„Gazeta Wyborcza” i „Rzeczpospolita” wobec wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 11 maja 2007 r. w sprawie ustawy lustracyjnej (analiza porównawcza)

Paulina Jęczmionka
{"title":"„Gazeta Wyborcza” i „Rzeczpospolita” wobec wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 11 maja 2007 r. w sprawie ustawy lustracyjnej (analiza porównawcza)","authors":"Paulina Jęczmionka","doi":"10.14746/R.2011.3.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with a problem of vetting in the press discourse taken “Gazeta Wyborcza” and “Rzeczpospolita” as an example. There is an attempt to present oppositional attitudes of both titles against each other. All the articles about a vetting problem a week before and after May 11, 2007 were analyzed. Some questions had also been asked. Was the sentence similarly commented by both newspapers and Why was it commented in a particular way? After the analysis, the hypothesis was confirmed. That is, the comments on the sentence were opposite and unbalanced. It was because of different newspapers’ programme lines. It was ascertained that “Gazeta Wyborcza” was against the vetting whereas “Rzeczpospolita” supported it.","PeriodicalId":239502,"journal":{"name":"Refleksje. Pismo naukowe studentów i doktorantów WNPiD UAM","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Refleksje. Pismo naukowe studentów i doktorantów WNPiD UAM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/R.2011.3.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The article deals with a problem of vetting in the press discourse taken “Gazeta Wyborcza” and “Rzeczpospolita” as an example. There is an attempt to present oppositional attitudes of both titles against each other. All the articles about a vetting problem a week before and after May 11, 2007 were analyzed. Some questions had also been asked. Was the sentence similarly commented by both newspapers and Why was it commented in a particular way? After the analysis, the hypothesis was confirmed. That is, the comments on the sentence were opposite and unbalanced. It was because of different newspapers’ programme lines. It was ascertained that “Gazeta Wyborcza” was against the vetting whereas “Rzeczpospolita” supported it.
本文以《Wyborcza报》和《Rzeczpospolita》为例,探讨新闻话语中的审查问题。这是一种试图呈现两个头衔相互对立的态度。分析了2007年5月11日前后一周有关审查问题的所有文章。还提出了一些问题。两家报纸对这句话的评论是否相似?为什么以一种特殊的方式评论?经过分析,假设得到了证实。也就是说,对句子的评论是相反的,不平衡的。这是因为不同报纸的节目路线不同。经查明,“Gazeta Wyborcza”反对审查,而“Rzeczpospolita”支持审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信