The concept of the public sphere was first explained by Habermas, who underlined that citizens in this neutral space between the private sphere and the of public authority should behave «with the freedom to express and publish their opinions – on matters of general interest». Despite the fact that the public sphere is supposed to be neutral, Habermas argues that it has undergone a decline, especially with the improvement of the mass media. Numerous authors talk about this concern and outline various aspects. Therefore, this essay will focus on how new media influences the public sphere. By evaluating three articles, the critical review implies different positions regarding the impact of new media on the public sphere. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayIn "The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere," Papacharissi states that, although new technologies are easily accessible, "moving political discussion to a virtual space excludes those who do not have access to this space." This means that normally every citizen should have the opportunity to participate in the public sphere, but in the virtual sphere this is not possible for everyone, since not everyone has access to the Internet. Therefore, this situation becomes similar to Habermas' proposal about the decline of the public sphere due to the bourgeoisie , considering the fact that it was mainly white bourgeois men who participated in the discussions, while for example women were excluded. The similarity here is clear when Papacharissi points out that online technologies are reachable and used by a rather small number of people and this availability of. new media is comparable to Habermas' idea discussed above, this accessibility to the Internet “by a small fraction of the population contributes to creating an exclusive, elitist, and less than ideal electronic public sphere,” which suggests. that it is not that opposition to the bourgeois public sphere of previous centuries. It is also indicated that “new technologies facilitate greater, but not necessarily more diverse, participation in political discussion since they are still only available to a small fraction of the population”. Yet some authors believe that “the Internet is an easily accessible medium with low barriers to entry”. However, Papacharissi's article was written 16 years ago, which means it is outdated and may not apply as well to the concept, as Internet access has become much more available nowadays, but not just Papacharissi , but also Kruse et al in “Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media” agrees with the statement that for some people it is not so easy to use new technologies and the Internet: “While social media sites are free, a device and/or an Internet subscription has a cost prohibitive for some". Although at one point Kruse et al indicate that free access to the Internet is essential for the development of better political discourse online. The approach to new technologies is not the only problem that concerns the authors. One of the reasons why the Internet has a negative impact on the public sphere is that people do not express themselves out of fear. Kruse and colleagues say that users may sometimes hesitate to express their honest opinions about, for example, their political knowledge “for fear of online harassment and the potential effect it has on their work or relationships with family and friends.” This means that some people don't want to dent the bond between them and someone they care about, as they sometimes post theown point of view can lead to conflict. A portion of individuals do not "self-censor" their opinions when participating in a discussion anonymously. Papacharissi also agrees with this idea, stating that “online anonymity helps to overcome the boundaries of identity and communicate more freely and openly, thus promoting a more enlightened exchange of ideas”. Even if people have the opportunity to participate in a discussion anonymously, not everyone is willing to try, even though "the Internet has the potential to extend the public sphere, at least in terms of information available to citizens." Kruse's, Lisa M. et al “Social media as a public sphere? Social Media Politics” develops Habermas' idea about hegemony in the public sphere. Habermas implies that in modern times the public sphere barely exists due to the importance of money and power within the mass media. Not only money, but also the opinions of citizens, considered more powerful, can prevent others from expressing themselves. Beyond that, “the news media inadvertently defines which issues are newsworthy and deserve public attention.” Kruse et al state that in this case “civil discourse in the search for truth is certainly not occurring” and that “social media is not revitalizing a public sphere because the requirements for a public sphere are absent in social media.” So, according to Kruse et al, it is seen that there are many reasons why the public sphere in new media actually does not work as it should, and regarding the fact that this article is recent, it can be assumed that the public sphere is still witnessing a decline and that is why this article is useful for understanding the impact of new media on the public sphere. Harper, in “The Big Data Public and Its Problems: Big Data and the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” agrees with the concept and states that people who fragment the public “are quite happy to make normative judgments laden with power over who and what should be included in the conversation.” This problem becomes essential when talking about the impact of the media on the public sphere, where the public sphere, as mentioned above, should be a neutral place where every citizen can express himself. In his article, Harper points out that new media and big data are primarily used not to improve the public sphere, but to gather information on “personal interests, demographic information and purchasing behavior” and to monitor “media consumption”. When this is done, it is easier to structure people and ensure that different messages reach different individuals, and this is due to “the ability to target (and personalize) media messages based on our pre-existing values ​​and beliefs”. This fragmentation, however, according to Papacharissi has negative aspects, as he maintains that "as the virtual mass divides into increasingly smaller discussion groups, the ideal of a public sphere that connects many people online escapes us." Terje and Goldfarb similarly write that public structuring implements an unstable platform for discourses and reduces the unity of individuals in the public sphere. Harper also talks about the fragmentation of audiences created by big data and argues that this “has ushered in a new structural transformation of the public sphere: radically reshaping the way we come together to make meaning.” In other words, due to new media the shape of the public sphere has changed. Harper argues that this different kind of public sphere is not a bad thing, especially when talking about fragmented publics. The main problem Harper outlines about structured audiences in “Big Data Audiences and Their Problems:.