Post-war period and entrepreneurial opportunities

At the core of this study are a number of central themes which are: how citizens participate in politics and the role that the news media and political satire play in educating citizens and facilitating political participation. The theorist Jurgen

Habermas has contributed extensively to discussions on citizenship and the media in particular. According to Wahl-Jorgensen (2007: 11) and Dahlgren (1995: 7, 8), Habermas is influential in the fields of journalism and mass communication because his account demonstrates the centrality of the news media in democratic societies. His theory is also significant to the study of political satire shows like TDS because it is a media text that also contributes to discussions on political participation (See Baym 2010: 120, Jones 2010: 210, Baum 2005, Young & Tisinger 2006 128). Habermas (1964: 49) conceptualises the public sphere as:

The realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all

citizens. A portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body….Citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion, with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and freedom to express and publish their opinions about matters of general interest.

Central to Habermas’ definition of the public sphere is its exclusivity to the general public so that it was not influenced or controlled by private or state individuals.

Today, all forms of news media, from traditional outlets like newspapers and TV, to the internet, are considered “the media of the public sphere” (Habermas 1964: 49).

The early venues of the bourgeois public sphere were the European coffee houses and salons from the 18^th century onwards, as well as news pamphlets that facilitated discussions among people from different locales (Habermas 1989: 31). As time progressed, the bourgeois public sphere laid claim to the critical or “intellectual newspapers” (Habermas 1964: 52) which became central in distributing critical and moralistic debates on public authority. Moreover it created a platform for public discussion where citizens would be actively involved in the political process by voicing the needs of the bourgeois society to the state through the medium of the newspaper. While it was not the only institution of the public sphere, the press did make a positive contribution to bourgeois society. By the 1830’s however the press’

critical approach became overshadowed by the emergence of mass consumer culture and the infiltration of private and commercial interests, which spelled a dubious future for Habermas’ concept (Habermas 1989: 181). These commercial factors saw the critical press transform into a commercialised model where citizens were no longer treated as active citizens, but consumers (Dahlgren & Sparks 1997: 4, Street 2001:

255). During this time news reporting of the political elite also changed; instead of

holding them accountable for their actions, political leaders were critiqued on their ability to become compelling leaders (Habermas 1964: 53, Wahl-Jorgensen 2007: 12).

Coverage then was focused on their personality rather than their political decision making, which is a style of media coverage that continues to be practiced today (Ibid).

Prior to the infiltration of private and commercial factors, the public sphere could be read as a positive contributor to the formation of democracy due to its accessibility for citizen participation. Yet, like many theoretical models of democracy discussed in this chapter, Habermas’ notion of the public sphere was also rife with limitations and contradictions particularly around accessibility. Scholars (See Fraser 1990: 60, 2008:

61, Dahlgren 1997: 4) however, have highlighted that admission to the bourgeois public sphere was rooted in exclusion towards specific gender and class formations.

This point indicates one of the many issues associated with democratic theory as Habermas’ model also cannot speak of complete public access and opinion, because it was predominantly affluent, educated males who had access to discussion in the public sphere.

By failing to acknowledge the role and opinions of the lower classes and alternative social groups, Habermas has not considered the possibility of the formation of different public spheres. The likelihood of alternative venues of public deliberation during the bourgeois era is certainly valid. Fraser (1990: 61) concedes that, despite their lack of access to the dominant public sphere, women of various classes and ethnicities constructed routes to public and political life. This process of exclusion was perhaps linked to the level of knowledge that members of the bourgeois society possessed. Many of its inhabitants were literate, educated males - which is why they could be counted on to participate fully and actively in public deliberation of politics.

This is a point raised by Dahlgren (2009: 76), who asserts that individuals cannot perform successfully as citizens with an absence of knowledge. While this argument is certainly valid, it has an oppressive undertone which suggests that only the

educated have the ability to make valid political arguments. In contrast, uneducated individuals were unable to give a legitimate contribution to the public sphere, despite the part they play in the formation of society. This is problematic, particularly when considering the work of Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto. Their work presents a theoretical framework of the problems associated with industrial capitalism

such as class struggle. In this framework they argue that the bourgeois class were unfit to rule because they exploited the people that worked for them (McLellan 1992:

10, 15). Thus to assume that the public sphere was an egalitarian arena where issues of public concern could be raised is dubious, because it is improbable that the needs of the proletariat would be of chief concern to the bourgeois class.

What can be deduced from Habermas’ notion of the public sphere is that it was essentially hegemonic, as its membership and issues of discussion were restricted and set by the affluent and educated class. A similar framework currently operates in the contemporary media where the opinions of the powerful are favoured over ordinary citizens (See Hall et al 1977: 58). While, the advent of social media has resulted in the news media becoming less reliant on official sources like the police (See Hermide et al 2014: 479), their opinions are still integral to defining and offering balance to news stories (See Schulenberg & Chenier 2014, Hickerson et al 2011). Jon Stewart was concerned about the dominance of elite sources in the news in his invitation to the ‘Rally to Restore Sanity’; where he commented that 15-20% of the country [namely politicians and media conglomerates] control the national dialogue. Yet the opinions of 70-80% of the population are virtually ignored (Stewart 2010a) in the mediated public sphere. For this study, the rally becomes an instrument of the public sphere - communicating the general public’s concerns to the nation’s media and political institutions.

Another precondition of the public sphere was the conduct of rational discussion to enable reasonable consensus. By over-emphasising the importance of rationality, Habermas ignores emotive and passionate forms of participation, action or rhetoric (See Dahlgren 2009: 83, Wahl-Jorgensen 2007: 12, Washbourne 2010: 13). The value Habermas awards to rational discussion might be short-sighted, particularly in relation to deliberative politics, as Marcus (2002: 47) asserts that because politics is a

passionate subject matter, emotions are unlikely to exist outside of the reasoning process. For most people, politics is not a subject matter that connotes excitement and stimulation. This is witnessed by the decreasing levels of civic engagement in the UK and America in recent times. Nevertheless, scholars such as Dahlgren (2009: 85), Goodwin et al (2001) and Hall (2005: 215) acknowledge that, in contrast to

Habermas’s notion that political deliberation serves an abstract notion of the common

good, passionate input is a vital ingredient to civic engagement. Without it, people tend to lack the energy and motivation to become politically active. Marcus (2002:

141) and Bechara et al (1995, 1997) support this assertion, arguing that when presented with a political issue, the rational citizen who acts without emotion is unlikely to react. This is because they do not invest in learning what significance the situation may hold. In contrast, the cooperative engagement of emotion brings, according to Marcus: (2002: 241):

Introspection, critical and explicit consideration, weighing of the benefits and costs of alternative courses of action, and

application of general principles such as impartiality, equality, and reciprocity – can be engaged to help determine the proper course of action. Without the engagement of emotion, reason is likely to be left adrift and uncalled.

There is considerable research therefore that asserts how emotion is integral to encouraging citizen participation and investment in political and social issues. This assertion has certainly gained approval in the field of activism research. Numerous scholars (See Flam and King 2005, Gamson 1992, Eyerman 2005) have argued that emotions such as passion and anger are central to the success of social movements, because they help garner media attention and mobilize citizen support. A social movement’s success is also judged on the group’s ability to enact social change.

Gamson (1992: 32) yet again highlights the importance of emotion to this process, as determination to create political and social changes is far easier to achieve when those advocating change are passionate and fully committed to that cause. The subject of emotion is certainly relevant to this study of the ‘Rally to Restore Sanity’ because the event was attempting to criticise the highly emotive approaches found in

contemporary political communication. Furthermore, Jon Stewart only wanted rational Americans to attend the rally because they were the antithesis of the overly emotional individuals found in political news. The study of emotion then is central to understanding the effectiveness of the rally because its absence may challenge the work of Gamson or demonstrate its importance in mobilising citizens and creating political change.

Habermas believes that rational discourse does have its place in the public sphere, particularly in the news media - yet certain platforms like television are actually hindering its practice and consequently the democratic process (Slevin 2000: 77).

Habermas (1989: 170) comments that politically relevant news is read and reported on less and less because of an editorial predisposition towards entertainment based news.

Thus rather than acting as the intermediary between the public and the state, the relationship between the media and its readership is defined more in terms of

titillating entertainment news which offers a quick indulgence, rather than stimulating the public’s use of reason to instigate reasoned debate (Habermas 1989: 170). Slevin (2000: 78) concurs, adding that the contemporary media system is a highly

commercialised model that produces emotive and sensationalised news which is

“dumbing-down” news content. As media is a modern institution of the public sphere, Habermas’ questioning of television’s ability to inform and facilitate rational discussion may be well founded. Indeed, scholars such as McChesney (2004) and Lloyd (2004: 15) argue that in contemporary society the media attempt to attract audiences through emotive and sensationalised stories. Sensationalist and emotive stories however should not be disregarded, particularly in light of Marcus’ (2002) argument that emotion encourages political participation. Wahl-Jorgensen (2012: 132) and Peters (2011) raise a similar viewpoint, adding that emotion driven stories can call attention to larger social problems by eliciting emotional reactions and thereby securing their involvement.