Suchergebnisse

Journalism has played—and continues to play— a crucial role in 'imagining' indigenous people and their affairs for most non-indigenous over racism of the colonial press, institutionalised racism is manifested in the sytematic omission of indigenous voices in the news media. Indigenous sources make up a fraction—between one fifth to one third— of all sources used by journalists in stories about indigenous affairs. This alarming statistic has remained unchanged in Australian journalism for the past 20 years and is a prominant feature of news coverage of Native people in the United States and Canada (Weston, 1996;Meadows, 2001). Adam (1993) reminds us that journalism is 'a form of expression that is an invention. It is a creation—a product of the Imagination—in both an individual and a cultural sense.'

IT IS IN A RENEWED DISCOURSE BY AND ON THE PUBLICSPHERE THAT THE CONSTITUENTS OF A "NEW POLITICAL SCIENCE" WILL BE LOCATED. THIS PAPER EXPLORES THIS INFLUENTIAL THEME IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL THEORY, AND ARGUES ON BEHALF OF A SOCIALISM OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE. SEVERAL QUESTONS RAISED FOR SOCIALISM BY THE RECOVERY OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE ARE ADDRESSED.. THE SOCIALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE WILL LEAD TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BOUGEOISIE "INTERIOR' AND THE REFAMILIZATION OF SOCIETY AS A COMMUNITY OF FREELY ASSOCIATED KIN.

The idea of a public sphere has long been central to discussion of political communication. Its present condition is the topic of this essay. Debate about the public sphere has been shaped by the boundary-policing of competing political systems and ideologies. Current discussion reflects the accelerating transition from the mass media era to the ramifying entrenchment of the Internet age. It has also been influenced by the vogue for analysing populism. The present transitional phase, whose outcome remains unclear, is best described as an unstable 'post-public sphere'. This instability is not unusual as, over time, conceptions of the public sphere's underpinnings and scope have continually shifted. Latterly, states' responses to the development of the Internet have given rise to a new shift of focus, a 'regulatory turn'. This is likely to influence the future shape of the public sphere.

The idea of a public sphere has long been central to discussion of political communication. Its present condition is the topic of this essay. Debate about the public sphere has been shaped by the boundary-policing of competing political systems and ideologies. Current discussion reflects the accelerating transition from the mass media era to the ramifying entrenchment of the internet age. It has also been influenced by the vogue for analysing populism. The present transitional phase, whose outcome remains unclear, is best described as an unstable 'post-public sphere'. This instability is not unusual as, over time, conceptions of the public sphere's underpinnings and scope have continually shifted. Latterly, states' responses to the development of the internet have given rise to a new shift of focus, a 'regulatory turn'. This is likely to influence the future shape of the public sphere.

Special issue of "Communication Theory" (vol. 33, nos. 2-3, 2023) on the role and future of public sphere theory in digital societies: Reconceptualizing public sphere(s) in the digital age? (Open access)Articles by Mark Eisenegger, Mike S Schäfer, Axel Bruns, Uwe Hasebrink, Thomas N. Friemel, Christoph Neuberger, Sarah J. Jackson, Daniel Kreiss, Hallvard Moe, Pascal Schneiders, Michael Brüggemann, Hendrik Meyer, Hans-Jörg Trenz, Lewis A Friedland, Risto Kunelius, Andreas Jungherr, and Ralph Schroeder.

'Television and the Public Sphere' by Peter Dahlgren is reviewed.

The introduction of satellite television and Web-based communications in traditional societies are often taken as manifestations of a new more democratic public sphere. In the book this Western intellectual tradition is taken to task for failing to grasp the real dynamics of an Arab public sphere that has yet to be realized. The author argues that we could not conceive of the Arab public sphere outside the boundaries of sustainable egalitarian and participatory political developments in Arabian societies. Ayish harnesses the notion of 'Islamocracy' or Islamic democracy to put forward a new pub

If we are to believe what many sociologists are telling us, the public sphere is in a near terminal state. Our ability to build solidarities with strangers and to agree on the general significance of needs and problems seems to be collapsing. These cultural potentials appear endangered by a newly aggressive attempt to universalize and extend the norms of the market. For four decades Habermas has been trying to bring the claims of a modern public sphere before us. His vast oeuvre has investigated its historical, sociological and theoretical preconditions, has explored its relevance and meani.

[N]ew ideas and new actors are needed to fill the void in the region's public sphere more than ever.

AbstractThe Habermasian notion of the public sphere is an independent area free of government intervention. In the Iranian case, the ownership and management of radio and television is with the government. Therefore, no programme can harshly criticise basic government policies. There are news sections, news reports, political commentaries, and interviews with political experts, first, second, or third ranked politicians and government officials, or even interviews with the public in which administrative inefficiencies, commodity shortages and even people's complaints and grievances are discussed. However, television productions, whether political, economic or cultural, cannot be oppositional. To change national television from being (mostly) propagandistic in nature to more public sphere in orientation needs time and more economic and political changes. Unlike television, in Iran we do not categorize the function of newspapers as a monologtype or one-way communication. Reformist papers do present alternative political and economic views. Nonetheless, financial and political problems such as opposing expectations and demands from readers and the judiciary system, low readership figures, a limited advertising market, and the shortage of imported and domestically produced paper prevent them from functioning as an effective and influential part of the Iranian public sphere. Recently, however, there have been some changes in the broadcast policy of Iranian television in terms of more channels, more dialog-type content, and an apparently non-biased and neutral position regarding reformists and conservatives. To assess how this new policy may change national television from (mostly) a propaganda type to a public sphere type requires more time and reliable evidence still not available.

Reconstructs developments in Habermas' thinking about the public sphere. This book marshals the significance of Habermas' lifetime of work on this topic to illuminate what is at stake in a contemporary interest in rescuing an embattled modern public sphere. It describes Habermas' project as one that is still informed by utopian energies

The idea of the public sphere, of an institutionalized arena of discursive interaction, is central to democratic theory and practice. The modern age has, however, witnessed the erosion of a public realm distinct from the state and the market. In response to this erosion, public realm theory, notably the work of Arendt and Habermas, attempts to theorize the minimal conditions necessary for a discursive realm free of structural coercion or manipulation. The resulting normative conception of the public sphere has come under sharp attack by postmodern theorists, including Foucault, Lyotard, and Baudrillard, who question the basic presuppositions of public realm theory. I examine their objections and show how the public realm theory of Arendt can be viewed as motivated by concerns similar to the postmoderns'. Against Habermas, I argue that Arendt's public realm theory is less concerned with the question of legitimation than with the theorization of an agonistic political subjectivity.

In Britain during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the contrast between 'public' and 'private' worlds drew not on one, but on multiple, contrasts. However, recognising such variations does not necessarily provide us with new analytical tools. This article examines some of the ways in which twentieth‐century commentators have attempted to categorise these contrasts. In particular the article critically engages with Habermas's definition of the public sphere and suggests the advantages and disadvantages of using his notion through a discussion of the relationship of the British women's suffrage movement to the debate over citizenship in the 1860s.

The public sphere as conceptualised by Habermas is a bourgeois institution that had emerged in European countries as a "discursive platform " to engage in critical discussion and deliberations with the idea of delivering "common good". The institution has been replicated in many countries including India. But the institution as a whole has inherent assumptions that of the social structures of a bourgeois society. The platform that is supposed to generate "common good" is transforming into the one which almost bringing together socially unequal cultures, whereby the language of the dominant overrules the subordinate. There is no socio-political safeguard to the pluralism of the masses and hence the "common good" is decided by the motivations of private interest in place of public interest. Therefore it becomes crucially important to take a re-look at the present structure of "public sphere" in the Indian context as to how far the institution itself is democratic to deliver "common good" to the society.