Abstract Despite the vast literature on deliberative democracy, comparatively little has been said about the kind of journalism that best suits it. Drawing on insights from deliberative theorists and communication scholars, I suggest that the core function of deliberative journalism is to promote high-quality democratic deliberation. I then identify and explicate four key duties that journalists should honor to fulfill this function. The general duty of deliberative gatekeeping commands journalists to select the contents with the greatest potential to foster quality deliberation. The selection of issues is regulated by the duty to set a deliberative agenda, which requires journalists to report only on issues worth deliberating about. The selection and communication of information is regulated by the duty to explain, which commands journalists to make issues understandable to their audiences, and the duty to promote public reasoning, which commands journalists to actively stimulate their audiences’ engagement in deliberations. Finally, to clarify the distinctiveness of deliberative journalism, I contrast this ideal with the ideals of objective reporting, partisan journalism, watchdog journalism, commercial journalism, and public journalism.
Rubén Marciel (2026) studied this question.