What would Habermas say?

Blogosphere as a postmodern public sphere:

It has been argued that the tabloid news and in particular tabloid talk shows can be seen as a modern reinterpretation of Habermas’ ‘public sphere’. Using this same kind of reasoning I feel that we can also view the blogosphere in the same light.
It is argued that tabloid talk shows give the opportunity to everyday people to voice their views and interact. Effectively providing a platform to broadcast and debate, while forming (or as critics have argued) reinforcing ideas. In the same way blogging offers a similar degree of democratic merit in that it provides a platform for everyday people to speak and debate. I realise that it is easy to overstate the democratic nature of the blogosphere. As many people still don’t have access to the Internet it could be argued that it doesn’t fulfil this aspect of a ‘public sphere’. But Internet use is constantly spreading and becoming cheaper. It is conceivable that in the not to distant future it will be accessible by almost everyone.
People have also raised questions of the rationality and nature of the discourse and communication the blogosphere. Sure I accept that a lot of it is pretty menial stuff, but there is still a good deal of rational considered debate that occurs, it would be basic intellectual snobbery to disregard this. And as it has also been argued any communication is good to an extent.
I feel the blogosphere is probably the closest thing we have at present to a modern reinterpretation of the ‘public sphere’ as conceived by Habermas.

In my opinion this is a good example of how new media and techno culture are allowing people to start communicating with others on a broader level. Reinvigorating public debate with out the mediating effects of the mass media. A more direct, ‘pure’ form of communication and discourse, if you will.