Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Dialogue in the News Media

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Origin of Dialogue in the News Media

Part of the book series: Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century ((CDC))

  • 339 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides an introduction to the topic and the main tools of analysis (frames and dialogue). It discusses the importance of dialogue in the news media, the main thesis of the book, the empirical evidence, and implications of the results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In terms of Entman’s frame definition, substantive frames focus mainly on problem definition. The other elements mentioned by Entman would be called reasoning devices by Gamson and Modigliani (1989: 3) and explain what should be done about the problem. Framing devices, as opposed to frames, are condensing symbols that suggest the frame in shorthand (Gamson and Modigliani 1989: 3). They include metaphors, illustrative examples (from which lessons are drawn), catchphrases, descriptions, and visual images (icons). What Iyengar (1991) calls “episodic” frames, I would call a framing device.

  2. 2.

    A group of researchers from mass communication and political science collected these data together. This research belongs to a national center of competence in research (<http://www.nccr-democracy.uzh.ch/>, March 2019), which has been financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation (for the design of the study, see Hänggli et al. 2012a).

References

  • Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M., & Steiner, J. (2010). Symposium: Toward More Realistic Models of Deliberative Democracy Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy—Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 32–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L., Pickard, V. W., Iozzi, D. P., Schroeder, C. L., Lagos, T., & Caswell, E. C. (2004). Managing the Public Sphere: Journalistic Construction of the Great Globalization Debate. International Communication Association, 54(3), 437–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz, M., & Stutzer, A. (2004): Are Voters Better Informed When They Have a Larger Say in Politics? Evidence for the European Union and Switzerland. Public Choice, 119(1), 31–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, S. (2009): Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007c). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2011). Public-Elite Interactions: Puzzles in Search of Researchers. In R. Y. Shapiro & L. R. Jacobs (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the American Public Opinion and the Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, C. (2016). Partisan, Not Ignorant—Citizens’ Use of Arguments and Justifications in Direct Democracy (PhD thesis). European University Institute, Florence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, C. (2018). Justifications and Citizen Competence in Direct Democracy: A Multilevel Analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 787–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vreese, C. (2005). News Framing: Theory and Typology. Information Design Journal + Document Design, 13(1), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, R., Stanczyk, A., Wall, I. F., Uhlmann, R., Damschroder, L. J., & Kim, S. Y. (2010). Assessing the Quality of Democratic Deliberation: A Case Study of Public Deliberation on the Ethics of Surrogate Consent for Research. Social Science and Medicine, 70(12), 1896–1903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Disch, L. (2011). Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 100–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeli, I., Anouk, L., & Nai, A. (2008). Analysis of the Federal Votes of June 1, 2008 (Analyse der eidgenössischen Abstimmungen vom 1. Juni 2008). Vox Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferree, M Marx, Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping Abortion Discourse Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, J. S. (1992). The Dialogue of Justice: Toward a Self-Reflective Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz, M. M. (2014). Interest Group Issue Appeals: Evidence of Issue Convergence in Senate and Presidential Elections, 2008–2014. Forum, 12(4), 685–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A. (2004). Bystanders, Public Opinion, and the Media. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (pp. 242–261). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. New Baskerville: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hänggli, R., Schemer, C., & Rademacher, P. (2012a). Toward a Methodological Integration in the Study of Political Campaign Communication. In H. Kriesi (Ed.), Political Communication in Direct Democratic Campaigns: Enlightening or Manipulating? (pp. 39–53). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helbing, D. (2016). Why We Need Democracy 2.0 and Capitalism 2.0 to Survive. Jusletter IT, 2016, 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirter, H., & Linder, W. (2008). Analysis of the Federal Votes of February 24, 2008 (Analyse der eidgenössischen Abstimmungen vom 24. Februar 2008). Vox Analysis. Berne: University of Berne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jerit, J. (2008). Issue Framing and Engagement: Rhetorical Strategy in Public Policy Debates. Political Behaviour, 30, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerit, J. (2009). How Predictive Appeals Shape Policy Opinions. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 411–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, N., Park, D. K., & Ridout, T. N. (2006). Dialogue in American Campaigns? An Examination of Issue Convergence in Candidate Television Advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 724–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi, H., & Trechsel, A. H. (2008). The Politics of Switzerland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Milic, T., & Scheuss, U. (2006). Analysis of the Federal Votes of September 24, 2006 (Analyse der eidgenössischen Abstimmungen vom 24. September 2006). Vox Analysis. Zurich: University of Zurich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. (2006). Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, S. E. (2008): The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pariser, Eli. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: On the Internet’s Social Capital. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1988 [1960]). The Semisovereign People: Realist’s View of Democracy in America. South Melbourne: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schudson, M. (1998). The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schudson, M. (2000, Spring). Overcoming Voter Isolation: Citizenship Beyond the Polls. The Responsive Community, 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, W. (1989). Massenmedien und Realität. Kölner Zeitschrift fĂĽr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft, 30, 135–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigelman, L., & Buell, E. H. (2004). Avoidance or Engagement? Issue Convergence in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960–2000. American Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 650–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, A. (2002). The Winning Message: Candidate Behavior, Campaign Discourse, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing. In P. M. Sniderman & S. M. Theriault (Eds.), Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error and Change (pp. 133–165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessler, H. (2008). Investigating Deliberativeness Comparatively. Political Communication, 25(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, W., Matthes, J., & Schemer, C. (2011). When Campaign Messages Meet Ideology: The Role of Arguments for Voting Behaviour. In H. Kriesi (Ed.), Political Communication in Direct Democratic Campaigns: Enlightening or Manipulating? (pp. 188–204). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J. R. (2005 [1992]). The Nature and Origin of Public Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W., Cao, X., & Tram, M. N. (2013). The Structural Features and the Deliberative Quality of Online Discussions. Telematics and Informatics, 30(2), 74–86.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mass Media and Communication Research, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Regula Hänggli

Authors
  1. Regula Hänggli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Regula Hänggli .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hänggli, R. (2020). Dialogue in the News Media. In: The Origin of Dialogue in the News Media. Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26582-3_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation