How might the influence of new media be said to strengthen or weaken the public sphere?

It can be argued that the influence of new media is strengthening or weakening the public sphere depending on what angle you see the debate from. The public sphere can be defined as 'the social sites or arenas where meanings are articulated, distributed and negotiated by the public', we see Habermas stating that this public sphere is beginning to weaken in the 20th century. However, there is evidence suggesting otherwise, that although the public sphere face to face may not be as strong as it was, a whole new concept has been introduced through new (social) media where the community has been transferred online.

When looking at the Syrian uprising, we see the power of convergent devices such as mobile phones, where syrian rebels are able to record and share footage, which is then published online via social networking sites. It is this idea of "witness, record, share" that appears to reiterate the initial ideas of the public sphere as it then after uploading that a community, that which exists due to social networking, discusses, debates and then shares again. Furthermore this shows a strengthening of the public sphere as it allows it to bypass censorship as these individuals can show what the traditional media cannot as reporters were banned by the Syrian government. 

New media adds another strength to the public sphere that it is not only cheap but easily accessed. With mobile phones being inexpensive and all smartphones having the ability to access the internet it gives nearly everyone the chance to be active online. We see this in the Syrian uprising as the videos of protesters were shot on mobile phones which were then uploaded straight away or through a computer onto social networking sites such as FaceBook and Twitter. The only foreseeable problem with this idea that everyone can have access online is that there are number of people who cannot afford the technology needed. Another problem to take into consideration is the digital divide, that as the public sphere is weakened in a face to face sense and gets stronger as it goes online, those that do not know how to use such technology such as the elderly will be excluded from the debates and so their voice will be lost.

However, there are apparent negatives to the rise in new media, the struggle with anonymity being a strong concern. Tom Macmaster would be a prime example of this; he is an American student studying in Edinburgh, he pretended to be a young Arab lesbian blogger. His case highlights that anyone can create an identity online, one that it can be completely moulded and shaped to how you want the virtual world to see and believe it. This is clearly a poor decision on his part as it was unethical and created quite a serious problem as there was uproar on Twitter and with Blogger users as he endangered those in the eastern gay communities. Although he was trying to raise a serious issue, it turned out to cause more harm than good, when he did reveal his identity and apologised it wasn’t accepted.

In conclusion we can definitely see that new media is affecting the public sphere, with both positive and negative effects including accessibility and anonymity. In my opinion I believe that the pros far outweigh the cons as we not only have instantly accessible news, but we can share this with the world alongside our own views upon the current situation thus promoting democracy in the online age.