媒体对《世界新闻报》电话窃听丑闻之后的辩论的报道:在新闻元话语中使用消息来源

Binakuromo Ogbebor
{"title":"媒体对《世界新闻报》电话窃听丑闻之后的辩论的报道:在新闻元话语中使用消息来源","authors":"Binakuromo Ogbebor","doi":"10.18573/JOMEC.173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the distribution of sources in journalistic metadiscourse (media coverage of journalism) and the implication of the manner of distribution for democracy. In this study, the way sources were distributed in the media representation of the debate that arose from the News of the World phone hacking scandal and the Leveson Inquiry is taken as representative of how sources are distributed in journalistic metadiscourse. The main method for this study is content analysis. Content analysis was supplemented by critical discourse analysis in the study of 870 new articles on the media policy debate, from 6 British national newspapers. My findings show that journalistic metadiscourse is characterised by a doubly narrow spectrum of sources with access tilting heavily in favour of the press. I argue that this is dangerous to democracy and that it may be unrealistic to expect the press to function as a democratic public sphere during debates about themselves without some level of external coercion.","PeriodicalId":87289,"journal":{"name":"JOMEC journal : journalism, media and cultural studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Press coverage of the debate that followed the News of the World phone hacking scandal: the use of sources in journalistic metadiscourse\",\"authors\":\"Binakuromo Ogbebor\",\"doi\":\"10.18573/JOMEC.173\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the distribution of sources in journalistic metadiscourse (media coverage of journalism) and the implication of the manner of distribution for democracy. In this study, the way sources were distributed in the media representation of the debate that arose from the News of the World phone hacking scandal and the Leveson Inquiry is taken as representative of how sources are distributed in journalistic metadiscourse. The main method for this study is content analysis. Content analysis was supplemented by critical discourse analysis in the study of 870 new articles on the media policy debate, from 6 British national newspapers. My findings show that journalistic metadiscourse is characterised by a doubly narrow spectrum of sources with access tilting heavily in favour of the press. I argue that this is dangerous to democracy and that it may be unrealistic to expect the press to function as a democratic public sphere during debates about themselves without some level of external coercion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOMEC journal : journalism, media and cultural studies\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"145\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOMEC journal : journalism, media and cultural studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18573/JOMEC.173\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOMEC journal : journalism, media and cultural studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18573/JOMEC.173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文考察了新闻元话语(新闻的媒体报道)中来源的分布,以及分布方式对民主的含义。在这项研究中,来源在《世界新闻报》电话窃听丑闻和莱维森调查引发的辩论的媒体报道中的分布方式被视为来源在新闻元话语中分布的代表。本研究的主要方法是内容分析。在对来自6家英国全国性报纸的870篇关于媒体政策辩论的新文章的研究中,内容分析辅以批判性话语分析。我的研究结果表明,新闻元话语的特点是来源范围加倍狭窄,访问权限严重偏向媒体。我认为,这对民主是危险的,在没有某种程度的外部胁迫的情况下,期望新闻界在关于自己的辩论中发挥民主公共领域的作用可能是不现实的。
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
Press coverage of the debate that followed the News of the World phone hacking scandal: the use of sources in journalistic metadiscourse
This article examines the distribution of sources in journalistic metadiscourse (media coverage of journalism) and the implication of the manner of distribution for democracy. In this study, the way sources were distributed in the media representation of the debate that arose from the News of the World phone hacking scandal and the Leveson Inquiry is taken as representative of how sources are distributed in journalistic metadiscourse. The main method for this study is content analysis. Content analysis was supplemented by critical discourse analysis in the study of 870 new articles on the media policy debate, from 6 British national newspapers. My findings show that journalistic metadiscourse is characterised by a doubly narrow spectrum of sources with access tilting heavily in favour of the press. I argue that this is dangerous to democracy and that it may be unrealistic to expect the press to function as a democratic public sphere during debates about themselves without some level of external coercion.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Introduction: Second-hand Cultures in Unsettled Times Taking stock: Continuity and change in charity retail Second-hand and the Tacit Emptying the Wardrobe, Clearing the House: A Microcosmic View into the Creation and Destruction of Clothing Value Pricing up & Haggling Down: Value Negotiations in the UK Charity Shop
×
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