让他们付出代价:比较两种问责背景下环境事实的重要性

IF 4.5 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION New Media & Society Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1177/14614448241279250
Rosalind Donald, Lucas Graves
{"title":"让他们付出代价:比较两种问责背景下环境事实的重要性","authors":"Rosalind Donald, Lucas Graves","doi":"10.1177/14614448241279250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article makes the case for what we call accountability contexts as a valuable heuristic to think about how facts matter in public life, drawing attention to how different discursive and institutional contexts shape the ways in which facts can count. We examine two environmental case studies: The Territory, a documentary about the struggle of the Uru-eu-wau-wau community in Brazil to protect their land from illegal invaders, and the fact-checking organization Climate Feedback’s partnership with Facebook to flag misinformation on the platform. Popular stories about accountability hinge on using facts to change the public’s mind. In contrast, we find that publicity is only part of a much more complex picture. By analyzing factors such as appeals to relevant publics, institutional rigidity, the uses of knowledge and narrative, and the role of the state, we investigate the real, messy processes that people take part in as they seek change. Accountability contexts provide a valuable heuristic for scholars of political journalism and communication as well as a practical tool for analyzing which pathways have led to success or failure in the pursuit of accountability.","PeriodicalId":19149,"journal":{"name":"New Media & Society","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making them pay: Comparing how environmental facts matter in two accountability contexts\",\"authors\":\"Rosalind Donald, Lucas Graves\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14614448241279250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article makes the case for what we call accountability contexts as a valuable heuristic to think about how facts matter in public life, drawing attention to how different discursive and institutional contexts shape the ways in which facts can count. We examine two environmental case studies: The Territory, a documentary about the struggle of the Uru-eu-wau-wau community in Brazil to protect their land from illegal invaders, and the fact-checking organization Climate Feedback’s partnership with Facebook to flag misinformation on the platform. Popular stories about accountability hinge on using facts to change the public’s mind. In contrast, we find that publicity is only part of a much more complex picture. By analyzing factors such as appeals to relevant publics, institutional rigidity, the uses of knowledge and narrative, and the role of the state, we investigate the real, messy processes that people take part in as they seek change. Accountability contexts provide a valuable heuristic for scholars of political journalism and communication as well as a practical tool for analyzing which pathways have led to success or failure in the pursuit of accountability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Media & Society\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Media & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241279250\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Media & Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241279250","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文论证了我们所说的 "问责语境",将其作为思考事实如何在公共生活中发挥作用的重要启发式方法,并提请人们注意不同的话语和制度语境是如何塑造事实的重要性的。我们研究了两个环境案例:领土》(The Territory)是一部纪录片,讲述了巴西乌鲁-乌-乌-乌-乌社区为保护自己的土地不受非法入侵者侵害而进行的斗争;事实核查组织 "气候反馈"(Climate Feedback)与 Facebook 合作,在该平台上标记错误信息。有关问责制的热门报道取决于利用事实来改变公众的想法。相比之下,我们发现,宣传只是更为复杂的一部分。通过分析对相关公众的呼吁、制度的僵化、知识和叙事的使用以及国家的作用等因素,我们研究了人们在寻求变革时所参与的真实而混乱的过程。问责背景为政治新闻与传播学者提供了宝贵的启发,也为分析哪些途径导致了问责的成功或失败提供了实用工具。
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 them pay: Comparing how environmental facts matter in two accountability contexts
This article makes the case for what we call accountability contexts as a valuable heuristic to think about how facts matter in public life, drawing attention to how different discursive and institutional contexts shape the ways in which facts can count. We examine two environmental case studies: The Territory, a documentary about the struggle of the Uru-eu-wau-wau community in Brazil to protect their land from illegal invaders, and the fact-checking organization Climate Feedback’s partnership with Facebook to flag misinformation on the platform. Popular stories about accountability hinge on using facts to change the public’s mind. In contrast, we find that publicity is only part of a much more complex picture. By analyzing factors such as appeals to relevant publics, institutional rigidity, the uses of knowledge and narrative, and the role of the state, we investigate the real, messy processes that people take part in as they seek change. Accountability contexts provide a valuable heuristic for scholars of political journalism and communication as well as a practical tool for analyzing which pathways have led to success or failure in the pursuit of accountability.
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
New Media & Society
New Media & Society COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
274
期刊介绍: New Media & Society engages in critical discussions of the key issues arising from the scale and speed of new media development, drawing on a wide range of disciplinary perspectives and on both theoretical and empirical research. The journal includes contributions on: -the individual and the social, the cultural and the political dimensions of new media -the global and local dimensions of the relationship between media and social change -contemporary as well as historical developments -the implications and impacts of, as well as the determinants and obstacles to, media change the relationship between theory, policy and practice.
期刊最新文献
The journalists’ exodus: Navigating the transition from Twitter to Mastodon and other alternative platforms Explaining public communication change: A structure–actor model Memeability and sharenting: The affective economy of children on social media Locked among inequalities: A study of children’s digital experiences and digital divide during the COVID-19 pandemic Catch 22: Institutional ethics and researcher welfare within online extremism and terrorism research
×
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