Suchergebnisse

AbstractInspired by an institutional logics approach, this article analyzes the barriers to and drivers of the integration of social media in the communication practices in Norwegian ministries. Drawing on rich ethnographic data, the paper analyzes the process of integrating social media logic into government communication units that were largely organized through a news media regime. To understand the process, it emphasizes four dimensions: how the symbolic resources, material resources, formal rules and practices have defined the logics of government communication in the period studied (May 2015–May 2016). The analysis meets the call for more empirical investigation into the interplay between the traditional news logics and new digital logics.

With national Western media as a point of departure, the literature on distant suffering emphasizes the geographical, cultural, and editorial distance between Western media professionals and viewers, and between both of those groups and the stories of suffering in the rest of the world. Through examples from the Qatari satellite channel Al Jazeera English, this article argues that mediated suffering can also be understood as something close to us. The channel literally goes closer and zooms in, exposes, personalizes, and authorizes the experience of suffering in conflicts and disasters. This construction of mediated closeness is suited to engendering strong feelings of compassion in media audiences, but it also serves to raise new ethical dilemmas in political argument and institutional strategy.

Etter Irak-krigen har debatten gått blant internasjonale journalister, politikere og medieforskere: Hvor voldelige bilder skal mediene vise fra slagmarken?

Debates over immigration have become a defining political cleavage closely related to moral values, perceptions of threat, and the rise of online anti-immigration networks and agitation. Based on in-depth interviews with immigration alarmists, this article discusses how the participants' anti-immigration position is sanctioned in their everyday social networks and how they find alternative networks online for information, community, and support. This online community takes the form of an emerging counterpublic, characterized by active curation and different levels of participation aimed at optimizing the trade-offs between gaining visibility (moderation and mobilization) and creating an alternative moral community (a "safe space" for peers). Combining notions of interpretative communities of resistance with the theory of counterpublics, the study provides insight into the internal life and values of emerging anti-immigration online communities.

This article explores how personalisation, blame avoidance and institutional constraints collide in contemporary government communication practices. Based on ethnographic fieldwork in a Norwegian ministry, it analyses how a central government agency manages the media during critical news campaigns featuring individuals suffering from inadequate public health services. To provide a comprehensive analysis of the particular limits and aims of government communication, the article combines perspectives from public agency studies with media research on personalisation. It finds that the need to be visible and demonstrate agency in the media drive personalisation strategies towards a strong focus on government leaders, while simplifying the representation of complex government organisation and processes. At the same time, institutional constraints and the formal delegation of responsibility limit the communication repertoire available for public agencies when critical human interest stories dominate in the media. This results in a standard type of unconvincing media performance, where incumbents appear to evade direct personal responsibility. The case study provides new knowledge on dilemmas, negotiations and strategies behind government communication, illuminating how competing interests play out in a rapidly changing media landscape.

Based on a quantitative, comparative analysis of U.S., French, and Norwegian news media, this article examines the use of human interest stories in the coverage of irregular immigration. In an innovative design, it systematically analyzes how human interest framing is related to the frequency and complexity of dominant arguments and perspectives (issue-specific frames). In contrast to the extant literature, arguing that news on immigration reduces immigrants to dangerous and anonymous threats, the article finds that about half the news stories studied have a human face or example. Moreover, these human interest articles tend to frame the issue from the immigrants' perspective, describing their personal stories and struggle. This result nuances the commonly held assumption that human interest frames signal declining news quality, as the number and range of arguments presented are not significantly reduced when human narratives are employed. The prevalence of human interest frames is highest in Norway, where we also identify a reduction in frame complexity in human interest stories, indicating the need to rethink the democratic corporatist model in media system theory.

Media pressure on government and public administration has intensified radically in recent years. This article analyzes the behind-the-scenes processes of a strategic government pitch that aims to push the success and core values of Norwegian immigration policies in the media. The study brings attention to the complex and often conflicting demands on government officials engaged in proactive media strategies. It examines how the officials adapt to the news media logic, perceive the competition with other strategic actors, and simultaneously pay regard to the constraints inherent in a bureaucratic ethos. Based on extensive ethnographic fieldwork, the article illuminates how bureaucrats legitimize proactive strategies; the risks involved; and how these strategies modify the distinctive roles of political leaders and civil servants, challenging traditional bureaucratic values such as impartiality, neutrality, and loyalty.

How do disruptive events such as terrorism, disasters, and crises change public discourses? Do they alter journalistic distinctions between legitimate utterances and unacceptable viewpoints? This article provides answers to these questions through a unique data set concerning the coverage of immigration in Norway before and after the Oslo terror of 2011. The data serve as a natural experiment where we can analyze how immigration discourse was changed with regard to its magnitude, topical emphasis, and the sources interviewed. The analysis demonstrate that Hallin's classic three-sphere model illuminates the dynamics of current meta-debates on polarized topics, where multiple online media continually criticize mainstream media and multiple voices question legitimate discourse. The main finding is that mainstream media definitions of appropriateness and deviance were challenged after the terror, as journalists adapted to a new political context. First, the issue of immigration was covered less in the months after the attacks. Second, the most vocal critics of the current immigration policies were put on the defensive, and debates with a critical potential were largely muted. At the same time, however, the attacks to some extent also opened mainstream media debate to online, deviant anti-Islamic actors who were previously largely silenced and ignored.