The structure of public debate on blogs: Rational Debate of Any Topic Until Consensus Is Achieved

Based on the three features necessary to the definition of what a public sphere is, Baoill identifies the strengths and weaknesses of how public debate is structured in the social space furnished by blogs.

The second feature: Rational Debate of Any Topic Until Consensus Is Achieved

1. The quality of debate on blogs – concentration is on temporary issues; there is a concern that blogging is a mere distraction, not something which provides concrete insight.

The importance that blogs place on breaking news, and on temporary, fleeting issues is problematic for Baoill because it risks the chance of incorrect information being published before established, well-researched information has been provided.

2. The layout of blogs – because separate comment threads (series of newsgroup messages dealing with the same subject) are used in each post, threads can be very short. After a few comments are posted in one thread, a newer blog post may be created to keep up with the latest, most recent news, and new comments will likely be posted in the new topic's comment thread. This is problematic because it prevents the rational debate required to reach a consensus, which is one of the criteria for Habermas’ public sphere.

3. Incompetence of blog indexes to compile politically balanced blog lists – the blogs dealing with the most popular, current, or acceptable issues are added to the lists of blogs by blog indexes, while other blogs are left behind. For example, blogs dealing with the war in Iraq at one time became very popular, and so blogs dealing with other issues, such as the war in the Congo, were ignored by blog indexes, leaving no room for rational debate about such topics. Topics were therefore not equally represented.

In an article for Wired in 2001, John Coate, founder and former general manager of S.F. Gate, a San Francisco newspaper, said, "[Blogdex] is essentially democratic and routes around big news media. Because it is so decentralized, it seems to be in little danger of being bought and co-opted by the huge news media and thus their filtering and big business agenda will not dominate. And the world will be a better place for it."

4. The disconnect between RSS (RDF Site Summary) feeds – RSS feeds publish information, such as blog comments, news udates, or website articles, “in a stripped down, structured format.” This can negatively affect rational debate in the blogosphere; even though it means readers can browse through a website quickly and easily, on a blog, it means reading via RSS feeds, and responding via web browser. “With this disconnect between reading (in an RSS viewer) and responding (through a web browser) the threshold for interactivity is again raised.”

Baoill, Andrew Ó. "Weblogs and the Public Sphere." Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs. 11 Jan. 2008 <http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/weblogs_and_the_public_sphere.html>.

The structure of public debate on blogs: Rank

Based on the three features necessary to the definition of what a public sphere is, Baoill identifies the strengths and weaknesses of how public debate is structured in the social space furnished by blogs.

The second feature: Rank

The Regents of the University of California. "Professor and blogger Eugene Volokh." 8 Nov. 2005. UCLA Today. 11 Jan. 2008 <http://www.today.ucla.edu/2005/051108news_punditprof.html>.

1. Real world relationships with other bloggers – if offline relationships between bloggers affect the success a writer’s blog, all participants are not considered equal, thereby disqualifying one of the criteria of Habermas’ public sphere.

Eugene Volokh, a well-known law blogger and law professor at UCLA, said, in 2003, that:

Blogging is more of a meritocracy than many other media are, but it's still hard to get noticed, even if your material is very good. My co-conspirators and I had an edge: We know quite a few of the big guns personally, and our academic credentials give us extra credibility.

In Eugene Volokh’s case, outside rank, the reputation that a contributor has built elsewhere, became a factor (an “edge” in Volokh’s case) in the public sphere (the blogosphere).

“Blogrolls (permanent lists of links on their front pages) [ensure] improved ranking on Google and blog-specific indexes such as Blogdex, and may link to specific stories of yours, helping you build readership.”

Such rewards for good work on a blog do not oppose Habermas’ criterion of equal consideration of all participants, as long as rewards are based on the reputation that a blogger builds within the blogosphere. However, if a blogger gains these benefits based on outside factors, the blogosphere does not truly meet Habermas’ specified public sphere.

The blogosphere has seen the emergence of a small group of “A-list bloggers” who receive the majority of blog traffic, and “around whom much coverage of weblogs in traditional media is based (Park, 2003).”

"Shirky." No date. Freedom for IP. 18 Jan. 2008 <http://www.freedomforip.org/links.htm>.

A study in 2003 of 433 blogs showed that the top fifty blogs comprised fifty percent of in-bound links (Clay Shirky).

Possible reasons that the minority of blogs account for the majority of activity:

• Some bloggers are very active, have been involved with the development of blogging, and have been blogging for longer than others
  


• Inviting readers of one blog to read a friend’s blog (evidence of a pre-existing relationship) “will obviously push traffic to the new weblog that those without such contacts will not so easily receive”
  


• Media coverage of the A-list bloggers and thereby their blogrolls
  


• The problem of search engine page ranking systems – even if a site links a blog only to criticize it, a page ranking system will represent that blog as a popular one.
  
  The page ranking system cannot understand the linker’s motive or intent behind the linking, but only the fact that the page was linked; page ranking systems “cannot in general recognize negative links.”
  
  Blogs allow for the possibility of Habermas’ idea of equal consideration of participants; an affordance of blogs is the possibility of anonymity.
  
  However, the increasing population of “celebrity bloggers and the intrusion of real-world networking have resulted in an intrusion of external rank in a manner that skews the involvement in, and impact on debate that an individual can have.”
  
  
  Baoill, Andrew Ó. "Weblogs and the Public Sphere." Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs. 11 Jan. 2008 <

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/weblogs_and_ the_public_sphere.html>.

The structure of public debate on blogs: Inclusivity of access

Based on the three features necessary to the definition of what a public sphere is, Baoill identifies the strengths and weaknesses of how public debate is structured in the social space furnished by blogs.

The first feature: Inclusivity of access

Oxford University Press. "The Web of Politics: The Internet's Impact on the American Political System." No date. The Advocates for Self-Government. 11 Jan. 2008 <http://www.theadvocates.org/images/web-politics.
jpg>.

Richard Davis, author of Web of Politics, identifies some ways Internet democracy hinders public participation:

1. Technological literacy - The skills necessary to maintain a blog are fewer than the skills that were necessary to maintain “a relatively simple website a number of years ago,” but the technological skills necessary to have one's voice heard in the blogosphere is not the hindrance, it is the time necessary to maintain the content.

2. Time commitment – The time commitment related to blogs is not in writing them, but in reading them; the burden is in keeping up with the information as the writer updates his or her blog.

Such time continues to be, to a certain extent, a luxury not all can afford. This is an external factor that should be taken into account when considering how much time readers of the blogosphere have to participate in a debate.

“Clifford Stoll, for instance, bemoans the fact that ‘simply keeping track of this electronic neighbourhood takes a couple of hours every night’ (Stoll, 1995, p. 2).”

Jwm. "Clifford Stoll." 9 Feb. 2005. Pro-Linux Magazine. 11 Jan. 2005 <http://www.pro-linux.de/berichte/stoll_
interview.html>.

Because of the vast amount of information on blogs (and the vast amount of blogs) that are on the Internet, some claim that blog-readers get the opportunity to read “every group's position on that topic, not just the views of the major groups” (Rash, 1997, p. 100).

Others claim that this wealth of information will only widen the gap between levels of political involvement; Richard Davis says that the information on blogs offers “greater advantages to a political elite,” and creates barriers “for those who are uninterested and uninvolved” (p. 183).

The point is that amount of time blog interaction (not blog writing or reading per se, but “browsing potential sources and contributing to debates with other bloggers”) takes may dissuade potential users from getting involved.

3. Additional Financial Resources – The cost of Internet access is also a consideration, though access to public computers may be available.

Baoill, Andrew Ó. "Weblogs and the Public Sphere." Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs. 11 Jan. 2008 <http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/weblogs_and_the_public_sphere.html>.

Baoill's Analysis of Habermas' Public Sphere 2

According to Baoill, there are three criteria necessary to Habermas's definition of an ideal public sphere:

1. Inclusivity of access

2. A disregard for external rank

3. The potential for rational debate of any topic until consensus is achieved

These three criteria can be analogized to the criteria Webster defines:

#1, Inclusivity of Access, corresponds to Webster's definition of the public sphere as a place that is "accessible to entry and open to inspection by the citizenry."

#2, A disregard for external rank, corresponds to Webster's definition of the public sphere as an "arena, independent of government and also enjoying autonomy from partisan economic forces."

#3, The potential for rational debate of any topic until consensus is achieved corresponds to a dedication to rational debate (i.e. to debate and discussion which is not 'interested,' 'disguised,' or 'manipulated'), as defined by Webster.

Baoill, Andrew Ó. "Weblogs and the Public Sphere." Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs. 11 Jan. 2008 <http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/weblogs_and_the_public_sphere.html>.

Baoill's Analysis of Habermas' Public Sphere

"Andrew Ó Baoill is a doctoral student in the
Institute of Communications Research at the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

His research focuses
on the involvement
of the public in political and social
action and in particular on
participatory media forms."

Baoill, Andrew Ó. "Conceptualizing the Weblog: Understanding What It Is In Order To Imagine What It Can Be." Interfacings: A Journal of Contemporary Media Studies. 8 Feb. 2008. 15 Jan 2008 <http://www.comm.
uiuc.edu/icr/interfacings/OBaoillWeblogs020805.pdf>.

Baoill defines the public sphere as "places and situations in which people meet to discuss matters of public concern".

According to Baoill, Habermas identifies three domains of the public sphere:

1. The Legal/Political domain

2. The Art/Culture domain

3. The Science/Technology domain

Baoill, Andrew Ó. "Weblogs and the Public Sphere." Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs. 11 Jan. 2008 <http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/weblogs_and_
the_public_sphere.html>.

Webster's analysis of Habermas' Public Sphere

The University of Oxford. "Professor Frank Webster." No date. Oxford Internet Institute. 14 Jan 2008. <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/visitors.cfm>.

In Theories of the Information Society, Webster defines Habermas' public sphere as:

"An arena, independent of government and also enjoying autonomy from partisan economic forces."

Furthermore, Webster writes that the public sphere is:

"dedicated to rational debate (i.e. to debate and discussion which is not 'interested,' 'disguised,' or 'manipulated').

Finally, Webster states that the Habermas defines the public sphere as:

"Both accessible to entry and open to inspection by the citizenry."

Webster claims, ultimately, that Habermas defines the public sphere as the place "where public opinion is formed."

"Information is at the core of this public sphere, the presumption being that within it, "actors make clear their positions, [which] are [...] made available to the wider public, so that it may have full access to the procedure."

Webster, Frank. Theories of the Information Society. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2002; p.163).