The quality of political information

The article conceptualizes the quality of political information and shows how the concept can be used for empirical research. I distinguish three aspects of quality (intelligibility, relevance, validity) and use them to judge the constituent foundations of political information, that is component claims (statements of alleged facts) and connection claims (argumentative statements created by causally linking two component claims). The resulting conceptual map thus entails six manifestations of information quality (component claimintelligibility, connection claim intelligibility, component claimrelevance, connection claim relevance, component claim validity, and connection claim validity). I explain how the conceptual map can be used to make sense of the eclectic variety of existing research, and how it can advance new empirical research, as a guide for determining variation in information quality, as a conceptual template for the analysis of different types of political messages and their common quality deficiencies, and as a generator of new research questions and theoretical expectations

The Initial Phase of the Argumentative Discussions Between Parents and Children

This chapter examines the initial phase of parent\u2013child argumentative discussions during mealtime. The conceptual tool adopted for the analysis is based on the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion (van Eemeren & Grootendorst\u201a 2004). The types of issues leading parents and children to engage in argumentative discussions during mealtime as well as the contribution that parents and children provide to the inception of argumentation are described and discussed. The analysis of the initial phase of parent\u2013child argumentative discussions also considers the role played by the specificity of the parent\u2013child relationship and the distinctive features of the activity of family mealtime for the beginning of an argumentative discussion. Exemplary argumentative sequences that bring to light the results obtained through the qualitative analysis of a larger corpus of argumentative discussions between parents and children are presented and discussed

Shaping public Opinion for confrontation : catalan independence claims as represented in spanish, catalan, valencian, and basque editorials

Editorials represent a newspaper's principal means of ideological positioning and serve to identify the attitude of each newspaper and its readership to some of the main actors in any given conflict, especially those that are political in nature. Catalonia's independence movement has experienced a surge in recent years. The turning point came in July 2010, after Spain's constitutional court ruled against some aspects of Catalonia's Statute of Autonomy (the legislation regulating the relationship between the Catalan autonomous community and the Spanish state). The ruling annulled some of the articles of the statute. The demonstration in support of Catalan independence that took place on September 11, 2012, was considered the most important among several mass rallies held for this purpose over successive years on Catalonia's National Day. This article presents the results of a qualitative and quantitative analysis of editorial articles published around these two key dates, with the goal of studying each newspaper's treatment of political actors and their degree of identification with these actors. Their use of arguments aimed at persuading readers and legitimizing a given position during the specified time periods in 2010 and 2012 will also be studied. The study focuses on the editorial articles published by several newspapers in four distinct regional contexts: Catalonia, Valencia, the Basque Country, as well as the whole of Spain. The analyzed articles were published a few days before and after July 10, 2010, and September 11, 2012

Evaluating Arguments From the Reaction of the Audience

In studying how lay people evaluate arguments, psychologists have typically focused on logical form and content. This emphasis has masked an important yet underappreciated aspect of everyday argument evaluation: social cues to argument strength. Here we focus on the ways in which observers evaluate arguments by the reaction they evoke in an audience. This type of evaluation is likely to occur either when people are not privy to the content of the arguments or when they are not expert enough to appropriately evaluate it. Four experiments explore cues that participants might take into account in evaluating arguments from the reaction of the audience. They demonstrate that participants can use audience motivation, expertise, and size as clues to argument quality. By contrast we find no evidence that participants take audience diversity into account