Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Happened to the Public Sphere? The Networked Public Sphere and Public Opinion Formation

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense

Abstract

The concepts of democracy, public sphere, and public opinion are as closely intertwined as contested. Since the dawn of the Internet, scholars have argued about its opportunities, challenges, and risks for society. Recent developments appear fundamental in that they have touched upon the core of Western democracies – the making of a public sphere and the forming of public opinion. The spread of digital media and changing modes of communication thus have made it necessary to reconsider classical conceptions of public sphere and public opinion. Against this background, we will posit that the emergence of the networked public sphere forces us to rethink the concepts of public sphere and public opinion in a less normative, more open, and interactive way that both is permeable to the offline world as well as to transnational demands and influences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election. Divided they blog. Paper presented at the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, S. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? A study of participation and representation in political debates on the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 9(1), 62–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Althaus, S. L., & Tewksbury, D. (2002). Agenda setting and the “new” news. Patterns of issue importance among readers of the paper and online versions of the New York Times. Communication Research, 29(2), 180–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “nasty effect.” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., & Adamic, L. (2012). Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, T., & Schlegelmilch, W. (2014). Cyber democracy. The future of democracy? In E. G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell, & M. P. Efthymiopoulos (Eds.), Cyber-development, cyber-democracy and cyber-defense (pp. 195–206). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L., & Manheim, J. B. (2006). The one-step flow of communication. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 608(1), 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieber, C. (1999). Politische Projekte im Internet. Online-Kommunikation und politische Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binns, A. (2012). Don’t feed the trolls! Journalism Practice, 6(4), 547–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • boyd, d. (2008). Taken out of context. American teen sociality in networked publics. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California-Berkeley. http.//www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf

  • Boyle, T. P. (2001). Intermedia agenda setting in the 1996 presidential election. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(1), 26–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A. (2005). Gatewatching. Collaborative online news production. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, C. (1992). Introduction. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 1–50). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. F. J., Carayannis, E. G., & Rehman, S. S. (2015). Quadruple helix structures of quality of democracy in innovation systems: The USA, OECD countries, and EU member countries in global comparison. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6(3), 467–493. doi:10.1007/s13132-015-0246-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, A. (2007). Digital network repertoires and organizational hybridity. Political Communication, 24(3), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, A. (2011). The political information cycle in a hybrid news system. The British prime minister and the “Bullygate” affair. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., & Wellman, B. (2005). Minding the cyber-gap. The Internet and social inequality. In M. Romero & E. Margolis (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social inequalities (pp. 523–545). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christians, C. G., Glasser, T. L., McQuail, D., Nordenstreng, K., & White, R. A. (2009). Normative theories of the media: Journalism in democratic societies. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The politics of agenda-building. An alternative perspective for modern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, R., & McCombs, M. (2007). The young and agenda-less? Exploring age-related differences in agenda setting on the youngest generation, baby boomers, and the civic generation. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(3), 495–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L. (2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L. (2007). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media & Society, 9(5), 827–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple, K. E., & Scheufele, D. A. (2007). Finally informing the electorate? How the Internet got people thinking about presidential politics in 2004. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(3), 96–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donath, J. S. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 29–59). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donsbach, W. (2011). Risiken und Nebenwirkungen des Internets für die politische Kommunikation. Studies in Communication | Media, 1(1), 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donsbach, W., & Traugott, M. W. (2008a). Public opinion – A nebulous concept. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (pp. 1–5). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Donsbach, W., & Traugott, M. W. (Eds.). (2008b). The SAGE handbook of public opinion research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downey, J., & Fenton, N. (2003). New media, counter publicity and the public sphere. New Media & Society, 5(2), 185–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmer, M., & Wolling, J. (2007). Leben in verschiedenen Welten? Themenagenden von Offlinern und Onlinern im Vergleich. In S. Kimpeler, M. Mangold, & W. Schweiger (Eds.), Die digitale Herausforderung. Zehn Jahre Forschung zur computervermittelten Kommunikation (pp. 239–250). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmer, M., & Wolling, J. (2010). Online-Kommunikation und politische Öffentlichkeit. In W. Schweiger & K. Beck (Eds.), Handbuch Online Kommunikation (pp. 36–58). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing. Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R., & Robertson, R. E. (2015). The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of election. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), E4512–E4521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eslami, M., Rickman, A., Vaccaro, K., Aleyasen, A., Vuong, A., Karahalios, K., & Sandvig, C. (2015). “I always assumed that I wasn’t really that close to [her]”: Reasoning about invisible algorithms in news feeds. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Seoul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four models of the public sphere in modern democracy. Theory and Society, 31, 289–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filzmaier, P., & Fähnrich, B. Strategische Kommunikation in der Politik. In M. Holenweger et al. (Eds.), Strategische Kommunikation. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, R. K., & Hanssen, F. A. (2006). The origins of democracy: A model with application to ancient Greece. Journal of Law and Economics, 49(1), 115–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere. A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, (25/26), 56–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus. Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (2007). Special section. Transnational public sphere. Transnationalizing the public sphere. On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a post-Westphalian world. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(4), 7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House. (2015). Freedom in the world 2015. Washington, DC: Freedom House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 41–80). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, L. A., Hove, T., & Rojas, H. (2006). The networked public sphere. Javnost – The Public, 13(4), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friemel, T. N., & Dötsch, M. (2015). Online reader comments as indicator for perceived public opinion. In M. Emmer & C. Strippel (Eds.), Kommunikationspolitik für die digitale Gesellschaft (Digital Communication Research, Vol. 1, pp. 151–172). Berlin: ifpuk – Institute for Media and Communication Studies at FU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D. (1998). Kriterien demokratischer Performanz in liberalen Demokratien. In M. T. Greven (Ed.), Demokratie – eine Kultur des Westens? 20. Wissenschaftlicher Kongress der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft (pp. 151–179). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallie, W. B. (1955). Essentially contested concept. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56(1), 167–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online?. Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhards, J., & Schäfer, M. (2007). Demokratische Internet-Öffentlichkeit? Ein Vergleich der öffentlichen Kommunikation im Internet und in den Printmedien am Beispiel der Humangenomforschung. Publizistik, 52(2), 210–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhards, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Is the Internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society, 12(1), 143–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, C. J., Hayes, A. F., & Shanahan, J. (1997). Perceived support for one’s opinions and willingness to speak out. A meta-analysis of survey studies on the “spiral of silence”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(3), 452–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Bailon, S., & Paltoglou, G. (2015). Signals of public opinion in online communication. A comparison of methods and data sources. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 95–107. doi:10.1177/0002716215569192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990/1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaften. Mit einem Vorwort zur Neuauflage 1990. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaates. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1998). The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2004). The divided West. Malden: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society. Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2008). Hat die Demokratie noch eine epistemische Dimension? Empirische Forschung und normative Theorie. In J. Habermas (Ed.), Ach, Europa (pp. 138–191). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, M. (1997). Elektronische Demokratie. Computernetzwerke und politische Theorie in den USA. Hamburg: Lit-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 6(2), 215–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargittai, E., & Walejko, G. (2008). The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 239–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, S. (1993a). History, philosophy, and public opinion research. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 140–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, S. (1993b). The meaning of public opinion. Citizens’ constructions of political reality. Media, Culture and Society, 15, 437–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herring, S. C., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for safety online: Managing “trolling” in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18, 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindman, M. (2009). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35, 190–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H. (2005). A cross-cultural test of the spiral of silence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(3), 324–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ito, M. (2008). Introduction. In K. Varnelis (Ed.), Networked publics (pp. 1–14). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kämper, V. (2013). Die Kanzlerin entdeckt #Neuland. Spiegel Online. http.//www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/kanzlerin-merkel-nennt-bei-obama-besuch-das-internet-neuland-a-906673.html

  • Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence, the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavanaugh, A., Zin, T. T., Caroll, J. M., Schmitz, J., Pérez-Quiñones, M., & Isenhour, P. (2006). When opinion leaders blog. New forms of citizen interaction. In Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on Digital government research. Digital Government Society of North America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5802–5805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ku, G., Kaid, L. L., & Pfau, M. (2003). The impact of web site campaigning on traditional news media and public information processing. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 528–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. (1957). Public opinion research and the classic tradition. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21, 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice. How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 197–233). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. (2005). Behavioral strategies for dealing with flaming in an online forum. The Sociological Quarterly, 46(2), 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leggewie, C. (2009). Die Medien der Demokratie. Eine realistische Theorie der Wechselwirkung von Demokratisierung und Medialisierung. In F. Marcinkowski & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Politik in der Mediendemokratie (pp. 70–83). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lembcke, O., Ritzi, C., & Schaal, G. (2012). Zwischen Konkurrenz und Konvergenz. Eine Einführung in die normative Demokratietheorie. In O. Lembcke, C. Ritzi, & G. Schaal (Eds.), Zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie. Normative Demokratietheorien (Vol. 1, pp. 9–32). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, R. (2007). Politischer Wandel durch digitale Netzwerkkommunikation? Strategische Anwendung neuer Kommunikationstechnologien durch kanadische Parteien und Interessengruppen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, W. (1925). The phantom public. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & Fahmy, S. (2011). Exploring the spiral of silence in the virtual world: Individuals’ willingness to express personal opinions in online versus offline setting. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 3(2), 45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maireder, A., & Schlögl, S. (2014). 24 hours of an #outcry. The networked publics of a socio-political debate. European Journal of Communication, 29(6), 687–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthes, J., Rios Morrison, K., & Schemer, C. (2010). A spiral of silence for some. Attitude certainty and the expression of political minority opinions. Communication Research, 37(6), 774–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meckel, M. (1999). Cyberpolitics und Cyberpolitik: Zur Virtualisierung politischer Kommunikation. In K. Kamps (Ed.), Elektronische Demokratie? Perspektiven politischer Partizipation (pp. 229–244). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z. (2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on #Egypt. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 138–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messing, S., & Westwood, J. (2012). Selective exposure in the age of social media. Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650212466406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moy, P., Domke, D., & Stamm, K. (2001). The spiral of silence and public opinion. On affirmative action. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(1), 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhlberger, P. (2003). Political values, political attitudes, and attitude polarization in Internet political discussion: Political transformation or politics as usual? Communications, 28(2), 107–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñiz, C., Alvídrez, S., & Téllez, N. (2015). European public sphere| Shaping the online public debate. The relationship between the news framing of the expropriation of YPF and readers’ comments. Journal of Communication, 9, 3245–3263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side. In Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuberger, C. (2009). Internet, Journalismus und Öffentlichkeit. Analyse des Medienumbruchs. In C. Neuberger, C. Nuernbergk, & M. Rischke (Eds.), Journalismus im Internet: Profession – Partizipation – Technisierung (pp. 19–105). Wiesbaden: VS: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Neuberger, C. (2014). Konflikt, Konkurrenz und Kooperation: Interaktionsmodi in einer Theorie der dynamischen Netzwerköffentlichkeit. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 62(4), 567–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Kotcher, J. E. (2009). A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication, 30(3), 328–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2004). Political talk as a catalyst for online citizenship. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 877–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). Public opinion – Our social skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noelle-Neumann, E., Schulz, W., & Wilke, J. (Eds.). (2000). Fischer Lexikon Publizistik Massenkommunikation (7th ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuernbergk, C. (2013). Anschlusskommunikation in der Netzwerköffentlichkeit. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nuernbergk, C. (2014). Follow-up communication in the blogosphere. Digital Journalism. doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.895520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere. The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27. doi:10.1177/14614440222226244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online. Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2011). A private sphere-democracy in a digital sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. What the Internet is hiding from you. London: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. (1993). Die Integration moderner Gesellschaften. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfetsch, B., Adam, S., & Lance, B. W. (2013). The critical linkage between online and offline media. Javnost – The Public, 20(3), 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porten-Cheé, P., & Eilders, C. (2015). Spiral of silence online. How online communication affects opinion climate perception and opinion expression regarding the climate change debate. Studies in Communication Sciences, 15(1), 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, V. (2008). The public and public opinion in political theories. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (pp. 11–24). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reader, B. (2012). Free press vs. free speech? The rhetoric of “civility” in regard to anonymous online comments. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(3), 495–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community. Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhomberg, M. (2008). Agenda-Setting. Theorie der Mediendemokratie. München: Willhelm C. Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhomberg, M. (2009). Politische Kommunikation. Eine Einführung für Politikwissenschaftler. Paderborn: Fink/UTB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhomberg, M. (2012). Public opinion. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of globalization. Boston: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovation. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 989–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rössler, P. (2008). Agenda-setting, framing and priming. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (pp. 205–217). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rucht, D., Mundo, Y., & Zimmermann, A. (2008). Politische Diskurse im Internet und in Zeitungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santana, A. D. (2011). Online readers’ comments represent new opinion pipeline. Newspaper Research Journal, 32(3), 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, M. S., & Taddicken, M. (2015). Opinion leadership revisited: A classical concept in a changing media environment. International Journal of Communication, 9, 960–981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D. A. (2008). Spiral of silence theory. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (pp. 175–191). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J.-H. (2013a). Social media. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. A. (2013b). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies, 61(1), 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schradie, J. (2011). The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide. Poetics, 39(2), 145–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schudson, M. (2008). The “Lippmann-Dewey debate” and the invention of Walter Lippmann as an anti-democrat 1985–1996. International Journal of Communication, 2, 1031–1042.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, W. (2011). Politische Kommunikation: theoretische Ansätze und Ergebnisse empirischer Forschung (3., überarb. Aufl. ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, A., & Roessler, P. (2012). The spiral of silence and the Internet. Selection of online content and the perception of the public opinion climate in computer-mediated communication environments. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(3), 346–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoham, A., & Ruvio, A. (2008). Opinion leaders and followers. A replication and extension. Psychology and Marketing, 25(3), 280–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweetser, K. D., Golan, G. J., & Wanta, W. (2008). Intermedia agenda setting in television, advertising, and blogs during the 2004 election. Mass Communication and Society, 11(2), 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takeshita, T. (2006). Current critical problems in agenda-setting research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(3), 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomaszeski, M., Proffitt, J. M., & McClung, S. (2009). Exploring the political blogosphere. Perceptions of political bloggers about their sphere. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(2), 72–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trappel, J. (2011). Why democracy needs media monitoring. In J. Trappel, H. Nieminen, & L. Nord (Eds.), The media for democracy monitor. A cross national study of leading news media (pp. 11–28). Göteborg: Nordicom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trepte, S., & Scherer, H. (2010). Opinion leaders – Do they know more than others about their area of interest? Communications, 35(2), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders. Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Merwe, R., & van Heerden, G. (2009). Finding and utilizing opinion leaders. Social networks and the power of relationships. South African Journal of Business Management, 3, 65–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, J. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4–5), 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall, M. (2006). Blogging Gulf War II. Journalism Studies, 7(1), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, M. (2005). Publics and counterpublics. Cambridge: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, J. (2007). (Gegen-)Öffentlichkeit in der Mediengesellschaft. Analyse eines medialen Spannungsverhältnisses. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winsvold, M. (2007). Municipal websites in the local public debate. Supplying facts or setting agenda? NORDICOM Review, 28(2), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wojcieszak, M. E., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of Communication, 59(1), 40–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolling, J., & Emmer, M. (2014). Individual political communication and participation. In C. Reinemann (Ed.), Political communication (pp. 449–468). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woong Yun, G., & Park, S. (2011). Selective posting. Willingness to post a message online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(2), 201–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamith, R., & Lewis, S. C. (2014). From public spaces to public sphere. Digital Journalism, 2(4), 558–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Political and Social Sciences, Zeppelin University, Am Seemoser Horn 20, 88045, Friedrichshafen, Germany

    Jonas Kaiser & Markus Rhomberg

  2. Platform Political Communication, Danube University Krems, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500, Krems, Austria

    Peter Filzmaier

  3. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University, 23 Everett St, 02138, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Jonas Kaiser

  4. Zeppelin University, Am Seemoser Horn 20, 88045, Friedrichshafen, Germany

    Birte Fähnrich

Authors
  1. Jonas Kaiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Birte Fähnrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Rhomberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Filzmaier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonas Kaiser .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

    Elias G. Carayannis

  2. University of Applied Arts Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    David F. J. Campbell

  3. Strategy International, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Marios Panagiotis Efthymiopoulos

Section Editor information

  1. USA, United States

    David F. J Campbell

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Kaiser, J., Fähnrich, B., Rhomberg, M., Filzmaier, P. (2017). What Happened to the Public Sphere? The Networked Public Sphere and Public Opinion Formation. In: Carayannis, E., Campbell, D., Efthymiopoulos, M. (eds) Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06091-0_31-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06091-0_31-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06091-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06091-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation