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

Abstract

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

Keywords:

• accountability
• death penalty reform
• deliberative democracy
• editorials
• investigative journalism
• public moral argument
• reciprocity

This research was supported in part by the Faculty Research Fund of the Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University School of Communication. Keith Topper and Linda Steiner provided valuable advice and comment in the course of the project.

Notes

1. Commentary on deliberative democracy includes Fishkin and Laslett (2003) and Macedo (1999).

2. Interview conducted by the author in April 2006.

3. “The media teach consumerism far more effectively than deliberation,” write Gutmann and Thompson (2004, p. 36). “Journalists and newscasters, editors and publishers, and producers of television news nonetheless have a professional responsibility to attend to the quality of public discussion.” They conclude, however, that these practitioners “do not provide effective forums for collective action based more on citizens' considered judgments than on their momentary preferences” (1996, p. 125).

4. See Miner (2000) for a review of prosecutors' criticisms of both series and their involvement in Pulitzer Prize politics. Miner notes that the two series, bundled together, were finalists in the public service category, but prosecutors and their professional associations sent “blistering letters” to the Pulitzer Board. For whatever reason, the series did not win.

5. Interview conducted by the author in April 2006.

6. This refers to accusations that George Ryan's actions on behalf of death penalty reform were intended to divert attention from charges of corruption during his tenure as Illinois secretary of state and governor. While Maurice Possley concluded from conversations with senior staff that the governor's actions were sincerely motivated, Ryan was convicted of 18 counts of corruption in April 2006. To Ryan's staunchest critics his conviction, not his reform efforts, “redeemed Illinois” (Kass, 2006).