Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Monday, July 5, 2010
The Fragmented Public Sphere
At the end of chapter 3 in Alan McKee’s The Public Sphere: An Introduction, he offers this question: “But if we allow different groups to communicate in different ways- abandoning the ideal of a single form of universal rationality that everybody has to employ- will that lead to fragmentation of our public life? If we imagine many distinct and overlapping public spheres, involving different people communicating in different ways, do we end up with a kind of Babel where society falls to bits?” Well, I hate to be the one to burst McKee’s bubble, but think that we are far beyond limiting how different groups communicate. I think that it would be nearly impossible to put any sort of barrier on the way that these groups communicate within their own discourses and with other sectors of the public sphere. And even if it was possible to mandate some sort of rule or norm on how to communicate in the public sphere, it would not go over well. People are used to talking in certain ways, using certain words, and sharing their opinions how they see fit.
At the same time, however, I don’t see the “fragmentation” that he is talking about as a bad thing. It is inevitable that there are going to be different “overlapping public spheres” because not everyone is going to focus on or communicate about the same thing. I could see this working ideally centuries ago, when members of a public would get together in person and discuss matters that concerned the entire town/city/etc. Items such as upcoming elections or new taxes would be discussed. At the time, that was the only way to have a meeting to communicate and discuss ideas (in a “real time” sense, not via newsletter or newspaper). But, as always, with the added use of technology in its ever-changing forms, multiple new gateways are opened for interacting in the public sphere. There is an entire “internet public sphere” that is separate from the “television public sphere,” that is then separate from the “radio public sphere” or the “in-person public sphere.” And those are just broad spectrums. There are thousands of public spheres within each of those spheres. On TV, there’s a sports sphere, an entertainment sphere, a talk show sphere, a “family friendly” sphere, and the list goes on. Each sphere as a slightly (or large) difference from the other, in what they communicate and what ideas they share with the public. But I still think that this fragmentation is a good thing for a few reasons.
McKee says that it is no longer possible to reach a consensus, which I agree with. If each of the smaller public spheres were put together and asked to reach a common point, I highly doubt that would ever happen. However, when they are in their smaller spheres will people who share the same ideas, they are more likely to avoid argument and reach a consensus. Also, as he discussed in previous chapters, diversity has its benefits. When one subset is juxtaposed with another, they can both learn from each other’s differences. By having smaller spheres that are vastly different from one another, the other spheres can observe how they are run and adapt (or not) any characteristics that they see fit to their own sphere. Having fragmented spheres also helps bring awareness to certain issues that would not have gained any light otherwise. Years ago, there never would have been an “African American” public sphere- especially because only white men were allowed entry to begin with.
I found these particular chapters connecting well back to McKee’s previous chapters, and the writings we have discussed thus far. I think that part of the reason we have so many “fragmented” public spheres is partially due to the rise in celebrities’ status. When a celebrity with a high status or great amount of media attention brings awareness to an issue, it then creates its own little public sphere because it is then “okay” to talk about. The example was given about young girls feeling like it was okay to address their own struggles with eating disorders after celebrities like Katherine McPhee and Brittany Snow came public about their own struggles. A smaller public sphere, eating disorders, is then created. Another example along those same lines occurred recently when Olympic gold medalist and Dancing With the Stars winner Shawn Johnson faced her stalker in court. A man, later tried for insanity, stalked her with weapons and other paraphernalia in hopes of capturing her and one day marrying her. She later did interviews on nearly every television station to address the issue, partly because she wanted to make it known that it is an issue that young women face and that it is okay to talk about to learn more on how to keep yourself safe. Again, another sphere is created. In both of these instances, having “fragmented” public spheres is a positive thing because it gives the members a safe place to discuss their ideas with people that they know have been through the same things.
I also think that, after reading these chapters, one thing is still clear: the only way to govern the public sphere as a whole isn’t through what is discussed, but instead how the different ideas are communicated. The public sphere is never going to be completely cohesive in that there are so many smaller spheres discussing a wide array of topics through different mediums. But what can hold that public sphere together as a whole is a set of rules that governs the actual communication. I said in the beginning that we can’t limit how groups communicate, and I stand by that. If some groups want to use slang, they can still do so. If some groups want to communicate solely through gchat and internet forums and never actually meet in person, that’s fine. If some groups have a different language entirely that is barely understandable to the wider public sphere, that’s okay too. But having rules like “no interrupting another person,” “only saying something when there’s a meeting in session,” or “no talking out of turn,” those rules could make the sphere cohesive.
At the same time, however, I don’t see the “fragmentation” that he is talking about as a bad thing. It is inevitable that there are going to be different “overlapping public spheres” because not everyone is going to focus on or communicate about the same thing. I could see this working ideally centuries ago, when members of a public would get together in person and discuss matters that concerned the entire town/city/etc. Items such as upcoming elections or new taxes would be discussed. At the time, that was the only way to have a meeting to communicate and discuss ideas (in a “real time” sense, not via newsletter or newspaper). But, as always, with the added use of technology in its ever-changing forms, multiple new gateways are opened for interacting in the public sphere. There is an entire “internet public sphere” that is separate from the “television public sphere,” that is then separate from the “radio public sphere” or the “in-person public sphere.” And those are just broad spectrums. There are thousands of public spheres within each of those spheres. On TV, there’s a sports sphere, an entertainment sphere, a talk show sphere, a “family friendly” sphere, and the list goes on. Each sphere as a slightly (or large) difference from the other, in what they communicate and what ideas they share with the public. But I still think that this fragmentation is a good thing for a few reasons.
McKee says that it is no longer possible to reach a consensus, which I agree with. If each of the smaller public spheres were put together and asked to reach a common point, I highly doubt that would ever happen. However, when they are in their smaller spheres will people who share the same ideas, they are more likely to avoid argument and reach a consensus. Also, as he discussed in previous chapters, diversity has its benefits. When one subset is juxtaposed with another, they can both learn from each other’s differences. By having smaller spheres that are vastly different from one another, the other spheres can observe how they are run and adapt (or not) any characteristics that they see fit to their own sphere. Having fragmented spheres also helps bring awareness to certain issues that would not have gained any light otherwise. Years ago, there never would have been an “African American” public sphere- especially because only white men were allowed entry to begin with.
I found these particular chapters connecting well back to McKee’s previous chapters, and the writings we have discussed thus far. I think that part of the reason we have so many “fragmented” public spheres is partially due to the rise in celebrities’ status. When a celebrity with a high status or great amount of media attention brings awareness to an issue, it then creates its own little public sphere because it is then “okay” to talk about. The example was given about young girls feeling like it was okay to address their own struggles with eating disorders after celebrities like Katherine McPhee and Brittany Snow came public about their own struggles. A smaller public sphere, eating disorders, is then created. Another example along those same lines occurred recently when Olympic gold medalist and Dancing With the Stars winner Shawn Johnson faced her stalker in court. A man, later tried for insanity, stalked her with weapons and other paraphernalia in hopes of capturing her and one day marrying her. She later did interviews on nearly every television station to address the issue, partly because she wanted to make it known that it is an issue that young women face and that it is okay to talk about to learn more on how to keep yourself safe. Again, another sphere is created. In both of these instances, having “fragmented” public spheres is a positive thing because it gives the members a safe place to discuss their ideas with people that they know have been through the same things.
I also think that, after reading these chapters, one thing is still clear: the only way to govern the public sphere as a whole isn’t through what is discussed, but instead how the different ideas are communicated. The public sphere is never going to be completely cohesive in that there are so many smaller spheres discussing a wide array of topics through different mediums. But what can hold that public sphere together as a whole is a set of rules that governs the actual communication. I said in the beginning that we can’t limit how groups communicate, and I stand by that. If some groups want to use slang, they can still do so. If some groups want to communicate solely through gchat and internet forums and never actually meet in person, that’s fine. If some groups have a different language entirely that is barely understandable to the wider public sphere, that’s okay too. But having rules like “no interrupting another person,” “only saying something when there’s a meeting in session,” or “no talking out of turn,” those rules could make the sphere cohesive.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
"Public Sphere" vs "Media"
Since most of our discussions this week involve the first two chapters of Alan McKee’s The Public Sphere- An Introduction, I wanted to devote this blog entry to what he discusses in the first 30 pages- the introduction- that he provides. What I loved about McKee’s introduction is that it not only gives a clearer explanation of what the public sphere is, but it also gives explanations as to why it is confusing. Furthermore, it breaks down the differences between “public sphere” and “media,” and when and how each should be used.
McKee starts off by stating that there are five main themes to the “Westernized” public sphere: it is trivialized, commercialized, spectacular, fragmented, and filled with apathetic citizens. Now, after looking at these five characteristics, it’s hard to tell whether he is trying to spin the public sphere in a positive or negative light. When terms like “trivial” and “commercial” are thrown into the mix, they often do have a negative light. Things that are trivial are going to make some people angry and other people thrilled. The same concept goes along with the word “commercial.” But the fact of the matter is, regardless of a person’s views on the particular matter, things that are trivial and commercial are going to gain public awareness. And that is what Habermas was getting at all along- people need to care about the public sphere. The first step of caring is actually becoming aware, and that often takes something trivial getting your attention. On the other hand, one can argue that bringing negative attention to the public sphere is bad, which is true. But I think that gaining one’s attention is the first step, and it is up to them to determine their own views on the public sphere and how they are going to contribute.
Stemming from that, McKee also says that “there’s a concern that the media don’t care about the quality of the material in the public sphere.” I’d have to agree with McKee’s point, regardless of how big of an advocate I am of the media and all of its entertainment value. I was standing in line at Walmart looking over the magazine racks at the checkout counter and was amazed at the vast array of “news” that they covered. I can understand the Life & Style magazine having front cover news on what the Kardashians were wearing this week, or US Weekly covering stories on the “reality” stars of The Hills. But the least credible magazine (in my opinion, and I think rightly so), the National Enquirer, was “reporting” on the recent discoveries in the Natalee Holloway case regarding Joran van der Sloot. The writers of that magazine and those stories had absolutely no care in the world that they were fabricating information. Not that it is any better to report false information about “Jennifer stealing Brad from Angie” or stories of the like, but, as McKee said, it really is stooping to a new low that some of the media disregard the sensitivity of an issue for their own benefits.
I can see then, why McKee wants to make the distinction between “public sphere” and “media.” I had been using the two quite interchangeably up until now, and I still that the two really do mean the same thing. I also think that the differences come from the evolution that the public has brought onto the terms “public sphere” and “media.” Media, in so many aspects, is a “bad word.” It’s the “media’s fault” that a story was presented a certain way, or the “media’s fault” that a particular story wasn’t given enough attention or awareness. I was watching E! News recently and Ian Somerhalder was being interviewed in his home town of Louisiana about the recent oil spill and how much it was affecting his home and the rest of the country. He then said, however, that he was “shaken” by Hollywood’s lack of aid with the spill. Hollywood holds the large majority of the media’s attention, and is able to bring awareness to any issue they see fit. Think of Jenny McCartney’s involvement with autism in relation to booster shots, or “Brangelina’s” involvement in, well, anything. So once again, it is the “media’s fault” that the oil spill was not getting enough coverage or awareness. “Public sphere,” however, simply sounds more sophisticated. Even McKee distinguishes that the term “public sphere” is used in academic situations and for educational purposes. Therefore the term hasn’t been tainted yet, as “media” has. I think that if they roles had been swapped, and “social media” because “social public sphere,” “media” would be recognized as more prestigious.
McKee later goes on to describe what Habermas thought of as an “ideal public sphere,” and it clarifies much of what I was confused about after reading Habermas’ work and responses to it: “The public sphere should ideally deal only with the serious issues of real importance- only party politics, and not celebrity issues or sport entertainment. It shouldn’t be sensational, easily accessible, or commercialized: it should refuse to dumb down to consumers, and rather demand that they work harder to improve themselves. It should only engage in rational, logical argument: not emotional or spectacular appeals. And it should be unified and homogenous, refusing the fragmentation of the niche audiences and different kinds of culture.” This perfectly defines what should and should no be in the public sphere. I think it also distinguishes what he felt should be included in the media as opposed to being in the public sphere. And this is why this was defined as an “ideal” public sphere, because, as we all know, aspects of what we have come to know as the “public sphere” (educational) and the “media” (entertainment) have certainly intertwined.
McKee starts off by stating that there are five main themes to the “Westernized” public sphere: it is trivialized, commercialized, spectacular, fragmented, and filled with apathetic citizens. Now, after looking at these five characteristics, it’s hard to tell whether he is trying to spin the public sphere in a positive or negative light. When terms like “trivial” and “commercial” are thrown into the mix, they often do have a negative light. Things that are trivial are going to make some people angry and other people thrilled. The same concept goes along with the word “commercial.” But the fact of the matter is, regardless of a person’s views on the particular matter, things that are trivial and commercial are going to gain public awareness. And that is what Habermas was getting at all along- people need to care about the public sphere. The first step of caring is actually becoming aware, and that often takes something trivial getting your attention. On the other hand, one can argue that bringing negative attention to the public sphere is bad, which is true. But I think that gaining one’s attention is the first step, and it is up to them to determine their own views on the public sphere and how they are going to contribute.
Stemming from that, McKee also says that “there’s a concern that the media don’t care about the quality of the material in the public sphere.” I’d have to agree with McKee’s point, regardless of how big of an advocate I am of the media and all of its entertainment value. I was standing in line at Walmart looking over the magazine racks at the checkout counter and was amazed at the vast array of “news” that they covered. I can understand the Life & Style magazine having front cover news on what the Kardashians were wearing this week, or US Weekly covering stories on the “reality” stars of The Hills. But the least credible magazine (in my opinion, and I think rightly so), the National Enquirer, was “reporting” on the recent discoveries in the Natalee Holloway case regarding Joran van der Sloot. The writers of that magazine and those stories had absolutely no care in the world that they were fabricating information. Not that it is any better to report false information about “Jennifer stealing Brad from Angie” or stories of the like, but, as McKee said, it really is stooping to a new low that some of the media disregard the sensitivity of an issue for their own benefits.
I can see then, why McKee wants to make the distinction between “public sphere” and “media.” I had been using the two quite interchangeably up until now, and I still that the two really do mean the same thing. I also think that the differences come from the evolution that the public has brought onto the terms “public sphere” and “media.” Media, in so many aspects, is a “bad word.” It’s the “media’s fault” that a story was presented a certain way, or the “media’s fault” that a particular story wasn’t given enough attention or awareness. I was watching E! News recently and Ian Somerhalder was being interviewed in his home town of Louisiana about the recent oil spill and how much it was affecting his home and the rest of the country. He then said, however, that he was “shaken” by Hollywood’s lack of aid with the spill. Hollywood holds the large majority of the media’s attention, and is able to bring awareness to any issue they see fit. Think of Jenny McCartney’s involvement with autism in relation to booster shots, or “Brangelina’s” involvement in, well, anything. So once again, it is the “media’s fault” that the oil spill was not getting enough coverage or awareness. “Public sphere,” however, simply sounds more sophisticated. Even McKee distinguishes that the term “public sphere” is used in academic situations and for educational purposes. Therefore the term hasn’t been tainted yet, as “media” has. I think that if they roles had been swapped, and “social media” because “social public sphere,” “media” would be recognized as more prestigious.
McKee later goes on to describe what Habermas thought of as an “ideal public sphere,” and it clarifies much of what I was confused about after reading Habermas’ work and responses to it: “The public sphere should ideally deal only with the serious issues of real importance- only party politics, and not celebrity issues or sport entertainment. It shouldn’t be sensational, easily accessible, or commercialized: it should refuse to dumb down to consumers, and rather demand that they work harder to improve themselves. It should only engage in rational, logical argument: not emotional or spectacular appeals. And it should be unified and homogenous, refusing the fragmentation of the niche audiences and different kinds of culture.” This perfectly defines what should and should no be in the public sphere. I think it also distinguishes what he felt should be included in the media as opposed to being in the public sphere. And this is why this was defined as an “ideal” public sphere, because, as we all know, aspects of what we have come to know as the “public sphere” (educational) and the “media” (entertainment) have certainly intertwined.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Public Sphere and Technology
In my previous entry I talked a bit about how the technological advancements of today’s society have affected what the public sphere actually is. In first glance, it seems that social media advancements have indeed helped the public sphere grow, more so in a positive way. The internet allows almost everyone access into the public sphere. Ideas can be shared with the click of a button- literally. Mass texts are easy to send, Twitter statuses can be updated in seconds, blog posts and forum discussions are formed in minutes. These are all ways in which the public sphere is more easily accessible to a wider group of people. Having this easy access with such a large public is beneficial in bettering the public sphere’s use as a whole right?
I almost forgot to think about the downside that technology may have had on the public sphere. Schudson reminded me. He said that “both liberals and conservatives often see television as the cause, or at any rate the chief symptom of the decline of the public sphere.” In the midst of all of the new technology and forms of communication, I had virtually forgotten about the use of television as a means of joining in the public sphere. Infomercials, PSA campaigns, political advertisements- the list goes on and on. All of these are broadcasted on television channels every day. So sure, the television can also be a beneficial tool in joining the public sphere. But I’ll agree with Schudson in there also being a down side. While it can serve as a tool, the television can also serve as a distraction.
Instead of actively participating in the public sphere, just as it used to be a privilege to do, people become distracted by the television and other forms of entertainment media. Therefore instead of focusing on important political issues, they are sidetracked by broadcasts telling “who wore it best” or “which girl will this bachelor give the final rose to.” And while I’ll be the first to defend some of those programs, it is hard to deny that they often take the forefront in terms of “interesting news,” and distract the viewer from issues in the public sphere.
Schudson also offers this quote: “Changes in the public sphere came from the rise of electronic mass media, the new relevance of advertising, the increase fusion of entertainment and information, the greater centralization in all areas, the collapse of liberal associational life, the collapse of the surveyable public spheres on the community level, etc.” These aforementioned “distractions” that the TV is giving the viewer are now making their own niche in the public sphere- and rightly so. One time, I gave a speech on the popular E! show The Soup. Part of the assignment was to explain to the audience why they should listen to the forthcoming speech. And while I understand that the broadcast is not the best source of national news, it does have its benefits. As I explained to my audience, businesses and companies want their employees to be well-rounded, and therefore should be able to converse on a variety of topics. This does include national headline news; however, that is only a fraction of conversational topics that come up in the work place and after hours. An employee that knows a wide variety of current events, including political, sports, entertainment etc., is looked more highly upon. So slowly but surely, I think that the use of television (aside from its already-favored political campaign uses) is gaining credibility in the public sphere.
Having said that, I still agree with Schudson in the fact that television has become somewhat of a distraction for people in terms of participation in the public sphere. However, when used correctly, it can also help the participant gain knowledge when it comes to actually participating in the public sphere. Knowledge is power, as the saying goes. So to become powerful within the public sphere, one might have to succumb to the “distraction” of television.
I almost forgot to think about the downside that technology may have had on the public sphere. Schudson reminded me. He said that “both liberals and conservatives often see television as the cause, or at any rate the chief symptom of the decline of the public sphere.” In the midst of all of the new technology and forms of communication, I had virtually forgotten about the use of television as a means of joining in the public sphere. Infomercials, PSA campaigns, political advertisements- the list goes on and on. All of these are broadcasted on television channels every day. So sure, the television can also be a beneficial tool in joining the public sphere. But I’ll agree with Schudson in there also being a down side. While it can serve as a tool, the television can also serve as a distraction.
Instead of actively participating in the public sphere, just as it used to be a privilege to do, people become distracted by the television and other forms of entertainment media. Therefore instead of focusing on important political issues, they are sidetracked by broadcasts telling “who wore it best” or “which girl will this bachelor give the final rose to.” And while I’ll be the first to defend some of those programs, it is hard to deny that they often take the forefront in terms of “interesting news,” and distract the viewer from issues in the public sphere.
Schudson also offers this quote: “Changes in the public sphere came from the rise of electronic mass media, the new relevance of advertising, the increase fusion of entertainment and information, the greater centralization in all areas, the collapse of liberal associational life, the collapse of the surveyable public spheres on the community level, etc.” These aforementioned “distractions” that the TV is giving the viewer are now making their own niche in the public sphere- and rightly so. One time, I gave a speech on the popular E! show The Soup. Part of the assignment was to explain to the audience why they should listen to the forthcoming speech. And while I understand that the broadcast is not the best source of national news, it does have its benefits. As I explained to my audience, businesses and companies want their employees to be well-rounded, and therefore should be able to converse on a variety of topics. This does include national headline news; however, that is only a fraction of conversational topics that come up in the work place and after hours. An employee that knows a wide variety of current events, including political, sports, entertainment etc., is looked more highly upon. So slowly but surely, I think that the use of television (aside from its already-favored political campaign uses) is gaining credibility in the public sphere.
Having said that, I still agree with Schudson in the fact that television has become somewhat of a distraction for people in terms of participation in the public sphere. However, when used correctly, it can also help the participant gain knowledge when it comes to actually participating in the public sphere. Knowledge is power, as the saying goes. So to become powerful within the public sphere, one might have to succumb to the “distraction” of television.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Habermas and the Public Sphere
It is difficult to come up with an initial definition of what the “public sphere” actually is. I, like many others seeking a concrete definition and explanation of any topic, consulted Wikipedia. To my dismay, although a broad and simply stated definition was provided, I was still left with many gaps in my own definition to fill in, with help from Habermas and his critics.
After reading Habermas’ initial work in defining the public sphere, I latched onto one particular component: “the public sphere contains a notion of publicity and a sense of openness and access.” Granted, those are actually two components, but they work hand in hand in helping to define the public sphere. First is the notion of publicity. Whatever is spoken, or otherwise stated through some other form, within the public sphere has the right to be advertised or exposed. Therefore every participant within the public sphere should be aware ahead of time that, while they may be speaking their mind within a particular forum, those same thoughts could be further publicly made. This automatically restricts what a person can say. If he or she is scared that what they say may be taken the wrong way, their thoughts and ideas become censored by themselves. Having said that, is the “public sphere” as it has been defined really an arena of free expression?
The idea of openness and access into the public sphere then comes into play. Openness presents an air of honesty and sincerity. If a person within the public sphere is aware of the aforementioned “notion of publicity,” how are they then able to be fully open? Celebrities are infamous of being in this predicament, and I often feel bad for them because of it. This could be because of my obsession with all things E! and too many subscription to People magazine. Regardless, celebrities are automatically in the public sphere because of the exposure they receive. Even if they are having private conversations with close friends, and not in some sort of open discussion arena, what they say becomes public. And regardless of how much they say that they stay out of the limelight, they are at least somewhat aware of the media exposure they receive. For that reason, they have to censor themselves at all times because of how they may be portrayed.
Nicholas Garnham says that “the media, through the market, are driven by the satisfaction of the individual.” Thus meaning the media will publish what the public wants, typically things stirring up controversy. This leads into another catch of the actual public sphere. Only one half of the public sphere (or, at least, how I see it) involves what is actually said. The other half is all about the interpretation of the public in the sphere. A person may think that they are getting their point across perfectly clearly. That same “perfectly stated point” can be interpreted, and will be interpreted, thousands of ways. Let’s face it, no two people think the exact same way. So that same stated point will have thousands and thousands of spins placed on it by the consumer.
Advances in the media only perpetuate the confusion. If a person is stating an idea in a public forum, face to face with other people, the receiver of that idea has the chance to see the person’s nonverbal cues, body language, facial expressions, etc. They also have the chance to hear the person’s vocal cues. However, the same idea reproduced in print media can have a completely opposite effect. I read somewhere that a “sarcasm” font should be invented. I couldn’t agree more. Because when someone is reading a quote from another person, without knowing the exact context or that quote or even the person’s expressions within the quote, so much is lost in translation. Advancing the public sphere and the definition therein along with the advancements in the means that the public can use to express themselves within the public sphere would benefit all of the participants.
After reading Habermas’ initial work in defining the public sphere, I latched onto one particular component: “the public sphere contains a notion of publicity and a sense of openness and access.” Granted, those are actually two components, but they work hand in hand in helping to define the public sphere. First is the notion of publicity. Whatever is spoken, or otherwise stated through some other form, within the public sphere has the right to be advertised or exposed. Therefore every participant within the public sphere should be aware ahead of time that, while they may be speaking their mind within a particular forum, those same thoughts could be further publicly made. This automatically restricts what a person can say. If he or she is scared that what they say may be taken the wrong way, their thoughts and ideas become censored by themselves. Having said that, is the “public sphere” as it has been defined really an arena of free expression?
The idea of openness and access into the public sphere then comes into play. Openness presents an air of honesty and sincerity. If a person within the public sphere is aware of the aforementioned “notion of publicity,” how are they then able to be fully open? Celebrities are infamous of being in this predicament, and I often feel bad for them because of it. This could be because of my obsession with all things E! and too many subscription to People magazine. Regardless, celebrities are automatically in the public sphere because of the exposure they receive. Even if they are having private conversations with close friends, and not in some sort of open discussion arena, what they say becomes public. And regardless of how much they say that they stay out of the limelight, they are at least somewhat aware of the media exposure they receive. For that reason, they have to censor themselves at all times because of how they may be portrayed.
Nicholas Garnham says that “the media, through the market, are driven by the satisfaction of the individual.” Thus meaning the media will publish what the public wants, typically things stirring up controversy. This leads into another catch of the actual public sphere. Only one half of the public sphere (or, at least, how I see it) involves what is actually said. The other half is all about the interpretation of the public in the sphere. A person may think that they are getting their point across perfectly clearly. That same “perfectly stated point” can be interpreted, and will be interpreted, thousands of ways. Let’s face it, no two people think the exact same way. So that same stated point will have thousands and thousands of spins placed on it by the consumer.
Advances in the media only perpetuate the confusion. If a person is stating an idea in a public forum, face to face with other people, the receiver of that idea has the chance to see the person’s nonverbal cues, body language, facial expressions, etc. They also have the chance to hear the person’s vocal cues. However, the same idea reproduced in print media can have a completely opposite effect. I read somewhere that a “sarcasm” font should be invented. I couldn’t agree more. Because when someone is reading a quote from another person, without knowing the exact context or that quote or even the person’s expressions within the quote, so much is lost in translation. Advancing the public sphere and the definition therein along with the advancements in the means that the public can use to express themselves within the public sphere would benefit all of the participants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)