Scholarlink

<p>In some divided democracies, competing ideological groups erode open discourse and inquiry through distinct institutional pathways, driven by asymmetric control of information production and a "zero-sum" view of procedural rights. When one ideological coalition (‘institutional majority’) dominates mainstream information institutions (media, academia, scientific associations), it often marginalizes opposing viewpoints as harmful. The marginalized (‘institutional minority’) turn to non-mainstream institutions (NMIs), which disseminate “radical” counter-claims ranging from broadly verified to narrowly conspiratorial. To the extent that some mainstream institutions adhere to procedurally liberal norms, NMI participants are incentivized to seek mainstream verification of their counter-claims. When institutional minorities gain political power, policy initiatives based on claims that achieve some degree of mainstream verification generate more durable changes than those based on less-verified claims. To the extent that institutional minorities verify their claims and implement policy initiatives, they remake–and broaden–mainstream discourse and plural democracy. We illustrate with a comparative analysis of the United States and South Korea.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Asymmetric information and open discourse: US and South Korea

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月18日

查看全文
  • Joseph Yi,
  • Terry N. Clark

摘要

In some divided democracies, competing ideological groups erode open discourse and inquiry through distinct institutional pathways, driven by asymmetric control of information production and a "zero-sum" view of procedural rights. When one ideological coalition (‘institutional majority’) dominates mainstream information institutions (media, academia, scientific associations), it often marginalizes opposing viewpoints as harmful. The marginalized (‘institutional minority’) turn to non-mainstream institutions (NMIs), which disseminate “radical” counter-claims ranging from broadly verified to narrowly conspiratorial. To the extent that some mainstream institutions adhere to procedurally liberal norms, NMI participants are incentivized to seek mainstream verification of their counter-claims. When institutional minorities gain political power, policy initiatives based on claims that achieve some degree of mainstream verification generate more durable changes than those based on less-verified claims. To the extent that institutional minorities verify their claims and implement policy initiatives, they remake–and broaden–mainstream discourse and plural democracy. We illustrate with a comparative analysis of the United States and South Korea.