Also check out the other, immensely interesting papers in the special issue: openjournals.ugent.be/ts/issue/261...

The essay is based on this article (in English): journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....

Our framework allows scholars and policymakers to systematically evaluate precisely which democratic principles are upheld or violated by (alternative) media practices.

Different normative conceptions of democracy then expect different answers to the question: "Who should be allowed to talk, about which topics and in which ways, based on which types of knowledge?"

We propose that evaluations of media practices in democracy should focus on actor diversity, discursive diversity, and epistemological diversity. For each of the democratic schools of thought, these abstract concepts are translated to concrete, empirically observable criteria.

In this framework, we argue that such evaluations hinge first and foremost on which type of democracy we are talking about. We distinguish between the three most prominent conceptions of democracy – i.e., liberal, deliberative, and agonistic.

While there is much talk about the propagation of conspiracy theories by alternative media channels and their detrimental effects on democracy, the exact dimensions of democracy that are threatened and / or violated are rarely empirically examined.

@jolanurkens.bsky.social et al. studied epistemic expectations of journalism at Belgian and Dutch public broadcasters, finding that these differ widely depending on the broadcasters’ individual characteristics and market structures.

Cool! Thanks for including me!