1) Healthy deliberation in a democratic society requires an arena where the free flow of various viewpoints and voices can be shared and heard. An ongoing conversation between concerned individuals is essential. This conversation can be in the form of debates, on-line forums, or letters to an editor. Critque of the state need not be seen as unpatriotic disent, but should be encouraged as a responsible act to identify the holes of an issue which need fixing.
Ideally, these debates/coversations would start at the local level where it would be easier for citizens to form associations, thus allowing these associations to engage in the same elections.

2) If we are evolving beings, we should be progressing, not digressing. While it is unrealistic to believe that everyone will be capable and willing to engage in deliberation on all issues, if the spectrum of voices is broadened, so a person can find a voice that they can relate to and possibly learn from, then associations can be made, thus increasing the potential to form communities. While, it can be argued that technology has increased the amount of information, thus overwhelming the public, I believe the pros of a larger spectrum outweighs the cons.

3) I find that I agree with Dewey much more than a do with Lippman. I don't agree with Lippman's narrow view that present crisis should be the only thing reported. To me, if the media were to wait until an issue was a crisis, it would too late. The damage would already be done. Like Dewey, the indirect consequences from potential crisis is of major importance for me. I don't believe media stresses potential consequences enough. And like Dewey, increased debate, discussion, and persuasion is essential in democracy. While townhouse meetings seem to be a thing of the past, I do believe there is potential to form intimate communities through enhanced technolgies, even though Dewey would probably argue otherwise.

4)I believe the best "symbols" are the potental consequences of an issue. This is what needs to be stressed in order for the public to care. Look at the war on terrorism. While many people were against invading Iraq, this administation connected with many people because they stressed the possibilty of not acting(ie-premptive war in Iraq) - future terrorist attacks. Not only should print media offer potential consequences of an issue from different viewpoints, but print media should encourage citizen citiques of its' coverage. They should print readers' responses to their coverage. It would be beautifull if newspapers were 1/2 the day's news, and 1/2 readers' responses from the previous days' coverage. With todays' technologies, print media can utilize online forums, and use online polls. They can offer links to further investigate a topic. All in all, print media needs to report responsibly. Sensationalist reporting about Natalie Holloway does not help the public, it helps sells papers. It's irresponsible. Selling papers should not be the focus of print media. It should be trying to progress the Great Society into the Great Community.

5)
I plan on analyzing the coverage of the recent contracts rewarded to rebuild New Orleans in the aftermath of Huricane Katrina. I will look at coverage from a national outlet - the New York Times, and a local outlet - the New Orleans City Business.

6)For the most part, I have found that New York Times' coverage has not lived up to my criteria. While it was a front page story 2 weeks ago, little attention has been paid to the issue since. The City Business coverage has been much more steady, but even it has failed to give multiple viewpoints. I still have much analyzing to do.

7)
I will look at how often the outlets reported on the issue, where the coverage was placed, but most importantly, did the outlet identify the agents of the issue and offer the potenial consequences from multiple sides.

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

For there to be any kind of meaningful discussion in this society, several things must take place:

a. All sides of an issue, not just the two-party opinions, are represented in the mainstream media.

b. Only issues that have the potential for direct or indirect consequences to the public are covered in the general media.

c. The public is critical of ideas presented by the media, and has the ability to challenge any idea in an open forum (whether it is online, in the ‘letters to the editor’ section, or in a public debate).

d. Every person in the society must keep up with national and international current events.

(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?

In general, people by nature are not purposefully self-destructive. I don’t believe that the current state of our society is what it will be forever. If there is ever an end to or vast modification of capitalism and our two-party governing system, priorities would be realigned and there would be an opportunity for the general public to be interested in what’s happening and to want to participate and promote change if necessary. Everyone says that it is because of time constraints and apathy that the general public won’t get involved – but I believe that people think that individually, they can’t make a significant difference. If they had a glimpse of what the world could be like if everyone were involved, they might act accordingly.

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

I completely disagree with Lippman and his hopeless views of the public. People are capable of almost everything given certain situations, and I do not think that entirely relying on ‘representative’ leaders should even be an option. My theory of responsible democratic deliberation relies on the fact that no one we elect to office should be entrusted to make all the decisions. It is the public that should shape their views. Social circumstances are what dictate citizen agency.

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

I think the print media should do a better job of being a watchdog over the government. Stop merely attending press conferences, and get the information straight from sources. In doing this, I do not believe the print media should be telling the public why the news is relevant to the public, rather they should do a better job of reporting the news. If the facts are presented accurately, and the issue really is of direct or indirect consequences, there should be no question in the minds of the public. If people have to ask “why should this affect me?” then the story wasn’t good enough or the issue isn’t important enough.

(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 am going to analyze the ongoing coverage of the Avian bird flu scare in the New York Times. I will look at any article in the past few weeks referring to it, and look to see how much reporting has really been done on each article (or if it is just a summary of a press conference).

(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 have further analysis of the articles to do, but from a preliminary look I think the Times has done an adequate job reporting on this issue. So far, it has met my criteria.

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

I am going to look at the placement of the articles in the paper in relation to other stories, and the amount of new information found in each article compared to the previous one.

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

I lean towards Dewey’s concept of pluralism, yet, Lippmann makes valid points as well. That said, I believe there is a hybrid concept of deliberation in our present day. Further, healthy deliberation is vital in that methods of behavior, associations and the state must be continually scrutinized and discussed to ensure their usefulness to the public. Therefore, deliberation and debate in a democratic society must take on the very characteristics of the people in that society to be useful.
In our present state, that would be access to global networks, or associations, that are formed around specific interests. A farmer, a border guard, and a migrant worker in South Texas would be very interested in the Minutemen, however, the deliberation must come to them, in order for them to take part in it. As such, deliberation must be (1) centered on specific interests, and (2) come to the level of the public, instead of the inverse.
In addition, I do think that the public must ‘take sides’ when it comes to politics, and while the populous can not always directly affect politicians policies, they can understand them, and then decide whether or not they wish to back said politician. This may be the biggest part of how deliberation causes action in the public sphere.

(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 if the debate comes to the public, that supersedes Lippmann’s concept of the apathetic and self-interested public. Personally, I do not believe that the public is merely intellectually limited and concerned only with themselves, but there are various pressures in work, family and private life that infringe on contributing to debate and deliberation. But, if deliberation suddenly enters the private realm, Lippmann’s concepts would be put to the test. Possibly, this could turn Lippmann’s dogma upon himself, as the public has a personal stake, a voice, and an identity within public deliberation.

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

I agree with Dewey in that I believe that the state, or any type of association, changes depending upon the association of those who contribute to its formation. This is the virtual bedrock of my theory, as public discourse, as a type of association would change, if the members of such a discourse had various types of associations. Further, if the associations of those who write blogs, email letters to print newspapers, communicate with others via instant messenger, then media, therefore, public discourse will also change.
I think this may actually be possible because of our present day situation, which is ripe for a good, solid state. As we are no longer small, theocratic communities, and because globalization has shrunk our geographical borders, associations can, and are being made that allow everyone to contribute to any specific deliberation.
Further, I while I believe in public agency in a similar vein of Dewey, I mentioned previously that the public should only choose a side, a party, or a politician to back, rather than meddling in affairs that they could do much more harm than good. While Lippmann is typically labeled with this type of though, Dewey also states that the public must analyze the state, or more specifically politicians, continually critique their efficacy and the methods they employ, to ensure they are useful in contributing to the public’s well being.

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

Print media must be able to gauge, and respond on the level of the public. The public cannot always understand obtuse, un-symmetrical financial jargon. Neither can it see through the maze of partisan politics with unrealistic black and white explanations being offered up by papers. The public, as I see it, mostly deliberates on levels in which the print media cannot, although papers do allow for jumping off point for debate. I think the most important thing newspapers could do today would be to realize their bias (whether that bias comes from conglomerate ownership, regional feelings, or political or financial associations) and either announce them, or work through them. News sources do the public a great disservice when they announce partisan bullshit as ‘fair and balanced news.’
Also, the paper must realize that most of the public does not read every article that the paper has ever printed on a particular topic. Staff writers may groan at such a notion, but it is in the publics best interest to quickly recap the turn of events up to this point in a specific crisis. Certainly, editors wouldn’t mind cutting out the short interview with a guy whose car is in a tree, in order to fit in a short mention of Hurricane Katrina’s effect on local economies or how the government has responded.

(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 will be analyzing articles from the Austin American-Statesman and the Houston Chronicle covering the Delay indictment and grand jury. I will attempt to show how the two papers have influenced their particular readers, and how different the coverage is upon partisan lines. In addition, I will examine if the fact that Tom Delay represents a suburb of Houston (Sugarland) and how that may or may not effect coverage in the Houston Chronicle.

(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 that both the Austin American-Statesman and the Houston Chronicle cover the events in a way that caters to the political climate relative to their respective cities. In addition, I will examine how individuals respond to such types of coverage, and if partisan bias causes a heightened amount of deliberation.
The Austin American-Statesman has given me much more in the area of democratic deliberation, but I am confident I will be able to work with the Houston Chronicle as well

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

As far as gauging the political bias, I will be examining the content of the papers, for favorable or negative phrases, how the headlines portray Delay, Travis County Prosecuters, Republicans or Democrats. In addition, I will note the placement in the paper of particularly damning articles or information, as I imagine they will be different according to political climate.
I will gauge the amount deliberation through the letters to editor and the op/ed articles.