Declan O'Donoghue

By Declan O’Donoghue ’26

Deliberation is a unique concept. Although it exists in many facets of our lives and we often partake in it without even realizing it, deliberation can be rare in our consumption of popular media. The rise of music television and social media has introduced many new forms of entertainment to the public, yet much of this media is either fictional or not typically categorized under deliberation. In my view, mass media may be responsible for some stagnation in public deliberation. Fortunately, there is still hope for intentional conversations on often contentious issues, especially on media platforms like YouTube. Unlike many others, this site still allows for profitable long-form content. Media companies have taken advantage of this opportunity to create more critical content than what is typically posted on apps like Facebook or Instagram.

Jubilee Media is one company that, in recent years, has made a significant impact on both YouTube and the world of deliberation with its series addressing contentious social issues and showcasing diverse groups of people. Officially, Jubilee’s mission statement is to ‘bridge people together and inspire love through compelling stories, create shareable, human-centric videos that create connection, challenge assumptions, and touch the soul, and ultimately to inspire people to live deeper.’ While this sounds quite serious, they also produce playful videos like ’20 vs 1′ speed dating, which garners millions of views. However, some content has shifted toward more serious topics. A series titled ‘Spectrum’ brings together groups of people with shared identities—from teenage mothers to Muslims—and asks them a series of questions, which they rate on a spectrum from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’ These types of questions are similar to those a trained facilitator might ask in a deliberation. Here, because the group participants all have lived experiences, Jubilee can simplify their format. After taking their mark on the spectrum, participants have the opportunity to defend their position without crosstalk, before the conversation opens up to the group, just like in a DCI deliberation. Yet, with a mid-length runtime of around 20 minutes, Jubilee’s ‘Spectrum’ series fails to delve too deeply into any one topic.

Although Jubilee features a variety of video formats with elements of deliberation, their ‘Middle Ground’ series most closely aligns with the DCI style of deliberation that I have been trained to facilitate. The format is essentially as follows: A group of 6-8 people, who presumably hold contrasting worldviews or identities, come together. Popular matchups include scientists versus flat earthers, police versus criminals, or even unique twists like former liberals versus former conservatives. The participants are generally presented with a series of serious prompts, such as ‘Criminals who commit violent felonies don’t deserve certain legal rights. Step forward if you agree.’ All participants from either side who agree with the statement step forward into the spotlight, sit down, and then deliberate on the concept. After some time, those who disagree step forward and join the discussion.

Jubilee has created an impressive platform that brings new perspectives and fosters deliberation across the internet, the format of their ‘Middle Ground‘ videos still has room for improvement. One major criticism relates to their selection of participants: they sometimes fail to include any voices that truly represent the middle ground, missing an opportunity for more comprehensive deliberation. This is occasionally justifiable, especially in scenarios where few individuals represent a moderate viewpoint between extremes, such as between flat-earthers and mainstream scientists. However, in episodes like ‘liberal teachers vs. conservative parents,’ including both fringe and more center-aligned voices could enrich the discussion, allowing for a broader spectrum of opinions and a fuller exploration of the issues at hand.

Most importantly, Jubilee’s ‘Middle Ground’ series lacks a serious facilitator, which significantly hinders the videos from becoming exemplary models of deliberation. Currently, the producer, acting as a voice behind the scenes, reads out the prompts and occasionally steps in to manage the group. This absence of dedicated facilitation often leads to tense interactions among participants and permits some to make harmful, sweeping generalizations. Moreover, time is rarely distributed equitably among participants. Without effective facilitation, some individuals dominate the conversation, turning their participation into a spectacle that is then perpetuated online. While this approach might attract views, it risks alienating viewers and driving wedges between different audience segments, ultimately detracting from the potential for meaningful dialogue and understanding.

These discussions can be fruitful and build genuine connections between participants. Additionally, Jubilee has changed their format, likely sacrificing profit to make these videos more effective as deliberations. Videos initially fell within the YouTube AdSense sweet spot of 8-12 minutes, featuring catchy clips and more clickbait interactions. They have since transitioned to longer-format videos, which are more costly and less favored by the YouTube algorithm. Now, videos can reach up to 90 minutes after editing, similar to the length of most DCI deliberations. These longer videos allow participants to dive much deeper into deliberation than before, and viewers have continued to watch. Some longer videos have even surpassed 25 million views.

All in all, Jubilee’s ‘Middle Ground’ video format has pioneered deliberation in a socially valuable and highly educational manner. The success of their content paves the way for other creators to do the same while still profiting. Regardless, they could certainly benefit from acquiring a trained facilitator for their deliberations.

Image above from Podtail.

Declan O’Donoghue ’26 (DCI Fellow)

When I contemplate the question Why DCI? I like to consider the personal motivations for my interest in politics. When I was younger, I was always upset that I could not vote. My high school civics teacher, who inspired me to study political science at Davidson, gave our class the opportunity to write a proposal for an amendment of any element of the US Constitution. I quickly chose to focus on the 26^th amendment and the larger concept of voting age. I was frustrated with all of the adults who cared so little about what was on the ballot. Many of which had the opportunity to vote and still failed to practice their constitutional right.

Now, only after a few years of waiting, I have the opportunity to vote and directly participate in our political institutions. While I am grateful to have this privilege, I cannot imagine how it feels for people who are denied their right to vote due to social, financial, or legal barriers.

Throughout all political systems, even the most equitable democracies, we see some level of systemic inequality. In the United States and elsewhere, large subsets of the population have a limited ability to directly participate in politics. People under 18, felons, and non-citizens have all been politically restricted. Historically, pluralities of democratic nations have lacked the vote, like the United states before women won the right through the 19^th amendment to the US Constitution.

There are several ways to respond to political wrongdoings but many of them are inaccessible to the people that need them most. Protests and strikes can be dangerous, illegal, financially burdensome, and sometimes unsustainable. Sometimes topics might not be consequential enough to be valuable to a protestor or the protested group. Other forms of participation like debates can be increasingly zero-sum in our current political landscape. Most Americans would find it hard to walk away with a new perspective or a sense of growth after a thanksgiving dinner argument, let alone a presidential debate.

Deliberation can be used to approach problems of political equity from a new direction when traditional methods have been worn out. Consider classical Athens, for example; although such a small subset in the population (free-born male citizens) had almost all the political power and by modern standards would hardly be called a democracy, the city-state has continued to be used as a political ideal today. I believe Athenian democracy was regarded so highly, not because a subset of people had the power to vote, but because they deliberated about their political ideologies and actions so extensively.

The Athenian free-born male citizens did not lock themselves in an upper and lower chamber and emerge with a new decision void of any public input. They met in the Agora and publicly deliberated about the topics they chose were most important. Although limited in their ability to participate in official political discussions, the non-voting groups could still bring their input forward due to the inherent openness of deliberation. Scholarly analysis has found that non-voting groups found places to deliberate, or at least have political discussions, in courts, assemblies, councils, local assemblies, and even in the street.[1]

Beyond large government, other systems can be even more difficult or abstracted to directly participate in. Take a school board, for example; for a school district with thousands of students, a small group of people, who can be shockingly disconnected from the student body to begin with, can make drastic and unpopular decisions with little consequence (consider this article for context: Locally Elected School Boards Are Failing.)

School boards across the country have been plagued with toxic and ill prepared forms of deliberation that might be causing more harm than good. While school boards are just once means of political participation available to local communities, they provide a unique environment where deliberation with elected officials is more accessible than at the national level. Research on methods to improve the efficacy and equity of school board outcomes suggests that “expanding community advocacy” through greater opportunities for formal participation outside of elections, like deliberations, is essential.[2]

Like Athens, our modern democratic systems are far from perfect. While I joined DCI without understanding very much about what deliberation actually means, I can remember the frustration I felt when I lacked a formal political voice. From ancient Athens all the way to our local school boards, it is clear that political leadership could benefit from deliberation, even in its most casual form. If deliberation is not only useful to the deliberators’ understanding of important issues, but also in giving a political and social platform to those who have been restricted in their rights, then it should be vigorously pursued.  

---

[1] Cammack, Daniela. “Deliberation and Discussion in Classical Athens.” Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 29, Apr. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12215. Accessed 12 Dec. 2020.

[2] Sampson, Carrie. “In School Boards We Trust? The Potential for Educational Equity in Public Education | Equity Alliance.” Equityalliance.stanford.edu, 8 May 2020, equityalliance.stanford.edu/content/school-boards-we-trust-potential-educational-equity-public-education.