Journalism as Reason-Giving: Deliberative Democracy, Institutional Accountability, and the News Media's Mission

James S. Ettema

Political Communication · 2007 · 127 citations · 13 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Deliberative democracy hinges on offering reasons for public choice that are grounded in principles citizens cannot reasonably reject. The paper argues that journalism should act as a reasoning institution that actively pursues and presents reasons meeting this criterion, while demanding accountability of public institutions to citizens and the ideals of the polity. The authors illustrate this by a case study of a newspaper’s death‑penalty reform campaign that demanded accountability to justice ideals. The case study demonstrates a constructive model of journalistic reason‑giving amid deep moral disagreement.

Abstract

Offering reasons for public choice is the central act of deliberative democracy. These reasons, however, must meet a stern criterion; they must be grounded in principles that cannot be reasonably rejected by citizens seeking fair terms of cooperation. Because reasons given in actual political argument regularly fail to meet this criterion, journalism should be asked to participate not merely by presiding over an uncritical forum for reason-giving but by acting as a reasoning institution that aggressively pursues and compellingly renders reasons satisfying the criterion. Moreover, because deliberation must be regulated by procedural principles that include mutual accountability, journalism should be asked to participate by demanding the accountability of public institutions to citizens, each other, and most importantly the ideals of the polity. A case study of journalism demanding accountability to the ideals of justice—one newspaper's campaign for death penalty reform—provides a constructive model of journalistic reason-giving in a situation of deep moral disagreement.

References

13