Suchergebnisse

"This book brings together a diverse, international array of contributors to explore the topics of news "quality" in the online age and the relationships between news organizations and enormously influential digital platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Covering topics ranging from internet incivility, crowdsourcing, and YouTube politics to regulations, algorithms, and AI, this book draws the key distinction between the news that facilitates democracy from news that undermines it. For students and scholars as well as journalists, policymakers, and media commentators, this important work engages a wide range of methodological and theoretical perspectives to define the key concept of "quality" in the news media"--

Cover -- Contents -- Foreword to the Revised Edition -- Freeing the Presses: An Introductory Essay -- PART ONE: FROM THE PAST -- Introduction -- The Press the Founders Knew -- On the Relationship between Press Law and Press Content -- PART TWO: AT PRESENT -- Introduction -- Why Democracies Need an Unlovable Press -- Daily News and First Amendment Ideals -- PART THREE: TOWARD THE FUTURE -- Introduction -- The Twilight of Mass Media News: Changing Patterns of Citizenship, Technology, and Public Information -- "New Media" and Contemporary Interpretations of Freedom of the Press -- Afterword -- Contributors -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- Y -- Z.

While the rise of celebrities-turned-politicians has been well documented and theorized, how their bids for office are treated by the establishment press has been less closely examined. Research on celebrity politics on the one hand, and on journalism standards on the other, have rarely been brought into conversation with one another. Here, we draw from both literatures to explore how the press covered Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Prior research on political journalism would likely have predicted that Trump, with his lack of conventional political experience and a career in reality TV, would have been treated to derisive, dismissive press coverage, which we refer to as "clown" coverage. But Trump's fame and wealth, and the high entertainment value of his campaign, would also lead the media to cover him heavily. We argue that the collision of entertainment-infused politics with traditional journalism practices created a profound dilemma for the press's ability to cover the campaign coherently, and that the press responded to this dilemma by giving Trump as much clown-like coverage as serious coverage, throughout not just the primary but also the general election. We support our argument through qualitative evidence from interviews with journalists and other political insiders, and quantitative evidence from a content analysis of New York Times and Washington Post coverage of Trump at key points throughout the campaign.

The 2001 anthrax attacks brought public health into the media spotlight in away unmatched since the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s. This moment presented Americans with opportunities to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the nation's public health infrastructure, as well as to better understand the political and policy backgrounds against which this infrastructure operates. The authors systematically examined how thoroughly this underlying political context was covered by two major U.S. news papers: the New York Times, widely considered the nation's paper of record; and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the home newspaper of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).In particular, the authors explored whether and how these news sources drew connections between political decision making and functioning of the CDC. They conducted quantitative and qualitative analysis of 157 news articles, supplemented by interviews with four reporters and one editor close to the story. Political context was included inconsistently and in sometimes strikingly different ways by the two newspapers, and lines of accountability extending beyond the CDC itself were not clearly traced. The authors theorize that these patterns in coverage of political context reflect the nature of reporting on public health issues; the different relationships of the two papers to the CDC; and the unwillingness of key public health sources to articulate certain claims in the heat of the crisis.

The 2001 anthrax attacks brought public health into the media spotlight in a way unmatched since the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s. This moment presented Americans with opportunities to better understand the strengths & weaknesses of the nation's public health infrastructure, as well as to better understand the political & policy backgrounds against which this infrastructure operates. The authors systematically examined how thoroughly this underlying political context was covered by two major U.S. news papers: the New York Times, widely considered the nation's paper of record; & the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the home newspaper of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC).In particular, the authors explored whether & how these news sources drew connections between political decision making & functioning of the CDC. They conducted quantitative & qualitative analysis of 157 news articles, supplemented by interviews with four reporters & one editor close to the story. Political context was included inconsistently & in sometimes strikingly different ways by the two newspapers, & lines of accountability extending beyond the CDC itself were not clearly traced. The authors theorize that these patterns in coverage of political context reflect the nature of reporting on public health issues; the different relationships of the two papers to the CDC; & the unwillingness of key public health sources to articulate certain claims in the heat of the crisis. 4 Tables, 53 References. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2005 by the President and the Fellows of Harvard College.]

The 2001 anthrax attacks brought public health into the media spotlight in a way unmatched since the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s. This moment presented Americans with opportunities to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the nations public health infrastructure, as well as to better understand the political and policy backgrounds against which this infrastructure operates. The authors systematically examined how thoroughly this underlying political context was covered by two major U.S. newspapers: the New York Times, widely considered the nations paper of record; and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the home newspaper of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In particular, the authors explored whether and how these news sources drew connections between political decision making and functioning of the CDC. They conducted quantitative and qualitative analysis of 157 news articles, supplemented by interviews with four reporters and one editor close to the story. Political context was included inconsistently and in sometimes strikingly different ways by the two newspapers, and lines of accountability extending beyond the CDC itself were not clearly traced. The authors theorize that these patterns in coverage of political context reflect the nature of reporting on public health issues; the different relationships of the two papers to the CDC; and the unwillingness of key public health sources to articulate certain claims in the heat of the crisis.

In the days following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, all the major television networks devoted their broadcasts to continuous news coverage without commercial interruption. This article analyzes the prime-time broadcasts from ABC, NBC, and CNN over the 3 days from September 12 to 14, 2001. First, the authors ask whether the networks used the additional time to develop longer reports and more sustained treatment of news subjects. Second, the authors consider whether the news coverage provided a meaningful political and historical context for the attacks both in terms of explaining global terrorism and characterizing its geopolitical and military consequences. These observations provide the context for a third theme, that television covered the attacks of 9/11 more like a crime story than a political story. After reviewing the data supporting these conclusions, the authors speculate about the effects of such coverage on public understandings of the events of September 11.