Habermas writes on the Capitol and journalism’s emergencies

In a recent article, Jürgen Habermas writes “Reflections and Hypotheses on a Further Structural Transformation of the Political Public Sphere.” He is the author of a philosophy that serves different fields of research. At 93, he adds platformization to his earlier considerations.

A research-group companion, Dr. Nilton Kleina, jokes that, given his advanced age and still writing articles, “this is precarization” — laughs. Be that as it may, the text clearly, categorically argues that platforms must take responsibility for the content published on them. The discussion has plenty to chew on, and we are rehearsing the first stitches of the seam.

Habermas (2022) defines a “traditional media” and a “new media,” basically, the first being responsible for content and having a certain commitment to cognition and aesthetics, and the second marked by the internet, fragmentation of the public stage and platformization.

In the scenario he analyzes, traditional media await ever fewer readers of newspapers and magazines, since the appearance of television. That is, it is not exactly news that print has been shrinking every year. Even so, television is traditional media.

The internet and platforms give users possibilities to publish their own content — ideally without prior censorship, and with equal access. That announcement already runs into practical adversities — for widely known facts. Now, something may bother us more.

Under philosophical observation since at least 1962 (the year The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere was launched), Habermas now turns to the storming of the Capitol. He argues that, although the apparent motives are unbearable, the episode is the product of decades of dissatisfaction among the people of the United States with politics. Distrust of politicians and the press also occurs in Germany, and there are similar effects across Europe.

Mediation is necessary

By analogy, the crisis in journalism (avoiders, less advertising, bad reputation) may be a revolt, in response to the words we exaggerated, the acts we did not denounce and the cruel omissions we committed in the name of good.

Public and advertisers stayed far from our editorial meetings, but you know that too. Far enough to understand that they do not need us, or that they want revenge on us, like an immaterial sovereign who stopped serving them. They may, however, want us without needing us. In any case, for the broadcast audience, journalists and journalism are not blameless.

It is urgent for us to make explicit that politicians and journalism may share voters’ disgust, but the State funds politics, while journalism is crossed by market needs that are, at the least, unfair.

We argue that journalism has been and is ready for editorial productions (news, investigations, debates, opinion, documentaries, etc.) with basic values of technique and human formation. It is necessary to differentiate: journalism is journalism, a political party is a political party.

The behavior of traditional media companies in the face of the scenario lacks mediation. They could opt for a crusade against the platforms, which would bring temporary results, or find, together with the platforms, a way to untie the knot. And to employ journalists.