Book Review: Benedetta Brevini, Arne Hintz, and Patrick Mccurdy (eds.): Beyond Wikileaks. Implications for the Future of Communications, Journalism and Society

This is a review of the highly informative and thought-provoking book, Beyond WikiLeaks: Implications for the Future of Communications, Journalism and Society, co-edited by Benedetta Brevini, Arne Hintz and Patrick McCurdy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).

Transformative deliberative moments among ex-combattants in Colombia

This dissertation presents the concept of Deliberative Transformative Moment and the instrument to identify it, in a further attempt to bridge the gap between deliberation theory and practice. A transformative moment in the deliberative process occurs when the level of deliberation is either lifted from low to high or drops from high to low. In order to identify such a moment, one has to look at the context and dynamics of the group discussion. This broadening of the unit of analysis is a big difference from other existing instruments to measure the level of deliberation, such as the Deliberative Quality Index –DQI, which focuses primarily on the individual speech acts. Consistent with the theoretical framework of consociational and deliberation approaches, the observed discussions took place among two deeply divided groups, Colombian ex-combatants from both the extreme left and the extreme right. Moving beyond a pure Habermasian perspective, this study finds that besides pure rational arguments, there are some contexts in which personal stories, jokes and self-interests, acting as justification of arguments, have either a positive or a negative impact on deliberative transformative moments. Although this research has a strongly qualitative orientation, reliability tests scored high, giving it strength as a reliable and valid research method that shedding some light on the sort of speech acts that enhance deliberation and those that detract from it.

Deliberative and non-deliberative persuasion: Mechanisms of opinion formation in EuroPolis

From a normative vantage point, post-deliberative opinions should be linked to the quality of arguments presented during discussion. Yet, there is a dearth of research testing this claim. Our study makes a first attempt to overcome this deficiency. By analyzing a European deliberative poll on third country migration, we explore whether statements backed by reason affect opinions, which we term deliberative persuasion. We contrast deliberative persuasion to non-deliberative persuasion, whereby we explore whether the most frequently repeated position influences opinions. We find that with regard to regularization of irregular immigrants, deliberative persuasion took place. In the context of European involvement in immigration affairs, however, opinions are driven by the most frequently repeated position rather than by the quality of argumentation.