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.
No comments:
Post a Comment