It is encouraged to have a consultation between public interest, private interest and government interest, which is a standard kind of deliberation in the telecommunication and broadcasting regulatory system. This consultation is often orchestrated as public hearings. You have public hearings on regulatory issues and on administrative issues. A public hearing does not have to involve all stakeholders equally. Therefore with the same logic, a public hearing does not have to include all stakeholders equally. Some have a greater voice and therefore their voice will get amplified at a stakeholder meeting. The public hearing is the illustration of witnessed presence in processes of governance.
When a public hearing than gets transformed to a set of mediated hearings in a television program or through Internet, or any form of multi dialogue thing, does it remain a public hearing? Does it become more public or less public? Is there more hearing and less talking? These issues pop up. If the public hearing is organized by the state, as opposed to non-state, does it make a difference? If a company organizes the public hearing, does it make a difference? A public hearing is already a performance event, which then gets double orchestrated because it is on television, it is an event made out of an event. First of all does that increase transparency? Does it increase accountability? Just because I said something on television to 20 people who are there in the studio and 20 million who are watching it, does that force accountability on me?
