Denna studie undersöker hur svenska nyhetsmedier rekontextualiserar kunskapsläget om konstgräsets miljöpåverkan och hur de skapar expertis om detta. Syftet med detta är att utveckla förståelsen för mediernas roll som förmedlare och skapare av expertkunskap om miljöfrågor och miljörisker. Material från nio svenska nyhetsmedier studeras kvalitativt genom kritisk diskursanalys. Resultaten visar att en central utgångspunkt för medierna är att konstruera konstgräs som en miljörisk, speciellt gällande risken för spridning av mikroplaster i vattenmiljöer. Emellanåt främjas en alarmistisk diskurs om konstgräsets miljöpåverkan. Viktigt för konstruktionen av denna risk och för att förmedla expertkunskap i fråga är en rapport om källor till mikroplast där konstgräs rankas som den näst största mikroplastkällan. Medierna uppvisar svårigheter i att problematisera denna källa, vilket bland annat leder till att mediediskursen emellanåt slår fast konstgräsets negativa effekter på miljön, men också till konstruktioner av ovisshet. En viktig strategi, både för att konstruera konstgräs som miljörisk och för att säga emot en sådan diskurs, är att knyta argument till en vetenskaplig diskurs. Studien visar också att medierna har svårt att hantera kunskapsosäkerhet, vilken emellanåt blir en drivkraft i befästandet av konstgräset som miljörisk. Studien avslutas med en diskussion om hur journalistiska villkor och rådande tankemönster om miljön bidrar till att främja riskdiskurser framför ett helhetsperspektiv på miljön.

This study examines hos Swedish news media recontextualize knowledge about the effects of artificial turfs on the environment, and how they create expert voices about this. The purpose with this endeavor is to deepen the understanding about how the news media negotiate and create expert knowledge about environmental questions and environmental risks. Items from nine Swedish news media are analyzed using critical discourse analysis. The results show that the construction of artificial turfs as an environmental risk is central in the reporting, especially the risk of spreading microplastics in the water. At times, constructions of this kind take the form of alarmism. At the heart of the construction of risk, and central for constructing expert knowledge on the matter, is a report ordered by a government agency, which names artificial turfs as the second biggest source of microplastics. The media show difficulties in problematizing this report, which at times leads to the determination of the negative environmental effects of artificial turfs, but also to constructions of uncertainty. Moreover, the strategy of scientification is important for both constructing artificial turfs as an environmental risk and to offsetting such discourses. The media also show difficulties in handling scientific uncertainty, which sometimes is used to underscore the environmental risk in question. The study concludes with a discussion about how the conditions of journalism and dominating worldviews serve to highlight risk discourses and push back holistic perspectives on the environment.

Denna studie har som mål att undersöka hur svenska nyhetsmedier gestaltar konstgräs som miljöfråga. Detta görs i syfte att dels öka kunskapen om hur medierna rapporterar om mikroplastrelaterade miljöfrågor, ett forskningsområde som är outforskat i både svensk och internationell kontext, dels bidra med kunskap om hur miljövinsterna med konstgräs (återvinning/cirkulär ekonomi) porträtteras gentemot de miljörisker som det ger upphov till (utsläpp av plast och gummi). Rapporteringen från 15 nyhetsmedier och ett totalurval om 250 artiklar publicerade under perioden 2014–2018 studeras genom kvantitativ innehållsanalys. Resultaten visar att konstgräs som miljöfråga förekommer sparsamt i svenska nyhetsmedier, men att rapporteringen har ökat från och med 2016. Från och med detta år börjar konstgräs att allt tydligare kopplas till spridning av plast och gummi i naturen, vilket också är det vanligaste miljöproblemet som konstgräs kopplas till överlag. Detta kan, mot bakgrund av den traditionella medielogikens främjande av risker, i sin tur förklara mediernas ökade intresse för konstgräs som miljöfråga. Miljövinster med konstgräs framkommer inte i normalfallet, vilket betyder att denna aspekt överskuggas av de miljöproblem och risker som finns med konstgräs. Däremot konstaterar ungefär var tredje artikel som fokuserar på konstgräs och miljön i huvudtemat någon form av vetenskaplig osäkerhet kring konstgräsets miljöpåverkan. Gestaltningen av konstgräs som miljöfråga är till viss del formad av samhällsdebatten kring spridningen av plast i naturen, vilket ger medierna tolkningsramar för att förstå frågan, samt gör frågan nyhetsvärdig i sig.

The objective of this study is to examine the framing of artificial turf as an environmental question in Swedish news media. This is done with the twofold purpose to (a) expand the knowledge of how the media covers environmental questions tied to microplastics – something that hitherto is unexplored – and (b) contribute with knowledge about how the media portrays the environmental gains with artificial turf (recycling and circular economical practices) vis-à-vis the environmental risks with the materials (the spread of plastics). 15 Swedish news media and a census of 250 articles published between 2014 and 2018 have been analyzed using content analysis. The results show that artificial turf as an environmental question is reported sparingly, although the coverage has increased from 2016 compared to the previous years. From that year, artificial turf is more clearly connected to the spread of plastics and rubber, which also is the most common environmental problem that artificial turf is associated with in the materials. Viewed against the backdrop of the traditional media logic’s tendencies of favoring problems and risks, the linking of artificial turf with the spread of plastics can explain the increased media interest for the topic. Environmental gains with artificial turf are not normally present in the coverage, which means that this aspect is overshadowed by the environmental risks and problems associated with artificial turf. However, about every third article whose main topic centers on artificial turf and the environment does express uncertainty about the environmental impacts of artificial turf. The framing of artificial turf as an environmental question is to some degree shaped by the public debate about plastics, which gives the media frames of interpretation, as well as makes the topic itself newsworthy.

This paper examines the representation of the then president of Uruguay, José Mujica, in a long-read feature story published in the Saturday supplement of the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter. This is done with the aim of contributing to the understanding of how international journalism constructs distance and proximity in the reporting of distant subjects, and more specifically, how such constructions connect the Swedish audience to (or disconnect it from) political processes and relations in Latin America. In this way, the study contributes to the field of media representation in general, as well as to research on the representation of Latin America, more specifically. Critical discourse analysis is used to analyze the text and visuals. Three result topics are presented. The first comprises discourses that construct difference, such as those highlighting personal characteristics that make Mujica different from other presidents. The second centers on discourses that construct proximity between Mujica and the audience, such as those addressing sustainability and the connections between Sweden, Uruguay and Mujica. The third highlights discourses that distance or downplay difference and revolve around constructions about Mujica’s political past. The paper ends with a discussion of how this representation is able to construct Mujica as a close other without, in the process, abandoning key tenets of contemporary capitalist ideology.

Este artículo estudia la representación del expresidente uruguayo José Mujica, en un reportaje publicado en el suplemento sabateño del diario sueco Dagens Nyheter. El estudio tiene el propósito de contribuir al entendimiento sobre como el periodismo internacional construye distancia y proximidad en el informe sobre sujetos lejanos y, específicamente, como este tipo de construcciones (des)conectan al público sueco a procesos y relaciones latinoamericanas. Por lo tanto, este estudio contribuye a la investigación sobre la representación mediática en general, y también, específicamente, al estudio sobre la representación de Latinoamérica. El estudio utiliza análisis crítico del discurso para analizar elementos textuales y visuales y presenta tres temas de resultados. El primero es compuesto por discursos que construyen diferencia, como son los que enfocan características personales que diferencian a Mujica de otros presidentes. El segundo tema se centra en discursos que construyen proximidad entre Mujica y los lectores suecos, como temas sobre sostenibilidad y la conexión entre ambos países. El tercer tema se centra en discursos que distancian o atenúan diferencias que hay entre Mujica y el contexto sueco, así como el pasado político del expresidente. El estudio finaliza discutiendo como la representación analizada logra construir a Mujica como un ‘otro’ bueno, sin que se abandonen principios ideológicos del capitalismo contemporáneo.

This study analyzes the journalistic construction of the ongoing international renegotiation of cannabis, with the aim of contributing to the theorization of how journalism mediates between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions at times of crisis of hegemonic values. The study perceives the many ongoing attempts of legalizing and decriminalizing cannabis for recreational use as providing a disequilibrium to the hegemonic view of the substance as a dangerous narcotic that is rightly banned, and as intensifying a hegemonic struggle over the meaning of cannabis. Swedish print news journalism about cannabis legalization in different countries and contexts is studied, using critical discourse analysis. The analysis shows that journalism allows for debate between positive and skeptic discourses about the effects of recreational cannabis consumption and its medical benefits, and that voices that argue for cannabis legalization to combat organized crime are given important framing power. This means that a measure of legitimacy is given to discourses that counter the prohibitionist hegemony in Sweden, which means that mainstream journalism in this specific case serves as an arena for challenging hegemonic values that are in crisis.

This study examines the reporting on legal cannabis in order to explore the operation of neoliberal ideology in journalistic discourse. Cannabis legalisation is here understood as a way for capitalism to create new market opportunities, besides being a turn away from the so-called ‘war on drugs’. The study understands neoliberalism as operating via market-based logics that are interrelated with other social logics, such as those pertaining to journalism (Phelan 2014). Critical discourse analysis is used for studying Swedish newspaper reporting on legal cannabis between 2013 and 2018. The study shows that a struggle between market-based logics and journalistic practices is visible, where journalism has difficulties in challenging core tenets of neoliberal ideology. The article concludes with a discussion of how the current conditions of journalism limit its ability to challenge neoliberal perspectives.

We are witnessing the renegotiation of cannabis substances in many parts of the world. After being classified as narcotics and subjected to a worldwide ban for several decades, cannabis has now been legalized in Uruguay and in several US states, and decriminalized in some other countries. This paper aims to study how the ongoing renegotiation of cannabis, which involves the legalization of the substance in different parts of the world, is constructed in Swedish print news journalism. This is done with the purpose of understanding how news journalism in a context of a traditionally strong drug prohibition (de)legitimizes different positions and perspectives in the ongoing renegotiation of cannabis, and to what extent journalism in such a context offers challenges to the reigning prohibitionist hegemony. Although cannabis and the media has been researched extensively, very few studies have been conducted by media and communication or journalism scholars, and contributions have been placed mainly in areas as for example drug policy, drug use and misuse, and public health. The current study, in contrast, wishes to contribute to the critical study of drug journalism. The paper draws on critical theory, understanding the ongoing renegotiation of cannabis as bringing disequilibrium to the hegemonic view of cannabis as dangerous drug that needs to be banned. Journalism is perceived as playing a key role in this context, since journalism is an arena where different discourses on cannabis struggle for prominence. Journalism can in this sense serve the strengthening of counter-hegemonic discourses on cannabis or the reinforcement of the prohibitionist hegemony. The study uses critical discourse analysis as a method to study 49 print newspaper items. The results show that the studied media invites opposed discourses regarding the health risks and the medical benefits of cannabis to be part of the news pages, which creates a somewhat pluralistic view on cannabis. The study also finds that the construction of cannabis legalization as a means to combat organized crime is given significant framing power. These results suggest that the ongoing renegotiation of cannabis in different parts of the world invites Swedish journalism to broaden the debate on the substance and to provide certain legitimacy to positive discourses on cannabis that are otherwise considered deviant in the Swedish drug debate. This serves as an example of how changes in distant political contexts affect the ways in which journalism ascribes legitimacy to specific discourses on drugs.

This paper discusses news journalism about inequality from a critical point of view, with the aim of contributing to the critical theorization of the relationship between journalism and sustainability. Sustainability and journalism on social inequality are perceived as intersecting in at least two ways. On one level, journalism can serve sustainable development by providing high-quality content that can help citizens to better understand the causes behind social inequality and how it can be overcome. On another level, journalism would itself gain much from sustainable development on a global level, since that would provide a good ground for a high-quality journalism characterized by its professional and democratic ethics rather than one that is strained by market-logics. The paper focuses on reification and problematizes the ways in which social inequality is reified in news journalism. Basing the argumentation on examples from international journalism, it is argued that although the existence of social inequality in a specific country can be acknowledged in the reporting – for example by the reference to rich and poor people and rich and poor geographic spaces – the social, political and historical causes of this inequality remain abstracted. In this sense, reification provides a rather objectivist account on inequality, which in turn limits the critique of the mechanisms that lie behind it. On the long run such constructions serve the legitimation of social inequality, which indeed ought to be seen as a sustainability problem. The paper also argues that for a more sustainable journalism to take place, a shift in the attitude towards social inequality and sustainable development must take place in the broader sociocultural context that surrounds journalism.

This study aims to explore the construction of difference in foreign news discourse on culturally similar but politically different non-Western subjects. Applying critical discourse analysis (CDA) together with a critique of Eurocentrism, the study examines difference in newspaper constructions of government supporters and oppositional groups in Venezuela. Discursive differences are evident in the strategies used for constructing the two groups with regard to political rationality and violence. Government supporters are associated with social justice, Venezuela’s poor, dogmatic behavior, and the use of political violence. The opposition, in contrast, is constructed as following a Western democratic rationale that stresses anti-authoritarianism. This group is primarily associated with victims of violence. While the opposition is conveyed as being compatible with Eurocentric values and practices, government supporters to great extent deviate from these norms. Such constructions serve to legitimize politico-ideological undercurrents of Eurocentrism, as the defense of liberalism.