When the book described the public discourse, it said that it is not the notion of one to many that makes discourse public, but confidence that one has a public audience that will listen, agree, and contend with ideas delivered in the public arena. When I read this part, I could think of the news anchor. When the news anchor talk and tell us about his thoughts and opinion, audience listen carefully how the news anchor think. Also, people believe what he or she says on the news especially if that news anchor works in BBC or CNN which are huge and famous broadcasting companies.
In the book, it says that the standard for public decision making is not one's opinion, but an idea, theory, story, or action known by a group of persons and offered as a public decision-making map. In this case, I could think of a constitutional institution. Because that institution make a law with standards of ethics, people know what majority of people think it is right or not and know what they should not do.
Differentiation of public and private space was kind of vague when I first read the book. Because we are living in an information age, we find others willing to share all sorts of information with the public, making the private seem almost nonexistent. This is a good explanation of Facebook. There are too many people who write about their stories and facts everyday even though no one asked or care about it. Also, some people put too much information in Facebook so it can be used in bad ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment