公开还是静听?虐待儿童问题的媒体逻辑和公众调查

IF 1.5 3区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Media International Australia Pub Date : 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1177/1329878x241267722
Kerry McCallum, Tanja Dreher, Megan Deas, Poppy de Souza, Samantha Joseph, Eli Skogerbø
{"title":"公开还是静听?虐待儿童问题的媒体逻辑和公众调查","authors":"Kerry McCallum, Tanja Dreher, Megan Deas, Poppy de Souza, Samantha Joseph, Eli Skogerbø","doi":"10.1177/1329878x241267722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the tensions between ‘publicness’ and ‘privacy’ in national commissions of inquiry. Through the insights of those who worked deep inside Australia's landmark Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (RCIRCSA, 2013–2017), and the evidence provided in its final report, we explore the organisational and media logics of the Commission's highly publicised public hearings, and the ‘quiet’ institutional listening practices of its private sessions and engagement with marginalised communities. Royal Commissions are an important mechanism for raising awareness of past crimes on the public agenda. Our research finds that while the revelatory outcomes of the RCIRCSA have been well documented, its private sessions, engagement and research are less well understood. We argue ‘publicness’ is a relatively unchallenged good that is enacted through news media and the royal commission process, but media logics can limit their capacity to address the ongoing causes and impacts of child sexual abuse against the most impacted children. Participants reflected on the media logics that drove strategic decisions to ‘make public’ some cases and institutions, while others remained in the Commission's private realm. The article concludes that the confidential sharing of evidence has been undervalued in inquiry media studies that often centre the journalists’ role in uncovering and publicly revealing previously unheard stories. Drawing on international comparisons we find that while quiet listening risks negating the opportunity to amplify experience, it may also counter the potential silencing effects of unwanted public media scrutiny and protect potential witnesses from further harm.","PeriodicalId":46880,"journal":{"name":"Media International Australia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making public or quiet listening? Media logics and public inquiries into the abuse of children\",\"authors\":\"Kerry McCallum, Tanja Dreher, Megan Deas, Poppy de Souza, Samantha Joseph, Eli Skogerbø\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1329878x241267722\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the tensions between ‘publicness’ and ‘privacy’ in national commissions of inquiry. Through the insights of those who worked deep inside Australia's landmark Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (RCIRCSA, 2013–2017), and the evidence provided in its final report, we explore the organisational and media logics of the Commission's highly publicised public hearings, and the ‘quiet’ institutional listening practices of its private sessions and engagement with marginalised communities. Royal Commissions are an important mechanism for raising awareness of past crimes on the public agenda. Our research finds that while the revelatory outcomes of the RCIRCSA have been well documented, its private sessions, engagement and research are less well understood. We argue ‘publicness’ is a relatively unchallenged good that is enacted through news media and the royal commission process, but media logics can limit their capacity to address the ongoing causes and impacts of child sexual abuse against the most impacted children. Participants reflected on the media logics that drove strategic decisions to ‘make public’ some cases and institutions, while others remained in the Commission's private realm. The article concludes that the confidential sharing of evidence has been undervalued in inquiry media studies that often centre the journalists’ role in uncovering and publicly revealing previously unheard stories. Drawing on international comparisons we find that while quiet listening risks negating the opportunity to amplify experience, it may also counter the potential silencing effects of unwanted public media scrutiny and protect potential witnesses from further harm.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Media International Australia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Media International Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x241267722\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media International Australia","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x241267722","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了国家调查委员会中 "公开性 "与 "隐私性 "之间的紧张关系。通过澳大利亚具有里程碑意义的儿童性虐待机构应对皇家委员会(RCIRCSA,2013-2017 年)内部人员的见解及其最终报告中提供的证据,我们探讨了该委员会大肆宣传的公开听证会的组织和媒体逻辑,以及其私下会议和与边缘化社区接触的 "安静 "的机构倾听实践。皇家委员会是提高公众对过去罪行认识的重要机制。我们的研究发现,虽然皇家委员会的启示性成果已被记录在案,但其私下会议、参与和研究却鲜为人知。我们认为,"公开性 "是通过新闻媒体和皇家委员会程序实现的一种相对不受质疑的好处,但媒体逻辑可能会限制其解决儿童性虐待对最受影响儿童的持续原因和影响的能力。与会者对媒体逻辑进行了反思,正是媒体逻辑推动了将一些案件和机构 "公之于众 "的战略决策,而另一些案件和机构则仍处于委员会的私人领域。文章的结论是,在调查性媒体研究中,证据的保密共享一直被低估,而这些研究通常以记者在揭露和公开披露以前未曾听闻的故事中所扮演的角色为中心。通过国际比较,我们发现,虽然安静倾听有可能失去扩大经验的机会,但它也可以抵消不受欢迎的公共媒体审查可能产生的沉默效应,并保护潜在证人免受进一步伤害。
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
Making public or quiet listening? Media logics and public inquiries into the abuse of children
This article examines the tensions between ‘publicness’ and ‘privacy’ in national commissions of inquiry. Through the insights of those who worked deep inside Australia's landmark Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (RCIRCSA, 2013–2017), and the evidence provided in its final report, we explore the organisational and media logics of the Commission's highly publicised public hearings, and the ‘quiet’ institutional listening practices of its private sessions and engagement with marginalised communities. Royal Commissions are an important mechanism for raising awareness of past crimes on the public agenda. Our research finds that while the revelatory outcomes of the RCIRCSA have been well documented, its private sessions, engagement and research are less well understood. We argue ‘publicness’ is a relatively unchallenged good that is enacted through news media and the royal commission process, but media logics can limit their capacity to address the ongoing causes and impacts of child sexual abuse against the most impacted children. Participants reflected on the media logics that drove strategic decisions to ‘make public’ some cases and institutions, while others remained in the Commission's private realm. The article concludes that the confidential sharing of evidence has been undervalued in inquiry media studies that often centre the journalists’ role in uncovering and publicly revealing previously unheard stories. Drawing on international comparisons we find that while quiet listening risks negating the opportunity to amplify experience, it may also counter the potential silencing effects of unwanted public media scrutiny and protect potential witnesses from further harm.
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
7.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
66
期刊最新文献
AANZCA2023 Conference Special Issue: Introduction Digital Racism and Antiracism Toward Asian and Muslim Communities During the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Australian Experience What audiences do with news: a broader definition of news consumption Wellness communities and vaccine hesitancy Making public or quiet listening? Media logics and public inquiries into the abuse of children
×
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