Wk 2 – News and Society

WK2 – SG2051 - News and Society – “News, documentary and the public sphere

Dr. Carolina Matos

Lecturer in Media and Communications

Department of Sociology

City University London

Required readings

• Habermas, J. (1979) “The Public Sphere” in Mattelart an Siegelaub (ed.) Communication and Class Struggle, vol. 1

• Matos, C. (2012) “The Public Sphere and the Public Interest: The Role of the State in Public Service Media” in Media and politics in Latin America: globalization, democracy and identity, London: I.B. Tauris, p. 61-87

• • Additional Reading: • • Fraser, N. (1990) “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to

the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy”, Social Text, no. 25/26, p. 56-80

• Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, MIT Press

• Tiffen, J. (1989) News and Power, Allen and Unwin, pp 15-- 29 and ‐pp 52-- 69‐

• Webster, F. (1995) Theories of the Information Society, Routledge, chapter 6, p. 101-134

•

Key points

• Public sphere definitions

• Habermas and the public sphere

• The public sphere, democracy and the media

• The media and the public sphere

• The public sphere and the public interest

• News and the public sphere

• Documentary

• Conclusions

• Seminar questions and activities

• Readings for week 3

The media, democracy and politics

Habermas and the public sphere: facts and figures

* The concept of the public sphere has its historical roots in ancient Greece.

* Habermas (1962, 1997) examined in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere the emergence of a bourgeoisie public sphere in Europe in the 18th and 19th century followed by its subsequent decline in the 20th century due to the formation of a mass culture society.

* Considered to be one of the last of the Frankfurt School theorists, Habermas’ model has been influenced by Adorno

* Following from the tradition of the Frankfurt School, Habermas is seen as having lamented the decline of what was perceived as a “unified” public sphere. The decline was seen as contributing to the ‘impoverishment’ of public debate and discussion.

Habermas and the public sphere

“By ‘public sphere’ we mean first of all a domain of our social life in which such a thing as public opinion can be formed. Access to the public sphere is open in principle to all citizens. A portion of the public sphere is constituted in every conversation in which private persons come together to form a public. They are then acting neither as business or professional people conducting their private affairs….Citizens act as a public when they deal with matters of general interest without being subject to coercion; thus with the guarantee that they may assemble and unite….and express and publicise their opinions freely. When the public is large, this kind of communication requires certain means of dissemination and influence, today newspapers and periodicals, radio and TV are the media of the public sphere…” (Habermas, 1973)

The emergence of public opinion

• * So what is the relationship between the media, the public sphere and democracy?

• In the late 18th century, a new political class came to the fore in Britain forming a public body which was in sharp contrast to the old authorities (i.e. the state and the church), creating the conditions for a rational public opinion. The creation of a network of institutions within civil society provided the means through which private thoughts could become public.

• The public sphere thus emerges as a sphere mediating between the state and society, “a sphere in which the public as a vehicle of public opinion is formed”… (Habermas, 1973).

• It was since then that one learned to distinguish between opinion and “public opinion” through the institutions of the mass media. This new public sphere was in principle open to all, protected from both the church and the state.

The bourgeoisie public sphere and its changing nature

• The bourgeoisie public sphere can be understood as the sphere of private persons assembled to form a public.

• “They soon began to make use of the public sphere of informational newspapers, which was officially regulated, against the public power itself, using these papers….to engage in debate about the general rules governing relations in their own…privatised but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and labour.”

• Liberal model of the public sphere

• “The ground was cleared for this development from a press of viewpoints to a commercial press at about the same time in England, France and the US, during the 1830s.

• Transformation of the public sphere – the shift from this type of journalism to the consumer services of the mass media changed the sphere of publicness with an influx of private interests that achieved privileged representation within it. (in Habermas, 1973)

Criticisms to the concept of the public sphere• Habermas is criticised on historical grounds for having idealised the

bourgeoisie public sphere

• In his analysis of the British press, Koss (1981, 1984) underlined that political control by proprietary interests was exercised in large part of the press as early as the 18th century (in Iosifidis, 2011).

• Fraser (1990) talks about a number of significant exclusions, listing authors such as Landes and Eley who underline the exclusive character of the liberal public sphere, based on class, gender, race and ethnicity

•

• “Re-feudalization of the public sphere” – Habermas laments the decline of the public sphere, and its appropriation by social organizations that act in relation to the state in the political public sphere.

• Weaknesses of its critical functions:

• “Large-scale organizations strive for political compromises with the state and with one another, behind closed doorsif possible, but at the same time they have to secure….approval from the mass of population through the deployment of a staged form of publicity…” (Habermas, 1973).

Habermas’ concept of the public sphere: the criticisms (in Garnham, 1986 and Matos, 2012)

• Critics (Hallin, 1994; Fraser, 1997; Curran, 2000) have highlighted how the public sphere then was restricted to a small segment of the population. Papers were read by commercial and political elites.

• Neglects the plebeian public sphere, tending to idealize the public sphere as if everyone had equal access to rational debate

• Relevance of the public sphere model: Focuses on the link between the institutions of mass communication and of democratic politics. Question posed here include how well the media reflect the existing balance of political forces in society

• Escapes from the simple dichotomy free market versus state control. “…can pose the question of the threats to democracy and the public discourses upon which it (the public sphere) depends coming both from the development of an oligopolistic capitalist market and from the development of the modern interventionist welfare state.” (in Garnham, 1986).

The public sphere (in McNair, 2007)• Trade unions State/Government/Political Establishment

Public Opinion

Political Parties

Business

Pressure

Groups

Public

Organizations

Citizens

MediaBlogoBTVMedia

TV debate

Current affairs

News

EditorialsBlogs

Features

European public service broadcasting revisited and the public interest (in Matos, 2012)

• Public service broadcasting in Europe has been constructed as part of a whole “communication welfare”, realising democratic goals and performing a cultural mission (McQuail, 2000).

• PSB systems emerged in Europe in the second quarter of the 20th century, with the state-owned broadcasting service committed to the public good being the main model adopted (Fox, 1997). According to Hardy (2008, 57-58), at the beginning of the 1980’s, PSB still dominated most Western European countries, which together had 41 television and 61 radio channels.

• Changing media scenario since the 1980s, with the need to re-define the role of PSBs:

• Many European countries which had also strong traditions of public media service began from mainly the 1980’s onwards to be influenced by US deregulation policies and by the pressure to commercialise television airwaves, with the expansion of cable and satellite TV.

The public sphere and the “public interest” (in Matos, 2012)

• There is little consensus now on the common good and public values

• Young (1990) also argues that modern citizenship has been constructed on this separation between the public/private. She defends the creation of a “heterogeneous public” capable of guaranteeing mechanisms for the representation of diverse as well as oppressed voices. As Young (1990, 125) thus states, no one can “claim to speak in the general interest”.

• Multiple public spheres:

• Making reference to Fraser, Livingstone and Lunt (1994, 26) affirm that competing publics promote the ideal of participatory parity better than a single public. Thus the bourgeoisie public sphere requires power inequalities to be transcended in the search of a consensus around the public good, whereas the pluralist public sphere demands the balancing of differences, facilitating the representation of the less powerful.

The public sphere and the public interest: the case of PSBs (in Matos, 2012)

• Understanding of public service broadcasting (PSB) as being close to an ideal Habermasian space where rational critical debate can occur

• Classic arguments have been mainly grounded on the assumption that the public service model is the main forum which permits the nation to talk to itself.

• The BBC and the public sphere:

• As Scannell (1989) has stated in his examination of the BBC, PSB in the UK has helped voice the opinions of all members of society regardless of class and socio-economic status, which is precisely the vital role that is still required of the public media

• PSBs adapting to the new technological environment – i.e. investments in online platforms and other forms of interactivity

Public sphere and the public interest: “multiple public spheres” (Keane, 1991 in

Matos, 2012)

• The “crisis” of identity of PSB and the revisiting of the notion of the public sphere for the public interest

• Keane (1995) – press struggles and the search for the “public interest” is a concern of the 19th century; “PS is obsolete”

• Key liberal assumptions around free speech influenced by Mill (On Liberty):

• 1) the achievement of “truth” through unrestricted discussion; • 2) free press...to protect the autonomy of civil society from

despotism; • 3) necessary to provide information and enable free debate

The public sphere and the media (in Fraser, 1990)

• Inequalities in the public sphere, inequalities in the media:

• “In stratified societies, unequally empowered social groups tend to develop unequally valued cultural styles. The result is the development of powerful informal pressures that marginalize the contributions of members of subordinated groups both in everyday life contexts and in official public spheres……these pressures are amplified, rather than mitigated, by the peculiar political economy of the bourgeoisie public sphere. In this public sphere, the media that constitute the material support for the circulation of views are privately owned and operated for profit…..subordinated social groups usually lack equal access to the material means of equal participation.”

Media and democracy in the UK and US

Some problems detected in media systems since the 1980’s:

1) Public broadcasting in decline versus expansion of commercial broadcasting

2) Deregulation trends saw wider media concentration and proliferation of multi-channel TV

3) Rise of television as political influence, with politicians having to adapt to the new “media logic” (i.e. “celebrity politicians”)

4) Rise of cynicism and decline of interest in politics

5) Rise of “popular” formats and genres, “populism” and “democratization” of voices facilitated by new technologies

News, the public sphere and objectivity

• Taking into consideration the public sphere ideal, how can we conceive of the role of news in contemporary societies?

• As Iosifidis (2011) argued, Habermas offered a good starting point to

envision the media’s role in public communication.

Thus the media “should seek to facilitate the process of rational

argumentation by providing a context of public discourse which is

essential for the formation of free and reason-based public opinion”

(Iosifidis, 2011, 3).

In order to do this, the media should seek to be “objective”, to reflect

all aspects of the debate, the diversity of opinions in society,

providing a platform for the advocacy of the views of various groups.

Documentary, objectivity and the public sphere

• Can documentary be more “objective”, as it represents “reality”?:

• “To be sure, some documentarists claim to be objective – a term that seems to renounce an interpretative role. The claim may be strategic, but it is surely meaningless. The documentarist, like any communicator in any medium, makes endless choices. He (sic) selects topics, people, vistas, angles, lens, juxtapositions, sounds, words. Each selection is an expression of his point of view, whether he is aware of it or not, whether he acknowledged it or not.”

• Erik Barnouw (1993: 287 in Bruzzi, 2000)

The Internet and the public sphere

• Since the emergence of the Internet, there have been many debates on the ways in which the web provides an opportunity for new public spheres

• Boeder (2005 in Iosifidis, 2011) has talked about the computer-mediated communication of the digital revolution taking the place of the traditional old coffee house discourse. (I.e. Infosphere, Blogosphere, Twittersphere).

• The Internet is a contested terrain, capable of both enlightening individuals as well as manipulating them

• Stumpel (2009) argues that these new digital spheres have some similarities with Habermas’ concept: My Space, Facebook and Twitter are public spaces that are outside state control and where individuals exchange critical points of view

The Internet and the public sphere

• The case of social media:

• Twitter, Facebook, etc

• The case of Youtube

• (www.youtube.com)

• E-governance and e-democracy

• The advocacy and activist domains

• Civic forums

• The journalism domain

The Internet and the public sphere

• New technologies have been seen as having allowed the formation of a transnational or global public sphere as a forum for political discussion

• “While the traditional media in the form of the newspaper press and public television have been an integral part in the creation of a national public sphere, there is widespread assumption that new spheres of communication networks can provide the basis for shared concerns, common tastes and cultural turns at a global level” (Iosifidis, 2011).

• Limits to the potential of the Internet as a public sphere:

• Critical discussion on the Internet is not always rational and in depth; there is chaos in the medium still and fragmentation, the content is partisan and people tend to consume information in line with their beliefs.

Media headlines and public opinion

Interview: Mancini on a universal public sphere

• (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJqUp-ZogbI)

Conclusions

• The ideal of the public sphere was never fully realised

• Habermas’ concept of the public sphere, in spite of the criticisms, has remained influential as a normative ideal to discuss the relationship between the media and democracy

• Public service broadcasting in much of Europe has been understood by many in relation to the public sphere concept

• In an age of new technologies, decline of traditional forms of PSB and audience fragmentation, authors have looked at the ways in which the Internet can be a new (global) public sphere

• Why do liberal democratic societies have so many difficulties in living up to the ideal of the democratic public sphere?

• Because the full realization of the liberal public sphere is limited due to the persistence of power inequalities

Seminar questions and activities• Part I

• 1) What is meant by Habermas’ “public sphere”? What is its relationship to the media and democracy?

• 2) Discuss the criticisms of the concept of the public sphere. In spite of these, why is it still seen as an ideal to aspire to?

• 3) Examine the relationship between the public sphere and European public service media and broadcasting. How has the public sphere been understood in relation to the role that the BBC has had in the UK?

• Part II

• a) Choose an issue that is being debated in the media at present (i.e. welfare state benefits, the future of the EU, immigration). What are the groups and issues that are being marginalised in this discussion?

• b) What are the discourses and key debates around this issue that are circulating in the political public sphere?

Readings for week 3

• Required Reading:

• Golding, P., & Elliot, P. (1979). Making the News in Tumber, H. (ed) (1999) News: A Reader, Oxford University Press, pp.112-- 120‐

• Lippmann, Walter (1921, 2009) “The nature of news” in Public Opinion, Public Domain Text

• Additional:

• Gans, H. (1979). Deciding What's News in Tumber, H. (ed.) (1999) News: A Reader. Oxford University Press, pp.235-248

• Lichtenberg, J. (2000) “In Defence of Objectivity Revisited” in Curran, J. and Gurevitch, Michael (eds.) Mass Media and Society, London: Arnold

• Lippmann, Walter (2009) “Introduction”, “Stereotypes” and “Newspapers” in Public Opinion, Public Domain Text

•  

Questions for week 3• 1) Who defines news?

• 2) What role do sources have in shaping the news?

• 3) Can news ever be “objective”?

• 4) Why has the objectivity regime persisted in spite of all the criticisms to it?

• 5) Do we know when one report is more “balanced” and “objective” than another? How?

• 6) What is the link between the public sphere and balanced news reports?

• 7) What are some of the constraints on news that make a balanced and more “objective” account difficult to achieve?

• 8) What is the relationship between freedom of expression and objectivity?

• 9) What do we mean when we talk about a ‘free press’?