辩论范围:英国领导人辩论中的大党霸权、小党边缘化

IF 1.2 Q3 COMMUNICATION Communication and the Public Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI:10.1177/2057047319875863
Ceri Hughes
{"title":"辩论范围:英国领导人辩论中的大党霸权、小党边缘化","authors":"Ceri Hughes","doi":"10.1177/2057047319875863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The United Kingdom political landscape has historically been dominated by the two main political parties: Labour and the Conservatives. However, by the 2010 General Election, their vote share had dropped to 65%. The 2010 election also saw a new development enter the UK political landscape—televised leaders’ debates, which featured the leaders of the three largest political parties. Discussions before the 2015 General Election resulted in a decision to repeat the debate experiment, but this time, partly due to changes in projected vote shares, seven leaders were invited to the main debate. Using content analysis of the debate, this research questions the presentation of the debate as a deliberative event. Participatory parity was not achieved in the debate—far from it. Instead, the debate served to reinforce extant power differentials between the leaders of parties of differing political standings.","PeriodicalId":44233,"journal":{"name":"Communication and the Public","volume":"4 1","pages":"189 - 203"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2057047319875863","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Debatable sphere: Major party hegemony, minor party marginalization in the UK leaders’ debate\",\"authors\":\"Ceri Hughes\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2057047319875863\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The United Kingdom political landscape has historically been dominated by the two main political parties: Labour and the Conservatives. However, by the 2010 General Election, their vote share had dropped to 65%. The 2010 election also saw a new development enter the UK political landscape—televised leaders’ debates, which featured the leaders of the three largest political parties. Discussions before the 2015 General Election resulted in a decision to repeat the debate experiment, but this time, partly due to changes in projected vote shares, seven leaders were invited to the main debate. Using content analysis of the debate, this research questions the presentation of the debate as a deliberative event. Participatory parity was not achieved in the debate—far from it. Instead, the debate served to reinforce extant power differentials between the leaders of parties of differing political standings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44233,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication and the Public\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"189 - 203\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2057047319875863\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication and the Public\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047319875863\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication and the Public","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047319875863","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

历史上,英国的政治版图一直由两大政党主导:工党和保守党。然而,到2010年大选时,他们的选票份额已经下降到65%。2010年的大选也见证了英国政治格局的新发展——电视转播的领导人辩论,其中包括三个最大政党的领导人。2015年大选前的讨论导致决定重复辩论实验,但这一次,部分由于预计选票份额的变化,七名领导人被邀请参加主要辩论。利用辩论的内容分析,本研究质疑辩论作为审议事件的呈现。参与平等在辩论中没有实现——远远没有。相反,这场辩论强化了不同政治立场的政党领导人之间现存的权力差距。
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
Debatable sphere: Major party hegemony, minor party marginalization in the UK leaders’ debate
The United Kingdom political landscape has historically been dominated by the two main political parties: Labour and the Conservatives. However, by the 2010 General Election, their vote share had dropped to 65%. The 2010 election also saw a new development enter the UK political landscape—televised leaders’ debates, which featured the leaders of the three largest political parties. Discussions before the 2015 General Election resulted in a decision to repeat the debate experiment, but this time, partly due to changes in projected vote shares, seven leaders were invited to the main debate. Using content analysis of the debate, this research questions the presentation of the debate as a deliberative event. Participatory parity was not achieved in the debate—far from it. Instead, the debate served to reinforce extant power differentials between the leaders of parties of differing political standings.
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
3.20
自引率
2.80%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Populist politicians’ representations of the people: A comparative visual content analysis of candidates’ Instagram posts in 2023 Turkish general elections Women governors in the United States use more communal language than male governors in their State of the State addresses and tweets and achieve greater policy success Investigating the relationship between knowledge of the media industry and media trust in a government-owned and government-controlled media system Multimodality and appraisal choices in Nigerian coronavirus-related WhatsApp memes COVID-19 vaccines and vaccinations coverage on news portals: Framing, Tone, and Source Analysis
×
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