(1) What do you think constitutes healthy deliberation in a large, complex, free, democratic society?
Healthy deliberation requires first that the people have the opportunity to engage in critical analysis. This is currently unachievable by today’s media. With media reform the people will have the resources and opportunities to engage in critical analysis and debate.

(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? The American public is already capable of engaging in deliberative practices. They just don’t have the means to do so. When the media presents its information in a clear manner that demonstrates the “indirect consequences” that may affect the American public they will then have a reason to read and criticize current issues.

(3) How does your theory of responsible democratic deliberation relate to (draw on, disagree with) what you've read in Dewey and Lippmann? I don’t agree with Lippmann’s idea that only crises should be published. I think that the people deserve to know about something before it becomes a crisis. What if they wanted to do something about it? When they are presented the information in a way that they can gather all the facts, form opinions, and engage in debate within their community, they then have the understanding required to prevent a crisis. I agree with Dewey on a lot of things. I don’t think that the people need to know every intricacy of a subject, but it should be available to them if they want the opportunity to know. They can still form opinions as long as they know all sides of a subject or event and all possible outcomes.

(4) What can the print media do to encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?
With media reform the people will have the resources and opportunities to engage in critical analysis and debate. This will include a new media standard, set of ethics, and an overall goal to better inform the people while developing a greater community.

In order for the people to have an opportunity to understand all sides of a current event the newspapers must take it upon themselves to provide all sides equally and without bias. The media needs to provide accurate summaries of historical topics or current events when necessary. Without these summaries it would be more difficult for the people to make an informed opinion about a topic. They would not be able to question what they read instead they would only be able to accept what they read in the newspapers. They should also provide several possible outcomes and they should make it clear to the public who provided the information for that outcome. It should never be the reporter’s or the newspaper’s idea of what America could do to resolve an issue, but it should come from a government official or some relevant party involved in the issue.

By reestablishing their standards and goals the media will help to develop a better community. Because the people will have the resources they need to read about and analyze current events they will also have more of an opportunity to talk about their thoughts on issues with their local community.

It is also important because the US is such a large country that community is defined. I agree with Dewey that we should have local communities and build up from there. The online forums and communities are still a great way for people to communicate nationally and globally. When people form organizations and forums online they form communities that reach across a large geographic area. That is kind of like what happens in the media today. Our local newspapers put mostly national news on the front page. All of our newspapers put national news on the front page. A local event would have to already be a crisis before it made the front page on a local paper. That doesn’t leave any room for citizens to prevent crises. Local issues get slipped under the table and brushed aside while everyone is focusing on Supreme Court nominations. The people can make the most impact at the local level. They should start there and work their way up. Just because the US is a large country with a lot of technology doesn’t mean that its people can’t or shouldn’t form local communities, and the media can help them accomplish this goal.

(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 looking at Tom Delay’s indictment. I’m looking at the New York Times and the Austin-American Statesman. The New York Times will serve as a comparison to the Austin-American Statesman. I am looking at current articles about the issue to see if they provide the information to the public in a way that the public can make an informed opinion about Tom Delay’s indictment.

(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? It doesn’t help the reader make a very informed opinion.

(7) What evidence will you use to support your evaluation as outlined in your answer to question 6?
I will look at several articles from both papers and use evidence from those articles.

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

1. A selection of opinions and valid facts on a given situation made available through mass communication (i.e. the media)
2. These opinions and facts should be presented clearly and at a level any public (informed to less informed) can understand.
3. Healthy deliberation requires active thinkers who ask deeper questions than what’s on the surface of a situation. These people will help others begin talking and thinking about situations. This, in turn, leads to more debate and discussion.

(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?

Living in a college environment has offered proof of citizens being capable of and willing to engage in healthy deliberation. A university is, naturally, a place where many active critical thinkers can be found helping others become more aware and knowledgeable about current situations and teaching them how to become critical thinkers, themselves. A university promotes this type of atmosphere. If this atmosphere can be promoted on a greater scale to other communities, then I believe citizens will be capable of and willing to engage in healthy deliberation.
Also, crisis will cause people (who normally wouldn’t) to engage in deliberation. Crisis, meaning Lippmann’s criteria, but also, Dewey’s indirect consequences type of crises that aren’t as focused on in as many other settings as they are in a university setting. People won’t care about news if they aren’t somehow affected emotionally, financially, or some other direct way. Many of the students/professors in a university see indirect consequences of situations because they are active, critical thinkers.

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

Lippmann maintains a hopeless claim that individuals are too selfish, ignorant, and uninterested to conduct deliberation on a situation, unless it’s a crisis, but even then their participation is very limited. This is currently the case with many people. Dewey says that in communities composed of individuals, deliberation is very possible because people are more closely connected on a personal level, whereas, on a larger scale, or greater community, people feel detached. So, the greater the scale of community, the less interaction and deliberation there is with others in that community. A university is a community made of a large variety of people. If knowledge is shared and promoted in the larger scale community like it is at a university, then healthy deliberation in a larger scale is possible.

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

Honestly, I feel that print media can do little to encourage this kind of mass deliberation. It’s on the lower scale of technology and most people would rather watch the news than read it. However, based on what I’ve discussed in answer 1, printing unbiased facts followed on another page by editorials, opinions, letters to the editor, could give people the opportunity to read active thinkers’ criticisms. Television media is currently limited and very biased (due to numerous political and monetary reasons). Print media can take up the slack in delivering all the facts. People may see the news on TV, then they can pick up a paper (or two) and compare the reporting and figure out his own opinion. That is a lot of effort, though. Until media can find a way to honestly sensationalize stories that contain all the facts and possible consequences people may be worried about, until they can make the controversies of news as interesting as the comedy show of Jon Stewart, people won’t want to be interested and thus will not take part in much deliberation of anything regarding news. Offering other opinions, or all sides of a situation, and reporting what possible indirect consequences are will help public communities take part in deliberation.
also, many small town newspaper focus only on county news. to hear about national news, one would have to watch tv or subscribe to a larger city's newspaper.these small town newspapers should have a balance of local and national news because both national and local situations can affect people (directly/indirectly).

(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 look at the issue of George Bush’s selection of John Roberts as Supreme Court Justice and what that means for the U.S., analyzing articles from the Washington Post. I may look at editorials and letters to the editor as well, though I haven't done substantial research in that yet.

(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 the paper did a fairly good job of reporting Bush’s and other Republican and Democratic party members’ feelings about Roberts. I will argue WP offered information on opposing opinions regarding Roberts, however it did not focus on the consequences (positive/negative) that may occur with Roberts as a Supreme Court Judge. Because the WP didn’t focus on the indirect consequences of Roberts’ possible rulings, there was no real reason for the public to be interested. If Roberts votes against abortion, this will have an immense effect on the U.S. community. The WP needed to discuss this and what that would actually mean. editorials/letters to the editor may cover this, I am looking into it.

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

I will use the articles I have read, I will use my answers in the previous questions, and I will use quotes from Lippmann and Dewey.

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

Healthy deliberation in our democracy depends on the public’s access to information as well as an environment that encourages criticism and debate. The standards should be set high and the public should be expected to contribute in the deliberation of issues that concern them. I do not think that public discourse should be limited to the realms of a crisis, but should be a consistent act that keeps the public informed and active. The media should take action to reduce the limitations that may interfere with this, i.e. lack of time and interest.

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

I agree with Dewey that citizens are capable of citizen agency and will engage in it if they are educated on the issues that potentially affect them. While I also agree with Lippmann that citizen agency is limited, I think that the public’s apathy can be overcome if the issues are presented in a way that they can relate to and understand. Although the citizen can be disabled by the demands of life that leave him with no time for democratic deliberation, I don’t think that’s reason to abandon the conversation altogether. The media must adapt to the changes of modern life and find a way to get people interested.

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’s argument that we live in a progressive society and our media should reflect that. I don’t disagree with Lippmann’s claims that people are self-interested, but I don’t think that this is reason to abandon them. I think that possibilities exist beyond saying yes or no to a candidate. The public can influence public policy as an active participant if it engages in the discussion.

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

- The information presented to the public must be accessible. Print media should be available to the public not only in terms of price, but also in terms of the level of education necessary to understand it. The media should accommodate the limitations of the public.

- The media should encourage criticism of the issues it presents by educating the reader of relevant background information. To do this successfully, the paper must take measures to eliminate or explain jargon. It must also present both sides of an issue without bias. Further, the media should create an environment that encourages deliberation. This can happen by offering forum discussions or encouraging readers to write letters to the editor.

- The media should present information in a way that interests its readers and reflects their lives and interests. By getting citizens involved on a local, specialized level we can expect them to engage in a larger debate.

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

My paper will discuss Proposition 2, the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in Texas, and the subject’s treatment in both the Austin Chronicle and 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 papers may impart bias on the issue. I will also argue that the papers attempt to engage the readers in public discourse in varying degrees.

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

I will cite the individual papers’ placement of the event as well as the way in which the event is portrayed (including the background and potential indirect consequences that are given). Additionally, I will discuss the opportunities that the papers give to their readers to become involved in a community debate of the issue.

*sorry, originally posted on the wrong day - delete this*

bump

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

In order to have healthy deliberation, I believe that people must have a venue through which they can discuss their point of view while at the same time be adequately informed about the opposing opinions. I have found very often that people are only concerned with how things affect themselves and those around them without thinking about the rest of the world. I do not fault these people however. Most of them only know what they know because they have lived the life that they were given. It is difficult to comprehend how detrimental their self-interested needs may be to a community living several hundred miles away. The only solution to this is to make an increased effort to inform and educate these people about the overall consequences of their actions. I am all about online forums. Through this an argument can be formulated and presented to a widespread audience with the added benefit of immediate response by the public. This to me is the fastest way to discuss a relevant issue while keeping up to speed with how the world has changed. It would easily gather a collection of like-minded and not so like-minded individuals together to really get to the heart of this issue.

(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?

From what we have discussed in class as well as my own experiences, it seems that the most effective way to engage someone in a practice is to make it relevant to their daily lives. The internet is an extremely useful device and is widely accessible to the public at large (at least in America). Any person can go to a public library and utilize the internet for a variety of needs. This can range from checking e-mail to looking up basketball statistics or even purchasing items on ebay. It is a constantly growing thing and becoming easier to navigate by the minute. By accessing news forums such as the one I have mentioned, people can find others with similar ages, ethnicities, and backgrounds living in entirely different portions of the world. To be able to communicate with such individuals and agree/disagree with them about political issues seems very appealing to me. I believe that others would feel the same.

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

I'll admit that when I first read Lippmann, I was inclined to agree with what he had proposed. It seemed that at times, society was very meddlesome about things that they had no real understanding of. Misunderstandings lead to unnecessary uproar and this only hindered the progression of politics. However, lately I have come to have a little more faith in the ability of the common man. This led me to be more receptive to what Dewey had to say. Dewey promotes that because circumstances change, so must the influence one has over another person. The world is interconnected and we must understand the effect that our actions have on it.

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

I think that I have covered this in an earlier statement but an important thing that the print media can do to encourage this kind of deliberation is to make the issue not only interesting but relevant to the parties involved. It is not enough to know about some event taking place in a far off nation. Another step must be taken to show how in the long run we could be hurt by it. This may be difficult because any little thing in the world "could" indirectly affect us. The media must thus sift through the mass of issues and determine which are the most immediately relevant to us.

(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 analyze the indictment of representative Tom Delay. I will refer to the Washington Post for coverage to the events.

(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?

As far as I have read, the Washington Post has met the criteria for healthy democratic deliberation. Keep in mind that I am basing it on the two articles that I have read. Perhaps as I read on, they may not be as ideal as I now believe them to be.

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

I will look at the amount of coverage, the relevancy of the information to the public, the accessibility of the articles, and the ease with which one might respond to the issues.