‘Alternative journalism online elicits an optimistic reappraisal of Habermas’ theory of the public sphere; a sphere where state and corporate authority is publically monitored through informed and critical discourse by citizens.’
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to a slaughter.” George Washington.
The structural transformation of the public sphere has given rise to free speech and free press that guaranteed a space for public opinion. In the past we saw the ascension of the public sphere coincide with the emergence of liberal philosophical thought. However, Habermas’ public sphere was a bourgeois public sphere because it excluded the poor and the uneducated. It only made sense if you had the money to absorb or contribute to the sphere. Habermas believed that the principles of the public sphere form the indispensible basis for a free society. The emergence of the authoritarian state stifled the idea of free speech. At the same time the increasing size of corporations and the development of mass media meant that segregation appeared between the public and private sphere. Curran[1] states that, “The media ceased to be an agency of empowerment and rationality, and became a further means by which the public was sidelined. Instead of providing a conduit for rational-critical debate, the media manipulated mass opinion. It defined politics as a spectacle, offered pre-digested, convenience thinking and conditioned the public into the role of passive consumers.” Huge growth in advertising coerced editors into creating content for profit. Publishing companies became accountable to the whims of the stock market. Habermas argued that this had a pernicious effect on the public sphere’s ability to accommodate rational debate and questions of politics and morality came to be guided by economic interests.
Habermas[2] has hope for a public sphere and highlights it as the fundamental mechanism for democracy. Technological advancements mean that almost all walks of life across all social classes have access to the internet. If one is to look at the internet as the public sphere then it undoubtedly makes the playing field more accessible. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have become the public sphere that Habermas had once only imagined.
Stevenson[3] argues that, “The state is best served by a depolitcised citizenry.” In one sense social media platforms create this kind of environment, they definitely face less regulation than that of the main stream mass media. It allows all citizens the opportunity and the ability to engage in society and express their views. Nowadays, the public sphere has taken on a whole new lease of life. Undoubtedly, the internet can be accredited for this change. The biggest question Habermasian’s ask is of the internet and politics, is whether this new place acts as an effective public sphere or whether it divides and acts as an echo chamber that stifles effective and rational debate? The internet in theory should be the public sphere that Habermas had always imagined; it has fewer gate keepers and fewer agenda setters than traditional public discourse. The rise in popularity of social media platforms has led to the criticism of corporate authority and widely held ‘industry norms’ have become a thing of the past.
With this in mind, we need not look any further than the “Me Too” movement. The phrase was coined by a social activist and community organizer Tarana Burke in 2006. It was introduced to promote “empowerment through empathy” among women who experienced sexual abuse, particularly those who were of colour and belonged to the underprivileged communities. However the movement only really came to light in 2017 when it featured heavily across social media platforms after actor Alyssa Milano tweeted, “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.” The actor woke up to thousands of replies and the hashtag ‘me too’ was trending number one on Twitter. Imagine over fifty thousand people trying to get their story of sexual harassment or abuse printed in newspapers on that day – it wouldn’t happen. However social media gave these survivors a global platform to air their stories at a velocity that would have shocked Habermas.
The case of Harvey Weinstein, cofounder of the Miramax production company and former film director, has now become a convicted sex offender after he got his comeuppance thanks to the success of the ‘me too’ movement. Weinstein was well known and highly regarded in the industry; his company had produced films such as The Crying Game (1992) and Pulp Fiction (1994). Unfortunately that wasn’t all Weinstein was known for, there is a long list of women who have accused Weinstein of sexual misconduct, including star studded actors like Angelina Jolie, Kate Beckinslae, Gwyneth Paltrow and Cara Delevinge. Justice was served in January 2020 when Weinstein was charged with four counts of rape and sexual battery. In this case justice was ultimately served by the public and by the people that wrote about their experiences on social media. This is just one example of the power of social media and the sheer force behind the platforms. It demonstrates the good that social media can be used for, when it acts as a positive public sphere. It validates the need for public relations at a global level between groups of people who share the same experiences and interests.
Curran[4] argues that the public sphere, “should empower people by enabling them to explore where their interest lies; it should foster sectional solidarities and assist the functioning of organizations necessary for the effective representation of collective interests; it should sustain vigilant scrutiny of government and centres of power; it should provide a source of protection and redress for weak and unorganized interests.” There is no doubt that alternative journalism such as social media platforms and citizen journalism has changed the way we think and engage within the public sphere. Although the internet has been great in many respects, alternative journalism has also contributed to certain negative movements. On the contrary to the ‘me too’, a different strand of that movement has appeared the ‘cancel culture’. The ‘cancel culture’ is when the public (the internet) disagrees with the opinion usually of a well known person or celebrity and decide that they are now ‘cancelled’, making it hard for them to find new work or get new roles in films. J.K. Rowling the world renowned author of the Harry Potter books was one of the many celebrities to fall victim to cancel culture. Rowling tweeted in support of Maya Forstater who is a vocal TERF- Tran exclusionary radical feminist and a supporter of a transphobic political movement arguing that transgender women are men. The Trans community hit back at Rowling and caused her to lose many followers online. Rowling responded by writing an open letter to the public which managed to gain 150 signatures supporting her view. Albeit it disappointing for the Harry Potter fans that identify as transgender, can cancelling a person be justified just because they have a different view or opinion than our own? This is the problem with the internet and the platform it provides for alternative journalism; it can become an echo chamber of irrational thought and ignorance. If one is to cancel anyone and everyone that has a differing opinion to our own, then essentially everyone will end up cancelled by one group or another. Habermas[5] had feared that the internet had its limitations for expanding the public sphere; it may not be the ideal social space for the public sphere as it polarizes and limits rational discussion.
Political discussion and debate online still coalesces around the press and the central narratives are created by offline traditional media. Garnham[6] argues that, “For Habermas the public sphere and the concept of a rational politics that goes with it, is based upon the assumption, which seems to me wholly unrealistic, that all participants possess complete information and engage in all debates.” Another pitfall of alternative journalism and the online media platforms is that it gives propaganda a suitable environment to thrive and grow. With this in mind, one only needs to look at Trump era of presidency. Donald Trump and his use of social media platforms to spread misinformation seemed at one stage almost unstoppable. Throughout his years in office he continued to undermine the hard work of ethical journalists and constantly accused them of spreading ‘fake news.’ Kellner[7] discusses Habermas’ view, “Not only does Habermas limit democracy to the sphere of discussion within the lifeworld and civil society; he omits the arguably necessary presuppositions for democratic deliberation and argumentation—an informed and intellectually competent citizenry.” Up until recently we have not seen much competent citizenry, rather we saw misinformed followers of what could be described as a dictator. Regrettably, Trump’s use of social media, especially Twitter, has been detrimental to society as a whole. Trump’s allegations of ‘widespread voter fraud’ led to civil unrest in the United States. On January 6th 2021, Trump, with the use of Twitter, ordered an attack on the Capitol to ‘stop the steal’ of what he claimed was a stolen election. An angry mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol and lit a fire at the front of the building. Trump was subsequently banned from Twitter after inciting such violence. However this demonstrates the dangers of social media and unregulated alternative journalism. Unfortunately, the idea that a modern public sphere can exist is just that- idealistic.
In reality the modern public sphere consists of large groups of people of one opinion or another, both with little regard for what the other has to say. Garnham[8] states that, “public policy should, if democracy is to be taken seriously, favour citizen participation in such debate. If that is the case debate must include as many of the existing public views in a society on the relevant issues as possible.” Nowadays social media platforms rely just as heavily on advertising as traditional mass media and thus the problem arises. Notably, it could be argued that alternative journalism is just as influenced by advertising than the traditional journalism. Increased data collection agencies, cookies, and algorithms mean that as citizen journalists we are hugely influenced by the data those social media platforms supply to us. For example, if you support Donald Trump and you follow mostly republican pages online then you will be prompted to watch similar videos and read similar articles that relate to the opinions that you already have. Similarly if you support the democratic side of the debate your social media feeds will prompt an influx of likeminded material.
In conclusion, alternative journalism does elicit an optimistic reappraisal of Habermas’ public sphere in some cases. It is true that state and corporate authority are closely monitored by the public. However, it cannot be said that those that monitor this authority are well informed through critical discourse. Instead alternative journalism and online citizen journalism are often times an echo chamber of information, much of which is not verifiably true. The modern public sphere is now social media and the internet, and it is a far cry from the egalitarian and rational discourse that Habermas had once imagined.


