Political Communication and Deliberation
Publication Year: 2008
“Professor Gastil has been a leading voice in the deliberative democracy movement for the last 15 years, and with this book he has created a wonderful resource that adeptly captures the broad, valuable work being done both inside and outside academia concerning public deliberation and political communication. I hope this book will help spark a whole new generation of courses focused on this critical topic.” –Martín Carcasson,Colorado State University
The act of deliberation is the act of reflecting carefully on a matter and weighing the strengths and weaknesses of alternative solutions to a problem. It aims to arrive at a decision or judgment based not only on facts and data but also on values, emotions, and other less technical considerations. Though a solitary individual can deliberate, ...
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Democracy and Deliberation
- Chapter 2: Conversation and Discussion
- Chapter 3: Mediated Deliberation and Public Opinion
- Chapter 4: Deliberative Elections
- Chapter 5: How Government Deliberates
- Chapter 6: Deliberation in the Jury Room
- Chapter 7: Citizens and Officials in Public Meetings
- Chapter 8: Deliberative Communities and Societies
- Chapter 9: International Deliberation
- Chapter 10: Toward a Deliberative Democracy
[Page ii]Dedicated to Janet and Gordon Gastil.
If all else fails, run for Congress.
Copyright © 2008 by Sage Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Sage Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
Sage Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver's Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP
Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
Sage Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
33 Pekin Street #02-01
Far East Square
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Political communication and deliberation/John Gastil.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4129-1627-1 (cloth)—ISBN 978-1-4129-1628-8 (pbk.)
1. Communication in politics. 2. Discussion. 3. Democracy. I. Title.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
07 08 09 10 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Acquisitions Editor: Todd R. Armstrong
Editorial Assistant: Sarah K. Quesenberry and Katie Grim
Production Editor: Catherine M. Chilton
Copy Editor: Cheryl Duksta
Typesetter: C&M Digitals
Proofreader: Doris Hus
Indexer: Jeanne Busemeyer
Cover Designer: Candice Harman
Front Cover Design: Michael Briand
Marketing Manager: Carmel Withers
This book simultaneously introduces two subjects—the larger field of political communication and the more specialized topic of public deliberation.1 When understood in broad terms, deliberation is the central concept underlying a range of empirical research topics and moral questions raised in political communication scholarship—from how media framing can constrain public discussion to how partisan pressures warp congressional debates. Deliberation provides a unifying conceptual and critical framework within which one can better organize and understand the large array of political communication topics.2New Topics in Political Communication
I refer to this as a broad deliberative framework because I advance a more flexible yet precise definition of deliberation than scholars have used in the past.3 This book unfolds that definition in detail, but in shorthand terms, people deliberate when they carefully examine a problem and a range of solutions through an open, inclusive exchange that incorporates and respects diverse points of view.
This definition is adaptive enough to encompass a wide range of activities. If, by contrast, deliberation is defined solely as a formal public process of face-to-face discussion, that would exclude more informal activities and mediated processes that do not necessarily entail interpersonal interaction.4 Working from a broader definition of deliberation, in each political communication context I specify a distinct and precise meaning that makes deliberation a more concrete concept. This specificity avoids the problem that arises when one uses only a generic meaning that encompasses both face-to-face discussion and mediated deliberation, such as “reasoning and discussion about the merits of public policy.”5
[Page xii]Working within this flexible deliberative framework, it is easy to identify some topics that have been overlooked by conventional political communication handbooks, textbooks, and reviews. For instance, there exists a growing body of research on political conversation and discussion. These topics elude many observers of political communication, except insofar as talk among citizens serves as a conduit for media influence. Jury deliberation has been construed as a nonpolitical process, despite the fact that jury service is a uniquely valuable and political experience in public deliberation for many citizens. Public meetings are another important venue in which citizens step into the public sphere, and new research is helping us understand how those meetings unfold and what impact they have on larger political processes. Synthetic analyses of political discourse and communication systems spanning communities and nations often remain disconnected from other political communication research, yet such work can help us theorize public talk at the highest levels of abstraction. All of these subjects can fall outside conventional boundaries of the field of political communication, and this book integrates these overlooked subjects with more familiar ones, such as media messages, campaign behavior, and public opinion.Organization of the Book
The first chapter of the book sets the stage for studying political communication across a range of contexts. Chapter 1 introduces the broader concept of deliberation by showing its central role in the democratic process. An overview shows how the meaning of deliberation effectively adapts to different contexts, from face-to-face conversations to macrolevel political systems.
Conversations and discussions are the simplest and most familiar forms of deliberation. Accordingly, Chapter 2 introduces a more detailed conception of deliberation in this context, talking about deliberative experiences to which any reader can relate. A theme running through Chapter 2 is how deliberation shapes participants’ opinions, and Chapter 3 continues this thread by examining how the mass media shape public opinion. Chapter 4 moves from public opinion to voting choices in elections, and this chapter shows how conversations, public discussions, and media can combine to facilitate a large-scale deliberative electoral process. Chapter 5 then asks whether those who win public elections—along with those whom elected officials appoint—deliberate once they take office.
Taken together, Chapters 2 through 5 describe the role of deliberation in a representative democracy—from opinion formation to elite decision making. Given the condition of modern society, the deliberative framework is more of a critical lens than it is an apt description of this process, but as a lens it shows how the various defects in existing practices and institutions add up to serious systemwide deficiencies. This is not to say that there are not deliberative features [Page xiii]or moments in modern public life, but the deliberative project is more often about effective criticism of the status quo than it is about self-congratulation.
Chapter 6 returns to the small-group level of analysis introduced in Chapter 2, this time focusing on the jury to consider how well citizens deliberate within this unique institution. The deliberative framework highlights the considerable value of jury service as an archetype of deliberation and a means of teaching everyday citizens the basic skills of deliberation. As it happens, the jury is also the model for some recent attempts to incorporate citizens more directly in public policy discussions. Chapter 7 introduces these ideas by reviewing the range of public meeting methods in use—from conventional public hearings, to deliberative polls, to innovative citizen juries.
Chapters 8 and 9 pull together the practices and institutions from Chapters 2 through 7 to consider what deliberation might look like in a larger system. Chapter 8 asks what it would mean to be a deliberative community. How can a town or city integrate ongoing public discussions, media, and public meetings to foster a deliberative spirit not just during elections but throughout its public decision-making processes? Chapter 9 considers the potential for deliberative practices that cross national borders. How deliberative are bodies such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organization, and can new institutions provide a common space in which the world might deliberate?Historical, Theoretical, and Empirical Questions
Chapters 2 through 9 follow deliberation through distinct contexts, but in each case the same four kinds of questions are addressed. These questions give each chapter a parallel structure that helps students navigate across a variety of topics.
First, each chapter briefly considers the historical context of a given practice or institution, such as the mass media or the jury system. For instance, where did the idea of a jury originate, and how have jury systems evolved over time? Answers to these questions give the reader a greater sense for how political communication practices and systems change over time.
Second, broad theoretical questions frame the research reviewed in each chapter. As a starting point, each chapter poses a conceptual question: What does deliberation mean in this context, such as in the case of mediated deliberation? Each chapter then raises a moral philosophical question: When is deliberation appropriate in this setting? Answers to these questions give the reader a clear understanding of what deliberation would look like in this context and when one might hope to see it happen.
Attention then turns to research on the modern practice of political communication. How often, for instance, do individual citizens actually participate in public meetings, and are those meetings typically deliberative? What are the consequences of this deliberation, or the lack thereof? Looking carefully [Page xiv]at current practices shows the ways in which modern political communication is (or is not) deliberative and what that means for our society. This constitutes the main portion of each chapter, and the goal is not so much to provide comprehensive coverage of topics and studies as much as it is to incorporate the most significant, sustained political communication research programs, along with some of the most striking recent findings in the field.
Each chapter also considers the potential for change toward ever more deliberative practices. Just as current practices grew out of previous ones, so will the future bring changes, for better or for worse. What forces promote or obstruct deliberation in the modern context? What reforms are most likely to improve the frequency and quality of deliberation? Answers to questions such as these help readers imagine more deliberative conversations, media, public meetings, and more.A Note for Instructors
This book was written to be appropriate not only for general and academic readers but also for students in a course on political communication or deliberation. When used as a primary text, this book should help students learn in four ways. First, students should develop a critical theoretical framework through which they can appraise the deliberative democratic quality of media, meetings, and even conversations. Second, students should learn general facts about historical and contemporary political communication practices. Third, students should acquire the skills, habits, and motivation they need to be effective deliberators in public life. Finally, students should gain a better sense for what can be done to promote a more deliberative democratic system in their own communities and the world.
Instructors using this book as a primary text should log on to this book's Web site, which describes activities students can do inside and outside of class to learn the concepts and skills of deliberation. From conducting media content analyses to participating in a jury deliberation exercise, students can see through their own work what deliberation looks like and what habits and practices stand in its way.Companion Web Site
A dedicated Web site, http://www.ideliberate.org, will inventory anything else that might be useful for instructors using Political Communication and Deliberation in their courses. Syllabus suggestions will show how to use the book when teaching a semester- or quarter-long course, and there is a set of classroom [Page xv]exercises and larger projects that have been used in previous courses. Also, a wiki and a forum will let instructors exchange teaching ideas, links, and new content to supplement each chapter.Acknowledgments
Deliberation made this book possible. This book builds on fifteen years of lively exchanges with colleagues and students in classrooms, conferences, coffee houses, and cyberspace. At the same time, it draws on decades of conversations (and arguments) with family, friends, and neighbors about democracy and American politics. Perhaps most of all it incorporates insights codiscovered with undergraduates and graduate students in seminar rooms and lecture halls. Weaving all these threads together has been a delight, and were the following list complete, I would thank almost everyone I have known (and many persons I have never met off the printed page).
For extensive comment on drafts of this manuscript, thanks go to Simone Chambers, Lew Friedland, Jamie Moshin, and David Ryfe, along with Todd Armstrong, Catherine Chilton, Katie Grim, Cheryl Duksta, and Sarah Quesenberry at SAGE. Among those colleagues I must thank by name for their thoughts and suggestions on deliberation, I count Ted Becker, Lance Bennett, Laura Black, Don Braman, Michael Briand, Stephanie Burkhalter, Martin Carcasson, John Dedrick, Perry Deess, Jim Fishkin, Sue John, Bill Keith, Jay Leighter, Peter Levine, Bob Luskin, Dan Kahan, Todd Kelshaw, Jay Leighter, Matt Leighninger, Stephen Littlejohn, Carolyn Lukensmeyer, Patricia Moy, Gerry Phillipsen, Hank Jenkins-Smith, Jenny Mansbridge, David Mathews, Walter Parker, Pat Scully, Mark Smith, Phil Weiser, Mark West, and Mike Xenos. In addition, I heartily thank the reviewers of the proposal and draft manuscript for their thoughtful and helpful insights: Robert Asen (Department of Communication Arts, University of Wisconsin–Madison), Simone Chambers (Department of Political Science, University of Toronto), Lew Friedland (School of Journalism & Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin–Madison), Francesca Polletta (Sociology Department, Boston College), David Ryfe (Donald W. Reynolds School of Journalism and Center for Advanced Media Studies, University of Nevada–Reno), and Katherine Cramer Walsh (Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin–Madison). Friends and family who have shared more insights than I dare credit in the endnotes include Ned Crosby, Bob Kraig, Ralph Shelton, Cindy Simmons, James Webb, Uncle Ray, and Todd Wynward.
Finally, in lieu of the obligatory greatest thanks of all, let me note that Claude Bart has been with me always as I wrote this book, yet he offered no concrete assistance whatsoever. He has his reasons but—he would insist—no excuses. Apology accepted, Claude.[Page xvi]Notes
1. For reviews of the theoretical and empirical literature on deliberation, see Chambers (2003); Delli Carpini, Cook, and Jacobs (2004); Mendelberg (2002), and Ryfe (2005). The field of political communication is too diffuse to be summarized in this way, but one gets a sense of the breadth of work in the field by perusing the journal Political Communication or Kaid (2004).
2. Besley and McComas (2005) made a similar effort to frame much political communication research in relation to the concept of procedural justice. In effect, I am making the same argument but with greater specificity, arguing that the deliberative democratic procedure is the primary justice frame through which scholars carry out their research and both scholars and citizens evaluate their political communication system and practices.
3. I count myself among those who have worked from more restrictive definitions of deliberation in previous work. A good example of my previous attempts to define the term are Gastil (1993), Gastil (2000), and Burkhalter, Gastil, and Kelshaw (2002). Dahlgren (2002) struggled with this problem of trying to reconcile abstract theoretical conceptions of deliberation with broader notions of political talk. Ultimately, he concluded that deliberation is a “specialised, formal mode of discourse, and thus we would do better, in the empirical world, to think about ‘discussion’ or ‘talk,’ which can encompass many different kinds of communicative interaction” (p. 10). Civic discussion, in this scheme, is one of the five dimensions of “civic culture,” yet he then added, “This dimension is in some way an overarching one, one that embodies the others. Yet, I think it will prove productive to see it as a distinct dimension, functioning in reciprocity with the other dimensions of the circuit, being both shaped by and impacting on the other five” (p. 18). An “overarching” yet “distinct” conception of deliberation (or “discussion”) is precisely what I aim for in presenting a general definition of deliberation that articulates itself differently in Chapters 2 through 9. In addition, staying with the word deliberation, rather than discussion, facilitates the creation of a critical (as well as conceptual) framework, as deliberation has more straightforward normative implications than do “discussion” or “talk.”
4. Walsh (2004) made this observation when juxtaposing her work on informal, community-building conversations with more formal conceptions of deliberation. Definitions of deliberation that conceptualize deliberation as a small group activity include Mendelberg (2002) and Burkhalter et al. (2002).
5. Page (1996, p. 2). Similarly, Kim, Wyatt, and Katz (1999, pp. 361–62) come close to defining deliberation in a way that would exclude non-interactive deliberative processes, such as mediated deliberation.[Page 1]
References[Page 291][Page 312]2004. Uncivil discourse blights online debates. The Boston Globe, January 5, 2004. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/01/05/uncivil_discourse_blights_online_debates/ (acessed Accessed online October 21, 2006)..1998. Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. Journal of Politics60:634–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647642, and .2004. Deliberation day. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press., and .1995. Building a new political environment. Kettering Review (Fall):16–21..1994. The jury: Trial and error in the American courtroom. New York: New York Times Books..2003. Think again: The United Nations. Foreign Policy (September/October). http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=34 (accessed October 24, 2006)..1993. Personal and partisan advantage in U.S. congressional elections, 1846–1990. In Congress reconsidered, ed. L. C.Dodd and B. I.Openheimer, 141–57., & .5th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.1989. The civic culture., and .2nd ed.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.2003. What liberal media? The truth about bias and the news. New York: HarperCollins..1995. Jury service as political participation akin to voting. Cornell Law Review80:203–59..1997. Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate? In Do the media govern? Politicians, voters, and reporters in America, ed. I.Shanto and R.Reeves, 195–204. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., , , and .Aristotle. 1988. Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://www.constitution.org/ari/polit_04.htm (accessed October 21, 2006).1990. The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press..2006. Does deliberation yield a consistent pattern of attitude change? Testing the underlying value dimensions of opinion shifts during Deliberative Polls. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, San Antonio, TX., , and .1928. Public discussion and debate. Boston: Ginn and Co.. [Page 292]2001. Implications of rival visions of electoral campaigns. In Mediated politics: communication in the future of democracy, ed. W. L.Bennett and R. M.Entman, 342–61. New York: Cambridge University Press..1986. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. New York: Prentice-Hall..1984. Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press..2006. The evolution of the trade regime: Politics, law, and economics of the GATT and the WTO. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., , , and .2005. The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication22:259–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600591006492.2000. The future of teledemocracy. New York: Praeger., and .1978. Selection of jury foremen as a measure of the social status of women. Psychological Reports43:475–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.19126.96.36.1995, and .1994. Inside the system: Culture, institutions, and power in American politics. New York: Harcourt Brace..1998. The uncivic culture: Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle politics. PS: Political Science and Politics31:741–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096500053270.2003. Communicating global activism. Information, Communication and Society6:144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118032000093860a.When the press fails: Political Power and the news media from Iraq to Katrina. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226042862.001.0001, , and . In press.2005. Framing justice: Using the concept of procedural justice to advance political communication research. Communication Theory15:414–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00342.x, and .1994. The mild voice of reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..2006. Deliberation, difference, and the story: How storytelling manages identity and conflict in deliberative groups. PhD diss., University of Washington..Blanchard, Margaret A. ed. 1998. History of the mass media in the United States: An encyclopedia. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.2003. Deliberative toleration. Political Theory31:757–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591703252379.1996. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press..1996. Symbolic Convergence theory and communication in group decision making. In Communication and group decision-making, ed. R. Y.Hirokawa and M. S.Poole, 81–113..2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.1991. An information-processing model of jury decision making. Small Group Research18:524–47., , and .2005. Reframing democracy: Governance, civic agency, and politics. Public Administration Review65:536–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00481.x.2000. Globalization from below. The Nation, November 16, 2000. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20001204/brecher (accessed October 24, 2006)..1999. Practical politics: Five principles for a community that works. Champaign: University of Illinois Press..2002. Global constitutionalism and the arguments over free trade. Communication Studies53:25–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510970209388572. [Page 293]2002. Globalising democracy without a state: Weak public, strong public, global constitutionalism. Millennium: Journal of International Studies31:675–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310030301.2004. Real democracy: The New England town meeting and how it works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1989. The Vermont Papers: Recreating democracy on a human scale. Port Mills, VT: Chelsea Green., and .2001. Mediated electoral democracy: Campaigns, incentives, and reform. In Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy, ed. W. L.Bennett and R. M.Entman, 362–79. New York: Cambridge University Press..1996. Persuasiveness of in-group and out-group political messages: The case of negative political campaigning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology70:523–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.523, , and .1997. “The poor are not like the rest of us”: The social construction of welfare mothers in congressional policy discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Tucson, AZ..2006. Talking points: Message strategies and deliberation in the U.S. Congress. PhD diss., University of Washington..2002. A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory12:398–422., , and .2001. A trial by jury. New York: Vintage..1989. Is democracy possible? The alternative to electoral politics. Berkeley: University of California Press..1996. State and local politics: Government by the people. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall., , , and .1999. Deliberative democracy in practice: Challenges and prospects for civic deliberation. Polity, 31:609–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3235238, and .2005. What can we learn from the practice of deliberative democracy? In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 20–33. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., and .1987. The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press., , and .1960. The American voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons., , , and .1997. Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press., and .2005. Adapting and combining deliberative designs: Juries, polls, and forums. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 120–38. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., and .1999. Random selection in politics. Westport, CT: Praeger., and .1972. Lay judges in the German criminal courts. Journal of Legal Studies1:135–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467481, and .2003. Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science6:307–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538.2004. Behind closed doors: Publicity, secrecy, and the quality of deliberation. Journal of Political Philosophy12:389–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00206.x.2005. Electoral deliberation and public journalism. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 59–67. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., , and . [Page 294]1996. From diatribe to dialogue on divisive public issues: Approaches drawn from family therapy. Mediation Quarterly13:323–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/crq.3900130408, , , , , and .1981. The politics of public hearings. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science17:567–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002188638101700411.2001. Democracy and national governance in Zimbabwe: A country survey report. Afrobarometer Paper No. 12. http://www.afrobarometer.org/papers/AfropaperNo12.pdf (accessed August 22, 2006)., , and .Chilton, Paul A. ed. 1985. Language and the nuclear arms debate: Nukespeak today. London: Frances Pinter.2006. A liberating education. Seattle Times, August 20, 2006. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003209223_sunchurchill20.html (accessed October 23, 2006)..2001. Diplomacy of conscience: Amnesty International and changing human rights norms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press..2002. Deliberative fora and the democratisation of social policies in Brazil. IDS Bulletin33:65–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2002.tb00022.x, , and .2005. Participation and public policies in Brazil. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 174–84. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., , and .1989. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In The good polity, ed. PhilipPettit and AlanHamlin, 17–34. New York: Basil Blackwell..1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and discontent, ed. David E.Apter, 206–61. New York: Free Press..2003. Who deliberates? Discursive capital in America. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia., , and .1992. Anthony Giddens. London: Routledge..1995. Citizen juries: One solution for difficult environmental questions. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, ed. OrtwinRenn, ThomasWebler, and PeterWiedemann, 157–74. Boston: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0131-8_8.2003. Healthy democracy: Bringing trustworthy information to the voters of America. Minneapolis, MN: Beaver's Pond..2005. Citizens’ juries: Creating a trustworthy voice of the people. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 111–19. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., and .1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press..1998. On democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press..1999. Can international organizations be democratic? In Democracy's edges, ed. IanShapiro and CasianoHacker-Cordon, 19–36. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511586361.003.2002. In search of the talkative public: Media, deliberative democracy and civic culture. Javnost The Public9:5–26..2007. Applications of public deliberation: Themes emerging from twelve personal experiences emanating from National Issues Forums Training. Journal of Public Deliberation3. http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol3/iss1/art10 (accessed July 5, 2007)., and . [Page 295]2003. Planning board approves plan for Sagamore Creek conservation land. Portsmouth Herald, May 16, 2003. http://www.seacoastonline.com/2003 news/05162003/news/28861.htm (accessed July 16, 2007)..2001. Juries: On the verge of extinction? A discussion of jury reform. SMU Law Review54:1755–812..1996. What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press., and .2004. Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science7:315–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630, , and .1995. Fishkin and the deliberative opinion poll: Lessons from a study of the Granada 500 television program. Political Communication12:147–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1995.9963062, , and .1961. Democracy in America. New York: Schocken. (Originally published 1835).2001. Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy and Law7:622–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-89184.108.40.2062, , , , and .1910. How we think. New York: Heath. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10903-000.1999. The politics of conservative elites and the “liberal media” argument. Journal of Communication49:35–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02816.x, , , and .2005. Eye on CBS: Network launches a blog to scrutinize its news operation. American Journalism Review27 (5): 14..1996. The regulation of public social life: Communication law revisited. Communication Quarterly44:280–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463379609370018, and .1990. Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, and contestations. New York: Oxford University Press..2001. Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory29:651–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591701029005003.1984. Voting cues in nonpartisan trial court elections: A multivariate assessment. Law and Society Review18:395–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3053430.2002. In the hands of the people. New York: St. Martin's Press..2002. Public journalism and deliberative democracy. Polity34:313–36..1975. An empirical study of the effect of leadership influence on decision outcomes in different sized jury panels. Kansas Journal of Sociology11:109–26..1977. Political language. New York: Academic Press..1988. Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1996. Making a fragile public: A talk-centered study of citizenship and power. Sociological Theory14:262–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3045389.1998. Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511583391. [Page 296]2004. Thinking constitutionally: The problem of deliberative democracy. Social Philosophy and Policy21:39–75..1998. Deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175005.1995. C-SPAN gets pushy. Columbia Journalism Review34:38–42..Eriksen, Erik Oddvar, and John ErikFossom. eds. 2000. Democracy in the European Union: Integration through deliberation?New York: Routledge.1998. Campaign spending and incumbency: An alternative simultaneous equations approach. Journal of Politics60:355–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647913, and .2007. Journalism as reason-giving: Deliberative democracy, institutional accountability, and the news media's mission. Political Communication24:143–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600701312860.1993. The spirit of community: The reinvention of American society. New York: Crown..1992. Free spaces: The sources of democratic change in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., and .2006. Embedded deliberation: Entrepreneurs, organizations, and public action. Boston: Taubman Center for State and Local Government., and .2004. Policies of inclusion: Immigrants, disease, dependency, and American immigration policy at the dawn and dusk of the 20th century. American Journal of Public Health94:528–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.4.528.2003. Everybody wins. American Journalism Review25:32–36..2001. Electoral systems: A comparative introduction. New York: St. Martin's Press..2005. An insider's guide to the UN. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press..2000. Do the “Seattle protestors” have a point?International Economy14 (4): 42–47..2002. Grassroots harvest: Assessing the “post-ideology” of pragmatic communitarianism. Polity35:311–23..1985. Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science29:891–913. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111186.1981. Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press..1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values15:226–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224399001500204.1981. Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Boston: Houghton Mifflin., and .1988. The case for a national caucus: Taking democracy seriously. Atlantic (August): 16–18..1991. Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press..1995. The voice of the people. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press..2005. Deliberative polling: From experiment to community resource. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 68–79. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., and .1999. Bringing deliberation to the democratic dialogue: The NIC and beyond. In The poll with a human face: The National Issues Convention experiment in political communication, ed. MaxwellMcCombs and AmyReynolds, 3–38. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., and .1998. The color of campaign finance. Washington Post National Weekly Edition, September 28.. [Page 297]1996. The paradox of civil society. Journal of Democracy, 7:38–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.1996.0048, and .2003. Experiencing radio: Training, education and the community radio sector. Australian Studies in Journalism12:83–103., , and .2005. Redistricting principles and incumbency protection in the U.S. Congress. Political Geography24:934–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.05.002, and .2000. Deliberative democracy: A sympathetic comment. Philosophy and Public Affairs29:371–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00371.x.1998. America's civic condition: A glance at the evidence. In Community works: The revival of civil society in America, ed. E. J.Dionne, 30–36. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution., and .1992. Talking politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..2007. Everyday news, newsworkers, and professional journalism. Political Communication24:161–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600701312878.1992. Undemocratic discourse: A review of theory and research on political discourse. Discourse and Society4:469–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003004003.1993. Democracy in small groups: Participation, decision-making, and communication. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers..1994. A definition and illustration of democratic leadership. Human Relations47:953–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700805.2000. By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Berkeley: University of California Press..2004. Adult civic education through the National Issues Forums: Developing democratic habits and dispositions through public deliberation. Adult Education Quarterly54:308–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741713604266142.Group and individual differences in deliberative experience: A study of ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Communication., , and . Forthcoming.2007. Group deliberation in the courthouse: Predicting deliberation, participation, and satisfaction in municipal juries. Small Group Research38:337–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301967, , and .2003. Voters need more reliable information. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 6, 2003. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/147013_uninformed06.html (accessed October 21, 2006)., and .2006. Taking the initiative. Seattle Times, November 26, 2006. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003448042&slug=sungastil26&date=20061126 (accessed online December 5, 2006)., and .2002. Civic awakening in the jury room: A test of the connection between jury deliberation and political participation. Journal of Politics64:585–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00141, , and .Jury service and electoral participation: A strong test of the participation hypothesis. Journal of Politics., , , and . Forthcoming.1999a. The aims, methods, and effects of deliberative civic education through the National Issues Forums. Communication Education48:1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634529909379168, and .1999b. Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication16:3–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105846099198749, and . [Page 298]2005. The cultural resonance model: Integrating culture, ideology, partisanship, and knowledge in theories of political communication and public opinion. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, Boston., , and .2005. A nation that (sometimes) likes to talk: A brief history of public deliberation in the United States. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 3–19. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., and .2005. The deliberative democracy handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., and .2006. Jury service as an invitation to citizenship: Assessing the civic value of institutionalized deliberation. Policy Studies Journal34:605–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00194.x, and .2002. Beyond the edge: New York's new waterfront. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press..1998. Estimating the effect of campaign spending on senate election outcomes using instrumental variables. American Political Science Review92:401–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2585672.2001. Toward transformative dialogue. International Journal of Public Administration24:679–707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/PAD-100104770, , and .1984. The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press..2001. Juries, their powers under siege, find their role is being eroded. New York Times, March 2..1991. Rights talk: The impoverishment of political discourse. New York: Free Press..2003. Why the security council failed. Foreign Affairs. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html (accessed online October 24, 2006)..2003. Bias: A CBS insider exposes how the media distort the news. New York: HarperCollins..1998. Civility and subversion: The intellectual in democratic society. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581717.2000. Democratic deliberation within. Philosophy and Public Affairs29:81–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00081.x.2003. Reflective democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199256179.001.0001.2003. When does deliberation begin? Internal reflection versus public discussion in deliberative democracy. Political Studies51:627–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0032-3217.2003.00450.x, and .2007. The assault on reason. New York: Penguin Press..2004. Globalizing democracy and human rights. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617096.1996). Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: An expanded view. In Communication and group decision-making, ed. Randy Y.Hirokawa and Marshall S.Poole, 55–80., & (2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.2004. Get Out the Vote: How to increase voter turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press., and .1994. How stable is party identification?Political Behavior16:437–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01498826, and .2000. Habit formation and political behaviour: Evidence of consuetude in voter turnout. British Journal of Political Science30:561–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400000247, and . [Page 299]2000. The big chill: Investigative reporting in the current media environment. Ames: Iowa State University Press., and .1975. Logic and conversation. In Speech acts, ed. PeterCole and JerryMorgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press..2005. Carlson out: Crossfire canned at CNN. E!Online, January 6..2004. News coverage of political campaigns. In Handbook of political communication research, ed. Lynda LeeKaid, 237–56. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., , and .1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.and .2004. Why deliberative democracy?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., and .1975. Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon Press..1979. Communication and the evolution of society. Boston: Beacon Press..1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press..2006. Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension?Communication Theory16:411–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x.1992. Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 1968–1988. Journal of Communication42:5–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00775.x.2003. Assessing the effects of public participation. Public Administration Review63:535–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00317.2000. Business on trial: The civil jury and corporate responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press..2002. U.S. jury reform: The active jury and the adversarial ideal. Saint Louis University Public Law Review21:85–97..1986. Judging the jury. New York: Plenum. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-6463-2, and .1928. The process of group thinking. New York: Association Press..1999. We the people: The contours of lay political discourse. In The poll with a human face: The National Issues Convention experiment in political communication, ed. MaxwellMcCombs and AmyReynolds, 59–84. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., and .1996. The O.J. Simpson stories: Behavioral scientists’ reflections onThe People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson. University of Colorado Law Review67:958., and .1983. Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press., , and .1998. A study of juror and jury judgments in civil cases: Deciding liability for punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior22:287–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025754422703, , and .1973. Nonpartisan elections and the case for party politics. New York: John Wiley & Sons..1998. Democracy and globalization. In Re-imagining political community: Studies in cosmopolitan democracy, ed. DanieleArchibugi, 11–27. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press..2005. Consensus conferences and planning cells: Lay citizen deliberations. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 80–110. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.. [Page 300]1993. Numbered voices: How opinion polling has shaped American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1999. The cultivation of conversation. In The poll with a human face: The National Issues Convention experiment in political communication, ed. MaxwellMcCombs and AmyReynolds, 187–209. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum..1988. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon., and .2002. Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613722, and .2003. The destruction of the European Jews..3rd ed.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.2004. Defining America through immigration policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press..1994. Political talk radio: A stereotype reconsidered. Political Research Quarterly47:467–79., , , , , and .1997. Fuel to the fire: Talk radio and the Gamson hypothesis. Political Communication14:355–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105846097199371.2006. Export this?New York Times Magazine, April 23..2006. A theoretical approach to deliberative valuation: Aggregation by mutual consent. Land Economics82:1–16., and .2004. Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617102, , and .2004. Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology25:65–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x, , and .1995. Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511664113, and .2002. The emotional voter: Effects of episodic affective reactions on candidate evaluation. In The social psychology of politics, ed. Victor C.Ottai, VictorC., ScottTindale, JohnEdwards, Fred B.Bryant, LindaHealth, Daniel C.O'Connell, YolandaSuarez-Balzacar, and Emil J.Posavac, 55–74. New York: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0569-3_3, and .2004. Clueless people love Bush: Studies show Bush supporters are misled on Bush policies and the news. Common Dreams Newscenter, October 27, 2004. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1027-34.htm (accessed October 21, 2006)..2004. Before norms: Institutions and civic culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press., and .2004. How do Americans deliberate? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago., , and .1993. The misallocation of resources in house campaigns. In Congress reconsidered, ed. Lawrence C.Dodd and Bruce I.Openheimer, 115–39..5th ed.Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.1997. The politics of congressional elections.. [Page 301]4th ed.New York: Longman.1981. Strategy and choice in congressional elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press., and .1991. Ideological identification and issue attitudes. American Journal of Political Science35:178–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111443.1995. The structure of ideological thinking in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science39:314–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111615.1992. Dirty politics: Deception, distraction, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press..1996. Packaging the presidency: A history and criticism of presidential campaign advertising. New York: Oxford University Press..1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decision and fiascoes..2nd ed.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.2005. Debating debating: A reflection on the place of debate within secondary schools. Curriculum Journal16:493–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585170500384610, and .2004. Wag the blog: How reliance on traditional media and the Internet influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among blog users. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly81:622–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100310, and .2003. The American jury system. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press..2004. Why Americans don't trust the media—A preliminary analysis. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics9:60–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1081180X04263461.2002. Investigative journalism despite the odds: Watchdog reporting continues to decline. Columbia Journalism Review41:102–103., , and .2006. Fear of democracy: A cultural evaluation of Sunstein on risk. Harvard Law Review119:1071–109., , and .2004. Handbook of political communication research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum..1966. The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown., and .2004. The irrelevance of sincerity: Deliberative democracy in the Supreme Court. Saint Louis University Law Review48:305–25..2004. Deliberative democracy and the WTO. Review of International Political Economy, 11:522–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969229042000252882.1998. Locating consensus for democracy. St. Augustine, FL: Americans Talk Issues Foundation..1984. Public life and late capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..1992. The myth of the independent voter. Berkeley: University of California Press., , , , , and .2003. Public meetings and public officials: Officeholders’ accounts of participatory and deliberative democratic encounters with citizens. PhD diss., University of Washington..Kettering Foundation. 1989. The public's role in the policy process: A view from state and local policymakers. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation.1999. News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication16:361–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105846099198541, , and . [Page 302]1992. Two cheers for the electronic town hall: Or Ross Perot, meet Alexis De Tocqueville. The Responsive Community2 (4): 48–52..2001. When the news doesn't fit: TheNew York Times and Hitler's first two months in office, February/March 1933. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly78:127–49..1995. To end all wars: Woodrow Wilson and the quest for a new world order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press..2004. Woodrow Wilson and the lost world of the oratorical statesman. College Station: Texas A&M University Press..2002. Assessing the potential of Internet political participation in the United States: A resource approach. American Politics Research30:476–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X02030005002.1996. It's a matter of interpretation. In Political persuasion and attitude change, ed. Diana C.Mutz, Paul M.Sniderman, and Richard A.Brody, 125–44. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press., and .2002. Feminist interpretations of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. University Park, PA: Penn State Press..2004. Negative campaigning: An analysis of U.S. Senate elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield., and .League of Women Voters. 1997. Charting the health of American democracy. http://www.lwv.org/report.html (accessed July 16, 2007).1960. The politics of nonpartisanship. Berkeley: University of California Press..2005. The liberal media myth revisited: An examination of factors influencing perceptions of media bias. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media49:43–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4.2004. Deliberative democracy in America: A proposal for a popular branch of government. University Park, PA: Penn State Press..1984. A theory of jury trial advocacy. Utah Law Review763–806..2000. The battles in Seattle. Politics and Society28:309–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032329200028003002, and .1990. The new progressive era. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield..2005. Future directions for public deliberation. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 271–88. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., , and .2007. Activists’ views of deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation3. http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol3/iss1/art4 (accessed July 26, 2007)., and .1998. The buying of Congress. New York: Avon Books..2005. What voters want from political campaign communication. Political Communication22:337–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600591006609, , and .2005. A town meeting for the twenty-first century. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 154–63. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., , and .2005. The Jerry Springer show as an emotional public sphere. Media, Culture and Society, 27:59–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0163443705049058, and .2002. Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science32:455–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123402000194, , and .1993. The politics of dissatisfaction: Citizens, services, and urban institutions. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe., , and . [Page 303]1988. Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54:21–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.11, & .2003. Paris 1919: Six months that changed the world. New York: Random House..2003. Logical argument structures in decision-making. Argumentation17:291–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025117226851.The Federalist, No. 42. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/fed/federa42.htm (accessed October 21, 2006).. n.d.1984. Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press..1997. The politics of ugliness. Governing Magazine10:18–22..1996. Open secrets: The encyclopedia of congressional money and politics., and .4th ed.Washington, DC: Center for Responsive Politics.1996. The politics of talk: Unconstrained floor time in the U.S. House of Representatives. Journal of Politics58:819–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960448, and .1983. Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1992. A deliberative perspective on neocorporatism. Politics and Society20:493–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032329292020004007.2006. Norms of deliberation: An inductive study. Journal of Public Deliberation2. http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol2/iss1/art7 (accessed July 5, 2007)., , and .1996. Taking turns and taking sides: Opening scenes from two jury deliberations. Social Psychology Quarterly59:107–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2787046.1994. Politics for people: Finding a responsible public voice. Chicago: University of Illinois Press..2004. For the many or the few: The initiative, public policy, and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226510873.001.0001.1998. Creating a democratic public: The struggle for urban participatory democracy during the progressive era. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press..1990. Hard choices. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation., , and .2005. Deliberative democracy and the politics of recognition. Political Studies, 53:497–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00541.x.1999. The poll with a human face: The National Issues Convention experiment in political communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., and .1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36:176–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/267990, and .2003. In defense of autonomy: A critique of the public journalism critique. Journal of Communication53:155–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb03011.x.2003. Spiral of moderation: Opinion expression in computer-mediated discussion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research15:454–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/15.4.454, , and .2005. Admiration for a comedian who knew no limits. New York Times, December 13.. [Page 304]1996. Community integration, local media use, and democratic processes. Communication Research23:179–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365096023002002, , , , , , and .1999. Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication16:315–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105846099198659, , and .2005. National Issues Forums: A network of communities. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 37–58. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., , and .2002. The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation6: 151–93..2003. Portsmouth, N.H.: Where public dialogue is a hallmark of community life. http://www.studycircles.org/en/Article.141.aspx (accessed October 23, 2006)..1996. The National Issues Convention deliberative poll. Public Opinion Quarterly60:588–619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/297775.1996. The new American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press., and .2005. Reading Habermas in anarchy: Multilaterial diplomacy and global public spheres. American Political Science Review99:401–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051749.2005. The Republican war on science. New York: Basic Books..2005. Deliberation, democratic decision making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior27:49–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-005-3076-7.2001. The spiral of silence and public opinion on affirmative action. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly78:7–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800102, , and .2006. Discussion networks, media use, and deliberative conversation. Political Communication23:443–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600600977003, and .2000. With malice toward all: The media and public confidence in democratic institutions. New York: Praeger., and .2006. Lessons from the Virtual Agora Project: The effects of agency, identity, information, and deliberation on political knowledge. Journal of Public Deliberation2. http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol2/iss1/art13 (accessed July 5, 2007).and .1998. Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175074.2006. Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617201.2001. Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review95:97–114., and .2005. The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review99:1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051452, and .2005. Assessing the democratic quality of deliberation in international governance: Criteria and research strategies. Acta Politica40:368–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500118, and .National Issues Forums. 1990. For convenors and moderators: Organizing your first forum/study circle. Dayton, OH: National Issues Forums Institute.National Issues Forums. 1992. National Issues Forums leadership handbook, 1991–1992. Dayton, OH: National Issues Forums Institute.[Page 305]2006. Commentary: Immigration hearings “cynical and cowardly.”http://CNN.com, July 6, 2006. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/06/navarrette.immigration (accessed October 21, 2006)..1994. Self-efficacy and call-in political television show use. Communication Research21:366–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365094021003007.1993. Is it opinion, or is it expertise?American Journalism Review15 (March): 2, 12–13..1996. Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., , and .1990. Mediated political realities., and .2nd ed.New York: Longman.1996. The constitution of deliberative democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press..2005. Citizen deliberations on science and technology and their social environments: Case study on the Japanese consensus conference on GM crops. Science and Public Policy32:479–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154305781779236.1991. The theory of public opinion: The concept of the spiral of silence. In Communication Yearbook14, ed. James A.Anderson, 256–87. Newbury Park, CA: Sage..2001. Globalization's democratic deficit: How to make international institutions more accountable. Foreign Affairs80 (4). http://www.foreignaffairs.org/2001/4.html (accessed June 21, 2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20050221.1989. Mass and elite in democratic Athens: Rhetoric, ideology, and the power of the people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press..1997. The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day..2nd ed.New York: Marlowe.1999. Jury aversion and voter registration. American Political Science Review93:147–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2585766, and .1987. Study circles. Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press..1956. The Orwell reader. New York: Harcourt Brace..2002. Visual cues and the candidate evaluation process. In The social psychology of politics, ed. Victor C.Ottati, 75–87. New York: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0569-3_4, and .1996. Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226644806.001.0001and .1995. Democracy for the few..6th ed.New York: St. Martin's Press.1990. A review of research on groupthink. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making3:229–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960030402.2003. Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York: Teachers College Press..2003. Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Political Studies51:180–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00419.2004. Mexican immigration to the US: The latest estimates. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute..1997. Moral conflict: When social worlds collide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., and . [Page 306]2005. Blog-gate. Columbia Journalism Review43:30–35..2005. Political microcultures: Linking civic life and democratic discourse. Social Forces84:1049–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0028.2001. Speaking into the air: A history of the idea of communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1990. The verdict is in: A study of jury decision making factors, moment of personal decision, and jury deliberations—From the juror's point of view. Communication Quarterly38:83–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463379009369743.1981. Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark., and .1994. Effectiveness of adwatch formats in deflecting political attack ads. Communication Research21:325–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365094021003005, and .1995. Education, social liberalism, and economic conservativism: Attitudes toward homeless people. American Sociological Review60:126–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2096349, , , and .2003. Control mechanism or deliberative democracy? Two images of comitology. Comparative Political Studies36:125–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010414002239374.2002. Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226924281.001.0001.2005. Growing governance deliberatively: Lessons and inspiration from Hampton, Virginia. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 254–70. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., , and .Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 407 (1991).2005. Talking about elections: A study of patterns in citizen deliberation online. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York., and .1993. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press..1995a. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy6 (1): 65–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.1995.0002.1995b. Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science and Politics28:664–83..2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster..1996. Original meanings: Politics and ideas in the making of the Constitution. New York: Vintage Books..2004a. British Columbia's Citizens’ Assembly: The Learning Phase. Canadian Parliamentary Review27:20–26..2004b. The B.C. Citizens’ Assembly: The public hearings and deliberations stage. Canadian Parliamentary Review28:24–33..1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press..1995. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press..1999. The law of peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press..1985. Public administration and public deliberation: An interpretive essay. The Yale Law Journal94:1617–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/796213.1993. Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences26:189–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00999716, , , , and . [Page 307]1999. Local television coverage of the NIC. In The poll with a human face: The National Issues Convention experiment in political communication, ed. MaxwellMcCombs and AmyReynolds, 113–32. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum..1999. The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: Introduction. In The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change, ed. ThomasRisse and KathrynSikkink, 1–38. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598777.002, and .1990. Robert's rules of order. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman..2005. Media dialogue: Perceiving and addressing community problems. Mass Communication and Society, 8:93–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0802_2, , , , , and .2001. What are journalists for?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press..1994. Public journalism: Theory and practice. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation., and .1998. Governance and democracy in a globalizing world. In Re-imagining political community: Studies in cosmopolitan democracy, ed. DanieleArchibugi, DavidHeld, and MartinKohler, 28–57. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press..1988. Political reasoning and cognition: A Piagetian view. Durham, NC: Duke University Press., , and .2005. Stability and rigidity: Politics and design of the WTO's dispute settlement procedure. American Political Science Review99:389–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051737.1993. Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan., and .2005. Preferences and paternalism—On freedom and deliberative democracy. Political Theory33:370–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591704272351.1950. The social contract and discourses. New York: E. Dutton. (Original work published 1762).1998. “Seinfeld” goes directly to jail. E!Online. http://cache-origin.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,3006,00.html (accessed June 21, 2007)..1999. Franklin Roosevelt and the fireside chats. Journal of Communication49:80–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02818.x.2002. The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative organizations. Political Communication19:359–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01957470290055547.2005. Does deliberative democracy work?Annual Review of Political Science8:49–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.032904.154633.2006. Narrative and deliberation in small group forums. Journal of Applied Communication Research34:72–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909880500420226.2007Toward a sociology of deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation3. http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol3/iss1/art3 (accessed July 26, 2007).1986. Washington lobbyists: A collective portrait. In Interest group politics, ed. Allan J.Cigler and Burdett A.Loomis, 146–61. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly..2004. First among friends: Interest groups, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the right to privacy. Westport, CT: Praeger..1997. Against deliberation. Political Theory25:347–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591797025003002.1995. First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials. Law and Human Behavior19:175–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01499324, & . [Page 308]1997. The modern political campaign: Mudslinging, bombast, and the vitality of American politics. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe..1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication49:103–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x.2006. Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication56:728–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00317.x, , , , and .2000. Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion Research12:3–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/12.1.3, and .2002. Who cares about local politics? Media influences on local political involvement, issue awareness, and attitude strength. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly79:427–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769900207900211, , and .2006. What happened on deliberation day? University of Chicago Law and Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 298. http://ssrn.com/abstract=911646 (accessed June 21, 2007)., , and .2004. Political communication effects: The impact of mass media and personal conversations on voting. In Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges, ed. FrankEsser and BarbaraPfetsch, 293–392. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606991.014.1997. Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication14:1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295039709367020.1998. The good citizen: A history of American civic life. New York: Free Press..2001. Politics as cultural practice. Political Communication18:421–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600152647128.2005. Study circles: Local deliberation as the cornerstone of deliberative democracy. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 199–212. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., and .2005. Political participation as an engine of social solidarity: A skeptical view. Political Studies53:362–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00533.x.2001. “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication18:141–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105846001750322952, , and .2002. The democracy owner's manual: A practical guide to changing the world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press..1967. The jury and the defense of insanity. Boston: Little, Brown..2001. Civic innovation in America: Community empowerment, public policy, and the movement for civic renewal. Berkeley: University of California Press., and .2003. Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press..1999. Civic engagement in American democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press., and .2003. Migrant membership as an instituted process: Transnationalization, the state and the extra-territorial conduct of Mexican politics. International Migration Review37:297–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2003.tb00140.x. [Page 309]1999. The delegates’ experience. In The poll with a human face: The National Issues Convention experiment in political communication, ed. MaxwellMcCombs and AmyReynolds, 39–58. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum..1991. Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720468, , and .2007. What does it mean to deliberate? An interpretative account of the norms and rules of deliberation expressed by jurors. Unpublished manuscript prepared for the University of Washington, Seattle., and .1995. Toxic sludge is good for you: Lies, damn lies and the public relations industry. Monroe, ME: Common Courage., and .1994. The changing conception of localism in U.S. public radio. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic and Media38:19–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838159409364243.1997. Groupthink: An examination of theoretical issues, implications, and future research suggestions. Small Group Research28:72–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496497281003.1985). Becoming first among equals: Moral considerations in jury foreman selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology49:927–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1687, & (1988. Standard code of parliamentary procedure..3rd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.2005. A different take on the deliberative poll: Information, deliberation, and attitude constraint. Public Opinion Quarterly69:30–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi005, , and .2002. The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy10:175–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00148.1996. Are children with autism deaf to gricean maxims?Cognitive Neuropsychiatry1:55–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135468096396703.1995. Retrospective voting in gubernatorial elections: 1982 and 1986. Political Research Quarterly48:135–50..1998. Checked and balanced: How ticket-splitters are shaping the new balance of power in American politics. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans., , and .2005. Citizenship and civic engagement. Annual Review of Political Science8:227–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104829, and .1990. Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview., , and .1987. American Indian holocaust and survival: A population history since 1492. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press..2004. Social movements, 1768–2004. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers..2005. Taking conversation, dialogue, and therapy public. Rhetoric and Public Affairs8:405–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rap.2005.0072.2006. Widening the circumference of scene: Local, politics, local metaphysics. K.B. Journal3. http://kbjournal.org/townsend (accessed June 21, 2007)..2001. Diagnosing a school board's interactional trouble: Theorizing problem formulating. Communication Theory11:84–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00234.x, and .1994. The guns of August. New York: Ballantine..1996. The five hardest lessons from the O.J. trial. Issues in Ethics7:1. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v7n1/lessons.html (accessed October 21, 2006).. [Page 310]2001. Reporting and the push for market-oriented journalism: Media organizations as businesses. In Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy, ed. W. LanceBennett and Robert M.Entman, 99–116. New York: Cambridge University Press..2000. Is the Senate more civil than the House? In Esteemed colleagues: Civility and deliberation in the U.S. Senate, ed. Burdett A.Loomis, 33–55. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press..1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press., , and .2000. A historical and comparative perspective on the common law jury. In World jury systems, ed. HansVidmar, 1–52. New York: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298564.003.0001.2004. Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..2007. Talking about race: Community dialogues and the politics of difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226869087.001.0001.1991. The idea of civil society. Dissent38:293–304..1992. Democratic theory and self-transformation. American Political Science Review86:8–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1964012.Designing democratic renewal. New York: Cambridge University Press., and . Forthcoming.1998. Report on an experiment in direct-mail distribution of the voters guide. Unpublished manuscript prepared for the League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, MD..1994. The decline of American political parties, 1952–1992. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press..1999. Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns: Explaining public perceptions of a liberal press. Communication Research26:144–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365099026002003, , , and .2004. Agenda-setting research: Issues, attributes, and influences. In Handbook of political communication research, ed. Lynda LeeKaid, 257–82. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., , and .1995. A brief primer on participation: Philosophy and practice. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, ed. OrtwinRenn, ThomasWebler, and PeterWiedemann. Boston: Kluwer., and .2005. http://E-ThePeople.Org: Large scale, ongoing deliberation. In The deliberative democracy handbook, ed. JohnGastil and PeterLevine, 213–37. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass..1995. Contractualist liberalism and deliberative democracy. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 24:314–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00034.x.2005. Deliberative character. Journal of Political Philosophy, 13:263–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2005.00223.x.2006. Deliberation during initiative elections: What (little) we know and why it (still) matters. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, San Antonio, TX., , and .1987. Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation. American Political Science Review81:3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1960776.1982. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press., and . [Page 311]2004. Public deliberation: Where are we and where can we go?National Civic Review93 (4): 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ncr.66, and .1990. Interests and deliberation in the American republic, or, why James Madison would never have received the James Madison award. PS: Political Science and Politics23:559–62..2003. Involving the general public in priority setting: Experiences from Australia. Social Science and Medicine56:1001–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536%2802%2900091-6, , & .1989. The power of political jargon—A “Club 2” discussion. In Language, power, and ideology, ed. RuthWodak, 137–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ct.7.1979. The brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon & Schuster., and .2000. Bridging the spheres: Political and personal conversation in public and private spaces. Journal of Communication50:71–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02834.x, , and .1991. Coming to public judgment. New York: Syracuse University Press..1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818691.1989. The New England town meeting: Democracy in action. Westport, CT: Praeger..2004. Implications of the U.S. reaction to the world court ruling against Israel's “separation barrier.”Middle East Policy11:73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1061-1924.2004.00167.x.
About the Author[Page 325]
John Gastil is a professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington, where he specializes in political deliberation and group decision making. Prior to joining the University of Washington, he worked for three years at the University of New Mexico Institute for Public Policy, where he conducted public opinion survey research and convened citizen conferences. He received his communication PhD from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1994 and his BA in political science from Swarthmore College in 1989. Gastil is the coeditor, with Peter Levine, of The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century (2005). This book brings together the experiences of activists, nonprofit organization leaders, and scholars to understand how the most promising and innovative methods of citizen deliberation can fit into existing political cultures and institutions. In 2000, Gastil's By Popular Demand: Revitalizing Representative Democracy through Deliberative Elections was published. This book built on his previous work by showing how small-group discussions can be integrated into the electoral process and public institutions. In 1993, his book Democracy in Small Groups came out, clarifying what it means for a group to be democratic and describing the obstacles groups face when trying to make decisions democratically. Gastil's scholarly articles have appeared in Communication Theory, Harvard Law Review, Human Communication Research, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Politics, Policy Studies Journal, Political Communication, Small Group Research, and other journals.