Suchergebnisse

This study looks at population response to government containment strategies during initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in four high-trust Northern European countries-Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden-with special emphasis on expressions of governmental trust. Sentiment analysis and topic modeling analysis were performed using Twitter data from three phases during the initial European lockdown, and results were compared over time and between countries. Findings show that, in line with existing theory, assertive crisis responses and proactive communication were generally well-received, whereas tentative crisis responses or indications by the authorities that the crisis was manageable were generally met with suspicion. In addition, while government support was high in all countries during the height of the crisis, messages critical of the government as well as conspiracy theories were nevertheless widely circulated. Importantly, countries with the least assertive strategies, rather than clear negative responses, saw heightened polarization of sentiment in the population. Furthermore, in the case of Sweden, a laissez-faire strategy was generally accepted by the population, despite strong criticism from other countries, until mortality rates started to rise. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed with an emphasis of prior trust as a potential explanatory factor. Future research should seek to replicate these findings in other countries with different levels of prior governmental trust or with a different severity of the COVID-19 outbreak than the countries in this study as well as triangulate the findings of this study using alternative methods.

Finland has one of the last fully monopolistic gambling sectors in Europe. Unlike in most Western European countries, the monopoly is also consolidated and enjoys a wide support as opposed to license-based competition. This paper analyses whether this preference for monopoly provision is due to the particularities of the Finnish society or rather to those of the Finnish gambling sector. We do this by comparing public discourses in media texts (N=143) from 2014 to 2017 regarding monopolies operating in alcohol retail, rail traffic and gambling sectors. The results show that gambling appears to be special even in the Finnish national context. While the Finnish alcohol retail and railroad traffic markets have been liberalised during the study period, the gambling monopoly has been concurrently strengthened despite similar political and international pressures towards dismantling. The discussion suggests that the differing outcomes reflect the varying positions of monopolies, their stakeholders and the justifications put forward. Intertwined stakeholder interests in the gambling sector appear to amplify consensus politics and set gambling apart from the other cases.

Abstract
Anthropogenic climate change promises to bring existential changes to human society in the coming years. One such example of these changes is the increasing frequency of extreme weather capable of causing significant damage. Despite this, many Americans are acutely unaware of the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events, perhaps because of a lack of direct messaging about it. This study analyzed the effects of natural disasters on climate change discussion sentiment and volume through news media and Twitter posts. The study hypothesized that specific major natural disasters would lead to increases in the number of climate change–related Twitter posts and news articles, as well as more positive climate sentiment, indicative of belief in the severity of global warming. Through an analysis of almost 35 million climate change–related tweets and 300 000+ news articles, along with the collection of over 130 million natural-disaster-related tweets published in the United States between 2010 and 2020, media volume rose an average of 10% around specific extreme weather events, corroborating the first aspect of the hypothesis. The ratio of positive to negative sentiment tweets, however, decreased, suggesting the tendency of extreme weather to elicit more response from climate change deniers than supporters. Thus, increased climate change discussion around major natural disasters represents a missed opportunity for continuing to drive forward climate change messaging and awareness in the United States.

Significance Statement
Extreme weather events threaten Americans' lives and livelihoods. In turn, anthropogenic climate change has been shown to amplify the frequency and intensity of these weather events, creating uncertainty for communities across the country. Despite the proven connection between climate change and natural disasters, public messaging often fails to leverage anxiety over extreme weather to drive support for environmental action. This study sought to quantify the media relationships of climate change and natural disasters to inform awareness strategies.

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 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.

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.