Content uploaded by Azi Lev-On
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Azi Lev-On on Nov 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Deliberating through the radio: a preliminary assessment
Azi Lev-On
School of Communication, Ariel University, Israel
ABSTRACT
The article explores whether and how the radio can be used as a
medium for deliberative discussion, a process that includes
exposure to information and arguments, and weighing of pros
and cons of various opinions and values until reaching informed
decisions. The article presents an initial assessment of the radio as
a deliberative medium, based on a case study of a national radio
program in Israel, Let’s Talk about It, whose goals were to provide
listeners with information, illuminate issues from diverse and
opposing perspectives, and create a respectful discursive
experience. The article reviews the theoretical underpinnings of
the radio program, and demonstrates how these foundations
were manifest in the program, for example in the choice of topic,
its framing, the selection of participants, and the ground which
were adopted. According to the interviews with panelists and
students who assisted in preparing the program, the program’s
‘added value’was not information gain, but rather the discourse
experience it provided, and the radio was useful particularly in
‘liberation of imagination’, sense of relaxation, and inspiration it
enabled. The paper concludes with insights for similar deliberative
radio programs in the region and elsewhere.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 11 April 2015
Accepted 16 September 2015
KEYWORDS
Deliberation; radio; cultural
pluralism
Theoretical background: the radio as a deliberative medium?
In recent years there has been a growing interest among researchers, professionals, poli-
ticians, and opinion leaders in deliberative practices. The sources of interest are numerous,
ranging from pragmatic motivations to substantive considerations about how democracy
should be deepened. The heightened interest and use of deliberative practices come
either from above (top down), by public leaders who acknowledge that traditional
methods for decision-making are less effective in an increasingly complex world; or
from below (bottom-up), by citizens who have access to information, and are able and
willing to become involved in a more meaningful way in policy-making processes (Yanke-
lovich 1991; Fishkin 2009; Nabatchi 2012). Such practices are derived from and meant to
implement the ideas of deliberative democracy.
According to supporters of deliberative democratic ideas, realizing the idea of democ-
racy should be based not only on representation and voting mechanisms, but also on pro-
cesses including search for information and arguments, and weighing of pros and cons of
various opinions and values until reaching informed decisions (Bohman, 1998; Gutmann
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
CONTACT Azi Lev-On azilevon@gmail.com
JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2015.1103745
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
and Thompson 2004; Fishkin 2009). Fishkin (2009) argues that the quality of deliberation is
a product of access to relevant and accurate information; participants’ability to respond to
arguments they encounter; representation of the major position of the public during the
deliberation; sincere weighing of the arguments by participants; and equal consideration
of the arguments, independent of the participants who offer them. Burkhalter et al. (2002)
describe public deliberation as ‘a combination of careful problem analysis and an egalitar-
ian process in which participants had adequate speaking opportunities and engage in
attentive listening or dialog that bridges divergent ways of speaking and knowing’
(398). Studies demonstrate the importance of satisfaction from the deliberative process
for the development of trust (Gastil et al. 2008), expected future engagement, and per-
ceived decision legitimacy (Stromer-Galley and Muhlberger 2009), and positive attitudes
towards deliberation (Mansbridge et al. 2006; see also Morrell 1999).
As a culturally conscious framework for the study of discourse, the emerging paradigm
of cultural discourse studies is also especially suited for analyzing such deliberations. Since
it is characterized by concern for diversity and cross-cleavage discourse, and due to its
special interest in the historical and cultural relations between communicators, the pur-
poses of discourse, and the media through which it takes place, the cultural discourse
paradigm is especially suitable for extracting insights from such radio-based deliberations
between members of groups in disagreement or conflict (Shi-Xu 2012).
The use of deliberative practices in Israel has grown in recent years and is manifest in
various events where citizens are engaged in public events focusing on health policies,
communication policies, regional development, and more (Goffer 2003; Goldman-
Shayman and Goffer 2008; Guttman et al. 2008; Trachtenberg 2011; Lev-On and Manose-
vitch 2015; Malka 2015), and often involving participants from diverse ethnic, cultural, reli-
gious, and socio-economic origins.
Researchers and practitioners are looking for ways to implement the principles of delib-
erative democracy and to develop practices that can strike a balance between ideal demo-
cratic practices and the limitations that result from the information and knowledge
constraints of participants, time and place, accessibility, cognitive processing abilities,
and more (Yankelovich 1991; Bohman, 1998; Gutmann and Thompson 2004; Fishkin
2009).
1
These practices are distinct from one another in many respects (Nabatchi 2012):
.Objectives: Some processes aim to create a dialog, whereas other processes might aim
at dispute resolution, formulating policy, and more.
.Conveners of the process: Processes are often organized by public authorities or by third
sector organizations. There may be one or more conveners.
.Methodology: Some processes have official names (e.g. deliberative polls), while others
use no branded methodology or combine several methods.
.Place of the process in the public space: Deliberative processes may be conducted at the
local, regional, state, and even international level.
.Connection to policy-making: Some deliberative events are clearly connected to policy
processes, while others are not tied to policy processes and have ‘softer’goals, such
as strengthening mutual understanding, cultivating an exchange of opinions, and more.
An additional dimension of such practices is the medium through which they are con-
ducted. Although many different media may be suitable for deliberative processes,
2A. LEV-ON
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
most deliberative processes are based on print media, increasingly on synchronous com-
munication such as face-to-face meetings, and more recently in online events as well.
Almost entirely absent from the media used for deliberative practices is the radio (David-
son 2002). The few studies that deal with public discourse through the radio focus on gate-
keeping mechanisms, filtering and monitoring user-generated content –practices that
may actually hamper the deliberative climate of the debate (Mathews 1995; Wardle and
Williams 2010; Dori-Hacohen 2012). The single case of the deliberative use of the radio I
was able to trace is Brett Davidson’sDeliberative Talk Radio in South Africa, which dealt
with issues related to the needs of the local community, involved community members
in the production of the program, and facilitated a dialog involving a range of voices
from the community (Davidson 2002,2010).
In a report for the Kettering Foundation entitled Radio and Public Deliberation, Davidson
(2002) surveys the possibilities of generating deliberative spaces through the radio, and
lists the properties of the radio that are relevant to deliberation processes:
.Immediate: Ability to respond in short time frames to local and global developing events
and introduce people with relevant information and perspectives;
.Inexpensive: Radio productions are substantially cheaper than television programs or
face-to-face meetings;
.Accessible: No expensive equipment is needed to receive the broadcasts, and almost no
obstacle of literacy, compared to other media;
.Pervasive: People can listen to the radio from many places, and do other things (such as
driving) while listening;
.Fleeting: If you miss something on the radio, you would not be able to hear it again later,
in contrast to print newspapers or the Internet.
.Theater of the Mind: The radio makes listeners use their imagination to create mental
images, in contrast to television that presents things in a way that encourages
viewers’physical and mental passivity.
These features have advantages and disadvantages in terms of the radio’s function as a
deliberative medium. For example, the fact that content is ‘fleeting’requires an emphasis
on simplicity and repeating the ideas that are discussed. Furthermore, the fact that people
tend to listen to the radio in the background requires marketing strategies that will induce
them to listen to a specific program more carefully.
To the list of features mentioned by Davidson one may add the fact that radio programs
(with no visual component) may create reduced social presence of the participants, com-
pared to face-to-face conversations (Sia et al. 2002; Brosig et al. 2003; Walther et al. 2010).
As a result, participants in radio debates may feel more comfortable sharing their opinions,
free of the inhibitions, and social pressures that may be far more significant in face-to-face
discussions. In addition, when a discussion lacks a visual aspect, listeners are likely to place
greater emphasis on attention to arguments rather than to the external characteristics of
those who make the arguments. This may be especially important in discussions involving
participants from diverse origins.
When comparing Web-based deliberation and radio-based deliberation (based on ter-
restrial or ‘legacy’radio, excluding Internet-based radio), one must also take into account
the mass penetration of the radio and its ease of use, compared to the high variation in
JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 3
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
Internet access and use by individuals and groups.
2
While online deliberation may be open
to all stakeholders, in practice, the existence of digital disparities in Internet access and use
(Norris 2001; Lissitsa and Lev-On 2014) may generate biases in the representation of the
entire landscape of opinions and interests. Radio-based deliberation seems less vulnerable
to such concerns.
The radio might seem inferior to online forums as deliberative arenas due to its inability
to integrate content from many participants. However, the radio’s high penetration and
consequent ability to reach the general population, its increasing ability to integrate
content from the public, especially through convergence based on audio content
embedded in websites and Facebook pages, contribute to the radio’s potential as an effec-
tive platform for public deliberation
It is important to mention the significance of the process of convergence, ‘ahistorically
open-ended migration of communicative practices across diverse material technologies and
social institutions’(Jensen 2010, 15). As a result of convergence processes, content in various
formats (text, audio, video) can be accessed through a single platform, usually through
computers or cellular phones, and media audiences can access related content via
several parallel platforms –for example, watch a TV show, consume complementary con-
tents about it online, and vote via the program’s website or application (see Nielsen 2013).
In recent years, radio stations in growing numbers have established Websites, mobile
applications and presence on social networking sites, thus offering listeners cross-media
experiences that complement the broadcasting studio (e.g. Ferguson and Greer 2011;
Freeman et al. 2012). Such innovations partially compensate for some of the radio’s draw-
backs in the deliberative context; the integration of multiple media made it possible to
listen to the radio program while viewing the broadcast or reading complementary
content online before, during, and after the live broadcast.
The literature on the radio as a medium for deliberation is nearly absent, and this is the
main contribution of this paper. In addition to describing a radio program that may serve
as an adequate platform to manifest the ideas of deliberation, the paper also contributes
by providing an initial assessment of such an endeavor, based on a case study of the delib-
erative radio program Let’s Talk about It. Despite the uniqueness of the program and the
case study research strategy, which limit its generalizability, this case study demonstrates
the potential deliberative qualities of the radio, and may be a significant addition to the
toolbox of culturally conscious deliberative practices.
The deliberative radio program Let’s Talk about It: goals of the program
The current section presents the planning and production process of the deliberative radio
program Let’s Talk about It, which aired twice in April and May 2013 on Reshet Bet of Kol
Israel (The Voice of Israel), the leading national radio station, in the program Social Hour
hosted by Dr Mickey Miro, CEO of Kol Israel. The program was accompanied by an
eight-month academic seminar held during the academic year, attended by 26 students
of communication from different professional backgrounds (studying in radio, TV and
film, digital media, and strategic communications tracks of the School of Communication).
The students learned about deliberative theory and participated in planning the format of
the program, choosing the topics of deliberation, conducting research, recruiting panel
members, and marketing and producing the program.
4A. LEV-ON
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
To conduct a preliminary assessment of the program, immediately after the production
phase was concluded the students were asked to describe in several sentences the experi-
ence of preparing the radio program, as well as the their evaluation of its deliberative
quality. In addition, six interviews were conducted with the panel participants. The inter-
views lasted 30 minutes, and were conducted immediately after the second program was
broadcast. Panel members were asked whether they believed that listeners/viewers
gained knowledge and became more informed as a result of the program; their experi-
ences in the discussion; whether the program encourages openness and tolerance; the
effect of medium of the radio on the deliberation; their opinion about the fact that the
program was promoted through multiple platforms and, finally, whether programs in
this or similar formats should feature more frequently in the station’s programing.
In line with the principles of deliberative democracy (Burkhalter et al. 2002; Fishkin
2009), three main goals were defined for Let’s Talk about It: First, to make information
accessible to listeners and viewers; second, to highlight issues from different angles and
to show the various faces of the alternative agendas; third, to establish a different kind
of discourse than the one commonly experienced in the media and in public debates.
The topic chosen for the program was equal burden. In the year before the program was
broadcast, this issue was dominant in public and media discourse (Mann and Lev-On 2014)
as well as in the 2013 parliamentary election campaigns. In a nutshell, equal burden is a
slogan that implies that all Israeli citizens should contribute equally to meeting state
needs, and is mostly mentioned in connection to military service and the fact that
current arrangements permit most of the growing ultra-Orthodox sector of the Jewish
population to defer, sometimes indefinitely, military service, to the dismay of many
from the secular and national-religious sectors on whom mandatory military service of
several years is imposed. Arguably, the demand for equal burden is a quintessential
issue for Israel, which is a deeply divided society, and policy decisions on this matter
require understanding and cooperation between the different sectors of the Israeli
society (Liebman 1993; Ben-Rafael 2008).
The program’s steering team faced the question of how to frame and present this topic
in the program to make it consistent with deliberative principles. The assumption was that
the various sectors of Israeli society do not conduct a substantive dialog on this issue,
despite its public salience, and in most cases leaders of the different camps preach to
their respective choirs. After background talks with academics and social activists, team
meetings and brainstorming, it was decided to focus the first program on the following
themes:
.Providing information to listeners and viewers about the topics on the agenda in order
to allow listeners to address the issues in a more informed manner. The background
materials were uploaded in advance to the program’s website and Facebook page.
.Discussion about how the public debate on equal burden is conducted, and how the
quality of the debate is affected by framing.
.An examination of ways to enhance the quality of the discourse on equal burden.
.Establishing a dialogic experience that would leverage the previously mentioned
advantages of the radio for deliberation, as well as the benefits of convergence
processes, by airing it simultaneously online, and facilitating a dialog with listeners
through Facebook and other interactive media.
JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 5
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
The marketing materials described the program as follows:
In the radio program Let’s Talk about It …we’ll discuss the relevant questions differently than
how they are commonly discussed in the public and media discourse …Using a panel of del-
egates from ultra-Orthodox, national religious, and secular populations, as well as experts
from academia and practitioners, we try to discover what equality of burden means for differ-
ent sectors of Israeli society. What important data and narratives should each sector know
about other sectors in order to better understand the larger picture? How can we
promote a more deliberative discourse on this and other issues between the various sections
of society?
Participants
A dilemma faced by the steering committee was whether to invite politicians representing
the different positions, or to invite opinion leaders and public activists from the various
sectors. The second option was chosen, on the grounds that panelists who are not poli-
ticians are less bound by inter-party or public relations constraints, and may be better
able to engage in a culturally conscious deliberative process in a more meaningful way,
which may also affect listeners’experiences.
One of the significant elements of public deliberation is the representation of the major
positions of the public during the deliberation (Fishkin 2009). Consequently, panelists were
‘delegates’who came from the Ultra-Orthodox, national-religious, and secular groups, as
well as an academic and practitioners who mastered this topic, and were able to offer an
overview and assist the host in propelling the discussion forward.
The following is a list of panel members:
.Dr Reuven Gal, head of the Orthodox integration project at the Samuel Neeman Insti-
tute for Social Policy Research, one of Israel’s leading experts on ultra-Orthodox inte-
gration in the army and the job market. Dr Gal established the Civil-National Service
Administration in the Prime Minister’sOffice and was its director. In the second
program Dr Gal was replaced as the ‘academic delegate’by Dr Nissim Leon, a lecturer
and faculty member in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Bar-Ilan Uni-
versity, who studies religion and society relations in Israel.
.Rabbi Dov Povarsky represented the ultra-Orthodox sector. Rabbi Povarsky served as a
military rabbi until 2005 and later established the leading ultra-Orthodox Website
‘Bechadrei Charedim’.
.Rabbi Yitzhak Nissim represented the national-religious sector. Rabbi Nissim is the head
of the pre-army preparatory institution Elisha and a Rabbi at Puaa Institute.
.Ms Zahra Berger-Tzur, one of the founders of the forum for equal burden and member
of its executive committee.
The programs were hosted by Dr Michael Miro, CEO of The Voice of Israel radio station.
Setting the ground rules and the structure of the program
Preparatory talks were held with panel participants in advance, where they were asked to
comply with the ground rules of the program, specifically mutual respect, listening, sus-
pending judgment, and making an honest attempt to understand the internal logic of
6A. LEV-ON
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
the arguments made by other panel members. Notably, the production team did not
assume that participants held common deliberative norms, or that they would eventually
reach a consensus about framing the issue of equal burden.
After framing the program and selecting the participants, the next challenge of the
steering committee was to decide on a program structure that corresponds to the
concept and the medium. The committee decided to divide the first program into three
parts:
.Part 1: What does the term equal burden mean to me and to the sector I belong to? Would I
define it differently and if so, how?How does the term ‘equal burden’affect public
discourse?
.Part 2: What is the starting point from which I and the sector I belong to approach the
dialog on equal burden? The purpose of this section was to understand the narratives
of the different sectors, which is especially valuable in a deliberative program, since
public discourse is often between like-minded individuals, and cross-sector/cross-clea-
vage communications are rare. Without listening to other groups’narratives expressed
by their own ‘delegates’, such narratives may be distorted and misrepresented by inter-
mediaries, while hearing them from an ‘authentic representative’may enlighten the
understanding of their underlying assumptions and justifications. Participants were
asked to offer data in support of their arguments, and focus on those narratives that
they think other sectors (and their delegates) are not familiar with.
.Part 3: What do you think about the way in which the public debate on equal burden is
conducted? How can the quality of public discourse be improved? What would you like
public discourse to be like and what can be done to promote this vision?
The program incorporated the following interactive elements:
.A survey on the topic of equal burden, which included questions such as ‘Which of the
following: military service, national service, participation in the workforce and reserves –
in your opinion is most significant to equal burden?’and ‘To what extent are these
factors significant to the sense of belonging to this state?’Findings from the survey
were presented in the relevant parts of the program.
.Interviews through Skype with experts, to illuminate various perspectives.
.Feedback from users posted to the program’s Facebook page.
At the beginning of the program, the host, Dr Miro, reiterated the rules and said that he
will ask fewer questions than usual to make room for listening and dialog. During the
program, participants spoke in turn and were allotted equal time for each answer.
For the second program, the production team decided to put current affairs aside and
try to look ‘beyond the horizon’. The assumption was that this would allow for a more con-
structive and attentive dialog. The opening questions were: What should the contribution of
each sector to Israeli society be a decade from now? How should the relationship between the
different sectors of Israeli society look within a decade? Later the program came back to the
‘here and now’and tried to see if the panelists agreed on what should be done in the
present to achieve these objectives. The transcripts and recordings of both programs
(in Hebrew) are available at aunmedia.org/DeliberativeRadio.
JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 7
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
Responses of panelists and students
In order to assess the impressions of panel members and the students who participated in
the preparation of the program, interviews were conducted with both panelists and stu-
dents. As noted earlier, panel members were asked to describe their experience, and also
whether they believed that listeners/viewers gained knowledge and became more
informed as a result of the program; whether the program encourages openness and tol-
erance; what they think about the radio as a deliberative medium; and whether programs
in this or a similar format should be included frequently on the broadcasts list.
Participants’opinions differed on whether program listeners and viewers became
better informed and more knowledgeable. Panel members argued that listeners and
viewers undoubtedly learned about the issue of equal burden, but Dr Leon thought
that listeners may not have reflected on this knowledge in the course of the program,
since he doubted that they had read any background material. He said: ‘Voices were
heard, but not necessarily reflected upon.’
According to interviews with the panelists, the program’s significant ‘added value’was
not information gain, but rather the discourse experience it provided. Interviewees
emphasized the selection of panel members, and the host who insisted on in-depth delib-
eration. Rabbi Povarsky, Rabbi Nissim, Ms Berger-Tzur, and Dr Miro were positively
impressed by the atmosphere and the dynamics in the studio and felt that the program
generated mutual listening, unlike similar events they had attended in the past. Ms
Berger-Tzur emphasized the importance of the ground rules, which were closely followed
by the host and the participants. Rabbi Povarsky stated that he had participated in many
events like this in the past but none had ever come close to the deliberative level of this
program. According to Dr Leon, the element that made the difference was the moderator,
Dr Miro, and not the format. He claimed that Miro’s relaxed tone and intonation created a
sense of relaxation and inspiration for further inquiry.
When asked if the program encourages openness and tolerance, panel members pro-
vided different answers. According to Dr Leon, the program convinced the people who
were already convinced. Ms Berger-Tzur also questioned the program’sinfluence on listen-
ers and stated that people generally connect to people with opinions similar to their own,
and any impact that the program may have made was probably short-lived. In contrast,
Rabbi Povarsky felt that the program definitely encourages tolerance and familiarity
with the ‘other side’. In his opinion, listeners may have realized that ultra-Orthodox
people are also reasonable and not ‘a part of a herd that is led like sheep’. Rabbi Nissim
also said that listeners may have realized that the positions held by different sectors are
backed by arguments and should be treated respectfully.
Opinions also differed on the role of the radio as a medium for deliberation. Dr Leon
stated that the medium of the radio is appropriate for deliberation because it generates
more attention, but much effort must be invested to ensure that conversations proceed
smoothly. Dr Gal argued that the radio is a good medium for information transmission,
but it is less suited for conducting a dialog; Television is preferable because you can see
facial expressions and body language, which are very important in this kind of dialog.
On the radio, he said, we lose information that is important for understanding the
general context. According to Rabbi Nissim, the radio introduces ‘magic on the one
hand, and imposes a toll, on the other’. The magic lies in the fact that the participants
8A. LEV-ON
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
are not seen, which contributes to the ‘liberation of imagination’, but too many significant
cues are lost when the radio is used as the medium of dialog. Ms Berger-Tzur stated that
she personally likes the radio because it allows people to focus on themes and content
rather than on visual effects. Dr Miro agreed that the radio is a medium suitable for delib-
eration since it focuses listeners on content.
In reference to convergence, all interviewees said that the combination was interesting,
although Dr Gal did not believe that the combination made a specific contribution to the
program, and Dr Miro was not sure that such integration was necessary. Explaining that
listening to content is more important than expanding the content to other media, Dr
Miro stated, ‘It is more important for me to hear and listen to the sounds than to see
whom I’m talking to. It enables us to focus on the ideas.’
When asked whether he thinks there’s room in Israeli media for a program of this type,
Rabbi Povarsky answered affirmatively. Ms Berger-Tzur also said that the public was accus-
tomed to formats that ‘generate commotion’, but it is a matter of education to accustom
the public to deliberative formats. She also thinks that there’s room for this kind of
program, though possibly in a shorter format or not in prime time.
In addition to interviews with panel participants, the students who participated in
producing the programs were asked to describe their experience. Overwhelmingly,
the experience of producing the program was described as positive, fun, unique,
and exceptional. One respondent described his experience as ‘an expansion of my
horizons; I felt a part of a great and important project for students, the University,
and radio listeners.’According to another student, ‘The experience was tremendous
and gratifying …anyone who was lucky enough to take part in the course learned
alot.’
To the question, ‘What were the most successful elements of the radio program in your
opinion?’One respondent replied, ‘To see how representatives of different groups in
society meet, and to hear opposing views.’Another respondent noted the ‘integration
of people with diverse ideas and opinions, and everyone suggests what they believe to
be appropriate; From there, the road can only lead to success.’
Conclusion
The article explored the potential use of the radio as a deliberative medium, and presented
the deliberative radio program Let’s Talk about It as a case study. The demand for equal
burden is one of the core issues of contention in Israel’s deeply divided society
(Liebman 1993; Ben-Rafael 2008), and seems well suited for a radio deliberation
between members of the different sectors of Israeli society. The program utilized the
special advantages of the radio for deliberation, such as its accessibility, pervasiveness,
and ability to make listeners reflect and use their imagination (their ‘theater of the
mind’, according to Davidson (2002), while at the same time utilizing the benefits of the
convergence process, by introducing additional content online, extended conversations
with audiences, and providing access to background materials.
The article introduced the process of workingontworadioprogramsaboutequal
burden that were intended to make information accessible to listeners and viewers,
highlight issues from different angles, represent the various alternative agendas,
and establish a different kind of discourse than commonly experienced in the
JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 9
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
media and in public debates in Israel. These goals were taken into account in the
choice of the topic, its framing, the selection of participants, and the ground rules
for the programs, which were all designed to enhance the deliberative value of the
program by representing major positions in society, showing the positions equally,
providing an adequate opportunity for speaking and listening, and treating panelists
with mutual respect (Burkhalter et al. 2002; Fishkin 2009). The convergence process,
which is manifest in the concurrence of the audio component with visual and interac-
tive features, enabled the (terrestrial) radio-based deliberation to benefitfrominfor-
mation available online, documentation of the event, and the potential to reach
and engage new audiences.
Comments from the students who participated in the production indicate that it was a
unique, instructional, and horizon-expanding experience. Program participants stated that
such deliberative programs should appear more frequently in the media, and highlighted
that the added value of the program may be ascribed more to the discursive experience
than to the knowledge gained. Panelists also said that listeners may have realized that the
positions held by different sectors are backed by arguments and should be treated
respectfully, and that the radio was useful particularly for ‘liberation of imagination’,
sense of relaxation, and inspiration it enabled.
Note that studies demonstrate the significance of satisfaction from the deliberative
process for the development of trust, expected future engagement, perceived decision
legitimacy, and positive attitudes towards deliberation (Mansbridge et al. 2006; Gastil
et al. 2008; Stromer-Galley and Muhlberger 2009). As radio-based deliberation indeed
seems to support satisfaction from deliberation, it may also generate consequences that
are useful for democratic deliberative processes. These trajectories, however, require
further empirical support. Further studies are also required in order to more reliably
assess panelists’and producers’experiences, and such programs’effect on listeners and
Internet users.
Another promising avenue of practice and study is the application of deliberative radio
programs in academic institutions. There are many examples of experiments in delibera-
tion in academic institutions (Diaz and Gilchrist 2010) used as elements in programs for
democratic education among students who are on the verge of their professional
careers. The format described in this article was developed by and broadcast from an aca-
demic institution. In the future, such endeavors may be used for intra-university delibera-
tion among students, faculty, and administrative staff.
Future studies can also continue to explore the theoretical as well as practical connec-
tions between the emerging paradigm of cultural discourse studies and deliberative
democratic theory. Where cultural discourse studies seek to identify, characterize, and
explain the divergent and competing human discourses, partly in order to expose and
transform ethno-centric discourses (Shin-Xu 2012), culturally conscious deliberative prac-
tices seem well-consistent with these goals. In the program Let’s Talk about It, the case
which was studied in this paper, this is demonstrated by the careful selection of partici-
pations from various groups, by enacting ‘rules of the game’that focus on respect and lis-
tening, and finally by using the medium of the radio, whose ability to ‘liberate one’s
imagination’, according to the participants of the program, can assist in exposing and alle-
viating group- and ethno-centric discourses.
10 A. LEV-ON
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
Notes
1. A collection of deliberative methods and tools can be found in sites such as Participation
Compass (participationcompass.org/article/index/method); Participaedia (participaedia.net);
and the resource center of NCDD (National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation) at ncdd.org/rc.
2. In Israel, 62% of the population listens to national radio stations on weekdays (Mann and Lev-on
2014).
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Tal Laor, Anat Cabili, Mickey Miro, Idan Shaked, and Natalie Gezz, and to all the stu-
dents who took part in producing the radio program, as well as to Michal Mintzer and Hadas Schlus-
sel for their assistance in preparing the manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Note on contributor
Dr Azi Lev-On is the head of the institute for the study of New Media, Politics, and Society in the
School of Communication in Ariel University. His research focuses on the uses and perceived
effects of social media, public participation and deliberation online, online communities, collective
action and campaigns, and behaviors in computer-mediated environments (azilevon@gmail.com).
References
Ben-Rafael, E. 2008. The faces of religiosity in Israel: Cleavages or continuum? Israel Studies 13, no. 3:
89–113.
Bohman, J. 1998. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Brosig, J., Weimann, J., and Ockenfels, A. 2003. The effect of communication media on cooperation.
German Economic Review 4, no. 2: 217–241.
Burkhalter, S., J. Gastil, and T. Kelshaw. 2002. A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public
deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory 12: 398–422.
Davidson, B. 2002. Radio and public deliberation. An occasional paper of the Kettering Foundation.
Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation.
Davidson, B. 2010. Public journalism in South Africa. In International journalism and democracy: Civic
engagement models from around the world, ed. A. R. Romano, 35–48. New York: Routledge.
Diaz, A., and S.H. Gilchrist. 2010. Dialogue on campus: An overview of promising practices. Journal of
Public Deliberation 6, no. 1: Article 9.
Dori-Hacohen, G. 2012. Gatekeeping public participation: Ethnographic account of the production
process of radio phone-in program. Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio
Media 10, no. 2: 113–129.
Ferguson, D.A., and C.F. Greer. 2011. Local radio and microblogging: How radio stations in the US are
using Twitter. Journal of Radio & Audio Media 18, no. 1: 33–46.
Fishkin, J. 2009. When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Freeman, B.C., J. Klapczynski, and E. Wood. 2012. Radio and Facebook: The relationship between
broadcast and social media software in the US, Germany, and Singapore. First Monday 17, no.
4. http://dx.doi.oreg/10.5210/fm.v1714.3768
JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 11
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
Gastil, J., L. Black, E. Deess, and J. Leighter. 2008. From group member to democratic citizen: How
deliberating with fellow jurors reshapes civic attitudes. Human Communication Research 34:
137–169.
Goffer, R. 2003. Citizen conferences in Israel. In Participation: Your way to make a difference, eds. A.
Churchman and E. Sadan, 193–213. Tel Aviv: Hakibutz Hameuchad (Hebrew).
Goldman-Shayman, A., and R. Goffer. 2008. Participation first: Participatory democracy from theory to
practice. Jerusalem: Israel Association for Community Centers (Hebrew).
Gutmann, A., and Thompson, D. 2004. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Guttman, N., C. Shalev, G. Kaplan, A. Abulafia, G. Bin-Nun, R. Goffer, R. Ben-Moshe, O. Tal, M. Shani, and
B. Lev. 2008. What should be given a priority: Costly medications for relatively few people or inex-
pensive ones for many? The Health Parliament public consultation initiative in Israel. Health
Expectations 11, no. 2: 177–188.
Jensen, K.B. 2010. Media convergence: The three degrees of network, mass and interpersonal communi-
cation. London: Routledge.
Lev-On, A., and I. Manosevitch. 2015. Deliberating on campus: The student conference, 2012. Israeli
Social Affairs 19: 207–228 (Hebrew).
Liebman, C.S. 1993. Religion and democracy in Israel. In Israeli democracy under stress, eds. E. Sprinzak
and L. Diamond, 273–293. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Lissitsa, S., and A. Lev-On. 2014. Gaps close, gaps open: A repeated cross-sectional study of the scope
and determinants of the ethnic digital divide. International Journal of Electronic Governance 7, no.
1: 56–71.
Malka, V. 2015. Deliberative communication goes to college: The ‘Deliberation Forum’project as a
democratic agent of empowerment for communication students. Learning, Media and
Technology.doi:10.1080/17439884.2015.1053915
Mann, R., and A. Lev-On. 2014. Annual report: The media in Israel 2013: Agendas, uses and trends. Ariel:
Institute for the Study of New Media, Politics and Society. (Hebrew).
Mansbridge, J., J. Hartz-Karp, M. Amengual, and J. Gastil. 2006. Norms of deliberation: An inductive
study. Journal of Public Deliberation 2, Article 7.
Mathews, D. 1995. Public deliberation: What talk radio can’t do. The Responsive Community 5, no. 4:
37–42.
Morrell, M.E. 1999. Citizen’s evaluations of participatory democratic procedures: Normative theory
meets empirical science. Political Research Quarterly 52, no. 2: 293–322.
Nabatchi, T. 2012. An introduction to deliberative civic engagement. In Democracy in motion:
Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement, eds. T. Nabatchi, J. Gastil, G.
M. Weiksner, and M. Leighninger, 3–18. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nielsen. 2013. The Nielsen March 2013 Cross-platform report: Free to move between screens.www.
nielsen.com/us/en/reports/2013/the-nielsen-march-2013-cross-platform-report–free-to-move-
betwe.html
Norris, P. 2001. Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shi-Xu. 2012. Why do cultural discourse studies? Towards a culturally conscious and critical approach
to human discourses. Critical Arts 26, no. 4: 484–503.
Sia, C.L., B.C. Tan, and K.K. Wei. 2002. Group polarization and computer-mediated communication:
Effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. Information Systems Research
13, no. 1: 70–90.
Stromer-Galley, J., and P. Muhlberger. 2009. Agreement and disagreement in group deliberation:
Effects on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy. Political
Communication 26: 173–192.
Trachtenberg, M. 2011. Report of the committee for economic and social change.hidavrut.gov.il/sites/
default/files/%20%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99.pdf?bcsi_scan_99FE300B8A2E1F36=1
(Hebrew).
12 A. LEV-ON
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
Walther, J.B., D.C. Deandrea, and S.T. Tong. 2010. Computer-mediated communication versus vocal
communication and the attenuation of pre-interaction impressions. Media Psychology 13 no. 4:
364–386.
Wardle, C., and A. Williams. 2010. Beyond user-generated content: A production study examining the
ways in which UGC is used at the BBC. Media, Culture and Society 32, no. 5: 781–799.
Yankelovich, D. 1991. Coming to public judgments: Making democracy work in a complex world.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 13
Downloaded by [Ariel University] at 07:41 12 November 2015
