(Week 1)Public Sphere = Control + Access

The public sphere is dictated by those who have control and access. That is not to say that since the expansion of the internet, and the ability of millions across the globe to self-actualize via the internet, that access has not increased. It is to say however, that the hands that control the public sphere have shifted little since its creation. The public sphere is "where each of us finds out what' happening in our community, and what social, cultural and political issues are facing us." (McKee, 4) Think about that concept for a minute. The public sphere is where we can access these issues, but how do they get to that sphere in the first place? I would argue, much like at the creation of the public sphere, that the power lies in the hands of the same few powerful men. Think to people like Rupert Murdoch, who owns a substantial portion of media and can control what is decimated, to see a list of his assets go here (). While occasionally there might be a small dissenting voice, those who control the power of the media conglomerates which now hold large stakes in the internet as well, it is most often muted out. I would also argue that the disparities between access and power have shifted the public sphere into a 3D arena, which is like peeling back layers of an onion. That is to say the conceptualized public sphere, the one the Habermas idealizes that is still in the hands of the rich white men, is at the center of the onion. The outside layers now represent the access that the average person across the globe has access to. In western liberalized democracies, the average citizen might be a few layers deeper than those who live in developing societies that are on the outer layers of the public sphere. This speaks more to difference of things of importance in the public sphere, like sports and celebrities, versus more traditional option of what ought to be news. The farther into the onion one goes, the more the traditional becomes prevalent, and the new age obsession with niche issues goes away. Each layer of this onion holds value in understanding how access and control dictate the public sphere, more interestingly than that those two things often correlate directly with socioeconomic status. It is the acceptance of that principle, that can and should lead to a greater distribution of control rather than the expansion of niche markets. That dialogue conducted in the center of the public sphere ought to be relevant to almost everyone, instead of those few who are privileged enough to make changes.