Search

Degree of autonomy is one of the key dimensions of professionalization in journalism. However, the strive for autonomy looks different in different media systems, where pressure on autonomy can come from both political and commercial powers, outside and within the media. Media development also changes the conditions for professional autonomy for journalists, in both a positive and a negative sense. In the comparative research project "Journalism in change", the journalistic cultures in Russia, Poland and Sweden are studied. In a survey involving 1500 journalists from the three countries, journalists report on their perceived autonomy in their daily work and in relation to different actors inside and outside the media. The survey covers how the work has been changed by media developments, and how these changes have affected journalists' perceived autonomy. The results show similarities in the strive for autonomy, but also clear differences in how autonomy is perceived by journalists in the three countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents key results of a comparative journalists’ survey on media accountability, for which 1762 journalists in 14 countries had been interrogated online. The article explores how European journalists perceive the impact of old versus new media accountability instruments on professional journalistic standards – established instruments like press councils, ethics codes, ombudsmen and media criticism, but also more recent online instruments like newsroom blogs and criticism via social media. Thus, the study also adds empirical data to the current debate about the future of media self-regulation in Europe, ignited by the Leveson Inquiry in the United Kingdom as well as the European Commission’s High-Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between journalists and their sources has been described as an interdependent relationship where each part needs the other. For political actors, this relationship is particularly important during election campaigns, when their need to reach voters through the media is even more urgent than usual. This is particularly true with respect to European Parliamentary election campaigns, as these are often less salient and as people's need for orientation is greater than in national elections. However, there is only limited cross-national research on the media's use of news sources and whether there are associations between the use of news sources and media framing. This holds true for research on election campaigns in general and on European Parliamentary election campaigns in particular. Against this background, this study investigates cross-national differences and similarities in the media's use of news sources in their coverage of the 2009 European Parliamentary election campaigns and the extent to which the use of news sources is associated with the media's framing of politics and the EU. The study draws upon a quantitative content analysis of the media coverage in twelve countries. Findings suggest that there are both important similarities and differences across countries with respect to the use of news sources and that there are cases when the use of news sources is related to the framing of politics and the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this article, we analyze political parties' campaign communication during the 2009 European Parliamentary election in 11 countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). We study which types of issues Euroskeptic fringe and Euroskeptic mainstream parties put on their campaign agendas and the kind and extent of EU opposition they voice. Further, we seek to understand whether Euroskeptic and non-Euroskeptic parties co-orient themselves toward each other within their national party systems with regard to their campaigns. To understand the role of Euroskeptic parties in the 2009 European Parliamentary elections, we draw on a systematic content analysis of parties' posters and televised campaign spots. Our results show that it is Euroskeptic parties at the edges of the political spectrum who discuss polity questions of EU integration and who most openly criticize the union. Principled opposition against the project of EU integration, however, can only be observed in the UK. Finally, we find indicators for co-orientation effects regarding the tone of EU mobilization: In national political environments where Euroskeptic parties strongly criticize the EU, pro-European parties at the same time publicly advance pro-EU positions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]