Suchergebnisse

This study examines whether news is more or less homogeneous online than in print across agenda-setting news outlets in the United States, Denmark, and France. Examining similarities and differences in the genres, topics, and authors of news in each country's leading newspapers, it finds little evidence of greater online homogeneity in any country. U.S. news outlets are more differentiated online than in print, while French news outlets have similar levels of print and online differentiation. Online data for Denmark reveal no consistent pattern in the direction of either homogeneity or differentiation. These findings suggest that the differentiating effects of the online environment are strongest in countries (e.g., the United States) where media markets are being restructured to include more direct competition between agenda-setting news outlets at the national level. By contrast, countries (e.g., France and, to a lesser degree, Denmark) with high levels of print differentiation have similarly high levels online due to the path-dependent effects of their national media systems.

This article explores the state of public policy preferences between the United States and Mexico in the realm of foreign policy in the context of the post‐9/11 world, democratic change within Mexico, and the immigration protests within the United States. Specifically, we will analyze the differences and possible convergence of public policy views on the issues of terrorism, immigration, free trade agreements, drug trafficking, and foreign policy. We find that although there are differences of opinion, particularly in the application of force in Iraq and on the benefits of free trade, there still remains a significant degree of positive convergence within the policy issues of terrorism, immigration, and drug trafficking. Although there are institutional impediments to progressive policy change, future relations between the United States and Mexico do not need to be contentious as long as the focus is on the similarities, rather than the differences, in public preferences between the populations of the two states.

"Low pay. Uncertain work prospects. Diminished prestige. Why would anyone still want be a journalist? Drawing on in-depth interviews in France and the United States, Matthew Powers and Sandra Vera-Zambrano explore the ways individuals come to believe that journalism is a worthy pursuit-and how that conviction is managed and sometimes dissolves amid the profession's ongoing upheavals. For many people, journalism represents a job that is interesting and substantial, with opportunities for expression, a sense of self-fulfillment, and a connection to broader social values. By distilling complex ideas, holding the powerful to account, and revealing hidden realities, journalists play a crucial role in helping audiences make sense of the world. Experiences in the profession, though, are often far more disappointing. Many find themselves doing tasks that bear little relation to what attracted them initially or are frustrated by institutions privileging what sells over what informs. The imbalance between the profession's economic woes and its social importance threatens to erode individuals' beliefs that journalism remains a worthwhile pursuit. Powers and Vera-Zambrano emphasize that, as with many seemingly individual choices, social factors-class, gender, education, and race-shape how journalists make sense of their profession and whether or not they remain in it. An in-depth story of one profession under pressure, The Journalist's Predicament uncovers tensions that also confront other socially important jobs like teaching, nursing, and caretaking"--

Low pay. Uncertain work prospects. Diminished prestige. Why would anyone still want be a journalist? Drawing on in-depth interviews in France and the United States, Matthew Powers and Sandra Vera-Zambrano explore the ways individuals come to believe that journalism is a worthy pursuit-and how that conviction is managed and sometimes dissolves amid the profession's ongoing upheavals.For many people, journalism represents a job that is interesting and substantial, with opportunities for expression, a sense of self-fulfillment, and a connection to broader social values. By distilling complex ideas, holding the powerful to account, and revealing hidden realities, journalists play a crucial role in helping audiences make sense of the world. Experiences in the profession, though, are often far more disappointing. Many find themselves doing tasks that bear little relation to what attracted them initially or are frustrated by institutions privileging what sells over what informs. The imbalance between the profession's economic woes and its social importance threatens to erode individuals' beliefs that journalism remains a worthwhile pursuit. Powers and Vera-Zambrano emphasize that, as with many seemingly individual choices, social factors-class, gender, education, and race-shape how journalists make sense of their profession and whether or not they remain in it.An in-depth story of one profession under pressure, The Journalist's Predicament uncovers tensions that also confront other socially important jobs like teaching, nursing, and caretaking

Building on literatures that emphasize (1) the standardizing effects of markets and technology, and (2) the historical patterns and social functions of the press, this article theorizes the simultaneous co-presence of cross-national similarities and differences in journalistic judgment. Drawing from Max Weber's early twentieth century writings on journalism, we argue that similar cross-national judgments reveal journalism's shared structural basis as a commercial enterprise, whereas differences highlight the distinctive social functions that journalists assume in particular national settings. We illustrate this framework via semi-structured interviews conducted between 2015 and 2020 with a strategic sample of French and American journalists evaluating their best work. In both country samples, journalists that express pride in attracting audiences by translating complex issues and dignifying story subjects highlight journalism's structural basis. Cross-national differences reflect nationally distinct understandings of journalism's social functions, with French journalists emphasizing their ability to shed light on large issues and their American counterparts highlighting efforts to pry information from power holders.

Current discussions about the state of comparative research in journalism studies and political communication suggests the field is characterized by a methodological imbalance (i.e., many quantitative studies, few qualitative ones). This paper suggests the problem is better understood as an epistemological imbalance. We suggest that one epistemology—we call it "universalism"—underpins much comparative scholarship. While this approach produces numerous comparative insights, it also struggles to adequately account for the diversity of contexts it studies. We therefore describe an alternative epistemology, which we term "contextualism." This approach aims to identify the mechanisms or principles that unify or differentiate cases across contexts. We suggest that progress in the field depends in part on the coexistence of multiple epistemologies, each with careful awareness of its strengths and limitations.

This article examines journalists' use of social media in France and the United States. Through in-depth interviews, we show that shared practical sensibilities lead journalists in both countries to use social media to accomplish routine tasks (e.g. gather information, monitor sources, and develop story ideas). At the same time, we argue that the incorporation of social media into daily practice also creates opportunities for journalists to garner peer recognition and that these opportunities vary according to the distinctive national fields in which journalists are embedded. Where American journalism incentivizes individual journalists to orient social media use toward audiences, French journalism motivates news organizations to use social media for these purposes, while leaving individual journalists to focus primarily on engaging with their peers. We position these findings in relation to debates on the uses of technologies across national settings.

Although several existing studies examine the economic impact of transnational terrorism by referring to its potential to reduce foreign direct investment (FDI), they overlook possible differences in the effects of business-related and non-business-related terrorism. We argue that the former type of terror negatively affects FDI since it damages multinationals' buildings, destroys their products, kills their employees, and causes a rise in insurance premiums. The latter type of terror, however, does not induce the same ramifications and should thus have little or less influence on a country's FDI. In order to examine the effects of these two different types of transnational terrorism, we employ three different statistical techniques using data gleaned from the International Terrorism: Attributes of Terrorist Events (ITERATE) dataset. A cross-sectional, time-series data analysis of 123 developing countries during the period from 1980 to 2008 reveals that transnational terrorism that harms multinational businesses contributes to a decrease of foreign investment but transnational terrorism that afflicts non-business-related targets is statistically irrelevant. This implies that when countries implement counterterrorism measures that are directly intended to mitigate the impact of business-related terrorist activities, they are likely to attract more foreign capital and should therefore realize a greater degree of economic development.

Public media's contributions to democracy are well established. Less widely known are the specific policies that make these contributions possible. This study finds that professional autonomy and civic accountability in public media are supported by (1) funding established for multiyear periods; (2) legal charters that restrict partisan government influence while also mandating the provision of diverse, high-quality programming; (3) oversight agencies, whose "arm's length" independence from the government in power is bolstered through staggered terms and the dispersal of authority to make appointments; and (4) audience councils and surveys designed to strengthen links to diverse publics. Public media governed by policies that continue and extend, rather than depart from, these best practices will likely be the most successful in maintaining their civic mission online.

The Peace Game is a software-based model of peace and stability operations that are underway in regions such as South Sudan and Afghanistan with the potential to revolutionize campaign planning. The Peace Game is an immersive environment requiring no special installation that is designed to expose decision-makers to the complexities and non-linear qualities of modern conflict. The Peace Game facilitates multiple players assuming roles as government leaders, military and coalition commanders, NGO representatives, or various militia camps as they attempt to cooperate with or undermine the strategies being implemented by the other players. Simply put, the Peace Game inspires deep exploration of the operational environment at a strategic level, as opposed to the mechanical procedure of reverse-engineering lines of effort through an environment that is not understood. While the Peace Game differs from simulation models that are often run many times, the spirit of simulation modeling is apparent in the Peace Game's use of stochastic parameters and in the objective of understanding the problem. The Peace Game and simulation modeling both utilize sophisticated software capability for capturing complexities of the real world instead of trying to force those complexities into nice, neat shapes.