Many media professionals and researchers agree on deliberative communication as the ideal for public debates: solutions should be found through equal exchange among all parties involved, based solely on the strength of the best argument, rather than on power structures or “deals.” But what does the public sphere need to achieve this goal? Which actors play key roles, and how can the conditions for public deliberation be improved? These questions were the focus of the Mediadelcom project, funded under the EU's Horizon 2020 program, with the Erich Brost Institute as the German partner, led by Marcus Kreutler and Prof. Dr. Susanne Fengler. The final conference took place in Brussels on February 15.

The three-year project was divided into developing the theoretical framework, conducting country case studies on monitoring capacities in the media sector and key developments since 2000, and analyzing the collected data. The researchers identified combinations of conditions under which deliberative communication works better—or worse. They also created scenarios for future developments and policy recommendations for the media sector.

The challenge was to organize a conference that catered to the diverse audience of the research findings, including EU and member state media policy, academia, and the media industry, as well as the general public. Zrinjka Peruško from the Centre for Media and Communication Research at the University of Zagreb delivered a research-oriented keynote, presenting key findings from the Mediadelcom project. For example, the data showed that public deliberation tends to work better in countries where people still have relatively high trust in journalistic mass media. In contrast, high trust in social media was associated with less societal deliberation in the countries studied.

The second keynote addressed threats to free media reporting from a different perspective. Economic sustainability is essential for effective and independent journalism, argued Marius Dragomir, Director of the Media and Journalism Research Center in Budapest. This set the stage for panel discussions and roundtables: The two keynote speakers discussed East-West differences in the media sector with Eric Heinze from Queen Mary University in London and Romanian Mediadelcom representative Ioana Avădani. Michał Głowacki and Marcus Kreutler from the Mediadelcom project spoke with Renate Schroeder from the European Federation of Journalists and Laura Becana Ball from the Global Forum for Media Development about the interplay of different actors for successful public communication, as well as the planned European Media Freedom Act. Finally, Daniel Hallin from the Mediadelcom advisory board invited all attendees to exchange different perspectives.

Can an academic project event effectively engage such diverse audiences as communication research, media policy, and media practice? The audience's contributions suggest that it can: journalists spoke up, as did representatives from NGOs and media regulatory authorities. Journalism education was also represented, both from the perspective of educators and students, who clearly expressed their expectations and desires for future-oriented training to moderate public debates.

Interaction with students was further encouraged through excursions organized by the Slovak and German project partners. Nine students from the Institute of Journalism (IJ) participated in the event, bringing valuable perspectives to the discussions. Their trip was rounded out with visits to EU institutions the day before the conference.