Suchergebnisse

This essay critiques the perceptions & analysis of John Parkinsons examination of the broadcast of Britains National Health Service program in 1998. The responsibility of the news media is not to necessarily give the public the full experience of debates, but rather to provide relevant information that allow opinions to develop. The goals for the Deliberative Poll is to raise viewers levels of interest, give simple cues that may align the viewers opinions with the poll, & to increase policy makers awareness of the impact. As such, the broadcast of the National Health Service program was a success, & Parkinsons own content coding of the program agrees with such evaluation. The perspective of the broadcaster regarding the Deliberative Poll is discussed, as well as the impact on policies & political opinion formation. The statistical cueing of the polls may be less important in understanding the full-information position each member of the public may take. Deliberative Polling has many valuable services, & although its impact on the public may be indirect, its influence on public policy is certainly solid. Appendixes, References. G. Chen

Every face-to-face Deliberative Poll (DP) to date has been the subject of a television broadcast. We consider these broadcasts a helpful adjunct to the design – a way of motivating both the random sample and the policy experts and policy makers to attend, of educating the broader public about the issues, and, perhaps, of nudging public opinion in the direction of the results. In 'Rickety Bridges', John Parkinson examines just one of these broadcasts, Channel 4's on the DP on the future of Britain's National Health Service (NHS) in 1998. Applying his coding of the contents to other DP broadcasts might or might not yield similar results, but we are happy to assume, for argument's sake, that it would. If DP broadcasts are generally doing what he describes the NHS DP broadcast as doing, they are doing pretty well, at least as far as the distribution of coverage is concerned. It is Parkinson's notion of what they should be doing that is mistaken. As a result, his critique is fundamentally misguided.THE AIMS OF DP BROADCASTSParkinson's critique rests on an inappropriate standard. His central claim is that Channel 4's broadcast of the NHS DP did not replicate the participants' experience. Of course it did not. No broadcast could ever give viewers the same experience they would have if they were actually part of the DP's on-site, weekend-long deliberations. The broadcast in that case would have to be weekend-long, and there would actually have to be multiple broadcasts – as many as there are participants – since every participant's experience is different.

The time it takes a court to process its cases, a critical aspect of court performance, varies widely from case to case, from court to court, and within a given court as the court and its environment change over time. The sources of this variation, however, have remained largely obscure.This paper examines the structural and case‐level influences on processing times in three criminal courts experiencing structural changes, including a number of administrative reforms designed to reduce processing times. We find both similarities and differences between courts, but in general both many structural arrangements and many case characteristics affect processing times, with some case characteristics having different effects under different structural arrangements, and some structural arrangements affecting different sorts of cases differently. We conclude with a discussion of implications for court management.

ObjectiveThis article investigates the hypothesis, dating back to de Tocqueville and Mill, that deliberation helps make citizens more "public‐spirited," increasing their support for policies that benefit the community, even at some possible cost to themselves. The hypothesis has previously occasioned much speculation but little empirical investigation.MethodsWe employ data from a series of regional Deliberative Polls in Texas, gathering random samples from seven different service areas for weekend‐long deliberations about the pros and cons of alternative energy choices. Confidential questionnaires were administered at time of recruitment and at the end of the weekend.ResultsThe participants showed an increased willingness to pay for renewable energy, conservation, and to see to it that everyone's basic needs are met. The contours of these results suggest that they should be taken as evidence of increased public‐spiritedness.ConclusionWe provide new evidence in support of the venerable hypothesis that deliberation increases public‐spiritedness—among deliberation's most important but hitherto least examined effects.

Is there—or could there be—a Europe-wide public sphere? Some argue that one already exists, others that none is attainable. This debate turns on what it means to have one—on how much (and what kinds of) cross-border 'discussion' and public input it must entail. An ambitious European public sphere would involve more truly Europe-wide collective will formation and political accountability. This article attempts to move beyond speculation, with a discussion on an ambitious version of a European public sphere. Participants' opinions and vote intentions in Europolis were gauged before and after deliberating. This enables us to probe a double counterfactual: what if there was a more ambitious European public sphere, and what if European Parliamentary elections were consequently more deliberative.

This article presents the results of the first Deliberative Poll, in which a national British sample discussed the issue of rising crime and what to do about it. We describe Deliberative Polling and its rationale, the representativeness of the deliberative sample, the extent to which the participants acquired factual information about the issue and about politics generally, and how much and how they changed their views. We also weigh the extent to which such changes of view hinge on small group influences versus information gains. (British Journal of Political Science / FUB)