Voice, deliberation, resistance and persuasion through networked journalism

The pervasive use of the World Wide Web by the general population has created a cultural shift in “our living world”. It has enabled more people to share more information about more events and issues in the world than was possible before its general use. As a consequence, it has transformed traditional news media’s approach to almost every aspect of journalism, with many organisations restructuring their philosophy and practice to include a variety of participatory spaces/forums where people are free to engage in deliberative dialogue about matters of public importance. Moreover, while news media were the traditional gatekeepers of information, today many organisations allow, to different degrees, the general public and other independent journalism entities to participate in the news production process, which may include agenda setting and content production. This paper draws from an international collective case study that showcases various approaches to networked online news journalism. It examines the ways in which different traditional news media models use digital tools and technologies for participatory communication of information about matters of public interest. The research finds differences between the ways in which public service, commercial and independent news media give voice to the public and ultimately their approach to journalism’s role as the Fourth Estate––one of the key institutions of democracy. The work is framed by the notion that journalism in democratic societies has a key role in ensuring citizens are informed and engaged with public affairs. An examination of four media models, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the Guardian, News Limited and OhmyNews, showcases the various approaches to networked online news journalism and how each provides different avenues for citizen empowerment. The cases are described and analysed in the context of their own social, political and economic setting. Semi-structured in-depth interviews with key senior journalists and editors provide specific information on comparisons between the distinctive practices of their own organisation. In particular these show how the ideal of democracy can be used as a tool of persuasion as much as a method of deliberation.

Speech of Hon. John Lowndes McLaurin, of South Carolina, in the Senate of the United States, Monday, December 9, 1901

This document contains a speech by John L. McLaurin of South Carolina presented in the Senate of the United States. Sections of the speech include: sectionalism the cause, conditions in South Carolina, the federal administration in South Carolina, should not array class against class, freedom of thought and speech, the issues, under caucus dictation the Senate no longer a deliberative body, the beginning of the fight, matter of arraying class against class, freedom of thought and speech, and issues.

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.