4.3 Article

Between ritual and information: Three phases of Norwegian news audiences' sense-making of the election of Donald Trump

期刊

JOURNALISM
卷 22, 期 11, 页码 2764-2780

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1464884919883103

关键词

Audiences; destabilization; election; news; polarization; qualitative; ritual; Trump

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway [247617]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates news audiences' sense-making processes in the Nordic region following Trump's 2016 election win, identifying three phases of reactions: annoyance, shock, and regained stability. The research highlights both shared experiences and nuances related to differences in media use routines, levels of news interest, and resources for political sense-making. The findings contribute to understanding news consumption in everyday life and during times of political upheaval, offering an audience perspective on Trump and the media.
This article investigates sense-making processes of news audiences when faced with destabilizing global events. The destabilizing event is Trump's 2016 election win, which we study from the perspective of audiences far removed: in the Nordic region. Asking how we can understand shifts in the balance between the informational and ritual aspects of news over time, we study how journalism matters when ordinary practices are suddenly uprooted, and in the gradual return to everyday life. Based on the analysis of extensive qualitative material, we formulate three successive phases of Norwegian news audiences' reactions to the election: annoying circus far away, world-shattering shock and regained stability. We underline not only shared experiences but also nuances which we link to differences in media use routines, levels of interests in news as well as resources for the sense-making of politics. Our findings contribute to the scrutiny of news use in everyday life and at times of political upheaval, and add an audience perspective to research on Trump and the media.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据