谁在主导这场辩论?比较英国报纸对COVID-19政策报道中公众、政治家和专家的代表。

Q4 Medicine
Yuze Sha, Gavin Brookes
{"title":"谁在主导这场辩论?比较英国报纸对COVID-19政策报道中公众、政治家和专家的代表。","authors":"Yuze Sha, Gavin Brookes","doi":"10.3138/cam-2025-0202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article presents a critical discourse analysis comparing linguistic representations of the public, experts, and politicians in UK newspaper reporting on COVID-19 policies. The analysis focuses on 120 articles published between 2020 and 2022, sourced from four national newspapers representing a cross-section of political leanings and formats. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of references and quotations suggest that the public is primarily represented as a collective entity, with functional references, rather than as distinct individual actors. Moreover, although the public is the most frequently mentioned among the groups considered, their engagement is mostly conveyed through emotional expressions of vulnerability, with little representation of individual voices. In contrast, politicians are depicted as individuals with far greater agency. Public health experts, meanwhile, are represented as having a marginal role in influencing policy decisions. The analysis of direct quotations carried in the media demonstrates that the stances expressed toward policies in such quotations consistently align with the ideological orientations of the newspapers across all three social groups. In newspapers with distinct left- or right-leaning perspectives, direct quotes tend to show greater levels of policy disagreement than in less ideologically polarised publications. Given that news discourse has been found to strongly influence public perceptions of public health policies, we suggest that the public might be better served by newspaper coverage of health crises that counters the trend of prioritising political biases over evidence-based conclusions. Moreover, featuring the perspectives of the public more prominently in such coverage might enhance positive policy engagement from some sections of the public.</p>","PeriodicalId":39728,"journal":{"name":"Communication and Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e20250202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who is Leading the Debate? Comparing Representations of the Public, Politicians and Experts in Newspaper Coverage of COVID-19 Policies in the UK.\",\"authors\":\"Yuze Sha, Gavin Brookes\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/cam-2025-0202\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article presents a critical discourse analysis comparing linguistic representations of the public, experts, and politicians in UK newspaper reporting on COVID-19 policies. The analysis focuses on 120 articles published between 2020 and 2022, sourced from four national newspapers representing a cross-section of political leanings and formats. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of references and quotations suggest that the public is primarily represented as a collective entity, with functional references, rather than as distinct individual actors. Moreover, although the public is the most frequently mentioned among the groups considered, their engagement is mostly conveyed through emotional expressions of vulnerability, with little representation of individual voices. In contrast, politicians are depicted as individuals with far greater agency. Public health experts, meanwhile, are represented as having a marginal role in influencing policy decisions. The analysis of direct quotations carried in the media demonstrates that the stances expressed toward policies in such quotations consistently align with the ideological orientations of the newspapers across all three social groups. In newspapers with distinct left- or right-leaning perspectives, direct quotes tend to show greater levels of policy disagreement than in less ideologically polarised publications. Given that news discourse has been found to strongly influence public perceptions of public health policies, we suggest that the public might be better served by newspaper coverage of health crises that counters the trend of prioritising political biases over evidence-based conclusions. Moreover, featuring the perspectives of the public more prominently in such coverage might enhance positive policy engagement from some sections of the public.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication and Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e20250202\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/cam-2025-0202\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cam-2025-0202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对英国报纸报道COVID-19政策时公众、专家和政治家的语言表达进行了批判性话语分析。该分析侧重于2020年至2022年期间发表的120篇文章,这些文章来自四家全国性报纸,代表了政治倾向和政治形式的各个方面。对参考文献和引文的定量和定性分析表明,公众主要是作为一个具有功能参考文献的集体实体,而不是作为独特的个体行动者。此外,尽管在考虑的群体中,公众是最常被提及的,但他们的参与主要是通过脆弱的情感表达来传达的,很少有个人声音的代表。相比之下,政治家被描绘成具有更大能动性的个体。与此同时,公共卫生专家被认为在影响政策决定方面发挥着边缘作用。对媒体直接引用的分析表明,这些引用中表达的政策立场与所有三个社会群体的报纸的意识形态取向一致。在具有明显左倾或右倾观点的报纸上,直接引用往往比意识形态不那么两极分化的出版物显示出更大程度的政策分歧。鉴于新闻话语已被发现对公众对公共卫生政策的看法产生强烈影响,我们建议,报纸对卫生危机的报道可能会更好地为公众服务,以对抗优先考虑政治偏见而不是基于证据的结论的趋势。此外,在这类报道中更加突出公众的观点,可能会增强部分公众对政策的积极参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who is Leading the Debate? Comparing Representations of the Public, Politicians and Experts in Newspaper Coverage of COVID-19 Policies in the UK.

This article presents a critical discourse analysis comparing linguistic representations of the public, experts, and politicians in UK newspaper reporting on COVID-19 policies. The analysis focuses on 120 articles published between 2020 and 2022, sourced from four national newspapers representing a cross-section of political leanings and formats. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of references and quotations suggest that the public is primarily represented as a collective entity, with functional references, rather than as distinct individual actors. Moreover, although the public is the most frequently mentioned among the groups considered, their engagement is mostly conveyed through emotional expressions of vulnerability, with little representation of individual voices. In contrast, politicians are depicted as individuals with far greater agency. Public health experts, meanwhile, are represented as having a marginal role in influencing policy decisions. The analysis of direct quotations carried in the media demonstrates that the stances expressed toward policies in such quotations consistently align with the ideological orientations of the newspapers across all three social groups. In newspapers with distinct left- or right-leaning perspectives, direct quotes tend to show greater levels of policy disagreement than in less ideologically polarised publications. Given that news discourse has been found to strongly influence public perceptions of public health policies, we suggest that the public might be better served by newspaper coverage of health crises that counters the trend of prioritising political biases over evidence-based conclusions. Moreover, featuring the perspectives of the public more prominently in such coverage might enhance positive policy engagement from some sections of the public.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Communication and Medicine
Communication and Medicine Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Communication & Medicine continues to abide by the following distinctive aims: • To consolidate different traditions of discourse and communication research in its commitment to an understanding of psychosocial, cultural and ethical aspects of healthcare in contemporary societies. • To cover the different specialities within medicine and allied healthcare studies. • To underscore the significance of specific areas and themes by bringing out special issues from time to time. • To be fully committed to publishing evidence-based, data-driven original studies with practical application and relevance as key guiding principles.
×
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