Week 4 Post
The media plays an important but contested role in the public
sphere. This week’s readings, lecture and tutorial showed that the
media helps circulate information, shape public opinion and connect
people to issues that matter in public life. In this sense, the media is
central to the public sphere because it provides spaces where public
communication happens across newspapers, television, radio, online
platforms and social media (Bainbridge, 2015; Kaiser et al., 2018). It
also supports civic engagement by helping people access
information and respond to public issues (Robertson, 2018).
However, the media is not neutral. Bainbridge explains that power
relations in the mediasphere affect what becomes visible, whose
voices are heard and how issues are presented (Bainbridge, 2015).
In the tutorial, this linked closely to the ideas of hegemony and
propaganda. Media organisations do not simply report events; they
also shape public understanding in ways that can support dominant
interests. This means the media can strengthen democracy, but it
can also limit it when public debate is influenced by unequal power
or narrow agendas. In my view, this is one of the most important
ideas from this week because media power is not only about
ownership, but also about who gets to define what seems normal or
important in public life.
This issue becomes even more complex online. Kaiser et al. argue
that digital media has changed the public sphere by making
participation faster, broader and more interactive (Kaiser et al.,
2018). Social media can give more people the chance to speak,
share and respond. However, it also creates barriers. As discussed
in class, the internet does not automatically create a better public
sphere. Online debate can be fragmented, emotional and shaped by
misinformation. This is why some scholars question whether social
media really functions as an open public sphere, even though it
increases participation (Kruse et al., 2018). From my own
perspective, social media often encourages quick reaction rather
than careful discussion, which can weaken public debate.
Our class discussion on Indigenous Australians in the media also
showed why representation matters. Media inclusion is not only
about visibility, but also about whether communities can speak on
their own terms. Indigenous media outlets are important because
they support self-representation and challenge the limits of
mainstream media. If minority groups are misrepresented or
ignored, their ability to participate fairly in the public sphere is
reduced. Overall, the media is essential to the public sphere, but it
must also be examined critically.
References list
Bainbridge, J. (2015). The public sphere. In N. Goc & E. Tynan (Eds.),
Media and journalism: New approaches to theory and practice (3rd
ed., pp. 5–23). Oxford University Press.
[Link]
docID=6512853&ppg=35
Kaiser, J., Fähnrich, B., Rhomberg, M., & Filzmaier, P. (2018). What
happened to the public sphere? The networked public sphere and
public opinion formation. In E. G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell, & M.
P. Efthymiopoulos (Eds.), Handbook of cyber-development, cyber-
democracy, and cyber-defense (pp. 440–446). Springer International
Publishing.
Kruse, L. M., Norris, D. R., & Flinchum, J. R. (2018). Social media as a
public sphere? Politics on social media. The Sociological Quarterly,
59(1), 62–84. [Link]
Robertson, S. P. (2018). Introduction. In Social media and civic
engagement: History, theory, and practice (pp. 1–5). Morgan &
Claypool Publishers.
[Link]
docID=5406482