(1) What do you think constitutes healthy deliberation in a large, complex, free, democratic society?

After much thought I have come to agree with Dewey. The biggest hope for democracy is to get people talking in smaller, more intimate groups. A single individual that pores over the newspaper ever single day, critically analyzing the information within and considering the consequences to his life does not make a public, but when he takes that information and brings it up at by the cooler or at his community soccer team’s practice the information becomes more powerful. Its spread could likely accomplish an important consequence of public newspapers, it could motivate people in large enough numbers to take action. This could then create a public. A person in class became defensive at her perception that people in public relations were looked at negatively. I agree with her completely. The public relations role of the newspaper should not be downplayed. The paper’s ability to inspire people to discuss an issue or event is one of the most significant. It does not negate their responsibility to fair, accurate, relevant news reporting. Deliberation on important topics cannot take place without the newspaper or some method of disseminating information.

2) What leads you to believe that citizens will be capable of and willing to engage in the deliberative practices outlined in your answer to question 1?

Most people have a desire to understand the world around them and how it works. Many refrain from attempting to do so either because it has been overwhelming or impossible to keep up with everything – too much information to sort through – or because they fail to see how they can directly affect issues and vice versa – how direct issues can affect them. I think that if citizens given information in amounts they understand and can handle, they would be able to connect the dots and see the indirect consequences of the issues of the day. This would be highly motivating for them to keep this practice up. As stated in question 1, more communal debate or discourse can aid in this process.

3) How does your theory of responsible democratic deliberation relate to (draw on, disagree with) what you've read in Dewey and Lippmann?

It refutes Lippman assertion that the public should get involved only when a crisis hits. I appreciated how easy Lippman’s limitation made it to focus on what should be covered and what should be expected of citizens, but obviously it isn’t good enough. Obviously we don’t want to wait until numbers of people are adversely affected if we can help it, and in most cases we can help it. This is Lippman’s fatal flaw. There is no room for foresight. This is unacceptable. I do agree that specialized, expert or scientific information should not be included. It does seem to confuse the average reader and turns them off. Both Dewey and Lippman agree with this. Dewey gave great examples of how you can understand the complicated effects of a scientific phenomenon without understanding the exact workings of that phenomenon. The public is capable of taking action when it is in its best interest. If the newspapers waited until crisis was eminent then this would be impossible much of the time. Dewey’s way of looking at it is acceptable in that its foundation is that the public is capable of critical, analytical, informed thought on issues. It also allows for them to have foresight into issues that affect them not just directly but indirectly. It is more aligned with Dewey in that there aren’t limits to intelligence. Dewey gives the power to people through more intimate, communal associations and places a lot of importance on the continuous social inquiry this provides.

4) What can the print media do to encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?

The print media has to provide adequate coverage to make people aware of the issue. If it isn’t being included on the front page of any of the current sections, there is a great likelihood no attention will be brought to that particular issue. If this is the case, no communal discourse will take place.

The print media is also responsible to produce coverage that goes beyond the superficial facts of who the main characters are and what they think. There might be some concern that if the newspaper attempts to cover more than just these facts people will become uninterested. People are uninterested currently anyway. The people that have made it to page 2 will be capable of reading more than a paragraph. It is probably years and years of only getting the main gist of each situation that has perpetuated apathy. As stated in class, you can watch the Simpsons or The Daily Show to get the gist. The print media owes it to the public to give them more. They are the ones with the time to research the true issues or sides.

Just because the public is capable and needs to understand more than the gist, however, does not mean that it wants full disclosure of specialized or expert knowledge. It needs depth and a full range of issues surrounding any event or topic, but it does not need a dissertation that will confuse them. I suppose in this manner I will agree with both Lippman and Dewey. The things they do need to know: vocabulary that will distinguish the issues from other events, the possible or likely consequences in their life and the lives of others, and possible solutions. Without this information, deliberation amongst communities is unlikely or if it does take place unproductive. It will not result in progress. Issues of importance should be on the front page of one section in the paper. Ongoing events or issues should be give thorough and repeated coverage. Issues with widespread, serious consequences should be broached continuously in order to get through. The paper becomes the PR agent, using sound theory of human nature to get through to the public when it should take notice. This is the only way to accomplish the true dissemination of information which is the communal discourse.

(5) What will you analyze in this paper (what issue will you discuss, what media outlets will you analyze, what particular articles will you look at)?

The issue I will discuss is the Avian flu, H5N1. First I will look at timing of when the articles came out, their placement/word count, and quality of information. When did the issue first hit the radar and what kind of information was included? Now that we are very close to a crisis, how has this information changed has it improved? Early coverage should include a cursory nature on the virus and how it’s spread or could spread to humans, the possible consequences if it does spread, and most importantly how we can prepare for it. The public should be given information that allows them to understand the government’s role, and how they could put pressure on the government to prepare adequately. Incidentally, there were one or two articles that mentioned last year’s presidential election. Many articles compared the Avian flu to terrorism or other hot button events/issues with experts that cited Avian flu as the far more dangerous issue. There were, in fact, an adequate amount of articles. My paper will discuss why the articles didn’t make a dent in the public psyche, implicating the quality, placement, and lack of ongoing urgency with articles.

I did a broad sweep of papers around the country. I found a handful of articles that included the information necessary, had a large number of words, and placed the article on the front page. I will choose one article from this group. I will compare this article to the most aggregious of the many, many articles with too much irrelevant information. I will also touch on the number of articles that brought the subject up in a cursory, ambiguous matter without elaborating too much on them.

(6) What will you argue about this outlet's coverage of the selected event? Did it live up to your criteria for healthy democratic deliberation?

I will argue too many of the articles did not provide sufficient enough information to stir up interest in the issue.

(7) What evidence will you use to support your evaluation as outlined in your answer to question 6?

The fact that most people, myself included, read enough articles to know that bird flu existed starting in 2003 with some cursory understanding that it held the possibility for something horrible to happen but were able to push it from their minds with no disruption to their daily lives. They didn’t bring it up at the dinner table, water cooler, book club, etc. They certainly had no inkling that they could have been preparing or forcing our officials to prepare adequately. They certainly didn’t know that they could have used the issue to help decide who they wanted as president. They just read it and gained enough knowledge to recognize its growing urgency now – now that action is likely too late. I first became aware of the importance of public health as an issue this semester. I became aware of this issue slightly before the general as a result. Even when I did decide to start discussing it with everyone I am close to, their response was still slow. It was only this weekend, when the papers started covering it in full force again with doomsday ferocity, that they started seeking me out to discuss it with me.

(1) What do you think constitutes healthy deliberation in a large, complex, free, democratic society?

Healthy deliberation in a large, complex, free, democratic society relies not just on access and freedom to make social inquiry or participate in discourse on current events or issues but on the ability to do so in an informed way on a deeper level. It is not enough to attend a debate on an issue at your local university if you are just going to state, or shout in some cases, what you think instead of why you think it. Healthy deliberation should assume that people have a depth of understanding on the issue and are not just reacting to a broad or superficial symbol such as “rights” , “equality” ,”freedom” , “danger” or any other emotionally charged idea. Healthy deliberation requires focus on factual or reasonable information that breaks the surface of this side or that side to the undercurrents of the issue. Everyone thinks they are right at the beginning of an argument. No one will concede or adjust their opinion if they are merely allowed to state what side they are with a superficial reason to support it over and over.

*After much thought I have come to agree with Dewey. The biggest hope for democracy is to get people talking in smaller, more intimate groups. This the way to break the habit of only reading or considering your own beliefs and/or believing them in a shallow, superficial way. If there is more communal interaction first, people tend to want to start with a foundation of respect for ideas and statements and from there more honest debate can take place. If the focus is on bowling or poker or whatever, you are likely to get a greater degree of diversity in opinions as well. In this way, not everyone has to read the newspaper initially. You just need the one or two people to have read the paper to bring up the articles and the information behind the issues in the article. Soon, the more people start to react to the debate or conversation, the more they will want to read the information themselves. They will also learn to seek out information in a more critical, analytical manner. I agree with Dewey in that people are innately capable of this. They just haven’t been sufficiently trained or motivated to. Preferably the communities would be face to face, but given the current state of the world internet groups would be accepted, especially if the group had a focus beyond talking about public issues – like crafts or sports etc.

2) What leads you to believe that citizens will be capable of and willing to engage in the deliberative practices outlined in your answer to question 1?

Most people have a desire to understand the world around them and how it works. Many refrain from attempting to do so either because it has been overwhelming or impossible to keep up with everything – too much information to sort through – or because they fail to see how they can directly affect issues and vice versa – how direct issues can affect them. I think that if citizens given information in amounts they understand and can handle, they would be able to connect the dots and see the indirect consequences of the issues of the day. This would be highly motivating for them to keep this practice up. As stated in question 1, more communal debate or discourse can aid in this process.

3) How does your theory of responsible democratic deliberation relate to (draw on, disagree with) what you've read in Dewey and Lippmann?

It refutes Lippman in that its foundation is that the public is capable of critical, analytical, informed thought on issues. It also allows for them to have foresight into issues that affect them not just directly but indirectly. It is more aligned with Dewey in that there aren’t limits to intelligence. Dewey gives the power to people through more intimate, communal associations and places a lot of importance on the continuous social inquiry this provides.. It touches a bit on both regarding the fact that currently the public is currently unmotivated to understand the issues and events around them today. Both talk of the public being overwhelmed. I agree with Dewey as to the nature of this as well as its affect on what the public could really be capable. My theory relies on the need to break the habit of superficial thinking as well as the eclipse of the public.

(4) What can the print media do to encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?

The print media has to provide adequate coverage to make people aware of the issue. If it isn’t being included on the front page of any of the current sections, there is a great likelihood no attention will be brought to that particular issue. If this is the case, no communal discourse will take place.

The print media is also responsible to produce coverage that goes beyond the superficial facts of who the main characters are and what they think. There might be some concern that if the newspaper attempts to cover more than just these facts people will become uninterested. People are uninterested currently anyway. The people that have made it to page 2 will be capable of reading more than a paragraph. It is probably years and years of only getting the main gist of each situation that has perpetuated apathy. As stated in class, you can watch the Simpsons or The Daily Show to get the gist. The print media owes it to the public to give them more. They are the ones with the time to research the true issues or sides.

If it is an issue with 2 or more clearly articulated sides, the newspaper should explore all sides of the issue in a genuine manner. This is necessary because if people are going to truly understand where they stand and why, they need to understand where other people sit and why.

(5) What will you analyze in this paper (what issue will you discuss, what media outlets will you analyze, what particular articles will you look at)?

The issue I will discuss is the Minutemen debate currently unfolding along the Mexican American border. Currently I am considering the San Antonio Express News – since they seem to be more interested in the debate than the Austin American Statesmen. In addition, the city represents a range of interests.

(6) What will you argue about this outlet's coverage of the selected event? Did it live up to your criteria for healthy democratic deliberation?

Coverage should not limit itself to stating the main sides of the debate. This will just promote public discourse that equals the Southpark-esque, “You took my job!” This is against the idea of communal discourse to helping the public participate fully in democracy. It does not accomplish healthy debate..

Instead, coverage should take the opportunity to look at the issue of immigration aside from the Minutemen debate. This should be the time the outlet chooses to look at immigration with a broad but thorough scope. Even if the outlet has previously covered immigration they should do it again, more thoroughly. If they had done a great job before, the issue wouldn’t keep creeping back up. Coverage could answer questions that people on both sides of the debate might have: statistics on the true cost of illegal immigration to the US, benefits to the US from illegal immigration, what is going on in Mexico and other countries that is encouraging illegal immigration as well as the US role in these factors, who is hiring the illegals - there aren’t any protests there, mind you - and – this may be a stretch – what is really happening to US jobs. These are the issues that are mentioned in passing in most articles covering the debate. Most articles just cover the emotional, heated side of the debate.

This outlet has not been successful in avoiding superficial, sparing coverage of the issue.
It has hinted at the other levels of thinking, but it has not given any other information.

I'm going to do further study using just the word immigration to see what that will do.

(7) What evidence will you use to support your evaluation as outlined in your answer to question 6? The number of words, the number of articles that mention or discuss issues beyond the arrival of the minutemen group and the dissension - I haven't fully fleshed this out yet.

My requirements for what constitutes healthy deliberation in a large, complex, free, democratic society is a medium that:
1. Helps the public sift through news that is overwhelming in both size and complexity.
2. Analyze the information so that instead of seeing an issue as complex and abstract information the public sees it as an issue, relevant to their life, and understands the consequences of it.
3. Make the problem practical. Put it in terms of everyday life; like, “your gas prices will be affected.”
4. Help the citizen follow the issue as it develops over time.

When a person believes that an issue is relevant to his life, and has adequate access to it, then he/she will read about it, and understand its consequences. Most people are satisfied with the status quo. They are satisfied with their financial situation. That seems to me to be the most important thing for many Americans today. They do have a decent amount of free time for things they are interested in, and I believe they do have the agency (capability) to understand the issues. They at least have the ability to pick up the newspaper, or go to washingtonpost.com. If the media fufills their role (in answer to question 1) then picking up the paper is the big step for the average person. I believe this could be true, but only on an issue by issue basis. I do not pretend to assume that the average person will be able to pick up a paper and understand and be interested in every article.

My idea of responsible, democratic deliberation draws on arguments found mostly in Dewey’s The Public and Its Problems, Chapter 5 for the requirements of the media. I disagree with Lippmann in his obsession with individualism and lack of faith in of citizen agency (Lippmann, p. 122).

I have chosen China’s revaluation of their currency (the RMB), which started in July of 2005 and the adjustments thereof until last week. I will focus on The New York Times’ coverage of the issue. I will argue that the Times has not fully met the criteria outlined in my answer to question 1. I will argue that the Times has provided for a continuous inquiry, which Dewey mentions in chapter 5, however I believe that The Times has not made the average reader fully aware of the consequences affecting his/her life.

This is a tentative map of my first analysis. It may be lacking in many areas and I would much appreciate any paper improving suggestions and ideas. Thanks.

(1) What do you think constitutes healthy deliberation in a large, complex, free, democratic society?

An intelligent and yet readable debate through media, which can reach an entire public the size of the current population of the United States. Also, the ability to garner information through a variety of sources which are not controlled by the government and are instead, in the hands of private citizens.

(2) What leads you to believe that citizens will be capable of and willing to engage in the deliberative practices outlined in your answer to question 1?

Citizens will be willing to participate in the deliberation surrounding issues because they are affected by them and they could change their everyday lives. In the case that I will follow for example, one of the few areas of a democratic citizen’s ability to have say in their government is through elected representatives. Because citizens are merely able to align themselves with one party or another based on broad, general goals, they rely on the party system in order to further their views in the government, which directly affects their everyday lives. If a major player in one party is ousted from power, then the citizens’ whom agreed with the goals of that party are negatively affected. Thus, this is an issue in which the public is expected to gain information about.

(3) How does your theory of responsible democratic deliberation relate to (draw on, disagree with) what you've read in Dewey and Lippmann?

Walter Lippmann describes the media’s responsibility as presenting information, which directly affects the public, in a general and unbiased fashion with the inclusion of competing perspectives. According to Lippmann, even though he has stepped down as majority leader, DeLay is still a functioning representative so until he goes to jail, he is not news. The Representative from Sugarland, Texas has been indicted. This may directly affect the residents of Sugarland and because the legal situation is being played out in Austin, one would consider most Texans would be directly affected. Yet Dewey would argue that this is most certainly national news because the prospect of DeLay going to jail indirectly affects the national public. I agree with Lippmann that information should be general and unbiased yet I most definitely think this issue is one of national importance and thus pick and choose from these two views to form my own definition of media responsibility.

The media should present information in a general way that is able to be understood literate readers.
The media should provide differing perspectives on the issue at hand with relatively equal weight.
The media should cover issues which directly affects the public, or will soon directly affect the public.

(4) What can the print media do to encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?

Print media can provide the public with well thought out and well written articles with regard to the issue and not attempt to sensationalize the story. I believe this turns off readers. They can provide a background of the event so that the reader who comes in half way can understand the relevance of the story. They can tell the readers why it is important for them to understand what is going on. How it effects them.

(5) What will you analyze in this paper (what issue will you discuss, what media outlets will you analyze, what particular articles will you look at)?

The intended purpose of this argument is to compare the media’s coverage of Rep. Tom Delay’s indictment for violation of the Texas Election Law by examining two different print news sources. The Austin American Statesman, which is considered the local paper of the city of Austin, will provide the local look at the events since the trial and any legal matters relating to Delay are taking place in Austin. The New York Times, which has a high circulation around the country, shall provide the national perspective on the issue.

(6) What will you argue about this outlet's coverage of the selected event? Did it live up to your criteria for healthy democratic deliberation?

The coverage is to be scrutinized for what is said, how it is framed, any biases that may be evident, as well as what is not said. This allows one to discover whether or not these two print sources are living up to their responsibility as media in a democratic society.

(7) What evidence will you use to support your evaluation as outlined in your answer to question 6?

It will be argued that the media’s responsibility includes an unbiased presentation of all perspective on an issue, which in regards to the DeLay situation should encompass DeLay’s views on the indictment and his responses to the way the case is moving along as well as Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle’s perspective on the issue. So far in the research process, the New York Times seems to say less of DeLay’s views than does the Statesman which devoted three articles to DeLay’s response. The overall sentiment of the two respective political parties that are indirectly battling in this case should also be taken into account. This seems to be done more completely by the NYT.
The media is also charged with presenting information so that it can be read and understood by the public. Thus, should the coverage not be too detailed, for example if there is a proliferation of legalese with regard to DeLay’s predicament, because if one is not a lawyer, he or she would be unable to understand what the article is saying. Initially it appears that the NYT has a more general view of the situation whereas the Statesman explains more exactly DeLay is being accused of. DeLay’s step down as majority leader affects all congressmen in the House of Representatives and all the people whom they represent. Thus because the issue does not only concern Texans, the Statesman should not necessarily be expected to have better coverage.

*I would like everyone to know that my ideas are not set in stone, and that I am open to any constructive critcism you have to offer. Thanks guys.

(1) What do you think constitutes healthy deliberation in a large, complex, free, democratic society?

Debate promotes healthy deliberation in a large, complex democratic society. I think that if the media provides the public with substantive arguments from multiple perspectives on a salient issue, the public will have incentive to debate and discuss the merits of the particular issue. Once we start debating, we form a public opinion which can then inform pulic officials about how the public feels/ wants them to act on certain policies.

(2) What leads you to believe that citizens will be capable of and willing to engage in the deliberative practices outlined in your answer to question 1?

I believe that citizens are capable of engaging in meaningful debates, but it is a lot harder to find the will to debate issues within the public. I think that citizens can relate to symbols or certain values (as Dewey argues), and given the recognition of conflicting values, citizens will be prompted to defend their community's value system.

(3) How does your theory of responsible democratic deliberation relate to (draw on, disagree with) what you've read in Dewey and Lippmann?

My theory agrees with Dewey’s argument that human nature is communal. I believe that while debate, by its nature, splits the public into opposing sides of dialogue, it also brings us together on our understanding/ the context in which we discuss issues. Debate as a method of deliberation also fits nicely into Dewey’s criteria of having the media help the public become critical. This point of view diametrically opposes Lippman’s contention that the public should not meddle unnecessarily into issues that are not crises. Instead of expecting the media to engage the public within an issue, Lippmann would argue that the media’s responsibility stops at providing necessary information about a crisis. I would disagree with Lippmann’s view because it over-limits how much the public can be involved in shaping society.

(4) What can the print media do to encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?

To encourage debate, the print media can relate issues back to the public by using symbols that appeal to multiple communities within the public. By using these symbols, the media should be able to inform communities of how they may be affected by the issue and why they should care. The media should also be able to provide multiple voices (instead of the standard right or left perspectives). This could encourage people to think critically about and defend their community’s perspective against other competing perspectives.

(5) What will you analyze in this paper (what issue will you discuss, what media outlets will you analyze, what particular articles will you look at)?

I would like to analyze the Washington Post and New York Time’s coverage of the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meeting in Hong Kong. Particularly, I would like to focus on articles that cover the issues of development and global poverty reduction. Since the urgency of poverty reduction is an important symbol to which all communities can relate, it will be interesting to see how much coverage these aspects of the trade talks will receive.

(6) What will you argue about this outlet's coverage of the selected event? Did it live up to your criteria for healthy democratic deliberation?

Both the Washington Post and the New York Time’s coverage of the WTO ministerial meeting seems to be dismal at best. But the few articles that are written do not give too much analysis on the importance of the trade talks on a global level.

(7) What evidence will you use to support your evaluation as outlined in your answer to question 6?

Over the past six months, the Post has published a total of 13 news articles with the acronym WTO in the headlines or the lead paragraphs—slightly less than the 15 articles that New York Times has published in the same time span. I have yet to go more comprehensively into the coverage of the Hong Kong ministerial itself, and articles dealing with “development” and “poverty reduction” within the two papers. I am also planning on looking at the content to see if it matches my criteria of informing the public and providing multiple perspectives.