(1) What do you think constitutes healthy deliberation in a large, complex, free, democratic society?
I believe that in healthy deliberation, people must discuss their opinions while at the same time truly understanding the other side’s point of view. Necessary to this mutual understanding is knowledge of the world at large and of world events. The world is so interconnected that without these, people cannot truly comprehend the implications of events. People also need to understand where the other person is coming from. This is especially important in coverage of political events.
People also need a place to discuss events. Small groups are the right place to start, if only because it’s the easiest place to start. You already know people and respect them. This respect is necessary if you’re going to listen to other points of view.
People who group together tend to be like-minded and may not be willing to argue an opposite point of view. This is where opinion pages and forums come in. The people participating in these discussions have a wider variety of interests, which most likely means a wider variety of opinions.
(2) How does your theory of responsible democratic deliberation relate to (draw on, disagree with) what you've read in Dewey and Lippmann?
I agree more with Dewey than Lippmann. Dewey holds that circumstances change so people’s ability to influence each other changes, and this holds to my argument that the world is so interconnected that we need a good understanding of it. I also agree with Dewey that citizens are capable of extended discourse, the subjects of that discourse can be a very wide range of events, and small communities are necessary to discuss them. Lippmann attributes the public a small amount of power, and I disagree. The public holds much more power than merely aligning itself to one side or another, and can positively affect the state in matters other than crises.
(3) What can a specific new medium do to encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?
A specific new medium can make it easier to communicate, easier to find information (especially outside of mainstream media), easier to find other points of view, and easier to discuss an issue.
(4) How do you find yourself agreeing with or disagreeing with McChesney and Gillmor? How will you handle these (dis)agreements in your argument?
I share Gillmor’s enthusiasm for new media, but also share some of McChesney’s worries that the Internet will also fall victim to private interests. There is more hope for Gillmor’s view of democracy with the Internet than any other media, and it is quite possible that his view will be realized in the future. But the opposite may also be true. I think right now we can’t be sure what exactly will happen.
(5) What will you analyze in this paper (what issue will you discuss, what media outlet will you analyze)?
Blogs, Slashdot specifically, mainly at the politics section.
(6) What will you argue about this medium's ability to encourage or discourage responsible democratic deliberation? Did the medium affect citizens' ability to engage in healthy democratic deliberation?
I will argue that this blog has an enormous potential to encourage democratic deliberation but that it’s still susceptible to certain limitations, such as audience.
(7) What evidence will you use to support your evaluation as outlined in your answer to question 6?
I’ll look at the subjects people post, who can post, who can comment, and the quality of the comments. I’ll also ask people I know how much they know about Slashdot, whether they like it, and if they use it.
1)What do you think constitutes healthy deliberation in a large, complex, free, democratic society?
Healthy deliberation in a large, complex, free, democratic society requires regular, timely, and critical anaylsis of issues or events that may have an indirect consequence to the public. This involves conversations, debates, or deliberation on information concerning these issues. Citizens are actively engaged, rather than passively receiving information. It involves questions or connections to other issues or to main or major issues that involve freedom, liberty, or civil rights.
(2) How does your theory of responsible democratic deliberation relate to (draw on, disagree with) what you've read in Dewey and Lippmann?
It disagrees with Lippman in that citizens have much more responsibility for direct participation in democracy. I think ultimately they should be proactive in seeking out issues or events that may impact them. They should not be limited to either a crisis to take action and their action should not be limited to aligning with a candidate or leader.
It agrees with Dewey because it focuses on public interaction with information on issues or events. It requires conversation, debate, or deliberation. It presupposes that citizens are capable of critical analysis, and that their participation would not be meddlesome.
3) What can a specific new medium do to encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?
Specifically it uses the ability of the many to many exchange of information to make sure that information on issues or events receive attention in a timely, regular manner with a brief opinion or synopsis. From there the issues are often repeatedly posted, connections are often made to previous issues that are related or to other similar issues/events going on. Conversations can be documented either through comment functions or by linking to other bloggers’ posts. It becomes quite easy to link to or access opposing views or information that may debunk arguments. It encourages critical analysis by bringing many issues and perspectives into the fray by linking to opposing articles and bringing a new viewpoint to it. The public contributes by either participating in deliberation in the comment section, or even if the blog has no comment section by sending in local, intriguing, or applicable bits of information. Ultimately they participate by becoming critical readers and participants in the media that carry the conversations to real face to face encounters.
(4) How do you find yourself agreeing with or disagreeing with McChesney and Gillmor? How will you handle these (dis)agreements in your argument?
I agree with McChensney in that there is a huge problem if the internet is controlled by conglomerates. This is troublesome and becomes especially so if free speech is curtailed. Certainly international laws become tricky as a blogger can be sued by someone that is from a foreign country with broader definitions of libel. It is also is troublesome if the government curtails blogger’s free speech here as well. However, ultimately I think bloggers will prevail and retain their potential to encourage democracy. I didn’t actually find most of the blogs I read by using a search engine but heard of them by word of mouth. If you read one blog, they frequently point to other blogs. Friends give me tips. Sometimes alternative news sources like City Pages in Minneapolis will do blog lists they find interesting.
I agree with Gillmor (see answers to number 3).
(5) What will you analyze in this paper (what issue will you discuss, what media outlet will you analyze)?
Bookslut blog and its coverage of media issues.
(6) What will you argue about this medium's ability to encourage or discourage responsible democratic deliberation? Did the medium affect citizens' ability to engage in healthy democratic deliberation?
I think it’s interesting because it is a popular topical blog for people that like to read books. People of all political ideologies like to read, so it could be kind of like the bowling leagues of yore – albeit a bookish, slightly more cynical group for sure.
I will look at the number of issues that are posted that have not just a connection to books but to larger political issues: censorship, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, media issues, etc.
If these issues come up regularly and link to other blogs that are also discussing these issues regularly, with plenty of access to other viewpoints, then bookslut has the power to encourage the citizens to do #1(as in see my answers to number 1, not as in the other number 1). Critical analysis will be encouraged.
By analogy then, if bookslut can do it, then other topical blogs can do the same. As a consequence, there is even potential for McChesney’s vision of different groups with different ideologies all rallying around the media as an issue.
(7) What evidence will you use to support your evaluation as outlined in your answer to question 6?
This isn’t fully fleshed out I have to admit, but I was thinking along the lines of tabulating and analyzing posts that link or connect to political issues that are beyond the scope of just “books”.