Mediated Deliberation

Abstract

Deliberation is a form of discussion in which an individual or a group carefully examines a problem and considers proposals for solution that reflect a variety of perspectives with the aim of arriving at a well-reasoned solution. Mediated deliberation is the subtype of such discussion undertaken by means of mediated communication. Mediated deliberation was introduced by Benjamin I. Page who defined it as "discussions among government officials, experts, and professional commentators, which are conveyed to a broader audience through the mass media of communications" (1995, p. 245). Contemporary understandings extend beyond this focus on the transmission of political elite discussion and encompass any discussion enabled by media communication, including citizens as independent actors. Mass-mediated deliberation is the most normatively and empirically important type of mediated deliberation in modern large-scale societies, since-although it does not generally allow interaction between "senders" and audiences-it is the form of communication with the greatest potential for the political inclusion and engagement of citizens. Mediated deliberation through mass communication is a process whereby newspapers, online news outlets, and other media help the wider public understand and think through issues in at least a quasi-deliberative way. "Deliberativeness" is a gradual quality of any communication. It denotes the degree to which a communicative act, or series of acts, conforms to a catalog of deliberation principles like respecting all those affected by policies, the responsive exchange of "good" reasons, and so on (see below for a more detailed catalog). As a deliberation subtype, mediated deliberation has strong normative connotations and implies assumptions about the collective responsibilities of media producers and users. Although researchers have focused on mediated deliberation in public affairs media, the concept extends seamlessly to cultural media such as literary works, movies, and entertainment television. Mediated deliberation in deliberative democratic theoryDeliberative democratic theory has paid relatively little attention to mediated deliberation. Paradoxically, given the importance of mediated modes of communication in modern societies, a focus on small-group nonmediated deliberation has prevailed in this literature. This development is due to a shift in interest moving towards questions of democratic deliberation rather than deliberative democracy on a broad scale

Should We BeCharlie? A Deliberative Take on Religion and Secularism in Mediated Public Spheres

“…We wish to argue that theories of deliberation provide a uniquely valuable set of conceptual tools for understanding and resolving such deep conflicts in divided societies. These tools have been used extensively in studies of mediated public deliberation as well (Rinke, ).…”

Mediated Deliberation in Deep Conflicts: How Might Deliberative Media Content Contribute to Social Integration Across Deep Divides?

“…This clearly does not serve mediated social integration; it might actually lead to an escalation of the conflict instead. Therefore, a qualitative element is necessary to separate beneficial responsiveness from such responses that do more harm than good: Mutual respect serves this particular function because it "allows citizens to honestly consider the merits of all sides' arguments and accept the general legitimacy of political opposition" (Rinke, 2016a).…”

News Media and Connectivity in Deliberative Systems: Reflections on the Debate about the Brazilian Age of Criminal Responsibility,

“…They argue that the media can fulfill their systemic function when this involves lay citizens in an active search for information -they also augment the visibility of the governance process by making its political backstage publicly visible (LYCARIÃO and WOSNIAK, 2017, p. 22). Rinke (2015) stresses that the main ideal of the journalist, which is to inform people, has a deliberative connotation, since it can "help citizens in understanding the merits of public arguments for or against specific policies"…”