Suchergebnisse

Media reports about widespread abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib prompted widespread criticism of the Coalition of the Willing's use of military engagement to fight terrorism. This paper will utilise a qualitative discursive analysis to investigate the discursive strategies used by the US and Australian government to respond to the Abu Ghraib scandal in the media. I will argue that one of the more successful discursive strategies used by 'Coalition' governments was to separate the acts of brutality from the overall representation of the 'moral' need for military engagement in Iraq. However, the paper will illustrate that this discursive separation meant that Coalition governments re-presented once 'heroic' American soldiers similarly to the terrorist 'others' so derided in the media.

In responding to post-September 11 insecurity, the Howard government has pushed for a greater sense of Australian national identity against the 'terrorist other'. But what happens to this discourse when the 'terrorist other' is also an Australian? This paper examines the representation of the ultimate unAustralian in the post-September 11 age - the Australian terrorist. David Hicks' imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay as an alleged 'terrorist' saw him branded by both government officials and the media as a 'rat in the ranks': a traitor to Australia's role in the Coalition of the Willing and the embodiment of Australia's 'new' insecurity about terrorism. Nonetheless, those fighting for David Hicks' freedom situated his representation as an 'ordinary' Australian. By analysing various representations of Hicks by Australian governmental authorities and newspaper media, this paper examines the discourse of the 'terrorist threat' in an age of insecurity and how its continuous politicisation appropriates the understanding of citizenship and justice.

AbstractThe Australian News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) is the first successful legislative attempt to compel digital platforms to pay news media organisations for third party news content. This paper focuses on the NMBC after its first year to explore whether the Code was successful in meeting one of its publicly stated purposes; supporting public interest journalism. We argue that the Code delivered outcomes that met the ACCC's policy objectives around an industry power imbalance, but there are several issues that remain unaddressed. Using semi‐structured interviews from Australian news media executives involved in negotiations with Meta and Google during the initial implementation of the Code, we explore: (a) how news organisations used financial compensation provided by agreements under the Code, (b) how individual organisational priorities were framed and articulated, and (c) whether these actions have supported public interest journalism in Australia. Our findings indicate that many of issues with the Code have emerged mostly from the unintended impacts of the Code, including: lack of designation of platforms within the legislation, the registration criteria for news outlets eligible to enter negotiation, and the definition of stakeholder relationships within the legislation.

Based on interviews with Swiss journalists who specialise in war and international reportage, this article investigates the extent to which social media impacts on reportage of war and conflict. The interviews examine journalists' perceptions of the threats and opportunities posed by use of social media in reporting conflict, by investigating how journalists position themselves and their practices within this new media ecosystem. In particular, the interviews explore whether challenges to professional journalism encountered in previous studies of reportage of war and conflict are overcome by the use of social media. It explores if social media can mitigate the effects of military and government restriction of information, changing newsroom dynamics and issues of audience engagement in reportage of conflict. The findings highlight that in the context of war and conflict the dynamism creates opportunities for fast, news dissemination, pluralised voices in reportage and extended audience reach. However, reporters must also negotiate the complexities that fast, multi-medium and multi-sourced information create for reporting practices, especially in terms of verification of information and contextualisation. Thus this article argues that although social media adds dynamism to journalistic environments, this dynamism also brings new levels of complexity to journalistic practice that professional media workers must negotiate.

In March 2021, Australia enacted the News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) legislation, which compels Google and Meta to pay for third-party news content on their platforms. To date, Australian newsrooms have made deals with both platforms totalling approximately AUD$200 million (US$126.4 million). The 1-year review of the Code has prompted questions about not just the legislation but also the lack of public detail about the deals made between news organisations and the platforms. This article seeks to critically analyse the strategic positions both Google and Facebook took in supporting public interest journalism before and after the introduction of the Code. Using a mixed methodological approach, we find that both platforms differed in their strategic engagement with Australian media organisations before and after the introduction of the NMBC and that the Code, as it stands, risks increasing platform influence in the Australian news market.

Using a framework of online connection and disconnection, The Paradox of Connection examines how journalists practices are formed, negotiated, and maintained in dynamic social media environments. The interactions of journalists with the technological, social, and cultural features of online and social media environments have shaped new values and competencies--and the combination of these factors influence online work practices. Merging case studies with analysis, the authors show how the tactics of online connection and disconnection interact with the complex realities of working in today s media environments. The result is an insightful portrait of fast-changing journalistic practices and their implications for both audiences and professional identities and norms

AbstractGovernments across the world are struggling to address the market dominance of technology companies through increased regulation. The Australian Federal government found itself leading the world in platform regulation when, in 2021, it enacted the Australian News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code. The furore surrounding the introduction of the legislation, and Facebook's subsequent Australian 'news ban' exposed the limits of a regulatory model that has previously left the tech industry to moderate itself. In this paper, we argue the introduction of the Code is a leading example of a global trajectory towards regulatory change, which sees governments move from a reactive regulation model to specific interventions around the governance of digital media spaces. We discuss how best to measure the successes and failures around this more interventionist model through a case study of the implementation of the Code in Australia. More broadly we consider how global platforms have responded, and whether the reform is an effective regulatory model for other national governments to emulate.

Governments across the world are struggling to address the market dominance of technology companies through increased regulation. The Australian Federal government found itself leading the world in platform regulation when, in 2021, it enacted the Australian News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code. The furore surrounding the introduction of the legislation, and Facebook's subsequent Australian 'news ban' exposed the limits of a regulatory model that has previously left the tech industry to moderate itself. In this paper, we argue the introduction of the Code is a leading example of a global trajectory towards regulatory change, which sees governments move from a reactive regulation model to specific interventions around the governance of digital media spaces. We discuss how best to measure the successes and failures around this more interventionist model through a case study of the implementation of the Code in Australia. More broadly we consider how global platforms have responded, and whether the reform is an effective regulatory model for other national governments to emulate.

The project 'Older People: Equity, Respect & Ageing' (OPERA) focusses on understanding firstly, how ageism is perceived and experienced by older people in the EMR and secondly, how that evidence can be used to frame a co-designed digital intervention into community experiences of ageism in the Eastern Metropolitan region (EMR). The assumption underlying this project was that ageism and ageist behaviours are drivers of elder abuse – this project evaluates a methodology for disrupting ageist assumptions and behaviours as one part of a primary prevention strategy. The OPERA project was divided into two phases; firstly, Phase I completed community consultation about experiences of ageism among older people in the EMR. The findings from Phase I were subsequently used to inform Phase II, the co-design & development of a digital intervention (digital storytelling videos) led by Swinburne University. The issue of elder abuse is becoming more prominent in Australia with both state and federal governments highlighting the need for prevention and response interventions. However, compared to other forms of family violence, elder abuse is not well understood by the general public, and continues to be underreported in Australia. Similarly, while there is a growing understanding and acceptance of elder abuse as a form of family violence, successful primary prevention strategies are lacking in many parts of the service sector. The major issues facing policy makers, advocates and service providers engaged in this space are firstly, the dearth of publicly available evidence about drivers of elder abuse, and secondly, the lack of evaluated primary prevention strategies.