新闻工会与数字平台监管:对提交给澳大利亚新闻媒体议价准则的批评性话语分析

IF 1.5 3区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Media International Australia Pub Date : 2023-05-25 DOI:10.1177/1329878x231176583
T. Neilson, KB Heylen
{"title":"新闻工会与数字平台监管:对提交给澳大利亚新闻媒体议价准则的批评性话语分析","authors":"T. Neilson, KB Heylen","doi":"10.1177/1329878x231176583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Journalism unions are among the chorus of voices advocating for digital platform regulation. Yet, despite the documented impacts of platformisation on working conditions and labour markets, few of the recent inquiries into platform power have addressed the impacts of platforms on labour. In this article, we ask: what is the role of labour unions in shaping digital platform regulation? As our case study, we analysed how Australia's journalism union (the MEAA) articulated the interests of news workers in submissions to the Digital Platform Inquiry and the resulting News Media Bargaining Code. Through a critical discourse analysis of the union's submissions, we found that the MEAA's lobbying efforts championed the interests of freelancers, advocated for a more inclusive Code, and sought guarantees that the revenue it generated would be used to pay for content creation. The MEAA used a range of discursive strategies, including seizing on ambiguity surrounding the definition of the policy problem and key actors. For the most part, the submissions aligned the union with the regulator, state and media companies in pursuit of platform regulation. However, the competing interests among this advocacy coalition became increasingly clear in the later stages of the policy-making process. Ultimately, the union's strategies were constrained by the hegemony of market-centric discourses that framed the inquiry and shaped the policy outcomes.","PeriodicalId":46880,"journal":{"name":"Media International Australia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Journalism unions and digital platform regulation: a critical discourse analysis of submissions to Australia's News Media Bargaining Code\",\"authors\":\"T. Neilson, KB Heylen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1329878x231176583\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Journalism unions are among the chorus of voices advocating for digital platform regulation. Yet, despite the documented impacts of platformisation on working conditions and labour markets, few of the recent inquiries into platform power have addressed the impacts of platforms on labour. In this article, we ask: what is the role of labour unions in shaping digital platform regulation? As our case study, we analysed how Australia's journalism union (the MEAA) articulated the interests of news workers in submissions to the Digital Platform Inquiry and the resulting News Media Bargaining Code. Through a critical discourse analysis of the union's submissions, we found that the MEAA's lobbying efforts championed the interests of freelancers, advocated for a more inclusive Code, and sought guarantees that the revenue it generated would be used to pay for content creation. The MEAA used a range of discursive strategies, including seizing on ambiguity surrounding the definition of the policy problem and key actors. For the most part, the submissions aligned the union with the regulator, state and media companies in pursuit of platform regulation. However, the competing interests among this advocacy coalition became increasingly clear in the later stages of the policy-making process. Ultimately, the union's strategies were constrained by the hegemony of market-centric discourses that framed the inquiry and shaped the policy outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Media International Australia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Media International Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x231176583\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media International Australia","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x231176583","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

新闻工会是倡导数字平台监管的呼声之一。然而,尽管记录了平台化对工作条件和劳动力市场的影响,但最近关于平台权力的调查很少涉及平台对劳动力的影响。在本文中,我们的问题是:工会在塑造数字平台监管方面的作用是什么?作为我们的案例研究,我们分析了澳大利亚新闻工会(MEAA)如何在提交给数字平台调查和由此产生的新闻媒体议价准则时阐明新闻工作者的利益。通过对工会提交的文件的批判性话语分析,我们发现MEAA的游说努力捍卫了自由职业者的利益,主张制定一个更具包容性的准则,并寻求保证其产生的收入将用于支付内容创作。MEAA使用了一系列话语策略,包括抓住围绕政策问题和关键行为者定义的模糊性。在大多数情况下,这些意见书使工会与监管机构、国家和媒体公司在平台监管方面保持一致。然而,在政策制定的后期,这些倡导联盟之间的利益竞争日益明显。最终,欧盟的战略受到以市场为中心的霸权话语的制约,这些话语框定了调查,塑造了政策结果。
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
Journalism unions and digital platform regulation: a critical discourse analysis of submissions to Australia's News Media Bargaining Code
Journalism unions are among the chorus of voices advocating for digital platform regulation. Yet, despite the documented impacts of platformisation on working conditions and labour markets, few of the recent inquiries into platform power have addressed the impacts of platforms on labour. In this article, we ask: what is the role of labour unions in shaping digital platform regulation? As our case study, we analysed how Australia's journalism union (the MEAA) articulated the interests of news workers in submissions to the Digital Platform Inquiry and the resulting News Media Bargaining Code. Through a critical discourse analysis of the union's submissions, we found that the MEAA's lobbying efforts championed the interests of freelancers, advocated for a more inclusive Code, and sought guarantees that the revenue it generated would be used to pay for content creation. The MEAA used a range of discursive strategies, including seizing on ambiguity surrounding the definition of the policy problem and key actors. For the most part, the submissions aligned the union with the regulator, state and media companies in pursuit of platform regulation. However, the competing interests among this advocacy coalition became increasingly clear in the later stages of the policy-making process. Ultimately, the union's strategies were constrained by the hegemony of market-centric discourses that framed the inquiry and shaped the policy outcomes.
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
7.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
66
期刊最新文献
AANZCA2023 Conference Special Issue: Introduction Digital Racism and Antiracism Toward Asian and Muslim Communities During the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Australian Experience What audiences do with news: a broader definition of news consumption Wellness communities and vaccine hesitancy Making public or quiet listening? Media logics and public inquiries into the abuse of children
×
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