The public sphere is a realm in which individuals gather to participate in open

discussions. Potentially, everyone has access to it. No one enters in discourse with
an advantage over another" (Holub 1991, p. 3). Discuss whether the Internet realises
an ideal public sphere, acknowledging arguments both for and against

A public sphere according to original theorist, Jurgen Habermas (1962), is a

community made up of private people gathered together as a public and articulating
the needs of society with the state. In following years, Habermas continued to
declare that in an ideal public sphere access is guaranteed to all citizens (Habermas,
1989, 102). With the introduction of the Internet, the way in which people
communicate has been revolutionised, moreover as has the access to information.
This essay will explore whether the Internet has led society into a space for
Habermas ideal public sphere. Firstly, it will explore the underlying definitions of a
public sphere and how this resonates with the Internet. It will support this argument
with examples from successful political campaigners and Gocs (2011) concept of a
Fifth Estate. Conversely, this essay will explore the shortcomings of the Internet and
give light to its illusions of openness. It will further reiterate this through realising the
dangers of open public expression. Lastly, it will show particular emphasis on
Parisers (2011) concept of the Filter Bubbles, and how the Internet has became a
space for elitist to once again take control.

The Internet is arguably the single most important communication break through of
the latter half of the last century (Ubayasiri, 2006). It has created a space for mass
information sharing, media reportage, and most importantly, open communication.
The essence of Habermas concept of a public sphere was to create a community
where private people can gather; essentially, the online community. Initially,
Habermas public sphere was centred on the notion that people had a platform to
articulate their needs with the state. Thus, the Internet has become the platform
where people can gather to share and articulate opinions. In a Bourgeois society,
when Habemas structured his theory of the public sphere, the sphere only applied to
the educated, reading public (Ubayasiri, 2006). However, to compare, the online
world creates a space of anonymity, whereby anyone can enter the sphere without
discourse or advantage over another. In this context, anonymity affords the writer to
be able to make audacious claims without the fear of negative consequences from the
real world. The lack of consequences in an online world constructs a space for free-
flowing argument that can be developed without the fear of social ethics or
retribution, and thus, enhancing and prospering public debate (Ubayasiri, 2006).
Furthermore, the Internet grants access to these debates and conversations to anyone
with Internet access, and thus expanding the public sphere on a global scale
(Dahlberg, 2001). Therefore, the Internet has created an environment conducive for
the sharing of ideas and hence, constituting what is known as the public sphere.

Furthermore, fundamentally the Internet is a freely accessible medium of mass

communication, hence, creating an arena which has allowed for political underdogs to
rise and thrive. For example, leading up to the election of Barack Obama, video-
sharing site, YouTube was an integral tool in his campaign. No less than 41 clips were
posted between October 2006 and April 2007, making this online public sphere a hub
of political activity and dialogue (Ubayasiri, 2006). Additionally, in the 2000
presidential US election, independent candidate Ralph Nader was similarly able to use
his website to connect and mobilise a large network of supporters (Papacharissi,
2002). Therefore, the Internet became a means for public opinion and debate to be
broadened and open just as Habermas theorised.

Additionally, the Internet has also seen the rise of sites such as WikiLeaks 1, in which
the public sphere have been able to hold governments and powerful elites
accountable. WikiLeaks released private and confidential information into the public
sphere in which governments and powerful elites have had to answer for. Goc (2011)
refers to the phenomenon associated with WikiLeaks as the Fifth Estate; whereby the
public sphere have fought back to claim the right to construct their own realties. This
notion stems from Gocs (2011) theories of the Fourth Estate, which refers to
journalists as a group who were accountable for ensuring the public remained
informed and elites remained accountable. However, Noam Chomsky (2004) pointed
out the Fourth Estate as tools simply used by their owners and by governments to
deliver a capitalist ideology, rather that to scrutinize governments and other powerful
groups in society. Take media honcho, Rupert Murdoch, and his influence through his
many newspapers for example. In the lead-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq,

1 WikiLeaks: A non-profit online media organisation that publishes otherwise unavailable documents
from anonymous sources (Bainbridge, J., Goc, N., & Tynan, L., 2011, 52).
Murdoch publicly declared his support for the invasion; this belief was echoed
through his 175 editors from newspapers across the world (Bainbridge, J., Goc, N., &
Tynan, L., 2011, 42). Thus, the Internet has created a space for an ideal public sphere,
whereby everyone is equal and accountable with no advantage over another, a space
where publics can unbiasedly articulate the needs of society.

In contention, whilst the Internet provides the space for mass information sharing and
collaboration, it does not then also imply an ideal public sphere. A key factor for an
ideal public sphere is the idea of accessibility. The Internet, and all of its information
and space for collaborative thinking, is only accessible to by a limited population. For
the Internet to be considered an ideal public sphere it should be universal and equal,
therefore, access should be provided at affordable rates (Papacharissi, 2002). Online
technologies are only accessible to, and furthermore, utilized, by a small fraction of
the population, excluding not only minorities, but also countries, and whole
populations of people. Hence, making the Internet a space that is exclusive, elitist and
certainly not ideal, essentially turning society full circle back to a Bourgeois public
sphere, where only some had access, and are thus represented (Papacharissi, 2002).
Therefore, the Internet merely harbours an illusion of openness (Pavlik, 1994).
Consequently, the Internet simply provides a public space, but does not establish a
public sphere.

Furthermore, in response to the argument towards the concept of anonymity online

allowing for more confidence and conviction in voicing ones opinion also provides
the opportunity for more extremist comments, where one is able to also voice
opinions of hate and prejudice (Ubayasiri, 2006). Theorist Alexis de Tocqueville
termed this as tyrannical masses (Ubayasiri, 2006). Thus, tyranny of the masses
seemingly undermines the very foundation and concept of public sphere and its ability
to generate positive public opinion.

To continue, as the Internet is a public space, also at question is the validity of

information accessible. More simply, if anyone (for the purpose of the argument), is
able to contribute to the Internets content, it cannot be assumed that all information is
accurate or meaningful (Ubayasiri, 2006). Take Wikipedia, for example, largely
considered to be an invaluable online informational resource, essentially an online
encyclopedia. However, in order to grow that content, it is accessible by any online
user to contribute toward, thus creating a danger, and questionability toward its
accuracy. Tim OReilly (2005) has termed this particular increased use of the Internet
as Web 2.0; whereby user generated content has led to an era in which users are
gravitated toward producing content that thus became controlled by its story. This has
led to an open platform where media products have regained control to achieve
market domination. Take Facebook or YouTube for example, market domination has
been achieved because of user contributions. Thus, access to the Internet does not
necessarily ensure a more representative and robust public sphere.

Furthermore, as the Web 2.0. era emerges, we in fact move further away from an ideal
public sphere. Pariser (2011) highlights that given the open platform that a Web 2.0
era has left has allowed for media platforms to seize upon this vulnerability to in turn
once again became the gatekeepers of the public sphere. In December 2009, the
biggest change in Internets history occurred personalisation for everyone (Pariser,
2011). Google began using various signals, in fact, 57 at this time, to predict what
pages you were most likely to click on, and hence, individually tailoring your search
based on those signals. Pariser termed this phenomenon as filter bubbles. A Filter
Bubble is this unique universe of information that these search engines have come to
personalise and filter for each of us. As Pariser believes, this will fundamentally alter
that way in which we encounter ideas and information. So whilst, the Internet may
have been this shining beacon of hope for an ideal public sphere, as it was for Pariser,
and as it was for many, when it first arrived into our lives, it has now progressed itself
to a point that is moving away from that idealisation. From a Marxist perspective, this
was bound to happen, as Marx would suggest, the class which control the means of
material production also control the means of mental production, there by the ideas of
those who lack the means of production are subject to it (Marx & Engels, 1976, 59).
As when a Bourgeois public sphere first faced commercialisation, culture began to be
manufactured by media as if it was a product for distribution. Thus, as Habermas
would argue, commercialisation has manifested in a refeudalisation of the public
sphere where the public are one again reduced to the status of spectator, and expert
opinion has taken the place of true public opinion (Ubayasiri, 2006). Hence, as it
did and will again, the public sphere has turned itself full circle to be at the hands of
the elite, and thus not ideal at all.
In conclusion, it is clear that throughout this essay the Internet has became a
revolutionary access of information for a large amount of people. This access has not
only been broadened and quickened by the Internet, but has also provided a space for
users to respond and contribute to content and public debate, thus, creating an
environment that encourages participation, fitting Habermas opinion of a public
sphere. Furthermore, the online world is an ideal public sphere given the anonymity
of the space, hence creating a space where no one has an advantage over another, and
everyone is equal and accountable. However, some would argue that this openness is
simply an illusion, as the Internet is only accessible to a limited population, more
specifically those with the means to enter it. Thus, whilst the Internet may constitute a
public space, it does not guarantee an ideal public sphere. In further contention, others
will argue that the Internet has created the space whereby elitist and states can harness
further control. In the era of Web 2.0 when user generate content, or more simply,
users participate in their public sphere, dominates the web, elitist have seized this
open platform to generate further wealth upon themselves. Furthermore, the very
notion of an open platform of the web, allows our sphere to be controlled by
algorithms, and hence create our own filter bubbles to thus once again be at the
hands of the elite. In brief, whilst the Internet may have had the potential to create an
ideal public sphere, and whilst it still might by definition, in a modern society, the
internet has became another avenue of control by elitist at the state, and thus a space
of unequal advantage.

References:

Bainbridge, J., Goc, N., & Tynan, L. (2nd Ed) (2011) Media and Journalism.
Australia: Oxford University Press.
Dahlberg, L., (2001). Extending the public sphere through cyberspace: The case of
Minnesota E-democracy, viewed 3 October 2016,
<http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/838>

Habermas, J., (1962) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Trans.
Thomas Burger with Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.

Habermas, J., (1989). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopaedia Article. In Critical

Theory and Society: Trans. Stephen Eric Bronner and Douglas M Kellner. New York:
Routledge.

Herman, E. S. & Chomsky, N. (1994). Manufacturing Consent: The Political

Economy of the Mass Media. London: Vintage.

Marx, K., & Engels, F., (1976). Collected Works, vol 5. Trans. Richard Dixon, New
York: International Publishers.

OReilly, T. 2005, What is Web 2.0, viewed 8 September 2016,

<http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html>

Papacharissi, Z., (2002), The Virtual Sphere: the internet as a public sphere, Sage
Publications, viewed 1 October 2016,
<http://nms.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/content/4/1/9.full.pdf+html>

Pariser, E., (2011) The filter bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you, London:
Viking, viewed 10 September 2016,
<http://onlineres.swin.edu.au.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/1023084.pdf>

Pavlik, J.V. (1994) Citizen Access, Involvement, and Freedom of Expression in an

Electronic Environment, in F. Williams and J.V. Pavlik (eds) The Peoples Right to
Know: Media, Democracy, and the Information Highway, p. 13962. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ubayasiri, K., (2006). Internet and the Public Sphere: A Glimpse of Youtube. Central
Queensland University, viewed 1 October 2016,
<http://ejournalist.com.au/v6n2/ubayasiri622.pdf>