1. 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
2. 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
•
3. 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
5. 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.
6. 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)
7. 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.
8. 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)
9. 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).
10. 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).
11. 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
Editorials
Blogs
Features
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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.”
17. 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
18. 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.
19. 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)
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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.
24. Interview: Mancini on a universal public sphere
• (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJqUp-ZogbI)
25. 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
26. 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?
27. 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
•
28. 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’?
