The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research
Abstract
I first compare the deliberative to the liberal and the republican models of democracy, and consider possible references to empirical research and then examine what empirical evidence there is for the assumption that political deliberation develops a truth-tracking potential. The main parts of the paper serve to dispel prima facie doubts about the empirical content and the applicability of the communication model of deliberative politics. It moreover highlights 2 critical conditions: mediated political communication in the public sphere can facilitate deliberative legitimation processes in complex societies only if a self-regulating media system gains independence from its social environments and if anonymous audiences grant a feedback between an informed elite discourse and a responsive civil society.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony
Anderson, E. (2011) · Episteme · doi:10.3366/epi.2011.0013 · Cited by 445
Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: from consensus to contestation
Dahlberg, L. (2007) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444807081228 · Cited by 366
Lawrence, E., Sides, J., & Farrell, H. (2010) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592709992714 · Cited by 352
Buhmann, A., Paßmann, J., & Fieseler, C. (2020) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04226-4 · Cited by 167
Brüggemann, M., & Meyer, H. (2023) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1093/ct/qtad012 · Cited by 60
Between Mainstream and Alternative – Co-orientation in Right-Wing Populist Alternative News Media
Frischlich, L., Klapproth, J., & Brinkschulte, F. (2020) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39627-5_12 · Cited by 57
Echo chambers? Filter bubbles? The misleading metaphors that obscure the real problem
Bruns, A. (2021) · Hate Speech and Polarization in Participatory Society · doi:10.4324/9781003109891-4 · Cited by 54
Lin, H., Wang, Y., Lee, J., & Kim, Y. (2023) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmad022 · Cited by 34
Hobbs, M., Della Bosca, H., Schlosberg, D., & Sun, C. (2020) · Journal of Public Affairs · doi:10.1002/pa.2057 · Cited by 30
Widdersheim, M. M. (2015) · Libri · doi:10.1515/libri-2015-0043 · Cited by 23
Redefining Publics: Mosireen, State Crime and the Rise of a Digital Public Sphere
Kasm, S. (2018) · State Crime Journal · doi:10.13169/statecrime.7.1.0100 · Cited by 7
Analyzing Political Information Network of the U.S. Partisan Public on Twitter
Chong, M. (2018) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-78105-1_50 · Cited by 7
Wolfgang, D., & Jenkins, J. (2015) · Journal of Deliberative Democracy · doi:10.16997/jdd.222 · Cited by 4
“Habermas (2006), while recognizing the egalitarian potential of the Internet, also identified the potential pitfalls of creating additional publics: “[T]he rise of millions of fragmented chat rooms across the world tend instead to lead to the fragmentation of large but politically focused mass…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Habermas, J.
- Venue
- Communication Theory
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-11
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 411-426
- ISSN
- 1050-3293 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2885
- OpenAlex
- W2105773471
- Cited by
- 1,839
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 306.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
