Search results

This article explores the Lithuanian public discourse in the mass media by addressing the problem of exclusion and inclusion of the Polish national minority in the Lithuanian political community and in the Lithuanian collective identity. On March 17, 2011, the Lithuanian Parliament passed Amendments to the Education Act that diminished to some extent the rights of national minorities in education. The Polish national minority, the largest such in Lithuania, reacted very strongly and negatively and organized public protests. These actions were accompanied by the involvement of highest–rank Polish and Lithuanian politicians and huge public debates in the mass media. The public sphere and public debates are key factors in the process of political community formation (Jürgen Habermas), national collective memory and identity (Thomas Risse, Bo Sträth), and inclusion or exclusion of the "Other." The most evident tendency is that Lithuanian public discourse and mass media still suffer from an unability to view Lithuania's Poles as equal members of the same political community. The general athmosphere of the public debates is penetrated by mutual distrust on both (the Lithuanian and the Polish) sides; and this can be explained by an ambivalent historical relationship (Polish cultural and political domination over Lithuania and the Vilnius occupation by Poland from 1920 to 1939), although such historical memory is not loudly and widely expressed in the mass media. The result is that the Polish national minority is still the alien "Other" for the Lithuanian mass media. Local Polish needs are still unknown and unrecognized as legitimate claims of "our citizens." Public opinion in the mass media is still dominated by a conviction that the main problem lies in the bad actions of politicians who are trying to mobilize their electorate by exploiting the minority issue.[.]

This article explores the Lithuanian public discourse in the mass media by addressing the problem of exclusion and inclusion of the Polish national minority in the Lithuanian political community and in the Lithuanian collective identity. On March 17, 2011, the Lithuanian Parliament passed Amendments to the Education Act that diminished to some extent the rights of national minorities in education. The Polish national minority, the largest such in Lithuania, reacted very strongly and negatively and organized public protests. These actions were accompanied by the involvement of highest–rank Polish and Lithuanian politicians and huge public debates in the mass media. The public sphere and public debates are key factors in the process of political community formation (Jürgen Habermas), national collective memory and identity (Thomas Risse, Bo Sträth), and inclusion or exclusion of the "Other." The most evident tendency is that Lithuanian public discourse and mass media still suffer from an unability to view Lithuania's Poles as equal members of the same political community. The general athmosphere of the public debates is penetrated by mutual distrust on both (the Lithuanian and the Polish) sides; and this can be explained by an ambivalent historical relationship (Polish cultural and political domination over Lithuania and the Vilnius occupation by Poland from 1920 to 1939), although such historical memory is not loudly and widely expressed in the mass media. The result is that the Polish national minority is still the alien "Other" for the Lithuanian mass media. Local Polish needs are still unknown and unrecognized as legitimate claims of "our citizens." Public opinion in the mass media is still dominated by a conviction that the main problem lies in the bad actions of politicians who are trying to mobilize their electorate by exploiting the minority issue.[.]

This article explores the Lithuanian public discourse in the mass media by addressing the problem of exclusion and inclusion of the Polish national minority in the Lithuanian political community and in the Lithuanian collective identity. On March 17, 2011, the Lithuanian Parliament passed Amendments to the Education Act that diminished to some extent the rights of national minorities in education. The Polish national minority, the largest such in Lithuania, reacted very strongly and negatively and organized public protests. These actions were accompanied by the involvement of highest–rank Polish and Lithuanian politicians and huge public debates in the mass media. The public sphere and public debates are key factors in the process of political community formation (Jürgen Habermas), national collective memory and identity (Thomas Risse, Bo Sträth), and inclusion or exclusion of the "Other." The most evident tendency is that Lithuanian public discourse and mass media still suffer from an unability to view Lithuania's Poles as equal members of the same political community. The general athmosphere of the public debates is penetrated by mutual distrust on both (the Lithuanian and the Polish) sides; and this can be explained by an ambivalent historical relationship (Polish cultural and political domination over Lithuania and the Vilnius occupation by Poland from 1920 to 1939), although such historical memory is not loudly and widely expressed in the mass media. The result is that the Polish national minority is still the alien "Other" for the Lithuanian mass media. Local Polish needs are still unknown and unrecognized as legitimate claims of "our citizens." Public opinion in the mass media is still dominated by a conviction that the main problem lies in the bad actions of politicians who are trying to mobilize their electorate by exploiting the minority issue.[.]

Full, open, and civilized discourse among citizens is fundamental to the life of a liberal democracy. It seems trite to assert that no discourse should be prohibited or excluded simply because it is grounded in religious faith or employs religious beliefs to justify a particular position. Yet there are those who contend that it is improper for citizens to use religious arguments when debating or deciding issues in the public square, that metaphorical arena where issues of public policy are discussed and contested. In this article we challenge this position, examining the various arguments that are put forward for keeping public discourse secular, arguments that when citizens explicitly ground their social and political views in their religious beliefs, this is divisive, exclusionary, and ultimately antithetical to the liberal democratic state. We maintain that none of these arguments are persuasive.

If democracy is a discussion, then the exclusion of radical leftist economic perspectives may hamper democracy. Does this exclusion take place and if so, how? In this case study an analysis of the discourse in the Slovak evening panel discussion Dinner with Havran shows the various ways in which the exclusion (and marginalization) of such perspectives is achieved. This exclusionary discursive practice is then explained through interviews with the team behind the show and the norms and constraints that guide the production of the show. The analysis is based on Stuart Hall's critical paradigm and, confirming Hall's insights, it argues that the show is independent from the dominant political and economic forces in Slovakia, yet at the same time the show contributes to the functioning of the Slovak public broadcasting service as an ideological state apparatus that is biased in favor of the interests of economic elites.

Public policy discourse has entered an era of media-driven hyperreality, becoming detached from the lived experience of the polity. Bumper-sticker political symbols, such as "the war on drugs," have displaced vibrant discussion of public issues. This depreciation of the public discourse can be apprehended if we conceptualize this problematic as a postmodern phenomenon. By borrowing vocabulary and concepts from postmodern thought, we can try to figure out what is going on. How is modernity different from postmodernity? How does reality become hyperreality? After a description of postmodern conditions—and the implications of this for public policy discourse—the "war on drugs" is deconstructed to supply a vivid example of the slippery slope from reality to hyperreality.

The degree to which civility norms are upheld or violated is an important criterion in evaluating the democratic quality of public debates. We investigate civility across media types, political systems, and levels of socio-cultural division, offering a comparative perspective on how these factors shape levels of civility in public debates around a key question for societies around the world: What is the proper role of religion in public life? Capturing both positive and negative forms of civility (i.e., recognition and outrage) on multiple levels of analysis, we compile and analyze an original large-scale dataset of news items published during August 2015 until July 2016 in six democracies (Australia, Germany, Lebanon, Switzerland, Turkey, and the USA) across three types of media (printed newspapers, news websites, and political blogs). We find that mediated discourse was heavier on outrage in mixed political systems (Germany and Turkey) than in 'purely' majoritarian and consensus systems. Public debate in deeply divided countries contained more outrage but also more recognition compared to less divided countries, with newspapers and news websites mitigating outrage discourse compared to political blogs. Blogs also emerged as less nurturing of recognition than newspapers and news websites.

The degree to which civility norms are upheld or violated is an important criterion in evaluating the democratic quality of public debates. We investigate civility across media types, political systems, and levels of socio-cultural division, offering a comparative perspective on how these factors shape levels of civility in public debates around a key question for societies around the world: What is the proper role of religion in public life? Capturing both positive and negative forms of civility (i.e., recognition and outrage) on multiple levels of analysis, we compile and analyze an original large-scale dataset of news items published during August 2015 until July 2016 in six democracies (Australia, Germany, Lebanon, Switzerland, Turkey, and the USA) across three types of media (printed newspapers, news websites, and political blogs). We find that mediated discourse was heavier on outrage in mixed political systems (Germany and Turkey) than in 'purely' majoritarian and consensus systems. Public debate in deeply divided countries contained more outrage but also more recognition compared to less divided countries, with newspapers and news websites mitigating outrage discourse compared to political blogs. Blogs also emerged as less nurturing of recognition than newspapers and news websites.

The aim of this article is to analyze the postmodern episteme of power and its outlines in Lithuania. Postmodern concept of power and discursive regime of truth is analyzed following the theoretical premises of poststructuralist theories by J.–F. Lyotard and J. Baudrillard. Credibility of postmodern discourse in Lithuania is being proved by illuminating and developing the concept of double modernization of Lithuania and devaluation of two projects of modernity, the soviet one and the national one. The model of national modernity replaced the devaluated model of soviet modernity in Lithuania after 1990. The national modern system of signs and symbols, inherited partly from early twentieth century, experienced a deep crisis in approximately 1993: credibility and implied self evidence of the meta language of national rebirth has been destroyed; systematic exploitation of remains of the meta language, its signs and symbols, turned out to normative and commercially successful activity; and finally parody, former shadow of reality, overshadowed the reality itself. The postmodern discursive regime of truth and power emerged in Lithuania from the crisis of modern meta language of national rebirth.

The elusive consensus of a society in crisis / Dimitris Katsikas -- 'It's not the austerity, stupid'. Interpreting the frames of the far-right wing radicalization / Vasiliki Georgiadou and Anastasia Kafe -- Greek elites' attitudes about the crisis / Dimitris Katsikas -- Framing the sacred : separation panic as the main frame of the European Union during the July 2015 referendum in Greece / Yannis Tsirbas -- Assessing the image of Germany in the Greek media during the crisis (2010-2015) / George N. Tzogopoulos -- Chancellor Merkel's visits to Greece and the 2015 referendum : shifting blaming patterns in readers' online comments / Anastasia Theodosiou and Maria Zafiropoulou -- Framing the crisis in Greece / Dimitris Katsikas.

Finnish state monopolies have been in a state of change during the mid-2010s. This paper focuses on the developments of the alcohol retail, railroad and gambling sectors during this period by analysing media texts (N=143) from 2014 to 2017 and with the concepts of Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework (MSF). Results show how the convergence of politics, policies and problematizations opened policy windows for government initiatives to liberalize alcohol retail and railroad traffic markets while consolidating the gambling monopoly. The differing outcomes are surprising given that they all took place under the same liberal right-wing government, as well as under obligations to dismantle monopolies in the European Union and in accordance with international commerce treaties. The explanation unfolds by looking at the stakeholders and their justifications. Differing outcomes also reflect the varying trajectories through which the policy processes proceeded, although they seem to conclude with consensus and at least a semblance of agreement between the different parties when a decision is reached. The study gives insight into how state monopolies are negotiated in contemporary Europe. ; Peer reviewed

The largest part of the existing literature with regard to Islamophobia in Greece focuses primarily on the policies, activities and discourse of politicians and political groups of the extreme right, Orthodox Church figures, state authorities, the media and the Internet. The purpose of this article is to cast light on an aspect which is frequently neglected in the study of Islamophobia, i.e., the role of public intellectuals, through a series of questions: Where do public intellectuals in Greece stand with regard to Islamophobia? What are the main themes in their public discourse with regard to Islam and Muslims? What is the role they play in the reproduction of Islamophobic views? Having in mind the debates over the concepts of Islamo-Fascism, Islamo-leftism, Islamophilia and Islamophobia, this article builds on the literature about the role of intellectuals in society with a special focus on their views about Islam. Analysing the discourse of three public intellectuals, the main argument is that Islamophobia in Greece is not an exclusive element of the extreme-right or the Orthodox Church. Self-proclaimed progressive or liberal intellectuals, through their public discourse, also contribute to the reproduction and entrenchment of the fear and moral panic about Islam.