在高风险政策问题上,媒体、政治和监管议程如何相互影响?

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Policy and Politics Pub Date : 2020-07-01 DOI:10.1332/030557319x15734252420020
A. Opperhuizen, E. Klijn, K. Schouten
{"title":"在高风险政策问题上,媒体、政治和监管议程如何相互影响?","authors":"A. Opperhuizen, E. Klijn, K. Schouten","doi":"10.1332/030557319x15734252420020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article shows how an emerging risk is covered by the media and how this interacts with political attention and policy implementation. Gas drilling has resulted in earthquakes in the Netherlands over the past 25 years. We show that an increase in the frequency and magnitude has not stimulated greater media attention. Media and political attention increased only after the media had interpreted the risk as a safety issue. Once this had happened, newspapers and political debates tended to focus on the emotionally loaded aspects. This is in contrast with the regulatory agenda, which followed its own course by focusing on factual information. By using a new method-supervised-machine learning-we analyse a large, longitudinal data set to explore patterns over time. Our findings shed new light on risk-and agenda-setting theory, confirming that media and politics agendas reinforce each other, but the regulatory agenda is not strongly influenced by them.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"12 1","pages":"461-483"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do media, political and regulatory agendas influence one another in high risk policy issues?\",\"authors\":\"A. Opperhuizen, E. Klijn, K. Schouten\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/030557319x15734252420020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article shows how an emerging risk is covered by the media and how this interacts with political attention and policy implementation. Gas drilling has resulted in earthquakes in the Netherlands over the past 25 years. We show that an increase in the frequency and magnitude has not stimulated greater media attention. Media and political attention increased only after the media had interpreted the risk as a safety issue. Once this had happened, newspapers and political debates tended to focus on the emotionally loaded aspects. This is in contrast with the regulatory agenda, which followed its own course by focusing on factual information. By using a new method-supervised-machine learning-we analyse a large, longitudinal data set to explore patterns over time. Our findings shed new light on risk-and agenda-setting theory, confirming that media and politics agendas reinforce each other, but the regulatory agenda is not strongly influenced by them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47631,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Politics\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"461-483\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15734252420020\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15734252420020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文展示了媒体如何报道一种新出现的风险,以及这种风险如何与政治关注和政策实施相互作用。在过去的25年里,荷兰的天然气钻探导致了多次地震。我们的研究表明,地震频率和震级的增加并没有引起媒体更大的关注。只有在媒体将风险解读为安全问题之后,媒体和政界的关注才会增加。一旦这种情况发生,报纸和政治辩论就倾向于关注情感方面。这与监管议程形成鲜明对比,后者遵循自己的路线,专注于事实信息。通过使用一种新的方法——监督机器学习——我们分析了一个大型的纵向数据集,以探索随时间变化的模式。我们的研究结果为风险和议程设置理论提供了新的视角,证实了媒体和政治议程相互加强,但监管议程不受它们的强烈影响。
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 media, political and regulatory agendas influence one another in high risk policy issues?
This article shows how an emerging risk is covered by the media and how this interacts with political attention and policy implementation. Gas drilling has resulted in earthquakes in the Netherlands over the past 25 years. We show that an increase in the frequency and magnitude has not stimulated greater media attention. Media and political attention increased only after the media had interpreted the risk as a safety issue. Once this had happened, newspapers and political debates tended to focus on the emotionally loaded aspects. This is in contrast with the regulatory agenda, which followed its own course by focusing on factual information. By using a new method-supervised-machine learning-we analyse a large, longitudinal data set to explore patterns over time. Our findings shed new light on risk-and agenda-setting theory, confirming that media and politics agendas reinforce each other, but the regulatory agenda is not strongly influenced by them.
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
7.90
自引率
12.80%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
The racialisation of sexism: how race frames shape anti-street harassment policies in Britain and France Concluding discussion: key themes in the (possible) move to co-production and co-creation in public management A theoretical framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions and public value Collaborative governance and innovation in public services settings Digital platforms for the co-creation of public value
×
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