2012
DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2012.671232
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fourth Estate or Mouthpiece? A Formal Model of Media, Protest, and Government Repression

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These include newsworthiness factors, the policies of the country where the media organization operates, and news sources in relation to Western and non-Western countries. Regarding the political aspect, it is argued that the news agenda can be shaped by the state through direct ownership and media sources' control (Enikolopov, Petrova, & Zhuravskaya, 2010), or through regulating the activity of privately owned media by placing licensing requirements and imposing laws that limit the use of particular forms of expression (Whitten-Woodring & James, 2012). Although it is argued that media in democracies are in most cases independent from government influence as they mainly care about profit maximization, and have their own institutional biases, this study shows that media institutions operating in democratic societies are not immune from state influence.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These include newsworthiness factors, the policies of the country where the media organization operates, and news sources in relation to Western and non-Western countries. Regarding the political aspect, it is argued that the news agenda can be shaped by the state through direct ownership and media sources' control (Enikolopov, Petrova, & Zhuravskaya, 2010), or through regulating the activity of privately owned media by placing licensing requirements and imposing laws that limit the use of particular forms of expression (Whitten-Woodring & James, 2012). Although it is argued that media in democracies are in most cases independent from government influence as they mainly care about profit maximization, and have their own institutional biases, this study shows that media institutions operating in democratic societies are not immune from state influence.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The various opposing dialectics play out in mainstream reporting. The linearity of the press room as a mouthpiece of the state (George, 2012;Whitten-Woodring and James, 2012;Kaur et al, 2016), requires more significant interrogation, where moments of crisis, points to possibilities of negotiation for more significant representational spaces by the margins in media representation. We see competing voices shifting the hegemonic discourses on migrant labor and health, where alternative voices, including subaltern voice progressing the discourse toward a structural exploration of the conditions experienced.…”
Section: Margins and Voicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…1). Whitten‐Woodring and James () claim that “although human rights nongovernmental organizations have advocated that access to independent news media will improve government respect for human rights, recent empirical studies have shown this is not always the case” (113). The scope of the media is limited to what information can be presented in a new story.…”
Section: Effective Nonviolent Campaignsmentioning
confidence: 99%