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

An effective democracy needs a well-structured, intelligent, lucid, and impartial media which appeals to the average American. Healthy deliberation lies in the media’s ability to be efficient while remaining thorough. Americans treasure time, thus TV offers a quick way to get your news. However, if we desire a politically conscious public, we must create media sources that appeal to their schedules while remaining informative and intelligent. Americans must learn think about what’s on TV critically, and separate entertainment from politics.

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

In its current state, I believe that TV hurts America. I think that Walter Lipp-diddy would scoff at the amount of trust and dependence that Americans place on TV news. It doesn’t encourage critical thinking, and it operates by launching an insane amount of images and sound bites. In general, it encourages people to align themselves with a party or issue and not think any further. Lippmann would say this is bad for America because it might encourage people to vote who are not well-informed citizens.

(3) What (if anything) can TV do to encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?

There are several problems with using TV as a news source. As I argued in my first paper, I believe that America’s educational system and the news media fail to compliment each others learning abilities. From a young age, students are taught to think and learn in specific ways, but when they get into the real world their way of learning changes. The same phenomenon occurs with TV. In elementary through high school students learn to read critically, but they’re rarely asked to think critically about a film or documentary.

(4) How do you find yourself agreeing with or disagreeing with Jamieson and Hart? How will you handle these (dis)agreements in your argument?

I agree with Jamieson’s argument on association. When news stations or political commercials launch a string of images and quotes taken out of context, Americans are often sucked in to believing what they see is the truth. Now, I don’t believe that every citizen is victimized by the news because I definitely believe in responsibility, but I do believe that these tactics wear down a person’s critical thinking. Sometimes the convenience of these commercials fails to encourage further research/thinking, etc.

I also agree with Hart when he talks about how TV is the only medium where we can directly relate to politicians because it personalizes them. Like associative arguments, personalization takes away from the situation at hand. Often, we make up excuses for politicians because we feel like we align with their personal beliefs, morals, etc. As a result, America often battles over morals and beliefs rather than the issues at hand.

(5) What will you analyze in this paper (will you look at a televised speech, a TV news outlet, and how much data will you collect)?

I will look at President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address and how stations like MSNBC, FOX News, and CNN used different sound bites and images in reaction to the infamous “16 words.”

(6) What will you argue about television's ability to encourage or discourage responsible democratic deliberation? Did the medium affect citizens' ability to engage in healthy democratic deliberation?

I believe that TV is informative because it is an easy and entertaining way to get the news. However, I feel that its use of associative arguments and images hurts America. Until American pedagogy or the news itself changes, TV will continue to manipulate its viewers.

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

I will use different news coverage from FOX News, MSNBC, and CNN on the Presidents State of the Union Address. I will show how the text differentiates from the actual broadcast, along with different reactions and uses of images from the preceding stations.

(1) What do you think constitutes healthy deliberation in a large, complex, free, democratic society?
Healthy deliberation requires critical thinking in which the people involved are informed. Citizens must be able to take the given information, process it and draw their own conclusions. They must have some idea that the information they have been given is correct and from a reliable source, and with that information process it and think about it in a way that lets them draw their own conclusions. Engaging people in this manor through television I think will present a problem.
(2) How does your theory of responsible democratic deliberation relate to (draw on, disagree with) what you've read in Dewey and Lippmann?
I’m not quite sure here. I believe that TV in general is integrated into society as a form of entertainment, and therefore is never going to be an effective source of news if they continue in the current fashion (CNN, local channels, etc). I will spend a large part of the paper discussing how TV is brought into society as an entertainment source and thus has some large hurdles to clear before it will be an effective news source. I believe it will be very hard to make television an effective source, but if there is any hope it lies in the model of The Daily Show.
(3) What (if anything) can TV do to encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?
I believe this will start at a young age, and in school where kids should be taught to think critically of what they see on TV. An early introduction to TV and the associations it can draw on might help those people become more aware of the problems later on. If there is anything the TV can do, it is present news in an entertaining fashion. One that is both interesting to watch, but also calls on you to think more about a given situation rather than having the facts just handed to you where they are easily taken at face value. Through most of our socialization into the technological world, we are not taught to look critically at what we see on TV. In schools, problem solving and research are taught through text mediums, and you are taught to make sure your resources are accurate and that the information is correct. However, you are never taught to look at a news program, a presidential speech/debate, or any other informative show with a discerning eye. I think this leads us to inherently take what we see on TV at face value, not question its integrity and really utilize the information at hand.
(4) How do you find yourself agreeing with or disagreeing with Jamieson and Hart? How will you handle these (dis)agreements in your argument?
I agree with Hart on the fact that TV lets the audience feel like they know the person who is speaking and feel a bond with them. This brings the person into their home, and I think makes both the viewer and the person on TV more venerable. Because of this, they are likely to call to their character in times of crisis reminding you how well you know this person, and how they would never do something to cause harm. Debates move away from issues and onto character, which avoids the issue completely. A show like The Daily Show encourages you to think critically about such calls to character, and makes you question that integrity. I agree with Jamieson about how many arguments/commercials/etc are associative, but I’m not quite sure yet if I feel that this is 100% bad or not. I think that all someone can do is point out this kind of “marketing” and let you decide for yourself if it is correct or not.
(5) What will you analyze in this paper (will you look at a televised speech, a TV news outlet, and how much data will you collect)?
I will look at The Daily Show news segments, and determine how these might be more effective in engaging critical thought about a particular issue than you standard fare news broadcast. I’ll also analyze how particular metaphors, jokes, etc call you to question certain information and do so in an entertaining way that might encourage more people to think about current events. I will also give background as to why this type of news broadcasting is necessary, and why it might be more effective (for certain audiences) than the normal cable news.
(6) What will you argue about television's ability to encourage or discourage responsible democratic deliberation? Did the medium affect citizens' ability to engage in healthy democratic deliberation?
I believe that most TV news programs only helps citizens to make associative connections as Jamieson might argue. Secondly, that debates and issues have turned to character analysis rather than looking at the issue at hand as Hart would point out. Because these things don’t deal with the actual issue itself nor do they encourage critical thinking about issues, I don’t believe this encourages –responsible- democratic deliberation. It may be the best we can hope for given our current education and limited agency but I’m not sure that means it is a good thing. I think rather an effort should be made to encourage people to look at TV more critically.
(7) What evidence will you use to support your evaluation as outlined in your answer to question 6?
I will use evidence from both sides, regular news and The Daily Show clips and point out the differences and how normal news shows call on these associations and appeals to character and how The Daily Show has you question them.

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

An intelligent and yet readable debate through media, which can reach an entire public the size of the current population of the United States. Also, the ability to garner information through a variety of sources which are not controlled by the government and are instead, in the hands of private citizens.

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

Walter Lippmann describes the media’s responsibility as presenting information, which directly affects the public, in a general and unbiased fashion with the inclusion of competing perspectives. I agree largely with Lippmann that most of the mass of the citizenry of the U.S. is not only unlikely but unable to be well informed on every issue that comes before them. The information being disposed to the public should relate to a crisis and should offer competing perspectives on an issue in order for the public to choose sides that align themselves with the general ideological philosophies they hold and agree with. The media’s coverage of these topics must be unbiased and allow the public to decide sides without false or misleading information swaying their decision. The public can be offered more information if they want it on certain topics however main coverage of the day should only handle crises.

(3) What (if anything) can TV do to encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?

TV provides an excellent way to reach a mass population. One need not be literate in order to consume television and since the people in the United States read significantly less than other developed countries this is a big plus for our population specifically. TV creates associative reasoning through images and this is a good way to quickly explain crisis situations to a busy US public. TV has a great opportunity for competing perspectives since in many ways they can actually feature each side on a show (for example having a Palestinian and an Israeli on the same show talking about the Gaza pullout). It can allow people to actually see rather than just read about an issue to better understand how it effects them (for example reading about the wildfires in CA is a lot different than seeing their destruction and for those that live in CA around that area the photos and footage may have caused them to act more quickly). TV also gives an audience the ability to see first-hand accounts. People being interviewed off the street in the aftermath of Katrina were a great competing perspective to Brown’s take on the FEMA effort and response.

(4) How do you find yourself agreeing with or disagreeing with Jamieson and Hart? How will you handle these (dis)agreements in your argument?

I agree that TV offers pretty much only associative reasoning as Jamieson says though I think sources that are mostly unmessed with (EX: CSPAN) can be reasoned with a more critical ability. I also agree with Jamieson that TV personalizes messages and causes rhetoric to change from eloquence to good ole boy (nucular etc). I think that it goes beyond even that. I agree with Hart that television gives its audience a ‘sense of knowing’ and an ‘intimacy’ that no other medium can provide. Because images are more sustainable in memory, require less critical thinking, and create a personal, visual link to a story, issue, or person, the television is a serious tool in the manipulation of the public. I disagree with Hart that the medium of television has changed the way Americans think. I believe it has capitalized on the way we think but that the instinctual low attention span, busy, impressed by images human mind is largely the same as it was before TV.

I agree with Hart that issues become more personal ones, more character debates rather than issue debates.

I disagree with Jamieson on the point that this is somehow the downfall of society and deductive reasoning. TV has an audience for a reason. It is easy. Associative reasoning is quick and easy and people are pressed for time and expect a certain quickness and understandability from their media. However, those that would wish to deductively reason an issue can and do through other media or through PBS and c-span and the National Geographic channel etc etc. Those that would not wish to experience daily critical thinking simply now have an outlet for getting news information that they would only get otherwise before television through word of mouth of images in newspapers and newsreels. Yes TV does not cause people to think very much, but so long as it is not lying, being willfully misleading, manipulating and exploiting the medium, then it is fine and a good thing to have around.

(5) What will you analyze in this paper (will you look at a televised speech, a TV news outlet, and how much data will you collect)?

I will look at the morning show on Fox News called “Fox and Friends” which has the basic premise of informing the public on the major issues of the day and then briefly talking about them (with supposed competing perspectives). I think five or six episodes of this should be enough to analyze and get the general feel for the show and how it informs the public.

(6) What will you argue about television'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 medium does succeed in informing the public yet the manipulation of images, captions, and graphics as relating to the issues being discussed are somewhat misleading to the public and therefore do not substantiate the democratic deliberation I expressed as being ideal in mine, lippmann’s, and Dewey’s view. Thus, TV does encourage democratic deliberation but if it deliberates false or falsified information it can create a dangerous predicament and disables democracy.

Basically TV is good unless it is too infused with the qualities of propaganda (misleading info, no competing perspectives, a rallying to a point, an encouragement for citizen to behave or act or donate etc. in a certain way.)

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

The inflammatory captions under some of the images and footage used throughout the show. The way in which all the stars of the show agree constantly on almost every issue and how largely these agreements fit within a conservative party line. Etc etc.

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

Healthy deliberation , I will continue to argue, is a flow of information for the public to become aware of relevant and pertinent issues that may/will effect their lives.

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

The theory is a widened interpretation of Lippmann’s crisis criteria, expanded in order to ensure that citizens have the capability to know of a crisis before it occurs.

(3) What (if anything) can TV do to encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?

If TV can provide the information required of a news medium, including information and editorial-style opinions of key players, then it has done its duty. TV does have the ability to encourage deliberation because it has the ability to be directly in the living rooms of the citizens in an easy form to understand. The risk comes with reporting irrelevant information, such as the kidnapping of some girl in Aruba, and the citizens grow tired of information that doesn’t effect them and then cease seeking information.

(4) How do you find yourself agreeing with or disagreeing with Jamieson and Hart? How will you handle these (dis)agreements in your argument?

I find myself agreeing with Jamieson that television forces the message to become visual in nature and associative. However, I am also struggling with whether or not that is relevant to deliberation. If the majority of people are not capable or willing to participate in any form of deliberation, why not reel them in with some sort of emotional string. It can be misleading, but where there are still two parties to give misinformation, the citizens are still only lining up behind a candidate.

(5) What will you analyze in this paper (will you look at a televised speech, a TV news outlet, and how much data will you collect)?

I’m interested in analyzing a series of presidential campaign advertisements, Including, but not limited to: Reagan’s Bear, Bush’s wolf-pack and Johnson’s Girl with the flower. These all rely heavily on images

(6) What will you argue about television'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 television encourages people to participate in deliberation, but not always responsible democratic deliberation. The constant 24 hour aspect to today’s cable news stations can be a bit much, and since the mere existence of such stations will not increase the volume of relevant and pertinent issues, they must resort to covering inappropriate stories and in a manner designed only to get viewers rather than encourage deliberation.

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

I will cite the falling voting numbers (by percentage) in the beginning of my argument. The rise in the 2000 and 2004 election may be a major whole in that bit of evidence, so I will also seek evidence on viewer ratings for the news stations (cable and network). Any suggestions are welcome.

1.)Healthy Deliberation:
a.all sides are presented
b.fair/unbiased
c.each side must present reasons why, not just your point of view
d.must lead to further discussion/action/movement
e.help create critically thinking citizens

2.)Dewey and Lippmann:
a.The public is capable and willing to participate in deliberation. They have to be given the tools though.
b.Lippmann would say use TV only to inform in the case of a crisis, and in that case only inform those who are directly involved.
c.In an election year he would most definitely agree with TV’s use.
d.Lippmann says that people are merely supposed to align with a candidate/party and NOT meddle in politics.
e.TV, in its current state, allows people to feel involved, but does not really inform them. Lippmann would like this because it appeases the masses to where they won’t start problems because they are content with what they are receiving.
f.Dewey would want people to be more involved, and since TV is a main source of information transportation, he would feel that it should be reformed.
g.Dewey would say that TV should work on closing the gap between technical language and laymen’s terms (probably didn’t spell that right). This would help people feel more involved, but also be better informed.
h.He would also say that TV should work from the beginning of a person’s life to inform them about politics and get them used to how it works. (much like MTV does with Rock the Vote)
i.These things would help with Dewey’s problem of citizen agency.

3.)What TV can/cannot do to encourage this kind of deliberation
a.TV = BAD
b.It only makes people THINK they are involved
c.Takes the focus off of what is being said, and puts it on how it is being said, TV appeals to emotions, not logic
d.Also puts emphasis on judge of character and not the issues at hand (personal qualities over policy preferences – Hart)
e.Brings politics home
f.Makes it personal/not economical (Hart)
g.It is very manipulative
h.Creates a falsified knowledge base (Hart)
i.Presents images, helps people remember (Jameison) Brings politics to life (Hart)
j.Confuses the public
k.TV simply reaffirms, does not create new ideas (epideictic evidence – jameison)
l.TV does not tell us what to think, but what to think about (Hart)
m.Problems with pictures – misrepresentation and taken out of context
n.TV encourages a less complicated syntax and informal vocabulary
o.Allows politicians to caption their words with pictures
p.What you see isn’t always what you get
q.Helps remember images
r.Uses associative arguing

4.)Agree/Disagree with Jamieson/Hart
a.I agree with whatever I included in #3 (didn’t think you wanted me to repeat myself)

5.)What will you analyze: (not sure yet)
a.Daily Show
b.Jay Murtha Speech about immediate troop withdrawal
c.Presidential Political Debate

6.)What will you argue? Did the medium affect citizen’s ability to engage in healthy deliberation:
a.If I do the Daily Show, I will argue that they point out the problems with TV and are helping it to destroy itself.
b.Murtha speech, I will show the difference between the written report on CNN.com, the actual transcript, and the video of the speech
c.On the political debate I will show the difference between what was said and how it actually came out on TV.

7.)What evidence will you use to support your evaluation:
a.Depends on which one I choose.