Media as a Global Standardizer - Assignment Example

? MEDIA AS A GLOBAL STANDARDISER By of the of the of the of the School of the submission If we are to undertake an attempt to understand the role of the media as a standardiser in society, then it shall serve us well to use the concept of the ‘public sphere’ serving as an outline for what the media can potentially be. In undertaking this exploration we shall have to examine the following: Firstly, what is an ideal public sphere like, and what is its purpose? Secondly, how much of media in its current state can be considered subscribing to the definition of a genuine public sphere? Thirdly, can a media holding private interests actually operate as a public sphere forum effectively?  The public sphere as a concept is most often associated with Jurgen Habermas, who conceptualized the idea in his book “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” (1962) – an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. According to this work by Habermas, the public sphere in its most basic and ideal form is a realm or space where opinions particularly focusing on the needs of society are freely and openly exchanged between people without any restraints or external hinderances. (Habermas 1991: 176)This realm can also be a “virtual or imaginary community” (Soules: para 2) whose existence may not necessarily occur in any singular space. In today’s modern wold, where massive global communication networks spread their webs over the world, the current media scenario in all its forms and branches is the closest substitute to Habermas’s ideal and the best implement towards working and achiving that goal. However, we must ask ourselves that how comfortably positioned is this role with a vehicle that is propelled, fuelled and controlled primarily by the private interests of media conglomerates, corporate sponsorship and state string pulling? The public sphere is a multifaceted entity possessing a number of interlinked functions. It is through the processes of dialogue and particularly through means of critical discussion and debate that opinions and attitudes are generated in the public sphere (Soules: para 2) and is a foundation for “emancipatory social thought” (Holub 1997: para 7). In an ideal state, the function of the public sphere is to act as a mediatory space between society and the state. It is the source of mass opinion which is required to legitimize and guide the state’s affairs (Soules: para 2), and challenge and legitimize governments and authority (Rutherford 2000: 18 ).  Habermas traces the origin and in a way proper concretization and emergence of an entity resembling the public sphere in 18th century emerging from the growth of coffee houses, the emergence of literary societies, and the expansion and rise of print media. As part of their efforts to keep the state under its reins, the parliaments and other agencies of representation based governments have sought to manage this public sphere (Soules: para 4). Habermas also acknowledges that there are precedents to public culture and traces their roots to the ancient Greeks. He mentions how in the discussion among its citizens, citizens interacted as equal and only through this interaction without restraints was it that that which existed in the public sphere become apparent, and in entering into the public sphere, by the core nature of the sphere as inclusive of all, become apparent to all (Habermas 1991: 4). He has however been criticized for idealizing the rational discussions of the 18th century bourgeois ignoring “‘the extent to which its institutions were founded on sectionalism, (and) exclusiveness.’” (Eley 1992: 321 in Crossley 2004: 11). Habermas' idea of the public sphere refers to a realm between the state and civil society where decisions were publicly reached through rational discourse. He identifies the English press in the nineteenth century as the prime of the public sphere, in which a multitude of ideas were aired free from contextual additions from both state and capital intervention (Gillward 1993: 67). But, for Habermas, this quality of the public sphere becomes undermined and begins to erode when there occurs the concentration of media ushering in the stronghold of advertising and public relations, which promote and thrive themselves by selling ideas rather than by debating them, which is what the public sphere is intended to sustain. This situation, opines Habermas, gets compounded when there occurs the entry of the state (through the means of anti-monopoly laws or state-sponsored media enterprises) into the realm of public sphere to prevent the unchecked control and monopolization of the public sphere by capital oriented entities, with devastating effects. Habermas believes that print media like newspapers and magazines, aural mediums like radio and visual ones like television are the media of the public sphere. Today’s scenario of course allows us the inclusion of the internet as a synesthetic part of this media.  The internet perhaps stands out as the most effective example of a present day bourgeois public sphere. It is essentially an multinational, global space that brings together ordinary people and presents them with the opportunity to voice and share opinions, news events and information. Never before has this level of amalgamation of people, opinions and ideas taken place in world history allowing its participants to avail the opportunity to gain previously unattainable information and opinions so rapidly, and challenge existing structures of authority with such openness. However, presently only around 33% of the world’s population claim access to the internet (Miniwatts 2012) thus excluding two thirds of the world’s 7 billion population from having a say in what goes on in this so called global conversation. That doesn’t quite measure up to Habermas’s “ideal speech situation” which needs freedom and equality, both of which aren’t always found present in every society. It is however a growth –slow as it might be– nonetheless toward that same ideal situation. Access to this global conversation is steadily increasing and it remains to be seen what percentage of humanity will eventually find itself included under this new and evolving ‘public sphere’ hold-all. Habermas’s theory is clear in stating that the public sphere is not a given for all kinds of societies (Holub 1997: para 3) and neither is its status intangible. Communicative Action is a primary part of the Public Sphere for Habermas. It involves the coming together of people in discussion, their responding to a particular crisis when their needs in society are not being met by the appliances present in it, or when institutions start influencing individuals. (Habermas 1989). This coming together in communicative action is happening at every moment on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, message boards, in chat rooms and blogs devoted to issues like public speculation over the U.S’s motives in Iraq, the recent popular uprisings in various Middle Eastern and African countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria against dictatorial/military regimes that were functioning against the public opinion and will and the 2009 uprising against the presidential elections in Iran. In looking at the incident as a case study, the shocking declaration of a landslide victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was followed by mass rallies of people in the big cities, particularly in Tehran spilling onto the streets. Protesters bemoaned the fact the ballot fixing and other underhand practices had occurred and demanded that the election be declared null and void (Simpson 2009). The regime on the other hand responded to these dissenters with a repressive crackdown. Foreign media agencies overnight found themselves unaccredited to operate within Iran and were forced to depart from the country while within the country opposition newspapers and websites were shut down. Many opposition leaders were arrested, put into prisons overnight and tortured while at the ground level, protesters were violently attacked and in some cases even shot upon, resulting in deaths. Thousands were arrested and jailed.  Yet the government failed to put up the facade of control. Faced with the blackout of popular news and social media outlets, protesters began using their mobile phones to take photographs and videos documenting police brutality and uploaded them online. Vast numbers of YouTube videos surfaced daily showing events as they unfolded on the streets of Tehran (Nasr 2009). These links were then shared on Facebook by people who were present outside of the territorial borders of Iran and the internet soon became the first source for up-to-the minute news regarding the issue. So much so that due to the forced exit imposed upon them, satellite channels of the international press like BBC Persian and VOA started playing a large part in collating these photos and videos into news stories for their global audience. These images helped in successfully catching the attention of the global media.  Human rights watch groups around the world condemned the violence and many heads of state made statements requesting that President Ahmadinejad respect the rights of the Iranian people's right to stage peaceful protests (Burns and Eltham 2009; Hermida 2010; Shirky 2010; Nasr 2009). It is however an issue that is contentious because of the reason that the minority which has ownership of access to the global web of media, the internet in particular, are in the position to make statements and decisions for those who are without access. This approach towards the public sphere, allowing few to make decisions for the many is a rather condescending and elitist one. Hannah Arendt in her book On Revolution (1965) opines that ideally all those affected by decisions should participate in them. Yet, she argues, that it does not matter if the vast majority of those affected are excluded from participation as long as it is 'self-exclusion'. A political elite in her opinion is entirely legitimate and possibly even desirable under the condition that enhances the public sphere. But this notion of self-exclusion or non-participation of people from/in the public sphere, a right that is staunchly defended by those who fear coercion when it comes to political participation, is nevertheless, highly problematic. It is not in-sync with the ‘late-modern’ school of thought which stresses the Habermasian pre-requisites of accessibility to information and the eradication of privileged status, the other pre-requisite of a common yearning for truth does seem to be getting fulfilled. (Crossley 2004: 13) Similarly, responsible social movements can make sure that while the majority does not possess a voice, at least the problems of the majority still can be heard, acknowledged, discussed and strived towards. While Bass & Gaynor (1996) observe that this is admittedly a very Habermasian idealized state of view, one that has been criticized for taking the position that its participants will share assumptions about communicative practice. In terms of multiculturalism also, it is not a realistic approach with different cultures following different beliefs, different traditions and values and striving to fulfil needs. It is not possible for someone outside of one’s culture to possibly understand the issues that lie inherently within it? According to Garnham (1993: 371), in a realization of an ideal state, there would come into being “a single public sphere…made up of a series of subsidiary public spheres,” where each sphere shall be a microcosm in itself but still interacting with the larger, ideal public sphere. While the situation at present is far from that ideal, nevertheless the internet does contain an immensely powerful potential for realising the ideal, however for it to achieve that ideal it must be ensured that a dramatic increase occur in its reach and penetration among the global citizenry. The public sphere’s presence is to not only serve to formulate public opinion but also to designate an ideal mould through which public opinion should to be formed. Its goal is a sphere that is inviting to all citizens, where information flow is unrestricted and free, critical as well as self-critical discussion takes place. (Poole 1989: 13)  It is a commonly held belief that the ideal public sphere has never fully been achieved. Habermas identifies problematic issues like the emergence of private interests in media as deforming towards this realization of the ideal of the public sphere. For example, large newspapers now devoted to profit have transformed the press into an agent of manipulation, manufacturing propaganda and spreading misinformation. This devotion to profit allowed the entry of privileged private interests and by letting them invade it, the pollution of the public sphere. (Habermas 1991: 185.) In an interview Habermas recognized that we mustn’t “harbour any illusions about the condition of a public sphere in which commercialized mass media set the tone.” (McChesney 1999: 245). Bias while reporting, combined with other factors like manipulative strategies in publicity and mass advertising reflect attempts by the systems of authority to partake in and encourage “the colonization of the public sphere” (Soules). Some critics believe that it is not fair to suggest that this is a problem occurring out of modern day circumstances using the example of manipulated biasness found in reportage of similar events like the French Revolution of 1789. (Hartley 1996: 87 in Crossley 2004: 11). If it is a critical belief that bias has been present inherently, existing in the sphere then at the very least it can be argued that the level of this bias in the sphere has increased, if only being for the fact that we now have access to more media than any other time in the past, with an assortment of corporate, public, independent and online sources to make our choices from. As the range of choices grows wider, so does our awareness of the different dimensions of truth, and our ability to compare and contrast media forms with one another. It can now clearly be seen, that media are being employed as active participants in political proceedings instead of reporting and judging them. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has widely been “ accused of political manipulation, distorting the news to ensure his political allies won elections.” (BBC 2012) During the build-up to the Iraq War in 2003 all 175 of Murdoch’s newspapers printed pro war and pro invasion editorials, and his Fox television network has constantly been accused of displaying right-wing political conservatism.  Presently, it appears that if we are to count on any possibility of the structures of media playing any role as the true public sphere then we must undertake a radical reform of the media. The existence of a public sphere that can be claimed as genuine in status is more than being a matter of personal preference, it is in fact a right and a state of being without whose presence the entire fabric of society will eventually tear away for it is only for so long that such a situation can be sustained where “the wealthy and powerful few make the most important decisions” while encouraging or allowing virtually no space for informed public participation in the process. (McChesney 1999: 281) McChesney further states thatw ithout media reform, the prospects for a more egalitarian, and humane society seem non-existant. Thus, in concluding, while as a society are still away from achieving the ideal state of the public sphere it at the very least provides a standard to incorporate public involvement in affairs both local and global in nature we must make an attempt to reach, by means of a complete reform in the structure and character of the media. Surely bringing out this scale of reform will be no easy task. There lies no guarantee of success. And the only alternative to not bringing out reform is to recognise that the only way left otherwise is the impossiblilty of escaping the clutches of the few who control the sphere (Garnham 1993: 375). Instead of criticising the ideal for what it yet has to become, we can perhaps use it for what it was imagined to be; a vision that shows us what is possible when belief and action exist. The media as a global standardiser still has a long way to go. References Arendt, Hannah (1965). On Revolution. Penguin Books Bbc.co.uk (2012) BBC News - Profile: Rupert Murdoch. [online] Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14078128 Last accessed: 28th Apr 2012 Burns, Alex and Eltham, Ben (2009). Twitter Free Iran: an Evaluation of Twitter's Role in Public Diplomacy and Information Operations in Iran's 2009 Election Crisis. In: Communications Policy & Research Forum 2009, 19th-20th November 2009, Sydney: University of Technology. Crossley, Nick. (2004). On systematically distorted communication: Bourdieu and the socio-analysis of publics. In: Habermas, Jurgen, Crossley, Nick and Roberts, John Michael After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Garnham, N (1993) The Media and the Public Sphere. In: Calhoun C Habermas and the Public Sphere, London: IMT Press. Gillwald, Alison. (1993). The Public Sphere, The Media and Democracy.Transformation. 21 (4), 67. Habermas, Jurgen. (1989). History of the Frankfurt School. In: Seidman, Steven Jurgen Habermas on Society and Politics: A Reader. Massacheusetts: Beacon Press. Habermas, Jurgen (1991), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger with Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Hermida, Alfred. (2010). From TV to Twitter: How Ambient News Became Ambient Journalism . M/C Journal. 13 (2). Holub, Robert C. (1997). The John Hopkins Guide To Literary Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. London: The John Hopkins University Press. McChesney, R W (1999) Rich Media Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times, New York: University of Illinois Press Miniwatts Marketing Group. (2012). Internet world stats. Available: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. Last accessed: 27th Apr  Nasr, Octavia. (2009). Tear gas and Twitter: Iranians take their protests online . Available: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-14/world/iran.protests.twitter_1_facebook-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-supporters?_s=PM:WORLD. Last accessed: 27th Apr 2012. Poole, Ross (1989). Public Spheres, In: Helen Wilson Australian Communications and the Public Sphere, Melbourne: Macmillan Rutherford, Paul. Endless Propaganda: The Advertising of Public Goods. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000. Shirky, C. (2009), Q&A with Clay Shirky on Twitter and Iran. Available: http://blog.ted.com/2009/06/16/qa_with_clay_sh/ Last accessed: 27th April, 2012]. Simpson, John. (2009). Iran reformists held after street clashes. Available: http:/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8099218.stm. Last accessed: 27th Apr 2012 Soules, Marshall. (2008). Jurgen Habermas and the Public Sphere .Available: http://records.viu.ca/~soules/media301/habermas.htm. Last accessed 28th Apr 2012. Read More