A Normative Perspective for Political Entertainment Research: Connecting Deliberative Democracy and Entertainment Theory

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 466-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carina Weinmann ◽  
Peter Vorderer
Author(s):  
Peter Vorderer

This paper points to new developments in the context of entertainment theory. Starting from a background of well-established theories that have been proposed and elaborated mainly by Zillmann and his collaborators since the 1980s, a new two-factor model of entertainment is introduced. This model encompasses “enjoyment” and “appreciation” as two independent factors. In addition, several open questions regarding cultural differences in humans’ responses to entertainment products or the usefulness of various theoretical concepts like “presence,” “identification,” or “transportation” are also discussed. Finally, the question of why media users are seeking entertainment is brought to the forefront, and a possibly relevant need such as the “search for meaningfulness” is mentioned as a possible major candidate for such an explanation.


Author(s):  
Ramya Parthasarathy ◽  
Vijayendra Rao

Author(s):  
David Erdos

This book explores the interface between European data protection and the freedom of expression activities of traditional journalism, professional artists, and both academic and non-academic writers from both an empirical and normative perspective. It draws on an exhaustive examination of both historical and contemporary public domain material and a comprehensive questionnaire of European Data Protection Authorities (DPAs). Empirically it is found that, notwithstanding an often confusing statutory landscape, DPAs have sought to develop an approach to regulating the journalistic media based on contextual rights balancing. However, they have struggled to secure a clear and specified criterion of strictness as regards standard-setting or a consistent and reliable approach to enforcement. DPAs have appeared even more confused as regards other traditional publishers, largely abstaining from regulating most professional artists and writers but attempting to subject all academic disciplines to onerous statutory restrictions established for medical, scientific, and related research. From these findings, it is argued that balancing contextual rights has value and should be both generalized across all traditional publishers and systematically and sensitively developed through structured and robust co-regulation. Such co-regulation should adopt the new code of conduct and monitoring provisions included in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as a broad guideline. DPAs should accord strong deference to any codes and monitoring bodies which verifiably meet the accredited criteria but must engage more proactively when these are absent. In any case, DPAs should also intervene directly as regards particularly serious or systematic issues and have an increasingly important role in ensuring a joined-up approach between traditional publishing and new media activity.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-486
Author(s):  
Arthur D. Santana

Via a content analysis of 4,800 comments from online commenting forums of top news sites, this research examines the overall quality of the comments. Expanding the scope of previous research in this area and guided by the theory of deliberative democracy, the normative conditions for quality discourse were measured with six parameters: civility, reciprocity, reflexivity, rationality, diversity, and relevance. In measuring the quality of the comments, two conditions were the identity of the commenter.


2021 ◽  
pp. 136843102098689
Author(s):  
Pedro A. Teixeira

In keeping with the radical openness of his theory of democracy, Habermas avoided pre-determining the ideal mode of economic organization for his favoured model of deliberative democracy. Instead of attempting a full-blown derivation, in this article, I propose adapting the Rawlsian method of comparing different political–economic regimes as candidate applications of his theory of justice to Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy. Although both theorists are seen as endorsing liberal democratic world views, from the perspective of political economy, the corollary of their conceptions of democracy would arguably veer elsewhere: in Rawls’s case, into the territory of property-owning democracy or democratic socialism, and in Habermas’s, into any political–economic regime which guarantees the real exercise of full political and discursive liberties against the background of legitimate lawmaking. The ultimate aim of this article is to discuss whether a concrete conception of democratic socialism, if any, is compatible with Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy.


Polity ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert W. Dzur

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document