Changes of the Mass Media and the Public Sphere

Three different models of the public sphere have gained wide attention in the academic literature. In a recent article Gerhards (1997) contrasts two of these models, the discursive public and the liberal public, respectively. The former is linked to the well-known work of Habermas on the transformation of the public sphere (1962) and to some of his more recent reflections and modifications (Habermas 1992a,b). The latter model is rooted in theories of liberal democracy which were developed in political science. Gerhards also traces influences, among others, to the writings of Luhmann (e.g., Luhmann 1971). Both models are “ideal types” in the sense Max Weber introduced this term, i.e. they give a rather abstract, idealised notion of some basic features and functions of the public sphere. However, Habermas and Gerhards both claim that their respective models have empirical value and are suitable for a description of observable phenomena (Habermas 1992b, 451; Gerhards 1997). The two models have some key features in common. They both conceive of the public sphere as an intermediary system which links the “basis” with the “top” of the political system or, as Habermas puts it, the private and collective actors of the periphery with the political institutions in the centre. Both conceptions have some obvious resemblance with political systems models of the type devised by Easton (1965). Systems models of this type contrast input processes, output processes and conversion processes. Mass media are considered by these models as just one of several channels or agents through which the interests and the will of the people are transformed or “converted” into political decisions. The models differ with respect to the position and role of political actors, particularly of interest groups. In the liberal model organised collective actors, like interest groups and political parties, dominate the public sphere and provide inputs to the political decision centre. WINFRIED SCHULZ