There are also many forms of democracy, the main two are; Direct Democracy, and Representative Democracy.
Direct Democracy developed in Athens many many years ago. Around about 550BC, so as you can imagine, it was a pretty old time. This type of democracy allowed people to vote for policy legislation and bills opposed to representative democracy in which they vote for representatives who then vote for policy actions. Being able to make your own decisions of what will affect your own life, no one else to do it for you is a reward. Some would argue and get together in groups, this shortly passed as big cities were not all able to get together. In the 13th century, Switzerland began the modern-era of lawmaking. It is the easiest form of decision making, however there is always an opposition...
Representative Democracy, As I said before it is opposite to direct democracy, therefore it means the people are able to vote themselves, but they vote for a representing group of people who then vote. This seems like a good idea, having someone do your 'dirty work' of voting for you, what happens if we choose one guy and he makes the wrong decisions, we all hate that one guy, and moan continuously. Similarly like the politics voting for Liberal democrats and university fees, because that worked out so well...
It arrived in the 18th Century, however it still holds modern relevance. He explains that the public sphere is a gathering of private people who join together to form a 'public'. They would sit around together and debate in coffee houses. Similar to the number one American series; F.R.I.E.N.D.S. They used to sit in Central Perk, drink coffee and I guess you describe it as critical debate with there differences, or maybe just Chandlers' Sarcasm. Going back to Habermas, he describes these people as wealthy and highly educated citizens of which made the discussion of art and literature become possible.
But, the circle of friends erupted due to economic and structural changes, boundaries of states and societies became blurry. So does this have anything to do with media and Journalism?
Representative Democracy, As I said before it is opposite to direct democracy, therefore it means the people are able to vote themselves, but they vote for a representing group of people who then vote. This seems like a good idea, having someone do your 'dirty work' of voting for you, what happens if we choose one guy and he makes the wrong decisions, we all hate that one guy, and moan continuously. Similarly like the politics voting for Liberal democrats and university fees, because that worked out so well...
So, who was Jürgen Habermas? And what was his Public Sphere?
It arrived in the 18th Century, however it still holds modern relevance. He explains that the public sphere is a gathering of private people who join together to form a 'public'. They would sit around together and debate in coffee houses. Similar to the number one American series; F.R.I.E.N.D.S. They used to sit in Central Perk, drink coffee and I guess you describe it as critical debate with there differences, or maybe just Chandlers' Sarcasm. Going back to Habermas, he describes these people as wealthy and highly educated citizens of which made the discussion of art and literature become possible. But, the circle of friends erupted due to economic and structural changes, boundaries of states and societies became blurry. So does this have anything to do with media and Journalism?
Yes.
Habermas argued that the world of mass media is cheap and powerful. He believes it attempts to manipulate and create a public where none exists. Example; advertising and public relations, this are non-governmental organization which replace old institutions of the public sphere. Within Journalism it could be seen as newspaper companies, deciding on what is good, what they've read, what is newsworthy?
