Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

Garratt Rothberg

Event Recap: Media Bias, Misinformation, and Literacy

by

By Garratt Rothberg ’27

Garratt Rothberg ‘27, along with the Center for Political Engagement, hosted a speaker event and deliberation on media bias, misinformation, and media literacy. The event began with a presentation by Isaac Saul, the founder of Tangle News, who spoke about his experience founding a news organization dedicated to unbiased and balanced reporting in a media landscape rife with highly politicized news outlets. 

Following Isaac’s talk, the audience of students and community members took part in an interactive Menti poll on topics such as their personal media consumption habits and their confidence in navigating media bias. Through Menti, participants saw each other’s selections to each question in real time, allowing them to get a sense of how news consumption attitudes differed throughout the crowd. Many of the results from the Menti poll sparked surprise among the audience, leading them into a deliberation on the generational divides in views towards media polarization. 

While the group discussed their own news habits and encounters with misinformation, Isaac answered questions and provided additional background knowledge from his career as a news editor. After the event, Garratt compiled the results of the Menti poll to create an infographic displaying key findings from the poll, which will be posted on social media pages and distributed around campus.

The discussion emphasized the importance of nonpartisan news sources, as well as the challenges towards democracy that a highly politicized media presents. Deliberation allowed audience members of different generations to better understand each other’s views and habits, demonstrating that deliberation is a critical tool in building a sense of mutual understanding among diverse groups.

The Power of Disagreement Within Deliberation

by

abstract representation of disagreement

By Garratt Rothberg ’27 (DCI Fellow)

The students and community members shyly strolled into the room, sitting down around the table and exchanging nervous glances. The clock had struck 6:30 PM, and my group was ready for our deliberation. As the conversation started, the participants were clearly apprehensive. For most of the participants, this was their first time taking part in a deliberation, and many aspects felt uncomfortable at first.

At one point, a participant apologized before disagreeing with someone else, as if it was something to shy away from. As the facilitator, I jumped in and reminded the group that providing space for respectful disagreement is a key feature of deliberation. At the DCI, we strive to adopt 10 key deliberative dispositions in our sessions. One of the most valuable dispositions is open-mindedness, as the honest consideration of other perspectives and ideas leads us to grow intellectually. The framework of D Teams encourages the exchange of ideas and a willingness to listen, which builds a sense of mutual understanding.

At the beginning of the deliberation, the participants were actively listening but responding to each other with a sense of hesitancy. The participant’s first statement of disagreement seemed to break the ice in my group, as the conversation continued with new vigor as participants were no longer afraid to question the ideas of others. This brought another of our dispositions to the foreground: humility. Too often, people perceive disagreement as a challenge and become upset, stemming from the reluctance to consider other perspectives and the possibility that one’s belief is wrong. In our D Teams, respectful disagreement is the goal, which forces people to consider the ideas of others and thus recognize that one may be wrong. Humility is important to maintaining a respectful atmosphere when engaging in charged conversations and is essential in our D Teams and in society.

In states of disagreement, my D Team participants quickly began to adopt another important disposition: charity. When someone said something that didn’t make complete sense, participants would ask follow-up questions and truly attempt to understand their peer’s point of view. In a deliberation, participants must assume the best about the intentions of others. After all, it is clear the participants are motivated to share their thoughts and gain new perspectives by simply signing up for the D Team. When we assume the best about each other, we gain a more complete understanding of our peers’ perspectives and more profound takeaways from the deliberation.

A question that came up repeatedly in my final D Team session was, “What comes next?” Three sessions of deliberating brought fruitful discussions, but participants were wondering what the larger impact of their work was. In truth, D Teams are just a starting point for the work of deliberation. Implementing aspects of a deliberative democracy on a larger scale is difficult, but there are numerous places to look to for guidance. Ireland has a Citizens’ Assembly program in which a randomly selected group of 100 Irish citizens deliberate on key political issues, and the Irish government considers the resolutions they come up with in the policymaking process. This would be logistically much more difficult in the larger United States, but it is nonetheless an important experiment in deliberative democracy. While deliberation can be both uncomfortable and difficult, it is a necessary and rewarding process for our democracy to live up to its promise as a nation in which every voice is heard, respected, and appreciated.

The Power of Disagreement Within Deliberation

by

Wood door with sign saying, "Come in, Disagreement Welcome!"

Garratt Rothberg ’27 (DCI Fellow)

The students and community members shyly strolled into the room, sitting down around the table and exchanging nervous glances. The clock had struck 6:30 PM, and my group was ready for our deliberation. As the conversation started, the participants were clearly apprehensive. For most of the participants, this was their first time taking part in a deliberation, and many aspects felt uncomfortable at first.

At one point, a participant apologized before disagreeing with someone else, as if it was something to shy away from. As the facilitator, I jumped in and reminded the group that providing space for respectful disagreement is a key feature of deliberation. At the DCI, we strive to adopt 10 key deliberative dispositions in our sessions. One of the most valuable dispositions is open-mindedness, as the honest consideration of other perspectives and ideas leads us to grow intellectually. The framework of D Teams encourages the exchange of ideas and a willingness to listen, which builds a sense of mutual understanding.

At the beginning of the deliberation, the participants were actively listening but responding to each other with a sense of hesitancy. The participant’s first statement of disagreement seemed to break the ice in my group, as the conversation continued with new vigor as participants were no longer afraid to question the ideas of others. This brought another of our dispositions to the foreground: humility. Too often, people perceive disagreement as a challenge and become upset, stemming from the reluctance to consider other perspectives and the possibility that one’s belief is wrong. In our D Teams, respectful disagreement is the goal, which forces people to consider the ideas of others and thus recognize that one may be wrong. Humility is important to maintaining a respectful atmosphere when engaging in charged conversations and is essential in our D Teams and in society.

In states of disagreement, my D Team participants quickly began to adopt another important disposition: charity. When someone said something that didn’t make complete sense, participants would ask follow-up questions and truly attempt to understand their peer’s point of view. In a deliberation, participants must assume the best about the intentions of others. After all, it is clear the participants are motivated to share their thoughts and gain new perspectives by simply signing up for the D Team. When we assume the best about each other, we gain a more complete understanding of our peers’ perspectives and more profound takeaways from the deliberation.

            A question that came up repeatedly in my final D Team session was, “What comes next?” Three sessions of deliberating brought fruitful discussions, but participants were wondering what the larger impact of their work was. In truth, D Teams are just a starting point for the work of deliberation. Implementing aspects of a deliberative democracy on a larger scale is difficult, but there are numerous places to look to for guidance. Ireland has a Citizens’ Assembly program in which a randomly selected group of 100 Irish citizens deliberate on key political issues, and the Irish government considers the resolutions they come up with in the policymaking process. This would be logistically much more difficult in the larger United States, but it is nonetheless an important experiment in deliberative democracy. While deliberation can be both uncomfortable and difficult, it is a necessary and rewarding process for our democracy to live up to its promise as a nation in which every voice is heard, respected, and appreciated.