The Role of the Public Sphere The “public sphere” came from the German word, Öffentlichkeit, translated as “the public”, or the aggregates of speakers and listeners and “the publicness”, or the “state of being publicly visible and subject to scrutiny by the public” (Wessler & Freudenthaler, 2011). The concept of the public sphere has been applied to political and cultural communication that can be both a descriptive and normative connotation (para 1). According Habermas,the most prominent theorist of the public sphere, it is a “virtual or imaginary community which does not necessarily exist in any identifiable space”. But, in its ideal form, it is "made up of private people gathered together as a public and articulating the needs of society …show more content…
Furthermore, he asserts that public debate can be roused by “opinion-forming associations” such as social organizations, churches, groups of grassroots movements, and even groups of concerned citizens to counter the message of the authority (Further reflections on the public sphere, 1992). However, for a public sphere to generate sound opinions, the participants should be able to think critically and are skilled in articulating their stand of the issue on hand. Going back to Duterte’s drug war, who takes part in the public sphere? And, what have they done to challenge Duterte’s dogma on his war against illegal …show more content…
Media outlets, in particular, through its relentless reporting on the drug war, played the roles as “the vehicles for competitive spectacles and the source of news” (Rutherford, 2000, p. 274). To elucidate, the mandate of these media outlets is to provide the public with updates on the issues of greater concerns and in the process, help them make sound decisions that would benefit most of the society. However, their reports may have been contaminated by their desire for publicity, embedded in their pursuit of profit and/or audience domination. Nevertheless, media is still the most influential actor in influencing public opinion. In fact, their pervasiveness became the nagging voice that constantly reminded the government of their responsibilities to the
In one portion of the documentary, we see an excerpt from one of President Richard Nixon’s speeches on how he feels about America’s ongoing battle with drug abuse. In the speech, he declared that this so called “war” with drug addiction needed to be handled while proclaiming that drug abuse was “America’s public enemy number one”. Years later, the war on drugs has only become even more of a controversial issue in the United States with the consequences spanning and reaching particular groups and hinting that they are more so involved than others.
Kids start being introduced to drugs at a very young age because the first interaction with them is being told not to do any of them. Most kids have no idea what drugs are until this program is introduced in elementary schools telling kids not to do drugs. In “There’s No Justice in the War on Drugs”, Milton Friedman talks about the injustice of drugs and the harsh reality of being addicted to drugs, and the causes or side effects that come along with them. The author clearly argues the “war on drugs” and uses analysis and data to prove his argument. The author agrees that the use of government to keep kids away from drugs should be enforced, but the use of government to keep adults away from drugs, should not be enforced. The author has a clear side of his argument and the audience can clearly see that. He argues against the “war on drugs” claim that President Richard M. Nixon made twenty-five years ago, he adds ethos, logos, and pathos to defend his argument, and uses a toulmin
Over the course of the semester, we have learned about the informal process of the government. In our first paper of the semester, we analyzed how the news media coverage’s role of acting as the fourth branch of the government and its effectiveness in educating the public. The second paper involved the informal workings and strategies of an interest group, but also focused on an interest group’s structure and membership. Finally, we read several political novels to see their role and political impact on the mass public.
398).It is also stated that news divisions reduced their costs, and raised the entertainment factor of the broadcasts put on air. (p. 400). Secondly, the media determines its sources for stories by putting the best journalists on the case and assign them to areas where news worthy stories just emanates. (p.400). Third, the media decides how to present the news by taking the most controversial or relevant events and compressing them into 30 second sound-bites. (p.402). finally, the authors also explain how the media affects the general public. The authors’ state “The effect of one news story on public opinion may be trivial but the cumulative effect of dozens of news stories may be important. This shows a direct correlation between public opinions and what the media may find “relevant”. (Edwards, Wattenberg, Lineberry, 2015, p.
In 1971 on June 17, President Richard Nixon delivered a special message to the Congress on drug abuse prevention and control. During the presentation, Nixon made it clear that the United States was at war with this idea of drug abuse. What baffled Americans then, and still baffles Americans today, is that we are at war with our own nation with drugs; it is not some foreign affair like the media tends to focus on with Mexico. Nixon stated that at the time of his speech, what was implemented to control drug abuse was not working…“The problem has assumed the dimensions of a national emergency. I intend to take every step necessary to deal with this emergency, including asking the Congress for an amendment to my 1972 budget to provide an additional $155 million to carry out these steps. This will provide a total of $371 million for programs to control drug abuse in America.”(Wolleey and Peters) Since the publicizing of the term “War on Drugs” in 1971, it has been used by many political candidates in elections over the years. In the movie, it was stated, “ every war begins with propaganda …[and] the war on drugs has never been actually on drugs… [Additionally] drug laws are shaped less by scientific facts, but more by political [reasoning].” (Jarecki) The movie, The House I Live In, directly relates to certain themes and terminology that were discussed in Martin and Nakayama’s Intercultural Communication in Contexts book, that have been used in class. Through the analyzing and comparing of The House I Live In and Intercultural Communication in Contexts an individual can begin to localize the ideals behind this everlasting war on drugs; some ideals focus on terms from the text like ethnocentrism, diversity training, and culture while ...
Indeed, as we also indicated above, according to Dewey the problem of publicity in modern society and the modern state lies less in need of bridging the gap between the one and the many as in showing the impractical effects of thinking according to the conceptual scheme of a gap. It is currently anathema, in other words, to think sacrificially of publicity, to think that a lively public arena can exist only when certain individual claims are sacrificed or, conversely, that individuality will thrive only at the expense of the greater public good.
PRESTON, Keith (2001). “The Political Economy of the War on Drugs”, Free Republic,. Online at: < http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b1106274d1b.htm>, March 30th, 2004.
As this paper had explored, US drug prohibition, from its inception, followed by the “war on drugs”, have failed. The repressive strategies found within the drug wars not only are not able to handle the inherently complex nature of the international drug trade, but it, as history has shown, has exasperated the problem. At the national level, the “war on drugs” effects was just as ineffective and detrimental to society with heavy mandatory minimum prison sentences and the world's highest imprisonment rate. In this regards, the drug war was a failure; however, in some other respect, it is a success. It is a success in that drug laws disproportionately affected minorities, especially the black community; moreover, it exclusively targets the lower rungs of society. As this paper has examined, the “war on drugs” is a proxy genocide of the lower class.
Bennett, William J. “Drug Policy and the Intellectuals.” Drug Policy 1989-90, A Guide. Ed. Arnold S Trebach and Kevin B. Zeese. Rpt. In Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1996. 358-64.
The drug war continues to be an ongoing issue in the US – and, to some extent, around the world. The contentious policy, since its inception, has been meticulously documented by historians and filmmakers alike. This paper will explore the failure of “War on Drugs” in the US by engaging with textual scholarly secondary sources to which will be supplemented by a relevant documentary, The House We Live In by Jarecki. It is the war on drugs, and not the drugs themselves, that are harming the nation. As this paper will show, the drug war is a failure on several accounts. Drug prohibition, and the later variation, “war on drugs”, attempt to internationally suppress the inherently complex global drug trade through simplistic means only exasperated the situation. Furthermore, at a national level, the “war on drugs” helped with the criminalization of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens and legitimization of public policies that are insidious in disproportionate consequences to both race, and, ultimately, class; however, it is precisely these factors, as Jarecki argues in his film, that make the drug war successful in other respects.
Wolf, M. (2011, June 4). We should declare an end to our disastrous war on drugs. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/docview/870200965?accountid=14473
First, the role of the media is to represent the public and intervene between the public and the government. The media is a mirror, which re...
The public sphere has been falsely represented as a virtual place where one can share and debate opinions; ...
Uscinski, J. E. (2009). When Does the Public's Issue Agenda Affect the Media's Issue Agenda (and Vice-Versa)? Developing a Framework for Media-Public Influence. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 90(4), 796-815. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00663.x
This essay will show, unfortunately, that our democracy is not as healthy as it potentially could be because of television and print’s inadequate coverage of politics and the public’s resultant frustration and lack of knowledge. The reason this occurs is not because the media is trying to restrict our role in the government, but because it has other agendas to consider, such as producing maximum profits. Also, the media can take its obligatory role, often referred to as the “fourth estate,” to an extreme. John McManus, a former newspaper reporter and current professor at Santa Clara University researching the social responsibility of news media, specifically uses this term in his book Market-Driven Journalism: Let the Citizen Beware? to explain the media’s ideal role as the fourth branch of the government. The media is meant to participate in our system of checks and balances and check the government to ensure that it does not withhold too much power from the people. However, this can pose a problem if the media tries too hard to keep a check on the government and ends up transcending its role as the fourth estate and becoming cynical of the government. These market-driven characteristics and overzealous tendencies are conveyed in the media’s choice and presentation of language.