Suchergebnisse

This article reexamines the formation of political news agendas on British television. It argues that studies on the formation of domestic political news agendas have so far largely been election campaign centered. Using the annual party political conventions in Britain as a case study, this article explores internal party struggles between the leadership and their opponents to shape and reshape the coverage of party policy on national television. It reveals that despite resource disadvantages, dissenting voices in certain situations can shape the news agenda. The article also reveals that broadcasting professionals find conflict newsworthy and are eager to reveal such discord to their viewers and highlight its consequences for each party's electoral fortunes. In conclusion, the article suggests that in certain situations, domestic political news agendas also need to be seen as the product of intraparty competition between the leadership and their opponents. In these situations, journalists play a proactive role packaging the struggle and may act as a counterweight to leadership resource advantages, aiding critical claim-makers in obtaining their objectives.

Applying the theories of agenda building and frame building and previous work related to the shared negotiations between sources and journalists in constructing news dramas, this article examines the role of the mass media in the evolution of the stem cell controversy. How does a scientific issue gain, maintain, or lose political and media attention? What forces combine to emphasize certain dimensions of an issue over others? Using data from a content analysis of stem cell–related articles appearing between 1975 and 2001 in the New York Times and the Washington Post, the authors analyze patterns of media attention, media framing, and media sourcing across stages of scientific, political, and policy development.

This exploratory case study discusses how and why the Danish experiments with public journalism have differed from their U.S. counterparts in several important respects. It shows that, in contrast to U.S. news organizations committed to public journalism, Danish news organizations have (1) advocated specific solutions to problems, (2) made special efforts to highlight the concerns of traditionally marginalized publics, and (3) encouraged citizens to develop substantive, systemic solutions while using experts as citizen advisors. The study concludes that while the character of the Danish public journalism initiatives could be attributed to the professional self-understanding of Danish journalists, it also could be understood as one of many manifestations of the increasing populism of Danish news media more generally.

For twelve years, the Gannett Center for Media Studies (subsequently named the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center) operated a unique media "think tank" billed as "the nation's first institute for the advanced study of media and technological change" at Columbia University. It attracted leading professionals and scholars to its fellowship, technology, and media research programs. The result was a distinctive interaction between media industries and the academy that produced many major books, studies, and other intellectual products including a journal that informed the media-society relationship. A joint venture of a university and a media foundation with special links to journalism education and media industries in the United States and internationally, the program decamped from Columbia in 1996 and was phased out two years later.