Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The public sphere provides a social forum where people deliberate openly on problems in the society with the aim of provoking political action. It creates the right environment for people to discuss in groups on issues of mutual concern for the purpose of reaching a common decision. It is appropriate theater in civilized society where political actions are decided and implemented through constructive discussions (Calhoun, 1992).
It mediates between private life and political authority. The public sphere in modern society is manifested through the proactive roles that the civil society plays in moderating and provoking political action by the authorities. The Sphere of Public Authority is exemplified through state institutions such as the police and the ruling elite. The public sphere therefore mediates between ordinary citizenry and the authorities by creating necessary awareness about the needs of the people to the respective institutions of government.
Background
Discussions in the public sphere establish the grounds for subsequent reforms and policy adjustments in government based on the realities in a particular society. The public sphere integrates divergent public opinions during peacetime and wartime for the purpose of bridging the gaps existent in society (New bold& Boyd-Barrett, 1995). Social labor and economic discourses are also deliberated at the public sphere outside the dictates of the conventional market. Buying and selling is not carried out at the public sphere but relevant market relations are debated harmoniously and critically. State apparatus is therefore linked to economic and political institutions through the public sphere which sets the forum for fruitful discussions on various public opinions in the society.
Democracy demands that legitimate governments provide and listen to the enlightened debate at the public sphere. Private life is strategically exposed to the public through the public sphere where ordinary citizens are openly engaged in constructive deliberations on issues of national interest and public concern for the purpose of commodity exchange and social labor (Stevenson, 2002). This helps to bring to the attention of government and state institutions issues in society originally buried in neglect or ignorance. Problems directly or indirectly affecting people in society are exposed at the public sphere.
The public sphere was originally conducted in informal settings such as salons, restaurants and coffee houses but the concept has been developed into an independent institution with clear objectives and association with other socio-political institutions in government. The manner in which ideas are articulated is therefore updated through rational communication which can assert the attention of authorities.
Consequently, the public sphere generates a cultural product which conforms to the expectations of the people in a democratic society and that which can be assimilated into appropriate political action (Roberts, Crossley& Habermas, 2004). It is the public sphere that consolidates divergent views from the public in concerted discussions whose product is beneficial to the entire society. Everyone participates in the debate after which views are processed into a viable cultural product which can be transformed into appropriate policy by the state.
Equality across gender and race is cherished and called for at the public sphere in order to promote the integration and institutionalization of the relevant debate discourses. The public sphere in connecting the public with authorities acts as its mouthpiece for a balanced debate. Liberal democracies actually allocate financial resources for the institutionalized public sphere made up of media, religious organizations and related discussion forums (Clarke, 2000).
However, the media is sometimes hijacked by political actors interested in shortchanging public opinion. In essence, the media serves as an appropriate medium for commercial advertisements rather than a tool for public debate in capitalist societies.
A free and independent media free from political interference and economic temptations has not been realized in many countries of the world. Capitalist economy is the major undoing of social cohesion since it has led to unbalanced distribution of wealth further increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. As a result of the capitalist economy, access to the public sphere is grossly limited to the ruling elite and the rich who restrict the poor and marginalized from engaging in balanced deliberations. Manipulation of the public sphere is widely accepted in capitalist societies ignoring the innocent voices of the poor, weak and marginalized members of the society. Mass media is thus the result of the structured public sphere (Habermas, 1991).
The paradox is that modern mass media is controlled by political actors who dictate its content and mechanisms of carrying out debate. Media power and political power are ever being contested by stakeholders in the public sphere keen to balance the flow of communication. State regulation and control of the media is a common phenomenon even in established democracies. This is a desperate attempt by authorities to decide on the topic of discussion and economic ventilation with fixed outcomes.
Habermas assertion that social classes, differences in gender and race be disregarded for the successful implementation of discourses at the public sphere is equally a subject of inconclusive debate. Social stratification of the society particularly in a capitalist setting violates fundamental privileges of the poor and women. Hegemonic dominance of men in such society excludes important matters of interest to women and the impoverished (Melton& Van, 2001).
Men privileged to be in authority continued to assert their power and influence by restricting public debates in the media to issues that benefit their political and economic interests. Sensitive matters such as gender, social stratification, negative ethnicity and economic inequalities are swept under the carpet in a bourgeois public sphere.
The public sphere is meant to engage people from different social and economic backgrounds to deliberate matters of mutual interest as peers. However, characteristic domination of the debate by the privileged members of the society is a disadvantage to subordinates and marginalized groups (Weisser, 2002). The result is residual conflict on matters which are considered private or public in society due to perceived personal interests and concerns. The public sphere is thus continuously subjected to priori debates outside the common agenda which should benefit the entire society irrespective of social status. It is therefore common to find marginalized groups organizing their own congregation meant to discuss matters common to their plight in society.
The public sphere remains indispensable as a valuable resource for ventilating problems in the society either through the mass media or in the informal setting. Public debate should be carried out without political patronage in order to bridge the gap between authorities and the subordinated groups of the society. The transfer of power from the state to the people is an illustration of independent media and balanced democratic ideals (Johnson, 2009).
Discussion that affect women such as reproduction, the sick, youths and the elderly need to be shifted from the private sphere to the public sphere for purposes of reform and policy synthesis. Participation of everyone in a universal public sphere requires that factors that classify people are dissolved in order to avoid biased judgment on important life issues.
In essence, the private life of a people should be excluded from public debate unless they have a direct influence on other people. For instance homosexuality is a contentious issue in different societies due to its moral connotations. Such issues need to be withheld from an open public debate in order to prevent violating the rights and privileges of fellow human beings. The most salient features of a balanced public sphere do not investigate the identity of participants but the common issues affecting everyone in the society (Warner, 2009).
Dialogue transcends into fruitful debate on underlying issues through the active participation of proactive members of the society keen to reform the status quo. The subject matter of this public debate forms the foundation for appropriate public sphere to be established. The public sphere is therefore a consequence of common interests to a people whose composition is not important in solving the underlying problems. Debate makes reference to the litany of issues under discussion.
Matters of interest in any public sphere should be fully understood by the participants in order to stimulate informed debate. The product of such discourse-based discussions does not depend on the composition of its participants but the common intersection of the different arguments. An effective public sphere is therefore characterized of units of spheres in the whole population which aggregate at an advanced stage towards creating an integrated outcome (Calhoun, 1992).
Important issues under discussion in public sphere are not limited to the participants but also include other members of the society affected by the subject matter. Membership into the deliberative assembly of a public sphere is inclusive and balanced appreciating divergent views.
Active participation is crucial during discussions through contextualized language surrounding issues at hand. It is important that participants trust and respect one another during discussions in order to appreciate different views especially on controversial issues. Tolerance of divergent opinion in conflicting discourses provides the right atmosphere when resolving disputes. The discursive forum created by the public sphere composed of strangers with mutual interests and concerns. The outcome of such deliberations has a bearing on the organization of society (New bold& Boyd-Barrett, 1995). The public sphere in this serves to provide space for self constitution of the society through informed dialogue mixed with relevant discourse-based discussions.
Role of the contemporary mass media in peacetime Philippians
The state of Philippines is regarded as the most democratic nation in the Southeast Asian region. It is also considered to have a relatively free press through which the provincial public sphere can access, collect and disseminate information within their surrounding. However, massive killings of journalists have threatened the free space created a democratic society in 1986 and the subsequent manipulation of the public sphere.
Journalists find it difficult to carry out their duties in an environment prone to violence and depreciated press freedoms. This huge proportion of deaths among local and international journalists is only equivalent to the situation in Iraq during the recent war with the United States. Iraq is actually rated as the most dangerous place for journalists due to the massive kidnappings and deaths of journalists in the midst of war.
Similar scenarios have been witnessed in countries undergoing transition from authoritarian to democratic system of government. African countries have experienced a larger share of civil war and political instability creating a turbulent environment for journalists to exercise their duties. Philippine is part of the transitional democracies experiencing massive deaths of journalists. The death of journalists has hampered the democratization process in developing the nation. Important national issues are thereby hidden from the general public in the Philippines society due to the frequent cases of violence targeting journalists. Fear and anxiety in the peacetime transitional democracy curtails freedom of expression and public debate (Stevenson, 2002).
The state appears reluctant to guarantee security to the journalists despite of the threats confronting them on a daily basis. Public discourse is severely suppressed by the violence as a result of the fear that has developed from the killings.
The media plays an important role in conveying information to the society for its development. The death of journalists contravenes the individuals right to life and freedom of expression. The role of a free media in informing the public sphere cannot be overestimated with regard to transitional democracies such as the Philippines. The death of journalists in Philippines contradicts its constitution provisions for an independent media and an active public sphere.
The constitution in this transitional democracy allows for free speech and journalistic freedoms consistent with democracy (Roberts, Crossley & Habermas, 2004). In essence, censorship laws that impede peoples freedom of expression and journalistic endeavors are lifted in Philippines in pursuit of democratic ideals. Subsequent investigation into the massive killings revealed that the journalists worked for the provisional media companies due to their proactive role in covering corruption scandals and misappropriation of resources.
Despite of being a democracy with constitutional provisions for a free press, the Philippines continue to record massive killings of journalists as compared to the neighboring nations in the Southeast Asian region. The direct acts of violence against journalists impede the public from accessing information let alone the discourses that should accompany public debate. A functional free press is central in discourse-based public sphere towards reforming political institutions and the policy-making process. Philippines being a transitional democracy suffer from weak political institutions which cannot provide the required security to the media.
The Philippines government therefore lacks political legitimacy as a liberal democracy due to its reluctance to support a free press according to its constitution. This context of massive killings and violence prevents expression of public opinion and access to information.
A democratic society should allow for unrestricted public access to information and subsequent debate relevant in provoking political action (Clarke, 2000). According to the Habermas, the medium through which the public sphere carries out its activities includes newspapers, radio, television and magazines. The media therefore provides the stage for public debate which should influence political action. Democracy demands that public discourses carried out through the media and related public discussions are independent of political patronage and censorship. This process greatly depends on journalists who edit reports and host commentaries during public debate. The journalists actually host politicians, entrepreneurs and other active participants when discussing public opinions from a common platform.
The media is therefore instrumental in the discussions that take place at the public sphere through its advanced technology and human resource capacity. Mass media is a powerful tool that brings everyone in the society into a meeting of common purpose. The provisional public sphere exemplified by the Philippine journalists at the local level constitutes an important democratic discourse which should not be undermined. Journalists are particularly killed in the line of their duty in provincial areas generally considered volatile due to the nature of socio-political setting. There is a residual culture of impunity which exists from the weak judiciary that cannot address the killings assertively.
The public sphere at the provincial level is undermined by the media killings because political actors interested in maintaining the status quo continue to curtail the full manifestation of democracy for selfish reasons.
The notion of the free press in Philippines demands that everyone should be given a fair hearing in a society where government does not regulate media discourses. A democratic society with an independent media is a free market place of ideas with a functional public sphere (Habermas, 1991). In essence, a free media positions journalists as members of the Fourth Estate outside the three main arms of government namely the judiciary, legislature and the executive.
A free media thus benefits the entire society up to the individual level in the current generation where information is paramount. The huge bulk of information in the society requires that people are intelligent enough to filter data in order to isolate relevant information for action. The media plays a major role in disseminating relevant information from the knowledge bank into the public. The citizenry are kept informed about daily happenings through the media. The media should therefore be independent from state authorities in a democratic system. It is meant to set the pace for discussions on various opinions and ideas in such society.
Fundamental constitutional provisions should therefore be respected by civilized people keen to develop their society through a balanced environment. On the other hand, the media acts as a public agent in communicating feedback from the public sphere to the authorities (Melton& Van, 2001). In the same wavelength, the media serves as agent which reports human rights abuses by the government to higher authority for the benefit of the nation.
Media power is thus decisive in exercising democratic power and authority over subordinates. It outlines relevant agenda for deliberations during the public sphere debate after which results are appropriately evaluated and feedback communicated accordingly.
The Philippines case illustrates the critical role that media plays in democratization of society. Transitional democracies need both media and democratic reforms. The work of journalists is greatly facilitated by constitutional freedoms and rights ostensibly with regulation of media industry. There are situations where media content is accused of infringing on national security by exposing privileged state information to the public. This elicits painful debate which serves to arrest democratic development. Philippines being a developing democracy need strengthening of its weak governance institutions for greater rule of law and freedom of the media. Habermas conceptualization of the public sphere as a free space for debate and audience participation in discussions describes the right context of an independent media (Weisser, 2002).
The Philippines press in privately owned all along its political history. However, state-controlled media exists and sometimes prevails over private-owned media during conditions of political instability. The media in Philippines has actually transformed the society from the past colonial and dictatorial systems into democracy. Journalists worked tooth to nail to uncover corruption and gambling scandals that besieged President Estrada government leading to his impeachment.
Public demonstrations were extensively organized through the new media taking advantage of mobile messaging to update people on the news unfolding on the saga. Citizens were mobilized to participate in the demonstrations through the SMS information in addition to supplementary support and food provisions during the fiasco. Journalists were therefore targeted by government and security apparatus due to their active participation on national issues.
Radio and television journalists were killed from work, a clear manifestation of impunity and lack of rule of law in Philippines. This characterizes the rampant extra-judicial killings that targeted both activists and journalists fighting for the democratic space in the Philippines. Exposure of corruption at the local governments and the provincial level by the media subjected them to the vulnerability of the systematic killings. The drug barons collaborated with politicians and police in abusing power and fighting journalistic endeavors. Political power in provincial regions is largely monopolized and operates at cross purpose to the state machinery (Johnson, 2009). This makes it difficult for the government to provide expansive national security and political good to all the citizens being a weak democracy.
Socio-political structure in Philippines is complicated by the differentiated leadership characterized by landlords, bosses and money lenders among members of the ruling elite. Power is shared among competing groups depending on their allegiance to the state. The political system is therefore bureaucratic and mystified by the complex social organization in Philippines. Bureaucratic systems are favored at the expense of meritocracy in both national and local levels. Consequently, the public is deprived of the political good they expect from their democratic government. Political dealings are executed through nepotism and favoritism depending on political aliments.
The role of the media in Philippines in exposing the wrongdoing of the political and ruling class subjects the privileged members of the society to the risk of losing their reputation. In response to the media reports and stories, authorities and their immediate beneficiaries apply physical attacks and threats on journalists in order to shelve scandal. Political leaders are keen to guard their legitimacy and reputation in the public eye. This goes on at the expense of the important public interests and wellbeing. The Philippine predicament is characterized by the states inability to monopolize legitimate violence as a result of armed insurgencies and the imminent threat of terrorism. Islamic militancy and separatism in Southern Philippines has been a political challenge to the state due to chronic marginalization .
The Muslim community in the Philippines is grossly marginalized from state resources causing them to live in abject poverty and illiteracy. Radical Muslim activism and militancy is a consequence of the arrested public sphere made up of a free media. Philippine Muslims are therefore justified in their quest for equal freedoms and rights with their fellow citizens (Warner, 2009). The manner in which their legitimate grievances are expressed, that is, through militancy further erodes the reputation of the state.
This has led to the involvement of the United States in Philippines military institutions. Joint military exercises between the US and Philippine forces have exposed the country to terrorism. Investigative journalism in Philippines is a subject of periodic self-regulation and violence. Media personnel operate in fear of reprisals and threats of murder without the hope of the situation improving in the near future.
The civil society and the public sphere which are very instrumental in democratization of the transitional state of Philippines lack the right environment for fruitful discourse. Journalists working in Philippines require further safety and medical training in order to deal with the violent and gun culture especially when investigating corruption and security related issues. The state needs international assistance in order to link up with provincial and local institutions which appear to stand alone in their operations. Constitutional provisions should be respected and oversight provided beyond the government structure. It is under this environment that the media as an institution of the public sphere shall be prevailing over the violent culture of intimidation and killings (Calhoun, 1992).
The role of the contemporary mass media in wartime Lebanon
The Lebanese Civil War spanning fifteen years led to massive deaths and injuries. This was characterized by a religious conflict between Christians and Muslims compounded by a ethnic conflict. Cultural integration was subsequently hindered due to political tensions and ethnic conflict that culminated in civil war (New bold& Boyd-Barrett, 1995). The economy was severely damaged rendering the Lebanese populations poor and confused.
The emergence of an armed PLO after the expulsion of Palestinians from Jordan in Lebanon further escalating civil conflict. The civil war weakened the public sphere as a result of weakened democratic institutions. The civil war has remained the source of political conflict and social tension. The Lebanese public sphere partly survived due to the active civil society increasing tolerance and national identity among Lebanese citizens.
Radical Islamism and terrorism is targeted towards the attempt of the western powers to impose western democracy in Lebanon. The Arab-Israeli conflict has spilled over into Lebanon due to the Western influence in Middle East. The American influence in Lebanon and Middle East has interfered with the Muslim culture which is important for a balanced and developed public sphere. It is apparent that public discourse in the Lebanese society is dependent on the Muslim culture keen to promote equality and democracy without outside influence (Stevenson, 2002). Public debate is characterized by enlightened discussions in the media and other congregations within Muslim meetings.
Tolerance and equality is based on the Muslim faith and subsequent discourses on matters of national and international interests. The civil war is a factor of ethnic conflict and religious differences between the Lebanese people. However, public debate is guided on the common principle that Christians and Muslims should respect one another beyond the influence of imperial powers in the west.
The civil war that ensued reduced the Lebanese glory into shambles due to dilapidated economy and armed insurgencies. However, the vibrant civil society in Lebanon steered the public debate on international and national issues through the media and Islamic congregations. The civil war rendered the media as a tool to inform the public vulnerable to state control and manipulation. The Christians and Muslims maintained their hard line positions constantly engaging in war. Muslim extremists and terrorists took sides with their Muslim brothers while Western powers expressed solidarity with Christian fighters. Approximately one million people died and thousands injured in the conflict further widening the gap between the divergent religions (Roberts, Crossley & Habermas, 2004).
The control and regulation of the media by the state and affiliated powers reduced the democratic space for a functional public sphere. The role of the media in informing the public was further curtailed by the weak democratic institutions and religious tensions. The public could not meet on a common ground for enlightened debate. Muslims only discussed their issues through for ums provided by their religious institutions outside the Christian context.
The right to life and freedom of expression was therefore undermined by the pronounced differences that existed between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon. The resultant culture of violence and suspicion coupled to media control interfered with effective public discourse (Clarke, 2000). Persistent conflict between ethnic communities suppressed further the free space required for public debate in the Lebanese society.
During the civil war, journalists could not report or investigate the unfolding events freely due to the imminent threat of death by armed factions. Political debate is in fact curtailed by the prolonged civil war and social inequalities. Public discussion on religious differences between Muslims and Christians is considered hate speech by the state which could fuel further violence. It is therefore difficult to develop an integrated national public sphere without infringing on the rights and freedoms of the divergent groups.
Social cohesion in Lebanese society as developed by the proactive civil society provides a lucrative opportunity for a balanced debate in both the private and public sphere. The media can be empowered through constitutional freedoms for a free press. The respect for human rights, race, gender and religion among communities experiencing turbulence is fundamental to a free media (Habermas, 1991).
Censorship of the media and the fear of reprisals by the state have restricted journalistic endeavors in metropolitan regions. Access and distribution of information is hampered by massive deaths of journalists and other media personnel in the line of duty. Journalists working in regions under conflict and civil war have to work an extra mile in order to obtain information which is sometimes regarded confidential. It is also difficult for the media to cover state proceedings during war as a result of concerns on national security. Government reserves the right to prevent journalists from obtaining privileged information which could undermine the state in the name of an independent media (Melton& Van, 2001). However, the media need to be guaranteed state security when carrying out their duties.
It is the role of the Lebanese government to provide members of the fourth estate with the necessary political good as provided by the constitution. The civil war was characterized by turbulent moments for journalists working under censorship. First and foremost, the state regulates media content and topic for discussion at the public sphere. Secondly, self censorship of the media as a result of persistent threats and killings to journalists prevented the express coverage of the civil war and its consequences on the Lebanese people.
That notwithstanding, the civil society reinvented another public sphere which exposed the evils of the civil war, corruption, terrorism and negative ethnicity through alternative media (Weisser, 2002). Small public spheres characterized set in informal settings organized people to discuss the volatile situation in the country. Feedback from such enlightened discourses inspired leaders of the civil society to communicate the same to authorities for the purpose of directing political decisions.
The media augmented such informal spheres of discussion by exposing to the world selected testimonies of people who survived the civil war and their experiences. The media therefore worked hand in hand with the civil society in covering and exposing social evils and injustices visited upon the innocent civilians during conflict. The role of the civil society and the middle class in Lebanese society inspired further debate in the mainstream media for the purpose of assisting the victims of the war.
The state was also made aware of the innocent causalities of the war which could have been avoided in the first place. It is therefore the role of the me
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.