| 1. |
- Allern, Sigurd, 1946-, et al.
(författare)
-
Introduction: New Nordic Journalism Research
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Nordicom Review. - : Walter de Gruyter GmbH. - 1403-1108 .- 2001-5119. ; 34, s. 7-10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 2. |
- Berglez, Peter, 1973-, et al.
(författare)
-
What is journalism's contribution to deliberative communication and democracy?
- 2024
-
Ingår i: European media systems for deliberative communication. - New York : Routledge. - 9781032760001 - 9781032760025 - 9781003476597 ; , s. 64-81
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The purpose of this contribution is to examine more precisely how professional journalism can contribute to deliberative communication and democracy in the European context. Which structural conditions and which factors are essential? We begin with theorizing what will be referred to as the journalism domain, i.e. the various aspects of journalism considered. We do this through a combination of media sociological, media theoretical, and political communication-oriented thinking. Then we operationalize the role of journalism for deliberative communication/democracy into a few variables, which is then paving the way for our analysis of the condition of journalism in 14 EU countries during 2000–2020. We present some results from existing national case study reports. Finally, we provide some concluding comments on how to interpret the data with a focus on the capacity of journalism to contribute to deliberative communication and democracy in the different countries.
|
|
| 3. |
- Berglez, Peter, 1973-, et al.
(författare)
-
What is journalism's contribution to deliberative communication and democracy?
- 2024. - 1st
-
Ingår i: European Media Systems for Deliberative Communication. - New York and London : Routledge. - 9781032760001 - 9781003476597 - 9781032760025 ; , s. 64-81
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The purpose of this contribution is to examine more precisely how professional journalism can contribute to deliberative communication and democracy in the European context. Which structural conditions and which factors are essential? We begin with theorizing what will be referred to as the journalism domain, i.e. the various aspects of journalism considered. We do this through a combination of media sociological, media theoretical, and political communication-oriented thinking. Then we operationalize the role of journalism for deliberative communication/democracy into a few variables, which is then paving the way for our analysis of the condition of journalism in 14 EU countries during 2000–2020. We present some results from existing national case study reports. Finally, we provide some concluding comments on how to interpret the data with a focus on the capacity of journalism to contribute to deliberative communication and democracy in the different countries.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Lauk, Epp, et al.
(författare)
-
Can Media Enhance Deliberative Democracy? Exploring Media Monitoring Capabilities in 14 EU‐Countries
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Media and Communication. - : Cogitatio. - 2183-2439. ; 12, s. 1-6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The editorial introduces the topic of this thematic issue, which is the important role of society’s media monitoring capabilities, i.e., to produce information about what media “do” to society, and more precisely for democratic development both the here and the now and in the longer term. The theoretical and methodological aspects of the thematic issue are presented according to the approach of an EU‐funded project Mediadelcom, which aims to explain interconnections between the news media transformations and the risks and opportunities for deliberative communication. One of the stages of the project investigates media monitoring capabilities in different countries. The eight articles introduced in the editorial contribute to deepening the perspectives on the capabilities of media monitoring in the 21st century, and to understanding their function in detecting potential risks and opportunities for democratic public deliberation.
|
|
| 7. |
- von Krogh, Torbjörn, 1948-
(författare)
-
Understanding Media Accountability : Media Accountability in Relation to Media Criticism and Media Governance in Sweden 1940-2010
- 2012
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The concepts of media accountability, media criticism and media governance are analysed and discussed in a Swedish setting; how they relate to each other and interact. This is achieved by using various methods – a survey to editors, analy- ses of parliamentary debates, interviews, direct observation and document stu- dies – in studying different stakeholders, media representatives and governance conditions in Sweden during the last 70 years.The findings point in a direction of dynamic complexities with a central role for media criticism. The type, level and intensity of media criticism may affect the functioning of the media governance structure and is a vital part of the media accountability process. The media governance structure – which in addi- tion to media criticism is influenced by international conditions, technological developments and political factors – may in turn affect the media accountability process. In this process, media representatives aim to defend obtained positions of societal influence, achieve and maintain positive PR and enhance editorial quality at the same time.Media criticism may start a substantial media accountability process if the discontent is widespread and not countered by market approval or political iner- tia. The process is facilitated if the critique is connected to more than one frame of accountability and if stakeholders see opportunities for dual objectives. Very strong and widespread media criticism may be difficult for media organizations to neglect.The accountability process in Sweden has become less dependent on corpora- tive negotiations between organized interests and political assemblies. Instead, two other tendencies seem to have emerged: on the one hand a possibility for media organizations to favour such accountability processes that they are able to control, and on the other hand the rise of a rich variety of sometimes short-lived accountability instruments that may develop for specific occasions and are difficult to control.
|
|
