Does the personalization of publics strengthen or undermine democratic participation and public debate?
A concept extensively spread and studied by a lot of scholars, intellectuals, and researchers, the public sphere is not only critical for a well-functioning democracy but also a well-organized country where the public opinion is the result of the people’s common interests. The public sphere is where individuals can come together to freely express themselves and discover societal troubles. According to German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, the public sphere is a “society engaged in critical public debate,” and a ”virtual or imaginary community which does not necessarily exist in any identifiable space.” Over the years, the public sphere has had a lot of transformations regarding its conceptual term. With the development of new mediums suitable for and communication tools, Debates and discussions have an impact on political motion, and they can be expressed through social media and other means of communication. The reality of digital environment is an environment that is yet to be thoroughly and methodically explored. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube are being used by the public to convey messages and communicate with each other and with those in power.
New dimensions have come to life while discussing the public sphere and it’s due to the development and the arousing of new webs and technologies. The debates from widespread interests are taken and reflected towards the governmental policies, hence being directly related to technology and media. Back in the days, the UK stretched out their applicability by adding options and opinion sections on their newspapers, allowing individuals from a certain class level to have that essence of communication. Nowadays, social media has become the ultimate means of communication due to its availability and visually appealing characteristics. According to Papacharissi (2002) after the innovation of the internet and it being considered a new public sphere, the discussion that endorses the act of exchanging new opinions and ideas has been facilitated. Through social media, users have a free space where they can either communicate with each other or even come together for a specific melody. Publishing online opens a lot of closed doors for debates because what is posted can be reached by people from different backgrounds and interests, eliminating the physical obstacles that may sometimes adhere. Before the invasion of the internet into our lives, it was never easy for people to come together and express their various opinions, critiques and sentiments. “To speak online is to publish, and to publish online is to connect with others. With the arrival of globally accessible publishing, freedom of speech is now freedom of the press, and freedom of the press is freedom of assembly” (Shirky 2008).
If we were to conduct a comparison between the increase in the number of users in the social networks and the increase in the declining of newspapers and “traditional” ways of communication, it’s purely vibrant that the world around us has transformed and is continuing to take a new shape with every passing day. Being aesthetically appealing, the “privileged” social media keeps drawing more people into its hidden dimensions. When it comes to political communication and messages, the virtual environment is the main conductor. The new trend of social media appears to be satisfactory to both the producer of the information and the receiver. Borders between the user and the provider merely exist anymore where they are considered invisible.
Our society is contradictory, and social media, being a part of this society is contradictory as well. Consequently, social media’s effect on the public sphere is inconsistent as well. Regarding protests, they can have different effects from amplifying to even dampening them. Social media might in some cases affect the public sphere in some way but it does not cause protests nor revolutions. They are rooted in the power organizations of modern society. Social media is prevalent in society, so they are not entirely insignificant in situations of rebellion.
Fake news are one commonly spread virus in media nowadays. People go online to surf different platforms and get a glimpse of what’s going on in the world around them, to be shocked by the lies and the ambiguity found in the news. For example, in the recent presidential campaign in the United States of America, the population in the latter were preys of fake news where these news were shared more than real ones and the public didn’t know what to believe. But fake news aren’t the only toxic substance in media. Trends, especially dangerous ones like jumping off a cliff without being fully equipped or taking selfies in high and weird places are all bugs that affects people. Social media affects a person’s life from all aspects. Starting from the involvement of the individuals in democracy and politics to their very personal matters. So, the question remains: how does media, especially social media, interfere in the ability of citizens to set the political plan for discussion and change?
Fuchs, C. (2014). Social Media, A critical introduction. London: Sage Publication.
Habermas, J. (1991).The Structural Transformation of Public Sphere. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Fischer-Lauder, H. (2016, December 22). IMPAKTER ESSAY: WHY FAKE NEWS GOES VIRAL.
