Using Foucault’s ideas about discourse and the body, this study explores coverage of Oscar Pistorius’s quest to compete in the 2008 Summer Olympics. The authors used textual analysis of coverage in The New York Times and Time magazine, two popular and influential general-interest U.S. publications, to interrogate fairness as the primary rationale in discourse about Pistorius. Journalists also privileged a medical view of disability, used descriptions of prosthetics to reflect cultural assumptions about “normal” bodies, and reinforced fear of the “cyborg.” Media discourses around Pistorius, as contested sites for meanings inscribed on the body, reinforced the body hierarchy and positioned progress for athletes with disabilities as threatening to the institution of sport and its values. The authors suggest alternative discursive strategies, such as those that question the Paralympic/Olympic divide or focus on the rights of athletes with disabilities to compete, as ways to radically challenge the exercise of biopower reinforcing the status quo.

This article reviews existing research on the motivations and experiences of interns in media and cultural industries. Digital labour theories are used to organize and make sense of the existing internship literature. Throughout the article, parallels are also drawn between the experiences of interns and those of digital creative labourers—both professionals and peer producers. Three key themes are identified within the internship literature: 1) interns derive satisfaction from work they con- sider meaningful, particularly hands-on work executed under the training and trust of effective supervisors; 2) interns see their work as future-oriented investments in their skills, professional networks, and personal brands; and 3) the ambiguity and professional necessity of media and cultural industries internships make them fertile ground for exploitation and self-exploitation. In conclusion, I argue that attentiveness to meaning, temporality, and ambiguity will be essential to future critical investigations of internships.

No abstract

No abstract

In the wake of the Penn State child sex tragedy, media coverage tended to focus on the individuals involved rather than the corporatized university's economic motivations and the institutional structure under which officials' (in)actions occurred. This article interrogates and critiques that institutional structure, arguing that the "brand logic" of big-time intercollegiate athletics programs places image and profits ahead of people. In conjunction with on-field success, image and branding play prominently in an athletics program's ability to maximize new revenue streams (e.g., licensing and merchandising). Further, administrators argue that athletics function as a university's "front porch," returning (symbolic) value to the institution (e.g., community, visibility, branding, alumni giving, and student applications). Thus, university and athletics administrators constantly take brand logic into their decision-making. The fallout from the Penn State tragedy offers insights into the ways in which brand logics disincentivize ethical decision-making when image, reputation, and millions of dollars are on the line. Keywordsbrand logic, intercollegiate athletics, Penn State, institutional structure, ethics at University of Ulster Library on April 12, 2015 csc.sagepub.com Downloaded from Bios Jennifer M. Proffitt is an associate professor in the School of Communication at Florida State University, where she teaches on political economy of media and broadcast regulation and history.