26

Media Analysis
Rousiley C. M. Maia and Tariq Choucair

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

Deliberation occurs in a diversified media landscape. Hybrid communication that
combines broadcast, print, and online communication transverses social wholes,
posing ever greater challenges for researchers to develop methods for captur-
ing media-based deliberation. Traditionally, communication scholars engage with
inquiry into media communication at individual, institutional, and social levels.
Whereas some approaches are quantitative-oriented, including methods such as sur-
veys, experiments, and content analyses, other approaches are qualitative-oriented,
based on visual observation, interviews, discourse analysis, and historical analysis.
There are, indeed, many ways to study media and deliberation.
This chapter focuses on content analysis. We define this research method briefly
as the ‘systematic, objective, quantitative analysis’ of communication content or
message characteristics (Nuendorf and Kumar 2015, 1; see also Krippendorff 2012;
Neuendorf 2017; Riffe et al. 2019). This method is used for making replicable and
valid inferences from written texts or transcribed speeches as well as non-textual
content, such as images, graphical elements, music, and sounds. The term ‘commu-
nication content’, therefore, refers to a broad range of materials such as newspaper
articles, speeches, advertisements, social media posts, blog or microblog texts, and
so forth. The effort to identify units for building code schemes for human coding
requires full specification of the set of categories. Usually, coders are trained to use
categories to measure differences in content; and this training should lead to inter-
coder agreement, that is, stability in the protocol application over time. Then, the
analysis of relationships involving these categories is often based on statistical meth-
ods. If the categories and rules are comprehensive, they should allow replicability
according to the standards of reliability; and the patterns observed are likely to be
valid in a more general way when transported to different contexts (Neuendorf 2017;
Krippendorff 2012). Recently, computer-aided textual analysis has enabled the cod-
ing of massive volumes of material, by accelerating data collection and reliability
testing. With technological development, the use of content analysis has become
more practical and opened up new venues for more sophisticated combinations of
linguistic and visual cues with statistical analysis.
Our definition of content analysis works towards an integrative approach, which
means combining it with methods like surveys, experiments, network analysis, and
frame analysis to examine the roles that media play in deliberation in different

Rousiley C. M. Maia and Tariq Choucair, Media Analysis. In: Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy.
Edited by Selen A. Ercan, Hans Asenbaum, Nicole Curato, and Ricardo F. Mendonça, Oxford University Press.
© Oxford University Press (2022). DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192848925.003.0026
 Rousiley C. M. Maia and Tariq Choucair 371

political contexts. Following the systemic turn, scholars have become particularly
concerned with linkages between micro and macro analyses, so as to find different
ways to embed deliberative practices or discussions within forums in some larger
social whole (Bächtiger and Parkinson 2019; Dryzek and Hendriks 2012; Hendriks
et al. 2020; Mansbridge et al. 2012). This theoretical understanding poses several
methodological challenges in the field of political communication and media stud-
ies, given the breadth, scope, complexity, and the speed of transformations in the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

contemporary media landscape.
This chapter aims to take on this challenge. We argue that the integrative approach
we offer contributes towards building methodological strategies for studying distinct
types of media in deliberative systems. We develop this chapter by demonstrating
various levels of analysing media and public deliberation. In the first section, we
demonstrate how content analysis can be used to examine mass media material, such
as newspaper outlets, magazines, TV news, and news media articles. We argue that
investigating the content of mass media provides insights into the mechanisms that
enable perspectives, discourses, and claims to become available to broad audiences
and circulate in the public sphere, transcending space and time. Content analysis, in
this context, can be integrated with surveys, network analysis, and statistical methods
to understand the dynamics of public debates. In the second section, we exemplify
the use of content analysis to examine deliberation in diversified media platforms,
including websites, social network sites, weblogs, and micro-blogs. We argue that the
growing literature in digital media has provided ever more precise characterizations
of online communication and distinct conditions of deliberative engagement, not
only in deliberatively designed forums but also in other sites of democratic systems.
In the final section, we demonstrate how content analysis can be adaptive across set-
tings, in both micro and macro levels of analysis. We combine content analysis with
statistical methods and frame analysis to reveal a multilayered analysis of deliberation
in different contexts. This can be done by using less standardized coding typologies
and ramified analytical strategies to track media dynamics. We outline some research
designs to illustrate the viability of this approach.

Analysing Mass Media Material to Map Debates

in the Public Sphere
Deliberation, conceived as a society-wide practice, requires argumentative exchange
in public. Assessing broader acts of reason-giving and justification in the public
sphere is complicated and underdeveloped, but there are several advances in this
field from which empirical researchers can draw. Traditionally, scholars have inves-
tigated how a specific type of media, such as newspapers, TV programmes, and radio
talks, could operate as forums for civic debate, by selecting topics and employing a
set of operations to build public discussions. Content analysis is one of the widely
used methods in this field.
372 Media Analysis

There are at least two major approaches that use mass media samples for analysing
public debates. The first approach seeks to map speakers and arguments that are
included in media-based communication about an issue-specific controversy. Earlier
studies investigated the set of speakers and claims that gain access to journalis-
tic coverage and other forms of mass communication (Page 1996; Bennett et al.
2004). Later studies became more explicitly interested in capturing clashes amongst
actors and discourses in journalistic material in order to reconstruct public con-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

troversies. Examples include public debates on abortion (Ferree et al. 2002), gun
control (Callaghan and Schnell 2001; Maia 2009), same-sex marriage (O’Connor
2017), voting systems (Pilon 2009), education public policy (Saraisky 2015), and
technological issues (Peters et al. 2008; Schneider 2008). More recent studies (Häus-
sler 2018; Lycarião and Wozniak 2017; Maia, 2012a, 2018) incorporated conceptual
tools of deliberation, that when properly conceived cannot be conflated with face-to-
face interactions, adapted code schemes (Steenbergen et al. 2003; Steiner et al. 2004;
Steiner 2012), and distinct forms of operationalization.
The second approach takes a comparative perspective to investigate the perfor-
mance of newspapers, magazines, and TV news across distinct media systems in
different countries. Studies here often focus on variations in national news culture
and political systems, and explore factors such as autonomy of media organizations,
format of news, professionalism, audiences, and journalist–source relations (van der
Wurff et al. 2013; Schmidt et al. 2013; Wessler and Rinke 2014). Comparative con-
tent analysis is useful for evincing complexities in the relations between journalists,
political/economic elites, and civic actors (Hallin and Mancini 2004, 2012). It helps to
elucidate broader political and social structures that shape news practices and affect
different deliberative dimensions of journalistic performances, which can result in
greater or lesser plurality of voices and degree of responsiveness in the news media.
Some studies in this field have moved towards multimodal analysis, by incorporat-
ing concepts of framing, narration, and visual representation in the code scheme
(Wessler et al. 2016; Wozniak et al. 2014).
In this section, we explore methodological strategies related to the first approach.
Assuming that public debates are processes that unfold over time (Habermas 1996;
Häussler 2018; Mansbridge et al. 2012), our research group (Maia 2009, 2012a;
Marques and Maia, 2012a; 2012b; Cal and Maia, 2012; Mendonça and Maia, 2012)
have developed a set of indicators for capturing different dimensions of media
debates.
The original code scheme included four indicators:

1. Inclusivity and characterization of participants. Who gains access to media are-

nas? What are the inclusion criteria in journalistic coverage, and how much
space or time is allocated to speakers? This variable captures the inclusion of
social actors and their claims in specific media.
 Rousiley C. M. Maia and Tariq Choucair 373

2. Use of arguments. Do participants present reasons in support of their views,

preferences, recommendations in public? Is media-based communication
grounded on justification and demonstration? This variable enables the map-
ping of con and pro arguments put forward in the media arena regarding a
specific controversy.
3. Reciprocity and responsiveness. Is there any dialogue or any possibility of mutual
response in public amongst speakers with different views? Is there reference to

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

utterances of other actors? Who responds to whom in media-based commu-
nication? This variable aims to identify patterns of discursive interactions and
rebuttals on a large scale.
4. Reflexivity and reversibility of opinions. Are changes in position or preference
observable? This variable is related to processes through which participants
may review their opinions and arguments in public.

Building on previous studies (Ferree et al. 2002; Peters 2008; Peters et al. 2008; Wessler
2008), we argue that media debate dynamics can be observed at different levels: from
the utterance in a given news media or different outlets, in varying time scales (over a
short-term or a long-term period). To capture inclusivity, ‘who speaks in the media’,
the coding scheme needs to be adapted for the type of media under scrutiny. In news
media material, for instance, speakers’ utterances can be tracked either through direct
quotations that preserve the original wording, or through summarized speech that is
attributed to sources. A single news article can weave together voices of diverse actors,
and boundaries between the voices of reporters and the persons reported are main-
tained to varying levels (Maia 2012a; Wessler 2008). Moreover, media professionals
grant differentiated ‘standing’ to speakers, that is, acknowledgement of the value of
one’s voice—in a way more or less indexed to prominence, prestige, or reputation
enjoyed by a certain actor/group in a given society (Bennett et al. 2004; Ferree et al.
2002). Speakers’ utterances may assume different meanings depending on the loca-
tion in the media context (Bennett et al. 2004; Esser and Strömbäck 2014; Ferree et al.
2002). While official sources, such as spokespersons are often prioritized (Entman
2004; Tresch 2009), the composition of sources can vary widely between media sys-
tems in different countries, and across issues and circumstances in the same country
(Dimitrova and Strömbäck 2009).
Content analysis becomes especially interesting if we categorize the speakers
according to their institutionally defined roles. Here, Peters’ (2008) and Habermas’s
(2006, 2009) centre–periphery model of circulation of political power provides use-
ful guidelines to classify speakers in news stories, in accordance to: (a) agents of the
executive body; (b) legislative houses; (c) judiciary; (d) political parties; (e) experts;
(f) media agents, such as journalists, editors, commentators; (g) entrepreneurs;
(h) organized civil society, advocacy groups, and non-governmental associa-
tions; (i) intellectuals, artists, and celebrities; (j) church; and (k) ordinary people.
Investigating the composition of speakers in different sections of the newspapers
(editorials, commentaries, reports, interviews, and news stories) and examining
374 Media Analysis

news-making operations (such as procedures to establish opinions’ hierarchy, to

roll up argumentation, to grant legitimacy to claims, etc.) offers important cues for
understanding professional communicators’ attempts to shape the overall course of
a debate (Bennett et al. 2004; Esser and Strömbäck 2014). Citizens’ opinions are typ-
ically located in less important spaces in news stories (Hopmann and Shehata 2011;
Ferree et al. 2002). Yet, the participation of civil society actors in many important
debates occurring in the media arena is not as marginal as is usually thought. A

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

number of studies have demonstrated a greater presence of civil society actors in
challenger debates and the importance of the themes, claims, and criticisms they
address to political and economic elites (Häussler 2018; Peter et al. 2008; Schneider
2008).
Content analysis is also valuable for investigating the types of arguments dis-
played in public communication, as related to values, interests, vocabularies, and
performances of different categories of speakers. The Discursive Quality Index
(Steenbergen et al. 2003; Steiner et al. 2004; Steiner 2012) has been adapted to exam-
ine the structure of justifications—their logical connection and level of completeness,
and the content of reasons alluding to the common good or abstract principles. To
map the discursive space in more detail, one can include a list of pro and con argu-
ments in the code scheme (Ferree et al. 2002; Maia 2009, 2012). Toulmin’s model of
argumentation (Toulmin 2003 [1958]) has also provided guidelines to capture types
of evidence given in arguments (for example, empirical, statistic, research findings, and
legal evidence) and types of warrants (for example, conditional, analogy, value-based,
meta-proposal) (Adams 2014; Karpowitz and Raphael 2014; Maia et al. 2020a).
An effective way of examining the complexities of reciprocity and reflexivity in
the public sphere is to focus on sequential moments of media-based communica-
tion. In longitudinal studies, content analysis helps in assessing changes in discourses
over time. Depending on the research goals, data collection of news material can be
planned to cover varying periods of time—weeks, years, or even decades. By sequenc-
ing justifications offered by actor categories in the news media over time, conflictual
or co-operative relations become apparent (Nerlich and Jaspal 2013; Michailidou
2015). One can assess whether speakers make explicit reference to other actors’ argu-
ments, and shift emphasis or re-balance their positions in the face of other actors’
claims (Häussler 2018; Maia 2009, 2012a). In the aggregate level, the voices, claims
or discourses that either grow stronger or decline throughout the analyzed period
can also be observed (Ferree et al. 2002; Schneider 2008; Kirilenko and Stepchenkova
2012; Saraisky 2015).
Understanding correlations between actors’ argumentation in media communi-
cation and impacts on institutional decision-making helps to illuminate agreements
and sorts of justification that become more collectively acceptable as discussions
progress (Baumgartner et al. 2008; Boykoff 2013; Ferree et al. 2002; Häussler
2018; Maia 2009, 2012a, 2014). As will be discussed later, mass media-based
 Rousiley C. M. Maia and Tariq Choucair 375

communication can be combined with deliberation acts observed in parliament or

civic forums, to advance analysis of patterns of interactions amongst actors in various
settings.

Deliberation in Diversified Online Platforms

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

Content analysis has been widely employed in the field of online deliberation. The
first step in the process of analyszing deliberation through content analysis is to
understand the affordances of online communication. One should investigate, for
example, the level of identifiability/anonymity of discussants, the format of com-
munication based on synchronous/asynchronous interactions; the presence/absence
of moderation; the information available for forum users or technical equipment
provided for communication (smartphone devices, type of Internet connection, web-
cams, amongst others) (Esau et al. 2017; Kies 2010; Maia 2014; Maia and Rezende
2016; Strandberg and Grönlund 2014, 2018; Stromer-Galley 2007). By understand-
ing this, we get a sense of how online discussion is shaped by the design and purpose
of the forum. For example, one can ask whether a forum fosters a deliberative stance.
After understanding the affordances of digital settings, the second step is to analyse
the content of communicative exchange taking place there. Frequently, content anal-
ysis involves building representative samples of digital material (such as posts and
forum users’ comments) to measure the characteristics of communication reflecting
deliberative dimensions. To develop code schemes, scholars usually focus on delib-
erative dimensions, such as expression of considered opinions, levels of justification
supporting positions, expression of civility or respect towards others and arguments,
levels of disagreement and rebuttals, reciprocity, appeals to the common good, use
of personal stories, revision of views, and opinion change (Dahlberg 2001a, 2001b;
Esau et al. 2017; Janssen and Kies 2005; Kies 2010; Stromer-Galley 2007). To analyse
the deliberative quality of online discussions, code schemes have often adapted the
Discourse Quality Index (Steenbergen et al. 2003; Steiner et al. 2004). Yet, particular
attention should be given to features of the digital environment and variations in the
context of interactions.
This means that the variables of the code scheme should be constructed in such
a way as to apprehend the specificities of online discussions. When analysing news
website spaces for comments, for instance, one should identify whether a partici-
pant is responding to the news story or to other participants’ remarks (Kies 2010;
Stromer-Galley 2007). In digital forums, it is also important to observe to what extent
participants are responding to an existing thread or creating a new one (Kies 2010;
Stromer-Galley 2007; Bravo and Sáez 2016). These two aspects help in identifying
and measuring reciprocity, so as to understand who is interacting with whom, and
in what ways, and whether the content is reciprocally shared. Discussants in digi-
tal settings often use hyperlinks to address content displayed in other spaces, such
376 Media Analysis

as news portals, videos on distinct platforms, and even to other discussion threads.
Identifying and analysing the hyperlinks ‘allow us to see connections among sites of
deliberation being made at a granular level’ (Lyons 2017, 8). Moreover, online forum
users, in contrast to face-to-face forum participants, use sources by directly ‘liking’
messages, building on previous comments or complementing content with their own
opinions and arguments (Kies 2010; Stromer-Galley 2007; Bravo and Sáez 2016).
These are crucial elements to investigate because social media ‘likes’ and shares,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

despite not directly explaining deliberative engagement, enable us to make more fine-
grained interpretations of the scope and scale of a given online discussion, within the
ecosystem of referentiality and reflexivity in digital environments.
Since the growing literature in digital media has become ever more complex and
diversified, it defies an easy summary of the distinct ways in which content analysis
has been used in this field. Depending on the research goal, scholars have employed
content analysis to investigate:

(1) the effects of specific designs and affordances (such as identifiabil-

ity/anonymity and heterogeneity/homophily) on political discussions
(Lewiński and Mohammed 2012; Esau et al. 2017; Halpern and Gibbs 2013;
Mitozo and Marques 2019);
(2) distinct dynamics of civil/uncivil discussions and disrespect in spaces har-
bouring like-minded people or adversarial discussion on YouTube, blogs, and
Facebook pages (Molaei 2014; Muddiman et al. 2017; Maia and Rezende 2016;
Rossini and Maia forthcoming);
(3) factors that enable forum users to engage in a more egalitarian conversation
on news websites and social media networks (Maia 2014; Rowe 2015);
(4) types of outcomes of online discussion, concerning their influences on polit-
ical policies and opinion changes (Strandberg and Grönlund 2012; Filatova
et al. 2019; Bravo and Sáez 2016);
(5) group polarization, disagreement and toxic discussions favouring intolerance
and distrust of political institutions (Smith 2019; Maia et al. forthcoming).

It is worth noting that scholars investigating online deliberation have recently moved
towards comparative content analysis, including more components and connections
between data sets, which is beneficial for producing multifaceted descriptions and
more nuanced evaluations of each component. While earlier studies have analysed
only the verbal content of online discussions, later works have become more atten-
tive to contexts and goals of different online settings to better understand the wider
implications of their findings. For instance, Esau et al.’s (2020) study has differenti-
ated between highly formal (a government-run consultation platform), semi-formal
(mass media), and informal (social media) arenas, and employed content analysis
to examine an issue-specific debate (German immigration policy) to track varia-
tions regarding rationality, reciprocity, respect, constructiveness, storytelling, and
 Rousiley C. M. Maia and Tariq Choucair 377

expression of emotion in these settings. Maia et al. (2020b) have systematically anal-
ysed the relationships between disagreement and reason-giving in online discussions
about a controversial issue (lowering the age of criminal responsibility) in arenas that
serve distinct functions in the political system (legislative public hearings, news web-
sites, and an activist social media page [Facebook]). The authors have also traced the
implications of these practices for public reasoning. A growing body of studies has
produced cumulative knowledge on practices of political discussion and deliberation

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

underlying political participation and information seeking, and their associated out-
comes. To date, studies that employ content analysis to map the systematic linkages
between online discussions and broader components in the deliberative system are
still rare.

The Integration of Content Analysis with Other

Methods
So far, we have highlighted that studies on political communication and delibera-
tion have become more methodologically sophisticated through a mixed methods
approach. In this section, we argue that media research on deliberation can be
fruitfully expanded by combining content analysis with additional data derived
from surveys, face-to-face discussions in legislative or civic forums, frame anal-
ysis, statistical methods, and so forth. The integrative approach offers a tool for
identifying relationships between political messages in media (news stories, social
media, and Twitter, for instance) and other communicative practices from political
representatives, experts, civil society organizations, and ordinary citizens. Research
incorporating a mixed methods approach enables a better investigation of multiple
venues for public information and discussion, traversing mass media and online set-
tings. To be sure, researchers are expected to develop theoretically informed research
designs and analysis protocols, including a clear description of the rationale for craft-
ing the research questions or hypotheses, producing the coding scheme, and defining
the sample and unit of analysis.
To illustrate this analytical effort, we report studies developed by participants
of the Research Group on Media and the Public Sphere, from the Federal Uni-
versity of Minas Gerais (EME/UFMG). Our aim in this section is to illustrate the
methodological options, trade-offs, and difficulties that arise in actual research.

Comparing Actors’ Reasoning across Different Arenas

One possible research design for examining actors’ reasoning within the deliberative
system is to focus on different well-defined contexts of communication to investigate
378 Media Analysis

an analytically equivalent phenomenon under different conditions. A study was

designed to analyse reason-giving by experts when these actors participate in legisla-
tive public hearings and when they serve as sources for news media stories (Maia et al.
2016). A first methodological difficulty arose regarding how to achieve conceptual
validity, since it can be notoriously difficult to compare reason-giving in legislative
forums and reason-giving in comments for news making.
Our first step was to define an issue-specific debate—a controversial bill of law

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

proposing to transfer the city bus station from its downtown central location to a
new district—in order to produce ‘contextualized comparisons’ (Locke and Thelen
1998, 11). This procedure requires the researcher to make self-conscious and detailed
considerations about contextual factors and the similarities/differences within the
phenomenon in the selected settings. In our case, reason-giving is expressed in dif-
ferent forms in legislative public hearings and news media stories, and these forms
needed to be conceptually and empirically distinguished. Our sample involved tran-
scripts of three public hearings over two years and news stories concerning this issue,
collected from three local newspapers during the same period. To produce sample
equivalence we defined claims, that is, speech acts containing a demand (Steiner et al.
2004), as the unit of analysis. We followed the conventional procedure described in
the literature on deliberation to identify claims in parliaments, that is, speech acts
that contained a demand (Steiner et al. 2004, 55). In the news media material, we
compiled every direct quotation or close paraphrase attributed to a speaker in the
news text; and the analysis paralleled those of the public hearing transcripts. To reach
higher levels of measurement equivalence, we compared the experts’ arguments with
arguments expressed by all participants in the public hearings and news stories alike.
After clustering similar arguments, we found forty-eight arguments in all material.
Altogether, 374 claims were analysed, sixty-seven from the public hearings and
307 from printed newspapers. Following an adapted version of the Discourse Qual-
ity Index, we elaborated a twenty-two-variable codebook for content analysis. To
substantiate our study, the content of pro and con arguments was also investigated.
Our findings revealed that experts played a similar role in both formal micro are-
nas (public hearing) and informal macro arenas (news media); they predominantly
used arguments without any explicit reference to the common good and avoided
engaging with conflicting arguments from third parties in these two settings. Since
experts used mainly qualified and sophisticated levels of justification in both envi-
ronments, this study, counter-intuitively, provided evidence that experts did not
necessarily issue ‘lower-level’ justifications in media-based communication, in front
of large audiences. Experts typically did not incorporate counterarguments in their
utterances, and they were not politically accountable when confronted with other
interests and goals for society, either in the legislative forum or in the journalistic
arena. Interestingly, experts’ views, however, have been taken up by other discus-
sants (non-experts), and the majority of speakers disputed their political preferences,
 Rousiley C. M. Maia and Tariq Choucair 379

mostly using technical-knowledge justifications in both formal and informal contexts

under scrutiny.
Another study was designed to map how activists—‘Movimento Tarifa Zero de
Belo Horizonte’ (Free Bus Fare Movement)—built arguments in three different are-
nas (Arantes 2017; Maia et al. 2017). The settings were: face-to-face open assemblies
in public spaces involving the local population; a Facebook page administered by the
activists; and the news media covering the topic at stake, when Tarifa Zero move-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

ment’s speakers served as a source for journalists. We built a five-variable codebook
(including the mobilization goals, expansion of the movement, sort of divulgation,
diagnostics/strategies, arguments), which was applied when examining the tran-
scripts of the assemblies, the content of news articles, and Facebook posts, covering a
three-month period. Specific categories were built for specific settings. We analysed
the topics under discussion in each setting, and classified the content of arguments
according to the following aspects: evidence (factual statement, story); conclusions
(proposal, problem definition); and warrants (conditional, value statement, analogy,
and meta-proposal) (Adams 2014). In addition, we analysed the content of argu-
ments. This analytical framework revealed the activists’ reasoning variations across
settings as part of a broader discursive dynamic and their sequential interactions with
distinct actors in society.
The type of research reported above does not aspire to select cases that are repre-
sentative of diverse populations. Process tracking here focuses on processes within a
particular case, not on correlation of data across cases. Our aim was to uncover, as
much as test, reason-giving mechanisms that might explain our correlational find-
ings in distinct settings. This methodological framework can offer rich explanations
as to the linkages between arenas and a good picture of the complexity of actors’
reasoning in distinct settings within the deliberative system. These studies, never-
theless, reflect a relative difficulty in making generalizations that apply to broad
populations.

Comparing Frames and Reasons in Multiple Sites

Another good example of research design seeking complementarity of methods
includes articulation of content analysis and frame analysis. In studies about delib-
eration, this combination is beneficial because it enhances ways of looking at a given
problem and provides different paths of empirical investigation so as to develop
more effective explanations. For instance, more conventional content analysis of
claim justification reveals nuances of the logical structure of specific arguments, ref-
erences to own-group or other groups, the common good, and abstract principles
(Steenbergen et al. 2003; Steiner et al. 2004; Steiner 2012). This method alone, never-
theless, has difficulties in dealing more satisfactorily with issues of macro analysis.
By contrast, frame analysis enables the analyst to grasp the broader perspectives
380 Media Analysis

that underpin: (a) disputed definitions of the problem at stake, (b) attribution of
responsibility and (c) solutions offered for conflict resolution (Chong and Druckman,
2007a, 2007b, 2011). Yet, this method fails to show concretely how objections are built
and how preferences are explained and transformed. By definition, frame analysis
allows researchers to capture perspectives and interpretive schemes encompassing a
full range of ideas, as an ‘organizing principle’ that people use to structure the world,
current events, and their experiences (Druckman 2004; Entman 1993; Goffman 1974;

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

Kahneman and Tversky 1984; Maia and Vimieiro 2013; Matthes and Kohring 2008).
Methodologically, arguments and frames can be comparable in a congruent man-
ner within settings and across different contexts, allowing for the investigation of the
phenomena in more detail and accommodating larger interpretations.
In this line, the study developed by Choucair (2018; see also Choucair et al. 2018)
examined both arguments and frames employed in discussions in formal as well as
informal settings. Focusing on an issue-specific debate—a Bill of Law proposing more
rigid criminalization of abortion in Brazil (Bill of Law 5069/13)—this research anal-
ysed: (i) speech acts from political representatives in three deliberative meetings of
the Commission of Constitution and Justice and Citizenship (CCJC) of the Chamber
of Deputies, where the constitutionality of the Bill was voted; and (ii) posts and com-
ments regarding the aforementioned Bill on Facebook from diverse actor categories.
This study used content analysis to investigate whether pro and con justifications,
expressed in citizens’ informal online discussions, correlate with those vocalized by
representatives in legislatures at the centre of the political system. A frame analysis
was also performed in the same material.
Since this research sought to say something about political representation, concep-
tualized in terms of discourse (Bohman 2012; Saward 2009; Maia 2012b), analysis of
discussion within legislatures would not be enough. We sought to create a represen-
tative sample to allow inferences from a larger population. Data collection included
Facebook posts over a one-year period, encompassing a wide range of actors, such
as ordinary citizens, members of social movement organizations, religious leaders,
experts and political representatives, and celebrities. In total, we mapped 1158
Facebook pages from these different actors. A total number of 310,151 posts were
collected from these pages. The estimated number of comments on these posts was
3,009,677.1
Given the huge number of online settings, the problem of site selection in the dig-
ital media landscape constitutes one of the central challenges in current research. To
deal with a realistic number of observations, we built a probabilistic sample of com-
ments and posts.2 To produce conceptual refinement with a higher level of validity

1 Given the difficulty in collecting such a large amount of Facebook data, we decided to collect only
posts. Then, comments were collected from the probabilistic sample of posts, which indicated that there
were approximately 3,009,677 comments in total, with 95 per cent reliability and 5 per cent sample error.
2 We constructed a probabilistic sample of posts (N = 382) and comments (N = 655) with 95 per cent
reliability and 5 per cent sample error.
 Rousiley C. M. Maia and Tariq Choucair 381

over a small number of cases, we built a 19-variable codebook to capture the position,
the arguments (both pro and con) and the elements of the frame—the definition of
the problem (Entman 1993) divided between the definition of the problem in relation
to whom, that is, the actor, and the definition of the problem in relation to what, that
is, the topic (Matthes and Kohring 2008); moral judgements (Entman 1993) divided
between positive and negative judgements; diagnosis of causes (Entman 1993); and
suggestion of solutions (Entman 1993).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

By employing both content analysis and frame analysis, this study allowed
advancement on different fronts. Analysis of arguments indicated that a large num-
ber of aspects about abortion criminalization were discussed on Facebook, whereas
political representatives were more strictly focused on the Project of Law 5069. More-
over, a wide range of arguments was employed by Facebook users, whereas only a few
of these arguments were expressed by political representatives. These results do not
necessarily constitute a legitimacy problem, deliberatively speaking, insofar as polit-
ical representatives may ‘filter’ a multitude of detailed issues regarding controversial
debates and provide a synthesized argumentation.
Application of frame analysis, however, revealed important new features of the
discursive process itself. By examining the frames employed in formal and infor-
mal settings a notable result emerged: while the abortion issue was mostly framed
as a problem pertaining to women’s concerns (38 per cent) in Facebook discus-
sions, legislative discussants rarely used this frame (15 per cent). This discrepancy
is particularly significant because this was the prevalent framing pattern in citizens’
discussions on both sides of the debate, that is, amongst those speakers in favour or,
as well as those against, abortion criminalization. Thus, this finding suggests a seri-
ous disconnect in the interpretive scheme employed by citizens and their political
representatives regarding the causal diagnosis as well as suggested solutions to the
problem at stake.

Conclusion
This chapter explored how different types of media can be analysed in conjunction
with deliberative theory. We aimed to provide brief descriptions of different types
of research to highlight the applications for, and main trends in, the use of content
analysis in a variety of contexts. After surveying studies on mass communication
and digital media, this chapter indicated some ways to link micro and macro analy-
ses. We argued that content analysis, when integrated with other methods, helps to
produce a better understanding of different connections between actors, delibera-
tive acts/practices, and media dynamics. Researchers should be encouraged to add
different data to their content analysis whenever possible to take greater account
of the hybrid and multi-platform media environment. This helps to avoid poten-
tially limited interpretations occurring at one site only. In general, images and visual
382 Media Analysis

elements remain underexplored in studies on deliberation. In future studies, schol-

ars may focus on variations of content analysis to capture the broader implications
of visual cues and non-textual ways of producing meaning in public deliberation.
This requires that scholars advance and refine their concepts and become conver-
sant with different methods. The integrative content analysis model, for example, by
combining argumentation and frame investigations, also helps to clarify the strengths
and limitations of specific analytical tools in order to make more informed readings

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

of findings. Obviously, this is a difficult task because content analysis, frame analysis,
and statistical and formal modelling are becoming increasingly sophisticated and are
constantly updated. However, this integrative approach also opens up some impor-
tant opportunities for more collaborative research amongst scholars working with
different methods.

Further Reading
Hallin, Daniel, and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of
Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hallin, Daniel, and Paolo Mancini, eds. 2012. Comparing Media Systems beyond the
Western World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krippendorff, Klaus. 2012. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. 3rd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook. 1st ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

References

Adams, Brian. 2014. ‘Reason-giving in Deliberative Forums’. Journal of Public Delibera-

tion 10 (2): 6.
Arantes, Larissa. 2017. ‘Tarifa zero é mais: a construção do argumento no debate sobre
mobilidade urbana pelo movimento Tarifa Zero de Belo Horizonte.’ Master’s thesis,
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte.
Bächtiger, André, and John Parkinson. 2019. Mapping and Measuring Deliberation:
Towards a New Deliberative Quality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baumgartner, Frank, Suzanna De Boef, and Amber Boydstun. 2008. The Decline of the
Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, W. Lance, Victor Pickard, David Iozzi, Carl Schroeder, Taso Lagos, C. Evans
Caswell. 2004. ‘Managing Public Sphere: Journalistic Construction of the Great Glob-
alization Debate’. Journal of Communication 54 (3): 437–454.
Bohman, James. 2012. ‘Representation in the Deliberative System’. In Deliberative Sys-
tems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited by John Parkinson and Jane
Mansbridge, pp. 72–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Rousiley C. M. Maia and Tariq Choucair 383

Boykoff, Maxwell. 2013. ‘Public Enemy No. 1? Understanding Media Representations of

Outlier Views on Climate Change’. American Behavioral Scientist 57 (6): 796–817.
Bravo, Rosa Borge, and Eduardo Santamarina Sáez. 2016. ‘From Protest to Political
Parties: Online Deliberation in New Parties in Spain’. Media Studies 7 (14): 104–122.
Cal, D. and Maia, R. (2012). ‘Between Diplomatic and Agonistic Deliberation: Making
Sense of Child Domestic Labor’. In Deliberation, the Media and Political Talk, edited by
Rousiley Maia, New York: Hempton Press, p. 255–284.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

Callaghan, Karen, and Frauke Schnell. 2001. ‘Assessing the Democratic Debate: How the
News Media Frame Elite Policy Discourse’. Political Communication 18 (2): 183–212.
Chong, Dennis and Druckman, James.N. 2007a. ‘Framing Public Opinion in Competitive
Democracies’. American Political Science Review, 101: 637–655.
Chong, Dennis and Druckman, James N. 2007b. ‘Framing Theory’. Annual Review of
Political Science, 10: 103–126.
Chong, Dennis and Druckman, James N. 2011. ‘Public-Elite Interactions’. In The Oxford
Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media, ed. George C. Edwards III,
Lawrence R. Jacobs, and Robert Y. Shapiro, pp. 170–188 (Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Choucair, Thais. 2018. ‘Enquadramentos no Sistema Deliberativo: A discussão sobre o
aborto no contexto do Projeto de Lei 5069’. Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal de
Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte.
Choucair, Thais, Rousiley C. M. Maia and Ana Carolina Vimieiro. 2018. ‘Deliberation
across Arenas: Why Frame Analysis Matters in a Systemic Approach to Deliberation’.
The 25th IPSA World Congress of Political Science: Borders and Margins. Brisbane,
Australia.
Dahlberg, Lincoln. 2001a. ‘The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring the
Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere’. Information,
Communication & Society 4 (4): 615–633.
Dahlberg, Lincoln. 2001b. ‘Democracy via Cyberspace: Mapping the Rhetoric and
Practices of Three Prominent Camps’. New Media & Society 3 (2): 157–177.
Dimitrova, Daniela, and Jesper Strömbäck. 2009. ‘Look Who’s Talking: Use of Sources
in Newspaper Coverage in Sweden and the United States’. Journalism Practice 3 (1):
75–91.
Druckman, James. 2004. ‘Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and
the (Ir)Relevance of Framing Effects’. American Political Science Review 98: 671–686.
Dryzek, John, and Carolyn Hendriks. 2012. ‘Fostering Deliberation in the Forum and
Beyond’. In The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Prac-
tice, edited by Frank Fischer and Herbert Gottweis, pp. 31–57. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Entman, Robert. 1993. ‘Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm’. Journal
of Communication 43 (4): 51–58.
384 Media Analysis

Entman, Robert. 2004. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and US
Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Esau, Katharina, Dannica Fleuß, and Sarah-Michelle Nienhaus. 2020. ‘Different Arenas,
Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Delib-
eration on Immigration Policy in Germany’. Policy & Internet. https://doi.org/10.1002/
poi3.232
Esau, Katharina, Dennis Friess, and Christiane Eilders. 2017. ‘Design Matters! An Empir-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

ical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms’. Policy & Internet 9
(3): 321–342.
Esser, Frank, and Jesper Strömbäck. 2014. Mediatization of Politics: Understanding the
Transformation of Western Democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ferree, Myra Marx, Jürgen Gerhards, William Gamson, and Dieter Rucht. 2002. Shaping
Abortion Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Filatova, Olga, Yury Kabanov, and Yuri Misnikov. 2019. ‘Public Deliberation in Russia:
Deliberative Quality, Rationality and Interactivity of the Online Media Discussions’.
Media and Communication 7 (3): 133–144.
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory
of Law and Democracy, translated by William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. ‘Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy
Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical
Research’. Communication Theory 16: 411–426.
Habermas, Jürgen. 2009. Europe: The Faltering Project, translated by Ciaran Cronin.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hallin, Daniel, and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of
Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hallin, Daniel, and Paolo Mancini (eds). 2012. Comparing Media Systems beyond the
Western World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halpern, Daniel, and Jennifer Gibbs. 2013. ‘Social Media as a Catalyst for Online Delib-
eration? Exploring the Affordances of Facebook and YouTube for Political Expression’.
Computers in Human Behavior 29 (3): 1159–1168.
Häussler, Thomas. 2018. The Media and the Public Sphere: a Deliberative Model of
Democracy. New York: Routledge.
Hendriks, Carolyn M., Ercan Selen and A. Boswell, John 2020, Mending Democracy:
Democratic Repair in Disconnected Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopmann, David, and Adam Shehata. 2011. ‘The Contingencies of Ordinary Citizen
Appearances in Political Television News’. Journalism Practice 5 (6): 657–671.
 Rousiley C. M. Maia and Tariq Choucair 385

Janssen, Davy, and Raphaël Kies. 2005. ‘Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy’.
Acta Politica 40: 317–335.
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. 1984. ‘Choices, Values, and Frames’. American
Psychologist 39: 341–350.
Karpowitz, Christopher, and Chad Raphael. 2014. Deliberation, Democracy, and Civic
Forums: Improving Equality and Publicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kies, Raphaël. 2010. Promises and Limits of Web-Deliberation. New York: Palgrave

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

Macmillan.
Kirilenko, Andrei, and Svetlana Stepchenkova. 2012. ‘Climate Change Discourse in Mass
Media: Application of Computer-assisted Content Analysis’. Journal of Environmental
Studies and Sciences 2 (2): 178–191.
Krippendorff, Klaus. 2012. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. 3rd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewiński, Marcin, and Dima Mohammed. 2012. ‘Deliberate Design or Unintended Con-
sequences: The Argumentative Uses of Facebook during the Arab Spring’. Journal of
Public Deliberation 8 (1): 11.
Locke, Richard, and Kathleen Thelen. 1998. ‘Problems of Equivalence in Comparative
Politics: Apples and Oranges, Again’. Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in
Comparative Politics 9 (1): 9–12.
Lycarião, Diogenes, and Antal Wozniak. 2017. ‘The Prism of the Public Sphere: The
COP15 Coverage by the Brazilian Media System’. Journal of Public Deliberation 13
(1): 8.
Lyons, Benjamin. 2017. ‘From Code to Discourse: Social Media and Linkage Mechanisms
in Deliberative Systems’. Journal of Public Deliberation 13 (1): 4.
Maia, Rousiley C. M. 2009. ‘Mediated Deliberation: The 2005 Referendum for Banning
Firearm Sales in Brazil’. International Journal of Press/Politics 14 (3): 313–334.
Maia, Rousiley C. M. 2012a. Deliberation, the Media and Political Talk. New York:
Hampton Press.
Maia, Rousiley C. M. 2012b. ‘Non-political Representation: Expanding Discursive
Domains’. Representation 48: 429–443.
Maia, Rousiley C. M. 2014. Recognition and the Media. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maia, R. (2018). ‘Deliberative media’. In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy,
edited by André Bächtiger, John Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. pp. 348–364.
Maia, Rousiley C. M., and Thaiane Rezende. 2016. ‘Respect and Disrespect in Delibera-
tion across the Networked Media Environment: Examining Multiple Paths of Political
Talk’. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 21: 121–139.
Maia, Rousiley C. M., and Ana Carolina Vimieiro. 2013. ‘Recognition and Moral Progress:
A Case Study About Discourses on Disability in the Media’. Political Studies 63 (1):
161–180.
386 Media Analysis

Maia, Rousiley C. M., Larissa Arantes, and Thaís Choucair. 2017. ‘Troca de razões e
mobilização política: explorando múltiplos espaços comunicativos da esfera pública’.
In Comunicação e cidadania política, edited by Carlo José Napolitano, Maximiliano
Martín Vicente, and Murilo César Soares, pp. 265–288. São Paulo: Cultura Acadêmica.
Maia, Rousiley C. M., Danila Cal, Janine Bargas, and Neylson Crepalde. 2020. ‘Which
Types of Reason-giving and Storytelling Are Good for Deliberation?’ European Political
Science Review 12 (2): 113–132.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

Maia, Rousiley C. M., Gabriella Hauber, Thaís Choucair, and Neylson Crepalde. 2020.
‘What Kind of Disagreement Favors Reason-Giving? Analyzing Online Political Dis-
cussions across the Broader Public Sphere’. Political Studies doi:0032321719894708.
Maia, Rousiley C. M., Marcela Laranjeira, and Pedro Mundim. 2016. ‘The Role of Experts
Across Two Different Arenas in a Deliberative System’. Journal of Public Deliberation
13 (1): 2.
Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung,
John Parkinson, and Mark Warren. 2012. ‘A Systemic Approach to Deliberative
Democracy’. In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited
by John Parkinson and Jane Mansbridge, pp. 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Marques, A. and Maia, R. (2012a). ‘Emotional Appeal for Deliberation: The Homoerotic
Bond in Soap Operas’. In Deliberation, the Media and Political Talk, edited by Rousiley
Maia, New York: Hempton Press, p. 183–207.
Marques, A. and Maia, R. (2012a). ‘Deliberation and Political Socialization: Poor Women
Discuss Published Opinions About Brazilian Income Transfer Program’. In Delibera-
tion, the Media and Political Talk, edited by Rousiley Maia, New York: Hempton Press,
pp. 227–254.
Matthes, Jörg, and Matthias Kohring. 2008. ‘The Content Analysis of Media Frames:
Toward Improving Reliability and Validity’. Journal of Communication 58 (2):
258–279.
Mendonça, R. and Maia, R. (2012). ‘Deliberation Across Arenas? Assessing the Con-
stitution of General Claims About the Future of Leprosy Colonies’. In Deliberation,
the Media and Political Talk, edited by Rousiley Maia, New York: Hempton Press,
pp. 287–313.
Michailidou, Asimina. 2015. ‘The Role of the Public in Shaping EU Contestation:
Euroscepticism and Online News Media’. International Political Science Review 36 (3):
324–336.
Mitozo, Isabele, and Francisco Marques. 2019. ‘Context Matters! Looking beyond Plat-
form Structure to Understand Citizen Deliberation on Brazil’s Portal e-Democracia’.
Policy & Internet 11 (3): 370–390.
Molaei, Hamideh. 2014. ‘The Prospect of Civility in Indonesians’ Online Polarized
Political Discussions’. Asian Journal of Communication 24 (5): 490–504.
 Rousiley C. M. Maia and Tariq Choucair 387

Muddiman, Ashley, Jamie Pond-Cobb, and Jamie Matson. 2017. ‘Negativity Bias or Back-
lash: Interaction with Civil and Uncivil Online Political News Content’. Communication
Research 47 (6): 815–837.
Nerlich, Brigitte, and Rusi Jaspal. 2013. ‘UK Media Representations of Carbon Capture
and Storage: Actors, Frames and Metaphors’. Metaphor and the Social World 3 (1):
35–53.
Neuendorf, Kimberly. 2017. The Content Analysis Guidebook. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

Neuendorf, Kimberly, and Anup Kumar. 2015. ‘Content Analysis’. In The International
Encyclopedia of Political Communication, edited by Gianpietro Mazzoleni, pp. 1–10.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
O’Connor, Cliodhna. 2017. “Appeals to Nature’ in Marriage Equality Debates: A Content
Analysis of Newspaper and Social Media Discourse’. British Journal of Social Psychology
56: 493–514.
Page, Benjamin. 1996. Who Deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Peters, B. 2008. On public deliberation and public culture. In: Wessler, H. (Ed.). Public
deliberation and public culture: the writings of Bernhard Peters, 1993-2005. Basingstoke,
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 68–118.
Peters, Bernhard, Hartmut Wessler, Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt, Cornelia Dereje, and
Marina Sindram. 2008. ‘Red Biotechnology in Media Debate’. In Public Deliberation
and Public Culture: The Writings of Bernhard Peters 1993–2005, edited by Hartmut
Wessler, pp. 160–184. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pilon, Dennis. 2009. ‘Investigating Media as a Deliberative Space: Newspaper Opinions
about Voting Systems in the 2007 Ontario Provincial Referendum’. Canadian Political
Science Review 3 (3): 1–23.
Riffe, Daniel, Stephen Lacy, Frederick Fico, and Brendan Watson. 2019. Analyzing Media
Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. New York: Routledge.
Rossini, Patricia, and Rousiley Maia. forthcoming. ‘Characterizing Disagreement in
Online Political Talk: Examining Incivility and Opinion Expression on News Websites
and Facebook in Brazil’. Journal of Public Deliberation.
Rowe, Ian. 2015. ‘Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News
User Comments across Platforms’. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 59 (4):
539–555.
Saraisky, Nancy. 2015. ‘Analyzing Public Discourse: Using Media Content Analysis to
Understand the Policy Process’. Current Issues in Comparative Education 18 (1): 26–41.
Saward, Michael. 2009. ‘Authorisation and Authenticity: Representation and the
Unelected’. Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (1): 1–22.
Schmidt, Andreas, Ana Ivanova, and Mike Schäfer. 2013. ‘Media Attention for Climate
Change around the World: A Comparative Analysis of Newspaper Coverage in 27
Countries’. Global Environmental Change 23: 1233–1248.
388 Media Analysis

Schneider, Steffen. 2008. ‘United in Protest? The European Struggle over Genetically
Modified Food’. In Transnationalization of Public Spheres, edited by Hartmut Wessler,
Bernhard Peters, Michael Brüggemann, Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, and Ste-
fanie Sifft, pp. 131–167. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, Glen. 2019. Disagreeing Agreeably: Issue Debates with a Primer on Political
Disagreement. New York: Routledge.
Steenbergen, Marco, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli, and Jürg Steiner. 2003. ‘Measur-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022

ing Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index’. Comparative European Politics
1 (1): 21–48.
Steiner, Jürg. 2012. The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and
Normative Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steiner, Jürg, André Bächtinger, Markus Spörndli, and Marco Steenbergen. 2004. Delib-
erative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Strandberg, Kim, and Kimmo Grönlund. 2012. ‘Online Deliberation and its Outcome:
Evidence from the Virtual Polity Experiment’. Journal of Information Technology &
Politics 9 (2): 167–184.
Strandberg, Kim, and Kimmo Grönlund. 2014. ‘Online Deliberation: Theory and Prac-
tice in Virtual Mini-Publics’. In Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the
Democratic Process, edited by Kimmo Grönlund, André Bächtinger, and Maiji Setälä,
pp. 93–113. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Strandberg, Kim, and Kimmo Grönlund. 2018. ‘Online Deliberation’. In The Oxford
Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, edited by André Bächtiger, John Dryzek, Jane
Mansbridge, and Mark Warren. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stromer-Galley, Jennifer. 2007. ‘Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme’.
Journal of Public Deliberation 3 (1): 12.
Toulmin, Stephen. 2003 [1958]. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tresch, Anke. 2009. ‘Politicians in the Media: Determinants of Legislators’ Presence and
Prominence in Swiss Newspapers’. The International Journal of Press/Politics 14 (1):
67–90.
van der Wurff, Richard, Piet Verhoeven, and Maite Gadellaa. 2013. ‘Scientists and Delib-
erativeness of European Public Television News’. Journal of Science Communication
12 (3): 1–20.
Wessler, Hartmut. 2008. ‘Investigating Deliberativeness Comparatively’. Political Com-
munication 30: 474–494.
Wessler, Hartmut, and Eike Mark Rinke. 2014. ‘Deliberative Performance of Television
News in Three Types of Democracy: Insights from the United States, Germany, and
Russia’. Journal of Communication 64 (5): 827–851.
 Rousiley C. M. Maia and Tariq Choucair 389

Wessler, Hartmut, Antal Wozniak, Lutz Hofer and Julia Lück. 2016. ‘Global Multimodal
News Frames on Climate Change: A Comparison of Five Democracies around the
World’. The International Journal of Press/Politics 21 (4): 423–445.
Wozniak, Antal, Julia Lück, Hartmut Wessler. 2014. ‘Frames, Stories, and Images: The
Advantages of a Multimodal Approach in Comparative Media Content Research on
Climate Change’. Environmental Communication 9 (4): 469–490.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/44646/chapter/378696861 by guest on 17 November 2022