Download the eBook (8.25 MB) - ECREA Thematic Sections

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedings of ECREA/CICOM Conference, Pamplona, 4-5 July 2011 Making Sense Out of Newspaper Humour - The Swine Flu Pandemic in Portugal Pereira Rosa, Gonçalo Centro de Estudos de Comunicação e Cultura, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Lisboa, Portugal It has been demonstrated that newspaper cartoons are a valuable resource to study social trends and shared meanings, while providing information about the way social meaning is attached to specific risk events. Simple, easy to interpret and decode, cartoons reach a section of the audience usually not influenced by written news and therefore not included in the overall debate over the impacts of the risk society. In this perspective, they have a relevant potential to understand how the public construct meaningful narratives during moral panics. Its study can provide clues to design better communication strategies for events marked by uncertainty. Using semantic methodologies to uncover denotative and connotative meanings, following the method proposed by Roland Barthes, our research analysed newspaper cartoons published in the Portuguese press about two different disruptive events – the Prestige oil spill in 2002 and the global build-up of the swine flu (H1N1) scare of 2009-10. Results demonstrate that, through humour, newspapers have assembled responsibilities, depicted side effects of each event and, at a later stage, managed to restore confidence in safety systems, reassuring the public that each risk was, by then, hugely diminished. Organized Sources: a news-worthiness priority in Health Journalism Lopes, Felisbela Communication and Society Research Centre, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal To whom does the Portuguese press resort when they wish to discuss health issues? We analyzed all the news sources quoted in 4415 health news articles published in three Portuguese newspapers (a weekly broadsheet, a daily broadsheet, and a daily popular) between 2008 and 2010. The results seem to indicate a sources brotherhood, orchestrated by well prepared, yet not really visible, public relations technicians. Professional news sources seem to be more valuable to reporters than others, when covering health. Between 2008 and 2010, almost all stories refer to news sources. Looking at each of the articles, we were not able to find a wide-ranging number of sources. This scenario does not seem to promote a diversity of opinions that should be made available by the press. Geographically, a quarter of the sources used by almost every newspaper comes from Portugal. International sources do not seem to be the priority. A closer 420
Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedings of ECREA/CICOM Conference, Pamplona, 4-5 July 2011 look at international sources shows very high asymmetries. Europe and the USA are privileged while the rest of the world is silenced. Health related articles tend to highlight sources related to the field. However, not all health sources are treated equally. Official sources, meaning those who hold political positions or head public organizations, are always very important. Another group that earns the attention of journalists is specialized sources. Notwithstanding, there is a difference to be considered: a source linked to an institution is more valuable than one who is not. Within specialized and institutional sources there are dissimilarities. Reporters seem to prefer doctors to other health care professionals. This is a result of a highly elaborate communication strategy, devised by public relations specialists who prepare sources to face the public but are absent from the news articles. They are information sources but journalists rarely quote them in their reports. Science journalism in the bloggosphere: Narrowing or diversifying voices? Hornmoen, Harald Oslo University College, Oslo, Norway Science journalism faces major challenges in new media. Commentators have pointed out how digital technologies limit the possibilities of practicing critical science journalism. In a period of economic recession, traditional media are shedding full-time science journalists. At the same time, researcher-run blogs are growing. Researchers and research institutions are presumed to gain increasing influence over what the public read about science. Other scholars point out how digital media invite lay voices to comment upon issues in a different manner than in traditional media, thus making diversified discussions of research possible. But do science journalist’s blogs reflect an independent and critical journalism about science? One mark of such independence is the ability to select voices. The presence of multiple voices in news stories about emergent science indicates a journalistic control how the science is to be understood in public. My paper asks: What characterizes journalism in blogs about scientific research? My case is the Norwegian web site forskning.no. Their editorial staff publishes in accordance with the Norwegian declaration of rights and duties of the editor, and is thus obligated to promote an impartial and free exchange of information and opinion. At the same time, forskning.no is owned by 65 research institutions. Both researchers and journalists publish on the site. I analyze a selection of blogs produced by the web site’s journalists by applying categories from Critical Discourse Analysis. I examine to what extent and how different voices and participants are represented in the blogs and the power 421
Page 1 and 2:
diversityof journalisms (cicom+ecre
Page 3 and 4:
Servicio de Publicaciones de la Uni
Page 5 and 6:
Getting Personal: Personification v
Page 7 and 8:
Tradition and Innovation in Online
Page 9 and 10:
Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedin
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370: Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedin
Page 419: Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedin
show all

Download the eBook (8.25 MB) - ECREA Thematic Sections

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?