专家时代--COVID-19、专业知识和奥地利媒体报道中的利益冲突

Johannes Scherling, Anouschka Foltz
{"title":"专家时代--COVID-19、专业知识和奥地利媒体报道中的利益冲突","authors":"Johannes Scherling, Anouschka Foltz","doi":"10.3390/journalmedia5010012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Experts are a favorite source of information in the news media as they have the ability to provide balanced and authoritative comments on important issues. However, two factors cast doubt on the extent to which such experts can actually provide balanced information: conflicts of interest and areas of expertise. In this paper, we analyze the use of expert voices during the COVID pandemic in two Austrian broadsheet papers. Methods: We examine the use of reporting verbs employed to indicate the journalists’ stance towards the expert comments as well as the relationship of those comments to the experts’ fields of expertise and to any potential conflicts of interest. Results: Our analysis shows that the media uncritically reported experts that had considerable conflicts of interest, while others were permitted to comment on topics far outside their particular fields. Conclusions: In the absence of journalistic scrutiny, distance, and context, both of these practices are likely to have led audiences to take the experts’ comments at face value and therefore to have embraced unbalanced information that amplified official narratives, to the exclusion of alternative voices.","PeriodicalId":17629,"journal":{"name":"Journalism and Media","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Age of the Expert—COVID-19, Expertise, and Conflicts of Interest in Austrian Media Reporting\",\"authors\":\"Johannes Scherling, Anouschka Foltz\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/journalmedia5010012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Experts are a favorite source of information in the news media as they have the ability to provide balanced and authoritative comments on important issues. However, two factors cast doubt on the extent to which such experts can actually provide balanced information: conflicts of interest and areas of expertise. In this paper, we analyze the use of expert voices during the COVID pandemic in two Austrian broadsheet papers. Methods: We examine the use of reporting verbs employed to indicate the journalists’ stance towards the expert comments as well as the relationship of those comments to the experts’ fields of expertise and to any potential conflicts of interest. Results: Our analysis shows that the media uncritically reported experts that had considerable conflicts of interest, while others were permitted to comment on topics far outside their particular fields. Conclusions: In the absence of journalistic scrutiny, distance, and context, both of these practices are likely to have led audiences to take the experts’ comments at face value and therefore to have embraced unbalanced information that amplified official narratives, to the exclusion of alternative voices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17629,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journalism and Media\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journalism and Media\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5010012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journalism and Media","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5010012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:专家是新闻媒体最喜爱的信息来源,因为他们有能力就重要问题提供平衡而权威的评论。然而,有两个因素让人怀疑这些专家究竟能在多大程度上提供平衡的信息:利益冲突和专业领域。在本文中,我们分析了两份奥地利大报在 COVID 大流行期间对专家声音的使用。方法:我们研究了报道动词的使用,以表明记者对专家评论的立场,以及这些评论与专家专业领域和任何潜在利益冲突的关系。结果:我们的分析表明,媒体不加批判地报道了存在严重利益冲突的专家,而其他专家则被允许就远远超出其特定领域的话题发表评论。结论:在缺乏新闻审查、距离和背景的情况下,这两种做法都可能导致受众对专家的评论信以为真,从而接受了不平衡的信息,放大了官方的叙述,排斥了其他声音。
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
The Age of the Expert—COVID-19, Expertise, and Conflicts of Interest in Austrian Media Reporting
Background: Experts are a favorite source of information in the news media as they have the ability to provide balanced and authoritative comments on important issues. However, two factors cast doubt on the extent to which such experts can actually provide balanced information: conflicts of interest and areas of expertise. In this paper, we analyze the use of expert voices during the COVID pandemic in two Austrian broadsheet papers. Methods: We examine the use of reporting verbs employed to indicate the journalists’ stance towards the expert comments as well as the relationship of those comments to the experts’ fields of expertise and to any potential conflicts of interest. Results: Our analysis shows that the media uncritically reported experts that had considerable conflicts of interest, while others were permitted to comment on topics far outside their particular fields. Conclusions: In the absence of journalistic scrutiny, distance, and context, both of these practices are likely to have led audiences to take the experts’ comments at face value and therefore to have embraced unbalanced information that amplified official narratives, to the exclusion of alternative voices.
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Intermediaries between Journalism and Arts: Shared Concerns, Work Processes and Strategies Outlining an Emergent Practice Rethinking the Relation between Media and Their Audience: The Discursive Construction of the Risk of Artificial Intelligence in the Press of Belgium, France, Portugal, and Spain 360° Journalism and Empathy: Psychological Processes and Communication Outcomes Russia–Ukraine Propaganda on Social Media: A Bibliometric Analysis Profile, Incidence, and Perspectives of Disinformation among Ecuadorians
×
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