Scholarly interests in “news deserts”—places and/or spaces without news—have increased in recent years, often focusing on and driven by the decline of local newspapers in the digital era. The perception is that more communities have little or diminished access to news relevant to them because of the changes related to the production, distribution, economics, and consumption of local news. This is a concern as news deserts are judged to lead to a decline in local democracy and undermine cohesion, civic engagement, and the quality of life for that community. However, definitions, interpretations, and terminology vary in the literature about the phenomenon, and so do the approaches and methodologies adopted to study it. This thematic issue aims to bring together the latest in empirical research on news deserts in different international settings. It will also contribute to our understanding of the concept and examining “news desert” in a broader sense beyond local newspapers considering places and spaces without news more widely, such as in larger news ecosystems and in relation to different media forms.

We invite scholars to explore theoretically, conceptually, and empirically news deserts. Both single-country and comparative research are welcome, as well as both theoretical and empirical manuscripts. The latter may involve quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches. The issue particularly welcomes cross-national comparative analyses and non-Western and Global South perspectives. Lines of inquiry can include, but are not limited to:

• Definitions and interpretations of news deserts.
• Key features and patterns of news deserts.
• Communities living in news deserts.
• Disadvantaged communities and news deserts.
• News deserts in historical perspectives.
• Methodological approaches to studying news deserts.
• Analyses of interventions to address news deserts.

The purpose of this thematic issue is an in-depth analysis of the complexities, challenges, and best practices of the current media and communication ecosystem whose main protagonists are children and adolescents (Coulter, 2020; Haddon et al., 2020; Livingstone et al., 2021; Tur-Viñes et al., 2018). The thematic issue invites scholars and practitioners to examine the role of brands, media, regulators, communication agencies, and other players in developing a collaborative, responsible, and committed attitude towards issues of diversity, equality, privacy protection, and sustainability in commercial and social communication targeted at children and adolescents (Chan, 2021; de La Ville & Nicol, 2019; Kees & Andrews, 2019; Rome et al., 2020).

Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

• Inclusive branding: branding strategies fostering universal accessibility, inclusive narratives, and a sustainable and responsible approach to the engagement of younger audiences in brand experience.
• Digital literacy and digital divide: key principles and best practices of corporate strategies addressing issues of digital barriers and inequalities in access to knowledge, information, and education of the younger generation.
• Ethics and responsible narratives in communication and advertising targeted at children and adolescents.
• Heroes and idols of kids and teens in the digital world: new references and influencers of consumption, behavior, and communication for children and adolescents.
• Digital media consumption by children and adolescents: multi-tasking, immediacy, visibility, and interactions in the digital world.
• Content creation of children and adolescents in the digital world: typology of content (personal vs commercial), dynamics of interaction with brands, online communities.
• Regulation and legal challenges for the protection of children and adolescents in digital media: normative framework for regulating content production and consumption.

References

Chan, K. (2021). Children’s perception of YouTube videos with product endorsements: An exploratory study. Asian Journal of Business Research, 11(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.14707/ajbr.210101

Coulter, N. (2020). Child studies meets digital media: Rethinking the paradigms. In L. Green, D. Holloway, K. Stevenson, T. Leaver, & L. Haddon (Eds.), The Routledge companion to digital media and children (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351004107

de La Ville, V.-I., & Nicol, N. (2019). Shopping from a child’s perspective: An anxiety-generating experience? International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 47(6), 680–698. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-09-2017-0210

Haddon, L., Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Stoilova, M., & Cino, D. (2020, October 27–31). Youth in the digital age: Antecedents and consequences of digital skills [Paper presentation]. AoIR 2020: The 21st annual conference of the association of internet researchers, virtual event. https://doi.org/10.5210/spir.v2020i0.11225

Kees, J., & Andrews, J. C. (2019). Research issues and needs at the intersection of advertising and public policy. Journal of Advertising, 48(1), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1599747

Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Stoilova, M. (2021). The outcomes of gaining digital skills for young people’s lives and wellbeing: A systematic evidence review. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211043189

Rome, A. S., O’Donohoe, S., & Dunnett, S. (2020). Problematizing the postfeminist gaze: A critical exploration of young women’s readings of gendered power relations in advertising. Journal of Macromarketing, 40(4), 546–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146720950765

Tur-Viñes, V., Núñez-Gómez, P., & González-Río, M. (2018). Kid influencers on YouTube: A space for responsibility. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 73, 1211–1230. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2018-1303en

The over-exposure to information facilitated by social networks is a key factor contributing to the increasing polarization of public opinions on central political issues. The European integration project is one of the major political processes affected by information disorders, i.e., by disinformation, post-truth, and fake news. Media discourses are nowadays so diversified to the point of generating confusion among consumers. In this regard, social networks have become loudspeakers and powerful tools for nurturing “filter bubbles” or “echo chambers,” influencing people’s perceptions of major political issues, in a manner that could have a destabilizing effect on democratic processes and democratic institutions. In this context, cybersecurity has become particularly relevant, leading states to adopt different measures and policy changes to respond to the threats stemming from information disorders, especially in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic.

This thematic issue will focus on the following: a) how media discourses are created in order to promote or, alternatively, to denounce the European integration project and how these discourses are perceived by the public; b) the evolving framework of cybersecurity in relation to digital media and its impact on the communication landscape.

Media and Communication invites scholars interested in contributing to this special issue to examine the media discourses, both in traditional and in digital formats alike, focusing on the following topics:

• Media discourses fostering Europeanization or Euroscepticism among public opinion;
• Polarization processes among public opinion in Europe;
• Cybersecurity in digital media: changes and challenges regarding disinformation;
• Political communication and journalism fostering or hampering the European project;
• Public perception and Europeanization processes: pro-Europeanization versus Euroscepticism;
• Fake news, disinformation, and information disorders affecting political processes;
• Social networks as shapers of public opinion;
• Impact of social media misinformation and disinformation on social perceptions;
• Cybersecurity policies in the communication landscape;
• Digital literacy as a countermeasure to combat fake news, disinformation, and polarization discourses.

Across the globe, trust in news is declining and has been for some time (Ipsos, 2019). This crisis in the field of journalism has been exacerbated in the context of a global pandemic, recent elections, and social and political unrest. While trust levels vary by country, overall public trust in journalism remains low (44% globally), according to the 2021 Reuters Institute Digital News Report (Newman et al., 2021).

The Knight Foundation recently found that 69% of respondents who reported losing trust in the news media believed that their trust could be restored (Knight Foundation, 2018), and news publishers and intermediaries (e.g., social platforms, news aggregators and portals, fact-checkers) across the globe continue to pursue a variety of initiatives intended to improve journalism’s credibility among the public.

Research suggests that concerns about information quality (Knight Foundation, 2018; Korea Press Foundation, 2019), confirmation bias (Tandoc, 2019), social identity threat (Nyhan & Reifler, 2019), and selective perception/exposure contribute to distrust in the news media. Furthermore, low trust in news to accurately and fairly report has been a longstanding issue for marginalized communities, whose experience of being subjects of news stories has included legacies of dehumanizing portrayals, criminalization, and distortions. Since 2020, many news organizations have made public promises to improve their coverage of historically marginalized people, without consistently accounting for how they will address legacies of harm to restore trust.

With these challenges in mind, the overarching question of this thematic issue is: What practices, interventions, and norms might help enrich and advance attempts to improve trust in news? Our hope is that, in exploring this question, this thematic issue will also address several others, such as:

• How do audiences determine what is—and is not—trustworthy when it comes to the news media environment?
• How does public trust or distrust in journalism shape how citizens ultimately approach, participate in creating, and consume news?
• How do journalists attempt to improve their standing among the public, how do they assess the impact of these efforts, and who do they define as part of the public they seek to serve?

This thematic issue seeks to bring together research that contributes to a comprehensive understanding of trust, social cohesion, and information quality in digital journalism. We welcome contributions from a variety of perspectives (audiences, journalists, news intermediaries), contexts, and methodologies.

References

Ipsos. (2019). Trust in the media. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-06/global-advisor-trust-in-media-2019.pdf

Knight Foundation. (2018). Indicators of news media trust. https://knightfoundation.org/reports/indicators-of-news-media-trust

Korea Press Foundation. (2019). Media users in Korea 2019. https://www.kpf.or.kr/synap/skin/doc.html?fn=BASE_202001301015244791.pdf&rs=/synap/result/upload/mediapds

Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, A., Andi, S., Robertson, C. T., & Nielsen, R. K. (2021). Reuters institute digital news report 2021, 10th Edition. Reuters Institute; University of Oxford. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-06/Digital_News_Report_2021_FINAL.pdf 

Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2019). The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 29(2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2018.1465061  

Tandoc, E. C. (2019). The facts of fake news: A research review. Sociology Compass, 13(9), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12724

Since the dawn of social media, many hoped that the expansion of online networks could strengthen the social fabric and revive citizen engagement in public life. However, the logic of connectivity does not resemble people’s lived experiences. As network expansion brings social uncertainty, information saturation, and unwanted encounters, it is necessary for users to disconnect through means such as unfriending, unfollowing, and disconnecting from a platform. As an essential element of individuals’ networked experience, disconnectivity is fundamental to understanding how people make sense of and (dis)engage in politics in everyday interactions. In a political climate of polarization and radicalization, it may have important democratic repercussions.

This thematic issue focuses on disconnectivity in light of the changing media and political landscapes. Disconnectivity is broadly defined, including tie dissolution (e.g., unfriend, leaving a group), content filtration (e.g., mute, unfollow), disconnecting from a platform, and deplatforming, among others. It is understood as a form of selective avoidance (Zhu et al., 2017), an expression of sovereignty over personal public spheres (John & Gal, 2018), a means to curate safe spaces within an unequal power structure (John & Agbarya, 2021; Zhu & Skoric, 2021), and so on. We aim to collect the latest developments that contribute to a finer-grained understanding of different regimes and practices of disconnectivity, unravel the micro, meso, and macro conditions, theorize beyond the normative framework of the public sphere, and offer cross-platform and cross-culture comparative insights.

We invite submissions that answer questions including but not limited to the following:

• How and why do people disconnect (and reconnect) socially and technologically across different social media platforms?
• What are the psychological, affective, topical, relational, institutional, and cultural conditions and contexts of disconnectivity?
• How does disconnectivity shape and is shaped by citizens’ worldviews and democratic practices?
• How does disconnectivity influence and is influenced by polarization, marginalization, and radicalization in a society?

References:

John, N., & Agbarya, A. (2021). Punching up or turning away? Palestinians unfriending Jewish Israelis on Facebook. New Media and Society, 23(5), 1063–1079. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820908256

John, N., & Gal, N. (2018). “He’s got his own sea”: Political Facebook unfriending in the personal public sphere. International Journal of Communication, 12, 2971–2988.

Zhu, Q., Skoric, M. M., & Shen, F. (2017). I shield myself from thee: Selective avoidance on social media during political protests. Political Communication, 34(1), 112–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1222471

Zhu, Q., & Skoric, M. M. (2021). Political implications of disconnection on social media: A study of politically motivated unfriending. New Media and Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444821999994

Research has continuously been trying to map and grasp the enormous changes in the media and communication field of the 21st century. Scholars are also depicting dangerous tendencies of ICT and media development that undermine democracy (disinformation, news avoidance, hate speech, etc.). It is time to ask: Are democratic societies equipped with sufficient knowledge and expertise about these transformations to avoid unexpected backlashes? Is the lack of such knowledge becoming a specific risk factor for democracy?

This thematic issue departs from these questions, moving the issue of the capability of European countries to monitor and analyse media and communication development in the 21st century to the centre of the inquiry. The existing knowledge is voluminous, but even a cursory review reveals that it is dispersed and fragmented (geographically, linguistically, by the scope and volume of covered areas and issues, etc.). This issue seeks meta-analyses of existing studies and databases dealing with media transformations in the 21st century that (may) produce risks to democratic public deliberation.

Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

• The scope and quality of existing research on the recent changes in the fields of freedom of expression and information, media usage and related skills and attitudes, and the conditions of sustainability of journalism and the journalistic profession. Which gaps can be identified?
• Emerging issues that need scholarly attention, and the availability of relevant data.
• What kinds of data and by whom are being collected about media and journalism? Who owns this data? Are the databases freely available? Is the analysis based on collected data taken into consideration for making media-political decisions?
• Research organisation and expertise: the level of institutionalisation of research, structural support and financing schemes, and scholars and their qualifications.
• Risks for deliberative communication and democracy emanating from the 21st century’s media development.
• International comparison of media monitoring capabilities.

The year 2024 will mark the 20th anniversary of Comparing Media Systems, by Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini, a book that established the existence of three media models in Western world. Subsequently, the same authors published Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World (2011), which extended the proposed analysis to other countries such as Russia, Poland, and China. In both cases, the main goal intended a comparative analysis using a series of variables that allowed to catalogue main media systems.

Twenty years after this Hallin and Mancini’s important analysis, several issues need to be studied to explain whether changes have occurred in global media systems. The emergence of Over the Top Media Service business model, for instance, has led to a boom in online platforms sector and consumption habits because traditional media have been displaced by other digital initiatives. Changes in the sector also show that new developments are taking place in content consumption, establishing an alliance between telecommunications operators and traditional media companies. This situation is also highlighting the need for joint ventures between cable distributors and broadband providers. Meanwhile, in the press sector, there has been a weakening of daily newspapers and, at the same time, the search for paid or subscription business models is still a working process, amid the emergence and consolidation of the online-only press.

All these issues would make necessary a review of media systems all over the world that updates the essential ideas of Hallin and Mancini, including not only the variables proposed by both authors, but also new categories.

Representations of geomedia technologies tend to celebrate convergent, mobile, and location-based technologies as constitutive of tomorrow’s society and life. In other words, they tend to extend the socio-technological regime we have come to know as geomedia into the future (Fast et al., 2018; McQuire, 2016). As a sister project to a themed issue on Geomedia Histories (Fast & Abend, in press; forthcoming in New Media and Society), this thematic issue aims to challenge what has been identified as “geomediatization realism” by investigating multiple geomedia futures. Hartmann and Jansson (2022, p. 5) engage the term geomediatization realism to refer to “processes of acceptance and resignation not only in relation to media use but also to the wider context of the expansion of geomedia businesses and corporations.” Geomediatization realism encompasses both utopian and dystopian outlooks through which our future with geomedia appears in the singular rather than plural, as if there were no alternatives to the visions of tomorrow that surface in hegemonic geomedia representations (cf. Rose, 2018). In seeking to challenge geomediatization realism, this thematic issue effectively bridges Critical Geomedia Studies and Critical Future Studies. Critical geomedia studies scrutinizes the complex relationship between people, technology, and space/place (Fast et al., 2018). Critical future studies “investigates the scope and constraints within public culture for imagining and debating different potential futures” (Goode & Godhe, 2017, p. 109). Both strands challenge what Fisher (2009) calls “capitalist realism,” the idea that the world defined by capitalism constitutes the only realistic alternative. Goode and Godhe (2017, p. 110) argue for critical future studies that explore the repertoire of possible futures available for public consideration, but also “that both utopian and dystopian modes of imagination are vital for reinvigorating a futural public sphere.” We hope that this interdisciplinary thematic issue can challenge capitalist and geomediatization realism by producing insights into hegemonic and counter-hegemonic visions of our future with geomedia.

We will prioritize contributions that refer to literature from critical geomedia studies and critical future studies (and adjacent literature), that engage key concepts appearing in this call for papers (geomedia, geomedia futures, geomediatized realism, etc.), and that critically and empirically explore future-directed geomedia representations. We anticipate that contributions use methods such as (critical) discourse analysis, multimodal discourse analysis, (socio-)semiotics, or the similar, but do not exclude other approaches. We welcome contributions by scholars of fields of research that study the interplay of people, technology, and space/place. 

References

Fast, K., & Abend, P. (in press). Geomedia histories. New Media and Society. 

Fast, K., Jansson, A., Lindell, J., Bengtsson, L. R., & Tesfahuney, M. (Eds.). (2018). Geomedia studies: Spaces and mobilities in mediatized worlds. Routledge.

Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist realism: Is there no alternative? John Hunt Publishing.

Goode, L., & Godhe, M. (2017). Beyond capitalist realism: Why we need critical future studies. Culture Unbound, 9(1), 108–129.

Hartmann, M., & Jansson, A. (2022).  Gentrification and the right to the geomedia city. Space and Culture. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/12063312221090600

McQuire, S. (2016). Geomedia: Networked cities and the future of public space. Polity.

Rose, G. (2018). Look insideTM: Corporate visions of the smart city. In K. Fast, A. Jansson, J. Lindell, L. R. Bengtsson, & M. Tesfahuney (Eds.), Geomedia studies: Spaces and mobilities in mediatized worlds (pp. 97–113). Routledge.

Human expression is tethered to and influenced by the tools available to us. From charcoal and berries on dark and cavernous walls to digital pencils and capacitive tablet computers, communication technologies exert profound impact over the stories we tell, both about ourselves and to each other (Schramm, 1988), along with how we tell them. In our expressions, we leverage our tools to create accessible and impactful versions of our experiences and perspectives with each other. Here, the emergence of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) technologies represents a profound-yet-burgeoning potential to enhance the veracity, artistry, and impact of these stories. Such technologies absorb and arrest the natural human senses (Biocca, 1997). In doing so, they enable us to directly place audiences inside our expressive creations—to feel a sense of presence inside and within the messages themselves (Lombard & Ditton, 1997). Milk (2015) argues that immersive technologies (specifically, VR) represent the “ultimate empathy machine[s]” that allow for the simulation and presentation of wholly unique perspectives—seen in the work of digital painters such as Anna Zhilyaeva and Emily Edwards and VR filmmakers such as Lynette Wallworth and Alejandro González Iñárritu, among others. Contrasting these views, research into the psychology of immersive experiences suggests that users can at times struggle to balance the myriad demands of immersive technologies (Bowman, 2021), which can reduce emotional reactions to or distance users from the narratives (Barreda-Ángeles et al., 2021). Additionally, research in media and visual culture studies suggests that VR may foster “false empathy,” as the empathy promoted or assured by VR industries assumes that experiences of immersion and first-person perspectives alone will drive empathetic feeling (Bender & Broderick, 2021; Bloom, 2017). Further, Lisa Nakamura (2020) argues that VR empathy experiences promote “identity tourism,”: when people in online spaces pretend to be members of marginalized groups with which they do not otherwise identify, generally for self-gain and with an exoticizing gaze. Nakamura posits, for example, that placing a white individual into a black body in VR is not a means toward empathy; it is false embodiment which leads to false empathy. Thus, a potential friction exists between the desire to express ourselves through immersive technologies and our audience’s ability to leverage the affordances of such technologies (Gaver, 1991) to meet this desire. As such interactions evolve in the direction of shared, social experience in current and future metaverse implementations, these opportunities and struggles become even more complex. Our thematic issue invites artists and scholars to share essays, research reports, creative digital works, and other forms of scholarship aimed at fostering a better understanding of the unique expressive potential of immersive digital media in various forms.

References

Barreda-Ángeles, M., Aleix-Guillaume, S., & Pereda-Baños, A. (2021). Virtual reality storytelling as a double-edged sword: Immersive presentation of nonfiction 360°-video is associated with impaired cognitive information processing. Communication Monographs, 88(2), 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2020.1803496

Bender, S. M., & Broderick, M. (2021). Virtual realities: Case studies in Immersion and phenomenology. Palgrave Macmillan.

Biocca, F. (1997). Cyborg’s dilemma; Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), Article JCMC324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00070.x

Bloom, P. (2017). Empathy, schmempathy: Response to zaki. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(2), 60–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.12.003

Bowman, N. D. (2021). Interactivity as demand: Implications for interactive media entertainment. In C. Klimmt & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of media entertainment (pp. 647–670). Oxford University Press.

Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson, & J. S. Olson (Eds.), CHI ‘91: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 79–84). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/108844.108856

Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), Article JCMC321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x

Milk, C. (2015, April). How virtual reality can create the ultimate empathy machine [Video]. TED Conference. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_milk_how_virtual_reality_can_create_the_ultimate_empathy_machine

Nakamura, L. (2020). Feeling good about feeling bad: Virtuous virtual reality and the automation of racial empathy. Journal of Visual Culture, 19(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412920906259

Schramm, W. (1988). The story of human communication: Cave painting to microchip. Harper & Row.

This thematic issue considers citizens’ everyday experiences of digital in- and exclusion, focusing on the practices and tactics through which citizens deal with the increasing digitalization of their everyday life. Governments, employers, schools, and other institutions increasingly expect people to participate digitally. Yet, even in digitally advanced countries, large groups of citizens lack critical and functional digital skills. This thematic issue explicitly takes a user-centric approach to understand the impact of digital in- and exclusion from the perspective of citizens themselves.

Moving beyond conceptual frameworks for digital literacies, as well as theoretical explorations of the various “new” literacies that are necessary for participation in digital societies, we seek to gain insight into the social, civic, and political implications of digital in- and/or exclusion in people’s everyday life. How do citizens develop and translate digital literacies into media practices across their lifespans? How do citizens navigate gaps in digital literacies within the various realms of everyday life? And what are the implications of digital exclusion for everyday practices of digital citizenship?

The 2012 US Presidential campaign of Barack Obama was seen as a launch point for a new model of electioneering, one that was driven by scientific modelling, big data, and computational analytics. Since then reports of the spread and power of data-driven campaigning (DDC) have escalated, with the victory of Donald Trump and the Brexit vote commonly attributed to the use of these new techniques. Contrasting accounts, however, have emerged that challenge this narrative in several key ways. Notably, questions have been raised about what is the extent of adopting DDC among political parties, particularly outside of the US? How new is it in historical terms? And how effective is it in actually reaching the target audience and delivering the behavioural change required?

This thematic issue will set out and investigate the key debates surrounding the growth of DDC in comparative and historical perspectives. Specifically, we will highlight a series of core questions that the current literature has both raised and is seeking to resolve. Namely:

1. How widespread is DDC adoption across national party systems, and relatedly, does it look the same across different contexts? Is there a one size fits all version or is it adapted to local conditions, and if so, in what way?
2. How disruptive is DDC to modern campaigning? Does it represent a new fourth era of “scientific” and/or “subversive” approaches to voter mobilization? Or is it a more “modernizing” force that simply intensifies ongoing trends of professionalization?
3. Does DDC actually work? How far are the claims for precision in targeting and attitudinal and behavioural change supported by the evidence “on the ground”?
4. What is to be done? To what extent does DDC warrant scrutiny from governments and closer regulation?

There is a profound and pervasive feeling of ongoing crises that spans over almost the last two decades, around the world. The global economic crisis, the refugee crisis, the climate crisis and its broader effects, the rise of populism and democratic erosion, the Covid-19 pandemic, the EU’s legitimacy crisis, the recent invasion of Ukraine, and gun violence, among others, have all contributed to substantial tended settings and environments. And, while crises cast challenges for political actors, they also create opportunities for policy-making, public reflections, rise in popularity, and political competition. In times of crisis, when it comes to communicating policy-making but also framing the crisis itself, issues close to political communication (including political marketing and political branding) become of paramount relevance.

This call for papers invites reflective contributions that bring together communication strategies which have been forged through the specter of crisis in international, European, and national contexts. It aims to delve into the ways of how, among others, international organizations, European institutions, national governments, and other fora utilize and frame crises to make policy or pursue political change. The combined study of communication and crisis provides a critical lens in the endeavor to analyze via the angles of policy-making, branding, framing, governance, representation, and communication processes. Some of the themes this thematic issue is open to consider include: the role of communication processes in framing crises; the role of political marketing and branding in policy-making in times of crises; countering of misinformation with regards to policy-making; campaigning and communicating policies.

The purpose of this thematic issue is to address, discuss, and elaborate on how sports journalism relates to, and narrates, socio-political issues considering the economical, structural, and professional limitations and possibilities that surround the profession. The focal point will be the news media in the Nordic countries and the Nordic media system (Hornmoen & Steensen, 2021) since these have many similarities in terms of media history, sports history, and sports policy. Recent heated debates about human rights, corruption, and politics in connection with the Euro 2021 tournament, the 2022 Winter Olympics in China, the FIFA World Cup in Qatar, players taking a knee before games, and the removal of Roman Abramovich as the owner of Chelsea football club after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, all illustrate that sports are deeply intertwined with issues of political and social change and development. Similarly, sports are used in image- and reputation-building by a variety of political figures and governments. Sports can therefore both challenge and be a driving force for societal change and political awareness. This is particularly prevalent within the Nordic countries, where the Nordic welfare model gives national consciousness and responsibility to ensure equal access and participation in sports, combined with a relatively high level of trust in media and innovative technological media usage. In recent years, there has been a development within Nordic media towards a more critical and investigative take on sports journalism, making this region particularly interesting for investigating the relationship between sports and politics in the journalistic field.

Through the analysis of Nordic case studies from the past five years (2018–2022), the objectives of this thematic issue are to: identity and describe prevalent political narratives in sports journalism; elaborate and discuss the concept of critical sports journalism; as well as discuss tensions between professional autonomy, precarity, and possibilities for sports journalists, and how these affect critical reporting.

References

For well over a decade, the news media sector has been struggling through a series of financial crises. As a result, news companies have modified their revenue models, and they continue to do so. More recently, governments in some markets have launched new funds to support journalism, offering cash payments. Additionally, Google and Facebook are increasingly paying for news content.

These emerging funding models raise questions about how commercial media should be supported by the public and platforms. A recent report, commissioned by the New Zealand Ministry of Culture and Heritage, argues that “there is no need for ongoing public funding for commercial news content,” (Loan et al., 2021) and that government funding presents risks around interference with editorial content.

In the past, scholars have investigated business models of journalism based on subscriptions, memberships, and donations, but there is a need to update our understanding of these models and any other emerging models of funding journalism in this decade.

Therefore, we invite scholars to submit theoretical, conceptual, innovative, and empirical scholarship that explores how these developments shape the news media sector and its relationship to democracy. We welcome qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research from across the globe.

The questions we are aiming to address include:

• Which theoretical frameworks and approaches are essential in investigating contemporary business models of journalism?
• How effective/sustainable are the emerging revenue models that rely on support from governments and/or platforms?
• How can we critically evaluate revenue models supported by the government and/or platforms?
• What kind of empirical evidence can be used to evaluate contemporary revenue models of journalism?
• What kind of paradoxes rise from the public/platform funding of private media?
• What are the democratic and societal impacts associated with the governmental and/or platform funding of the media?
• Are there case studies that exemplify sustainable revenue models of digital journalism?

References

Loan, J., Murray, K., Pauls, R., & Woock, K. (2021). The implications of competition and market trends for media plurality in New Zealand: A report for the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Sapere. https://mch.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projects/sapere-report-media-plurality-nz-feb22.pdf

Change, and innovation in particular, have become familiar terms in media and communications research. Journalism is changing, media are innovating, and in efforts to capture an unsettled environment where new technologies, modes of working, and relationships between media and the public continue to evolve, it seems the one constant we can locate in our fields is “change” itself. Yet, despite their prominence within research, the distinctions established around how we understand change as an explanation and innovation as a force have become muddied, often leading to ambiguity at least and confusion at worst.

Innovation is often casually conflated with change without acknowledging the distinctions between each dynamic. Focus in, and change is found everywhere, endemic to the way fields function (Bourdieu, 2005). Step back, and the meaningfulness of change might seem less significant, as a broader view shows where change fits within the continuously evolving landscape of media, and where “forward-looking change gains almost paradigmatic status” (Peters & Carlson, 2018, p. 638). Innovation is no different. It often seems that innovation marks all technological enhancements, but a wider view shows its threads throughout media, problematizing digital novelty (Posetti, 2018). This ambiguity is reflective of a discrepancy between the discourses on and the actual practices of change and innovation.

In this thematic issue, we invite papers that bring dynamics of change and innovation into a central position and which move beyond the focus on changing media platforms or where new technologies serve as de facto exemplars of innovation. We encourage theoretical and empirical work that challenges how we think about what constitutes change, drivers of change, and the locus of change. Beyond exploring how things are changing, this issue calls for studies that unpack concepts of change and innovation, and how these are being viewed and understood within media and media research.

References

Bourdieu, P. (2005). The political field, the social science fied, and the journalistic field. In R. Benson & E. Neveu (Eds.), Bourdieu and the journalistic field (pp. 29–47). Polity.

Peters, C., & Carlson, M. (2018). Conceptualizing change in journalism studies: Why change at all? Journalism, 20(5), 637–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918760674

Reproducibility (i.e., obtaining the same results with the same data and methods) and replicability (i.e., getting the same results using the same methods but different data) are generally considered key criteria for evaluating the reliability and trustworthiness of empirical research. Around 10 years ago, several failed attempts to replicate results from seminal studies in psychology sparked what is now known as the “replication crisis.” Although substantial parts of communication research use similar methods, such as experiments and surveys, the discussions around reproducibility and replicability have not been as far-reaching and consequential as in psychology. Importantly, these differences in dealing with questions of reproducibility and replicability are not due to neglect. Instead, the methods and especially the data commonly used in communication research affect how or to what degree reproducibility and replicability can be achieved and even what they mean for this discipline. For example, it would not be sensible to assume that the results from a content analysis should be fully replicable if repeated at a later point in time (or in a different country). Also, the use of proprietary materials, such as media content, limits the degree to which these can be shared. These specific characteristics require extensive discursive and empirical examination of the role of replicability in communication research. With this thematic issue, we want to provide an arena for this discussion about reproducibility and replicability through conceptual as well as empirical assessments of these two important concepts.

To this end, we invite the following types of submissions:

• Conceptual papers addressing issues related to reproducibility and/or replicability;
• Replication studies (ideally via collaborations between original authors of a study with other, especially early-career, scholars who replicate it);
• Empirical assessments of reproducibility or the prevalence of open-science practices that should enable/facilitate reproducibility and replicability (e.g., for a particular research topic).

Televisuality, as theorised by John T. Caldwell in 1995, allows for a holistic view of the unique properties of television as an industrial product, technology, aesthetic form, and object of cultural discourse and audience engagement. The concept of televisuality designates a system of business conditions, styles, ideologies, cultural values, modes of production, programming, and audience practices that make up television as a medium within a specific historical and geographical context.

The concept of televisuality provides a rich and ever-changing prism for the analysis of its objects of study, as well as a constant challenge to our definition of the essence of TV as a medium in the contemporary media landscape, its functions for society, and the question of how we can approach it both theoretically and methodologically.

This thematic issue will discuss how the term can be redefined within the contemporary context, where: broadcast is transformed and complemented by streaming; social networks are increasingly becoming video-based social media; television texts are “unbound” and float as remixed cultural artefacts across channels, platforms, and media; and where the transnational interconnections of the television and audiovisual industry, the conditions of economic and social crisis, and the changing audience practices are thoroughly transforming the medium. New forms of televisuality circulate transnationally in entertainment formats from the UK, the Netherlands, Korea, or Israel as well as in long-running serial fare from Nordic countries, European major continental markets, Turkey, or Latin America. Entertainment, serial fiction, live broadcasts, news, sports, and other televisual events, as well as audiences’ modes of engaging with audiovisual content across geographical and platform borders, all work to redefine the essence of televisuality.

We particularly encourage contributions on the following topics:

• Televisuality and contemporary practices of television production and distribution;
• Methodologies for studying televisuality within television and media studies;
• Televisuality and screen media audience practices;
• Styles, narratives, and aesthetics of televisual programmes across genres and forms (scripted and unscripted);
• Live broadcasting, live streaming, and their connections;
• Scheduling, flow, interfaces, libraries, and programming strategies;
• Intersections, similarities, and differentiations of television, social media, and social TV;
• Transformations in the global flows of television and different ideas of televisuality;
• Ideological paradigms of TV and their resistance in contemporary media systems;
• Transnational aesthetics, production, distribution, and audience practices.

Over the past decade, we have witnessed major transformations in access to digital media platforms. However, navigating this digitally mediated world can be challenging as it requires operational, social, and content creation and consumption skills that many citizens lack or insufficiently possess. The importance of media literacy and digital skills has been recognised worldwide. To date, researchers and practitioners are struggling to make solid evidence-based claims about what works for intervention programmes aimed at fostering inclusion and well-being in different life domains by improving media literacy and digital skills. Despite the high number of intervention programmes, there is very little credible causal evidence of successful interventions that yield robust impact. Although there are a number of initiatives that evaluate programmes to improve media literacy and digital skills, evidence that links interventions around different types of media literacy and digital skills to different types of outcomes is severely underdeveloped. There is a real need to understand what the impact of these interventions in the different life domains is in terms of inclusion and well-being as well as to gather knowledge regarding what works best for different target groups.

Apart from transforming regimes of production and consumption, the rise of gigantic, privately owned, digital platforms has particular effects on selfhood, performance, and identity. This thematic issue looks at the gendered dimensions of platform economies focusing specifically on how entertainment interweaves with expertise in the construction of contemporary femininities and masculinities. Platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook enable a seemingly democratization of expertise, as anyone could become an expert in any matter possible among niche communities, ranging from wine tasters, perfume specialists, life coaches, fitness trainers, dieticians and health consultants to sex therapists, pick up artists, mindfulness gurus, city guides, and gastronomic bloggers.

Podcasting is now firmly established as a significant genre in journalism, driving both consumption and revenue of online publishers. Despite news podcasts only making up a relatively small part of all podcasts, they are popular, with The New York Times’ The Daily podcast a striking example, attracting millions of daily listeners (Newman & Gallo, 2019).

Whereas radio news was previously published by established broadcasters, audio journalism is now produced and distributed as podcasts by a range of professional and amateur media actors. The growth of podcast consumption has also put the searchlight on the benefits and pitfalls of journalism’s audio forms. As a medium freed from broadcasting conventions and schedules, it’s well-placed as a site for journalistic experimentation. It includes subversion of traditional journalistic professional norms and the medium’s ability to build strong parasocial relationships between hosts and listeners (Perks & Turner, 2019). These perceived relationships coupled with the intimacy and closeness of the listening experience can pose the risk of partisan “ideological hijacking of journalism” (Dowling et al., 2022), without the safeguards from traditional broadcast conventions.

Furthermore, journalism presented solely in aural form has its own requirements for effective journalistic storytelling, including simplified language to aid in comprehension—especially when dealing with complex issues. Emerging podcast conventions indicate producers’ and journalists’ preference for building in self-reflexivity as a narrative technique, locating the journalist as a character in the news story.

This thematic issue takes a broad approach to inquiry into changing forms of audio journalism, driven by the popularity of podcasting. Neither radio nor podcasting should be seen as “static objects of analysis” (Lindgren & Loviglio, 2022), as both continue to change and shape each other, influenced by digital disruptions and technological innovations.

References

Dowling, D., Johnson, P. R., & Ekdale, B. (2022). Hijacking journalism: Legitimacy and metajournalistic discourse in right-wing podcasts. Media and Communication, 10(3), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5260

Lindgren, M., & Loviglio, J. (2022). Editors’ introduction. In M. Lindgren & J. Loviglio (Eds.), Routledge companion to radio and podcast studies (p. 1). Routledge.

Newman, N., & Gallo, N. (2019). News podcasts and the opportunities for publishers. Oxford University; Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/publications/2019/news-podcasts-opportunities-publishers

Perks, L. G., & Turner, J. S. (2019). Podcasts and productivity: A qualitative uses and gratifications study. Mass Communication and Society, 22(1), 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1490434

The digital environment was heralded as an era of public speaking. Armed with low-cost tools “anyone” had a public they could connect with, making a networked public sphere possible. Trusting that the marketplace of ideas metaphor would hold and that good ideas would rise to the top, Jimi Hendrix’s famous quote “knowledge speaks but wisdom listens” was finally possible at a global scale. With the rise of this new communication ecology, the flourishing of deliberative democracy was anticipated by many worldwide. Instead, and only a few years later, democracy began to backslide in new and stable democracies alike, affective polarization and populism are on the rise in many parts of the globe, and the compromises needed to confront global challenges seem harder and harder to reach. Deliberative theorists including Susan Bickford (1996), Andrew Dobson (2014), and Mary Scudder (2020) have recently highlighted listening as one potential avenue for enhanced deliberation.

This thematic issue looks at political conversation with a focus on political listening and seeks to advance an empirical approach to listening. Listening here means not just exposure in media or co-presence in conversation, but as Benjamin Barber argues in his book Strong Democracy, it means “‘I will put myself in his place, I will try to understand, I will strain to hear what makes us alike, I will listen for a common rhetoric evocative of a common purpose or a common good’” (Barber, 2003, p. 175). We are interested in manuscripts that allow us to explore what we refer to as asymmetries in political conversation, that is conversations in which expression becomes more important than reception.

Some potential questions include:

• Has the nature of conversation, and listening in particular, changed over time?
• Is polarization, populism, and/or antidemocratic values related to changes in political listening and conversation?
• How does mis/disinformation affect the quality of political listening and conversation?
• How can we promote listening, particularly listening to those who don’t think like us?
• How do we scale up listening to mass publics?
• How does social media content relate to asymmetries in political conversation?
• How do elite conversations affect listening and conversation among the broader public?
• When do elites listen?

If you don’t see a theme that directly addresses your work but you are convinced it speaks to the core issue of conversation asymmetries, do not hesitate to contact us. We will try to listen.

References

Barber, B. R. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press.

Bickford, S. (1996). The dissonance of democracy: Listening, conflict, and citizenship. Cornell University Press.

Dobson, A. (2014). Listening for democracy: Recognition, representation, reconciliation. Oxford University Press.

Scudder, M. F. (2020). Beyond empathy and inclusion: The challenge of listening in democratic deliberation. Oxford University Press.

Recently, it was argued that digital games play such an important role in an increasingly convergent media culture that “the future of media studies is game studies” (Chess & Consalvo, 2022). Indeed, games generate more revenue than books and movies and they are more and more recognized as a cultural property that should be preserved. Some games undoubtedly have a high artistic value and can be considered a form of meaningful entertainment that is thought-provoking and provides new insights (Oliver et al., 2016). In fact, research has shown that digital games can have meaningful effects in many different areas of society. For example, it has been shown that meaningful social relationships can develop in the context of online games. Further, games can have positive effects on mental health and are considered useful tools in therapeutic contexts. The learning potentials of games have been examined extensively and the application of games for persuasion and information (newsgames) is becoming growingly important. On the downside, games take such an important role in the lives of some players that usage behaviors can become excessive and problematic. There are also debates on the question of whether some gaming communities are toxic and serve as breeding grounds for sexist or extremist attitudes, representing a severe risk to society.

The thematic issue will focus on the many different facets of the meaningfulness of digital games. Further, we would like to stimulate a dialogue on what constitutes meaningfulness in the context of gaming and what relevance the field of game studies will have in the future.

Contributions may focus on the meaningfulness of games in all areas of society. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

• The use of games in therapies and rehabilitation;
• Games for education and learning (serious games, game-based learning);
• Games’ impact on mental health and well-being;
• Pathological and excessive forms of game use (gaming disorder);
• Games as a form of meaningful (eudaimonic) entertainment;
• Social benefits of online gaming;
• Toxicity and extremism in gaming cultures;
• The use of games for information and persuasion;
• Games as art and cultural heritage/representation of cultural heritage in games;
• The application of games in museums and exhibitions;
• The design and production of meaningful games;
• Theoretical perspectives on what constitutes meaningfulness in gaming contexts;
• Discussions on the meaningfulness and the future of game studies as a research field.

References

Chess, S., & Consalvo, M. (2022). The future of media studies is game studies. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 39(3), 159–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2022.2075025

Oliver, M. B., Bowman, N. D., Woolley, J. K., Rogers, R., Sherrick, B. I., & Chung, M. Y. (2016). Video games as meaningful entertainment experiences. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(4), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000066

Media and Communication invites scholars interested in contributing to this thematic issue to address questions including but not limited to the following:

• Emerging European media profiles to counter disinformation;
• The role of the EU against disinformation;
• The role of disinformation in European elections;
• A political theory approach to the relation between democracy and disinformation in the EU context;
• The pandemic and the Ukraine crisis as key disruptors of the European public sphere;
• Political communication and journalism fostering or hampering the European project;
• Impact of social media misinformation and disinformation on the European public sphere;
• The fragmented approach of EU institutions and European stakeholders against disinformation;
• Fake news, disinformation, and information disorders affecting the Europeanization process;
• The geopolitical turn of the EU and the tension between securitization and collaboration approaches to disinformation;
• Fighting disinformation in the context of the Conference on the Future of Europe.

References

Bennett, W. L., & Pfetsch, B. (2018). Rethinking political communication in a time of disrupted public spheres. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 243–253.

Casero-Ripollés, A. (2020). Impact of Covid-19 on the media system: Communicative and democratic consequences of news consumption during the outbreak. El Profesional de la Información, 29(2), 1–11.