Deliberation, the Media and Political Talk (original) (raw)
Related papers
Confronting the demands of a deliberative public sphere with media constraints
Forest Policy and Economics, 2010
The main aim of this paper is to investigate and discuss the applicability of a normative meta-theory on empirical research. This is done by confronting the demands of a deliberative public sphere with assumptions resulting from media theory and discussing it on the basis of exemplary cases from environmental and forest policy cases. A core concept of this paper is Jürgen Habermas' notion of a deliberative discourse in the public sphere, where the essential elements for a democratic ideal are openness to speakers from the periphery of the political system, a discursive communication flow and a public consensus or a result supported by the majority. Since today's political public sphere mostly comprises the media public these elements are confronted with the constraints of the media. Theoretical approaches of media studies as well as empirical examples of debates on forest, agricultural and environmental policies in the media corroborates that the media lacks the function of deliberation. Nevertheless, normative demands allow empirical findings to be interpreted relative to expectations. Applying the theoretical concept of a deliberative democracy to the empirical cases of forest, agriculture or environmental policy already serves as a first step toward awareness of deliberation in public communication. It not only can exemplify the gap between normative ideals and the empirical approach but it highlights the degree of "grey" between the static poles of black or white used in entitling processes as deliberative or not deliberative.
Making Democratic Contestation Possible. Public Deliberation and Mass Media Regulation
While recent democratic theory has insisted upon the contestability of public policies as a key source of democratic legitimacy, the role mass media should play in fostering public contestation has yet to be specified. The role of deliberative theory in particular should be to try to identify which standards mass communication needs to meet in order to provide a general forum for democratic contestation. This article focuses on the theoretical foundations of such a project. It puts forward three claims. First, the contestability of public policy can only be a source of democratic legitimacy if citizens have the opportunity to participate in public contestation through – among other forums – a general public forum that is endowed with a deliberative dimension. Second, media pluralism alone is insufficient in providing such a public forum: both external standards (related to the independence of mass media) and internal standards (related to the norms guiding media practices) need to be satisfied. Third, and as a consequence of the preceding two, the democratic contestability of public policies presupposes effective mass media regulation that goes beyond the promotion of media pluralism. Democratic contestation requires more than a “marketplace of ideas”.
Media framing and effective public deliberation
Political communication, 2000
Thanks to recent advances in public opinion research, we now know that the origins of public opinion-the sacred icon of democracy-lay in elite discourse. We also know that the public relies on the mass media for its political information. However, the pathways of elite discourse, as it winds its way through the media, remain shrouded in mystery. The purpose of this article is to probe the discussion of political issues that drives public opinion.
Communication Theory, 2007
By employing the theory of deliberative democracy, Habermas provides a critical assessment of the effects of the media on citizens' deliberation. His premises, if modified, can also supply the basis for a positive argument for dispersing media power more widely as a way to improve deliberative practices. Contrary to Habermas, however, the epistemic dimension of deliberation should be cast in terms of error avoidance rather than ''truth tracking.'' Error avoidance is best achieved through the availability of the full range of social perspectives. On empirical and normative grounds, deliberation in heterogeneous groups is the best means for avoiding cognitive errors and biases and for improving the quality of political communication.
American Media and Deliberative Democratic Processes*
Sociological theory, 2007
Despite the importance of mass media to deliberative democratic processes, few scholars have focused on how market forces, occupational norms, and competition among outlets affect the quality of media discourse in mainstream and political outlets. Here, I argue that field theory, as outlined by new institutionalism and Pierre Bourdieu, provides a useful theoretical framework for assessing the quality of media discourse in different kinds of media outlets. The value of field theory is that it simultaneously highlights the importance of homogeneity and heterogeneity within a field of action, which provides a framework for discussing the roles different kinds of outlets play in deliberate democratic processes and evaluating the quality of discourse in mainstream and political venues. I illustrate the utility of this conceptualization through an analysis of 1,424 stories on abortion in nine U.S. media outlets and interviews with journalists, editors, and producers in these venues. I find that political media outlets provide higher-quality discourse than that of mainstream venues. Additionally, I find that while market pressures may heighten a focus on conflict in the abortion debate, this emphasis is exacerbated by mainstream journalists themselves, who assume that the general public is familiar with, and has taken a firm position on, abortion. I conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for deliberative democratic processes.
Public Deliberation As the Organizing Principle of Political Communication Research
Journal of Public Deliberation, 2008
During the past fifteen years, public deliberation has become an important focus of research, theory, and public practice. This has sometimes led to a variety of narrow conceptualizations that limit deliberation to particular forms of interaction, such as small group discussion, or to divergent conceptualizations deployed in different contexts, such as for media systems versus face-to-face discussions. To address this problem, we advance a flexible yet precise definition of deliberation that has the power to organize not only deliberation theory and research but also much of the larger body of work in political communication. As defined herein, deliberation includes both analytic and social processes and provides a unifying conceptual and critical framework for studying nearly the full range of political communication topics, including informal conversation, media and public opinion, elections, government institutional behavior, jury decision making, public meetings, and civic and community life. Using our flexible conceptualization, each of these research contexts amounts to a kind of deliberative critique and empirical analysis of public life.
Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The …
Communication Theory, 2006
I first compare the deliberative to the liberal and the republican models of democracy, and consider possible references to empirical research and then examine what empirical evidence there is for the assumption that political deliberation develops a truth-tracking potential. The main parts of the paper serve to dispel prima facie doubts about the empirical content and the applicability of the communication model of deliberative politics. It moreover highlights 2 critical conditions: mediated political communication in the public sphere can facilitate deliberative legitimation processes in complex societies only if a self-regulating media system gains independence from its social environments and if anonymous audiences grant a feedback between an informed elite discourse and a responsive civil society.
Javnost-The Public, 2010
This article addresses theories of deliberative democracy, the public sphere and government communication, and investigates the ways in which government communication might be carried out to strengthen and improve deliberative democracy, within the wider context of journalism. The article begins by undertaking an extended survey of the normative model of the public sphere, as outlined by Jürgen Habermas, and takes account of his later work on the centrality of the deliberative process to the public sphere. In the second half, the article applies Held’s conceptions of the role of government communication in the strengthening of deliberative democracy, and attempts to make normative arguments about certain forms of government communication. In doing so, it addresses three areas: the problems with the standing “lobby” system of briefing journalists in the UK; ways in which government communication might be held to greater account in the public sphere; ways in which the improved communication of Parliament might impact upon deliberative democracy.