The principle of publicity, public use of reason and social control

Abstract

This article examines the intellectual history of the concept of ‘publicity’, originally defined by Immanuel Kant as the transcendental formula of public justice and the principle of the public use of reason, but later largely subsumed under the concept of ‘freedom of the press’. The notion of the press as the Fourth Estate/Power was a valid concept and legitimate form of the institutionalization of the principle of publicity in the period when newspapers emanated from a new (bourgeois) estate or class: they had a different source of legitimacy than the three classic powers, and developed as a critical impulse against the old ruling estates. Yet the discrimination in favor of the power/control function of the press, which relates to the need of ‘distrustful surveillance’ defended by Bentham, clearly abstracted freedom of the press from the Kantian quest for the public use of reason. In democratic societies where the people rather than different estates legitimize all the powers, the control dimension of publicity embodied in the corporate freedom of the press should be effectively supplemented by actions toward equalizing private citizens in the public use of reason.

‘Making voices heard …’: Index on Censorship as advocacy journalism

“…Hampshire (1997 [1992]) notes that ‘Publicity, the exposure of censorship and other denials of free expression, is of the essence of procedural justice, because without publicity, the war of words, adversary argument itself, cannot be expected to begin’ (p. 195). Here, Hampshire is clearly concerned with a principle that was very much in keeping with enlightenment thought, particularly that of John Stuart Mill and Emanuel Kant, which emphasised the ‘power’ of reason, and the need to use it in public discourse to eventually give rise to a more rational and democratically grounded form of public opinion (Splichal, 2002). As Splichal (2002) notes, The principle of publicity was originally conceived as a critical impulse against injustice based upon secrecy of state actions and as an enlightening momentum substantiating ‘the region of human liberty’, making private citizens equal in the public use of reason.…”

“…As such, in philosophical terms, Index can be seen as the principle of publicity in praxis as it sought to transcend traditional political contestations with its essentially Kantian universalist ethos. In contrast to traditional media which uses the principle of publicity – the press as the fourth estate – to obscure its anti-public orientation in the name of corporate interests (Steel, 2012), as Splichal (2002) has shown, ‘the principle of publicity denotes a universal belief in the freedom and independence of human nature and reason’ (p. 23). Such a concept is more aligned to the Jeffersonian conception of freedom of speech as the press becomes a siphon of public opinion in a genuinely deliberative capacity (Dewey, 1927; Sunstein, 1993).…”

Community radio, democratic participation and the public sphere

“…Within these conceptualisations of the public sphere, at the heart of debates on the social functions of the media is the notion of ‘publicity’ – citizens’ freedoms to express and publish opinion, the ‘right to communicate’ (Splichal, 2002: 11–7) or as Silverstone later called it ‘publicness’ (2007: 29). Silverstone has argued for a highly pluralistic and fluid media sphere.…”

“…Silverstone further sets a challenge, whereby if the media do in fact constitute the world’s ‘publicness’ it behoves us to interrogate what kind of ‘publicness’ this is, ‘what its strengths and weaknesses are, what its consequences might be, what its responsibilities are, and what might be changed’ (Silverstone, 2007: 29). Whether understood through concepts of ‘public sphere’ (Habermas) ‘publicity’ (Splichal, 2002) or ‘publicness’ (Silverstone, 2007) these ideas have come to be reflected in the ethos of community radio where participation and ‘the right to communicate’ is highlighted by key policy influencers (see AMARC 1 , 1994) and practitioners (Byrne, 2007; McGann, 2007; Ruddy and Walshe, 2007; Day, 2009) alike. Issues of access and participation lie at the heart of community media ethos and practice.…”

Voice of the people? Objectives versus outcomes for community radio in Ireland

“…More recently, in the context of the growing significance of communication and information in post-industrial societies, Hackett and Carroll (2006: 2-10) highlight the mainstream media's ongoing democratic deficit as due to additional factors such as the 'centralisation of power, inequality, homogenisation, undermining of the sense of community, corporate enclosure of knowledge, elitist processes of communication, policy-making and the erosion of communication rights'. Similarly, trends towards dumbing down, Hollywoodization and trivialization of the important are all indicators of the media's continued failure to protect the public good (Splichal 2002). Splichal (2002: 11) notes, however, that despite fundamental questions about the function of the media in relation to the public, the idea of the media possessing some kind of 'watchdog' agenda persists in social commentary as a general function of the media in society.…”