Suchergebnisse

The phenomenon of so-called foreign fighters has in recent years attracted renewed public interest regarding why young people who have grown up in Western, democratic countries come to accept and engage in politically motivated violence, and these issues have received extensive news attention. Based on analysis of news texts published in four major Norwegian news outlets throughout 2014 and 2015, and supplemented with in-depth interviews with reporters, the present article investigates how radicalization and violent extremism are framed in the news, including how news conventions contribute to shape the ways in which these issues are defined in public debate. The analysis shows that authority definitions prevailed. 'Radicalized' individuals were predominantly presented as threats and criminals to be dealt with in the judicial system. A 'marginalization approach' was, however, also present in the reporting. This was partly due to reporters' efforts to bring personalized human-interest stories, which, to some extent, served to broaden the overall range of depictions. Simultaneously, issues pertaining to radicalization were mainly discussed at micro- and mesolevels, and more abstract political or systemic explanations not actualized by specific events or easily concretized through foregrounding specific individuals were largely absent. The article contributes new insights into characteristics of public discourses of radicalization and violent extremism, and how these are constructed in the intersection between news conventions and (elite) sources.

Genanvendelse af affald er højt prioriteret, fordi det på mange måder kan minimere miljøbelastningen fra affaldshåndtering. Danske kommuner er ansvarlige for at etablere de nødvendige indsamlingsordninger og opfylde de politisk fastsatte mål for genanvendelse. Dette har udmøntet sig i implementering af mange velfungerende, men til tider, komplekse indsamlingsordninger. Spørgsmålet er, om den ekstra energi, der bruges på indsamling, sortering og transport af genanvendelige materialer, kan sætte miljøgevinsten ved genanvendelse over styr. Et andet væsentligt spørgsmål er, om de eksisterende indsamlingsordninger kan udbygges eller gøres mere effektive, da der i fremtiden vil blive stillet strengere krav til genanvendelse. Formålet med dette ph.d.-projekt var at undersøge disse problemstillinger. Det blev gjort ved hjælp af livscyklusvurderinger (LCA) af håndteringen af husholdningsaffald i Danmark. Miljøbelastningen fra affaldsindsamling blev sammenholdt med de miljøgevinster, som kan opnås ved genanvendelse af materialer eller ved energiudnyttelse fra affaldsforbrænding. Studiet viste, hvilke miljømæssige begrænsninger der er ved genanvendelse af de mest almindelige materialer (papir, pap, glas, plast, aluminium og stål) i husholdningsaffald. Generelt er miljøbelastningen fra affaldsindsamling lille i forhold til miljøgevinsterne ved genanvendelse, og materialerne kan transporteres meget langt uden, at miljøgevinsten ved genanvendelse sættes over styr. Forskellige indsamlingsordningers effektivitet blev også undersøgt, da det er begrænset hvor meget eksisterende ordninger kan udbygges. Selvom øget genanvendelse af husholdningsaffald generelt er miljømæssigt godt, medfører det også mere transport af affaldet. Derfor bør skadelige udstødningsgasser fra transporten samtidig forebygges. Derudover demonstrerede studiet en metode til modellering af affaldsindsamling i LCA. Dette har ført til større forståelse af, at grundig analyse af affaldsindsamling er vigtig for beregning af miljøgevinsterne ved genanvendelse.

Metadebates concerning how the news media deal with extremism have intensified in the digital media landscape. This article analyzes metajournalistic discourse following a controversial studio interview with the spokesperson of a Norwegian Salafi-jihadist group. To illuminate how boundaries of appropriate public debate are negotiated, the article analyzes how this journalistic performance was debated among journalists and commentators, news sources, and readers in online comments sections. The study demonstrates how editorial legacy media invite a broad metadebate but control and define the debate by positioning themselves as defenders against extremism, evoking normative ideals of the role of journalism in democracy and foregrounding the preventive, clarifying, and cohesive effects of including extremist voices. News sources and online commenters are notably more critical, emphasizing the negative consequences of inclusion and warning that inclusion may serve to consolidate extremist views, amplify threats and prejudice, and make extremists the symbolic representatives of Muslims in general. Theoretically, the article contributes to the literature on media and extremism, media criticism, and mediated negotiations of the boundaries of public debate.

This book explores the relationship between the safety of journalists and self-censorship practices around the world, including local case studies and regional and international perspectives. Bringing together scholars and practitioners from around the globe, Journalist Safety and Self-Censorship provides new and updated insights into patterns of self-censorship and free speech, focusing on a variety of factors that affect these issues, including surveillance, legislation, threats, violent conflict, gender-related stereotypes, digitisation and social media. The contributions examine topics such as trauma, risk and self-censorship among journalists in different regions of the world, including Central America, Estonia, Turkey, Uganda and Pakistan. The book also provides conceptual clarity to the notion of journalist self-censorship, and explores the question of how self-censorship may be studied empirically. Combining both theoretical and practical knowledge, this collection serves as a much-needed resource for any academic, student of journalism, practicing journalist, or NGO working on issues of journalism, safety, free speech and censorship.

Metadebates concerning how the news media deal with extremism have intensified in the digital media landscape. This article analyzes metajournalistic discourse following a controversial studio interview with the spokesperson of a Norwegian Salafi-jihadist group. To illuminate how boundaries of appropriate public debate are negotiated, the article analyzes how this journalistic performance was debated among journalists and commentators, news sources, and readers in online comments sections. The study demonstrates how editorial legacy media invite a broad metadebate but control and define the debate by positioning themselves as defenders against extremism, evoking normative ideals of the role of journalism in democracy and foregrounding the preventive, clarifying, and cohesive effects of including extremist voices. News sources and online commenters are notably more critical, emphasizing the negative consequences of inclusion and warning that inclusion may serve to consolidate extremist views, amplify threats and prejudice, and make extremists the symbolic representatives of Muslims in general. Theoretically, the article contributes to the literature on media and extremism, media criticism, and mediated negotiations of the boundaries of public debate. ; publishedVersion

Metadebates concerning how the news media deal with extremism have intensified in the digital media landscape. This article analyzes metajournalistic discourse following a controversial studio interview with the spokesperson of a Norwegian Salafi-jihadist group. To illuminate how boundaries of appropriate public debate are negotiated, the article analyzes how this journalistic performance was debated among journalists and commentators, news sources, and readers in online comments sections. The study demonstrates how editorial legacy media invite a broad metadebate but control and define the debate by positioning themselves as defenders against extremism, evoking normative ideals of the role of journalism in democracy and foregrounding the preventive, clarifying, and cohesive effects of including extremist voices. News sources and online commenters are notably more critical, emphasizing the negative consequences of inclusion and warning that inclusion may serve to consolidate extremist views, amplify threats and prejudice, and make extremists the symbolic representatives of Muslims in general. Theoretically, the article contributes to the literature on media and extremism, media criticism, and mediated negotiations of the boundaries of public debate.

Internationally, the issue of irregular immigration is highly contested and actors promote different frames in the news. In this article, we analyze the strategizing that goes on behind the scenes among nongovernmental organizations and public immigration authorities. Many studies have documented how strategic actors take advantage of mainstream news media conventions, but there is a dearth of research on how these frame sponsors critically reflect on their strategies. Based on ethnographic fieldwork and qualitative interviews, we analyze the dilemmas and challenges the actors face in adapting their communication strategies to the news media. The immigration authorities are systematic and professional in their media work, with easy access to leading media. Faced with the news media's emphasis on dramatic individual stories, however, they struggle to find a media strategy that balances efficient communication with bureaucratic regulations and values. The NGOs, on the other hand, have the opportunity to exploit media conventions and pitch emotional, individual stories to journalists. Still, for both type of actors, the challenge is to expand the media interest beyond such stories to foster a systemic debate on immigration policy.