In his book "History and Criticism of Public Opinion" (1962), Habermas presents an exhaustive and highly suggestive historical investigation of the genesis of the "public sphere" in European bourgeois society in the 19th century and its subsequent evolution and deformation in the century under the incorporation of the mass media. The initial sphere of debate and discussion is transformed and restructured for purely demonstrative and manipulative purposes, to the point that the absence of genuine citizen participation becomes not only desirable for those who exercise political power but even acceptable for the citizens themselves.
In the century, the figure of the mass media was incorporated into the notions of public space and this enhanced the interpretation of the public as that which has visibility. Public space can be said to be mediatized, in the sense that it is functionally and normatively inseparable from the role of the media. In the modern capitalist public space, ordinary citizens cannot become direct interlocutors. In this system, political institutions and the media become relevant. The media are the main agent of production of public reality. But the organization and typical forms of mass communication limit access and discourage active participation and dialogue. The media themselves are often controlled by state power and by commercial interests of the media themselves. In recent years, there is talk of a process of privatization of public space. This means that the possibilities of communication through traditional media are reduced, because they operate under concessions and commercial logic, in addition to being distributed in few hands, even in corporations that operate different platforms on the Internet. One of the main risks of concentration is the centralization in the production of content, which implies that a few visions of the world are dominant in media narratives, while many other visions are excluded. Even some media outlets do not carry out public discussion functions, they simply broadcast entertainment.[2].
Habermas also gives prominence to everyday life, which refers to discursive formation and a space of public opinion, where the public sphere fulfills the function of protecting the autonomy of everyday life in the face of systemic imperatives, in addition to having a “symbolic function” of both “reproduction of daily life” and “social integration.” Everyday life is the background for linguistic communication in addition to being the normative horizon, in which communicative agents move. As the context of linguistic communication, everyday life allows the conditions of possibility of understanding. Everyday life refers to the context of social interaction, the reproduction of social norms, as well as the margin that exists to question them and eventually modify them. Likewise, it is the social space of cultural transmission, social integration and socialization. It is also the sphere of the subject's action where his will and criticism can gain validity.
On the other hand, the public sphere acts as a “dam” that protects legitimacy and autonomy in daily life, but does not necessarily advance against the system or seek a higher social order to subjugate or transform it. The above allows the theoretical advances of the "Theory of communicative action" to mark the second moment for the concept of the public sphere. In 1981, Habermas began to think about the public sphere from the conceptual and dialectical pair of everyday life/system: a theoretical advance in relation to communicative reason and instrumental reason that developed into knowledge and interest.
Understanding the public in the logic of participation implies questioning who has the right to participate. In the Greek agora and in the bourgeois public sphere, participation in public space is treated from the logic of meeting between equals. In contemporary logic, the discussion of public space in terms of political communication has supported the idea that there are actors with legitimacy to express themselves publicly on common issues. It is usually considered that the main actors are: Politicians, journalists and public opinion through polls. On the other hand, there were other actors on the periphery, both on the social scene (social movements, trade union associations, etc.) and on the international scene (international organizations, multinational groups, etc.). However, with the Internet there has been a break. Citizens can transcend the barrier of anonymity and transcend the logic of public opinion reduced to polls.[2].
In contemporary societies characterized to a greater or lesser extent by diversity, it is not possible to think of a single interest. Communication on the Internet has contributed to diversifying consumption options and opening production spaces without intermediaries, but that does not imply that there is interaction and dialogue between different sectors with different points of view. It is not possible to affirm that everything is entirely visible. What is transmitted in a medium is subject to the audiences it has and the interest that these media products generate. Some authors propose talking about subaltern public spaces or counter-public spheres to point out that there are discursive arenas where members of social groups invent and circulate counter-discourses that allow them to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests and needs. Examples of counter-public spheres are the feminist movement, Attac and the Luther Blissett project. The construction of these counter-public spheres has two meanings: allowing the regrouping of identities and laying the foundations for a public dispute.[2] Counter-public spheres are currently increasing their influence. This is due to three interrelated factors:[4].
The term counter-public sphere has two dimensions:[4].
The media are tools in the process of counter-public spheres. They use mass and traditional media. Your goal is to expand your audience as much as possible. However, there is a common feeling that the information, messages and news that they produce do not find a way to be introduced into the classic media. Therefore they look for other alternative means[4].
In the 20th century, it was considered that the media assumed the role of public space, as a space of visibility where a discussion on common issues should be possible. However, with the Internet, public space has expanded to make way for ordinary citizens of even other nationalities. Anyone can speak. This expansion also causes fragmentation processes. Perhaps we should not talk about a public space, but rather about various public spaces that do not necessarily relate to each other.[2].