The contribution of evaluations to the discourse quality of newspaper content

Abstract

This research shows how the use of evaluations in newspaper articles contributes to the quality of public media discourse prior to direct-democratic votes. Data from Swiss direct-democratic campaigns on school policy between 2000 and 2012 are used to compare newspaper articles that contain evaluations with those that do not refer to evaluations. Results show that those newspaper articles containing evaluations exhibit higher levels of justification, reciprocity and respect, tend to argue in terms of the common good, and contain less storytelling than newspaper articles that do not refer to evaluations. Implications for public deliberation and evaluation practice are discussed.