The study of public sphere and communicative action on Telegram: Applying Habermas' notions on Iranian journalists conversations

Khaniki, Hadi; Kermani, Hossein

doi:10.22054/nms.2020.29762.422

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

hadi khaniki ¹
Hossein Kermani ²

¹ Allameh Tabatabai University

² UT

https://doi.org/10.22054/nms.2020.29762.422

Abstract

Alongside with the advent and proliferation of internet usage in societies, more debates on the potentials of internet in reviving or reshaping the public sphere or even creating a new one has aroused. Thus, this paper is trying to evaluate if a micro public sphere is shaped in a Telegram group where Iranian journalist had discussed the requirements and conditions for establishing a professional association. Telegram is the most popular Instant Messaging Application in Iran now, and its groups provide a very convenient space for discussions and conversations. That is why numerous groups are created to enable people to participate in public and (potentially) free discussions. In September 2016, when some Iranian journalist tried to establish a professional association for Tehran-based journalists, a group in Telegram was created which attracted more than 600 members at that time. The announced purpose of the group was exploring the circumstances and providing helpful suggestions for those working to prepare the statute of the association. Thus, using a triangulation of three methods, we tried to achieve a close reading of messages in the group (we analyzed 1117 messages from the beginning before the theoretical saturation was achieved). We identified 5 different kinds of conversations: simple, empathy, non-challenging, challenging, and hostile. Findings showed that the members’ actions in some cases can be seen as communicative rather than instrumental or strategic. Results also indicated that as debates got more hostile, many of public sphere’s norms were violated.

Keywords

References

Bruns, A., & Highfield, T. (2015). Is Habermas on Twitter? Social Media and the Public Sphere. In The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics (pp. 56–73). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716299

- Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication, and democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

- Denzin, N. K. (2017). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook, 6th edition. Routledge.

- Fuchs, C. (2014). Social Media and the Public Sphere. tripleC, 12(1), 57–101.

- Fulya ŞEN. (2012). THE SOCIAL MEDIA AS A PUBLIC SPHERE: THE RISE OF SOCIAL OPPOSITION. In International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology and Design (pp. 490–494). Istanbul. Retrieved from http://www.cmdconf.net/2012/Proceedings/Proceedings.pdf

- Gibson, W., & Brown, A. (2009). Working with Qualitative Data. London: SAGE Publications.

- Gunn, W., & Løgstrup, L. B. (2014). Participant observation, anthropology methodology and design anthropology research inquiry. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 13(4), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022214543874

- Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. MIT Press (Vol. 1). https://doi.org/10.1086/228287

- Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2072652

- Hodkinson, P. (2007). Interactive online journals and individualization. New Media & Society, 9(4), 625–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807076972

- Hopke, J. E. (2015). Hashtagging Politics : Transnational Anti-Fracking Movement Twitter Practices. Social Media + Society, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115605521

- Iosifidis, P., & Wheeler, M. (2016). Public Spheres and Mediated Social Networks in the Western Context and Beyond. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-41030-6

- Johannessen, M. R. (2013). Social media as public sphere : a stakeholder perspective. University of Agder. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2015-0003

- Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

- KhosraviNik, M. (2017). Social media critical discourse studies (SM-CDS). In J. Flowerdew & J. Richardson (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 582–596). London: Routledge.

- Kitzinger, C. (2000). Doing Feminist Conversation Analysis. Feminism & Psychology, 10(2), 163–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353500010002001

- Kraidy, M. M., & Krikorian, M. R. (2017). The revolutionary public sphere: The case of the Arab uprisings. Communication and the Public, 2(2), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317717499

- Macnamara, J. (2008). Internet Media and the Public Sphere: The 2007 Australian E-Eelectioneering Experience. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture Policy, (129), 7. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=909506313612628;res=IELHSS

- Mahlouly, D. (2013). Rethinking the Public Sphere in a Digital Environment : Similarities between the Eighteenth and the Twenty-First Centuries. eSharp: New Horizons, (20), 1–21. Retrieved from http://www.gla.ac.uk/research/az/esharp/issues/20spring2013-newhorizons/

- Mottahedeh, N. (2015). #iranelection: Hashtag Solidarity and the Transformation of Online Life. Soft Skull Press.

- Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444

- Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

- Reed, L., & Boyd, D. (2016). Who Controls the Public Sphere in an Era of Algorithms ? Questions and Assumptions.

- Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301

- Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE.

- Stanley, J. W., & Weare, C. (2004). The Effects of Internet Use on Political Participation: Evidence From an Agency Online Discussion Forum. Administration & Society, 36(5), 503–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399704268503

- ten Have, P. (2007). Doing Conversation Analysis. A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications Ltd. London. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2

- Toerien, M. (2014). Conversations and conversation analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), SAGE Handbook of Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: SAGE Publications.

- Vatikiotis, P., & Yörük, Z. F. (2016). Gezi Movement and the Networked Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis in Global Context. Social Media and Society, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116662184

- Yang, S., Quan-Haase, A., & Rannenberg, K. (2016). The changing public sphere on Twitter: Network structure, elites and topics of the #righttobeforgotten. New Media & Society, 146144481665140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816651409

New Media Studies

The study of public sphere and communicative action on Telegram: Applying Habermas' notions on Iranian journalists conversations

References

References

Volume 5, Issue 19
October 2019
Pages 1-33

The study of public sphere and communicative action on Telegram: Applying Habermas' notions on Iranian journalists conversations

References

References

Volume 5, Issue 19October 2019Pages 1-33

Volume 5, Issue 19
October 2019
Pages 1-33