Public sphere and computer-mediated communication in a globalized world: the case of political blogging, 2009 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Political debate on weblogs: a virtual public sphere for deliberation?
T HE debate about the power of the internet to transform political systems and democratic practices has been the subject of academic research and debate over the past two decades, both among sociology of media scholars and, more specifically, political communication researchers. Undergone a brief period marked by some disenchantment, from 7-8 years on that the idealism associated with the Internet has resurfaced with an added impetus, spurred by the emergence of a broad set of tools that include a range of activities available to the public communication nowadays. Crucially, it became the design of a new conceptualization of the dimensions of political participation online, in close connection with a phase in the history of the internet known as Web 2.0. This has been introduced as the second generation of Web tools, with participatory and interactive features. Along with the most popular modes of communication are the social spaces, which include YouTube, Facebook and the growing blogosphere, that among other modality are united by a common trait: the integration of the ordinary individual in the process of producing and distributing content. Is this multimodal communicative space that is the new global public sphere .
The Meanings of Public Sphere: is there any democratic role for Internet?
ABSTRACT: The concept of public sphere is being challenged by new interesting questions: what’s the meaning of public sphere, today, in face of the changes introduced by Internet? Are those changes still compatible with the idea of publicity behind the conceptual classic models drawn by Habermas? Are still compatible with the strong notion and high normative demands that are implied in those models? The aim of this text is to reflect on the connections among democratic deliberation and the role performed by online news media in a context of growing pluralism. In order to perform that reflection, we intend to develop a theoretical discussion on the limits of the classic concept of public sphere in face of the social factum consisting in the increasing fragmentation induced by digital media. Today, most of political communication passes trough expert communicators. This communicative division of labor threatens to undermine the quality of communication. Will the many-to-many communication possible with the Internet, helping to produce political situations in which communicative asymmetry can be mitigated, decreasing the gap between citizens and representatives?
Information, Communication & Society, 2001
Three prominent 'camps' have emerged within Internet democracy rhetoric and practice, each drawing upon different models of democracy: communitarian, liberal individualist and deliberative. Much interest has been shown in the former two camps by researchers and policy makers. This paper turns to an examination of the possible realization of the third camp's vision -that the public sphere of rational-critical discourse will be extended through cyberspace. This paper's method is to compare existing online discourse with a set of requirements of the public sphere developed from the work of Jürgen Habermas. Previous research of cyber-interactions reveals a number of factors limiting the expansion of the public sphere online. To explore how these limitations may be overcome, the paper examines an online democracy project that explicitly attempts to foster deliberation. It is shown how this initiative has been able to successfully surmount many of the impediments identi ed in less structured online deliberations, but that it has, along with similar projects, failed to gain a representative sample of the population and is increasingly marginalized by commercial sites, virtual communities of common interest, and liberal individualist political practices. The paper concludes that the expansion of the public sphere through the Internet requires not only developing deliberative spaces but also attracting participation from citizens who have been socialized within a commercialized and individualized culture hostile towards public deliberation.
Is there any democratic role to internet.?
Internacional C onference Public Sphere Reconsidered: theories and practices
The concept of public sphere is being challenged by new interesting questions: what’s the meaning of public sphere, today, in face of the changes introduced by Internet? Are those changes still compatible with the idea of publicity behind the conceptual classic models drawn by Habermas? Are still compatible with the strong notion and high normative demands that are implied in those models? The aim of this text is to reflect on the connections among democratic deliberation and the role performed by online news media in a context of growing pluralism. In order to perform that reflection, we intend to develop a theoretical discussion on the limits of the classic concept of public sphere in face of the social factum consisting in the increasing fragmentation induced by digital media. Today, most of political communication passes trough expert communicators. This communicative division of labor threatens to undermine the quality of communication. Will the many-to-many communication possible with the Internet, helping to produce political situations in which communicative asymmetry can be mitigated, decreasing the gap between citizens and representatives?
Computer‐mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis [URL here]
Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 2001
In recent times much has been said about the possibility that the two-way, decentralized communications of cyberspace can provide sites of rational-critical discourse autonomous from state and economic interests and thus extending the public sphere at large. In this paper the extent to which the Internet does in fact enhance the public sphere is evaluated. Online deliberative practices are compared with a normative model of the public sphere developed from the work of Jürgen Habermas. The evaluation proceeds at a general level, drawing upon more specific Internet research to provide a broad understanding of the democratic possibilities and limitations of the present Internet. The analysis shows that vibrant exchange of positions and rational critique does take place within many online fora. However, there are a number of factors limiting the expansion of the public sphere online. These factors include the increasing colonization of cyberspace by state and corporate interests, a deficit of reflexivity, a lack of respectful listening to others, the difficulty of verifying identity claims and information put forward, the exclusion of many from online political fora, and the domination of discourse by certain individuals and groups. The article concludes by calling for more focused Internet-democracy research to address these problems further, research for which the present paper provides a starting point.
A Singular Public Sphere and the Role of the Internet.
This paper will examine the concept of the public sphere and take the position that although there are many; it is possible to speak about a singular sphere through an examination of their conceptual elements , namely: the sphere is formed through discussion; the sphere provides a new space for groups previously excluded or alienated from discussion; opinions presented in the sphere are judged upon their substance and not the socio-economic position of the presenter . To reach this position, a general analysis of the public sphere will be discussed outlining its norms and their critical relationship to deliberative democracy. The second part of this paper will analyse the role of the internet as a public sphere and how legal regulation has ultimately had little effect upon its operation, growth and effectiveness as such. This conclusion is reached through examining user generated content (U.G.C.) and social networking sites analogous to “public houses” two hundred years ago and the successful role they have played, in the face of regulatory attempts, in furthering public opinion, discourse and democracy.
A good deal of discourse relating to the 'democratic potential' of the Internet has tended to simplify the question of technology. Whilst it is true that the structure of the Internet may well facilitate certain 'democratic' forms of use, this is not a necessary fact. This paper argues that the Internet is not passive, but is shaped by the ways in which it is used. Such an account emphasizes the fact that certain forms of use may well conflict, leading to a struggle to define the technology, people's relation to it, and thus the ways in which it is used. The discussion concludes with the suggestion that, unless users strive to develop the Internet as a democratic tool, or one that enhanced non-commercial civil society, the potential often referred to will be lost. Framing the discussion – democracy, structure and agency As with all new technologies, various claims have been made about the Internet, ranging from the mindlessly optimistic to the hopelessly pessimistic. Some of the more sensible literature is less extreme in its vision and less abstract in its analysis. The present discussion relates to a particular claim made of the Internet: that of the effects of the Internet on the deliberative component of democracy. Although there is uncertainty about the timing of the first analyses of the Internet and democracy, there was certainly a healthy debate by the mid 1990s. To be sure, there are a number of texts that have argued that the Internet is good for democracy and a number that have argued the contrary position. In the first case, claims have been made such as 'the Internet can actually strengthen deliberative democracy' (Gimmler 2001, p. 31), 'how the Internet invents new forms of democratic activity' (Locke 1999), or will 'revolutionize the process of political communication', arguing that 'the bulk
Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 2018
Internet ha creado una compleja interacción entre prácticas comunicativas, difusión política e infraestructura tecnológica. El creciente predominio de las grandes plataformas sociales (Facebook, Google, Twitter…) junto con el desarrollo de algoritmos opacos, no sujetos a evaluación pública, está reordenando los contrapesos de poder entre actores políticos y sociales a la hora de establecer las relaciones de definición de la agenda pública. Se presentan los resultados de dos estudios empíricos longitudinales sobre dos campañas de comunicación (n= 688.982 y n= 48.864 publicaciones únicas) del partido político Podemos. Los resultados muestran el impacto de las diferentes metáforas objeto de estudio y los efectos de intermediación de las grandes plataformas sociales en la conformación de la agenda pública.