LnuOpen (Linnaeus University)
Not a member yet
3576 research outputs found
Sort by
Opportunities and Challenges for Journalism and Citizen Deliberation in the Mediaverse: Lessons Learned from the DemDialogue Project
Get PDFThe panel presentation will discuss how lessons learned in the ongoing DemDialogue research project about journalism and citizen deliberation can be applied to journalistic work and interaction with users in the future Mediaverse. DemDialogue focuses on small- and midsized media organizations and looks at how deliberative norms may support user participation and democratically sustainable discussions in interactions in online news outlet discussion threads.
According to normative deliberative theory, participants in a democratically sustainable discussion should adhere to certain norms, such as inclusion, quality, reciprocity argumentation, sincerity, and respect (Fiskhin, 2011). Studies linking deliberative theory to journalism have shown that such approaches may be beneficial in for instance online moderation of user-generated comments. For instance, Masullo et al. (2020) and Ziegele and Jost (2020) showed that discussion thread quality may be improved if journalists outspokenly aim to engage with incivil commenters or choose specific response styles when approaching them.
In the presentation, we draw conclusions from two DemDialogue studies conducted in the Finnish media ecosystem in 2020-21: semi-structured interviews with 18 news journalists and a content analysis of deliberative quality in 560 user-generated online comments in public service news stories. Findings show that online discussion fora can be useful tools for promoting citizen democracy due to their participatory features, but that there are several current challenges that seem to outweigh benefits. Challenges include for instance incivil user-generated content, limited citizen representativeness among active users, and lacking resources to handle content in smaller media organizations.
We will in the presentation discuss what found challenges mean for journalist-user interaction in the future Mediaverse, and what to do to potentially overcome these and to better promote citizen deliberation and democratically sustainable discussions in changing media ecosystems
Media Resentment
Get PDFReports worldwide are telling of diminished trust in the news media (Flew 2021), and there is an ongoing discussion on how suspicion and contempt towards journalism – and the media more generally – are growing (Carlson et al. 2021). Many have taken this situation as a problem and threat to democracy and reason (Dahlgren 2018; Neuberger et al. 2023). But how can we understand this expression of discontent towards the media and journalism? In this paper, we develop the concept of “media resentment”, which we consider to be a useful tool when trying to understand contemporary developments. We view media resentment as a complex of feelings that are both individual and social, embodied, and ideal (Burkitt 1997; Williams 1977). Crucially, this concept makes it possible to situate and analyse these cognitive and emotional evaluations of the media in relation to socio-political conditions and ideological struggles. Although media resentment is a feeling that is experienced and expressed by individuals, it is less a psychological than a sociological concept: it points towards the intersection between individual assessments of the media and the wider web of social and political relations in which individuals’ evaluations of the media are formed and shaped. The paper suggests a definition of media resentment as the feeling that the media – intentionally or unintentionally – are denying you or endangering what you have rightfully earned, whether by not giving it to you, by directly telling you to abstain from it or by intervening in social processes so that your enjoyment of what you have earned becomes impossible. The paper is mainly conceptual but draws on preliminary results from an interview study from Sweden (n=80)
Repertoarer, didaktisk potential och två lättlästa barnböcker med anknytning till Förintelsen*
Get PDF
The Effectiveness of the “But-you-are-free” technique: Meta-analysis and re-examination of the technique
No full textThe “But you are free…” (BYAF) technique is a technique to increase compliance (for example, to give spare change for the bus), by adding the words “But you are free to accept or refuse” to the request. In this pre-registered meta-analysis, we examine the effect of the BYAF technique in 52 experiments (N = 19528). An analysis of 74 effect sizes showed a medium effect (g = 0.44, 95% confidence intervals (CI) [0.36, 0.51]) for the BYAF technique. A moderator analysis found a stronger effect for face-to-face interactivity over other types of interactivities. All the other moderators we used were not statistically significant. We did not find any differences between articles published before and after Carpenter’s (2013) meta-analysis. An examination of risk of bias showed that only seven studies were of “low risk”, and a meta-analysis of these studies showed no effect of the BYAF (g = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.40]) We also found that most recent studies on the subject are too low-powered to detect the effect found by Carpenter (2013), and the reproducibility rates were critically low (R-index = 9.77%, Z-curve expected discovery rate = 6%). We propose some improvements to the design and experiments to ensure the effects found in the literature exist and are replicable. All materials are available on https://osf.io/8eqa5