Because news websites’ comments have become an important space of spreading hate speech, this article tries to contribute to uncovering the characteristics of Internet hate speech by combining discourse analyses of comments on Slovenian news websites with online in-depth interviews with producers of hate speech comments, researching their values, beliefs, and motives for production. Producers of hate speech use different strategies, mostly rearticulating the meaning of news items. The producers either are organized or act on their own initiative. The main motive of soldiers and believers is the mission; they share characteristics of an authoritarian personality. The key motives of the players are thrill and fun. The watchdogs are motivated by drawing attention to social injustice. The last two groups share the characteristics of a libertarian personality.
Public service broadcasters (PSBs) are a central part of national news media landscapes. In many countries, PSBs are the first choice of citizens when it comes to news providers. And in perhaps more countries still, PSBs are thought of as specialists in provision of hard news. We test this proposition here using survey data from a large crossnational survey involving indicators of current affairs knowledge and media consumption. Specifically, we examine whether exposure to public versus commercial news influences the knowledge citizens possess about current affairs, both domestically and internationally. We also test, using propensity score analysis, whether there is variation across PSBs in this regard. Results indicate that compared to commercial news, watching PSB has a net positive influence on knowledge of hard news, though not all PSBs are equally effective in contributing to knowledge acquisition. This knowledge gap between PSB and commercial news media consumption appears to be mitigated by factors such as de jure independence, proportion of public financing, and audience share.
And news organizations around the world are using iPhone to transform the way they capture and deliver news. reporters for BBC, the Wall Street Journal, Mexican newspaper, Milenio and Canada’s CTV News are using their iPhone cameras to capture HD video on location and send it directly back to headquarters for broadcast on TV or streaming on the web.
Austerity measures and corresponding cuts in public expenditure have brought to the fore the issue of press freedom in Spain. The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) and other left wing parties have alleged that changes made by the conservative Partido Popular (PP) have reintroduced overt political patronage in public appointments at Corporación RTVE, the body that manages public service broadcasting.
As part of its UK Public Opinion Monitor research, which aims to track the UK public’s attitudes towards development, the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex recently released this 10-minute film pleading for better coverage by UK television of the developing world, and of issues related to poverty:
The film revisits arguments advanced over many years by the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT), One World Media (formerly the One World Broadcasting Trust), POLIS, and other civil society groups. [Five years ago, I wrote and researched IBT's report, Reflecting the Real World 2, on how new media were impacting on UK TV's coverage of the developing world.] These groups have consistently put forward the arguments – based on research they conduct and commission, and on interviews they conduct with senior decision-makers in the UK media – that coverage of the developing world by UK broadcast television is weak, and tends to focus on crisis, corruption, and conflict, in both news and other TV genres. They argue that this has serious implications both on how genuinely informed the UK public can be about large swathes of the wider world, and therefore on how constructive domestic public debate and opinion can be about why we give aid, to whom, and on what basis.
It’s encouraging that a serious institution like IDS is interested in addressing these issues. So why does the film itself leave me so disappointed – and what might they have done differently?