Measuring mediated deliberation in a comparative perspective: An analysis of Italian, French and Spanish newspapers

Pomatto, Gianfranco; Seddone, Antonella

doi:10.1080/00344893.2017.1414713

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some results might surprise, e.g., the relatively low level of public deliberation in the Netherlands, where the historically strong elite culture might have had an influence. The finding on Italy as a country with the mediocre level of deliberation is in line with the findings on mediated deliberation (Pomatto and Seddone 2018). Also, a relative polarised country like Belgium reaches only a mediocre level, which is comprehensible.…”

Section: Measurement and Datasupporting

confidence: 87%

Participatory developments in majoritarian and consensus democracies

Geißel

Michels

2018

Representation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, many democracies have developed towards more citizens' involvement in direct democracy or public deliberation. Are these developments linked to different types of democracy? Can public deliberation be mainly found in consensus democracies, whereas direct democracy prevails in majoritarian democracies? By analysing OECD countries around the year 2012, we examine these assumptions. The answer is surprisingly clear. The choice of a democracy to opt for direct democratic instruments or for public deliberation is neither dichotomous nor is it related to the respective pattern type of democracy. Based on these findings, a new typology with four participatory models of democracy is suggested.

show abstract

Section: Measurement and Datasupporting

confidence: 87%

Participatory developments in majoritarian and consensus democracies

Geißel

Michels

2018

Representation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the degree of the deliberative quality of newspapers was closely related to the national journalistic culture. Pomatto and Seddone (2017) lend important insights to our study of Hong Kong, especially the indicators to measure the deliberative quality of the press.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…This gap in the literature has recently caught scholarly attention. Pomatto and Seddone (2017) compare the degree of deliberative quality of 15 print newspapers in Italy, France, and Spain in 2012. The study employs a range of indicators to assess the newspapers' deliberative quality, such as the diversity of covered political topics, the presence of opposing speakers, civility in the language, and the use of justifications for one's positions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberation about the 2014 Umbrella Movement in a Hong Kong elite newspaper: A quantitative study of the Hong Kong Economic Journal

Tam¹

2020

Asian Journal of Comparative Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deliberative democratic theorists have argued that effective deliberation is central to democracy. Does Hong Kong possess a viable public sphere for deliberating important public issues, as the city has been striving for a full democracy since the 1980s? This article addresses this significant question by examining the quality of deliberation on the 2014 Umbrella Movement by the editorials and commentaries in an elite print Chinese newspaper – the Hong Kong Economic Journal – based on the “Discourse Quality Index” and other criteria used by major works on mediated deliberation. This article argues that the Journal has served as a viable public sphere for deliberating important public concerns in Hong Kong. The Journal’s editorials and commentaries performed well in terms of offering reasoned arguments and engaging in dialogue with opposing viewpoints. Regarding respect for the actors which were involved in the Umbrella Movement, the Journal as a whole had maintained a civilized tone. However, there was an indication that commentary authors had less tolerance toward actors from the opposite camps.

show abstract

Exploring Methodological Challenges in Deliberative Democracy

Veri

2022

Comp. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the current methodological debate within the field of deliberative democracy and provides some analytical suggestions about the research and methodological directions to analyze the field by considering theory falsifiability. The analysis follows three separate steps. First, the author specifies the field’s status regarding theory falsifiability. Then he classifies a purposive sample of scholars’ research in deliberative democracy into a specific methodological taxonomy. Finally, through configurational meta-analysis, he examines deliberative democracy considering the systemic turn. The results of the analysis suggest the use of mixed or set-theoretical methods are the most promising analytical approaches to examine the field from a theory falsifiability perspective.

show abstract

Measuring mediated deliberation in a comparative perspective: An analysis of Italian, French and Spanish newspapers

Cited by 3 publications

References 35 publications

Participatory developments in majoritarian and consensus democracies

Participatory developments in majoritarian and consensus democracies

Deliberation about the 2014 Umbrella Movement in a Hong Kong elite newspaper: A quantitative study of the Hong Kong Economic Journal

Exploring Methodological Challenges in Deliberative Democracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About