After the post-public sphere

Schlesinger, Philip

doi:10.1177/0163443720948003

Cited by 74 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A well-functioning public sphere allows multiple proponents of fake news the freedom of expression, to protest in the streets and to make use of media channels to reach out. Fake news production is thus driven by Ideological divisions and diversity of opinions in the public sphere (Schlesinger, 2020). This means, in turn, that also populists as fake news promoters cannot escape the mechanism of trust-building through the public sphere.…”

Section: Truth and Trust From A Communication Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking journalism standards in the era of post-truth politics: from truth keepers to truth mediators

Michailidou

Trenz

2021

Media, Culture & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we argue for a pragmatic understanding of the role of news media and journalism not as truth keepers but as truth mediators in the public sphere. In the current debate on ‘post-truth politics’ the emphasis is often put on the formulation of ethical guidelines and legal solutions to regain control over ‘unbound journalism’ or to re-establish truth in the news media. Instead of holding journalists individually accountable for the spread of fake news, we consider truth as an unstable outcome of fact-finding, information-seeking and contestation, where journalists act as professional brokers. Journalists are not individuals that are closer to facts or more devoted to truth than others. They are rather embedded in a professional field of journalism practices that help to establish the value of information in a trusted way that becomes acceptable and convincing for the majority. Standards and procedures of journalism can therefore not be applied in a way to detect truth in an absolute way and defend it against falsehood, but to approach truth in the most reliable and acceptable way. The truth value of information then becomes the (unstable) outcome of a democratically necessary procedure of critical debate facilitated by journalists.

show abstract

Section: Truth and Trust From A Communication Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking journalism standards in the era of post-truth politics: from truth keepers to truth mediators

Michailidou

Trenz

2021

Media, Culture & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Debatin 2008). However, several media researchers have rightly pointed out that such a multi-level model should be specified both in terms of the characteristics of digital platforms and the intensified interactions between different streams of public exchange (Schlesinger 2020;Curran/Hesmondhalgh 2019;Lünenborg/Raetzsch 2017;cf. also Habermas 2021).…”

Section: Levels Of Public Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Platformization, Pluralization, Synthetization. Public Communication in the Digital Age

Schrape

2021

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The platformization of communication architectures is accompanied by a diversification of individual media use and an erosion of clear structural boundaries between different streams of public exchange. Nevertheless, it is by now evident that the digital transformation does not lead to a general loss of relevance of journalistic services or mass-received content per se and that selection thresholds remain in public communication despite increased connectivity. Against this backdrop, this paper argues that it is still instructive to describe the negotiation of public visibility as a multi-level process, which is now essentially shaped by the peculiarities of digital platforms: First, it examines the increasing platform orientation in media diffusion. Second, it discusses the associated diversification of individual media repertoires and the pluralization of public exchange. Then, the paper elaborates on three basic levels of public communication characterized by a heterogenous interplay of social and technical structuring services. ZusammenfassungDie Plattformisierung der gesellschaftlichen Kommunikationsstrukturen geht mit einer Diversifizierung der Mediennutzung und einer Erosion medientechnischer Grenzziehungen zwischen den vielfältigen Sphären des öffentlichen Austauschs einher. Gleichwohl ist es inzwischen empirisch evident, dass die digitale Transformation nicht zu einem allgemeinen Relevanzverlust journalistischer Leistungen oder massenhaft rezipierter Inhalte an sich führt und trotz aller Konnektivität soziale Selektionsschwellen in der öffentlichen Kommunikation bestehen bleiben. Vor diesem Hintergrund argumentiert dieses Diskussionspapier, dass es nach wie vor analytisch instruktiv erscheint, die Aushandlung öffentlicher Sichtbarkeit als einen Mehrebenenprozess zu beschreiben, der nun allerdings erheblich durch die Eigenheiten digitaler Plattformen mitgeprägt wird. Zunächst nimmt das Papier die zunehmende Plattformorientierung in der Mediendiffusion in den Blick. Anschließend werden die damit verknüpfte Diversifizierung individueller Medienrepertoires und die Pluralisierung des öffentlichen Austauschs diskutiert. Danach werden drei grundlegende Ebenen öffentlicher Kommunikation herausgearbeitet, die durch ein heterogenes Zusammenspiel sozialer und technischer Strukturierungsleistungen gekennzeichnet sind.

show abstract

“…The normative question is whether an open communicative space is a crucial collective good necessary to democratic politics. In this sense, the reappraisal of the media ecology stems from a concern with managing information about COVID-19 is a moot point (Schlesinger, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Watchdog Journalism during the Coronavirus Crisis in Turkey

Şen¹

2021

AASoci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to question the watchdog function of the Turkish press in the context of the coronavirus crisis, to deal with the initial coronavirus responses of the news media, and to examine the extent to which the press fulfills its public responsibility and watchdog function. Accordingly, it discussed the role of the media in protecting the public interest in terms of watchdog journalism and centered on the matter of how the news media debate social welfare measures taken for the fragile social groups during the coronaviruses crisis. The study claims that pro-government media present a health-based perspective, but anti-government media much more point out the socio-economic dimensions of COVID-19. The online newspapers that are selected according to the range of different political stances, in particular, anti-government and pro-government, have been investigated through content analysis in terms of content diversity and watchdog journalism. Thus, it has been determined whether watchdog journalism is fulfilled in such a polarized political environment in the context of news on COVID-19 and concluded that the news media ignore social policy measures, are polarized along political lines, and are not critical enough of the government.

show abstract

After the post-public sphere

Cited by 74 publications

References 36 publications

Rethinking journalism standards in the era of post-truth politics: from truth keepers to truth mediators

Rethinking journalism standards in the era of post-truth politics: from truth keepers to truth mediators

Platformization, Pluralization, Synthetization. Public Communication in the Digital Age

Watchdog Journalism during the Coronavirus Crisis in Turkey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About