ABSTRACT This study examined whether or not the television channels televised deliberations constitute the public sphere in Ethiopia, drawing on the public sphere and political economy as theoretical concepts. Using a mixed methodology, data were obtained from EBC's ETV Medrek, FBC's Zuria Meles and LTV's Sefiw Mihdar programs, which were then content-analysed. Further, in-depth interviews were also employed. The data was gathered between April 2018 and April 2020. This period was marked by change aspirations and threat desperations unparalleled to the past years. The findings showed that the programs created previously unavailable elitist platforms where experts, academia and prominent figures deliberated. However, these programs did not create forums for marginalised groups such as women. The findings revealed that these programs created limited space for different views and diversified actors. In fact, in terms of ethical discourses known as the DQI, results indicated that the televised debates constituted the parameters. The findings shown that ETV Medrek and Zuria Meles proposed solutions as the debaters mainly were from academia, experts, and government authorities. In contrast, Sefiw Mehidar debates inclined into positional politics where most debaters were political partisans who stick to their internal motives. The findings also revealed that the programs encountered multiple internal and external obstructions, mainly from government authorities, hosts, guests and within the media.. Generally, this study concludes that political interventions and economic deterrents hinder the media to constitute the public sphere. Morever, it deduces that failures to achieve an inclusive public sphere are the outcomes of an unstable political landscape. Henceforth, as the findings of the study suggest that it applauds government authorities interventions, other vested interests, and economic deterrents must unravelled so that the media can act independently to become platform of the public sphere. Keywords: Civic platform, debate, elite platform, Habermasian discourse ethics, marginalized group, public service media, private