Position Statements Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Position Statements - Essay Example In fact, there is a very simple test to check whether there group is a team or not. If there is at least one common objective that can only be accomplished by the joint efforts of all people involved then that group is a team (Hardingham, 1998). On the other hand if we dig deep down in a technical aspect, if there is only one person accountable for the objectives that a group of people is working to achieve by joining efforts, then that cluster of people cannot be regarded as a team. That is a group. But it doesn’t mean this structure is less efficient or less effective than a team (Parker, 2003). But the more important question than the definition of group or team is the direction of these collections of individuals. Where are they heading? It is a common misconception that forming only a team will help increase the efficiency, if there is no specific purpose to bring together people, either as a group or as a team it is not going to serve the purpose. Another misapprehension is that only companies and giant corporate have mission and vision statements. An effective team is like a small dense company model that takes care of the mission it is given and acts under a team or group leader who recognizes the potential and individual abilities of team/group members. That is how a team work or a group is defined which amazingly a small number of people

Official Crime Statistics Essay Example for Free

Official Crime Statistics Essay What are the main strengths and weaknesses of official crime statistics and victimization surveys? In this essay I will be discussing the main strengths and weaknesses of official crime statistics and victimization surveys. I have done tremendous research to back up my work, I have also used famous criminologists and other bodies who understand criminalization to help re-enforce my points. Most experts and successful authors, such as Tim Newburn, Brent E. Turvey and Clive Coleman have attempted, through their literature to show how crime has evolved and how surveys have influenced the public’s views about it. The first ever national crime statistics were published in France, 1827. Adolphe Quetelet, a scholar and previous astronomer was the first individual to take a serious approach and interest in criminal statistics. He then went on to become a leading body in criminology and social sciences for his work. Official crime statistics are placed under the ideology of crime rates in the UK and Wales. Numbers that the BCS, police and other law aboding bodies can gather together from the public, their research and other sources to help give the most accurate rate of crime they can. Victimisation surveys are generally random samples of the population asked whether they have been a victim to crime within a specific period of time. The reasons why these two different types of surveys must be taken are so that crime statistics can attempt to be more solid, although the argument is always made that there will never be an accurate percentage of crime and I will also be touching on why this statement has and always will be made. Crime statistics and Victimisation surveys are polls taken and received by victims of crime or the criminals and individuals who commit them. There has been much controversy amongst crime statistics of how accurate and precise they really are. I will be discussing these issues, but overall focusing my main points onto the strengths and weaknesses of official crimes statistics and victimisation surveys. Without crime statistics there would be no base grounds on the numbers of crimes averagely committed, by what sex and by what age group. Howeve r, without victimization surveys crimes may stay ‘hidden’ crimes such as domestic violence, burglary and intimidation. Why I mention these three in particular are because statistics show that most common repeat victims of crime are within these types of offences. Other offences also include other household theft and vandalism. One example of a top victimization survey is the British Crime Survey. The British Crime Survey or BCS for short is a nationally represented survey with a successful sample of approximately 47,000 adults living in private households in England and wales every year. The BCS started its survey’s in 1981 and it became a fluent survey database until 2001/2002. This survey is a face to face interview where the respondents or victims are asked about their experiences and feelings of crime that may have happened to them or people they know in the last 12 months, the BCS also ask them about their opinions of crime and crime related topics such as anti-social behaviour. These types of people would also be asked about the effectiveness of the police and how they deal with these is sues of crime. The British crime survey is a very important key piece of information and source of data on the background of respondents and the overall circumstances of victimization. A public, accurate crime statistic is most commonly the police, a more community based, less national and less accurate version as it’s range of scope does not cover the nation; however both sources limit themselves to a set of offences. Making it easier to gain a more accurate percentage. One main difference between the BCS and the police is that the BCS excludes victimless crimes, drug dealing and murder. The reason for this is the victims are no longer available to discuss the events that happened. Other crimes they exclude are sexual offences; this is generally due to the small number reported and the unwillingness of respondents to come forward. Another main difference between the two is that BCS thefts including personal property and other household items, because with the police they would involve everything included in the theft, jewellery, personal belongings, with the BCS it would all fall into a similar category making it a difficult task to achieve. A weakness of official crime statistics and victimisation surveys is that an argument could be bought up are they actually official? Just because they’re published doesn’t make them correct. What about the crimes that aren’t reported, Because of victims being afraid, intimidated or not having trust in the police. These events being called ‘Hidden Crimes’ or as they are often referred to ‘Dark Figures’. In addition to this, modern day statistics are now more enclosed, for example in Tim Newburn’s ‘Criminology’ he discusses how crimes such as violence against the person accounts to events such as murder, assa ult, however not reckless driving which could be considered to focus fully on physical damage. So as statistics are not as open to as many crimes as they wish, some will slip through and possibly go into a much minor category. Obviously a disadvantage being that individual may feel neglected and reluctant to detail the events. Due to the declining of main volume crimes in the recent years, beliefs about crime are still quite high. A third of the population from 2003 still believed that crime was a high rated problem. Advantages of Statistics such as these are that they tend to give the public a clear understanding of what crime rates are at. This table shows beliefs about crime, public fear that possibly the tabloids could have caused. This is discussed a weakness to crime statistics and the public, in a way the media are creating crimes, feeding on crime fear. As I mentioned earlier Crime statistics are never fully accurate and power is always an important factor when determining crime. Smaller crimes such as robbery are associated with the ‘Underclass’ Theory by Charles Murray. These types of offences are more down to the individual rather than a group. Dr Ziggy MacDonald of the University of Leicester wrote a piece in the Economic Journal about ‘Hidden Crimes’, one of the things his research showed was that ‘forecasts of crime trends fail to take proper account of what drives unreported crime. For example, someone who is currently unemployed is 7% less likely to report a burglary than someone who is currently in work, while someone on a relatively high income is 8% more likely to report a burglary than someone on less than average income’ He discussed how the decrease in employment could eventually lead to the higher rate of theft from people’s properties, and resulting in victims not reporti ng it, maybe thinking it won’t matter as their income isn’t high enough to replace the item anyway. Even though the difference between low income individuals and high income individuals is 1% which from my research closely is around 16% burglaries every year as a crime rate, 1% of those victims with a low income are subjected towards not reporting theft of their possessions. Certain individual’s economic status (as shown in from MacDonald’s work) can become a huge factor when determining ‘Hidden Crimes’. People could feel helpless as income is low, or they may live in a deprived area, with no way of being helped their behaviour could become ‘broken’ referring to the ‘broken glass theory’ a single building could have a shattered window for a period of time and the community around that area may feel unwanted, leaving a physical and emotional gap between this community and the open world. Because of this, other buildings may become trashed and broken, people would begin to avoid the area it ‘self, the idea of fear within these ‘Hidden Crimes’. This adds to the statistics the BCS and the police may not know about, smaller areas may not be expected to have high rates of crime and therefore focus is taken away from them. Bigger areas such as Birmingham would be a prime target for crime, the assumption is made. Another theory could that there could possibly be Marxist Criminology, Crime due to class divisions within a society or community, or pe rhaps crimes of the powerful, individuals or groups of people being treated differently in society, expelled from other physical and emotional contact, leaving them no choice but to turn to crime. Transference, to be precise. In August, 2011 the riots in the United Kingdom gave breach to a huge collaboration of crime sprees. Over 1000 people were arrested, yet possibly over 100,000 protested against this Marxist Criminology from politics, student fees and tax increases. Not every individual was caught, making statistics even scarcer. These significant changes within society set alight events that triggered this. This idea of Neo Marxism relating to ‘Dark Figures’ as not every individual in society has the same equal access as other fortunate people, be it financially, emotionally and they lash out because of it. Yet these ‘crimes’ aren’t recorded, they go unnoticed and became a damaging part of a society. In relation to this is the Left Realism theory, a social democratic approach to the analysis of crime and the development of effective policies of crime control. At the heart of all of this is a source of suffering for the poor and the vulnera ble, this links from the ideology of smaller much petty crimes. Bullying for example which as many of 44% of suicides by children from the ages of 10-14 are potentially linked. Data sources of the years have developed and grown onto this topic from the 1900’s as society and trends begin to evolve. Children picked on because of their backgrounds or income, yet data sources still have a less accurate number to this topic than any other. Official crime statistics do not generally show crimes committed by corporations, if any results are shown, they aren’t ever big corporations. An example of corporations is Citibank, high profile data breaches, and even the business Sony. These ‘White Collar Crimes’ are not easily detected, distinguishing them from victimization surveys. They could be breaches of health and safety laws, not identifiable to the easiest detail. Linking to this could be an idea of a corporations being known as ‘Mavericks’ people who are the exceptions rather than the rules, so society and governing bodies refuse to believe that they would commit corporate crimes, allowing them to get off easy. Or even reduc ing the expected costs. One of the biggest corporate crimes was an incident that occurred in 1984 Bhopal. Hundreds of people were killed in a chemical accident, by a company called Union Carbide. They owned a pesticide plant which was around 3 miles from Bhopal. The leading director of that company told the BBC that ‘methyl isocyanate gas (MIC) had escaped when a valve in the plants underground storage tank broke under pressure’ As laws are different from the USA and India, payments have still not been made to the families, who deserve compensation, an American firm that is above the law and have been forced into no legal action whatsoever. Could this have future affects to India, How people live, fear foreign businesses, Should they have to live in fear. In conclusion to my research and the theories I have mentioned. I believe that crime statistics can define the crime rate in the UK every year, both types of surveys have their weaknesses and strengths, society as a whole helps mould the body of crime, they can also be the reliable source to provide it, and stop it. My results and research from numerous sources have given an indication on the levels of crime in the UK. Bibliography http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/627523/victim-survey http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/crime-justice/crime/victims-of-crime/index.html http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0809.html http://www.res.org.uk/society/mediabriefings/pdfs/2002/february/macdonald1.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/3/newsid_2698000/2698709.stm http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/factsheet-YouthOffending.pdf

Social and Individual Responsibility in Frankenstein :: Social Responsibility in Frankenstein

Social and Individual Responsibility in Frankenstein    Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein in a time of wonder. A main wonder was whether you could put life back into the dead. Close to the topic of bringing life back into the dead was whether you could create your own being, like selective breeding but a bit more powerful. Close to where Mary lived there was a man named Vultair was experimenting putting electricity through Frogs to see if they could come back to life. With that going on close to her as well as the fear of a revolution and the pressure on her to think of a ghost story it is not surprising she thought of a horror story that would still be popular in the 21st Century. Now I have explained where the story came from and why it is as it is I will explain the social responsibility it brings up and how it is still important today. Looking after something you create is one point it brings up. Frankenstein created his creature so he should have looked after it but instead just because he didn't like the way it looked he ran away. He never taught his creature anything so for all the creature knew it could have been okay to kill people and suchlike. That relates to today as some children who were not taught right from wrong by their parents watch films like Scream and I know what you did last summer where murdering seems cool as it involves Jennifer Love Hewit, Sarah Michelle Geller and Neve Cambell getting killed. The children watch these and think "I want to be like that scary guy with the mask" and they go and try to kill someone. If they do they get charged for the offence but many people think that the children's parents should be blamed as they never taught the child right from wrong and they didn't stop the child (sometimes as young as eight or nine) from watching the video which is rated eighteen or fiftee n. When the filmmakers hear about how their film was responsible for a death they never (except for once) take the film away from the public and what they usually do is make a less violent sequel, which isn't really helping anyone and less violence still is some violence. Teaching a child right from wrong is another point it brings up but I feel I have covered this point in the section above.

Bel Canto Essay

Bel Canto – Essay Love in a pressure cooker is much different then love in â€Å"real† life or in the mundane world. The pressure cooker in Bel Canto would be the situation of being held hostage, held inside by terrorists. Not being able to live the lives that they all once lived. In the mundane world people are busy. They are busy taking children here and there; people have schedules to attend to and places to be. The ability to do what they want is limited. Many parts of the â€Å"real† world are dictated by agendas. People lose the ability to love naturally. They learn to love something or someone because they are around it all the time or it’s what they are told to love. Many of times people forgo doing things they love because they don’t have time or don’t make time to do what they love. When Kato played piano for the first time it was like a hearing all their feelings come alive. Kato didn’t tell anyone that he played piano he just decided to play. Simon and Edith also found there love again, there love for each other. Because death and danger were possible many of the characters wanted to have friendships while in the hostage situation. Many of them faced language barriers but over came them so that they had what they wanted in dire times. The characters also live for the moment. They act in ways that they wouldn’t in any other situation because the unknown thought of death is lingering. When Hosokawa started to realize that he loved Roxanne it was not known if they would ever really be together. Hosokawa was willing to give up his life in Japan to be with Roxanne, because he realized in this situation that he was not doing what he loved and did not love the life he was living. Love in a pressure cooker situation makes people be more spontaneous and do the things they have forgotten about or want to do rather then what they have to do. Love in the real world is different. It’s harder to get to know someone sometime, or be able to be with someone because society says it shouldn’t be allowed. Real world love is harder and more difficult to keep at times. But in the end, Love is still Love and it is something that is felt by all, whether you are in a pressure cooker situation or in the real world. The desire to be loved by someone is always there and the desire to love someone is always there too.

Public Sphere

â€Å"The idea that a public sphere to which everyone can contribute on equal terms is simply a fantasy. † To believe that there exists a public sphere where every single member contributes on an equal level is highly unrealistic. Correspondingly, many academics have critically supported as well as argued against this view. There will be discussion of the public sphere and various writer’s views and concepts regarding it, with specific references to Howley (2007) and Turnbull (2006), as well as Hackett (2010), Holub (1994), Apppadurai (2000), Meikle (2008), and Fraser (1990). The different academics will introduce and discuss; an ideal and flawed public sphere, a democratic public sphere, and the important roles of audiences and participants. Furthermore, there will be a particular focus on Habermas, his theories and findings consequently deconstructing his ideas on his bourgeois public sphere theory. Overall, the key argument in this discussion is that the public sphere is ideally seen as an arena for equal opinions, however pragmatically this is not the case and it is difficult to achieve it because of the different factors that exist between individuals and participants. Holub (1994) explains the public sphere as; â€Å"a realm in which opinions are exchanged between private persons unconstrained (ideally) by external pressures. Theoretically open to all citizens and founded in the family, it is the place where something approaching public opinion is formed. It should be distinguished both from the state, which represents official power, and from the economic structures of civil society as a whole. Its function is actually to mediate between society and state; it is the arena in which the public organizes itself, formulates public opinion, and expresses its desires vis-a-vis [face to face with] the government†. Similarly, a majority of modern conceptualisations of the public sphere relate back to Jurgen Habermas and his bourgeois public sphere. Habermas defines it as a space of reflective discussion about issues and subjects of a common interest, following an informed democratic procedure (Meikle 2008). Thus, a relevant example would be; supplying different resources of media to developing countries in preparation for an election or some sort political decision. By doing this, individuals are being provided an informed democratic process, allowing them access to sources of independent media to make a more informed decision before they elect. This is often present in events such as elections as it is an arena where private people come together as a public; as one. By looking back, the characteristics of the public sphere have not changed when comparing the old and contemporary. Meikle (2008) discusses how Habermas emphasized the role of periodical press in the development of his public sphere (p. 129), describing it as the ‘coffee-house culture’ and how at the time people would sit and discuss topics and events which would in turn lead to influencing the political culture of the 17th and 18th century. However, it must also be noted that Habermas’ accepted criticism to his notion, as well as making it clear that the public sphere is not given to every type of society, and it does not own a fixed status. Furthermore, Meikle (2008) also likens the public sphere to a place where participants can discuss their ideas freely. However, it is important to regard these definitions as the ‘idyllic’ public sphere, Holub (1994) mentions ‘ideally’ in brackets, because realistically it is unachievable to have this sort of ‘perfect’ public sphere where everyone contributes equally. Many academics have criticized Habermas’ bourgeois public sphere, questioning if it ever really existed, and if it did, would it really be able to ever exist again? On that note, Hackett (2010) brings forth the notions that this concept of Habermas’ public sphere that presumes rationality, equality is false, and consequently, he critiques it, alongside Fraser (1990), saying that; â€Å"it embeds a masculinist notion of rationality, and a taken-for granted gendered distinction between private and public spheres. It ignores the ‘counter’ and minority public spheres of subordinate groups, the intrusion of social and economic inequalities into the processes of the public sphere, and the conversion of public opinion into effective state policy through representative political mechanisms. (2010, p. 4). Additionally, Fraser (1990) looks at how Habermas’ theory of the bourgeois public sphere constitutes a number of exclusions, in particular excluding women and individuals of lower social class, as it was not accessible to all. Lower class people did not have the resources and women did not have the same rights, privileges and power as men, in society, to have their equal say. Moreover some of these factors are still relevant, such as the social classes and accessibility to resources. Furthermore, Fraser (1990) mentions the exclusion of subordinate groups, where she states â€Å"subordinate groups sometimes cannot find the right voice or words to express their thoughts, and when they do, they discover they are not heard [and] are silenced, encouraged to keep their wants inchoate, and heard to say ‘yes’ when what they have said is ‘no. ’† (1990, p. 64). It is evident, that this access, whether it is technological, power or status related, to contributing to the public sphere still does not equate to equality. Rather, the factors that need to be considered are not access alone, but also what kind of ‘voice’ the speaker possesses in society. All of which are dependent on a number of factors, such as the speaker’s status in society, gender, age, class, education, culture and country. Moreover, public spheres are relevant in today’s new social media’s like Twitter, Facebook and various blogs. They create an arena in which social sites, like these, generate meanings which are then distributed and discussed amongst a large audience, consequently becoming a public sphere and letting interaction occur with all its participants. This emergence of social media has called for a new public sphere to be formed. Meikle (2008) discusses how media is an integral aspect of the public sphere and that in present society, it is inescapable. Media plays an obligatory part; today’s â€Å"newspapers and magazines, [internet,] radio and television are the media of the public sphere† (Habermas in Meikle, 2008, p. 128). However, for Habermas this role that media plays is an issue, stating that the world shaped by the mass media is only a public sphere on the exterior; only in ‘appearance’ and nothing else. Though the public sphere cannot be regarded as equal, Meikle does suggest that it can be look at in a positive sense; regarding it as a useful standard against which we can measure how the media actually do operate (Meikle, 2008, p. 131). Furthermore, Habermas’ ideal public sphere has often been said that it is being compromised by contemporary tabloid media and culture. It produces a blur between the private and public spheres in regards to celebrity culture and making their private lives a public concern and discussion. As well as regarding media as just pure entertainment, the tabloid media are constructing participants who only consume what they are being fed by the media instead of making their own informed decisions (Meikle 2008). Furthermore, Habermas (in Meikle 2008) believes that our contemporary political mediascapes, which refers to the â€Å"distribution of electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information [such as] newspapers, magazines and†¦ Television stations† (Apppadurai, 2000, p. 326), are in fact are a long way away from being an ‘ideal public sphere’. He looks at how â€Å"public opinion is no longer produced by the public, instead, public opinion is now something produced for the public† (2008, p. 129) we are being influenced and there is no opportunity to discuss ideas freely, or for there to be complete equality in the contribution to the public sphere because of the different factors that come into play. Similarly, Habermas (in Meikle 2008) uses the term ‘equals’ in regards to participants in the public sphere. Yet, Meikle (2008), in accordance to Fraser’s (1990) view, discusses how the public sphere cannot guarantee each person’s contribution to be of equal amount. This is because of the reasons and factors that exist in society such as; power and status; celebrity power over ordinary individuals, access to resources; developed and developing countries, and gender; the imbalance of power between men and women. Turnbull (2006) looks at the roles of audiences, and why their role is so vital in instances like these. Turnbull discusses the media’s audience and argues how media is looked at as a centrality in our lives and world, some have less or no access and the social and cultural context of the individual is â€Å"embedded in their access to and use of various media technologies†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ The â€Å"participation [of audiences] in an increasingly mediated public sphere may be largely conditional† (p. 80), as it alters the stance on every participant having an ‘equal’ contribution to the public sphere. Howley (2007) states that people need to promote a more democratic media culture, for a place that individuals can share their mutual interests and concerns, discuss topics. He supports that there is not one sole public sphere because there is not a single medium that is ‘perfect’ (pp. 357-358). Furthermore, Howley (2007) brings forth the idea that the public sphere is the centrality for media institutions but is also significant for media students, providing a theoretical perspective; it helps to emphasize the essential and crucial relationships between democracy and modern communication systems. As the role of a democracy, a citizen who is informed and wishes to engage, needs to be accommodated by the media; providing them resources of news, information and opinion, for that individual to then be able to use this to identify themselves towards this common interest. However, this notion of a democratically public sphere has issues that arise, the main one being the nature and conduct of public discourse in a highly mobile and heterogeneous society. By regarding societies that have things like ethnic, religious and cultural diversity, partisan politics, and economic stratification present, the sole idea of achieving agreement on matters of public policy seem inaccessible and unachievable. Also, another issue is the â€Å"contemporary media systems – characterised by unprecedented consolidation of ownership and control on the one hand, and the fragmentation of mass audiences into even smaller ‘niche markets’ on the other – makes issues of access to and participation in public discourse equally problematic† (pp. 343-344). Thus, this idea of an equal and democratic public sphere is difficult to have and carry out. In conclusion, the ideal public sphere tries to offer a place where people are able to discuss their ideas freely between one another. However, to believe that individuals can discuss in a completely free manner, with no influence and be complete equals, contributing on equal terms, is a far-fetched hope. There can only ever be a place of equality and rationality in an ideal society, as factors of social, linguistic and cultural inequalities, rights and even freedom of speech of an individual, all affect any possibility of equal communication and contribution between people in a public sphere. Public Sphere â€Å"The idea that a public sphere to which everyone can contribute on equal terms is simply a fantasy. † To believe that there exists a public sphere where every single member contributes on an equal level is highly unrealistic. Correspondingly, many academics have critically supported as well as argued against this view. There will be discussion of the public sphere and various writer’s views and concepts regarding it, with specific references to Howley (2007) and Turnbull (2006), as well as Hackett (2010), Holub (1994), Apppadurai (2000), Meikle (2008), and Fraser (1990). The different academics will introduce and discuss; an ideal and flawed public sphere, a democratic public sphere, and the important roles of audiences and participants. Furthermore, there will be a particular focus on Habermas, his theories and findings consequently deconstructing his ideas on his bourgeois public sphere theory. Overall, the key argument in this discussion is that the public sphere is ideally seen as an arena for equal opinions, however pragmatically this is not the case and it is difficult to achieve it because of the different factors that exist between individuals and participants. Holub (1994) explains the public sphere as; â€Å"a realm in which opinions are exchanged between private persons unconstrained (ideally) by external pressures. Theoretically open to all citizens and founded in the family, it is the place where something approaching public opinion is formed. It should be distinguished both from the state, which represents official power, and from the economic structures of civil society as a whole. Its function is actually to mediate between society and state; it is the arena in which the public organizes itself, formulates public opinion, and expresses its desires vis-a-vis [face to face with] the government†. Similarly, a majority of modern conceptualisations of the public sphere relate back to Jurgen Habermas and his bourgeois public sphere. Habermas defines it as a space of reflective discussion about issues and subjects of a common interest, following an informed democratic procedure (Meikle 2008). Thus, a relevant example would be; supplying different resources of media to developing countries in preparation for an election or some sort political decision. By doing this, individuals are being provided an informed democratic process, allowing them access to sources of independent media to make a more informed decision before they elect. This is often present in events such as elections as it is an arena where private people come together as a public; as one. By looking back, the characteristics of the public sphere have not changed when comparing the old and contemporary. Meikle (2008) discusses how Habermas emphasized the role of periodical press in the development of his public sphere (p. 129), describing it as the ‘coffee-house culture’ and how at the time people would sit and discuss topics and events which would in turn lead to influencing the political culture of the 17th and 18th century. However, it must also be noted that Habermas’ accepted criticism to his notion, as well as making it clear that the public sphere is not given to every type of society, and it does not own a fixed status. Furthermore, Meikle (2008) also likens the public sphere to a place where participants can discuss their ideas freely. However, it is important to regard these definitions as the ‘idyllic’ public sphere, Holub (1994) mentions ‘ideally’ in brackets, because realistically it is unachievable to have this sort of ‘perfect’ public sphere where everyone contributes equally. Many academics have criticized Habermas’ bourgeois public sphere, questioning if it ever really existed, and if it did, would it really be able to ever exist again? On that note, Hackett (2010) brings forth the notions that this concept of Habermas’ public sphere that presumes rationality, equality is false, and consequently, he critiques it, alongside Fraser (1990), saying that; â€Å"it embeds a masculinist notion of rationality, and a taken-for granted gendered distinction between private and public spheres. It ignores the ‘counter’ and minority public spheres of subordinate groups, the intrusion of social and economic inequalities into the processes of the public sphere, and the conversion of public opinion into effective state policy through representative political mechanisms. (2010, p. 4). Additionally, Fraser (1990) looks at how Habermas’ theory of the bourgeois public sphere constitutes a number of exclusions, in particular excluding women and individuals of lower social class, as it was not accessible to all. Lower class people did not have the resources and women did not have the same rights, privileges and power as men, in society, to have their equal say. Moreover some of these factors are still relevant, such as the social classes and accessibility to resources. Furthermore, Fraser (1990) mentions the exclusion of subordinate groups, where she states â€Å"subordinate groups sometimes cannot find the right voice or words to express their thoughts, and when they do, they discover they are not heard [and] are silenced, encouraged to keep their wants inchoate, and heard to say ‘yes’ when what they have said is ‘no. ’† (1990, p. 64). It is evident, that this access, whether it is technological, power or status related, to contributing to the public sphere still does not equate to equality. Rather, the factors that need to be considered are not access alone, but also what kind of ‘voice’ the speaker possesses in society. All of which are dependent on a number of factors, such as the speaker’s status in society, gender, age, class, education, culture and country. Moreover, public spheres are relevant in today’s new social media’s like Twitter, Facebook and various blogs. They create an arena in which social sites, like these, generate meanings which are then distributed and discussed amongst a large audience, consequently becoming a public sphere and letting interaction occur with all its participants. This emergence of social media has called for a new public sphere to be formed. Meikle (2008) discusses how media is an integral aspect of the public sphere and that in present society, it is inescapable. Media plays an obligatory part; today’s â€Å"newspapers and magazines, [internet,] radio and television are the media of the public sphere† (Habermas in Meikle, 2008, p. 128). However, for Habermas this role that media plays is an issue, stating that the world shaped by the mass media is only a public sphere on the exterior; only in ‘appearance’ and nothing else. Though the public sphere cannot be regarded as equal, Meikle does suggest that it can be look at in a positive sense; regarding it as a useful standard against which we can measure how the media actually do operate (Meikle, 2008, p. 131). Furthermore, Habermas’ ideal public sphere has often been said that it is being compromised by contemporary tabloid media and culture. It produces a blur between the private and public spheres in regards to celebrity culture and making their private lives a public concern and discussion. As well as regarding media as just pure entertainment, the tabloid media are constructing participants who only consume what they are being fed by the media instead of making their own informed decisions (Meikle 2008). Furthermore, Habermas (in Meikle 2008) believes that our contemporary political mediascapes, which refers to the â€Å"distribution of electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information [such as] newspapers, magazines and†¦ Television stations† (Apppadurai, 2000, p. 326), are in fact are a long way away from being an ‘ideal public sphere’. He looks at how â€Å"public opinion is no longer produced by the public, instead, public opinion is now something produced for the public† (2008, p. 129) we are being influenced and there is no opportunity to discuss ideas freely, or for there to be complete equality in the contribution to the public sphere because of the different factors that come into play. Similarly, Habermas (in Meikle 2008) uses the term ‘equals’ in regards to participants in the public sphere. Yet, Meikle (2008), in accordance to Fraser’s (1990) view, discusses how the public sphere cannot guarantee each person’s contribution to be of equal amount. This is because of the reasons and factors that exist in society such as; power and status; celebrity power over ordinary individuals, access to resources; developed and developing countries, and gender; the imbalance of power between men and women. Turnbull (2006) looks at the roles of audiences, and why their role is so vital in instances like these. Turnbull discusses the media’s audience and argues how media is looked at as a centrality in our lives and world, some have less or no access and the social and cultural context of the individual is â€Å"embedded in their access to and use of various media technologies†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ The â€Å"participation [of audiences] in an increasingly mediated public sphere may be largely conditional† (p. 80), as it alters the stance on every participant having an ‘equal’ contribution to the public sphere. Howley (2007) states that people need to promote a more democratic media culture, for a place that individuals can share their mutual interests and concerns, discuss topics. He supports that there is not one sole public sphere because there is not a single medium that is ‘perfect’ (pp. 357-358). Furthermore, Howley (2007) brings forth the idea that the public sphere is the centrality for media institutions but is also significant for media students, providing a theoretical perspective; it helps to emphasize the essential and crucial relationships between democracy and modern communication systems. As the role of a democracy, a citizen who is informed and wishes to engage, needs to be accommodated by the media; providing them resources of news, information and opinion, for that individual to then be able to use this to identify themselves towards this common interest. However, this notion of a democratically public sphere has issues that arise, the main one being the nature and conduct of public discourse in a highly mobile and heterogeneous society. By regarding societies that have things like ethnic, religious and cultural diversity, partisan politics, and economic stratification present, the sole idea of achieving agreement on matters of public policy seem inaccessible and unachievable. Also, another issue is the â€Å"contemporary media systems – characterised by unprecedented consolidation of ownership and control on the one hand, and the fragmentation of mass audiences into even smaller ‘niche markets’ on the other – makes issues of access to and participation in public discourse equally problematic† (pp. 343-344). Thus, this idea of an equal and democratic public sphere is difficult to have and carry out. In conclusion, the ideal public sphere tries to offer a place where people are able to discuss their ideas freely between one another. However, to believe that individuals can discuss in a completely free manner, with no influence and be complete equals, contributing on equal terms, is a far-fetched hope. There can only ever be a place of equality and rationality in an ideal society, as factors of social, linguistic and cultural inequalities, rights and even freedom of speech of an individual, all affect any possibility of equal communication and contribution between people in a public sphere.