Negotiating the boundaries of the politically sayable: populist radical right talk scandals in the German media

IF 1.5 2区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Max Grönegräs, Benjamin De Cleen
{"title":"Negotiating the boundaries of the politically sayable: populist radical right talk scandals in the German media","authors":"Max Grönegräs, Benjamin De Cleen","doi":"10.1080/17405904.2022.2149580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The breaking of speech taboos by populist radical right (PRR) parties and the resulting talk scandals have received considerable attention, with provocative statements being seen as playing a central role in generating media attention and in shifting the boundaries of what is sayable. In Germany, breaches of taboos by the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) have caused public outrage, with some claiming that the AfD follows a deliberate provocation strategy. This study examines the reactions to the AfD’s breaches of taboos as they play out in mainstream media. Focusing on reactions to five of the AfD’s most controversial statements, the study analyses 340 articles from the daily quality newspapers Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Welt. The analysis zooms in on identifying (1) reactions to the taboo-breaking statements and how the boundaries of the respective taboos are being negotiated by the AfD and its critics, and (2) reflexive discourse on the role of breaches of taboos in the AfD’s political strategy and on the role of the media in responding to them.","PeriodicalId":46948,"journal":{"name":"Critical Discourse Studies","volume":"20 1","pages":"665 - 682"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Discourse Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2022.2149580","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The breaking of speech taboos by populist radical right (PRR) parties and the resulting talk scandals have received considerable attention, with provocative statements being seen as playing a central role in generating media attention and in shifting the boundaries of what is sayable. In Germany, breaches of taboos by the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) have caused public outrage, with some claiming that the AfD follows a deliberate provocation strategy. This study examines the reactions to the AfD’s breaches of taboos as they play out in mainstream media. Focusing on reactions to five of the AfD’s most controversial statements, the study analyses 340 articles from the daily quality newspapers Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Welt. The analysis zooms in on identifying (1) reactions to the taboo-breaking statements and how the boundaries of the respective taboos are being negotiated by the AfD and its critics, and (2) reflexive discourse on the role of breaches of taboos in the AfD’s political strategy and on the role of the media in responding to them.
谈判政治上可说的界限:德国媒体中的民粹主义激进右翼言论丑闻
民粹主义激进右翼(PRR)政党打破言论禁忌及其引发的言论丑闻受到了相当大的关注,挑衅言论被视为在引起媒体关注和改变可说内容界限方面发挥着核心作用。在德国,德国新选择党(AfD)违反禁忌的行为引起了公众的愤怒,一些人声称新选择党采取了蓄意挑衅的策略。这项研究调查了主流媒体对德国另类选择党违反禁忌的反应。这项研究聚焦于人们对德国新选择党最具争议的五项声明的反应,分析了来自《法兰克福汇报》(Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung)、《德意志日报》(sddeutsche Zeitung)和《世界报》(Die Welt)等优质日报的340篇文章。分析聚焦于识别(1)对打破禁忌言论的反应,以及德国新选择党及其批评者如何谈判各自禁忌的边界,以及(2)关于打破禁忌在德国新选择党政治战略中的作用以及媒体在回应这些禁忌方面的作用的反思性论述。
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
47
×
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