be comprised with 3 basic elements which include:
- Needs to be formed through discussion
- New space of discussion which before has been excluded
- Considered on the basis of its quality and not on the basis of the power of the speaker
The internet accounts for all of these areas with scholars suggesting that the internet provides certain additions to Habermas work. Banker claims that “The Web content provides adequate visibility within smaller communities, and while also allowing quality content to filter up to a broad audience”. This summarises the argument that the internet consists of multiple mini publics rather that one overall one yet can still generate large amount of public togetherness.
Arguments against the Public Sphere theory are acknowledged by Papacharissi (2002) who claims that literacy and the public’s access are likely to be unequal which links to certain audience fragmentation. Another issue is that online public spheres have the potential to face problems from corruption by commercialisation. Poor N, (2005)
A recent example of this relates to social media and the public sphere theory. Through the social network Facebook, members created a group in which people were able to be a part of which would eventfully take over and control the success of the music industry for the end of that year. In the UK X-Factor is a million pound television programme in which millions are pumped into the programme in order to create a buzz and inevitably result in the Television companies and executives such a Simon Cowell earning a huge profit. Rebellion took place in 2010 as a group was set up which suggested to vote for music artists ‘Rage against the Machine’ to win the Christmas number one in an attempt to destroy the marketing efforts which have been successful for the last 4 years. This is an example of a success story which undermines efforts of theories such as the political economy.
From an advertising point of view the theory of the public sphere can be utilised to create a certain ‘buzz’ from consumers yet can also have a negative effect as discussed where consumers have the power to snatch and potential success this from companies/organisations. I feel as though when associating public spheres which the internet they are overall fragmented obviously not allowing everyone to be a part of all spheres. However, if you are a consumer interested in a certain topic areas then you may be likely to go out of your way to be a part of a public sphere evolving the growth of the topic area.
References
Hindman, M. (2008). What is the Online Public Sphere Good For?. The Hyperlinked Society. 1 (1), 9.
Streete, L., 20th December 2009How Social Media controlled the music industry in the UK..!. 15th March 2011. Avaliable from: http://www.leonstreete.com/Blog/How-Social-Media-controlled-the-music-industry-in-the-UK.html?print=1&tmpl=component.
Poor, N., 2005. Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 4
Leave a comment
No comments yet.
joesayer 
Leave a comment