Dialogue as a litmus test for democracy and good communication
People want to be heard and noticed – a simple yet demanding insight that was repeatedly voiced at the conference on communication ethics. In a society where information flows constantly, opinions collide, and algorithms amplify emotions, the question is not only about freedom of speech but also about whether people truly listen to and understand one another.
The conference "Less Noise, More Dialogue! Agreements for Good Communication", organised by the University of Tartu Centre for Ethics, the Institute of Social Studies and the think tank Praxis, brought together different stakeholders who influence public communication, including researchers, journalists, representatives of various organisations, members of civil society, schools and kindergartens. Together, they sought answers to a pressing question: how can we create more genuine dialogue and less empty noise in society? The day offered both theoretical frameworks and practical tools, as well as discussions and debates that invited participants to reflect – and to critically examine their own ways of communicating.
The day was moderated by Urmo Kübar (Praxis), who wove the presentations and discussions into a coherent whole. The focus was on dialogue, communication ethics, and responsibility at both the individual and societal levels.
Dialogue as a path from noise to understanding
The conference was opened by Professor Halliki Harro-Loit from the University of Tartu and Professor Epp Lauk from Vytautas Magnus University. According to them, dialogue is not simply talking to one another but creating a shared understanding. At the same time, dialogue is not appropriate in every situation; it is equally important to understand when dialogue is necessary. In a crisis situation, clear instructions and guidance are needed rather than dialogue, whereas negotiations place dialogue at their centre.
Almost everyone has experienced a situation in which they were not listened to or in which dialogue was merely apparent. Such experiences create alienation and frustration, especially when "one person talks about the garden while the other talks about a hole in the fence". Dialogical communication, therefore, requires a conscious agreement: why we communicate, what kinds of communication we value and what kinds we do not.
Engaging in dialogue requires both ethical and communicative competence. A central principle of the ethics of dialogical communication is that every participant has agency and responsibility – an ethical obligation to listen and to take others into account in whatever role they occupy, whether journalist, official, researcher or citizen. Perfect communication will never be achieved, yet the ideal must still be clearly articulated as a goal, so that there is a direction towards which to move.
But talking does not yet mean dialogue
The communication ethics and dialogue laboratory simulation organised by the team from the University of Tartu Centre for Ethics, titled "How Not to Talk to a Wall?", demonstrated in practice how quickly a conversation can turn into a monologue. Even when participants believe they are engaging in dialogue, preconceptions, roles and power positions can prevent genuine understanding.
In the simulation, participants acted out communication-ethical situations. Each situation was first presented from the perspective of one party, then from the other. Playing through the same scenario from two different perspectives helped broaden participants’ understanding of how the same situation can be interpreted in multiple ways. The simulation showed that dialogue does not emerge spontaneously; it requires a conscious space where listening is an active act rather than merely a pause between two statements.
The conference also introduced a toolkit for good dialogue, offering practical techniques and guidance for initiating, maintaining and developing dialogue in various communication situations.
A European Comparison and Estonia’s Particularities
In the afternoon, the perspective expanded to the European level with a presentation by Professor Tobias Eberwein of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, who discussed the practices of dialogical communication ethics in different countries. While the basic principles of good communication are broadly similar – transparency, responsibility and respect – their application is shaped by historical and cultural particularities. In recent years, the field of communication has also witnessed a so-called dialogical turn: whereas in the era of traditional media, public debate was shaped by relatively few actors and opportunities for representation were limited, the digital era has significantly expanded participation. Increasingly, more people can contribute to shaping what public communication looks like and which topics receive attention.
Eberwein noted that this development is also closely related to the question of accountability. In public communication, responsibility no longer refers only to the obligation of professional journalists and media organisations to justify and explain their activities, but increasingly also to the responsibility of other actors for the quality of the communication environment. Dialogical communication requires all participants to be willing to justify their views, listen to others, and, when necessary, take responsibility for their words and actions.
As part of the DIACOMET research project, focus group interviews were conducted across Europe to better understand how people perceive public communication, what expectations they have of the media and other actors in the public sphere, and whether they feel their voices are truly heard in societal debate. The results of the 11 focus groups conducted in Estonia were presented by researcher Mari-Liisa Parder from the University of Tartu Centre for Ethics and Moonika Raja from the think tank Praxis. They highlighted one interesting particularity: in Estonia, expectations of the journalist’s role are rather high – if journalism does not "save the day", it may seem as if there is no solution at all. This places a significant burden of responsibility on journalists.
Journalists themselves also feel a strong sense of professional responsibility. Journalism seeks to maintain quality standards, yet social media has created a parallel normative environment where emotion and confrontation often have greater impact than balanced argument. At the same time, the focus group discussions revealed another perspective: several participants felt that their views were not listened to sufficiently and that their experiences and concerns did not reach public debate through journalism. The perception of not being heard can deepen the trust gap between the media and some groups in society.
Roles, relationships and the quality of dialogue
In the discussion "How Do Roles Shape Dialogue?", Maarja-Liisa Kapaun from the Network of Estonian Nonprofit Organisations, family therapist Helmer Hallik and Kärt Pormeister, who operates on social media under the name Tavakodanikust naisterahvas (An Ordinary Woman Citizen), shared their perspectives.
According to Maarja-Liisa Kapaun, ethics should not be treated as a rigid set of rules. A code of ethics is not a "moral lighthouse" that commands and prohibits, but rather a compass that helps maintain direction in complex situations. Decisions require information – and obtaining information requires dialogue.
Helmer Hallik emphasised that dialogue does not emerge in isolation but in relationships and systems. Dialogue reflects the health of a system: whether it is caring or pressuring, open or closed. When people speak, they usually confirm what they already know; when they listen, they may learn something new. The quality of dialogue is determined not so much by what is said but by how it is said – the tone, attitude and willingness to understand the other.
Kärt Pormeister brought the online environment into focus. Communication on the internet tends to drift towards insults or endless arguments rather than meaningful discussion. Algorithms amplify emotion and confrontation because this increases visibility. Dialogue, however, requires entering a conversation without ready-made answers and using words consciously. The key to clarity in dialogue is making things understandable for everyone. As a recommendation, she mentioned the principle of ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5) – explaining a complex topic as if the recipient of the message were five years old.
The age of noise and the limits of responsibility
The day concluded with a panel discussion titled "Who Is Responsible? The Limits of Responsibility for Noise and Dialogue in Estonian Society", featuring Heiko Leesment from Tallinn University, Estonian Public Broadcasting journalist Sandra Saar and Stella Saarts, Strategic Communications Adviser at the Government Office. The discussion was moderated by Urmo Kübar.
The concept of the "age of noise" emerged strongly in the discussion, a situation in which the information environment is fragmented and creating common ground becomes increasingly difficult. Noise, in this context, is not only about loud opinions but also about structural problems: algorithms, design solutions, and systemic choices can either support or hinder dialogue.
The participants discussed whether the state sees citizens as dialogue partners or as objects to whom rules are imposed. When services are designed from the perspective of the official rather than the person, alienation arises. At the same time, participation is time-consuming and inconvenient, yet without it, trust cannot emerge. Sandra Saar emphasised the importance of media literacy as a guarantee of good communication, especially among young people. If even adults struggle to distinguish high-quality information from noise and AI-generated content, supporting children with tools for critical thinking becomes essential.
In her closing remarks, Halliki Harro-Loit once again stressed that no code of ethics alone can change anything. A code of ethics remains mere paper unless it is accompanied by a living practice – discussions, case analyses and learning. The purpose of thinking about ethics is not to punish but to help people notice and understand. Dialogue does not necessarily mean agreement; disagreements may remain in dialogue, but they can be handled in ways that do not break relationships. Dialogue is a skill that must be practised: listening, curiosity and the willingness to recognise one’s own preconceptions.
A simple, human message resonated throughout the conference: when people feel they are being listened to, the tone changes. And perhaps Estonia’s small size is precisely the advantage that makes it possible to create more genuine encounters where dialogue is not a slogan but an experience.
The conference was organised by the University of Tartu Centre for Ethics, the University of Tartu Institute of Social Studies and Praxis. The conference took place within the DIACOMET project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101094816. The views and opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
Read more similar news
