Comparing public spheres: Normative models and empirical measurements
Comparing public spheres: Normative models and empirical measurements
复制标题
比较公共领域：规范模型和实证测量
DOI：
10.1177/0267323112459447
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
T. König
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Downey;Sabina Mihelj;T. König
大多数关于公共领域的当代著作倾向于或明或暗地采用哈贝马斯关于协商公共领域的观点作为规范模型。然而，还有许多其他的规范模型很少成为实证审查的主题：共和主义、自由主义和多元文化。本文提出了一个实证问题，即实际存在的公共领域是否更接近于一种模式而不是另一种模式。为了回答这个问题，作者开发了在国家和跨国层面上衡量公共领域的方法。他们通过一个比较六个国家关于欧盟宪法的媒体内容的案例研究，试图从概念和经验上推动比较媒体分析。
Most contemporary work on public spheres tends to adopt, either explicitly or implicitly, Habermas’s idea of a deliberative public sphere as a normative model. There are, however, a number of other normative models available that are rarely the subject of empirical scrutiny: republican, liberal and multicultural. This article poses the empirical question of whether actually existing public spheres more closely resemble one model rather than another. To answer this question, the authors develop ways to measure public spheres, at both national and transnational level. They ground this attempt to move comparative media analysis forward conceptually and empirically via a case study comparing media content about the EU Constitution in six countries.