The role of journalism in a time of national crisis:Examining criticism and consensus in Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden during the Covid-19 pandemic
The aim of this chapter is to examine the conditions for the practice of critical journalism in Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden, during the Covid-19 pandemic. We focus on two aspects, one practical and one discursive. First, we focus on journalists’ access to relevant information about the pandemic, as...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Book Part |
| Language: | Danish |
| Published: |
Nordicom
2023
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://forskning.ruc.dk/da/publications/7049c341-bf50-4d12-be8a-10e43945a126 https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855688-12 https://hdl.handle.net/1800/7049c341-bf50-4d12-be8a-10e43945a126 https://rucforsk.ruc.dk/ws/files/99462846/FULLTEXT01.pdf |
| Summary: | The aim of this chapter is to examine the conditions for the practice of critical journalism in Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden, during the Covid-19 pandemic. We focus on two aspects, one practical and one discursive. First, we focus on journalists’ access to relevant information about the pandemic, as access plays a key role in the practice of critical reporting. Second, we focus on metajournalistic discourse, understood as how public debate about journalism shapes the practice of journalism. We found that information access was challenged in all three countries, but in different ways. We also found elements of a metajournalistic discourse. In Denmark, this discourse expressed concern about journalism being too critical, while in Sweden and Iceland, the concern was more a lack of critical reporting. We argue that the differences found can best be explained by the different Covid-19 communication strategies in the three countries. The aim of this chapter is to examine the conditions for the practice of critical journalism in Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden, during the Covid-19 pandemic. We focus on two aspects, one practical and one discursive. First, we focus on journalists’ access to relevant information about the pandemic, as access plays a key role in the practice of critical reporting. Second, we focus on metajournalistic discourse, understood as how public debate about journalism shapes the practice of journalism. We found that information access was challenged in all three countries, but in different ways. We also found elements of a metajournalistic discourse. In Denmark, this discourse expressed concern about journalism being too critical, while in Sweden and Iceland, the concern was more a lack of critical reporting. We argue that the differences found can best be explained by the different Covid-19 communication strategies in the three countries. |
|---|