The Limits of the Debate

Abstract

How do disruptive events such as terrorism, disasters, and crises change public discourses? Do they alter journalistic distinctions between legitimate utterances and unacceptable viewpoints? This article provides answers to these questions through a unique data set concerning the coverage of immigration in Norway before and after the Oslo terror of 2011. The data serve as a natural experiment where we can analyze how immigration discourse was changed with regard to its magnitude, topical emphasis, and the sources interviewed. The analysis demonstrate that Hallin's classic three-sphere model illuminates the dynamics of current meta-debates on polarized topics, where multiple online media continually criticize mainstream media and multiple voices question legitimate discourse. The main finding is that mainstream media definitions of appropriateness and deviance were challenged after the terror, as journalists adapted to a new political context. First, the issue of immigration was covered less in the months after the attacks. Second, the most vocal critics of the current immigration policies were put on the defensive, and debates with a critical potential were largely muted. At the same time, however, the attacks to some extent also opened mainstream media debate to online, deviant anti-Islamic actors who were previously largely silenced and ignored.

Are we all Charlie? How media priming and framing affect immigration policy preferences after terrorist attacks

“…The first paper uses panel data, in which the first round ended approximately three months before the attacks on July 22, 2011, and the second round was fielded about a month after the attacks. 19 This panel can be used to examine how prior attitudes determine reactions to attacks, something that is impossible with crosssectional data in which everyone has been "treated" by an attack. In this paper, the panel data are complemented with questions from the second round (after the attacks).…”

“…Media have a tendency to index the debates in the political elites, and when there is a lack of debate, the media becomes one-sided (Bennett 1990;Entman 2003;Jamieson and Waldman 2003, p. 14;Norris, Kern, and Just 2003, p. 12). The lack of criticism from the opposition may be a consequence of more or less deliberate media gatekeeping, i.e., not allowing critical voices and perspectives to be heard (Figenschou and Beyer 2014;.…”

“…18 In the aftermath of the attacks the Progress Party came under scrutiny and was criticized, both because of the terrorist's former membership in the party and because of the party's central role in the debate on immigration. 19 While the party leadership denied any responsibility for the terrorist and his actions, both the party leader and certain local leaders were led to reflect publicly on their role in the immigration debate after the attacks. 20 Explaining the Norwegian response Terrorism often leads to backlashes in democratic publics and there are multiple examples of attacks leading to the loss of public support for terrorist organizations.…”

Shifting the refugee narrative? An automated frame analysis of Europe’s 2015 refugee crisis

“…Crises are perceived as disruptive events which are essentially conflicted in nature and thus have the potential to alter journalistic conventions and routines (Figenschou and Beyer 2014;Horsti 2008a), especially if the crises come unexpected and outsider-driven (Nossek 2008). Nacos and Torres-Reyna (2003), for example, found that after the September 11 attacks, US newspaper and television coverage of Muslim-Americans became more balanced, comprehensive and inclusive than before.…”

Å føle fellesskap med fremmede: Rosetogene og følelsenes sosiologi

“…For at store deler av befolkningen skal klare å oppleve at man står sammen og tenker og føler det samme, må splittende forhold midlertidig legges til side. Striden mellom politiske partier, mellom ledere og folk, mellom en kritisk presse og offentlige aktører -alt dette må dempes, slik vi også så i tiden etter 22. juli (Rafoss, 2018a;Figenschou & Beyer, 2014). De få gangene dette skjer, er det mulig å oppleve at felleskap fremstår som ektefølt, autentisk og sant -slik jeg har påvist her.…”