Suchergebnisse

Series Editor Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- List of Abbreviations -- List of Tables -- Chapter 1: Introduction: Textures and Porosities of Journalistic Fields -- Theorizing Journalistic Professionalism -- Journalistic Autonomy and Professionalism -- Professionalism as Cultural Practice -- Research Procedures -- Overview and Key Findings -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Chapter 2: Contextualizing US and German Journalism -- Cultural Parameters of Journalistic Professionalism -- Occupational Historical Trajectories: Professionalization and Relations to Politics -- National Cultural Repertoires -- Institutional Parameters of Journalistic Professionalism -- Market Power and Journalism -- Market Position and Commercialization -- Market Concentration and Ownership -- Non-market Power and Journalism -- Professional Organization of Journalism -- Conclusion -- Notes -- References -- Chapter 3: The Sacred Discourse of Journalistic Professionalism -- Honoring Journalistic Excellence: Award Statements -- Revelations and Their Effects -- Revelations and Empathy -- Boundary-Policing and Occupational Self-Control -- Celebrating Occupational History and Its Witnesses: Obituaries -- Intellectual Credentials, Achievements and Influence -- Personal Qualities -- Triumph on the Battlefield of History -- Political Pressure -- Foreign/War Correspondence -- Influence on History -- Ideological Positions and Political Entanglements -- Occupational Mythologizing in the Field -- German Mythologizing: Reluctant Invokers But Firm Believers -- Foundational and Controversial Mythologizing in the USA -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Chapter 4: Staking Out the Boundaries of Professionalism: Good and Bad Journalism -- Professionalism: A Symbolic Turf War -- Organizational Identities and Missions of News Making -- Missions: Quality, Format, Medium

Political backlash against liberal democracy and ubiquitous clashes between different versions of identity politics in recent years evoked a heightened awareness of political polarization. Rather than examining the mechanics of this process, social science predominantly conceives political polarization in a rather static manner and measures its prevalence and causes within and between societies. This article views political polarization as taking shape in the experience of political conflict. It proposes a cultural performance framework suitable to examine the social drama of political conflict and its connections to interpersonal political dispute. Performative polarization is premised upon antagonizing one public in order to win over and energize another public. It views political antagonism as constituted by (1) powerful performers and performances that provide the preparatory symbolic work and scripts and (2) divided publics who arbitrate their dramatic acts in ensuing performances and who collectively generate political divisions. The anti-Critical Race Theory campaign in the USA serves as a case study to work through the elements of this theoretical framework.

ZusammenfassungIn unserer Antwort gehen wir auf einige Kritikpunkte an unserer Studie "Is Free Speech in Danger on University Campus?" ein, die uns wiederholt und in ähnlicher Form in Diskussionen begegnen. Diese betreffen unsere Fallauswahl, unser Verständnis und unsere Operationalisierung von Toleranz und Meinungsfreiheit sowie nicht zuletzt unsere "Positionalität". Wie wir darlegen, beruht diese Kritik vornehmlich auf einer verzerrten Rezeption unserer Befunde und auf uns zugeschriebenen Argumentationen, die wir nicht getätigt haben. Wir bekräftigen noch einmal die Relevanz, sich sozialwissenschaftlich mit der Frage nach der Meinungsfreiheit an der Universität auseinanderzusetzen.

AbstractAlthough universities play a key role in questions of free speech and political viewpoint diversity, they are often associated with the opposite of a free exchange of ideas: a proliferation of restrictive campus speech codes, violent protests against controversial speakers and even the firing of inconvenient professors. For some observers these trends on university campuses are a clear indicator of the dire future for freedom of speech. Others view these incidents as scandalized singular events and regard campus intolerance as a mere myth. We take an empirical look at some of the claims in the debate and present original survey evidence from a most likely case: the leftist social science studentship at Goethe University Frankfurt. Our results show that taking offense is a common experience and that a sizable number of students are in favor of restricting speech on campus. We also find evidence for conformity pressures on campus and that both the desire to restrict speech and the reluctance to speak openly differ significantly across political ideology. Left-leaning students are less likely to tolerate controversial viewpoints and right-leaning students are more likely to self-censor on politically sensitive issues such as gender, immigration, or sexual and ethnic minorities. Although preliminary, these findings may have implications for the social sciences and academia more broadly.

Although universities play a key role in questions of free speech and political viewpoint diversity, they are often associated with the opposite of a free exchange of ideas: a proliferation of restrictive campus speech codes, violent protests against controversial speakers and even the firing of inconvenient professors. For some observers these trends on university campuses are a clear indicator of the dire future for freedom of speech. Others view these incidents as scandalized singular events and regard campus intolerance as a mere myth. We take an empirical look at some of the claims in the debate and present original survey evidence from a most likely case: the leftist social science studentship at Goethe University Frankfurt. Our results show that taking offense is a common experience and that a sizable number of students are in favor of restricting speech on campus. We also find evidence for conformity pressures on campus and that both the desire to restrict speech and the reluctance to speak openly differ significantly across political ideology. Left-leaning students are less likely to tolerate controversial viewpoints and right-leaning students are more likely to self-censor on politically sensitive issues such as gender, immigration, or sexual and ethnic minorities. Although preliminary, these findings may have implications for the social sciences and academia more broadly. ; Obwohl Universitäten eine Schlüsselrolle in Fragen der Meinungsfreiheit und Meinungsvielfalt zukommt, werden sie in der Öffentlichkeit oftmals mit dem genauen Gegenteil assoziiert: einer Häufung restriktiver Sprachregelungen, gewalttätigen Protesten gegen umstrittene Redner und Suspendierung unbequemer Professoren. Manche Beobachter sehen darin beunruhigende Anzeichen für eine dunkle Zukunft der Meinungsfreiheit. Andere betrachten diese Vorfälle dagegen als skandalisierte Einzelereignisse und halten studentische Intoleranz für einen Mythos. Wir widmen uns diesen Behauptungen empirisch und stellen erste Befunde eines "Most likely case" vor: der linken Studentenschaft der Sozialwissenschaften in Frankfurt. Unsere Umfrageergebnisse zeigen, dass sich Studierende häufig sprachlich angegriffen fühlen und dass sich ein beträchtlicher Anteil für die Einschränkung der Meinungsfreiheit ausspricht. Auch finden wir Hinweise für Konformitätsdruck. Sowohl hinsichtlich des Wunsches, die Redefreiheit einzuschränken als auch hinsichtlich der Hemmung, seine Meinung offen zu äußern, bestehen politisch-ideologische Unterschiede. Linksgerichtete Studierende sind weniger bereit, umstrittene Standpunkte zu Themen wie Gender, Einwanderung oder sexuelle und ethnische Minderheiten zu tolerieren. Studierende rechts der Mitte neigen eher dazu, sich selbst zu zensieren. Obwohl diese Befunde vorläufiger Natur sind, weisen sie möglicherweise auf Probleme innerhalb der Sozialwissenschaften und dem universitären Kontext hin.

AbstractThis contribution is written against the backdrop of the historic dispersal of early American media sociology out from the core concerns of the discipline and into various importer academic disciplines (including communication, journalism, and media studies) and an ever‐growing pervasiveness of media in everyday life which is reflected by a resurgence of sociological scholarship in the United States since the early 2000s. The article divides the field in works that study media inwards – along the threefold dimensions of production and technologies, communication and discourse, reception and effects – and works that study media outwards. We argue that this latter perspective, examining broader theoretical, methodological, and substantive social implications of mass‐mediated communication, is the most promising one for a mature field of American media sociology. On this basis, we conclude with some suggestions regarding possible new, and as of yet understudied, lines of inquiry for future media sociologists.

A "list" of social science texts that move us and continually captivate our minds and emotions.

This article reconstructs the evolution of societal and journalistic meta-discourse about the participation of ordinary citizens in the news production process. We do so through a genealogy of what we call "participatory epistemology", defined here as a form of journalistic knowledge in which professional expertise is modified through public interaction. It is our argument that the notion of "citizen participation in news process" has not simply functioned as a normative concept but has rather carried with it a particular understanding of what journalists could reasonably know, and how their knowledge could be enhanced by engaging with the public in order to produce journalistic work. By examining four key moments in the evolution of participatory epistemology, as well as the discursive webs that have surrounded these moments, we aim to demonstrate some of the factors which led a cherished and utopian concept to become a dark and dystopian one. In this, we supplement the work of Quandt (2018) and add some historical flesh to the conceptual arguments of his article on "dark participation".