|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{MainSource
| + | |
| − | |Source={{Source
| |
| − | |Name of Study=Lindgren (2012)
| |
| − | |Author=Simon Lindgren
| |
| − | |Title=Pirate Panics: Comparing news and blog discourse on
| |
| − | illegal file sharing in Sweden
| |
| − | |Year=2012
| |
| − | |Full Citation=Lindgren, Simon. Pirate panics: comparing news and blog discourse on illegal file sharing in Sweden. Information, communication & society 16.8 (2013): 1242-1265.
| |
| − | |Abstract=This article aims to map discourses and counter-discourses through which online piracy has been framed and constructed in Swedish blogs and online news. It has been common in previous analyses of moral public debates about new forms of media consumption to focus on conservative top-down hegemonic processes of reinstating order. The classic moral panic literature overemphasizes control, power and hegemony while overlooking counter-discourses. This study, on the other hand, takes such forms of symbolic resistance into account. It relies on a comparative discursive network analysis of texts produced by corporate news organizations and of blogs representing pro-piracy perspectives. It is concluded that with the blurring of the boundaries between producers and consumers of content, more and more localized moral panics that are not necessarily hegemonic are likely to be seen. Panic reactions can run not only from the top down but also from the bottom up as niche and micro media instigate their own moral panics.
| |
| − | |Authentic Link=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2012.757632
| |
| − | |Link=http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:612689/FULLTEXT02.pdf
| |
| − | |Reference=Lessig (2004); Gantz and Rochester (2005); Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf (2007); Li (2009); Cohen (1972);
| |
| − | |Plain Text Proposition=* Mainstream discourse in Sweden on the subject of piracy during the first half of 2009 can be likened to a moral panic
| |
| − | * Both the news articles (anti-piracy) and blog posts (pro-piracy) use the linguistic markers of a moral panic, from opposing sides
| |
| − | * The existence of a moral panic on both sides of the debate points to a lack of hegemony on either side - today's culture is fragmented and audiences are segmented
| |
| − | * Future studies must examine the counter-constructions of the subcultures in addition to the identified prevailing dominant culture
| |
| − | |FundamentalIssue=1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare, 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media), 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption),
| |
| − | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness),
| |
| − | |Discipline=K4: Legal Procedure; the Legal System; and Illegal Behavior, K42: Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law, L1: Market Structure; Firm Strategy; and Market Performance, L17: Open Source Products and Markets, L6: Industry Studies: Manufacturing, L8: Industry Studies: Services, L82: Entertainment • Media, O3: Technological Change • Research and Development • Intellectual Property Rights, O33: Technological Change: Choices and Consequences • Diffusion Processes, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
| |
| − | |Intervention-Response=* There is no hegemony in the debate on file sharing
| |
| − | * Both sides cast each other as folk devils
| |
| − | * Moral panics happen when cultural or social events outrun the legislation of the day
| |
| − | * For legislation to accurately and fairly reflect the views of society as a whole, these separate parts must all be examined
| |
| − | |Description of Data=Discursive text analysis of news articles and blogs
| |
| − | |Data Year=January 2009 to June 2009
| |
| − | |Data Type=Secondary data
| |
| − | |Data Source=Newspaper articles; Blog posts;
| |
| − | |Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Quantitative data/text mining, Qualitative Collection Methods, Document Research, Qualitative content/text mining
| |
| − | |Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Social Network Analysis, Qualitative Analysis Methods, Textual Content Analysis, Discourse Analysis
| |
| − | |Industry=Programming and broadcasting; Creative, arts and entertainment; Film and motion pictures;
| |
| − | |Country=Sweden;
| |
| − | |Cross-country=No
| |
| − | |Comparative=Yes
| |
| − | |Government or policy=No
| |
| − | |Literature review=No
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | |Dataset={{Dataset
| |
| − | |Sample Size=279
| |
| − | |Level of Aggregation=Individual data,
| |
| − | |Data Material Year=January 2009 - June 2009
| |
| − | }}{{Dataset
| |
| − | |Sample Size=294
| |
| − | |Level of Aggregation=Individual data,
| |
| − | |Data Material Year=January 2009 to June 2009
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | }}
| |
Add Study
