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.
No comments:
Post a Comment