Kjersti Thorbjørnsrud

Mediatization in public bureaucracies: A typology

Abstract Based on extensive fieldwork, the present article illustrates how the logic of the news media is expanding from influential communication departments to the practices, routines and priorities of traditional career bureaucrats. To theorize the mediatization of a traditional bureaucratic rationale, the article proposes a typology for how rule-based public organizations adapt to and adopt the news media’s implicit ‘logic of appropriateness.’ We emphasize the importance of (1) the news rhythm and (2) news formats, but also (3) how and why being in the media is valued by civil servants, and (4) how this leads to a reallocation of resources and responsibilities within the organization. We find that career bureaucrats both anticipate and adopt a news logic in their daily work. The normative implications of these transformations are discussed in the final section of the article.

Faces of an Invisible Population Human Interest Framing of Irregular Immigration News in the United States, France, and Norway

Based on a quantitative, comparative analysis of U.S., French, and Norwegian news media, this article examines the use of human interest stories in the coverage of irregular immigration. In an innovative design, it systematically analyzes how human interest framing is related to the frequency and complexity of dominant arguments and perspectives (issue-specific frames). In contrast to the extant literature, arguing that news on immigration reduces immigrants to dangerous and anonymous threats, the article finds that about half the news stories studied have a human face or example. Moreover, these human interest articles tend to frame the issue from the immigrants’ perspective, describing their personal stories and struggle. This result nuances the commonly held assumption that human interest frames signal declining news quality, as the number and range of arguments presented are not significantly reduced when human narratives are employed. The prevalence of human interest frames is highest in Norway, where we also identify a reduction in frame complexity in human interest stories, indicating the need to rethink the democratic corporatist model in media system theory.

Making news and influencing decisions: Three threshold cases concerning forced return of immigrants:

Some irregular immigrants get to stay, most are asked to leave. Many in the latter category appeal and seek media coverage to further their case. While the vast majority of these stories are not reported, some cases do receive coverage, and some even cause policy change and a reversal of the return decision. In this article, we discuss under what circumstances media coverage has such an effect. We analyse three cases where a residence permit was granted after sustained media coverage. In exploring these cases, we found the notion of strong frames to be valuable, particularly in how they link to widely held cultural values. The reversals, however, were also brought about as a result of resourceful frame supporters and journalistic engagement. Taken together, the article contributes to the more general discussion of the dynamics of frame production, effects and power.

Framing Irregular Immigration in Western Media

The media coverage of irregular immigration has the power to influence public opinion, fuel the formation of popular movements, and mold the political climate related to immigration. Based on comparative and multimethod data sets, this special issue of American Behavioral Scientist contributes to a renewed understanding of the role and impact of the mass media on the current climate, opinions, and policies related to irregular immigration in three different Western countries. Analysis of source strategies and ethnographic methods is combined with large-scale quantitative content analysis of news and surveys measuring the reception of this news coverage by audiences in the United States, France, and Norway. The research design pursued in this special issue of American Behavioral Scientist identifies (a) the dominant voices, narratives, and arguments in the mainstream media coverage of irregular immigration; (b) how stakeholders work strategically to promote their messages in the media; and (c) what attitudes the public holds about the coverage of irregular immigration in the media, and how these media evaluations relate to their attitudes toward immigration. Together, the articles in this issue offer new and surprising insights into how a controversial and important issue is strategically framed, covered in the news, and understood among the audience.

Do Marginalized Sources Matter

The news media possess the power to let people speak or to silence them, to give groups a voice or leave them voiceless. As non-citizens, irregular migrants are among the most marginalized groups in Western societies today. The present article provides a quantitative content analysis of mainstream media coverage of irregular migration in US, French and Norwegian media. It first analyses to what extent irregular migrants are allowed to speak for themselves, who is quoted, how they are identified, and what they speak about. Second, it examines whether statements by irregular migrants influence the overall arguments and complexity of the articles in which they appear—if migrant voice matters? By combining a fine-grained source analysis (on the utterance level) with quantitative framing analysis (on the article level), it proposes an innovative, systematic approach to analyse the influence of marginalized voices, beyond the concrete utterance. The article maps the presence of the migrant voice in the debate on unauthorized migration and discusses the implications of voice as risk and strategy for the migrant community. It finds that irregular migrants make up less than 10 per cent of the quoted sources; largely confirming the challenges disadvantaged groups face accessing elite-dominated mainstream news media. When quoted, however, the unauthorized migrants represent a more diverse, a more visible and an increasingly politically mobilized group.

Tears and Framing Contests: Public Organizations Countering Critical and Emotional Stories

The reputation and legitimacy of public organizations can be threatened by emotional news stories depicting a faceless bureaucratic power apparatus that is blind to how their decisions affect humans negatively. This qualitative study focuses on the strategies of the Norwegian immigration authorities as they handle emotional accounts of family reunion cases. The analysis first reconstructs what is called a Man Against the System-frame, and then moves on to investigate the competing frame that the authorities construct and the strategies used to promote this frame. The article sheds new light on the concept of framing contests by analyzing the possibilities and constraints of public organizations when they construct and use a frame.

Mediatization of Public Bureaucracies: Administrative versus Political Loyalty

This article analyzes the influence of the media on the central Norwegian immigration administration. Through behind-the-scenes ethnographic methods, it explores how key bureaucratic values such as impartiality, neutrality and loyalty are challenged and modified by the impact of the news media. A key question is to what extent this process of mediatization overlaps with a more general trend of politicization of the civil service. The article first documents that media pressure generates comprehensive strategies aimed at servicing the press, but also different types of information control and internal steering. Second, it describes how media management has become an important concern within public administration, which identifies strongly with the bureaucratic system and its values, and protects and defends it in the media. The article introduces the term ‘administrative loyalty’ to describe these practices and standards that go beyond the imperative to loyally serve the media-related needs of political superiors.

The Moral Police Agenda-setting and Framing Effects of a New(s) Concept of Immigration

Abstract How does the general public understand media coverage of immigration issues? The present article analyses the media effects of an extensive news series focusing on the harassment of people believed to disrespect traditional Muslim norms. Through an explorative survey study, it traces how Norwegian media launched and covered what was labeled “the moral police” phenomenon, and to what extent the media framing of the issue had an agendasetting and/or frame-setting effect on the public. It finds that, although most respondents had become aware of the issue through the media, they did not necessarily adopt the media’s framing of the phenomenon. The respondents did not primarily relate the “moral police” to immigration (the dominant media frame), they understood the new phenomenon through experiences from their own lives and framed it as a general social problem.

Consensus and dissent after terror: Editorial policies in times of crisis

This article analyses the role of central editors in constructing a national debate in the Norwegian media after the 2011 Oslo terror attacks. A broad literature has documented that after crisis, mainstream media move away from their everyday critical function to a ritual type of journalism that fosters adherence to shared values and support for national authorities. Based on in-depth interviews with debate editors, this article analyses how this type of national crisis discourse is substantiated and guarded through editorial decisions and policies. Second, it gives insights into how changes in the perceived climate of opinion and increasingly vocal critical voices gradually affect editorial practices and challenge consensus. Theoretically, the article combines perspectives from a critical approach (the media as channels for political authorities during crisis) and a cultural approach (the media as constitutive for resilience and recovery) to contribute to the understanding of crisis journalism in a multi-platform, multi-directional media landscape.

Disruptive Media Events: Managing mediated dissent in the aftermath of terror

Terror attacks force democratic societies to mobilize, reinforce and rethink core values, including media freedom and freedom of speech. The present article analyzes how one traumatic event—the 2011 Oslo terror—challenged editorial practices related to editorial control and open debate in major Norwegian media organizations. Meeting the call for more research on disruptive media events in a hybrid media landscape, it illuminates how professional media balance critical debate with strategies for societal recovery in contemporary post-crisis contexts. Based on in-depth interviews with debate editors, the article documents how terror profoundly challenges editorial practices, routines and norms in media organizations with debates in multiple formats and platforms. In their online comment sections, the media organizations all moved towards a more interventionist policy introducing multiple new control measures. In the traditional op-ed formats, however, they selectively expanded the range of voices and included actors deemed too extreme prior to the attacks. Theoretically the article contributes to the literature on disruptive (key) events, editorial strategies during crisis, editorial control in contemporary media systems and editorial approaches to mediated deviance.