Public Sphere and the Media

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Habermas's concept of the public sphere and the role of the media within it is outlined. It is then argued that the public sphere approach has been criticized on three main grounds: as too rationalist, as drawing the boundary between public and private in such a way as to exclude significant social groups and social problems, and for favoring general agreement at the expense of difference. The debate on the public sphere is linked to the differing conceptions of politics associated with liberalism and communitarianism. It is argued that we need to distinguish between the role of multiple public spheres associated with multiple social identities and interests and the political public sphere concerned with matters that concern all citizens within a polity. With each will be associated different normative demands of the media. Finally, it is argued that current debates on the media and the public sphere focus on three issues: first, the relation between the public sphere and the nation-state and thus the implications of global media; second, what evaluative stance to take towards the full range of contemporary media forms and rhetoric and whether it can be said that the media are ‘dumbing down’; and third, how to escape from the model of participatory democracy that underpins public sphere theory and thus give due weight to the necessary mediating role of media and to the role of the mediators (journalists, etc.).