Weblogs and the Public Sphere

Andrew Ó Baoill, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In this essay I assess the potential impact of weblogs on the public sphere, using a model based on the work of Jürgen Habermas to provide an ideal against which we can measure the efficacy of weblogs as a public space. Specifically, I posit that inclusivity of access, a disregard for external rank, and the potential for rational debate of any topic until consensus is achieved are necessary criterion for meeting Habermas's model of an idealized public sphere. I assess the current standing of weblogs and suggest developments that could improve the ability of weblogs to meet this ideal. There are a number of structural impediments in the current implementation of weblogs-both in terms of production and reception-that seriously damage any claim of the blogosphere to be a strong public sphere. The time commitment required if one is to build reputation and integrate oneself into online debate serves to skew the distribution of those involved in blogging, and in particular of those who gain prominence within the blogosphere with academics, journalists and certain other professionals over-represented. The influence of personal networks and of an A-list of bloggers in shaping who gains future attention is problematic, as is an inability of current generations of reading and ranking technologies, such as search engines, to take account of negative appraisals of sites to which one links. Geographically-bound issues are less likely to gain ground than those with a general appeal. Future generations of reading, searching and aggregation technologies must address these problems if weblogs are to continue to develop as sites of public debate.