Reporting controversy in health policy: A content and field analysis

This article reports on the research and analysis of editorial attitudes and news reporting in two prominent Sydney newspapers—The Daily Telegraph (DT) and The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH)—about the establishment and operation of the Medically Supervised Injecting Room (MSIC) in Kings Cross from Jan...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Chris Nash
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Asia Pacific Network 2009
Materias:	content analysis field analysis editorial policy health reporting journalist sources Communication. Mass media P87-96 Journalism. The periodical press, etc. PN4699-5650
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/d95d4ac1a32d4e278416df678d13e485
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:d95d4ac1a32d4e278416df678d13e485
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:d95d4ac1a32d4e278416df678d13e4852021-12-02T13:04:02ZReporting controversy in health policy: A content and field analysis10.24135/pjr.v15i2.9831023-94992324-2035https://doaj.org/article/d95d4ac1a32d4e278416df678d13e4852009-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://ojs.aut.ac.nz/pacific-journalism-review/article/view/983https://doaj.org/toc/1023-9499https://doaj.org/toc/2324-2035 This article reports on the research and analysis of editorial attitudes and news reporting in two prominent Sydney newspapers—The Daily Telegraph (DT) and The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH)—about the establishment and operation of the Medically Supervised Injecting Room (MSIC) in Kings Cross from January 1999 to December 2006. The establishment of the MSIC was highly controversial and generated strongly partisan attitudes among politicians, experts, local businesses and the general community. The research compares the editorial stance of these newspapers towards the injecting room and the reporting practices of the newspapers, in particular the range of sources used by the journalists; it deploys a content analysis to identify positive and negative attitudes in the preferred readings of the texts, the usage of sources within the reports and the partisan affiliations of those sources. It reveals stark differences in the reporting of the controversy by the two newspapers, and that the reporting differences were aligned with the respective editorial policies of the mastheads. The interpretation of these empirical findings using field theory is located within the debates in the journalism studies literature about the power relationship of journalistic practices to the interests of sources. Chris NashAsia Pacific Networkarticlecontent analysisfield analysiseditorial policyhealth reportingjournalist sourcesCommunication. Mass mediaP87-96Journalism. The periodical press, etc.PN4699-5650ENPacific Journalism Review, Vol 15, Iss 2 (2009)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	content analysis field analysis editorial policy health reporting journalist sources Communication. Mass media P87-96 Journalism. The periodical press, etc. PN4699-5650
spellingShingle	content analysis field analysis editorial policy health reporting journalist sources Communication. Mass media P87-96 Journalism. The periodical press, etc. PN4699-5650 Chris Nash Reporting controversy in health policy: A content and field analysis
description	This article reports on the research and analysis of editorial attitudes and news reporting in two prominent Sydney newspapers—The Daily Telegraph (DT) and The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH)—about the establishment and operation of the Medically Supervised Injecting Room (MSIC) in Kings Cross from January 1999 to December 2006. The establishment of the MSIC was highly controversial and generated strongly partisan attitudes among politicians, experts, local businesses and the general community. The research compares the editorial stance of these newspapers towards the injecting room and the reporting practices of the newspapers, in particular the range of sources used by the journalists; it deploys a content analysis to identify positive and negative attitudes in the preferred readings of the texts, the usage of sources within the reports and the partisan affiliations of those sources. It reveals stark differences in the reporting of the controversy by the two newspapers, and that the reporting differences were aligned with the respective editorial policies of the mastheads. The interpretation of these empirical findings using field theory is located within the debates in the journalism studies literature about the power relationship of journalistic practices to the interests of sources.
format	article
author	Chris Nash
author_facet	Chris Nash
author_sort	Chris Nash
title	Reporting controversy in health policy: A content and field analysis
title_short	Reporting controversy in health policy: A content and field analysis
title_full	Reporting controversy in health policy: A content and field analysis
title_fullStr	Reporting controversy in health policy: A content and field analysis
title_full_unstemmed	Reporting controversy in health policy: A content and field analysis
title_sort	reporting controversy in health policy: a content and field analysis
publisher	Asia Pacific Network
publishDate	2009
url	https://doaj.org/article/d95d4ac1a32d4e278416df678d13e485
work_keys_str_mv	AT chrisnash reportingcontroversyinhealthpolicyacontentandfieldanalysis
_version_	1718393533216325632

Reporting controversy in health policy: A content and field analysis

Ejemplares similares