Access and appropriation of journalistic news on social networks in Brazil: Refining the notion of “participation”

Q3 Social Sciences Estudos em Comunicacao Pub Date : 2018-12-18 DOI:10.20287/EC.N27.V1.A04
Telma Sueli Pinto Johnson, P. Farnese
{"title":"Access and appropriation of journalistic news on social networks in Brazil: Refining the notion of “participation”","authors":"Telma Sueli Pinto Johnson, P. Farnese","doi":"10.20287/EC.N27.V1.A04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines forms of appropriation and mediated deliberation of news on the page of the centennial Brazilian newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo accessed through the global social networking platform Facebook. The study focuses on interactions among users from the point of view of quality of participation, going beyond common practices of (dis)liking and/or sharing. Comments to news articles posted by the newspaper are taken as a more active and detailed kind of participation for exchanging public communication argued by reasons. A comparative corpus of analysis was selected in the months of October 2015 and October 2016, totaling 386 posts and 1,911 comments, in order to understand and differentiate valid and responsible forms of participation able to construct and sustain democratic debate. One of the main findings was that 185 posts of the Estadão newspaper in our studied period of October 2015 generated 1,195 comments, but only 38% of these comments were considered to be qualified ones. One year later, data revealed completely different evidence. Although there were more posts on the Estadão page on Facebook, totaling 201, there were considerably fewer comments. Participation is discussed within the troubled political context and its relationship with the dramatic economic recession in the country.","PeriodicalId":55854,"journal":{"name":"Estudos em Comunicacao","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Estudos em Comunicacao","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20287/EC.N27.V1.A04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines forms of appropriation and mediated deliberation of news on the page of the centennial Brazilian newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo accessed through the global social networking platform Facebook. The study focuses on interactions among users from the point of view of quality of participation, going beyond common practices of (dis)liking and/or sharing. Comments to news articles posted by the newspaper are taken as a more active and detailed kind of participation for exchanging public communication argued by reasons. A comparative corpus of analysis was selected in the months of October 2015 and October 2016, totaling 386 posts and 1,911 comments, in order to understand and differentiate valid and responsible forms of participation able to construct and sustain democratic debate. One of the main findings was that 185 posts of the Estadão newspaper in our studied period of October 2015 generated 1,195 comments, but only 38% of these comments were considered to be qualified ones. One year later, data revealed completely different evidence. Although there were more posts on the Estadão page on Facebook, totaling 201, there were considerably fewer comments. Participation is discussed within the troubled political context and its relationship with the dramatic economic recession in the country.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
巴西社交网络上新闻的获取和挪用:完善“参与”的概念
这篇文章探讨了通过全球社交网络平台Facebook访问的巴西百年报纸《圣保罗国家报》页面上的新闻挪用和中介审议形式。这项研究从参与质量的角度关注用户之间的互动,超越了点赞和/或分享的常见做法。对报纸发表的新闻文章的评论被视为一种更积极、更详细的参与,以交流有理由的公众沟通。在2015年10月和2016年10月选择了一个比较分析语料库,共有386篇帖子和1911条评论,以了解和区分能够构建和维持民主辩论的有效和负责任的参与形式。其中一个主要发现是,在我们2015年10月的研究期间,《Estadão报》的185篇帖子产生了1195条评论,但这些评论中只有38%被认为是合格的。一年后,数据显示了完全不同的证据。尽管脸书上Estadão页面上的帖子更多,总计201条,但评论却少得多。参与是在动荡的政治背景下讨论的,以及它与该国急剧经济衰退的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Estudos em Comunicacao
Estudos em Comunicacao Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊介绍: The main guidelines of the Journal editorial policy are oriented to the concepts of "citizenship" and "participation", understood from a communicational point of view, involving processes and devices of knowledge circulation and opinion formation in the political field in general, and in specific areas of public policy such as health, education, science culture, public opinion, gender and identity. As examples of priority interests areas one finds the following: journalism and public opinion; citizen, participatory and public journalism; responsibility and accountability of institutions, governments and companies; media and public sphere; social movements in the areas of environment, science, health, ecology, culture, identity and gender; media and political parties; political representation; new forms of online participation; methods of analysis of participation; digital democracy; media, deliberation and participation; communitarian communication; communication and development; policies of recognition and comparative studies of communication in different geographical and cultural contexts, among others.
期刊最新文献
Entre o profano e o sagrado: ritos, símbolos e mitos na campanha de um time de futebol brasileiro Access and appropriation of journalistic news on social networks in Brazil: Refining the notion of “participation” “Era bom que trocássemos umas ideias sobre o assunto”: análise à retórica da tecnologia Redes, ativismo e mobilizações públicas. Ação coletiva e ação conectada O recurso ao Transmedia Storytelling para promoção da imagem de uma empresa de design e criatividade
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1