Page 199 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-14.qxd 8/16/2005 6:33 PM Page 184

184 Communication Theory & Research
Van Dijk (1994: 9), it is primarily populist political movements such as that of
Ross Perot and short-lived campaign organizations (à la Clinton) that make use
of media and information technology.
The assumption that the individual citizen will make the most of all of the
political and personal opportunities that unlimited information affords, is also
receiving more and more criticism. The most important consequence of the new
media situation may well lie, as is increasingly acknowledged, in the field of
social integration and political participation (Weischenberg et al., 1994). In an
electronic and individualized society, such notions as ‘community’ and ‘debate’
will inevitably be less self-evident. Abramson et al. (1988) point to the function
that the national media have had as an important source of common civic culture,
in which the goals are a common political vocabulary, a common political agenda
and the formation of public opinion. Indeed, one of the paradoxes of the new
technology is that, in principle, it greatly increases the opportunities for getting
together, but in practice decreases the chances of that happening accordingly.
At best, once stable communities evaporate into ‘shared moments’ (Tracey,
1993: 14–16).
The transformation from traditional, physical community to a modern,
abstract public sphere (Öffentlichkeit) renders the organization of social debate
increasingly difficult. The concept of ‘debate’ itself suggests still a unity of time,
place and action that is, in the modern media reality, ‘stretched out’ to a process
of – in relation to time and place – scattered contributions to the discussion.
Nevertheless, terms such as ‘conversation’ (Hallin, 1992: 10) or ‘debate’ remain
the dominant metaphors in relation to the public sphere, a position that the
‘market’ metaphor holds in the economic sector.
Despite the reduced chance of getting together, modern society shows an
increasing need for common orientation and debate. Absolute norms and values,
derived from conviction or religion, are less and less functional. More and more,
we live according to relative guidelines, permanently redetermined and adapted
in mutual debate. Knapen (1994: 362) has concluded correctly: ‘Whoever is
unable or unwilling to draw socio-political guidance from the Bible, from Allah
or the Pope, will have to get it from mutual discourse.’

New journalistic practices

Within this framework, individualization of communication can be seen as a
threat to social dialogue. Habermas (1992: 438) emphasizes the importance of a
discursive public sphere that is more than a mere statistical majority. The social
basis for an active political Öffentlichkeit in this sense is ‘civil society’ (Dekker,
1994). This concept has become increasingly popular in social science over the
past years. It stands for the organizations, societies and movements that, at an
intermediate level, determine political democracy and social cohesion in a given
society. It presupposes an open and pluralistic field of voluntary organizations
and informal groups, as an alternative to relationships between people that are
governed by market forces or a hierarchical, state-dominated model of opinion