Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Series Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Table of Contents -- List of figures -- List of tables -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- 1 The two dominant views of Twitter and news journalism -- 1.1 Twitter as enabling and benefiting news journalism -- 1.2 Twitter as distorting news journalism -- 2 Punctuated equilibrium: disruption, adaption and normalisation -- 2.1 The institution of news journalism and punctuated equilibrium -- 2.2 Disruption as a commonplace event -- 3 What news journalists say about their uses of Twitter -- 3.1 Qualitative approach: research interviews -- 3.2 Questionnaire themes concerning the evolutionary impact of Twitter on news journalism -- 3.3 Journalists' evaluation of Twitter's costs and benefits to news journalism -- 4 From disruption to normalisation: journalists' accounts on Twitter (2009-2021) -- 4.1 An account of the participants -- 4.2 The participants' first Tweets: 2009-2011 -- 4.3 The 'presentation of self': how the participants chose to display their biographical information -- 4.4 Account core features: account activity, use of hashtags and mentions and formatting tweets and textual choices -- 5 An evaluation of the direct and indirect costs and benefits of Twitter to news journalism -- References -- Index.

This article compares digital arenas such as Twitter with the principles prescribed by the bourgeois public sphere, to examine how close or far these arenas are from Habermas' original concept. By focusing on one of the criteria, the current influence of elites on political debate, it discusses the Habermasian principles of general accessibility and non-dominance of the elites as prerequisites for a functioning public sphere. This study finds that even though there are few access restrictions on Twitter and despite the fact that no one, in principle, is excluded from the platform, there is no apparent elimination of privileges and the elites maintain their elite status within its borders. Methodologically, the article relies on empirical research of hashtagged exchanges on Twitter during the General Elections in the United Kingdom in 2015. Through the mapping of Twitter as a synthesis of dialogic arenas, it explores the elite-focused discourse and the vocal actors in the stream, underscoring that the presence of the elites, even in an indirect way. Drawing on these elements, the article argues for a reconceptualization of the normative perception of the public sphere, suggesting the notion of exclusion is a complex issue that includes expanding notions of publics to also include those topics being discussed. Finally, it focuses on the significance of journalism in relation to political dialogue and argues that the move towards less elite-centered arenas largely depends on journalism.

This article compares digital arenas such as Twitter with the principles prescribed by the bourgeois public sphere, to examine how close or far these arenas are from Habermas' original concept. By focusing on one of the criteria, the current influence of elites on political debate, it discusses the Habermasian principles of general accessibility and non-dominance of the elites as prerequisites for a functioning public sphere. This study finds that even though there are few access restrictions on Twitter and despite the fact that no one, in principle, is excluded from the platform, there is no apparent elimination of privileges and the elites maintain their elite status within its borders. Methodologically, the article relies on empirical research of hashtagged exchanges on Twitter during the General Elections in the United Kingdom in 2015. Through the mapping of Twitter as a synthesis of dialogic arenas, it explores the elite-focused discourse and the vocal actors in the stream, underscoring that the presence of the elites, even in an indirect way. Drawing on these elements, the article argues for a reconceptualization of the normative perception of the public sphere, suggesting the notion of exclusion is a complex issue that includes expanding notions of publics to also include those topics being discussed. Finally, it focuses on the significance of journalism in relation to political dialogue and argues that the move towards less elite-centered arenas largely depends on journalism.

This article compares digital arenas such as Twitter with the principles prescribed by the bourgeois public sphere, to examine how close or far these arenas are from Habermas' original concept. By focusing on one of the criteria, the current influence of elites on political debate, it discusses the Habermasian principles of general accessibility and non-dominance of the elites as prerequisites for a functioning public sphere. This study finds that even though there are few access restrictions on Twitter and despite the fact that no one, in principle, is excluded from the platform, there is no apparent elimination of privileges and the elites maintain their elite status within its borders. Methodologically, the article relies on empirical research of hashtagged exchanges on Twitter during the General Elections in the United Kingdom in 2015. Through the mapping of Twitter as a synthesis of dialogic arenas, it explores the elite-focused discourse and the vocal actors in the stream, underscoring that the presence of the elites, even in an indirect way. Drawing on these elements, the article argues for a reconceptualization of the normative perception of the public sphere, suggesting the notion of exclusion is a complex issue that includes expanding notions of publics to also include those topics being discussed. Finally, it focuses on the significance of journalism in relation to political dialogue and argues that the move towards less elite-centered arenas largely depends on journalism.

Abstract
Danielle Batist is a freelance journalist and editor who embraces an entrepreneurial and positive approach to journalism. She has lived and worked in several countries around the globe. In the fifteen years she has been working as a journalist, she has developed an interest in social change, which she pursued in her work as the editor of the International Network of Street Papers (INSP), reaching six million readers in over 40 countries, and which underpins her current focus on 'Constructive Journalism' – a project she co-founded in 2014. Drawing on a variety of behavioural and audience studies, constructive journalism can be defined as 'as rigorous, compelling reporting that includes positive and solutionfocused elements in order to empower audiences and present a fuller picture of truth, while upholding journalism's core functions and ethics' – in other words, an approach that attempts to bring positive elements to conventional reporting. By using a 'wellbeing' model of the world instead of a 'disease' model, stories about what is working – rather than just what is broken – become part of the news eco-system. Last year, Danielle got involved in the re-launch of Positive News, founded in 1993 and re-launched in 2016 as a magazine. The publication showcases a new model for media ownership, as well as a new way to tell news stories. Owned by a community of 1526 journalists, readers and supporters from 33 countries, the magazine features 'Constructive Conversation', where thought leaders are challenged to find common ground; 'Solutions Lab', where forward-thinking responses to difficult social issues are unearthed; 'What Happened Next?' where stories reported upon previously are updated. All these aspects are highlighted in a conversation with Danielle Batist, who gives her insight on the discussed matters.

Abstract
Launched in 2012, Zetland (zetland.dk) is a Danish media company that approaches digital journalism as 'a force of good'. Its mission contains a paradox: it is simple but simultaneously complex – not to make news but to make sense of it. Through its diverse practices that vary from daily publications in a custom-built platform to pioneering shows of 'performed' journalism, Zetland's aim is to tell stories worth remembering that integrate audiences – as co-creators in all journalistic processes – to be able to distribute knowledge and build a well-informed community. Since their founding, a lot has changed. Although its core remained the same, Zetland recently expanded, raising two million euros, broadening its team with 25 new members and adding the publication of a daily in-depth digital newspaper, all the while experimenting with new paradigms of digital journalism.

This study examines the attitudes of four Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO)-regulated UK newspapers towards redressing inaccuracies in their print editions. It analyses the ways in which the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, The Times and The Sun dealt with complaints in order to assess their attitudes towards the editorial standard of accuracy. Further, this study aims to evaluate IPSO's impact on the newspapers' complaints-handling processes throughout 2016, more than a year after its establishment, at a time when its regulatory arsenal had been consolidated and put into practice. We found that there was no evidence of any binary opposition in a spectrum of quality/popular press reflected in the sample newspapers' respective attitudes and responses toward IPSO's complaints-handling standards on matters of inaccuracy. Furthermore, our evaluation of the position, timing and wording of the published corrections of all four newspapers did not confirm a marked difference in the extent to which they were prepared to demonstrate their accountability to their readers by drawing published inaccuracies to their attention. IPSO has contributed to more systematic complaints handling but more needs to be done. Our findings are of wider relevance beyond the specific period under investigation.