Debat på et socialt medie
En kvalitativ undersøgelse af kommunikativ praksis på Debatten - DR’s Facebookside
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/nys.v1i62.134592Nøgleord:
debat på Facebook, sociale medier, kommunikativ praksis, etnometodologisk samtaleanalyse, argumentationResumé
.
Referencer
Analyse & Tal. 2021. Angreb i den offentlige debat på Facebook. https://strapi.ogtal.dk/uploads/966f1ebcfa9942d3aef338e9920611f4.pdf (tilgået 3. april 2022)
Andersen, E.M. & M. Rathje. 2019. Age and stage of life categorizations used to moralize in online social conflict. Discourse, context & media 28. 19-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2019.02.001.
Antaki, C. 1994. Explaining and arguing. The social organization of accounts. London: Sage.
Antaki, C. et al. 2006. “For she who knows who she is:” Managing accountability in online forum messages. Journal of computer-mediated communication 11. 114-132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00306.x.
Antaki, C. & I. Leudar. 1992. Explaning in conversation: Towards an argument model.European journal of social psychology 22. 181-194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220206.
Asmuss, B. & J. Steensig (red). 2008. Samtalen på arbejde - konversationsanalyse og kompetenceudvikling. København: Samfundslitteratur.
Bech-Danielsen, A. 2017. Hver syvende raser på Facebook. Politiken.dk. 16. februar 2017. https://politiken.dk/kultur/art5836561/Hver-syvende-raser-p%C3%A5-Facebook (tilgået 7. oktober 2019)
Boberg, S., T. Schatto-Eckrodt, L. Frischlich, & T. Quandt. 2018. The moral gatekeeper? Moderation and deletion of user-generated content in a leading news forum. Media and communication 6(4). 395-419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v6i4.1493.
Bou-Franch, P., N. Lorenzo-Dus & P.G.C. Bletvich. 2012. Social interaction in YouTube text-based polylogues: a study of coherence. Journal of computer mediated communication 17(4). 501-521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01579.x.
Cappella, J.N., V. Price & L. Nir. 2002. Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political communication 19(1). 73-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246498.
Coe, K., K. Kenski & S.A. Rains. 2014. Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of communication 64(4). 658-679. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104.
Cohn, N. 1967. Warrant for genocide: the myth of the Jewish world conspiracy and the protocols of the elders of Zion. London: Serif.
Dannemand, H. 2019. DR2 skal være kanalen for de særligt interesserede. Berlingske. 17. marts 2019. https://www.berlingske.dk/kultur/dr2-skal-vaere-tv-kana-len-for-de-saerligt-interesserede (tilgået 10. juni 2021)
Day, D. & S. Kjærbeck. 2013. ‘Positioning’ in the conversation analytic approach. Narrative inquiry 23(1). 16-39. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ni.23.1.02day.
Debatten - DR. 2019a Facebook.com/Debatten/ https://www.facebook.com/143859902321643/posts/3014288378612100/ (tilgået 10. juni 2021).
Debatten - DR. 2019b. Facebook.com/Debatten/ https://www.facebook.com/143859902321643/posts/2970429876331284/ (tilgået 10. juni 2021).
Drew, P. & J. Heritage (red.). 1992. Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, P. 1975. Logic and conversation. I.P. Cole & J. Morgan (red.), Speech acts (Syntax and semantics, vol. 3), 41-58. New York: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003.
Habermas, J. 1984/1992. The theory of communicative action. London: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. 1988. Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. C. Antaki (red.), Analyzing everyday explanation, 127-144. London: Sage.
Herring, S. 1999. Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of computer mediated communication 4(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x.
Hougaard, T.T. 2014. Sproglige forandringer i de nye medier – fra chatstil til hashtagpoesi. NyS – Nydanske sprogstudier 46. 39-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/nys.v46i46.17524.
Hutchby, I. & R. Wooffitt. 2008. Conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Hwang, H., Y. Kim, & Y. Kim. 2018. Influence of discussion incivility on deliberation: An examination of the mediating role of moral indignation. Communication research 45(2). 213-240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215616861.
Jackson, S. & S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. The quarterly journal of speech 66. 251-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383524.
Jacobs, S. 1986. The management of disagreement in conversation. F.H. van Eemeren et al. (red.) Argumentation: Across the lines of disciplines. Dordrecht: Foris.
Jagers, J. & S. Walgrave. 2007. Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties’ discourse in Belgium. European journal of political research 46(3). 319-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00690.x
Jørgensen, C. 1998. Public debate - an act of hostility? Argumentation 12. 431-443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007735127171.
Jørgensen, C., C. Kock & L. Rørbech. 1994. Retorik der flytter stemmer. Hvordan man overbeviser i offentlig debat. København: Gyldendal.
Kalch, A. & T. Naab. 2017. Replying, disliking, flagging: How users engage with uncivil and impolite comments on news sites. Studies in communication and media 6(4). 395-419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
Kalsnes, B. & K.A. Ihlebæk. 2021. Hiding hate speech: Political moderation on Facebook. Media, culture and society 43(2). 326-342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720957562.
Kim, N. 2016. Beyond rationality: The role of anger and information in deliberation. Communication research 43(1). 3-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213510943.
Kjempff, M. & K.S. Mølholt. 2019. På sporet af skrigeskinken https://stemmensmagt.atavist.com/untitled-project-hv745 (tilgået 7. oktober 2019).
Kjærbeck, S. & N.M. Nielsen. 2009. Det gode naboskab? En undersøgelse af etnometodologisk samtaleanalyse og pragmatisk argumentationsanalyse som tilgange til sprogbrug i praksis. R. Therkelsen & E.S. Jensen (red.), Dramatikken i grammatikken, 233-267. Roskilde: Institut for Kultur og Identitet.
Kock, C. 2008a. Kan man opstille adfærdsregler for offentlig debat? Mediekultur 44. 58-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v24i44.1308.
Kock, C. 2008b. Fornuftig uenighed. Rhetorica scandinavica 48. 64-83.
Kofta, M.,W., M. Soral, M. Bilewicz & S. Kitayama. 2020. What breeds conspiracy antisemitism? The role of political uncontrollability and uncertainty in the belief in Jewish conspiracy. Journal of personality and social psychology 118(5). 900-918. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000183.
Linaa Jensen, J. 2014. Online deliberations and beyond? A time-based and comparative study of Danish political debates online. Mediekultur 56. 23-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v30i56.16327.
Lomborg, S. 2013. Genreforhandling som kommunikativ praksis på Facebook. J. Linaa Jensen & J. Tække (red.), Facebook: Fra socialt netværk til metamedie, 95-116. København: Samfundslitteratur.
Marcoccia, M. 2004. On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of pragmatics 36(1). 115-145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00038-9.
Meredith, J. & J. Potter. 2014. Conversation analysis and electronic interactions: Methodological, analytic and technical considerations. H.L. Lim & F. Sudweeks (red.), Innovative methods and technologies for electronic discourse analysis, 370-393. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4426-7.ch017.
Mutz, D.C. 2015. In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nielsen, N. M. 2012. Dialectical citizenship? Some thoughts on the role of pragmatics in the analysis of public debate. I C. Kock & L.S. Villadsen (red.), Rhetorical citizenship and public deliberation. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Nielsen, N.M. 2013. Offentlighed som repræsentation af betydningssystemer. S. Holmström & S. Kjærbeck (red.), Legitimitet under forandring: Virksomheden i samfundet, 113-136. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Nielsen, N.M. 2016. Argumenter i kontekst: Introduktion til pragmatisk argumentationsanalyse, 2. udg. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Nielsen, N.M. 2020. Normativ argumentation: Fornuftig uenighed mellem konsensus og desinformation. N.M. Nielsen & K. Pedersen (red.), Politisk kommunikation i humanistisk perspektiv, 103-124. København: DJØF Forlag.
Papacharissi, Z. 2004. Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society 6(6). 259- 283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1464804041444.
Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (red.), Structures of social action, studies in conversation analysis, 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008.
Reed, D. 2001. ‘Making conversation’: Sequential integrity and the local management of interaction in Internet newsgroups. Proceedings of the 34th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences 4. IEEE Computer Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2001.926502.
Ross, A.S. & D.J. Rivers. 2017. Digital cultures of political participation: Internet memes and the discursive delegitimization of the 2016 U.S presidential candidates. Discourse, context and media 16(4). 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.01.001.
Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on conversation, 1-2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Schegloff, E.A. & H. Sacks. 1967. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7. 289-327. Genoptrykt i R. Turner (red.). 1974. Ethnomethodology, 233-264. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sirola, A., M. Kaakinen, T. Turja, & A. Oksanen. 2019. (Un)doing deviance: Social categorization in user reactions to pro-anorexia videos on YouTube. M.F. Wright (red.), Digital technology: Advances in research and applications, 231-260. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202005155360.
Steensig, J. 2013. Conversation analysis and affiliation and alignment. C. Chapelle (red.), The Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0196.
Steinitz, S. 2021. Kommentarsporet på Facebook er mediernes billigste annonceplads. Altinget.dk https://www.altinget.dk/digital/artikel/kommentarsporet-er-medier-nes-billigste-annonceplads-og-afsloerer-hvem-der-saetter-rammerne-for-debat-ten (tilgået 12. august 2022).
Ten Have, P. 1999. Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage.
Tepe, A.D. 2011. Debatkulturen på Facebook er sygelig og uhøflig. Politiken.dk. 19. december 2011. https://politiken.dk/debat/art5464550/Debatkultu-ren-p%C3%A5-Facebook-er-sygelig-og-uh%C3%B8flig (tilgået 7. oktober 2019).
Thing, M. 2014. Antisemitismens bibel: Historien om smædeskriftet Zions Vises Protokoller. København: Informations forlag.
Van Dijck, J. 2012. Facebook as a tool for producing sociality and connectivity. Television & new media 13(2). 160-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476411415291.
Van Eemeren, F. H. & R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. London: Routledge.
Villaume, P. 2011. Aktive lyttere og seere. J.T. Lauridsen (red.), Den kolde krig og Danmark. København: Gads forlag.
Walton, D.N. 1989. Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zappavigna, M. 2012. Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London & New York: Continuum.
Ziegele, M., P. Jost & D. Heinbach. 2018. Journalistic counter-voices in comment sections: Patterns, determinants, and potential consequences of interactive moderation of uncivil user comments. Studies in communication and media 7(4). 525-554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525.
Downloads
Publiceret
Citation/Eksport
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Forfatteren/forfatterne og NyS har ophavsret til de artikler og anmeldelser der bringes i tidsskriftet. NyS har ophavsretten til den udgivne version af tidsskriftet. Forfatteren har ophavsretten til sin egen tekst. Forfattere kan arkivere den publicerede artikel på deres institutions forskningsarkiv (Institutional Repository) eller en privat hjemmeside, når forfatteren samtidig linker til artiklen med den officielle DOI.
For artikler publiceret i NyS tillades at læsere kan downloade, kopiere, udskrive, søge eller linke til og citere fra artikler til ethvert lovligt formål. Artikler kan frit deles og linkes til på forsknings- og undervisningsnetværk (så som Blackboard, Moodle, Canvas o.a.). Link foretrækkes fordi det giver oplysning om brug af tidsskriftets artikler, og fordi det anerkender tidsskriftets redaktionelle arbejde. NyS tillader ikke at læsere bruger artikler eller dele af dem i egne artikler uden at citere, eller at læsere på anden vis anvender dem til kommercielle formål.
