Virtually Politics

Because I am simultaneously enrolled in Political Communication--I have actually discussed this in length before...is the public sphere being ruined by politics? As for what Habermas originally intended, it has come a long way, but we need to look at the positives for how the Internet has molded and shaped the public sphere.

Within the Cyberdemocracy text it says, "We are advised then to abandon Habermas' concept of the public sphere in assessing the Internet as a political domain." But the purpose of the public sphere is for people to dialogue about important political concepts and I would assert that the Internet is giving a lot of people voices that wouldn't have otherwise contributed to the public sphere as we've known it. 

Perhaps a better way to look at it is to delve into the article in the Critical studies in Media Communication, From public sphere to public screen:democracy, activism, and the "violence" of Seattle. Within the article, DeLuca and Peeples introduce the "public screen" as a way to understand today's political situation..."we argue that the public screen accounts for technological and cultural changes while enabling a charting of the new conditions for rhetoric, politics, and activism."

A key word there is activism. If we look at the public sphere as a place for discourse of politics and a conversation that ultimately leads to action-then the Internet has certainly complemented that. I would argue that more people today are more active in voice in sharing their thoughts on the "public screen" for all the world to see.

(This is an excerpt from my research on Political Communication and YouTube)

            YouTube created a Video Your Vote channel encouraging voters to take their video camera with them to the polls to document their vote. They were then encouraged to submit the videos and keep an eye on PBS’s coverage of the election where they broadcasted the best ones on television.

            The amount of videos for the Video Your Vote project paled in comparison to their previous community projects. According to a YouTube spokesperson, “The CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate was open for submissions for two months and we received 3,000 questions. The CNN/YouTube Republican Debate was open for five months and we received 5,000 questions. Video Your Vote was open for submissions for a week and we received, in a period of one day, around 1,200 submissions.”(LA Times—Nov. 5, 2008)

This "public screen" motivated a lot more people to put their voice in the mix of politics. Many might have submitted questions in private, but many, many more were motivated to video their thoughts and their experiences and put them out there for comment and discourse.

Another important assumption under this public screen replacing the public sphere as the main forum of political discussion is the ability to hold corporations accountable--or the political figures themselves. If they are being videotaped when on and off camera they are more likely to "behave" themselves. 

Example:

Clinton and Edwards caught conspiringhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwgLlDbwNwU

The public sphere is not the same as it used to be. The majority of people aren't siting around debating politics in coffee shops and saloons. They are sitting in front of their computer and uploading their thoughts to the "public screen" via YouTube, writing a blog entry, or Twittering....or maybe even sending a Obama or McCain virtual pin to their friends...whatever the case...it is virtually politics in 2008!