Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate

CHAPTER 3. TECHNOLOGY & THE PUBLIC SPHERE 46
munications (Wright 1975). Producers have an increased ability to specify the
recipients of specific pieces of information, and to send messages to smaller and
smaller groups of people (Abramson, Arterton & Orren 1988). In addition, feedback
mechanisms built into much of the new media give communicators a better
sense of the audiences’ response (Neuman 1991). Of course, this feedback shares
the characteristics of all information in the new environment: it is bigger, faster
and cheaper than previously available feedback information.
When the technology being discussed is primarily used for the reception and processing
of messages, it is the consumer who has access to vastly increased control
mechanisms. Abramson, Arterton & Orren (1988) refer to the increased consumer
control as “the democratization of information,” suggesting perhaps that
the consumer is now able to approach the communication transaction with power
equal to the producer. Of course, as Abramson, Arterton & Orren (1988) themselves
admit, the ultimate power in the communication relationship resides in the
receiver’s continued ability to reject or block incoming messages (that this does
not necessarily need to be the case is amply demonstrated by Orwell in 1984).
“Technology has not yet overcome the public’s prerogative to receive or reject
information” (Abramson, Arterton & Orren 1988, 50).
The emergence of the new “personal” media have profound implications for the
public sphere. Consider Ganley’s (1992, 2-3) lament about traditional media:
Until a few decades ago, the media were basically the mass media – the
newspaper, magazine and book publishers, radio broadcasters, movie and
record producers, and that post-World War II newcomer, television. Even in
the most liberal democracies, because of the lack of technical means and/or
prohibitive costs, individuals and small groups had few and quite laborious
methods of expression, and the scope of these was sorely limited. . . . Such
limitations were relative, and individuals have always used whatever means
were available to conduct important political acts throughout history. ...But
with some power exceptions, personal opinions have generally found smallish
audiences which, of necessity, have often been local. Technological and
financial constraints have normally meant that only governments, large organizations,
and the mass media have had access to the means to produce
and distribute substantial amounts of idea-containing materials.
The advent of personal media has the potential to shift the balance between user
and producer control, Among the many media she cites – citizen’s band radios,