Siber Medya Sonrası Kamusal Alan ve Gazetecilik Pratikleri

Öz

Bu makalede Yeni Medya’nın bazı temel özelliklerinden bahsediliyor. Bir tanımlama denemesinden çok yeni medyaya nasıl yaklaşılması gerektiğine dair bir dizi öneriyle birlikte bu medya türünün diğer medya türlerinden ayrıldığı ana noktalar ve başlıca eleştiriler dile getiriliyor. Bu önerilerin içinde yeni medyanın hâlâ gelişimini tamamlamamış bir medya türü oluşunun vurgulanması, medya tüketicileriyle üreticilerin aynılaştığının belirtilmesi ve yeni medya kullanımının da birtakım öğrenilme süreçlerinden geçmesi gerektiği iddiası da var. Bu sınır belirleme denemesinden sonra medyanın ana kurucu öğelerinden biri olduğu kamusal alan fikriyle yeni medyanın yükselişi arasında ilişkiler kuruluyor. Yurttaşların özel alanları dışındaki konuları kamusal bir ölçekte müzakere edebildikleri bir alan olarak tahayyül edilen kamusal alanın geç modernlik döneminde çeşitli nedenlerle işlerliğini zayıflamıştı. Müzakere sürenin ana unsurlarından kitle medyasındaki sahiplik yapıları da bu zayıflamanın önemli nedenlerinden biri sayılıyordu. Yeni Medya’nın bir tür teorik ve pratik kriz yaşanan kamusal alan fikrine açılım getirebileceği bu makalenin sonraki bölümlerinde vurgulanıyor. Öncelikle genel olarak yeni medya teknolojilerinin yurttaşların kamusal iletişime katkıda bulunabileceği bir yapıya sahip olduğuna işaret eden literatüre bakılıyor. Daha sonra kamusal alanın oluşumunu sağlayan ama sonraki dönemlerde etkisini kaybeden kitle medyasının ana parçalarından olan gazetecilik üzerinde yoğunlaşılıyor. Yeni medya teknolojilerinin gazetecilik üzerinde getireceği dönüşümler iki somut gelişme üzerinden, blog’lar ve yurttaş gazeteciliği, işleniyor. Bu dönüşümlerin yurttaşların bizzat haber üretimine katılımıyla gazeteciliği de zenginleştiren ve dolayısıyla kamusal iletişimi artıran bir boyutu olduğu iddiasıyla makale sona eriyor.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamusal alan, siber medya, yeni medya, yurttaş gazeteciliği, blogculuk

Public Sphere and Journalism Practices After Cyber-Media

Öz

This article begins with underlining essential characteristics of new media. The article does not intend to describe what new media is. Instead it offers a series of propositions to understand new media. Differences from the traditional media types and some of the major critiques of new media are also outlined along with the propositions offered. A few perspectives can be listed as such: New media is still in a process of development, not a complete media type in itself. Consumers and producers converge in this type of media. Usage of New media does not happen automatically but it demands some sort of learning processes. After this attempt of boundary making for the new media, the article begins to discuss the relations between the rising new media and public sphere whose one of the essential and founding principles is mass media. Public sphere is imagined to be a field in which citizens can negotiate non-private issues at a public level and in the late modernity because of several reasons the working of the idea of public sphere has radically weakened. Particularly the ownership patterns in mass media was one of the major reasons of this weakness. In the later parts of the article it is emphasized that new media can provide an opening to this theoretical and practical crisis of the idea of public sphere. In order to argue this point, there is initially a focus on a new media literature. This literature demonstrates possible support new media can create for citizens to intervene public communications. Later, the focus shifts to journalism which is an essential component of mass media whose weakening was one of the factors of public sphere crisis. Transformations on journalism triggered by new media technologies are suggested by focusing on two journalism related issues, blogging and citizen journalism. The article concludes with the argument that journalism in enriched by integrating citizens into the news making process through new media which in turn improves public communications.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public Sphere, cyber media, new media, citizen journalism, blogging

Kaynakça

1. Allan, Stuart. (1999). News culture. Buckingham: Open University Press.
2. Anderson, J. W. (2003). “New media, new publics: Reconfiguring the public sphere of Islam”. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 70(3):887-906.
3. Appadurai, A. (1990). “Difference and disjuncture in the global cultural economy”. Theory, Cul- ture and Society, 7(2):295-310.
4. Atton, C., and Mabweazara, H. (2011). “New media and journalism practice in Africa: An agenda for research”. Journalism, 12(6):667-673.
5. Bakardjieva, M. (2012). “Reconfiguring the mediapolis: New media and civic agency” New Me- dia and Society, 14(1):63-79.
6. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist Austin: University of Texas Press
7. Barnhurst, K. G. (2011). “The new “media affect” and the crisis of representation for political communication”. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4):573-593.
8. Benkler, Y. (2006). “Part One. The Networked Information Economy.” The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, London:Yale University Press, p. 35-133.

9. Bertelsen, D. A. (1992). “Media form and government: Democracy as an archetypal image in the electronic age” Communication Quarterly, 40(4):325-337.
10. Brunner, C., and Tally, W. (1999). The new media literacy handbook: An educator’s guide to bringing new media into the classroom. New York:Doubleday,
11. Burroughs, B. and Burroughs, W. J. (2012). The Masal Bugduv hoax: Football blogging and jour- nalistic authority. New Media & Society, 14(3):1-16
12. Calhoun, C. (1992). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge:The MIT Press
13. Citizen journalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2005). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citi- zen_journalism. Erişim Tarihi 29.06.2012
14. Clarke, R. A., and Knake, R. K. (2010). Cyber war: The next threat to national security and what to do about it. New York:HarperCollins
15. Crosbie, V. (2002). What is new media. Online: http://www.sociology.org.uk/as4mm3a.Doc, Eri- şim Tarihi 29.06.2012
16. Croteau, D., and Hoynes, W. (2003). Media society: Industries, images, and audiences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Pr
17. Cybermedia - Wiktionary. (2009). http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cybermedia. Erişim Tarihi 12.06.2012
18. Dahlberg, L. (2001a). Extending the public sphere through cyberspace. Information, Communica- tion & Society. Taylor & Francis Ltd: London
19. Dahlberg, L. (2001b).”The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of On- line Deliberative Forums Extending The Public Sphere”. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4):615-633.
20. Dahlberg, L., and Siapera, E. (2007). Radical democracy and the internet: Interrogating theory and Practice. Basingstone: Palgraand Macmillan
21. Dahlgren, P. (2005). “The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation”. Political Communication, 22(2):147-162.
22. Downey, J., and Fenton, N. (2003). “New Media, Counter Publicity and The Public Sphere”. New Media & Society, 5(2):185-202.
23. Ecrans - La mort de JFK dans le viseur de Zapruder. (2007). http://www.ecrans.fr/La-mort-de- JFK-dans-le-viseur-de,1957.html. Erişim Tarihi 27.06.2012
24. Eickelman, D. F., and Anderson, J. W. (2003). New media in the Muslim world: The Emerging Public Sphere. Indiana:Indiana University Press
25. Erkan’s Field Diary, 2004, http://erkansaka.net
26. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London:Bloomsbury Academic
27. Flew, Terry (2002). “Educational media in transition: Broadcasting, Digital Media and Lifelong Learning in The Knowledge Economy”. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1):47-60.
28. Flew, Terry (2005). “Creative economy”. Creative industries. John Hartley (ed.) Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 344-360.
29. Flew, Terry (2005). New media: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Foucault, M. (1987). “The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom: An Interview with Michel Foucault on January 20, 1984 in The Final Foucault: Studies on Michel Foucault’s Last Works”. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 12(2-3):112-131.
31. Foucault, M. and Hurley, R. (1990). The care of the self. London:Penguin Books
32. Giles, J. (2005). “internet encyclopaedias go head to head”. Nature, 438(7070):900-901.
33. Goldberg, G. (2011). “Rethinking The Public/Virtual Sphere: The Problem with Participation”. New Media & Society, 13(5):739-754.
34. Grossman, L. (2009). “Iran protests: Twitter, the medium of the movement”. Time Magazine, p.17.
35. Grubisich, T. (2005). “Grassroots journalism: Actual content vs. shining ideal”. Online Journa- lism Review, 6(2005):148.
36. Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J. (1997). Anthropological locations: Boundaries and grounds of a field science. California:Univ of California Pr.
37. Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a cate- gory of bourgeois society. Cambridge:The MIT Press
38. Henriksson, Teemu (2011) Citizen journalism: Al Jazeera’s key to successful reporting of Arab http://www.editorsweblog.org/2011/04/13/citizen-journalism-al-jazeeras-key-to- successful-reporting-of-arab-uprisings. Erişim Tarihi 27.06.2012.
39. How Social Media is Replacing Traditional Journalism as a News ... (2012). http://socialmedia- today.com/roymorejon/567751/how-social-media-replacing-traditional-journalism-news- source. Erişim Tarihi 2.06.2012
40. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York:NYU Press
41. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge: The MIT Press
42. Jenkins, H., and Thorburn, D. (2004). Democracy and new media. Cambridge: The MIT Press
43. Dube, Jonathan (2010). “New report: internet more important than newspapers, but still not ...” http://www.cyberjournalist.net/new-report-internet-more-important-than-newspapers- but-still-not-trustworth/, Erişim Tarihi 22.06.2012
44. Kahn, R., and Kellner, D. (2004). “New media and internet activism: from the ‘Battle of Seattle’to blogging”. New Media & Society, 6(1):87-95.
45. Kellner, D. (2000) “Habermas, the Public Sphere and Democracy: A Critical Intervention” Pers- pectives on Habermas. L. E. Hahn (ed.) Chicago: Open Court. s.259-288
46. Kelty, C. M. (2008). Two bits: The cultural significance of free software. North Carolina: Duke University Press Books
47. Kidd, D. (2003). “Indymedia.org: A new communications commons”. Cyberactivism: Online Ac- tivism in Theory and Practice. Martha MacCaughey and Michael D. Ayers (ed.) London: Routledge. pp.47-69.
48. Kim, E., and Hamilton, J. W. (2006). “Capitulation to capital? OhmyNews as alternative media”. Media, Culture & Society, 28(4): 541-560.
49. Kurban, D., and Sözeri, C. (2011). Case study report: Does media policy promote media freedom and independence? The case of Turkey. TESEV: İstanbul
50. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., and Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. New York:ACM.
51. Landow, G. P. (1997). HyperText 2.0: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society Series). Maryland: Johns Hop- kins University Press.
52. Lasica, J.D. (2003) “What is Participatory Journalism?” Online Journalism Review. http://www. ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060217106.php, Erişim Tarihi 27.06.2012
53. Lawson-Borders, G., and Kirk, R. (2005). “Blogs in campaign communication”. American Beha- vioral Scientist, 49(4):548-559.
54. Lévy, P. (1997) Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. New York: Plenum Trade.
55. Lovink, G. (2002). Dark fiber: Tracking critical internet culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.
56. Manovich, L. (2002). “New media from Borges to HTML”. The New Media Reader, Cambridge The MIT Press, pp.13-28.
57. Marcus, G. E. (1995). “Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited ethnog- raphy”. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24:95-117.
58. Matheson, D. (2004). “Weblogs and the epistemology of the news: some trends in online journa- lism”. New Media & Society, 6(4):443-468.
59. McCarthy, E. and Valerie Olson (2007) “After Writing Culture. An Interview With George Mar- cus” George-Marcus, Erişim Tarihi 24.06.2012
60. MediaShift. Your Guide to Citizen Journalism | PBS. (2008). http://www.pbs.org/medias- hift/2006/09/your-guide-to-citizen-journalism270.html, Erişim Tarihi 27.06.2012
61. Morozov, E. (2012). The net delusion: the dark side of internet freedom. New York: Public Affairs
62. Murthy, D. (2011). “Twitter: Microphone for the masses?”. Media, Culture & Society, 33(5): 779-789
63. Old media must embrace the amateur - FT.com. (2008). http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e2bba176- ae0a-11da-8ffb-0000779e2340.html, Erişim Tarihi 27.06.2012.
64. O’Reilly, T. (2005). “What is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Gene- ration of Software”. www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228, Erişim Tarihi 17.06.2012
65. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). “The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere”. New Media & So- ciety, 4(1):9-27.
66. Pedelty, M. (199). War stories: The culture of foreign correspondents (Vol. 35). New York: Ro- utledge.
67. Portes, A. ( 1998) “Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology”. Annual Re- view of Sociology, 24:1-24.
68. Poster, M. (1997). “Cyberdemocracy: internet and the public sphere” internet Culture. David Porter (ed.) Routledge: London, pp.259-271.
69. Rabinow, P., Marcus, G. E., Faubion, J. D., and Rees, T. (2008). Designs for an Anthropology of the Contemporary. North Carolina: Duke University Press
70. Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambrid- ge: The MIT Press.
71. Robertson, R. (1995). “Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity”. Global Mo- dernities. M. Featherstone, S. Lash and R. Robertson. California: SAGE. pp.25-44
72. Robinson, S. (2006). “The mission of the j-blog: Recapturing journalistic authority online”. Jo- urnalism, 7(1): 65-83.
73. Rosen, J. (2006). “The people formerly known as the audience”. PressThink, June, 27. http://arc- hive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html, Erişim Tarihi 17.06.2012
74. Röportaj [Röportaj Sedat Kapanoğlu] “Herif demek suç, Allah belanı ...” (2010) http://zaman. com.tr/haber.do?haberno=1018606&title=roportaj-sedat-kapanoglu-herif-demek-suc- allah-bel%E2ni-versin-demek-serbest, Erişim Tarihi 17.06.2012
75. Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., and Masip, P. (2011). “Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers”. The Internati- onal Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4): 463-487.
76. Said, E. W. (1997). Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. New York: Vintage Books
77. Saka, E. (2008). “Blogging as a research tool for ethnographic fieldwork. E-seminar”, EASA Me- dia Anthropology Network. www.media-anthropology.net/saka_blogging.pdf, Erişim Ta- rihi 20.06.2010.
78. Saka, E. (2011). “Blogging ve Gençliğin internet üzerinden Katılım süreçleri üzerine bir dene- me”. Katılımın e-hali: Gençlerin Sanal Alemi. A. T. Aydemir (hazl). İstanbul: Alternatif Bilişim Derneği. s. 331-342
79. Saka, E. ve Dağsalgüler, A. (2007). “Yeni İletişim Teknolojileriyle Habermas’ın Kamusal Alanı’nı Yeniden Düşünmek”. Medya Okumaları. Özgür Yılmazkol (ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. s. 161-173
80. Saka, Erkan (2012) “Yeni Medya Okuryazarlığı” T24. http://t24.com.tr/yazi/yeni-medya-okurya- zarligi/4724. Erişim Tarihi 17.06.2012
81. Saka, Erkan (2012). “Öğrencilerim için çevrimiçi araçlar” T24. http://t24.com.tr/yazi/ogrencile- rim-icin-cevrimici-araclar/5146. Erişim Tarihi 29.06.2012
82. Saka, Erkan (2011) “Erkan’ın ZETE yazısı: Tunus ve Yemen’de yaşanan bir sosyal medya ...” http://erkansaka.net/archives/8514, Erişim Tarihi 28.06.2012
83. Schudson, M. (2001). “The objectivity norm in American journalism”. Journalism, 2(2):149-170.
84. Sözeri, C. (2011). “Does social media reduce the impact of corporate journalism?”. IAMCR 2011-Istanbul.
85. Stromer Galley, J. (2000). “Online interaction and why candidates avoid it”. Journal of Commu- nication, 50(4):111-132.
86. Terzis, G. (2008). “The EU correspondent”. Journalism, 9(4):537-550.
87. The future of journalism | openDemocracy. (2012). http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ angela-phillips/future-of-journalism, Erişim Tarihi 22.06.2012
88. Tunç, Aslı and Vehbi Görgülü (2012). Mapping Digital Media: Turkey | Open Society Foundations. http://www.soros.org/reports/mapping-digital-media-turkey. Erişim Tarihi 20.06.2012
89. Wall, M. (2005). “‘Blogs of war’Weblogs as news”. Journalism, 6(2):153-172.
90. Wiesslitz, C., and Ashuri, T. (2011). “‘Moral journalists’: The emergence of new intermediaries of news in an age of digital media”. Journalism, 12(8):1035-1051.
91. Yılmazkol, Özgür (2007) Medya Okumaları –kitapyurdu: kitap. http://www.kitapyurdu.com/ki- tap/default.asp?id=117658. Erişim Tarihi 18.06.2012.