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

Healthy deliberation depends on the media’s ability to create usable news and the public’s motivation to access and understand the information presented. By encouraging the ideal of a capable citizen, the media can facilitate healthy deliberation and become a more useful tool for democracy. It should provide relevant information and history of issues in a way that interests the public and encourages them to stay informed. By increasing Americans’ understanding of events and the ways their lives are impacted, citizens will become more likely to share in the debates of government and corporate policies. If citizens increasingly engage themselves in the democratic process, the government will become more inclusive and benefit from the different public perspectives.

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

My theory draws on Dewey’s argument that increased citizen involvement will result in more effective group democracy. I agree with Dewey that if the public becomes more aware of how their activities affect one another, their engagement in the political process will increase and an improved conception of democracy in the U.S. will result.

I will contend Lippmann’s assertion that the public should only be involved in the event of a crisis and demonstrate that citizens’ insight into public issues should be included to best solve public problems.

3. What ideals of news coverage encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?

News coverage that aims primarily to involve their reader in a larger debate will encourage more successful deliberation among citizens. Media that adopts an adversarial style of journalism will be able to successfully counter the feelings of radical uncertainty that discourage many citizens. By going beyond the statements of official sources and revealing a larger story, citizens will be able to better understand and utilize their news sources.

4. Do(es a lack of) bias and fairness affect the news media's ability to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in question 3?

I think that fair reporting of the news is an ideal that is largely unlikely in postmodern media. The ideal of objectivity does not work to increase public understanding of the issues that will affect them. Rather it presents official quotes as news, leaving the contest to the abilities of each party’s public relations staff. Adversarial news will compel journalists to provide greater coverage of events in order to defend their positions. Citizens will become adept at criticizing issues as their journalists raise the level of political deliberation.

5. How do you find yourself agreeing with or disagreeing with McChesney, Schudson, and Goldberg? How will you handle these (dis)agreements in your argument?

I agree with McChesney that to expect a large public movement for media reform, there must first be another movement that recognizes the need for democratic change. I think adversarial journalism is an effective way to engage citizens in debate and challenge their ideas about the role of the media.

I agree that the move towards objectivity has been economically driven as McChesney and Nichols argue. I will also suggest that a cultural shift towards radical uncertainty will be reflected in consumers’ demands and newsrooms will be forced to adapt their financial strategies.

Finally, I will engage Lakoff’s argument that frames are inevitable. I think that responsible frames are possible and that they can increase the public’s ability to relate to an issue.

6. What will you analyze in this paper (what issue will you discuss, what media outlet will you analyze, what particular articles will you look at)?

I will analyze USA Today, America’s McPaper, and their recent coverage of the federal budget deficit and how it affects their readers.

7. What will you argue about this outlet's coverage of the selected event? Did the (lack of) bias and fairness affect this news outlet's ability to contribute to healthy democratic deliberation?

I will argue that USA Today encourages healthy democratic deliberation by successfully relating stories to their readers and suggesting opinions that objectivity forbids. I am in no way arguing that USA Today is the ideal newspaper, but that it uses a journalistic style to attract their readers and maintain their spot as the nation’s largest newspaper.

8. What evidence will you use to support your evaluation as outlined in your answer to question 8?

I will cite USA Today’s consistent coverage of the record federal budget deficit. USA Today devotes a lot of space to criticizing the current administration and identifying ways the crisis could impact their readers. I will demonstrate that the paper’s investigative take on the Bush administration’s fiscal policy encourages citizens to become more effective participants in democracy.

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

Healthy deliberation in a democratic society responds to a legitimate crisis and depends on an individual's ability to critically examine their habits of association; it is then possible to either defend or reform those habits through analytical investigation of the direct and/or indirect consequences of the crisis.

(2) 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 Lippmann that a crisis exists when an established rule elicits pervasive public opposition as to the interested agents' ability to agree upon that rule. A crisis also exists when the state or the media fails to address or care for public interest. I refute Lippmann's claim that the public, because they are self-interested and uninformed, are incapable of effectively deliberating on the consequences of a crisis. I refute by supporting Dewey's claim that citizen apathy exists because technological advancement has weakened or dismantled the organic networks of association through which the individual has historically established their position in a public. The public may be able to engage in critical deliberation if the media--as "watchdogs" and opponents of error and half-truth--leads by example; the media must engage in critical inquiry if the public is to do the same.

(3) What ideals of news coverage encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?

Adversarial journalism may help the public engage in healthy deliberation because it is itself an act of critical inquiry from which the public may take cues. In the presence of crisis, this form of journalism investigates and explicitly defines the public consequences that an objective report of the crisis does not allow.

(4) Do(es a lack of) bias and fairness affect the news media's ability to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in question 3?

Objectivity is an ideal that cannot completely escape the unavoidable nature of bias. Media bias constitutes information; objectivity masks this information and limits the public's ability to engage in well-informed deliberation. Adversarial journalism reveals media bias through the critical examination of those events that address public concerns. Fairness exists and best serves the public when 1) the media responds to dissenting factions within that public, 2) investigates the consequences that concern those factions, 3) does not lie or report misinformation.

(5) How do you find yourself agreeing with or disagreeing with McChesney, Schudson, and Goldberg? How will you handle these (dis)agreements in your argument?

Schudson argues that the movement from news as information toward news as advertisement discourages adversarial and investigative journalism, as those methods are expensive and detract from a newspaper's bottom-line. I agree with McChesney's argument that the media's reliance on PR results in a disproportionate representation of government views. The pursuit of objectivity may constitute a "frame" (Lakoff) that too often bows to PR and demeans public concerns by emphasizing expert opinions, corporate interest, and white house "spin".

(6) What will you analyze in this paper (what issue will you discuss, what media outlet will you analyze, what particular articles will you look at)?

I will analyze the New York Times: are they as objective as they claim? I will focus on front page articles concerning the war in Iraq and Bush's plan for victory.

(7) What will you argue about this outlet's coverage of the selected event? Did the (lack of) bias and fairness affect this news outlet's ability to contribute to healthy democratic deliberation?

I haven't reached a position yet.

(8) What evidence will you use to support your evaluation as outlined in your answer to question 8?

See #7.

Note: If you're thinking about buying a Compaq laptop, DON'T. Mine had a minor crash this evening (it's happened before) and I lost my argument proposal. I was on #6! So frustrating. Only you can prevent computer-induced slacking: Save and Save often.

Questions to Answer for Argument Proposal:
(1) What do you think constitutes healthy deliberation in a large, complex, free, democratic society?
Different perspectives, biases (but various biases available) and a balance of each help to constitute healthy deliberation. I don’t think just giving facts will interest a large society and I don’t think many will be able to fully interpret consequences (direct/indirect) from just facts; I think there needs to be some sort of controversy in the interpretation in that there should be various analyses or slants on the facts. These analyses should be fairly covered in a manner the general public can understand. These varied analyses would get people talking, debating, and thus intelligently siding with some perspective. (c-span just puts a camera in congress…but lets think about their ratings. Not very interesting most of the time). What’s bad is if the news only offers one bias on perspectives (due to private interests or under the table politics). Though there may be many perspectives they offer, they frame the perspectives in a way that limits different interpretations, thus limiting healthy deliberation. So the best that can be accomplished is giving the people various slants on the same story so that they can see these slants, relate the slants to themselves, discuss it with others, and decide which slant they agree with and then side with that slant. (That’s democracy).

(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 agreeing with Lippmann that people do not have the capability/time/interest to know all the facts of a situation. I agree that people should, in the end, side with some major actor of a situation in question. Lippmann would agree with a number of biased perspectives being given…but that seems like it could cause public meddling, something he thinks is a nuisance. So it is necessary that these perspectives be thorough and analyzed intelligently. “Just the facts” isn’t enough, because the people cannot analyze just facts for themselves. Many takes of the story should be offered to the people. But these takes should be focused around major actors of a situation.
Dewey believes that people need to know the indirect consequences, they need to be given the facts of the indirect consequences in an easy to follow manner. The public doesn’t need all the info, but they need to have access to finding out what indirect consequences are. This is where the different perspectives come in, because different sides of a situation experience different consequences. People need to be shown these in order to really know which side they should take.

(3) What ideals of news coverage encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?
The ideal of objectivity through various frames or biases. I know that’s contradictory, but objectivity offers various perspectives. This is important, but different biased analysis should be offered (subjectivity) on these perspectives. We talk about skepticism, We don’t really know what is true unless we’re actually there, and eveyone’s truth is different. So the best that can be accomplished is giving the people various slants on the same story so that they can see these slants relate it to themselves, discuss it with others, and decide which slant they agree with and then side with that slant. (That’s democracy).

(4) Do(es a lack of) bias and fairness affect the news media's ability to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in question 3?
A lack of bias will affect a news media’s ability to fulfill responsibilities. It will leave the people without help in analysis. Again, if all that’s presented are facts, without any kind of frame connected to it, people aren’t going to pay attention to it, because they aren’t interested or they are incapable of intelligently analyzing facts, or they don’t have time to sort through all the facts and choose a side. However a single bias is just as bad. That’s why the news should be supported by the people, not private corporations. (PBS, BBC) because private corporations my show one bias due to monetary interests, not fairness to the news and informing the public.

(5) How do you find yourself agreeing with or disagreeing with McChesney, Schudson, and Goldberg? How will you handle these (dis)agreements in your argument?
McChesney: “No viable system of journalism can be expected from a system under the thumb of massive self-interested commercial organizations”(95). I agree with this, and will argue that as long as the major news corporations report in favor of who has the largest pay check, healthy deliberation cannot be obtained.
Schudson talks about the ideal of objectivity coming about due to a radical skepticism that people can simply report the facts. Ideally, journalists could stick with this ideal offering different perspectives, but also analyzing these perspectives through various slants. An article should be balanced in offering at least two sides to a situation and then offer information for people to view other sides/slants as well.
Lakoff discusses frames: and I agree that frames should be part of reporting a story, but more than one frame should be offered in a story, or at least give the public information on where to find other intelligent takes.

(6) What will you analyze in this paper (what issue will you discuss, what media outlet will you analyze, what particular articles will you look at)?
I’d like to analyze the PBS website’s portrayal of various perspectives and how being supported publicly, not privately helps add to that variety. In particular I’ll look at their New and Views section explaining how they help with deliberation. Perhaps on the current issue of intelligent design…maybe compare that to Fox’s coverage of the issue. And the available perspectives each website offers.

(7) What will you argue about this outlet's coverage of the selected event? Did the (lack of) bias and fairness affect this news outlet's ability to contribute to healthy democratic deliberation?
I will argue that PBS offers more information and perspectives on the topic. That bias and fairness on the topic contributes to healthy deliberation

(8) What evidence will you use to support your evaluation as outlined in your answer to question 8?
I will use the PBS website, the Fox News website, views from McChesney, Lackoff, and Schudson, and Lippman and Dewey

*I have not pinned down exactly what I want to write about yet, so these answers are brief, unfortunately, because I'm just not sure about everything*

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

Citizens should be able to rely on the media for accurate information about current events that can/will/do affect their lives. When they can take this information and create intelligent, relevant arguments out of it, the media will have succeeded.

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

Lippmann would argue that citizens are incapable of effectively synthesizing information given to them, and even if they could, it would cause them to be meddlesome. I disagree and side with Dewey - I think that given the right resources, people are capable of figuring things out themselves.

(3) What ideals of news coverage encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?

I think that challenging the standing power - whether it is government or corporate - is the only way to get citizens involved. That being said, I think adversarial news coverage is the closest thing we have to promote deliberation among citizens.

(4) Do(es a lack of) bias and fairness affect the news media's ability to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in question 3?

I think a lack of bias and fairness does affect the media's responsibility to challenge those in power, but I do not think that 'objectivity' (naive empiricism) will help the situation at all.

(5) How do you find yourself agreeing with or disagreeing with McChesney, Schudson, and Goldberg? How will you handle these (dis)agreements in your argument?

I agree with McChesney, I think that large corporate-owned media outlets are the reason that it is difficult for media to cover important issues of power, not a loosely-interpreted code of ethics as Schudson argues.

(6) What will you analyze in this paper (what issue will you discuss, what media outlet will you analyze, what particular articles will you look at)? Pres. Bush's approval rating/endless speeches to groups of soldiers/veterans, Washington Post, articles from the last few months.

(7) What will you argue about this outlet's coverage of the selected event? Did the (lack of) bias and fairness affect this news outlet's ability to contribute to healthy democratic deliberation?

(questions from the assignment description:)

does a particular news outlet aspire to the ideals of fair and unbiased coverage? Yes, the Washinton Post claims this.

If they do aspire to it, do they achieve this ideal? I would argue, yes.

Does this outlet's posture towards the ideal of fair and unbiased coverage help or hurt our ability to engage in democratic deliberation? I think that the attempt to present unbiased coverage overlooks glaring facts - such as, why is it necessary to have groups of people wearing camo as a backdrop for Bush's photo ops? is he compensating for something (content)?

Finally, is unbiased and fair coverage an attainable or desirable ideal in the first place? fair... yes. it is fair to say someone is wrong if they're wrong. unbiased? i think there should always be a bias towards to the good of the public.

(8) What evidence will you use to support your evaluation as outlined in your answer to question 8?

I want to break down several of the news articles written about recent Bush activities, and decide how much of each article is merely chronicling his day, repeating what he said... and how much questions what he's doing and possible motives.

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.

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.

What ideals of news coverage encourage this kind of deliberation among citizens?

I believe if the media brings the debate 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 via media, 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.

Do(es a lack of) bias and fairness affect the news media's ability to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in question 3?

Bias and fairness does affect it’s responsibility to take the debate to the person, or the private realm, because a successful dialogue is built on factual, objective information. Without an active dialogue, there is no healthy deliberation in society.

How do you find yourself agreeing with or disagreeing with McChesney, Schudson, and Goldberg? How will you handle these (dis)agreements in your argument?

I find Lakoff’s concept of framing to be very true, and very prevalent in media. To some degree, I can reconcile the McChesney arguments with regards to private ownership of the media, and how that has an adverse affect on objectivity, but I’m not that enthusiastic about it. Lakoffs frame works very well within what I want to evaluate, however, I will attempt to fit in McChesney.

Ok, here’s the part I need help with…I want to do some analysis of frames, but I need some help narrowing it down to a manageable amounts. I wanted to look at both ‘sizes’ of frames, ones that focus around an individual (such as the American Airlines shooting story) and those that focus on larger topics (such as the Iranian plane crash). This was the best I could come up with at this point. I’m hoping someone can give me lots of suggestions tomorrow in class.