马来西亚死刑的改革和媒体描述

IF 1.4 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY International Criminal Justice Review Pub Date : 2023-09-14 DOI:10.1177/10575677231200447
Darshan Singh, O. Hayden Griffin, Megan Webb, Suresh Narayanan, Lindsay Leban
{"title":"马来西亚死刑的改革和媒体描述","authors":"Darshan Singh, O. Hayden Griffin, Megan Webb, Suresh Narayanan, Lindsay Leban","doi":"10.1177/10575677231200447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Malaysia has retained the death penalty for violent crimes and some nonviolent drug offenses. Major news dailies, controlled by political parties in the ruling coalition, have helped justify this stance in the past. This situation changed over 22 months when a new coalition, which campaigned on abolishing capital punishment, took office and sparked renewed public discussion on this issue. Depictions of the death penalty debate were analyzed by conducting a content analysis of two major English-language newspapers, The Star and New Straits Times. Our findings suggest that The Star provided more international coverage and the New Straits Times prioritized domestic coverage. While both outlets provided comprehensive, and sometimes, critical coverage of executions elsewhere, they downplayed the fact that Malaysia engages in the same practice. There was no evidence to indicate that they were pushing an agenda as neither took a formal position on the issue. Content to transmit the differing views on the subject, neither functioned as forums to air nor shaped policy positions. This posture was possibly shaped by preconceived notions of what their readership wants and/or self-censorship—a legacy of past subjugation that will hopefully change when press freedom is perceived as a right, not a privilege.","PeriodicalId":51797,"journal":{"name":"International Criminal Justice Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reforms and Media Depictions of the Death Penalty in Malaysia\",\"authors\":\"Darshan Singh, O. Hayden Griffin, Megan Webb, Suresh Narayanan, Lindsay Leban\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10575677231200447\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Malaysia has retained the death penalty for violent crimes and some nonviolent drug offenses. Major news dailies, controlled by political parties in the ruling coalition, have helped justify this stance in the past. This situation changed over 22 months when a new coalition, which campaigned on abolishing capital punishment, took office and sparked renewed public discussion on this issue. Depictions of the death penalty debate were analyzed by conducting a content analysis of two major English-language newspapers, The Star and New Straits Times. Our findings suggest that The Star provided more international coverage and the New Straits Times prioritized domestic coverage. While both outlets provided comprehensive, and sometimes, critical coverage of executions elsewhere, they downplayed the fact that Malaysia engages in the same practice. There was no evidence to indicate that they were pushing an agenda as neither took a formal position on the issue. Content to transmit the differing views on the subject, neither functioned as forums to air nor shaped policy positions. This posture was possibly shaped by preconceived notions of what their readership wants and/or self-censorship—a legacy of past subjugation that will hopefully change when press freedom is perceived as a right, not a privilege.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51797,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Criminal Justice Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Criminal Justice Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10575677231200447\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Criminal Justice Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10575677231200447","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

马来西亚保留了对暴力犯罪和一些非暴力毒品犯罪的死刑。在过去,由执政联盟中的政党控制的主要新闻日报帮助证明了这种立场的合理性。这种情况在22个月后发生了变化,当时一个倡导废除死刑的新联盟上台,并引发了公众对这一问题的新一轮讨论。通过对两份主要英文报纸《星报》和《新海峡时报》进行内容分析,分析了对死刑辩论的描述。我们的研究结果表明,《星报》提供了更多的国际报道,而《新海峡时报》则优先考虑国内报道。虽然这两家媒体都对其他地方的死刑执行进行了全面的、有时甚至是批评性的报道,但它们都淡化了马来西亚也在采取同样做法的事实。没有证据表明他们在推动一项议程,因为双方都没有在这个问题上采取正式立场。内容是传递关于该主题的不同观点,既不是作为发表意见的论坛,也不是形成政策立场的论坛。这种姿态可能是由先入为主的读者想要什么和/或自我审查的观念形成的——这是过去被征服的遗产,当新闻自由被视为一种权利而不是特权时,这种情况有望改变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reforms and Media Depictions of the Death Penalty in Malaysia
Malaysia has retained the death penalty for violent crimes and some nonviolent drug offenses. Major news dailies, controlled by political parties in the ruling coalition, have helped justify this stance in the past. This situation changed over 22 months when a new coalition, which campaigned on abolishing capital punishment, took office and sparked renewed public discussion on this issue. Depictions of the death penalty debate were analyzed by conducting a content analysis of two major English-language newspapers, The Star and New Straits Times. Our findings suggest that The Star provided more international coverage and the New Straits Times prioritized domestic coverage. While both outlets provided comprehensive, and sometimes, critical coverage of executions elsewhere, they downplayed the fact that Malaysia engages in the same practice. There was no evidence to indicate that they were pushing an agenda as neither took a formal position on the issue. Content to transmit the differing views on the subject, neither functioned as forums to air nor shaped policy positions. This posture was possibly shaped by preconceived notions of what their readership wants and/or self-censorship—a legacy of past subjugation that will hopefully change when press freedom is perceived as a right, not a privilege.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Criminal Justice Review
International Criminal Justice Review CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: International Criminal Justice Review is a scholarly journal dedicated to presenting system wide trends and problems on crime and justice throughout the world. Articles may focus on a single country or compare issues affecting two or more countries. Both qualitative and quantitative pieces are encouraged, providing they adhere to standards of quality scholarship. Manuscripts may emphasize either contemporary or historical topics. As a peer-reviewed journal, we encourage the submission of articles, research notes, and commentaries that focus on crime and broadly defined justice-related topics in an international and/or comparative context.
期刊最新文献
Examining the Boost Account for Repeat and Near Repeat Burglary in Canada Victims of Corrupt Practices: Does Crime Seriousness Affect Bribe Payers’ Decision to Report? Book Review: European perspectives on attrition in sexual crimes by Erbaş, R. Exploring Methods in Crime and Safety Analysis Book Review: Crime, Justice and COVID-19 by Kay, Christopher & Case, Stephen
×
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