Deliberative Performance of Television News in Three Types of Democracy: Insights from the United States, Germany, and Russia

Journal of Communication

Volumn 64, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 827-851

  Wessler, Hartmut ^a   Rinke, Eike Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Deliberation; International and comparative; Journalism; News; Quantitative content analysis; Television

Indexed keywords

EID: 84914148670     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12115     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Aalberg, T., van Aelst, P., & Curran, J. (2010). Media systems and the political information environment: A cross-national comparison. International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(3), 255-271. doi:10.1177/1940161210367422.
2. Althaus, S. L. (2012). What's good and bad in political communication research? Normative standards for evaluating media and citizen performance. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), Sage handbook of political communication (pp. 97-112). London, England: Sage.
3. Baker, C. E. (2002). Media, markets, and democracy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bennett, W. L., Pickard, V. W., Iozzi, D. P., Schroeder, C. L., Lagos, T., & Caswell, C. E. (2004). Managing the public sphere: Journalistic construction of the great globalization debate. Journal of Communication, 54(3), 437-455. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02638.x.
5. Benson, R. (2013). Shaping immigration news: A French-American comparison. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6. Benson, R., & Powers, M. (2011). Public media and political independence: Lessons for the future of journalism from around the world. Washington, DC: Free Press.
7. Brennan, R. L., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 687-699. doi:10.1177/001316448104100307.
8. Chambers, S. (2010). Theories of political justification. Philosophy Compass, 5(11), 893-903. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00344.x.
9. Cushion, S. (2012). The democratic value of news: Why public service media matter. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Dekavalla, M. (2012). Evaluating newspaper performance in the public sphere: Press accounts of Westminster elections in Scotland and in England in the early post-devolution period. Journalism, 13(3), 320-339. doi:10.1177/1464884911398335.
11. Ebbinghaus, B. (2005). When less is more: Selection problems in large-N and small-N cross-national comparisons. International Sociology, 20(2), 133-152. doi:10.1177/0268580905052366.
12. Esser, F. (2008). Dimensions of political news cultures: Sound bite and image bite news in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(4), 401-428. doi:10.1177/1940161208323691.
13. Esser, F., de Vreese, C. H., Strömbäck, J., van Aelst, P., Aalberg, T., Stanyer, J., ... Reinemann, C. (2012). Political information opportunities in Europe: A longitudinal and comparative study of thirteen television systems. International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(3), 247-274. doi:10.1177/1940161212442956.
14. Ettema, J. S. (2007). Journalism as reason-giving: Deliberative democracy, institutional accountability, and the news media's mission. Political Communication, 24(2), 143-160. doi:10.1080/10584600701312860.
15. Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16. Fung, A. (2012). Continuous institutional innovation and the pragmatic conception of democracy. Polity, 44(4), 609-624. doi:10.1057/pol.2012.17.
17. Gamson, W. A. (1999). Policy discourse and the language of the life-world. In J. Gerhards & R. Hitzler (Eds.), Eigenwilligkeit und Rationalität sozialer Prozesse: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Friedhelm Neidhardt (pp. 127-144). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
18. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.
19. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Gerhards, J. (1997). Diskursive versus liberale Öffentlichkeit: Eine empirische Auseinandersetzung mit Jürgen Habermas. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 49(1), 1-34.
21. Goldman, S. K., & Mutz, D. C. (2011). The friendly media phenomenon: A cross-national analysis of cross-cutting exposure. Political Communication, 28(1), 42-66. doi:10.1080/10584609.2010.544280.
22. Greenacre, M. (2006). From simple to multiple correspondence analysis. In M. Greenacre & J. Blasius (Eds.), Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods (pp. 41-76). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
23. Groeling, T. (2008). Who's the fairest of them all? An empirical test for partisan bias on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 38(4), 631-657. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2008.02668.x.
24. Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191-1237. doi:10.1162/003355305775097542.
25. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and reason: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
26. Habermas, J. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 421-461). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
29. Higgins, M. (2006). Substantiating a political public sphere in the Scottish press: A comparative analysis. Journalism, 7(1), 25-44. doi:10.1177/1464884906059426.
30. Holtzman, N. S., Schott, J. P., Jones, M. N., Balota, D. A., & Yarkoni, T. (2011). Exploring media bias with semantic analysis tools: Validation of the Contrast Analysis of Semantic Similarity (CASS). Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 193-200. doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0026-z.
31. Iyengar, S., Curran, J., Lund, A. B., Salovaara-Moring, I., Hahn, K. S., & Coen, S. (2010). Cross-national versus individual-level differences in political information: A media systems perspective. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 20(3), 291-309. doi:10.1080/17457289.2010.490707.
32. Jacobs, R. N., & Townsley, E. (2011). The space of opinion: Media intellectuals and the public sphere. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
33. Kriesi, H. (2004). Strategic political communication: Mobilizing public opinion in "audience democracies." In F. Esser & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Comparing political communication: Theories, cases, and challenges (pp. 184-212). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
34. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. Le Roux, B., & Rouanet, H. (2010). Multiple correspondence analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Levine, T. R., Weber, R., Park, H. S., & Hullett, C. R. (2008). A communication researchers' guide to null hypothesis significance testing and alternatives. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 188-209. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00318.x.
37. Lewis, J., Wahl-Jorgensen, K., & Inthorn, S. (2004). Images of citizenship on television news: Constructing a passive public. Journalism Studies, 5(2), 153-164.
38. Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39. Mansbridge, J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40. Merkel, W. (2004). Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization, 11(5), 38-58. doi:10.1080/13510340412331304598.
41. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
42. Mutz, D. C. (2007). Effects of "in-your-face" television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 621-635. doi:10.1017/S000305540707044X.
43. Nir, L. (2012a). Cross-national differences in political discussion: Can political systems narrow deliberation gaps? Journal of Communication, 62(3), 553-570. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01648.x.
44. Nir, L. (2012b). Public space: How shared news landscapes close gaps in political engagement. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56(4), 578-596. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.732145.
45. Orwin, R. G., & Vevea, J. L. (2009). Evaluating coding decisions. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 177-203). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
46. Papathanassopoulos, S., Coen, S., Curran, J., Aalberg, T., Rowe, D., Jones, P., ... Tiffen, R. (2013). Online threat, but television is still dominant: A comparative study of 11 nations' news consumption. Journalism Practice, 7(6), 690-704. doi:10.1080/17512786.2012.761324.
47. Peters, B. (2008). On public deliberation and public culture. In H. Wessler (Ed.), Public deliberation and public culture: The writings of Bernhard Peters, 1993-2005 (pp. 68-118). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
48. Pfetsch, B. (2003). Politische Kommunikationskultur: Politische Sprecher und Journalisten in der Bundesrepublik und den USA im Vergleich. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
49. Rinke, E. M. (2013). Justificatory news: Investigating the contextual antecedents of justification in the news (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
50. Rinke, E. M., Wessler, H., Löb, C., & Weinmann, C. (2013). Deliberative qualities of generic news frames: Assessing the democratic value of strategic game and contestation framing in election campaign coverage. Political Communication, 30(3), 474-494. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.737432.
51. Rohlinger, D. A. (2007). American media and deliberative democratic processes. Sociological Theory, 25(2), 122-148. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2007.00301.x.
52. StataCorp (2009). Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
53. Stegmueller, D. (2013). How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 748-761. doi:10.1111/ajps.12001.
54. Strömbäck, J. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6(3), 331-345. doi:10.1080/14616700500131950.
55. Sunstein, C. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56. Trilling, D., & Schoenbach, K. (2012). Skipping current affairs: The non-users of online and offline news. European Journal of Communication, 28(1), 35-51. doi:10.1177/0267323112453671.
57. Vartanova, E. (2012). The Russian media model in the context of post-Soviet dynamics. In D. C. Hallin & P. Mancini (Eds.), Comparing media systems beyond the Western world (pp. 119-142). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
58. Voltmer, K. (2012). How far can media systems travel? Applying Hallin and Mancini's comparative framework outside the Western world. In D. C. Hallin & P. Mancini (Eds.), Comparing media systems beyond the Western world (pp. 224-245). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
59. Wessler, H. (2008). Investigating deliberativeness comparatively. Political Communication, 25(1), 1-22. doi:10.1080/10584600701807752.
60. Western, B., & Jackman, S. (1994). Bayesian inference for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 88(2), 412-423. doi:10.2307/2944713.
61. Xenos, M. (2008). New mediated deliberation: Blog and press coverage of the Alito nomination. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(2), 485-503. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00406.x.
62. Zaller, J. (2003). A new standard of news quality: Burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen. Political Communication, 20(2), 109-130. doi:10.1080/10584600390211136.