Timothy E. Cook: 1954–2006

Abstract

This article describes the organizational and operational aspects of diplomacy's interplay with the news media in Britain. It examines the media's role as a source of information for ministers, officials, and the wider public; the media's effect on official and unofficial thinking; the media's roles in interdepartmental coordination and during international negotiations; and the uses of the media by the government as channels to mold public attitudes at home and abroad. It concludes by considering the implications of advancements in media technology, and greater public interest in international affairs, for media diplomacy.     

Deliberative Qualities of Generic News Frames: Assessing the Democratic Value of Strategic Game and Contestation Framing in Election Campaign Coverage

News frames are patterns of news construction journalists rely on to present information to their audiences. While much of the research on news frames has focused on their identification and effects, less work has investigated the specific contributions these different frames make to democratic life. Value judgments about distinct news frames are often not generated in a systematic fashion, not grounded in democratic theory, and/or not supported by empirical evidence. In this article, we address these problems by arguing for and extending normative assessment as a standard operating procedure to determine the democratic value of political communication phenomena. We demonstrate the usefulness of normative assessment by showing how two important generic news frames (politics as a strategic game and as a substantive contestation) contribute to a deliberative public discourse prior to a general election. Using data on television news coverage of the German federal election campaign in 2009, we investigate how these frames are related to the inclusiveness and civility of public discourse and the extent to which it features exchanges of substantive reasons for political positions. Results show that mediated democratic deliberation suffers consistently from strategic game framing, while contestation frames make ambivalent contributions. Implications for political communication scholarship as well as journalistic practice are discussed.

[Supplementary material is available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Political Communication for the following free supplemental resource(s): coding protocol used in content analysis.]     

The seductive quality of central human capabilities: sociological insights into Nussbaum and Sen's disagreement

Abstract

In an era when relativism and questions of modernity have unsettled the premises and goals of the development project, there is a seductive quality to the universalism of Nussbaum's capabilities approach. We query Nussbaum's philosophically based contribution and raise epistemological concerns about her commitment to a list of central human capabilities. We argue that attention to state forms and practices, as well as unequal power relations, must be incorporated into analyses of capability and development. This leads us to support Sen's advocacy of deliberative democracy as a productive space for collectivities and individuals to strive for social justice and equity. Such a focus is necessarily attentive to multiple forms of inequality and domination and is best understood by engaging historically specific analyses of state formations.     

政协提案工作的理论与实践

进入新世纪政协提案工作取得了新的成效,在促进社会主义经济建设、政治建设、文化建设中发挥了重要作用,作出了重要贡献.如何写好政协提案,要抓住"六个环节",要注重"审时、务实、坦诚、求效",注意"四个视角",要具备"严肃性、科学性和可行性",要充分认识政协提案作为人民政协政治协商、民主监督、参政议政职能的重要方式.     

Revealing preferences: Does deliberation increase ideological awareness among the less well educated?

Research suggests that the rightist discourse on immigration appeals to left‐leaning citizens with lower levels of education. The opposite is, however, not true for right‐wing voters with lower educational levels, and this asymmetry leaves left‐wing parties at a disadvantage compared with the right on immigration and integration issues. Deliberative theory promises that discussion, information and reflection can promote a more balanced political discussion and a more enlightened citizen. This article assesses the extent to which deliberative polling increases the ideological awareness of citizens with lower educational levels. More specifically, it gauges the extent to which especially less well educated left‐wing voters – those whose attitudes research finds to be particularly out of tune with their ideological predispositions regarding immigration and integration – adjust their attitudes as a consequence of deliberate exposure to informational input and the presentation of two‐sided arguments. Use is made of unique data generated during the first European‐wide deliberative polling project, ‘EuroPolis’, held in 2009. The results indicate that less well educated left‐wing voters indeed have slightly more negative attitudes towards immigrants than leftist voters with secondary or post‐secondary educational levels. Turning to the micro‐mechanisms of attitude change in a deliberative setting, the analyses show that both levels of education and ideological predispositions play a role in the extent to which participants of the deliberative poll adjust their attitudes. In three out of four models, evidence is found that less well educated left‐leaning citizens are indeed most likely to adjust their attitudes on immigration and integration after being presented with a more balanced discussion of the topic.     

The micro–macro link in deliberative polling: science or politics?

In this article, we critically examine the question of how to link the ‘micro’ of deliberative mini-publics with the ‘macro’ of the democratic system. To explore this puzzle, we relate to EuroPolis, a transnational deliberative experiment that took place one week ahead of the 2009 European Parliamentary elections. The main argument is that although the scientific design of deliberative polls is a necessary condition for the fulfilment of the criteria for equal participation and informed opinion-making of selected citizens (the micro-dimension), this does not necessarily translate into a democratically representative and legitimate proxy for the broader political constituency (the macro-dimension). This problem is potentially exacerbated in deliberative settings that cut across domestic political cultures and nationalized public spheres.     

春秋战国时期的论辩文化

春秋战国时期,百家争鸣,谈士飙起。论辩之风盛行,不仅在学术上,不同的流派、观点互相辩驳诘难,在政治制度的改革与保守、军事策略的选择、外交的应对上也都充满论辩精神,儒、墨、道、法的辩论风格各具特色,形成精彩纷呈的论辩文化。     

Can the market help the forum? Negotiating the commercialization of deliberative democracy

Deliberative ideals have become commercial goods bought and sold in an expanding consultancy market. In this market, demand is generated by government and advocacy groups seeking innovative ways to engage with the public. On the supply side are a growing number of commercial organizations selling deliberative goods and services such as process design, facilitation and evaluation. This paper characterizes the nature of this deliberative market, and considers its implications for democracy and contemporary governance. An analysis of deliberative consultants finds that their professional world is more akin to a ‘community of practice’ rather than a marketplace. But the development of this community of deliberative practitioners could go in opposing directions. On the one hand consultants could become the entrepreneurs of deliberative democracy, promoting and demonstrating its benefits for policy making. On the other hand, if the motivations for deepening democracy are fully replaced by business imperatives and competition, then the deliberative project would be severely undermined. Rather than predict the future, the paper identifies some of the opportunities and challenges for democratic governance as elements of deliberative democracy are commodified.

学习贯彻十八届三中全会精神发挥好政协委员的参政议政作用

党的十八届三中全会审议通过了《中共中央关于全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定》,内容丰富,指导性、针对性、操作性都非常强,是指导我们全面建成小康社会,夺取中国特色社会主义新胜利,实现中华民族伟大复兴中国梦的行动纲领和行动指南。     

Expanding the Conversation: Multiplier Effects From a Deliberative Field Experiment

Do formal deliberative events influence larger patterns of political discussion and public opinion? Critics argue that only a tiny number of people can participate in any given gathering and that deliberation may not remedy—and may in fact exacerbate—inequalities. We assess these criticisms with an experimental design merging a formal deliberative session with data on participants’ social networks. We conducted a field experiment in which randomly selected constituents attended an online deliberative session with their U.S. Senator. We find that attending the deliberative session dramatically increased interpersonal political discussion on topics relating to the event. Importantly, after an extensive series of moderation checks, we find that no participant/nodal characteristics, or dyadic/network characteristics, conditioned these effects; this provides reassurance that observed, positive spillovers are not limited to certain portions of the citizenry. The results of our study suggest that even relatively small-scale deliberative encounters can have a broader effect in the mass public, and that these events are equal-opportunity multipliers.