Beyond the Public Sphere and Public Service Institutions

Hong Kong.
The next speaker at The Internet Turning 40 is Frank Webster, who shifts our focus from taking stock of existing research areas to exploring the future; his interest is in the future of the public sphere in the age of the Internet. He notes the existence of a Social Democratic consensus (certainly in Europe) that it is necessary for state agencies to intervene in the informational realm, because the market alone cannot be trusted to provide for an informed citizenry and is complicated by the growth of PR and corporate lobbying. So, state intervention aims to provide adequate information to the public, to ensure that democracy works effectively. This is legitimated by the concept of the public sphere, which is served by public service institutions.

This builds on the observation of a democratic deficit - of public ignorance of key political and societal facts and issues, which is significantly worsened by a trend towards infotainment and garbage information in the commercial media, which are further distorted by business interests. Behind this is the view that an informed electorate is crucial for a meaningful democracy. Given all of this, then, the state must intervene to ensure reliable information.

The public sphere concept is intimately linked with democracy, of course. Those who favour state subsity defend the need for public service institutions using the public sphere concept, in fact - so much so that public service institutions (broadcasters, libraries, schools) have almost become a synonym for the public sphere. Such institutions are publicly funded (and thus independent of the market), but - ideally - independent of the government of the day; they are reluctant to allow market practices, emphasise the provision of a universal service, and are committed to the impartiality and disinterestedness of information. They are autonomous from politics, and staff are driven by a vocational 'calling' rather than mere career ambitions.

But such positions are now under serious threat - for one, because of a dislike of the taxation which funds them, but also because of a retreat of collectivism since the end of the Cold War; additionally, public service institutions are sometimes seen as aloof, elitist, and self-serving. Because of funding shortfalls, public service institutions have also turned to the market, but are often outperformed by commercial institutions in the market - and they need to come to terms with new technologies, new platforms, and the attendant end of mass communication.

The idea of the public sphere is also under threat from globalising pressures (leading to the development of multiple public arenas replacing the national public sphere), postmodern developments, and new media-related changes driving some of these trends. There is a profusion of information, a fragmentation of audiences, and a possible 'cocooning' of interest groups - and state-centric approaches to information are reaching their limits as a result. Such approaches tend to reproduce elites (public service institutions tend to be staffed by graduates of elite universities, for example), and deal only poorly with supra-national issues.

How, then, to reconceive democracy? Part of democracy may be to live with differences and tolerate diversity; there are pluralities of difference, and new media encourage these varieties of discourse; this challeges public service institutions. The public sphere is sometimes also over-idealised by its supporters. So, the conventional concept of the public sphere cannot be retained as it used to be - we need to move towards a more layered model of the public sphere, and this also has significant implications for the future shape of public service institutions.

Technorati : Internet Turning 40, democracy, public service, public sphere, society
Del.icio.us : Internet Turning 40, democracy, public service, public sphere, society