斯洛伐克关于媒体的讨论:讨论者的规范性分析

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY Sociologicky Casopis-Czech Sociological Review Pub Date : 2020-11-30 DOI:10.13060/csr.2020.043
T. Profant
{"title":"斯洛伐克关于媒体的讨论:讨论者的规范性分析","authors":"T. Profant","doi":"10.13060/csr.2020.043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There have been a number of organised discussions about the media in Slovakia in recent times. This study analyses them to find answers to several research questions. One question is: who took part in the discussions about the media in the period this analysis focused on in 2018? Interviews with the organisers of these discussions offered a partial answer to the question of what kind of discursive strategies they used in determining the hegemonic discourse that emerges from these discussions. The article's theoretical starting point is Foucault's question about 'Who is speaking?' as an important element of the archaeology of knowledge. The analysis was conducted by counting the frequency of public normative official affiliations the guests and moderators had in the discussions and performing a qualitative content analysis of the interviews carried out with the organisers. The analysis revealed that most of the participants were politically centrist subjects from centrist parties, the liberal and conservative media, and non-governmental organisations critical of the extremes in the media landscape. The discursive strategies analysed included procedures of exclusion based on the distinction between reason and madness, media routine, and the valuing of objectivity and respect toward the deceased over balance. However, balance is still an acknowledged value and could become the basis for more plural discussions, given that the respondents claimed that they have no problem with differences of opinion.","PeriodicalId":45665,"journal":{"name":"Sociologicky Casopis-Czech Sociological Review","volume":"6 1","pages":"639-664"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Slovak Discussions about Media: An Analysis of the Discussants' Normativity\",\"authors\":\"T. Profant\",\"doi\":\"10.13060/csr.2020.043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There have been a number of organised discussions about the media in Slovakia in recent times. This study analyses them to find answers to several research questions. One question is: who took part in the discussions about the media in the period this analysis focused on in 2018? Interviews with the organisers of these discussions offered a partial answer to the question of what kind of discursive strategies they used in determining the hegemonic discourse that emerges from these discussions. The article's theoretical starting point is Foucault's question about 'Who is speaking?' as an important element of the archaeology of knowledge. The analysis was conducted by counting the frequency of public normative official affiliations the guests and moderators had in the discussions and performing a qualitative content analysis of the interviews carried out with the organisers. The analysis revealed that most of the participants were politically centrist subjects from centrist parties, the liberal and conservative media, and non-governmental organisations critical of the extremes in the media landscape. The discursive strategies analysed included procedures of exclusion based on the distinction between reason and madness, media routine, and the valuing of objectivity and respect toward the deceased over balance. However, balance is still an acknowledged value and could become the basis for more plural discussions, given that the respondents claimed that they have no problem with differences of opinion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45665,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociologicky Casopis-Czech Sociological Review\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"639-664\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociologicky Casopis-Czech Sociological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13060/csr.2020.043\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologicky Casopis-Czech Sociological Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13060/csr.2020.043","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近在斯洛伐克有许多关于媒体的有组织讨论。本研究对它们进行分析,以找到几个研究问题的答案。一个问题是:在2018年这一分析所关注的时期,谁参与了关于媒体的讨论?对这些讨论的组织者的采访提供了一个部分的答案,即他们在决定这些讨论中出现的霸权话语时使用了什么样的话语策略。这篇文章的理论出发点是福柯关于“谁在说话?”作为知识考古学的一个重要元素。分析是通过统计嘉宾和主持人在讨论中参与公共规范官方关系的频率,并对与组织者进行的访谈进行定性内容分析来进行的。分析显示,大多数参与者是政治上的中间派,来自中间派政党、自由派和保守派媒体,以及批评媒体格局极端的非政府组织。所分析的话语策略包括基于理性与疯狂的区分的排除程序、媒介常规、对客观性的重视和对死者的尊重超过平衡。然而,平衡仍然是一个公认的价值,并且可以成为更多元讨论的基础,因为受访者声称他们对意见分歧没有问题。
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
Slovak Discussions about Media: An Analysis of the Discussants' Normativity
There have been a number of organised discussions about the media in Slovakia in recent times. This study analyses them to find answers to several research questions. One question is: who took part in the discussions about the media in the period this analysis focused on in 2018? Interviews with the organisers of these discussions offered a partial answer to the question of what kind of discursive strategies they used in determining the hegemonic discourse that emerges from these discussions. The article's theoretical starting point is Foucault's question about 'Who is speaking?' as an important element of the archaeology of knowledge. The analysis was conducted by counting the frequency of public normative official affiliations the guests and moderators had in the discussions and performing a qualitative content analysis of the interviews carried out with the organisers. The analysis revealed that most of the participants were politically centrist subjects from centrist parties, the liberal and conservative media, and non-governmental organisations critical of the extremes in the media landscape. The discursive strategies analysed included procedures of exclusion based on the distinction between reason and madness, media routine, and the valuing of objectivity and respect toward the deceased over balance. However, balance is still an acknowledged value and could become the basis for more plural discussions, given that the respondents claimed that they have no problem with differences of opinion.
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
1.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Sociologický časopis je recenzovaný vědecký časopis publikující původní příspěvky k poznání společnosti od českých i zahraničních autorů. Vychází od roku 1965. Časopis přináší stati zabývající se otázkami teoretické sociologie, články zkoumající transformační jevy a sociální procesy probíhající v postkomunistických společnostech, přehledové články zpracovávající vývoj v široké paletě oborů sociologie a příbuzných sociálních věd, informace ze sociologických výzkumů.
期刊最新文献
Petr Gibas a kol.: Bydlení mladých v době krize Michal Kaplánek (ed.): Volný čas dětí staršího školního věku Martin Potůček: Anatomie komunismu: Skutečný příběh jedné rodiny Between Politicisation and Depoliticisation: Restitution of Church Property in Czech Republic What Is Early Childhood Education and Care For? How ECEC for Children up to the Age of Three Is (Not) Discussed in the Czech Republic
×
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