Political truth is never neutral, objective or absolute – that’s why it’s political. The normative realisation of democratic politics depends upon the communicability of intersubjective perspectives rather than the quest for capital-T Truth. Three key principles of political communication are set out that might strengthen the quality of intersubjective political judgment: the principle of social curiosity; the principle of collective interpretation; and the principle of working through disagreement. The article concludes by considering debates about political truth surrounding the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017 and the need to respond to such tragedy through intersubjective judgment.
ArceneauxKJohnsonMMurphyC (2012) Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. The Journal of Politics74(1): 174–186.
2.
ArendtH (1953) Understanding and politics. Partisan Review20(4): 377–392.
3.
ArendtH (1968) Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought (Enlarged edn.). New York: Viking.
4.
ArendtH (1989) Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BadenCSpringerN (2017) Conceptualizing viewpoint diversity in news discourse. Journalism18(2): 176–194.
6.
BakhtinMM (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (ed. HolquistM; trans. EmersonCHolquistM). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
7.
BarnidgeMGuntherACKimJet al. (2017) Politically motivated selective exposure and perceived media bias. Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 14June. DOI: 10.1177/0093650217713066.
8.
BeinerR (1983) Political Judgement (Routledge Library Editions: Political Science), vol. 20. New York: Routledge.
9.
BoczkowskiPJDe SantosM (2007.) When more media equals less news: Patterns of content homogenization in Argentina’s leading print and online newspapers. Political Communication24(2): 167–180.
10.
BoltanskiLThévenotL (2006.) On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
BrundidgeJ (2010) Encountering ‘difference’ in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication60(4): 680–700.
12.
BrunerJ (1990) Acts of Meaning: Four Lectures on Mind and Culture (Jerusalem-Harvard Lectures). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
ColemanS (2013) Debate on television: The spectacle of deliberation. Television & New Media14(1): 20–30.
14.
ColemanS (2017) Can the Internet Strengthen Democracy?Cambridge: Polity Press.
15.
ColemanSBlumlerJG (2009) The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
CraryJ (2001) Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle, and Modern Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
17.
DastonLGalisonP (2007) Objectivity. Brooklyn, NY: Zone Books.
18.
DesrosièresA (2002) The Politics of Large Numbers: A History of Statistical Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
DickensC (1985 [1854]) Hard Times. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
20.
DoyleG (2002) Media Ownership: The Economics and Politics of Convergence and Concentration in the UK and European Media. London: Sage.
21.
FeestUSturmT (2011) What (good) is historical epistemology? Editors’ introduction. Erkenntnis75(3): 285–302.
22.
FeldmanLC (1999) Political judgment with a difference: Agonistic democracy and the limits of ‘enlarged mentality’. Polity32(1): 1–24.
23.
GarrettRKResnickP (2011) Resisting political fragmentation on the Internet. Daedalus140(4): 108–120.
24.
GoldmanSKMutzDC (2011) The friendly media phenomenon: A cross-national analysis of cross-cutting exposure. Political Communication28(1): 42–66.
25.
HackingI (1983) Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
HirschkopK (1999) Mikhail Bakhtin: An Aesthetic for Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
IyengarSHahnKS (2009) Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication59(1): 19–39.
28.
KeenanT (1997) Fables of Responsibility: Aberrations and Predicaments in Ethics and Politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
29.
Knobloch-WesterwickSJohnsonBKWesterwickA (2015) Confirmation bias in online searches: Impacts of selective exposure before an election on political attitude strength and shifts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(2): 171–187.
30.
KrugerLEDastonLJHeidelbergerME (1987) The Probabilistic Revolution: Ideas in History, Ideas in the Sciences, vols 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
31.
LanhamRA (2006) The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
32.
Lugo-OcandoJLawsonB (2016) Poor numbers, poor news: The ideology of poverty statistics in the media. Leeds: University of Leeds.
33.
MaiaRC (2012) Deliberation, the Media and Political Talk. New York: Hampton Press.
34.
MannheimBTedlockD (eds) (1995) The Dialogic Emergence of Culture. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
35.
MarasS (2013) Objectivity in Journalism. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
36.
MillerP (1992) Accounting and objectivity: The invention of calculating selves and calculable spaces. Annals of Scholarship9(1–2): 61–86.
37.
MillerPRoseN (1990) Governing economic life. Economy and Society19(1): 1–31.
38.
NelsonJLWebsterJG (2017) The myth of partisan selective exposure: A portrait of the online political news audience. Social Media + Society. Epub ahead of print 7September. DOI: 10.1177/2056305117729314.
39.
NussbaumMC (2001) Political objectivity. New Literary History32(4): 883–906.
40.
PalmatierJJRovnerL (2015) Credibility assessment: Preliminary process theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity. International Journal of Psychophysiology95(1): 3–13.
41.
PenmanR (2000) Reconstructing Communicating: Looking to a Future. London: Routledge.
42.
PooveyM (1993) Figures of arithmetic, figures of speech: The discourse of statistics in the 1830s. Critical Inquiry19(2): 256–276.
43.
PooveyM (1995) Making a Social Body: British Cultural Formation, 1830–1864. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
44.
PorterTM (1996) Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
SalaisR (2016) Quantification and objectivity: From statistical conventions to social conventions. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung41: 118–134.
46.
ScannellPCardiffD (1991) A Social History of British Broadcasting: 1922–1939, Serving the Nation, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
47.
SchweberL (2006) Disciplining Statistics: Demography and Vital Statistics in France and England, 1830–1885. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
48.
TomlinsonMMillieJ (eds) (2017) The Monologic Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
TsfatiYStroudNJChotinerA (2014) Exposure to ideological news and perceived opinion climate: Testing the media effects component of spiral-of-silence in a fragmented media landscape. The International Journal of Press/Politics19(1): 3–23.
50.
WaksLJ (2010) Two types of interpersonal listening. Teachers College Record112(11): 2743–2762.
51.
WesslerHSchultzT (2007) Can the mass media deliberate? Insights from print media and political talk shows. In: ButschR (ed.) Media and Public Spheres. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 15–27.
52.
Yom-TovEDumaisSGuoQ (2014) Promoting civil discourse through search engine diversity. Social Science Computer Review32(2): 145–154.
