不同的以市场为导向的新闻机构如何描述有关关怀法案的新闻报道?

Q2 Social Sciences Newspaper Research Journal Pub Date : 2023-08-07 DOI:10.1177/07395329231187633
Michelle Rossi
{"title":"不同的以市场为导向的新闻机构如何描述有关关怀法案的新闻报道?","authors":"Michelle Rossi","doi":"10.1177/07395329231187633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drawing from CARES Act news coverage, this study investigated how different market-oriented news organizations modulated the debate on the most expansive stimulus bill in modern U.S. history, released in 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic. A comparative approach was used, between news articles produced by a strongly market-oriented and a weakly market-oriented news outlet, both national news outlets, based in the United States. Using market theory as a guide to explore published news content, this study focuses on showing the range of debate, news sources and journalistic role performances employed in coverage of the same topic, coming from differently funded newsrooms. Some of the findings of this research demonstrate differences in the assessment of objectivity as a journalistic norm, and similarities as the indirect use of government official sources. To conclude, some implications for the field of journalism are discussed, including a revision of objectivity as a journalistic norm.","PeriodicalId":36011,"journal":{"name":"Newspaper Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do different market-oriented news organizations portray news coverage about the CARES act?\",\"authors\":\"Michelle Rossi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/07395329231187633\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Drawing from CARES Act news coverage, this study investigated how different market-oriented news organizations modulated the debate on the most expansive stimulus bill in modern U.S. history, released in 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic. A comparative approach was used, between news articles produced by a strongly market-oriented and a weakly market-oriented news outlet, both national news outlets, based in the United States. Using market theory as a guide to explore published news content, this study focuses on showing the range of debate, news sources and journalistic role performances employed in coverage of the same topic, coming from differently funded newsrooms. Some of the findings of this research demonstrate differences in the assessment of objectivity as a journalistic norm, and similarities as the indirect use of government official sources. To conclude, some implications for the field of journalism are discussed, including a revision of objectivity as a journalistic norm.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36011,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Newspaper Research Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Newspaper Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/07395329231187633\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Newspaper Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07395329231187633","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

根据CARES法案的新闻报道,这项研究调查了不同的市场导向新闻机构如何在2020年新冠疫情期间调整美国现代史上最广泛的刺激法案的辩论。采用了一种比较方法,对总部设在美国的一家市场导向强的新闻机构和一家市场取向弱的新闻机构制作的新闻文章进行比较。本研究以市场理论为指导,探索已发表的新闻内容,重点展示了来自不同资金来源的新闻编辑室在报道同一主题时所采用的辩论范围、新闻来源和新闻角色表现。这项研究的一些发现表明,客观性作为新闻规范的评估存在差异,而间接使用政府官方来源的评估存在相似性。最后,讨论了对新闻领域的一些启示,包括对客观性作为新闻规范的修正。
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
How do different market-oriented news organizations portray news coverage about the CARES act?
Drawing from CARES Act news coverage, this study investigated how different market-oriented news organizations modulated the debate on the most expansive stimulus bill in modern U.S. history, released in 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic. A comparative approach was used, between news articles produced by a strongly market-oriented and a weakly market-oriented news outlet, both national news outlets, based in the United States. Using market theory as a guide to explore published news content, this study focuses on showing the range of debate, news sources and journalistic role performances employed in coverage of the same topic, coming from differently funded newsrooms. Some of the findings of this research demonstrate differences in the assessment of objectivity as a journalistic norm, and similarities as the indirect use of government official sources. To conclude, some implications for the field of journalism are discussed, including a revision of objectivity as a journalistic norm.
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
Newspaper Research Journal
Newspaper Research Journal Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊最新文献
Olympian women’s representation in U.S. newspapers has improved according to a content analysis of three local dailies Open-source media project: Community attitudes after 5-year organizational evolution Balancing news? Framing of threat and efficacy in leading Pakistani newspapers’ coverage of climate change Examining national culture and journalistic autonomy P. L. Ellis, P. S. Voakes, and L. Bergen, News for US: Citizen-Centered Journalism
×
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