Is Meaningful Public Discourse Compromised by Social Media?

Is meaningful public discourse compromised by social media?
Consider this question from the perspective of a corporate
communication practitioner or a journalist.
Public discourse has been seen as avenue for citizens across the globe to express their
agitation on issues affecting or likely to affect their affairs (Xu et al., 2018). Social media has
therefore become a platform for journalists or communication practitioner to present public
views on issues at stake. However, there have also been public outcry across some regions
precisely developing worlds of respective governmental authorities subjugating social media to
make prejudice publication on a matter of public debate (La Cour 2020; Xue et al.2020). The
proliferation of social media platforms and practice of democracy across the world has also
contribute to subjugation of some social media agents to present false public opinions on matter
through group sponsorships to distort reality. At this juncture, it is however imperative to
describe and understand public discourse and social media in solitude.
Public discourse is a dialogue from any government authority capable of changing
actions, opinions or attitudes of the general public (Xue et al.2020). It is a forum or public
medium that aid people to express their concerns and opinions in decision-making process
(Ruzaite 2018). In other word, it is a means of making sense of public affair. Kenski et al. (2019)
opined that public discourse is a key foundation for a democratic society and public policy
creation. For instance, in a pluralistic society like United States, United Kingdom, Nigeria
among others, public discourse is vital to the survival and sustenance of the societies. This is due
to the diverse cultural backgrounds of the populace with different perspectives (Plantin 2019;
Chidozie and Orji 2022). These nations’ population are made up of people from different ethnic,
spiritual and racial backgrounds which influence their opinions and beliefs. For example, free-
thinkers or young secular people will always argue in favour of same-sex marriage while
religious conservative people will vehemently against it. However, allowing people to live and
act at their free will cause chaos in the country.
Furthermore, Galston (2018) suggests that to avert nation from collapsing some social
expectations, laws and compromises are made to hold a nation together. Consequently, public

discourse becomes inevitable preventive measure. Also, one of the inherent features of public
discourse is the encouragement of public debate on any issue related to policy-making in
democratic government. Similarly, Prasser (2020) noted that people are influenced when
political office holders, legal analysts, politicians, general public and political experts debate on
policies or political issues. In a representative government, public discourse is a tool employed to
discuss, present issues and makes people’s voice being heard. Government therefore established
a compromise that meet all sides of the issue. Individual opinions can be changed or formed
through public discourse. Besides, public discourse is characterised by the creation of awareness
on issue of public interest among the entire populace. Public discourse has also been known for a
number of benefits in democratic society. For instance, in drafting a new piece of legislation to
be presented for a vote by government body. The initiator of the bill has in turn initiated a public
discourse to serve as a way of informing their constituents about the policy changes and details
embedded. In achieving this social media becomes an imperative tool (Gillespie, 2018).
Nikolopoulou et al. (2022) noted that social media is a vital medium of public discourse. As it is
a channelled through which public opinions, attitudes and expositions on decision-making
process or policies are expressed.
Social media is an interactive digital platform that enables creation and dissemination of
information, interests, ideas and other forms of expression virtually. It is a networked
communication channels that facilitate consumption, distribution and generation of all forms of
expressions associated with public opinions (Syahputra 2019). In another word, social media is a
technology-based platform that aids the distribution of information, thought and ideas through
virtual networks and communities (Sanjeev and Natrajan 2021.). It is an internet-based channel
that avail the users’ opportunity of rapid electronic communication of content like documents,
videos, photos and personal information. Social media are therefore used through a tablet,
smartphone or computer via various web-based software applications. The prevalence of social
media usage has made the term to be viewed and conceptualised as a form of applications and
websites that focus on content-sharing, collaboration, community-based input, and
communication (Sellers 2003; Kozinets 2019; Bantimaroudis 2021). Saraisky (2016) opined that
social media has becomes a useful tool to connect and foster interactions with family friends and
many communities. Furthermore, social media play a vital role in democratic or representative
societies owing to citizens’ participation (Milenkova, 2018). It has long been recognised as one

of the pillars of democracy due to its potential of not only reporting events around the world but
also establishing a public opinion about burning issues. The participation of people attributed to
democracy is facilitated by media (Jha and Kodila-Tedika 2020.).
The participation of people in democracy has now been changed owing to emergence of
social media. Contrary to traditional media, the accessibility of social media permits instant
updates and mass participation (Lindner and Aichholzer 2020). Consequently, social media has
culminated in overreliance of people on it to become aware of their surroundings and participate
in the deliberation of political, social and economic issues. This in turn strengthen or reinforce
the practice of democracy (Dahlgren 2018). With the advent of social media, political campaign
has not been limited to pasting of posters and physically rallies. Social media has become a
useful platform extensively utilised by political leaders and parties to communicate their agenda
to the general public. More importantly, the predominant of the internet usage enables various
political leaders and parties to communicate to voters across the communities or regions
simultaneously (Berenschot and Aspinall 2020). This practice has aroused the usage of social
networking sites such as WhatsApp, Twitter, and Facebook, as social media platform to organize
physical campaign, pronounce candidate running for elective post, mobilize voters, share the
party’s manifesto for election, the candidate message to the general public, recruit supporters,
seek funds and volunteers among others. For instance, former president of United State, Barack
Obama, is well known for harnessing social media as campaign strategy. Social media was used
as a platform to remind young voters who relied on Twitter while Facebook was used as an
interactive platform. Consequently, he was noted to significant lead in Twitter followers and
Facebook likes compare to his opponents.
However, as they say, every cloud has a silver lining. Social media is not only associated
with positive impacts on democracy but also with shortcomings. Sometimes social media
platforms go overboard for some political purposes. For instance, in the last presidential election
in US, numerous reports were posted on Facebook that Donald Trump violating pre-election
policies. Similarly, politicians sometimes use it as one-way communication tool for campaign
and inform people of new policies rather than as discussion tool with the citizens (Ekwueme and
Folarin 2018; Lewandowsky et al. 2020). Since public discourse denotes publications or
speeches made in quest for the public good. Social media and public discourse are greatly
entwined. Social media has led to the emergence of new forms of public discourse which has

culminated in collective actions. Such that citizens or masses are allowed to debate on matters
relating or associating with public interest. Desjardins (2021) noted that social media is
employed to generate, disseminate and consume spectrum of user generated content that shapes
public discourse. In addition, specialist forums, official forum and the challenger forums are the
forums available for discourse. Specialist forums are forums for issues that required expertise or
professionals. A good example of this, could be seen during the outbreak of COVID-19 when
various health practitioners’ forums were formed to debate on likely causes, preventive and
curative measure. Opinions were thus gathered and aggregated for public consumption on
various mass media platforms. Official forums, on the other hand are discourse forums that
present the views of decision-makers on issue at stake. The outbreak and spreading of the
pandemic generated various official forums of public discourse across the world. This made
some countries enacting some stringent international laws preventing the influx of foreigners to
curtail the regional spread of the pandemic. While challenger forum is a collective forum that is
formed through public mobilization to query the status quo of an issue. The challenges forums
are usually used to counter government decision on certain issues. For instance, challenger
public discourse forum was formed in Nigeria to end the operation of Special Anti-Robbery
Squad (SARS) in the country.
Furthermore, facts and opinions are gathered from any of these forums by professional
journalists and present the discourse as a print or electronic content. Also, in the contemporary
world, the culture around any issue of public interest has been dominated by media discourse.
Culture is however, viewed as collections of symbols, rituals, stories and world views that aid
sense of public affairs (Voltolini et al. 2020). Although there have been outcry of professionals
and researchers on the role of journalists in the production of content readily and easily
accessible for audience consumption (Jha and Kodila-Tedika 2020.). Media content has
therefore, been actively utilised by audience to ascribe world meaning to burning issue. Hence,
through professionally created content, media discourse is capable of shaping issue cultures that
is simply accessible to audience. Media discourse and public opinion are capable of being
changed in dialectic nature by social media. However, three prominent determinants of
interpretative packages are used by journalists for discourse presentation. These are cultural
resonance, sponsor activities and media support. Cultural resonance involves the understanding
of journalists on cultural themes associated with issue and use of narrative and symbols that

make frame familiar to audience. Sponsors activities on the other hand, involve the use of social
media as an alternative medium by sponsors to promote interpretative packages. These sponsors,
in traditional media setting, uphold a direct relationship with journalists of theirs. They therefore
utilise indirect methods that is targeted at generating issue cultures to support their interpretative
package. Although, Kunduru (2018) identified corrective discourse and contested discourse as
two types of public discourse. These discourse are characterised by cultural resonance, sponsors
or media support.
Also, it is often noted that mass media is usually given opportunity for free, open and
balance public discourse on government activities in a democratic political system.
Corroboratively, one of the liberal theorists, Adam Smith has agitated for the necessity and
importance of liberation of media and press in democracy. However, in a pragmatic sense, some
meaningful public discourses are being distorted through content restrictions in a strong political
realm. For instance, censorship and resistance form of regulation practised in Britan for the fear
of summer invasion of 1940, which led to enactment that gave home secretary sweeping power
to control the press on publication that can incite opposition to prosecution of any war engaged
by his majesty. This regulation also denial the press automatic right to seek redress in the law
courts (Curran & Seaton 2018). Similarly, in modern world of today’s democratic dispensation,
the press has lost its value of independent investigative journalism. Contrary to olden day
periods, when journalism was a means of exposing maladministration and enhance leaders’
integrity. Although, the press has the right to assess facts from both sides with no audacity to
distort vital evidence to favour any of the sides. Yet, it has now made itself available for
exploitation as a disinformation tool by some political bigotries. The role of press as a global
leading source of information has been threaten under intense competition among the media
outlets and information generated in public debate is changing the content and the character of
the news coverage by the general press. Agenda setting theory has expressed by Lippmann
(1922) has become order of the day, such that mass media is now employed to play a key role in
the influence of the setting of certain image in public’s mind. For example, individuals whose
country unjustly invade another country have failed to condemn the invasion owing to the
influence of mass media in setting agenda that influence the public opinions on the support of the
invasion (Princen 2018).

References
Bantimaroudis, P., 2021. Conspiratorial Discourses on Social Media: Agendamelding
Explorations and COVID-19. International Journal of Communication, 15, p.24.
Berenschot, W. and Aspinall, E., 2020. How clientelism varies: Comparing patronage
democracies. Democratization, 27(1), pp.1-19.
Chidozie, F. and Orji, M.C., 2022. Cultural pluralism and democratic survival in Nigeria.
African Identities, pp.1-14.
Curran, J. and Seaton, J., 2018. Power without responsibility: press, broadcasting and the
internet in Britain. Routledge
Dahlgren, P., 2018. Media, knowledge and trust: The deepening epistemic crisis of democracy.
Javnost-The Public, 25(1-2), pp.20-27.
Desjardins, R., 2021. Translation and social media. In The Routledge Handbook of Translation
and Media (pp. 415-431). Routledge.
Ekwueme, M.C. and Folarin, S., 2018. Social media and electioneering: The case of the United
States 2016 presidential election. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Relationes
Internationales, 11(1).
Galston, W.A., 2018. The populist challenge to liberal democracy. Journal of Democracy, 29(2),
pp.5-19.
Gillespie, T., 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden
decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Jha, C.K. and Kodila-Tedika, O., 2020. Does social media promote democracy? Some empirical
evidence. Journal of Policy Modeling, 42(2), pp.271-290.
Kenski, K., Coe, K. and Rains, S.A., 2019. Perceptions of incivility in public discourse. In A
Crisis of Civility? (pp. 45-60). Routledge.
Kozinets, R.V., 2019. Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research.
Sage.
Kunduru, S.R., 2018, June. Social Media and Public Discourse: A Technology Affordance
Perspective on Use of Social Media Features. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGMIS
Conference on Computers and People Research (pp. 168-176).
La Cour, C., 2020. Theorising digital disinformation in international relations. International
Politics, 57(4), pp.704-723.

Lewandowsky, S., Smillie, L., Garcia, D., Hertwig, R., Weatherall, J., Egidy, S., Robertson,
R.E., O'Connor, C., Kozyreva, A., Lorenz-Spreen, P. and Blaschke, Y., 2020.
Technology and democracy: Understanding the influence of online technologies on political
behaviour and decision-making.
Lindner, R. and Aichholzer, G., 2020. E-democracy: Conceptual foundations and recent trends.
In European e-democracy in practice (pp. 11-45). Springer, Cham.
Milenkova, V., Peicheva, D. and Marinov, M., 2018. Towards defining media socialization as a
basis for digital society. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science,
Engineering and Education, 6(2), p.21
Nikolopoulou, A., Psyllakou, E. and Demertzis, N., 2022. Debating News Media: Politics,
Identities, and Alternatives in the Greek Mediascape. Journalism Studies, pp.1-26.
Plantin, J.C., 2019. Review essay: how platforms shape public values and public discourse.
Prasser, S., 2020. Aligning ‘good policy’with ‘good politics’. In Beyond the policy cycle
(pp. 266-292). Routledge.
Princen, S., 2018. Agenda-setting and framing in Europe. In The Palgrave Handbook of Public
Administration and Management in Europe (pp. 535-551). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Ruzaite, J., 2018. In search of hate speech in Lithuanian public discourse: A corpus-assisted
analysis of online comments. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 14(1), pp.93-116.
Sanjeev, R. and Natrajan, N.S., 2021. A systematic review on education 4.0 using social media
platform. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 12(7), pp.1901-1918.
Saraisky, N.G., 2016. Analyzing Public Discourse: Using Media Content Analysis to Understand
the Policy Process. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 18(1), pp.26-41.
Sellers, M.N., 2003. Ideals of public discourse. In Republican Legal Theory (pp. 62-70).
Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Syahputra, I., 2019. Expressions of hatred and the formation of spiral of anxiety on social media
in Indonesia. SEARCH Journal of Media and Communication Research, 11(1), pp.95-112
Voltolini, B., Natorski, M. and Hay, C., 2020. Introduction: The politicisation of permanent
crisis in Europe. Journal of European Integration, 42(5), pp.609-624.
Xu, Q., Yu, N. and Song, Y., 2018. User engagement in public discourse on genetically modified
organisms: The role of opinion leaders on social media. Science communication, 40(6),
pp.691-717.
Xue, J., Chen, J., Chen, C., Zheng, C., Li, S. and Zhu, T., 2020. Public discourse and sentiment
during the COVID 19 pandemic: Using Latent Dirichlet Allocation for topic modeling on
Twitter. PloS one, 15(9), p. e0239441.