Mediated Deliberation - SAGE Journals - Sage Publications

7 downloads 0 Views 173KB Size Report
Jul 3, 2009 - analyzes mediated deliberation in the national referendum for banning firearm and ammunition sales in 2005. The following indicators are ...
Mediated Deliberation The 2005 Referendum for Banning Firearm Sales in Brazil

International Journal of Press/Politics Volume 14 Number 3 July 2009 313-334 © 2009 Sage Publications 10.1177/1940161209337090 http://ijpp.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Rousiley C. M. Maia Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil

This article investigates the role of the news media in constructing mediated deliberation, focusing on how instrumental politics intertwines with critical argument exchanges in public debates. In the context of Brazil’s recent democratization process, the author analyzes mediated deliberation in the national referendum for banning firearm and ammunition sales in 2005. The following indicators are explored: (1) participant accessibility and characterization, (2) use of arguments, (3) reciprocity and responsiveness, and (4) reflexivity and reversibility of opinions. The article argues that normative deliberation principles add to controversy frame studies by helping understand how contending interlocutors increase the quality and the complexity of reasons in dispute in situations where no consensus or general agreement is expected. Keywords:  deliberative democracy; news coverage; public sphere; Latin America

T

he development of democracy is a contradictory and dilemma-filled process, rather than a linear ascent. One way of looking at democracy in Latin America is to focus on public debates made visible by the media. In these debates, reasongiving and values intertwine to build public parameters that support policies affecting the lives of everyone. Using the recent Brazilian democratization process as a background, I analyze the 2005 referendum on firearms and ammunition sales as an effort to change legal norms in a framework of formal political institutions. Following approval of the referendum bill in the National Congress, two parliamentary fronts were created: the Parliamentary Front for the Right of Personal Defense (No Front) and the Parliamentary Front For a Brazil without Firearms (Yes Front). These fronts led a political propaganda campaign conveyed through free political advertising time on television and radio. Yes Front allies included the executive

Author’s Note: A previous version of this article was presented in the Seminar “Media and Democratization in Latin America,” Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, October 2007. I would like to thank Mauro Porto, Daniel Hallin, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this article. Address correspondence to Rousiley Maia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Departamento de Comunicação Social—Fafich, Av.Antônio Carlos, 6.627, Belo Horizonte, MG 31270901, Brazil; phone/fax: +55 31 3409-5072; e-mail: [email protected]. 313

314   International Journal of Press/Politics

power, the Workers Party (PT; the main Brazilian party of the left), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), social movements, and the Catholic Church. They successfully gained the support of journalists and most of the media. The No Front had a more restricted base, namely, representatives of firearm manufacturing companies and congressmen with interests in this industry.1 The striking feature of this case was that opinion polls conducted three months before the referendum showed that over 76 percent of the population supported disarmament and would vote in favor of banning firearm and ammunition sales (Lissovsky 2006: 32; Mota 2006: 9). According to various opinions polls, this had been the public opinion on the matter for the previous two years.2 The result of the referendum, however, revealed a clear change of opinion: Only 36 percent voted in favor of the ban while 64 percent voted against it. Several studies have tried to explain this radical opinion change: Explanations include the organization capability of each front and the political context, as I discuss below (Anastasia et al. 2006; Lissovsky 2006: 47; Mota 2006: 13). My aim in this study is to investigate the public exchange of reason-giving among contending interlocutors and deliberation in the news media. I also look at how these interactions affect the quality of information environments. In more specific terms, this study attempts to investigate whether public debates can provide the alleged benefits of deliberation, such as increased complexity of justifications and improved understanding of issues, in situations where no consensus or general agreements are expected. The referendum consisted of a single round of voting in which the political decision followed the majority rule; there were winners and losers. It may be argued that in such a context interlocutors do not exchange arguments to persuade each other but, rather, compete to influence an audience. Certainly both fronts were deeply committed to defending their perspectives and acted to win over “the minds and hearts” of voters. As I intend to demonstrate, instrumental politics may intertwine with critical argument exchanges in a public debate situation. In contrast to traditional electoral campaigns, in which the aim of political communication and rhetoric is to convince citizens about the ability of aspiring candidates to hold public offices and to implement specific public policies, experiences such as the referendum tend to foster political persuasion strategies in which actors are subordinated to debates on political issues. This type of political campaign may require participants to explain their preferences among publicly available choices and to persuasively defend what they consider “better” or “desirable” for society as a whole. Power struggles and conflicts of interest may thus become intertwined with the public exchange of reason-giving. As Habermas (1998: 245) points out, “‘Dialogical’ and ‘instrumental’ politics can intertwine in the medium of deliberation.” From a theoretical standpoint, this study questions the views of certain rational choice authors and rhetoricians who state that every discourse is strategic. I contend that deliberation is not merely the exchange of arguments based on the internal logic

Maia / Mediated Deliberation   315

of reason-giving but should be understood as an engagement of discourses that accommodate many types of communication, including rhetoric, storytelling, and performance. In this study, I specifically follow the perspective of deliberative scholars who state that rhetoric may be compatible with reasoned discourse and that the use of emotion is subject to the appraisal of reason and democratic communication (Dahlberg 2005; Dryzek 2000, 2001; Gutmann and Thompson 2004; O’Neil 2002). My approach is different from other perspectives, which have explored mediated deliberation in the news media by investigating how professional communicators mediate debates and actively provide reasons to the public (Ettema 2007; Page 1996) and how the press manages news sources and their claims (Bennett et al. 2004; Pan and Kosicki 2003; Simon and Xenos 2000). This study draws on and expands a line of inquiry about political deliberation processes characterized by the presence of competing frames (Chong and Druckman 2006, 2007; Hansen 2007; Porto 2007). Its aim is to clarify how public reason-giving compels participants in a debate to take into account other neglected perspectives and previously ignored arguments and to deal with disagreement and criticism and, further, how these interactions affects the quality of information environments. One can draw two main conclusions from this study: (1) An analysis of argumentation in the news media shows a clearly agonistic confrontation involving argument, counterargument, criticism, and refutation, among other forms of communication, and (2) even when conflicting interlocutors fail to arrive at a consensus, they may improve their arguments, reflect upon their reasons, and eventually review their positions. This article is organized into four parts. I first briefly review the literature about the news media as a forum for civic debate and the notion of mediated deliberation. I then discuss the context of the referendum on firearms and ammunition sales in Brazil to clarify the political scenario within which this debate unfolded. Next, I describe the methodological tools used in this study and explore mediated deliberation about the firearm sale referendum. Finally, I conclude with a summary of the empirical results and discuss the normative implications for further studies on mediated deliberation.

Deliberation and the News Media as a Forum for Civic Debate Deliberation typically occurs when there are controversies or when participants disagree on moral issues and seek solutions by open debate (Bohman 1996, 2007; Bohman and Rehg 1997; Cohen 1997; Cooke 2000; Dryzek 2000, 2001; Fishkin and Laslett 2003; Gutmann and Thompson 1996, 2004; Habermas 1996, 2005, 2006). According to Habermas (2006: 413), “Deliberation is a demanding form of communication, growing out of inconspicuous daily routines of asking for and giving

316   International Journal of Press/Politics

reasons.” Speakers must support their own perspectives with arguments and must question opposing views, by offering and accepting reasons that are accessible and potentially acceptable to others. In spite of the possible transformative effects of their preferences or failures in reaching an agreement, deliberative democrats acknowledge that public deliberation has a cognitive dimension that produces new knowledge and generates ways for dealing with conflicts that otherwise might not come to the forefront (Bohman 1996: 27; Cooke 2000: 948; Dryzek 2000, 2001; Gutmann and Thompson 2004: 7). Mediated deliberation differs from argumentative confrontations in which subjects are physically copresent, such as in forums or meetings. Media institutions operate according to certain organizational features, routines, and logic—such as news-making rules, physical limits, and news values—that systematically favor certain types of information and filter out others (Entman 1993; Gastil 2008; Hallin and Mancini 2004; Parkinson 2005; Schudson 1995, 2003). Media agents play a fundamental role in constructing and editing mediated debate: They choose who becomes “the source” of media narratives; they frame meanings, present the voices of social actors, and classify discourses hierarchically in media texts (Hallin 1993; Fairclough 1995; Gamson and Modigliani 1989; Reese et al. 2003; Wessler 2008; Maia 2008). Media professionals may actively defend certain positions or criticize contesting positions even before presenting them in journalistic texts (Ettema 2007; Wessler 2008). Thus, it is an empirical matter to investigate whether speakers in the media provide different viewpoints and opinions and whether certain actors becomes so dominating as to marginalize or exclude other views from the debate arena. Considering mediated deliberation as a noncontinuous process with a specified duration, Simon and Xenos (2000) and Pan and Kosicki (2003) have sought to understand how the conflicting positions of social actors—which are anchored in competing frames—unwind in a deliberative form within the news media. Both studies have shown that sources introduce claims into mediated debates, which encourages others to respond, “beginning a chain of argument and rebuttal” (Simon and Xenos 2000: 369). Bennett and colleagues (2004) helped formulate a broader theoretical mediated deliberation framework. These authors developed three measures of mediated deliberation: access to the debate by many actors, recognition of these voices as being qualitatively comparable, and responsiveness of speakers to opposing voices (p. 437). Wessler (2008) also built measures based on three different levels of analysis for assessing “deliberativeness” in the printed media (the idea, the utterance, the article), to which he adds a fourth level, the entire newspaper page or edition. Mediated deliberation studies have not systematically investigated the fact that representatives and elites, people who dedicate most of their time to public affairs and who engage in talks about the meaning of current events (Berinsky and Kinder 2006: 641; Chong and Druckman 2007; Habermas 2006), in the battle for the dominant discourse, may engage in conflicting arguments that potentially change the context in which

Maia / Mediated Deliberation   317

p­ roblems are understood and solutions are proposed, doing so by modifying their own arguments and modes of public expression. This article is based on the following variables for understanding mediated deliberation (Maia 2008): 1. Accessibility and characterization of participants—Who gains access to media channels? What are the inclusion criteria, and how much space is allocated to sources in the media environment? This variable shows the degree of inclusiveness of mediated deliberation and regards the institutionally defined roles of actors and the expectations associated with those actors. 2. Use of arguments—Do participants present reasons in support of their views, preferences, recommendations, and commands? Is persuasion sought through arguments? This variable refers to the critical-rational aspect of discourse and to the organization of positions and counterpositions over a specific controversy. 3. Reciprocity and responsiveness—Is there any dialogue or any possibility of mutual response among sources? Do the actors try to justify their positions in view of the issues at stake? Who responds to whom? This variable aims to identify the interactions between the discourses by each source in a given public controversy. 4. Reflexivity and reversibility of opinions—Are changes in position or preference noticed? This variable refers to a learning process in which participants may review their own opinions and arguments to incorporate new points of view, thereby improving reason-giving in discussion.

As several empirical studies have shown, deliberative practices developed in any forum contain many uncertainties and are prone to internal and external constraints, pathologies, and abuse (Gastil and Levine 2005; Neblo 2005; Rosenberg 2007). Degrees of access to the news media environment, use of critical arguments, reciprocity/ responsiveness, and opinion reversibility in mediated communication are important measures for qualifying contemporary democracy (Bohman 2000, 2007; Gastil, 2008; Gutmann and Thompson 2004; Habermas 1996, 2006; Maia 2008).

The Referendum on the Sale of Firearms in the Brazilian Democratic Context The movement for the referendum can be viewed as part of a broader process by which Brazilian civic actors have connected with party structures and fostered institutional innovation (Avritzer 2006; Baiocchi 2006). After 2001, the PT and President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva gave decisive parliamentary support to a congressional bill that favored banning firearms and ammunition sales. There were many public demonstrations and petition signings in favor of disarmament in major cities and elsewhere in Brazil. The National Congress finally approved a Disarmament Statute on December 2003, which provided that the ban should be subject to a national referendum. Two

318   International Journal of Press/Politics

parliamentary fronts arose, and the legislation granted free radio and television access to both in the “free electoral political advertising time.” As a result, each front was allowed to broadcast its messages in mandatory time slots on radio and television stations during the twenty days that preceded the referendum.3 Many authors have attempted to explain the radical change in public opinion in the month preceding the referendum culminating in a defeat for the Yes Front. Several scholars and commentators have considered the Yes Front’s political advertising programs to be “inefficient,” “disastrous,” or “misguided” (Lissovsky 2006: 47; Mota 2006: 13). Various publicity teams elaborated the Yes Front campaign, and it has been alleged that they had no clearly defined strategy. Additionally, Yes Front leaders assumed that they would easily win the referendum; their countrywide actions were thus dispersed (Mota 2006). A political corruption scandal involving government officials, party leaders, and members of parliament (“the mensalão scandal”) became public at the time of the referendum and may have encouraged part of the population to use the referendum as a form of protest against the government (Anastasia et al. 2006; Lissovsky 2006). Some authors have suggested that the written question in the referendum was unclear and may have induced some people to vote erroneously in favor of the No Front (Mota 2006). Thus, organizational factors within the fronts and the political context appear to have influenced the sale of firearms and ammunitions sale debate.

Methods To investigate mediated deliberation, this study analyzes newspaper content, rather than the messages aired in the free airtime programs wherein the fronts spoke directly to audiences. There are several reasons for this decision. To begin with, newspaper content provides researchers with specific approaches to mediated deliberation, potentially including speakers other than official front representatives and campaign creators. Consequently, a broader range of voices, ideas, concerns, and evaluation may be expressed. Furthermore, investigating deliberation in the news media may help shed light on the role of journalism in building information environments and shaping public debates in large-scale democracies. The “deliberativeness” of media content and its measurement remain underresearched (Bennett et al. 2004; Page 1996; Simon and Xenos 2000; Wessler 2008). All articles about the referendum were gathered from two major national daily newspapers, totaling 304 articles (99 articles from Folha de S. Paulo; 205 from O Globo). The analysis period was October 1–30, 2005, three weeks before and one week after the referendum. I analyzed news stories and other genres such as interviews, op-eds, readers’ letters, signed columns, small note columns, and “position statements”4 to identify themes and framings. Editorials were also examined to identify the positions of the two newspapers. I identified four 3-day periods corresponding to peaks in the number of the newspapers articles, from which samples were extracted for more detailed and in-depth qualitative readings: October 1–3

Maia / Mediated Deliberation   319

Table 1 List of Arguments for and against the Ban on Firearm and Ammunition Sales Arguments in favor of the ban on selling firearms:   1. The referendum is a symbol of a peaceful culture. Without the ban, a culture of violence and fear will prevail.   2. Firearms kill and cause accidents, thus endangering the right to life.   3. Spontaneous handing in of guns, disarmament, and a reduction in the number of firearms reduce violence.   4. To arm oneself does not ensure self-defense and may increase the chances of becoming a victim.   5. The referendum is an important and necessary policy, a result of social struggles against violence.   6. Legally sold firearms may be stolen and used illegally.   7. Public safety is exclusively a government responsibility.   8. The weapons industry has a vested interest in maintaining the sale of firearms. Arguments against the ban on selling firearms:   1. Citizens have the right to legitimate self-defense.   2. Citizens have the right to choose whether to have a firearm.   3. The state cannot reduce violence and promote safety; therefore, citizens must be armed.   4. A vote against the ban is a way of protesting against ineffective public safety policies.   5. The relation between firearms and violence is complex. Fewer firearms does not necessarily mean more security.   6. Illegal weapons and illegal firearm trade will not be affected by the ban.   7. Firearms promote individual safety.   8. The ban makes it easier for criminals to act, as citizens are unarmed.   9. There are people who need to carry weapons because they experience situations of risk. 10. Voting for the ban does not necessarily mean that people will disarm. 11. The Yes Front represents corrupt politicians and a Government that is helpless to deal with violence. 12. Firearms ensure autonomy for the people, preempting authoritarian measures by the government. 13. The domestic firearms industry will be at a disadvantage in relation to foreign companies. 14. The No Front defends the interests of poor people and the workers. 15. Most of the victims of firearms are criminals, not law-abiding citizens. 16. There are nonviolent uses for firearms, such as sports and hunting.

(the beginning of the free airtime), October 9–11 (the beginning of the second week of political advertising), October 21–23 (two days preceding the referendum), and October 24–26 (three days after the referendum). The news texts that appeared in these peaks yielded a reduced sample composed of 173 news articles distributed as follows: 58 articles from the Folha de S. Paulo; 115 from the O Globo. I constructed a coding scheme for analyzing articles printed in coverage peaks (the reduced sample) to identify arguments in different newspaper sections and actors who were invited by journalists to express their opinions. After this qualitative reading of the news articles, I wrote a general list of arguments. The categories in the list were then reorganized and summarized after a discussion with our team of four undergraduate research assistants. The final list consisted of eight arguments in favor of the ban on selling firearms and sixteen opposing arguments. Table 1 shows

320   International Journal of Press/Politics

the final list of arguments sorted in ascending order according to the frequency in the news media. Having generated this list of arguments, we manually coded articles in a two-step process. Undergraduate research assistants were trained in coding techniques and were asked to code thirty articles. The purpose of this procedure was to refine the list of arguments for the final analysis and to test intercoder agreement. There was agreement on 89 percent of the material. A further meeting discussed support and balance for the methods, argument notions, and the coding process for the full reduced sample.5 In defining the origin of social actors, coders first identified the news sources, which were formally identified by name, status, or social membership according to their structured positions in the political system, as follows: (1) representatives of the executive power, (2) members of the judiciary, (3) members of the legislative power, (4) political parties, (5) the general attorney, (6) public security agencies, (7) experts (criminologists, sociologists, and others), (8) journalists and media agents, (9) market agencies and companies, (10) members of organized civil society, (11) artists and celebrities, and (12) anonymous people. The coders developed a detailed and qualitative reading of the reduced sample to define how different sources expressed specific voices and positions. The classification was based on empirical analysis of the copresence of ideas and arguments as expressed in utterances (Wessler 2008: 12). These were classified into whether they could easily be assigned to one of the fronts or whether they expressed “no decision” or “no opinion.” Coders identified sources’ arguments that were presented in quotation marks or paraphrased. Two aspects of argumentative exchange dynamics were analyzed: the arguments used by the Yes Front speakers and the No Front speakers at different times of the debate (expressed in coverage peaks) and the adoption of additional arguments by each side. The purpose of this procedure was to detect (1) if there were appeals to new arguments and eventual reviews of reason-giving upon questioning or criticism by opponents and (2) if the main arguments in the dispute became more complex or wider in scope. Our assumption was that parties did not take all arguments into account. As disputing groups consider each argument, they move to formulate counterarguments, review premises, incorporate conflicting value claims into their own, or refute or corroborate arguments.

Participant Accessibility and Identification Media professionals usually provide highly unequal opportunities for social actors to access the news media. This is done by selecting sources, by controlling the prominence of certain claims, and by providing facts that support certain interpretations rather than others (Gastil 2008; Nisbet and Huge 2008; Page 1996; Pan and Kosicki 2003; Wessler 2008). The access structure to media channels tends to reproduce the power asymmetries present in society. It is well known that political

Maia / Mediated Deliberation   321

representatives, powerful groups, and elites enjoy easier access to media channels; journalistic routines pay close attention to official sources when organizing press stories (Norris 2000: 26; Schudson 2003; Tuchman 1978). Both newspapers stated their position in favor of the ban on firearms and ammunition sales in editorials. There were three editorials in the O Globo and one in the Folha de S. Paulo in the period of analysis. In the first editorial, the O Globo presented “impressive” numbers about previously civilian firearms confiscated from criminals, and concluded that these “are data . . . that decisively reinforce the Yes argument.”6 Just before the referendum, the editorial title in the O Globo expressed simply and clearly its position “In favor of the Yes.” The editorial stated, Next Sunday, Brazilian society will have a special opportunity to act more effectively against this painful blood-soaked process. Voting for “yes” in favor of ending the sale of firearms—without forgetting the necessary exceptions—will be a strategic contribution to stopping the banality of death and to combat a culture of violence that turns homicide into a daily accepted fact.7

The Sunday editorial in the Folha de S. Paulo on October 9 scrutinized the main No Front argument—the right of self-defense—and recommended “the best option is to vote Yes”: The advantages of the ban surpass the disadvantages. . . . Stronger restrictions on firearms and ammunition sales, without going against fundamental rights, should help save more lives; if that is so, this choice will have been worth-while.”8

Both newspapers provided equal space for each side of the debate, while clearly expressing their position in favor of the Yes Front in editorials. Table 2 shows the arguments displayed in different newspaper sections. There were more arguments in favor of the No position in all sections except for first-page headlines, small notes columns, and position statements; however, the number of Yes and No arguments in these sections was similar. I also analyzed the position taken by sources in both newspapers. This analysis only looked into source formulations identified by quotation marks or paraphrases. Table 3 presents these results. The distribution of sources in favor (33.1 percent) and against (36.8 percent) the ban on firearm sales was balanced. Many actors (30.1 percent) were “undecided” or “had no opinion,” or their nonspecific utterances could not unambiguously be assigned to any of the fronts. Political representatives were responsible for a significant number of statements (32.2 percent of all expressions). Leaders of both fronts and political campaign coordinators were generally the political actors that publicly stated their positions. Among the political representatives who took a position, most of the executive representatives (93.7 percent) were in favor of the ban, while members of the legislative were equally divided between the Yes Front (50 percent) and the No Front (50 percent).

322   International Journal of Press/Politics

Table 2 Distribution of Arguments for and against the Ban by Section in Folha de S. Paulo and O Globo during Peak Periods (October 2005: 1–3; 9–11; 21–23; 24–26) News stories Interviews Op-eds Readers’ letters First-page headlines Signed columns Editorials Small notes columns Position statementsa Other Total

O Globo Yes

Folha de S. Paulo No

40 (20.2) 36 (18.2) 3 (1.5) 3 (1.5) 12 (6.1) 19 (9.6) 10 (5.1) 13 (6.6) 3 (1.5) 1 (0.5) 5 (2.5) 3 (1.5) 6 (3.0) — 4 (2.0) 3 (1.5) 18 (9.1) 17 (8.6) 2 (1.0) — 103 (52.0) 95 (48.0) 198 (100)

Yes

No

17 (14.9) 36 (31.6) 3 (2.6) 8 (7.0) 2 (1.8) 8 (7.0) 4 (3.5) 5 (4.4) — 1 (0.9) 2 (1.8) 6 (5.3) — — — — 8 (7.0) 6 (5.3) 4 (3.5) 4 (3.5) 40 (35.0) 74 (65.0) 114 (100)

Total Yes

No

57 (18.3) 72 (23.1) 6 (1.9) 11 (3.5) 14 (4.5) 27 (8.7) 14 (4.5) 18 (5.8) 3 (1.0) 2 (0.6) 7 (2.2) 9 (2.9) 6 (1.9) — 4 (1.3) 3 (1.0) 26 (8.3) 23 (7.4) 6 (1.9) 4 (1.3) 143 (45.8) 169 (54.2) 312 (100)

Note: Percentages are given within parentheses. a. The category “position statements” refers to columns presenting short quotes from different actors with positions about the referendum.

Most members of the judiciary (82.6 percent) and public security agencies (86.3 percent) did not take a position in the debates. Experts (7.7 percent), media professionals (9.3 percent), and members of civil society organizations (8.5 percent) composed 30 percent of expressions in the general debate. Media professionals did not explicitly position themselves most of the time (55.3 percent), but when they did, most statements (80.9 percent) favored the ban on selling firearms. There was relative balance in expert opinions (47.3 percent pro and 52.7 percent against) and civil society organization stances (55.5 percent pro and 44.5 percent against). Most artists and celebrities who spoke up (76 percent) defended the Yes Front. Corporate organization representatives and market agents were responsible for 2.6 percent of the total number of statements, and all of them were against the ban on firearms sales. Although the debate consisted chiefly of elite discourses, it is worth noting that common citizens enjoyed a very high participation (34.7 percent of all positions) in the debate. Their positions were relatively balanced, with a slight tendency against the ban on firearm sales (45.1 percent pro and 54.9 percent against). Besides expressing their opinions, citizens gave testimonies explaining their meanings and experiences in favor and against disarmament. Storytelling open to interpretation encourages tellers and listeners to draw conclusions from personal experiences and to identify the

Maia / Mediated Deliberation   323

Table 3 Origin and Position of Sources in Folha de S. Paulo and O Globo during Peaks Periods (October 2005: 1–3; 9–11; 21–23; 24–26) Source Yes No

Undecided or No Opinion Total

Total per Category

Political representatives Representatives 18 4 8 30 (5.9%) 163 (32.2%)   of the executive Members of the judiciary 3 1 19 23 (4.5%) Members of the legislative 38 38 6 82 (16.2%) General attorney — — — — Public security agencies 2 1 19 22 (4.3%) Political parties 3 3 — 6 (1.2%) Experts (sociologists, 9 10 20 39 (7.7%) 39 (7.7%)   economists, lawyers, etc.) Media agents (journalists 17 4 26 47 (9.3%) 47 (9.3%)   and media professionals) Market agents (market 0 12 1 13 (2.6%) 13 (2.6%)   corporations) Civil society Members of organized 20 16 7 43 (8.5%) 245 (48.3%)   civil society Artists and celebrities 19 6 1 26 (5.1%) Anonymous people 64 78 34 176 (34.7%) Total 193 (33.1%) 173 (36.8%) 141 (30.1%) 507 (100%) 507 (100%)

problem and available solutions (Dahlberg 2005; Dryzek 2000; Polleta and Lee 2006). From a theoretical perspective, these findings confirm that the role of journalists and communication professionals is ambiguous; they can actively give reasons to society and mediate deliberation (Ettema 2007; Wessler 2008). In editorials, both newspapers defended the ban on firearms and ammunition sales in Brazil. Media professionals are among the actors that clearly presented more arguments for the Yes Front, as were representatives of the executive, artists, and celebrities. Quantitative and qualitative data, however, show that coverage of the referendum was relatively balanced, allowing both sides to express their opinions in news articles and other areas. Journalists were careful to provide relatively equal space for both positions. This finding can be explained by the commercial and self-legitimacy interests of media organizations, especially when we consider the fact that opinion polls revealed an increasing support for the No Front. Whatever the reasons, the information environment in both newspapers was dense and varied, with many opinions. Fuks and

324   International Journal of Press/Politics

Table 4 Arguments for and against the Ban on Firearms and Ammunition Sales during the First Peak Period (October 1–3, 2005) Arguments in favor of the ban on selling firearms: The referendum is a symbol of a peaceful culture. Without the ban, a culture of violence and fear will prevail. The referendum is an important and necessary policy, a result of social struggles against violence. Arguments contrary to the ban on selling firearms: Citizens have the right of legitimate self-defense. Citizens have the right to choose whether to have a firearm. The state cannot reduce violence and promote safety; therefore, citizens must be armed. Illegal weapons and illegal firearm trade will not be affected by the ban. Firearms promote individual safety. The ban makes it easier for criminals to act, as citizens are unarmed. There are people who need to carry weapons because they experience situations of risk. Voting for the ban does not necessarily mean that people will disarm. The Yes Front represents corrupt politicians and a government that is helpless to deal with violence.

Novais’s (2006: 196) study about coverage of the referendum in the O Globo and the Folha de S. Paulo shows that journalists developed a genuine familiarity with the political project at stake and provided a reasonably high level of information about controversial aspects.

Use of Critical-Rational Arguments Deliberation emphasizes the ideal of political justification and the reciprocal reason-giving in public (Bohman 1996: 25; Cohen 1997: 413; Dryzek 2001). Interlocutors (representatives and citizens) are encouraged to appeal to public principles when expressing themselves in the news media and when facing large audiences. The two fronts defined the ban on firearm sales differently: They attributed different causes to the problem and gave different explanations to be recognized and accepted as justifiable propositions of public interest. Table 4 shows the arguments for and against firearm sales printed in the Folha de S. Paulo and the O Globo during the first three days of the free political advertising airtime (peak 1). All of the speakers in the news media who favored the ban presented only two arguments. They appealed to a “peace against violence” culture, reinforcing past NGO and social movement mobilization projects. Their argument centered mostly on the value of life, highlighting that firearms are death-causing tools. The argument that the ban on firearm sales would save many lives, since most firearm casualties in Brazil result from household accidents and fights in private and public places, was fairly typical. These arguments were issued by several people, ranging from the Brazilian president to the coordinator of the Brazilian Landless Movement (MST):

Maia / Mediated Deliberation   325

The advantage of having a gun cannot be compared to the immeasurable harm or injury of such possession. Disarming the population is an important measure to save precious lives. (Lula, Brazilian president)9 The ban on selling firearms will help our society to be more civilized and human. We will reduce deaths from futile and accidental causes. Carrying a gun or having it at home solves no problem; it only generates more problems. (João Stédile, national coordinator of the Landless Movement)10

The No Front defined the ban on firearm and ammunition sales mostly as a denial of classical civil rights—protecting one’s life and that of one’s family. Table 4 shows nine No arguments found in journalistic coverage during the first three days of political advertising airtime. All speakers in the news media against the ban on firearm sales produced several frames and raised many problematic fields of meaning. Within a juridical domain, speakers in favor of No stated that citizens have the right of self-defense and to choose whether to own a firearm. The argument added that after losing this right, citizens might lose others. Cavemen used clubs to defend their homes and families. How can you not allow the right of self-defense to modern man? What is needed is strict and careful regulation. (João Caldas, PL-AL [Liberal Party from the Estate of Alagoas] representative).11 The ban on selling guns in unconstitutional. The Penal Code foresees the right to selfdefense. It is serious to take away a right. I have received death threats but I carry no guns. I have to be sure that if at any moment I understand that I may need one, I will be able to legally own a gun. (Jair Krishe, Movement Justice and Human Rights in the State of Rio Grande do Sul)12

In the domain of public policies, speakers in favor of No argued that the government was unable to establish effective policies for reducing violence and providing public safety. Thus, the ban on firearm sales would leave criminals more at ease to violate the law and citizens more vulnerable. They further argued that the ban would in practice be ineffective, as criminals would always have access to illegal firearms. Adepts of No attempted to associate the referendum with politicians and the government, alleging that the ban on firearm sales would favor the elites, who were always able to hire private security services. Thus, they argued, economically disadvantaged social classes would be those most affected by the new law. Finally, speakers in favor of No emphasized that certain people need firearms for nonviolent purposes, such as sports and regulated hunting. Yes Front and No Front adepts claimed opposing and conflicting lines of argument for individuals and for the collectivity. Defenders of the ban on selling firearms appealed to civic-participatory codes, asking citizens to consider society as a whole and the many lives that could be saved. Such arguments tended to be configured within a framework of coresponsible engagement wherein each citizen

326   International Journal of Press/Politics

Figure 1 Arguments in Favor of Banning Firearm and Ammunition Sales during Peak Periods

Note: Arguments are numbered according to Table 1.

would help reduce violence and build a safer and more peaceful society for all. Arguments by No Front speakers focused on citizens as individuals, who should prioritize the protection of one’s life and family. They appealed to a legal and individualistic basis of citizenship and of privately constituted subjects and tended to frame their arguments within a clearly liberal perspective: protection of individual rights, the desirability of limited government scope, and minimal interference with the market.

Reciprocity and Responsiveness Apart from reason-giving, deliberation also requires speakers to seriously consider and respond to arguments. Deliberation theorists argue that for success in a debate, participants must take into account the assumptions and frames of opponents. Deliberation requires participants to reciprocally recognize opposing groups as interlocutors and their perspectives and objections to formulate responses (Bohman 2007: 351; Gutmann and Thompson 1996: 3). It cannot be assumed that debates are guided only by participant “public-spirited motivation” when examining opposing propositions and arguing against them. The “civilizing force of hypocrisy” (Elster 1998) or the strategy of pointing at risks in competing proposals (Riker 1996) may have a steering effect on the course of debates. Figure 1 shows the arguments defending the ban on firearms and ammunition sales in the Folha de S. Paulo and the O Globo in peak newspaper coverage periods.

Maia / Mediated Deliberation   327

Figure 2 Arguments against Banning Firearms and Ammunition Sales during Peak Periods

Note: Arguments are numbered according to Table 1.

Speakers in favor of Yes significantly increased the number of arguments presented to the news media as the debate developed. There were two arguments defending the ban in the first three days of political advertising airtime, four arguments in the following week (peak 2), and seven arguments in the last three days before the referendum (peak 3). Figure 2 shows the arguments against the ban on firearms and ammunition sales in the Folha de S. Paulo and the O Globo in peak coverage periods. In the first three days of political advertising, there were nine arguments against the ban; one more argument was added in the following week (peak 2), reaching thirteen arguments in the last three days before the referendum (peak 3). These results suggest that the debate compelled participants to bring forward new information and arguments for public scrutiny. Changes in the political game may

328   International Journal of Press/Politics

Table 5 Opinion Polls on the Restriction of Firearm Sales Date Institute October 15, 2003 March 24, 2004 October 11, 2005 October 18, 2005 October 20, 2005 October 23, 2005

CNT/Sensus CNT/Sensus Ibope Ibope Datafolha TSE (official referendum results)

In Favor of Against Banning Banning Firearms (%) Firearms (%) 76.3 76.9 47.9 44.7 43.0 36.1

23.7 24.1 52.1 55.4 57.0 63.9

also affect the context within which interlocutors operate. Faced with the increasing voting intentions in favor of No, as shown by opinion polls, Yes Front leaders redirected their communication strategy and chose another publicity agency for their political campaign in the free radio and television airtime (Lissovsky 2006: 33). Table 5 shows the results of opinion polls on the restriction of firearm sales in Brazil. For our purposes, it is interesting to note that, either for strategic reasons or to persuade citizens by reason-giving, speakers in favor of Yes reconsidered previously neglected issues. They attempted to answer criticism and controversial claims in the debate by reformulating many of the more fallible premises in their interaction with opponents. It should be borne in mind that, regardless of the motives of participants, these dynamics affect debate results (Bohman 1996: 27; Elster 1998: 104; Habermas 1996: 17–20). Speakers in favor of Yes had to abandon a relatively simple discourse appealing to peace and deal with much more complex issues. There was legal controversy about the boundary between public and private rights in self-defense and the provision of public safety. Yes Front adepts used the dichotomy “criminals” and “lawabiding citizens”—which had been created by the No Front—to counterargue that “law-abiding citizens” also are capable of murder in relatively significant numbers. Armed citizens are not able to react successfully; having a gun increases the chances of being killed by criminals. Firearm training does not prepare anyone for real-life situations. If each citizen decided to carry a gun like criminals, violence would increase dramatically. There was controversy about government policies against violence. Yes supporters reaffirmed the state’s role in providing public safety based on a monopoly of force, in contrast to citizens individually avoiding criminal threats. Yes Front adepts admitted that such government policies were in fact ineffective but argued that this was not a reason for citizens to carry weapons in self-defense, which would mean “a move backwards” to a premodern state, to “a situation of self-defense,” a “denial of civilization.”13 Public representatives, artists, and social movement leaders argued somewhat ambiguously that the ban would merely reduce, but not “solve,” the problem

Maia / Mediated Deliberation   329

as a whole and was essential from a social policy standpoint to improve the quality of life of the population. Framing the referendum as a political game generated a debate to specify “who” and “how” people would be affected by the new regulations. Yes Front supporters abandoned the universal perspective that disarmament belonged to society—rather than to one or another government or specific political parties—and accepted existing Brazilian social class inequalities to counterargue that individual defense with firearms was not available for all. The economically disadvantaged population is in fact unable to acquire firearms, since registration is expensive. Yes Front interlocutors argued that major weapons manufacturers benefited from the sale of firearms. In journalistic coverage, No Front speakers opened the debate with a wide range of arguments, using many of them to criticize or refute Yes Front ideas and claims. Figure 2 shows that new arguments arose in the third and fourth newspaper coverage peaks, particularly the argument that the No vote was a protest against ineffective public security policies. There were different degrees of reciprocity in the debate; contending parties addressed opposing ideas implicitly or explicitly, offering justifications for their criticism and refutation.

Reflexivity and Reversibility of Opinions The reflexive nature of the public sphere means that “all participants can revisit perceived public opinions and respond to them after reconsideration” (Habermas 2006: 418). Critical reflection implies that one’s knowledge and justification is never final and conclusive, but always open to challenge and review in the light of new information, evidence, and arguments (Cooke 2000: 955). Gutmann and Thompson (2004: 57) highlight the importance of provisionality of deliberative politics as a self-correcting mechanism that invites revision in response to new moral insights or empirical discoveries. In the give-and-take of reasons, an argument initially presented in the discursive arena may be perceived as incomplete, precarious, or even publicly unacceptable in the face of new information and reasons provided by others (Bohman 1996; Dewey 1954; Gutmann and Thompson 1996; Habermas 1996, 2005, 2006). It was clear that many spokespersons in each front argumentatively contemplated conflicting value claims; after critical thought they defended their own claims. Coordinators of both fronts did not openly change their minds about issues that had divided them from the very beginning. Some Yes Front supporters, however, incorporated some opposing viewpoints and moved from initial abstract value arguments to fact-based arguments towards the end. Some Yes adepts recognized the No argument that public security policies in Brazil were precarious and that the population was fearful of the high crime rates. Official Yes Front representatives, politicians, and members of civil society organizations expressed their agreement. The minister of justice, while supporting the ban on firearm sales, declared in the O Globo, “I am the first person to recognize the

330   International Journal of Press/Politics

feeling of insecurity. I am a middle-class citizen and I am frequently taken by this feeling of insecurity. I don’t believe that changing the law will change reality.”14 In a similar vein, a renowned Yes Front militant and member of the Green Party (PV) explicitly endorsed the No argument about the need for the government to implement more effective policies for combating violence and crime: The “No” campaign has a great argument, that the ban will keep criminals armed and disarm law-abiding citizens. This can only be overcome if the government shows that it will also put in place a serious project for collecting illegal guns. The result of the referendum is in the government’s hands. (Fernando Gabeira, PV representative)15

Debate participants only rarely changed their initial preferences. They did, however, increase the scope of their perception about the main issues and possible solutions by taking into account opposing criticism and eventually attempting to answer conflicting arguments. This simultaneously altered the configuration of arguments presented to audiences and public modes of expression.

Conclusion In contemporary society, the news media provide an important arena for “the public exchange of reasons,” which increases the potential of representatives or public officials to be publicly responsible (answerable) to each other and also to citizens in a broader manner than would be possible in insulated forums. Our findings show that the news media may be active reason-giving actors and an important debate forum. I highlighted that major news media organizations—while editorially defending the ban on firearm sales and actively giving reasons for defending the ban—provided equal room for both fronts, maintaining internal pluralism for the expression of views. The news media environment was characterized as a network of voices issued by separate social stakeholders, in which different reasons and discourses become publicly available and competed in the public arena. In this study, mediated deliberation was clearly an agonistic clash, a confrontation of argument and counterargument by various actors from different sectors of society. I attempted to show that instrumental politics might intertwine with critical argument exchanges in a public debate situation. The aim of political discussion in the referendum was to choose among propositions of norms. Regardless of their particular interests and communicative strategies, representatives of each front—and many people in favor and against the ban—acted as if they accepted the obligation of justifying their views. Various factors linked to the internal organization of each front and the political context influenced the discursive context in which the fronts operated. When facing audiences that “weigh” competing perspectives for decision purposes, however, contesting parties must address arguments present in the debate arena and cannot neglect opposing voices.

Maia / Mediated Deliberation   331

There is no way to move linearly from strategy to argumentation, as arguing involves a learning process for formulating reasons for persuading opposing groups and citizens. Those favoring a ban on firearm sales moved from a one-dimensional perspective in favor of peace and against violence—a horizon initially accepted as correct—to a wider horizon that made it possible for various problematic topics to be understood. This group entered a complex terrain, common when discussing public and private rights, to assess public policies designed for controlling urban violence and the effects of a new regulation on citizens of different social classes. It should be said that neither the willingness of the Yes Front to argue and counterargue, nor new information brought to the debate by their representatives, was enough to ensure success in the dispute. The winning No Front adopted an individual-focused perspective as their basic assumption, according to which citizens should undertake tasks not performed by the state. This view assumes a minimalist idea about politics, where citizens compensate for state failures in public policies. It is a reaction against civic-participative democracy codes defended by stakeholders wishing to change current laws and to promote social solutions for gun violence. This issue points to a well-known dilemma in Latin American democracies, where “islands” of authoritarian culture exist within civil society and political institutions cannot ensure the implementation of effective public policies or perform their traditional accountability and responsiveness roles (Avritzer 2002: 115; Baiocchi 2006). From a theoretical perspective, our findings suggest that public deliberation requires not only the plurality of voices but also must take into consideration how contending sources argue for their needs, interests, and recommendations and how they take into account the views, reasons, and perspectives of others. Even where a general agreement is not reached or expected, as in this case, public deliberation may lead to a better understanding of different aspects of the issue, which may increase political knowledge about other problems in society, and activate political sensitiveness about the “seriousness” of certain matters that demand reform. Public exchange of reasons by opposing groups provided the audience with enhanced media material for their own reflection and for engaging in political debates. Finally, the results of this study suggest that an emphasis on normative deliberation principles has the potential of generating more sophisticated understandings of the role of the media in public debates. The theoretical deliberation framework provides conceptual tools that enable an analysis of the manner by which contending sources dispute opinions, arguments, and perspectives in the media environment. Observers and researchers alike may find this a fertile ground for learning about the dilemmas in consolidating democracies in Latin America.

Notes   1. The citizen network of the Associação Nacional dos Proprietários e Comerciantes de Arma (ANPCA) funded most of the No campaign (Mota 2006).

332   International Journal of Press/Politics

  2. DataFolha, covering the state capital of São Paulo; CNT-Sensus, Ibope, Ipsus. See Lissovsky (2006: 32).   3. Two key types of free airtime were granted to each front on a daily basis: nine-minute compulsory broadcasts that were aired during prime time and 20 thirty-second spots in regular commercial breaks.   4. The category “position statements” refers to columns presenting short quotes from different actors with positions about the referendum.   5. A similar methodology is used by Bennett et al. (2004: 444–46).   6. “Nossa opinião. Tema em discussão: Comércio de armas. Ilusão Armada,” O Globo, October 16, 2005.   7. “Pelo Sim,” O Globo, October 22, 2005.   8. “Pelo Sim no referendo,” Folha de S. Paulo, October 9, 2005.   9. “Após artigo em defesa do ‘sim,’ Lula evita dizer em quem vai votar,” Folha de S. Paulo, October 12, 2005. 10. “Enquête do Referendo,” Folha de S. Paulo, December 12, 2005. 11. “Por que voto não, porque voto sim,” O Globo, October 10, 2005. 12. “TV – continua a guerra das versões,” O Globo, October 2, 2005. 13. Toni Marques, “Relação entre armas e crimes causa divergências,” O Globo, October 21, 2005. 14. Márcio T. Bastos, “Frente contrária ao desarmamento reage a ataque de ministro da Justiça,” O Globo, October 26, 2005. 15. “Sai a campanha na TV, continua a guerra de versões,” O Globo, October 20, 2005.

References Anastasia, Fátima, Magna Inácio, and Raquel Novais. 2006. “Referendo e democracia: perdas e ganhos.” In Democracia e referendo no Brasil, ed. Magna Inácio, Raquel Novais, and Fátima Anastasia. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Ed. UFMG. Avritzer, Leonardo. 2002. Democracy and Public Space in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Avritzer, Leonardo. 2006. “Civil Society in Latin America in the Twenty-First Century: Between Democratic Deepening, Social Fragmentation and State Crisis.” In Civil Society and Democracy in Latin American, ed. Carlos H. Waisman and Leon Zamosc. New York: Palgrave. Baiocchi, Gianpaolo. 2006. “The Civilizing Force of Social Movements: Corporate and Liberal Codes in Brazil’s Public Sphere.” Sociological Theory 4:285–311. Bennett, Lance W., Victor W. Pickard, David P. Iozzi, Cal L. Schroeder, and Taso C. E. Caswell. 2004. “Managing Public Sphere: Journalistic Construction of the Great Globalization Debate.” Journal of Communication 54(3):437–54. Berinsky, Adam, and Donald Kinder. 2006. “Making Sense of Issues through Media Frames: Understanding the Kosovo Crisis.” Journal of Politics 68(3):640–56. Bohman, James. 1996. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bohman, James. 2000. “The Division of Labor in Democratic Discourse: Media, Experts, and Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberation, Democracy and the Media, ed. Simone Chambers and Anne Costain. New York: Rowan & Littlefield. Bohman, James. 2007. “Political Communication and the Epistemic Value of Diversity: Deliberation and Legitimation in Media Societies.” Communication Theory 17:348–55. Bohman, James, and William Rehg, eds. 1997. Deliberative Democracy. London: MIT Press. Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2006. “Democratic Competition and Public Opinion.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.

Maia / Mediated Deliberation   333

Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007. “A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments.” Journal of Communication 57:99–118. Cohen, Joshua. 1997. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In Deliberative Democracy, ed. James Bohman and William Rehg. London: MIT Press. Cooke, Maeve. 2000. “Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 48:947–69. Dahlberg, Lincoln, 2005. “The Habermasian Public Sphere: Taking Difference Seriously?” Theory and Society 34:11–136. Dewey, John. 1954. The Public and Its Problems. Chicago: Swallow. Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Dryzek, John. 2001. “Legitimacy and Economy in Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 5:651–69. Elster, John. 1998. “Deliberation and the Constitution Making.” In Deliberative Democracy, ed. John Elster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Entman, Robert. 1993. “Framing: Towards a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43(4):51–58. Ettema, James. 2007. “Journalism as Reason-Giving: Deliberation, Democracy, Institutional Accountability, and the News Media’s Mission.” Political Communication 24:143–60. Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Arnold. Fishkin, James, and Peter Laslett. 2003. Debating Deliberative Democracy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Fuks, Mário, and Raquel Novais. 2006. “O referendo e a cobertura da imprensa: uma análise do ambiente informacional.” In Democracia e referendo no Brasil, ed. Magna Inácio, Raquel Novais, and Fátima Anastasia. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Ed. UFMG. Gamson, William, and Andre Modigliani. 1989. “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach.” American Journal of Sociology 95:1–37. Gastil, John. 2008. Political Communication and Deliberation. London: Sage. Gastil, John, and Peter Levine. 2005. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. “Three Normative Models of Democracy.” In The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, ed. Ciaran Cronin and Paolo De Greiff. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Habermas, Jürgen. 2005. “Concluding Comments on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics.” Acta Politica 40:384–92. Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. “Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research.” Communication Theory 16:411–26. Hallin, Daniel C. 1993. We Keep America on Top of the World: Television Journalism and the Public Sphere. London: Rutledge. Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hansen, Kasper M. 2007. “The Sophisticated Public: The Effect of Competing Frames on Public Opinion.” Nordic Journal of Political Science Association 30(3):377–96. Lissovsky, Maurício. 2006. “A campanha na TV e a desventura do Sim que era Não.” In Comunicações do ISER: Referendo do Sim ao Não: uma experiência da democracia brasileira, 32–49. Rio de Janeiro: ISER. Maia, Rousiley C. M. 2008. Mídia e deliberação. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: FGV.

334   International Journal of Press/Politics

Mota, Maria C. R. 2006. “O referendo de outubro/2005: das conquistas plurais à derrota singular.” In Comunicações do ISER: Referendo do Sim ao Não: uma experiência da democracia brasileira, 7–22. Rio de Janeiro: ISER. Neblo, Michael. 2005. “Thinking through Democracy: Between Theory and Practice of Deliberative Politics.” Acta Politica 40:169–81. Nisbet, M. C., and H. Huge. 2008. “Attention Cycles and Frames in the Plant Biotechnology Debate: Managing Power and Participation through Press/Policy Connection.” Press Politics 11:3–40. Norris, Pippa. 2000. A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Neill, John. 2002. “The Rhetoric of Deliberation: Some Problem in the Kantian Theories of Deliberative Democracy.” Res Publica 8:249–68. Page, Benjamin. 1996. Who Deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy. London: University of Chicago Press. Pan, Zongdang, and Gerald M. Kosicki. 2003. “Framing as Strategic Action in Public Deliberation.” In Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social Life, ed. Stephen D. Reese, Oscar H. Gandy Jr., and August E. Grant. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Parkinson, John. 2005. “Rickey Bridges: Using Media in Deliberative Democracy.” British Journal of Political Science 36:175-183. Polleta, Francesca, and John Lee. 2006. “Is Telling Stories Good for Democracy? Rhetoric in Public Deliberation after 9/11.” American Sociological Review 71:699–723. Porto, Mauro. 2007. “Framing Controversies: Television and the 2002 Presidential Election in Brazil.” Political Communication 24:19–36. Reese, Stephen D., Oscar H. Gandy Jr., and August E. Grant. 2003. Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social Life. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Riker, William. 1996. The Strategy of Rhetoric. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rosenberg, Shawn. 2007. Can the People Govern? Deliberation, Participation and Democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Schudson, Michael. 1995. The Power of News. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schudson, Michael. 2003. The Sociology of News. New York: Norton. Simon, Adam, and Michael Xenos. 2000. “Media Framing and Effective Public Deliberation.” Political Communication 17:363–76. Tuchman, Gaye. 1978. Making News. A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: Free Press. Wessler, Harmut. 2008. “Investigating Deliberativeness Comparatively.” Political Communication 25:1–22.

Rousiley C. M. Maia, PhD, political science, is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil.