Television as a Medium for Non-Governmental Opinion Making and Communication Channel between Public Sphere and State

The article discusses the role of television as a medium for non-governmental opinion making and communication channel between public sphere and state. It explains the concept of public sphere and private sphere in the context of television and how it enriched the sphere of non-governmental opinion making. The article also explores the impact of postmodern media on the ethical values of journalism.

Statement C and the medium is the TV
In the year 1925 when scientist J.L.Baird invented the Technology behind the transmission of
the pictures and the receiver to see the picture, he was not aware of the fact that his invention
one day will become the most powerful medium to communicate the opinions of the masses
and play a crucial role in making and breaking the fortunes of the players running in the race
of the democracy. In the last nine decades prior to the emergence of the Internet, Television
as a medium completed a journey of a sort in the framework of Jurgen Habermas.
In the 18th century, Jurgen Habermas propagated the idea of the Public sphere and private
sphere. In the present context, we can understand it more clearly with the help of some legal
definitions(Habermas, 2015a). The legal systems of the world identify two types of justice
patterns. First is “justice in the society” and the second is “justice among the individuals.”
Justice in society refers to a condition where a person follows a set of laws because he is a
member of any particular society. The concept of “justice among individual” comes in
existence when a group of people comes together and sets some rules for the small
community for the working conditions among individuals. It refers to a condition where a
subgroup of the society set different norms for dispute settlements and other functions.
The concept of a public sphere and private sphere also follows a similar definition. Under a
public sphere, the state or the sovereign dictates certain terms and conditions and educate the
society about them. It is expected from the society members that they should follow the
norms and opinions prescribed by the government or the centralized body and abide by them
(Habermas, 2015b). The private sphere, on the other hand, can be termed as the subgroups. It
is not necessary that private groups are against the norms set by the public sphere
representatives, however, they can add some sub-sections and additional conditions based
upon the nature and the business of the group ( Habermas, 2015c).
1

During its initial run, Television was a medium of mass entertainment and source of news. It
was owned by the state completely. The state was commanding a censorship over the
medium; however, they were not preventing the radical views or the views that were different
to come in the open air. Television became a public sphere where state and public sphere
representatives confronted with each other for the betterment of the system and the society
(Ingram, 2010). Gradually many societies saw a flood of news channels and other channels,
most of these channels were carrying out the voices of private groups because they were
catering to a particular set of people. Most of the social engineers welcome this new change
in the society because the river of the democracy flows smoothly on the surface of diverse
opinions and representations of the small group.
Television as a medium supported the concept of non-governmental opinion making and
processing of the thought process of a society. The statement made by Habermas clearly says
that public sphere and state never overlaps, however, in the case of the changing role of the
television for the society we find that Television acted as a strong medium to express the
truth that state and public sphere are intertwined under the setup of a democracy. They are
required to work in tandem otherwise the system or the arrangement will collapse (Johnson,
2006).
Live debates on television and other informative software allowed the state to convey their
messages to the last miles. The same debates also allowed them to listen to the woes of
underprivileged members of the society. During the last few decades of the previous century,
TV became a medium of the masses. Although the respectability of the print mediums was
high because of the accuracy and censorship, still TV as a medium left its mark in the
processes connected to democracy. It was an easy medium for the masses. Where they were
able to participate more freely and more frequently, it was a rapid medium, concepts like
Breaking News and editorials also changed the pace of the information traveling for a
2

common man. It became a direct medium of connecting between the state and the masses
(Holub, 2012).
TV enriched the sphere of the non-governmental opinion making; there is no doubt about it,
more importantly, it also developed a communication channel between the public sphere and
the states. It created a bridge among the civil society and the government, it was not
overlapping, they were not forcing anything on each other, instead, they were listening to
each other and trying to find an amicable solution for the problems.
2.
Statement B
The fragmented face of a public sphere and the role of Media
President Abraham Lincoln never won an election prior to the fateful election that made him
the president of the United States. Many experts believe that it happened because his strong
opinions connected to the nationalism were not received well by the masses. It is true up to
some extent because as a human being we don’t want to lose certain liberties and sacrifice a
few things (Babcock, 2005a). Author duo William Babcock and Virginia Whitehouse
captured the same essence of the human nature in their article “Celebrity As a Postmodern
Phenomenon, Ethical Crisis for Democracy, and Media Nightmare.”
The traditional wisdom explains the definition of the public sphere as a sphere where
information can travel freely. Where anyone can get an access to it and finally it is about a
space where many private bodies can come together and form a public body because they are
sharing the same opinions. Postmodern media certainly has the speed and reach to support
such type of private bodies during the stage of the formation. The inception of various social
media communities is a poignant example for that (Babcock, 2005b).
3

In principle it sounds good, however, in the current article the author duo raised a valid point
when they said that post-modern media is not depicting the real truth, rather it is depicting an
ornamented and manufactured truth for their audiences. They raised a simple question when
they said that if movies can create an illusion of truth then why news media should stay
deprived of it. This article also raises another issue, it is connected with the plea made by the
owners of the media houses, and this plea says that media houses are creating programs for
the gratification of the viewers (Babcock, 2005c).
These two statements raise a concern over the ethical values of the postmodern media. In the
absence of a censorship and proper ethics, it has the power to create some chaotic public
domains and private domains. It can further cause a clash between diverse types of private
spheres. A particular group of people promoting hatred with the help of a hate song can be
considered a great example of it. According to the authors, the postmodern media is
deliberately underreporting certain necessary issues and trying to divert or brainwash the
people (Roudakova, 2017).
The presence of phenomena like underreporting clubbed together with the manufactured truth
always have this potential to malign the thought processes of groups and force them to create
a private sphere with radical thought processes or anti-establishment thought processes.
Private individuals are bombarded with information; they are bombarded with fake truths
about the celebrities and others. Democracy anywhere promotes a free will thinking this
freewill thinking comes from a framework of education. The media of the postmodern era is
trying to manipulate this educational framework. We can understand it with the help of an
example, the basics of political science clearly say that social service is the primary
qualification to join the politics (Babcock, 2015d). A person involved in the sphere of the
social service has all the good reasons to represent a particular stratum in political corridors.
The media of the postmodern era is trying to change this notion; Arnold Schwarzenegger won
4

the election and become a politician because he was a film star. Nobody in the media
bothered to talk about his contribution to society in the form of a social servant. He doesn't
hold an educational degree that can help him in developing an understanding of any social
issue (J.A.Ward, 2015).
Media is promoting some celebrity tactics for certain politicians and trying to add a fake
distinction in their personality. They are taking the support of the fake equivalency,
postmodern media is promoting them is the righteous person. Another argument is connected
with the entry of the culture of the consumerism in the postmodern media. It is working for
the consumers, by the consumer goods sellers and it became a consumer good in itself. In
order to maintain their higher ranks, they are now taking the support of unusual elements
instead of rational elements, they are promoting the novelty factor and declining the
traditional values (Babcock, 2005e).
It is true that post-modern media is trying to thrive on the value systems set by the consumer
market where customer satisfaction and the satisfaction of the stakeholders is primary. The
conventional media cannot afford to please consumer forces with the help of the special
interest messages. Traditional ethics of “welfare of the community first and profits later” can
help media houses in surviving good virtues and responsible reporting of the events and facts.
5

6

Bibliography
Babcock, W. (2005a). Celebrity As a Postmodern Phenomenon, Ethical Crisis for
Democracy, and Media Nightmare.”. Journal of Mass Media Ethics,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=027DCC4C1F8E99FDE214
6F2278A6B4F7?doi=10.1.1.392.5550&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Babcock, W. (2005b). Celebrity As a Postmodern Phenomenon, Ethical Crisis for
Democracy, and Media Nightmare.”. Journal of Mass Media Ethics,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=027DCC4C1F8E99FDE2146F2278
A6B4F7?doi=10.1.1.392.5550&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Babcock, W. (2005c). Celebrity As a Postmodern Phenomenon, Ethical Crisis for
Democracy, and Media Nightmare.”. Journal of Mass Media Ethics,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=027DCC4C1F8E99FDE2146F2278
A6B4F7?doi=10.1.1.392.5550&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Babcock, W. (2005d). Celebrity As a Postmodern Phenomenon, Ethical Crisis for
Democracy, and Media Nightmare.”. Journal of Mass Media Ethics,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=027DCC4C1F8E99FDE2146F2278
A6B4F7?doi=10.1.1.392.5550&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Babcock, W. (2005e). Celebrity As a Postmodern Phenomenon, Ethical Crisis for
Democracy, and Media Nightmare.”. Journal of Mass Media Ethics,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=027DCC4C1F8E99FDE2146F2278
A6B4F7?doi=10.1.1.392.5550&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Habermas, J. (2015a). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a.
New Jersey: Wiley.
7

Habermas, J. (2015b). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a.
New Jersey: Wiley.
Habermas, J. (2015c). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a.
New Jersey: Wiley.
Holub, R. C. (2012). Jurgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ingram, D. (2010). Habermas: Introduction and Analysis. Cornell University Press: Cornell.
J.A.Ward, S. (2015). Radical Media Ethics: A Global Approach. New Jersey: Wiley.
Johnson, P. (2006). Habermas: Rescuing the Public Sphere. Abingdon: Routledge.
Roudakova, N. (2017). Losing Pravda: Ethics and The Press in Post-Truth Russia.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8