Suchergebnisse

Résumé Les démocraties occidentales traversent actuellement une période que l'on pourrait qualifier de « brouillard médiatique » : les médias sont délocalisés, l'information de divertissement prédomine sur l'information de jugement, les médias conversationnels contrecarrent ou outrepassent les médias institutionnels, etc. Ces bouleversements ne sont pas sans conséquences sur les modalités de la délibération politique. Cet article se propose d'en examiner les effets en regard de trois grands types d'intentionnalité communicationnelle : la propagande, la persuasion et la séduction.

Western democracies are currently going through a period of what could be called "media fog". The media are being relocated, infotainment is replacing analytical information, the chattering media are thwarting or overtaking the institutional media, etc. These major changes are not without consequences for the modalities of political debate. The article examines these consequences regarding the three main types of communicative intentionality: propaganda, persuasion and seduction. Adapted from the source document.

In most decisions of everyday life, whether it be buying a car or electing an official representative, individuals use simple and synthetic operational means which take the form of statements summarizing a criterion for selecting information. These statements are called `abstracts for decision' and often take the form ` x is true' and ` x must be present'. This article analyses the way these statements circulate in communications networks as well as the importance they have in public opinion, and, in doing so, distinguishes three different phases in any public controversy. A simple model then describes the way in which these statements are selected, and adopted or rejected. Abstracts for decision can usefully complement an agenda-setting approach in an analysis of public controversy. It can be used to move from the notion of theme to that of problem, and thus to perceive the direction which any public debate is taking.

The campaign role of the mass media has often been studied from the standpoint of communication effects on voting results. This article offers a new approach, focusing on the media's role in constructing a meaning for election results. This meaning is negotiated and accepted by politicians and electors according to a process which is described here. Argumentation is based on an empirical study of the legislative election campaign in France in March 1986, using methods drawn from the agenda-setting literature and the author's model of `Abstracts for Decision' in public opinion formation.