It is not an exaggeration to assert that modern society faces a growing global crisis marked by political polarization, the rise of elected leaders with authoritarian rhetoric, and the constant threat to the integrity of democratic institutions. In recent years, we have witnessed the emergence of leaders with populist profiles who, despite being legitimately elected, employ authoritarian strategies to undermine opponents, delegitimize independent media, and weaken core democratic values such as freedom of expression and political pluralism (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018; Norris & Inglehart, 2019). This concerning trend not only jeopardizes the integrity of democratic governance but also raises significant implications for the overall health and resilience of democratic societies in the twenty-first century.

Jürgen Habermas’s theory of the public sphere, developed over sixty years ago, remains one of the most debated topics in Media and Communication Studies and provides valuable insights for reflection. The German social theorist defines the public sphere as a space for rational and inclusive discussion, where individuals act as citizens to debate issues of common interest, free from direct state or market influences. In other words, this space is characterized by its commitment to promoting plurality and diversity of opinions (Habermas, 1962).

Historically, mass media has served as a fundamental component in the framework of this model. Newspapers and television broadcasters were, for a long time, responsible for setting the public agenda. The concept of the press and broadcast media acting as the “fourth estate,” balancing the three traditional branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial, helps to illustrate their central role in the administration of democracy.

However, with the digitization of the public sphere, these dynamics have changed radically. Now, social media platforms shape public debate. While this new communicative model expands the democratization of discourse, allowing anyone with internet access to become a content producer, invisible forces operate within these platforms. Once a message is published, algorithms ultimately determine whether it is worthy of attention. This shift in power raises questions about the values, criteria, and operational mechanisms of these platforms, managed by big tech corporations.

This context, emerging in the post-war period of the 20th century, poses urgent questions for intellectuals regarding how the concentration of media ownership and the lack of effective regulation of digital platforms have compromised Habermas’s ideal. These developments have restricted the diversity of voices, favoured polarizing discourses, and, in many cases, destabilized the foundations of public debate.

Public Sphere: Theory Genesis, Bourgeois Society, and Ideological Context

In Ancient Greece (1100 BCE – 146 BCE), one of the earliest expressions of Habermas’s ideal of the public sphere emerged. During this time, free men and recognized citizens would gather in the Agoras, public spaces dedicated to civic affairs. These areas symbolized freedom and served as platforms for equality and dialogue, which fostered individual recognition and the development of a shared political life.

“The political order… rested on a patrimonial slave economy. Citizens were thus set free from productive labour; it was, however, their private autonomy as masters of households on which their participation in public life depended. Status in the polis was, therefore, based upon status as the unlimited master of an oikos.” (Habermas, 1962, pp. 3 – 24)

According to Habermas, the concept of the public sphere, essentially a space for rational debate among private individuals pursuing the common good, evolved throughout history. During the Middle Ages (476 – 1453), the distinction between public and private sectors was nearly absent. Power was centralized in feudal estates, where social relations were defined by hierarchies and privileges.

As we recognize it today, the public sphere began to take shape with the rise of bourgeois society in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The group was notably different from the state and the church. 

This emergence was a transformative moment in societal development, marked by the establishment of institutions and platforms that bridged private reflections and public discourse. The rise of independent newspapers provided a medium for challenging state authority and church doctrines, while libraries and universities became hubs of intellectual exchange. 

These spaces fostered a culture of critical debate where the principles of reason and dialogue prevailed. Though theoretically inclusive, this new public sphere was shaped by class dynamics, as access often depended on education and economic privilege. 

In France, political clubs and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen stimulated public participation and the circulation of ideas. In Germany, reading circles and public debates fostered an active, articulate public opinion.

In liberal contexts, this space was expected to drive both economic progress and cultural advancement among previously excluded social groups. Habermas highlights that, at this stage, the public sphere reflected a “historical truth” by expressing universal reason. However, this integrity was challenged when political participation extended to subordinate classes. Capitalist antagonisms infiltrated this space, undermining the rational and inclusive debate required for legitimate public opinion.

Habermas also critiques ideological tensions in the public sphere. Marxism views it as a tool for class domination but acknowledges its democratizing potential through universal suffrage. Conversely, liberalism, initially supportive of this ideal, doubted expanding popular participation, arguing that the masses lacked the preparation for complex political decisions. 

As Hannah Arendt reiterated in the book In The Human Condition (1958), modernity blurred the lines between public and private realms, diminishing freedom and weakening collective debate, pillars of democratic life. The philosopher considered the public as a shared space that gives meaning to human action. 

Relevance to Mass Media Ownership and Regulation

According to Habermas, the transition of a topic from the private to the public sphere relies on each player’s articulatory ability, demonstrating its collective relevance. As Cohen and Arato emphasize:  

“The combination of associations, publics, and rights, when supported by a political culture in which independent initiatives and movements represent an ever-renewable, legitimate, political option, represents […] an effective set of bulwarks around civil society within whose limits much of the program of radical democracy can be reformulated.”  

Thus, it is fair to state that the public sphere depends on a free private sphere where individual rights are safeguarded. Civil society groups, although aligned with social challenges, often lack the resonance to effectively influence political systems or decision-making processes.  

In this context, mass media emerges as a mediator by connecting citizens globally to foster discussions on ‘public interest’ issues. Ideally, when aligned with civil society, media could operate independently without excessive state regulation, amplifying society’s voice. This role reinforces the notion of the media as a “fourth estate,” balancing the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.  

However, reality presents more significant challenges. While trained professionals largely manage agenda-setting, this alone does not ensure commitment to public interest. Media business models and conglomerates often compromise impartiality, prioritizing commercial agendas over public welfare.  

Such concentration of ownership undermines the diversity of perspectives, restricting genuine dialogue. Instead of serving as platforms for democratic engagement, media entities risk becoming tools of economic or political domination, further marginalizing vulnerable voices.  

As Professor Venício Artur de Lima asserts, “the basic condition for realizing citizens’ political rights in the contemporary world is the existence of a polycentric and democratic media market, ensuring everyone can fully exercise their right to communication” (Lima, 2011, p. 215).  

A successful media system operating within a strong public sphere necessitates transparency, accountability, and pluralism. These robust safeguards prevent monopolistic practices and ensure equitable representation. Although media serves as a foundational pillar of the public sphere, its effectiveness is limited by systemic challenges that require vigilant oversight and active engagement from society.

Application in the Digital Media Age

With the advent of social media, the Habermansean concept has been radically redefined. The digital revolution dismantled traditional gatekeeping mechanisms, enabling anyone with internet access to contribute to the public discourse. Social media platforms have decentralized the production and dissemination of information, amplifying voices across geographies and social strata. 

“When a computer network connects people or organizations, it is a social network. Just as a computer network is a set of machines connected by a set of cables, a social network is a set of people (or organizations or other social entities) connected by a set of social relationships, such as friendship, co-working or information exchange” (Garton et al., 1997, online).

According to a recent report, nearly 63% of the global population engages with social media, reflecting its pervasive influence. However, while this digital sphere promises inclusivity and freedom of expression, it also introduces complexities. The sheer volume of content often obscures factual accuracy, creating fertile ground for disinformation, radicalization, and manipulation.

Petros Iosifidis (2016) argues that the Internet functions paradoxically: it serves as a tool for democratization and empowerment but simultaneously enables control and surveillance. 

“Whereas the traditional media in the form of the newspaper press and public television have been an integral part in the creation of a national public sphere, there is a widespread assumption that new spheres of communication networks can provide the basis for shared concerns, common tastes, political and cultural turns at a global level.” Iosifidis (2016).

In Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999), Lawrence Lessig critiques the notion of cyberspace as a naturally democratic arena. Early internet proponents envisioned it as a domain free from conventional constraints, where decentralized communication could promote greater democratic engagement and equality. However, Lessig challenges this idea, arguing that the architecture of cyberspace is not inherently liberating. Instead, it is shaped by code, rules crafted by programmers that dictate the behaviours and possibilities within the digital landscape. This code functions as a form of law, enabling or constraining freedoms based on specific design choices.

Lessig emphasizes that as commercial and governmental interests increasingly dominate the Internet, the original promise of an open and free space becomes jeopardized. The Internet’s infrastructure is often designed to prioritize control, surveillance, and profit over democratic principles. Through mechanisms such as digital rights management (DRM), data collection, and algorithmic filtering, cyberspace evolves into less of a sanctuary for free expression and more of a controlled environment governed by market and state forces. 

Lessig succinctly expresses, “What distinguishes different parts of cyberspace are the differences in the regulations effected through code. In some places, life is fairly free, in other places controlled, and the difference between them is simply a difference in the architectures of control—that is, a difference in code”. (p. 19)​

Social media’s algorithmic models, driven by commercial interests, often prioritize sensationalism over substantive discourse, undermining the ideals of the public sphere. Despite its potential for fostering pluralism, the digital landscape reveals the tensions inherent in balancing free expression with accountability, illustrating both the evolution and the fragility of the public sphere in the modern age.

Practical Challenges and Opportunities

Jürgen Habermas’s theory of the public sphere remains a central reference for analyzing media and its regulation in democratic societies. In his most recent work, where he revisits the concepts developed sixty years earlier, the author acknowledges that technological changes and the rise of digital platforms represent both an opportunity and a threat to this model.

Habermas discusses the structural transformation of the public sphere in the digital age from a critical viewpoint. He emphasizes how digital platforms have decentralized communication, enabling ordinary users to assume the role of authors in a space that was once primarily controlled by media professionals. “The platform character of the new media is creating, alongside the editorial public sphere, a space of communication in which readers, listeners, and viewers can spontaneously assume the role of authors” (Habermas, 2022).

This shift is ambivalent: while it offers democratizing possibilities, it also contributes to fragmentation and the formation of “echo chambers.” He states, “The boundless communication networks that spontaneously take shape around certain topics or individuals can spread centrifugally while simultaneously condensing into communication circuits that dogmatically seal themselves off from each other.”

The absence of professional curation and widely accepted cognitive standards weakens public discourse’s deliberative potential, fostering polarization and making the rational consensus necessary for a functional democracy more difficult.

Furthermore, Habermas emphasizes that the economic dynamics of digital platforms undermine the integrity of the public sphere. The business model of platforms, driven by the attention economy, promotes sensationalist content and misinformation, damaging the traditional role of the media as impartial mediators. He suggests that the survival of the public sphere as a space for deliberation depends on political regulation that holds platforms accountable for their practices and ensures journalistic standards. Habermas argues that preserving an inclusive and deliberative public sphere is a constitutional imperative in any democracy that aspires to legitimacy.

While social networks have enabled greater access to information production and sharing, they have also contributed to the fragmentation of public debate and the rise of polarized narratives.

Habermas stresses that the ideal of a deliberative public sphere depends on a delicate balance between freedom of expression and collective responsibility. However, the digital environment, driven by algorithms and commercial interests, often prioritizes emotional engagement over rational debate. This shift undermines the formation of plural and informed public opinion, diverging from the central purpose of the public sphere.

To overcome these barriers, measures are needed to ensure transparency in the operations of digital platforms and encourage the diversity of perspectives. When balanced with respect for freedom of expression, state regulation can help mitigate the harmful effects of the commercialization of information. Additionally, valuing independent and ethical journalistic practices should be a priority, strengthening the role of the media as a mediator between civil society and political power.

The digital public sphere, though not without its flaws, presents a valuable opportunity to reimagine a global space for the collaborative discussion of transnational issues. Promoting media literacy and empowering citizens to engage actively is important to harness this potential fully. Habermas reminds us that the public sphere is an ever-evolving construct, and its success depends on our collective commitment to safeguarding it as a fundamental pillar of democracy.