Suchergebnisse

Entrevista com o professor Hartmut Wessler.

Resumo O objetivo deste artigo é analisar a forma como cidadãos ordinários entendem e discutem a violência letal contra mulheres e a relação dessas discussões com o enquadramento que diferentes notícias dão a esse tipo de ocorrência. Adotamos a análise de conteúdo como estratégica metodológica para analisar comentários da página do Facebook do jornal O Globo sobre três casos de assassinatos contra a mulher, com enquadramentos jornalísticos distintos. Observamos que o termo feminicídio pode incomodar mais os cidadãos que comentam do que os casos de violência em si.

This article discusses the role of the media in deliberative systems, focusing on the relationship between the news media and the formal arena that is the Brazilian National Congress. We investigate the different ways in which the news media are appropriated by politicians, experts and ordinary citizens in public hearings. We focus on a case study of public hearings on the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil, a controversial issue that has given rise to discussions in different arenas — including such formal ones as the National Congress and such informal ones as social networks and the news media. Our data come from transcripts of public hearings organized by the Brazilian Senate and broadcast on the Senate website and news articles on the issue of criminal responsibility and violence committed by adolescents published during the period of the deliberations. Our findings suggest that people use media materials for different purposes in debates, sometimes to support their own arguments, sometimes to delegitimize alternative opinions. Thus, our results support the idea that the media can function as a connector between different arenas in a deliberative system.

Review of Habermas and the Media by Hartmut Wessler (Medford, MA: Polity, 2018)

1. Introduction -- 2. Normative Controversies: Challenges to Apply a Systemic Approach to Deliberation -- 3. Bringing the Public Sphere and the Media Back to the Systemic Approach -- 4. Justifications as a Linkage Mechanism -- 5. Reason-Giving across Arenas: Elite Actors -- 6. Reason-Giving across Arenas: Broader Public of Citizens -- 7. The Emotional Dimension of Reason-Giving -- 8. Emotions and Reasoning in Divided Groups -- 9. Conclusion and Research Outlook.

This study adopts a systemic approach, focusing on real-world online discussions in legislative-, media-, and activist-based forums, to explore a set of factors that affects reasoned disagreement in digital environments. While conventional analysis investigates the effects of disagreement on civic and political participation, this study unpacks forms of disagreement that retain a principled link with reason-giving. Our findings demonstrate that context matters for shaping online communication, but that other variables have even stronger correlations. Specifically, moderating disagreement—conceptualized as a way of disagreeing that nevertheless signals a background of agreement in the conversation—strongly increases the likelihood of justificatory behavior, and it does so in more categories than bold disagreement. In conclusion, we argue that forms of disagreement and their respective consequences deserve more empirical and normative attention, not only to advance debates on deliberation but also to critically understand the communicative complexities in a new media landscape.