SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences / 2026 / Sayı: 62

New Media and the Public Sphere: Perspectives of Communication Academics

Yeni Medya ve Kamusal Alan: İletişim Akademisyenlerinin Perspektifi

Onur Dursun(ÇUKUROVA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İLETİŞİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-9268-0936
Filiz Yıldız(ÇUKUROVA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1206-4314
Pages
1–32
Publication Date
2022-07-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

After the interview, the academicians’ responses to the questions are grouped under four titles: “Conceptualization of new/social media as a public sphere,” “inclination toward communication,” “technical, political, and commercial obstacles in accessing public sphere,” and “the essence and quality of knowledge in new publicity.” This study concludes that although new media has significant potential as a public sphere, it does not allow interactive communication in its current form; its commercial and technical structure affects publicity negatively; the pressures of control and surveillance cause concerns in the public sphere; and the information processes have a quality problem.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Nowadays, new media as a public sphere is at the center of an individuals’ communication and has become a highly disputed territory.
📊
Key Findings & Data:By employing the judgment sampling technique, 18 academicians from 15 different universities are selected.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:After the interview, the academicians’ responses to the questions are grouped under four titles: “Conceptualization of new/social media as a public sphere,” “inclination toward communication,” “technical, political, and commercial obstacles in accessing public sphere,” and “the essence and quality of knowledge in new publicity.” This study concludes that although new media has significant potential as a public sphere, it does not allow interactive communication in its current form; its commercial and technical structure affects publicity negatively; the pressures of control and surveillance cause concerns in the public sphere; and the information processes have a quality problem.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kamusal alan · kamusal alan olarak yeni medya · Habermasçı kamusal alan

Abstract

Nowadays, new media as a public sphere is at the center of an individuals’ communication and has become a highly disputed territory. Contrary to Habermas’ public sphere, which is egalitarian, inclusive, non-hierarchical, and open-centered, new social media is a medium that is technologybased, virtual, anonymous, nonpublic, and considerably steered by political and economic powers. However, despite its deficiencies and precarious issues related to limits and procedures, new media enables its users to react to, share opinions on, and offer solutions on social subjects. Currently, it is debated whether it is a public sphere or not. Studies that question the eligibility of new media as a public sphere emphasize its potential even if they believe that it does not have the ideal public sphere criteria yet. Through Habermas’ public sphere and its related concepts, along with the views of communication academicians, this study attempts to explain the public sphere features of new media and its inclination toward communicative actions. By employing the judgment sampling technique, 18 academicians from 15 different universities are selected. The selected academicians have all conducted research on new media and Habermas. After the interview, the academicians’ responses to the questions are grouped under four titles: “Conceptualization of new/social media as a public sphere,” “inclination toward communication,” “technical, political, and commercial obstacles in accessing public sphere,” and “the essence and quality of knowledge in new publicity.” This study concludes that although new media has significant potential as a public sphere, it does not allow interactive communication in its current form; its commercial and technical structure affects publicity negatively; the pressures of control and surveillance cause concerns in the public sphere; and the information processes have a quality problem.

Özet

Günümüzde bireylerin iletişim eylemlerinin merkezinde yer alan yeni/sosyal medyanın kamusal alan olduğu tartışmalı bir konudur. Habermas’ın kamusal alan düşüncesi eşitlikçi, kapsayıcı, hiyerarşik olmayan ve aleniyet temelli yapısına karşın yeni/sosyal medya, teknoloji dolayımlı, sanal, anonim, aleniyetten uzak ve daha önemlisi siyasi ve iktisadi güçlerin yön verdiği bir mecradır. Yeni medyayı veya yeni medyanın kamusal alan potansiyelini sorgulayan çalışmalar, yeni medyanın ideal kamusal alan ölçütlerine ulaşamamış olsa da bir potansiyel barındırdığını vurgulamaktadır. Bu çalışmada yeni medyanın kamusal alan niteliği Habermas’ın kamusal alan ve ilişkili kavramlarıyla açıklanmaya ve iletişim akademisyenlerinin görüşleriyle birleştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu bağlamda Türkiye’nin farklı üniversitelerinden, büyük ölçüde yeni medyayı ve Habermas’ı bilimsel çalışma alanı olarak belirlemiş iletişim akademisyenlerinin görüşlerine başvurulmuştur. Yargısal örnekleme tekniğiyle 15 farklı üniversiteden 18 iletişim akademisyeniyle görüşülmüştür. Görüşmelerin tamamlanmasının ardından; ‘kamusal alan olarak yeni medyayı kavramsallaştırma’, ‘yeni medyanın iletişimsel eyleme yatkınlığı’, ‘kamusal alana erişimde politik, ticari ve teknik engeller’, ‘yeni kamusallıkta bilginin niteli(ksiz)liği’ olmak üzere 4 analiz başlığı altında, konu ele alınmıştır. Araştırmada, yeni medyanın kamusal alan olarak önemli bir potansiyele sahip olmakla birlikte, mevcut haliyle, etkileşimsel bir iletişime izin vermediği, ticari ve teknik yapısının kamusallığı olumsuz etkilediği, denetim ve gözetim baskılarının kamusal alanda kaygılar yarattığı ve bilginin nitelik olarak sorun barındırdığı sonuçlarına ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dursun, O., Yıldız, F. (2022). New Media and the Public Sphere: Perspectives of Communication Academics. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, Sayı: 62, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (76)

  1. Arendt, H. (2008). İnsanlık Durumu. (B.S. Şener, Trans.) İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  2. Arendt, H. (2014). Geçmişle Gelecek Arasında. (B.S. Şener and O.E. Kara, Trans.) İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  3. Babacan, M. E. (2015). Yeni medya bağlamında toplumsal hareketler ve yeni insanın karakter analizi. Folklor/ Edebiyat, 21 (83), 295-307. google scholar
  4. Baker, K. M. (1992). “Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth-Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas”. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp.181-211). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. google scholar
  5. Bauman, Z.& Lyon, D. (2013). Akışkan Gözetim. (E. Yılmaz, Trans.) Ayrıntı Yayınları. google scholar
  6. Benhabib, S. (1992). Models of Public Space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen Habermas. In C. google scholar Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp.73-98). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. google scholar
  7. Benhabib, S. (1997). The embattled public sphere: Hannah Arendt, Juergen Habermas and beyond. Theoria, 44(90), 1-24. google scholar
  8. Bennett, W.L., Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 332(2), 122-139. google scholar
  9. Benrazek, Y. (2021). The Role of Social Media as a Public Sphere in the Algerian Protests: An Analytical Study. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 1-21. google scholar
  10. Binark, M., Arun, Ö., Özsoy, D., Kandemir, B. & Şahinkaya, G.(2020). Covid-19 Sürecinde Yaşlıların Enformasyon Arayışı ve Enformasyon Değerlendirmesi. Yaşlanma Çalışmaları Derneği Yayınları. google scholar
  11. Bruns, A.& Highfield, T. (2015). Is Habermas on Twitter?: Social media and the public sphere. A.Bruns, G. Enli, E. Skogerbo, A. O. Larsson & C. Christensen (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics (pp.56-73). Routledge Press. google scholar
  12. Buchstein, H. (1997). Bytes that Bite: The Internet and Deliberative Democracy. Constellations, 4 (2), 248-263. google scholar
  13. Castells, M. (2005). Enformasyon Çağı: Ekonomi, Toplum ve Kültür/ Ağ Toplumunun Yükselişi. (E. Kılıç, Trans.) İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları. google scholar
  14. Castells, M. (2013). İsyan ve Umut Ağları: İnternet Çağında Toplumsal Hareketler. (E.Kılıç, Trans.) Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. google scholar
  15. Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7 (1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue1/dahlbergold.html. google scholar
  16. Dahlberg, L. (2007). The Internet and discursive exclusion: From deliberative to agonistic public sphere theory. L. google scholar
  17. Dahlberg & E. Siapera (Eds.). Radical democracy and the Internet: Interrogating theory and practice (pp. 128147). Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
  18. Dahlberg, L. (2018). Visibility and The Public Sphere: A Normative Conceptualisation. Javnost-The Public, 25 (1-2), 35-42. google scholar
  19. Dahlgren, P. (2001). Media and the transformation of democracy. B. Axford & R. Huggins (Eds), New Media and Politics (pp.64-88). Sage Publication. google scholar
  20. Dean, J. (2003). Why the Net is not a Public Sphere. Constellations, 10(1), 95-112. google scholar
  21. Dursun, O. (2018). Yaratıcı Endüstrilerin Aşkınsal Alanda Görünümü: Yaratıcı Endüstrilerin Yaşam Dünyasının Sömürgeleştirilmesine Etkisi. Moment Dergi, 5 (2),144-173. google scholar
  22. Dursun, O. (2021). Neo’ Kamusallığın ‘Liberal’ Açmazları. Ç. Y. Ünlü & İ. Özdemir (Eds.), Siyasal İletişim: Politik Olanı Düşünmek ve Araştırmak (pp. 127-163). Siyasal Kitabevi. google scholar
  23. Emirbayer, M. & Mimi S. (1998). Publics in history. Theory and Society, 27 (6), 727-779. google scholar
  24. Fenton, N & Downey, J. (2003). New Media, Counter Publicity and the Public Sphere. New Media & Society, 5(2), 185-202. ISSN 14614448 [Article] google scholar
  25. Fraser, N. (2007). Transnational public sphere: Transnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a post-Westphalian world. Theory, culture & society, 24(4), 7-30. google scholar
  26. Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp.109-142), Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. google scholar
  27. Fuchs, C. (2009). The Role of Income Inequality in a Multivariate Cross-National Analysis of the Digital. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 41-58. google scholar
  28. Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media and the public sphere. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 12(1), 57-101. google scholar
  29. Fuchs, C. (2018). Sosyal Medya: Eleştirel Bir Giriş. (D. Saraçoğlu & İ. Kalaycı, Trans.) Nota Bene Yayınları. google scholar
  30. Garnham, N. (1992). The media and the public sphere. C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp.359-376), MIT Press. google scholar
  31. Habermas, J. (2001). İletişimsel Eylem Kuramı. (M. Tüzel, Trans.) Kabalcı Yayınları. google scholar
  32. Habermas, J. (2003). Kamusallığın Yapısal Dönüşümü (8th ed.). (T. Bora & M. Sancar, Trans.) İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  33. Habermas, J. (2004). Kamusal Alan. (M. Özbek, Trans), M. Özbek (Ed.), Kamusal Alan (pp.95-102). Hil Yayınları. google scholar
  34. Habermas, J. (2009). Doğalcılık ve Din Arasında: Felsefi Denemeler. (A. Nalbant, Trans.) Yapı Kredi Yayınları. google scholar
  35. Habermas, J. (2010). Öteki Olmak, Ötekiyle Yaşamak (4th ed.). (İ. Aka, Trans). Yapı Kredi Yayınları. google scholar
  36. Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Further Reflections on the Public Sphere. C. J. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, (pp. 421-461). MIT Press. google scholar
  37. Hartley, J. (1992). The Politics of Pictures: The Creation of the Public in the Age of Popular Media. New York: Routledge Press. google scholar
  38. Hohendahl, P. U. (2016). The Institution of Criticism. Cornell University Press. google scholar
  39. Holmes, D. (2005). Introduction-a second media age?. In D. Holmes (ed.), Communication theory: Media, technology, society (pp. 1-19). SAGE Publications Ltd. google scholar
  40. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press. google scholar
  41. Kavaklı, N. (2013). Kamusal Alan Olarak İnternet ve Geleneksel Medyanın Karşılaştırılması: Arama Motorları Örneğinde Kamusal Alanın Oluşumu (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi) Ankara Üniversitesi. https://tez.yok.gov. tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp. google scholar
  42. Kızılkaya, S. (2019). Yeni Medya Eşitsizlikleri Arttırarak Sürdürüyor. VoA. https://www.amerikaninsesi.com/a/yeni-medya-e%C5%9Fitsizlikleri-art%C4%B1rarak-s%C3%BCrd%C3%BCr%C3%BCyor-/5111931.html. google scholar
  43. 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. google scholar
  44. Kuttan, A. & Laurance P. (2003). From Digital Divide to Digital Opportunity. Scarecrow Press. google scholar
  45. Langley, P. & Leyshon, A. (2017). Platform capitalism: The intermediation and capitalisation of digital economic circulation. Finance and Society. 3(1), 11-31. google scholar
  46. Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526. google scholar
  47. Mutlu, E. (2004). İletişim Sözlüğü. Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları. google scholar
  48. Narin, B.(2019). TikTok Paradoksu: Dijital Eşitsizlik İnternete Erişim Meselesi mi?. Journo, https://journo.com.tr/ dijital-esitsizlik-erisim. google scholar
  49. Narin, B. (2021). Kalkınma Teorisi Adlı Peri Masalından Dijital Eşitsizlikler. Doğu Batı Dergisi, 97, 291-304. google scholar
  50. O’Hara, K.& Stevens, D. (2015). Echo Chambers and Online Radicalism: Assessing the Internet’s Complicity in Violent Extremism. Policy & Internet, 7(4), 401-422. google scholar
  51. Özbek, M. (2004). Giriş: Kamusal Alanın Sınırları. M. Özbek ( Ed.), Kamusal Alan (pp. 19-89). Hil Yayınları google scholar
  52. Palczewski, C. H. (2001). Cyber-movements, new social movements, and counter publics. R. Asen & D. Brouwer (Eds.), Counterpublics and the State (pp.161-186). State University of New York. google scholar
  53. Palermos, S. O. (2018). Epistemic Presentism. Philosophical Psychology 31 (3), 458-478. google scholar
  54. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere. New Media &Society, 4(1), 9-27. Retrieved from https://zizi.people.uic.edu/Site/Research_files/VirtualSphere.pdf google scholar
  55. Poor, N. (2005). Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 10(2), JCMC1028. google scholar
  56. Posetti, J. (2018). News Industry Transformation: Digital Technology, Social Platforms And The Spread of Misinformation And Disinformation. C. Ireton & J. Posetti (Eds), Journalism,’fake news’& disinformation / Handbook for journalism education and training ( pp.57-72). UNESCO. google scholar
  57. Poster, M. (1995). The second media age. Polity Press. google scholar
  58. Poster, M. (1997). Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere. D. Porter (Ed.), Internet Culture (pp. 201-218). Routledge. google scholar
  59. Postone, M. (1992). Political Theory and Historical Analysis. C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp.164-180). MIT Press. google scholar
  60. Rutherford, P. (2000). Endless propaganda: The advertising of public goods. University of Toronto Press. google scholar
  61. Schudson, M. (1992). Was There Ever a Public Sphere? If So, When? Reflections on the American Case. C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the PublicSphere (pp.143-163). MIT Press. google scholar
  62. Selwyn, N. (2002). Defining the Digital Divide: Developing a Theoretical Understanding of Inequalities in the Information Age. Cardiff University. google scholar
  63. Soules, M. (2007). Jurgen Habermas and the public sphere, Media Studies. Retrieved from http://www.mediastudies.ca/articles/habermas.htm google scholar
  64. Squires, C. R. (2002). Rethinking the black public sphere: An alternative vocabulary for multiple public spheres. Communication Theory, 12 (4), 446-468. google scholar
  65. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform Capitalism. Polity Press. google scholar
  66. Steinhoff, U. (2009). The Philosophy of Jürgen Habermas: A Critical Introduction. Oxford University Press. google scholar
  67. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology; how to choose a sampling technique for research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, (5)2, 15-27. google scholar
  68. Timisi, N. (2003). Yeni İletişim Teknolojileri ve Demokrasi. Dost Yayınları. google scholar
  69. van Dijk, J. &Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The information Society, 19(4), 315-326. google scholar
  70. van Dijk, J. (2016). Ağ Toplumu. (Ö. Sakin, Trans.) Kafka Yayınevi. google scholar
  71. We are Social. (2020). https://wearesocial.com/digital-2020. google scholar
  72. Yıldız, F. & Dursun, O. (2020). Kamu Adaletinin Büyük Veri Aracılığı ile İnşası: Şule Çet Davası Üzerine Bir Twitter Analizi. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 58, 291-328. google scholar
  73. YMK4. (2019). Yeni Medya Çalışmaları IV. Ulusal Kongre Genel Değerlendirme ve Sonuç Bildirgesi. http://yenimedya.org.tr/content/kongre-sonu%C3%A7-bildirgesi. google scholar
  74. Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK). (2022). https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ google scholar
  75. Yükselbaba, Ü. (2008). Kamusal Alan Modelleri ve Bu Modellerin Bağlamları. Journal of Istanbul University Law Faculty, 66(2), 227-271. google scholar
  76. Narin, B.(2019). TikTok Paradoksu: Dijital Eşitsizlik İnternete Erişim Meselesi mi?. Journo, https://journo.com.tr/ dijital-esitsizlik-erisim. google scholar