This article examines reciprocal journalism in Ethiopian media, highlighting the lack of inter-op-ed dialogue during reforms.
This article examines reciprocal journalism practices in Ethiopian newspaper op-ed sections during the 2018 reform period. Using public sphere theory as a lens, the article explores the interactional dimension through two key aspects: inter-op-ed reciprocity (dialogue across op-eds) and op-ed-editorial interplay (alignment between them), drawing on all op-eds and editorials related to the reform agenda across five leading publications. The analysis reveals a notable absence of reciprocal journalism within the op-ed sections of these Ethiopian newspapers during that period. Specifically, interaction between op-eds mainly occurs outside the outlets via references to unspecified media, speeches, interviews or events, rather than through intra-outlet debates. This lack of reciprocity weakens the practice of reciprocal journalism and diverges from the intended role of newspaper op-ed sections as dynamic public forums. Moreover, the polarized pro- and anti-reform debates further reflect fragmentation rather than inclusivity, undermining Habermas’s fundamental principle of a public sphere in which rational-critical discourse among diverse viewpoints is essential for fostering inclusive public opinion rather than polarized echo chambers. This deficiency in reciprocal engagement also compromises the role of newspaper op-ed sections as vibrant public forums and conflicts with the ideals of effective reciprocal journalism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Taglo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: