| Summary: | In this essay I compare four newspapers´coverage of the Geijer Case in 1977 and the Littorin Case in 2010. The newspapers are Aftonbladet, Dagens Nyheter, Expressen and Svenska Dagbladet. The study is a comparative quantitative content analysis. According to Swedish media research, the Swedish media system changed - on several levels - in the years between the two political scandals. The printing press was commercialized as well as depoliticized. The profession of journalism was further professionalized which liberated the journalist. Politics adapted to the media and journalistic writing changed; media researchers tend to claim that certain so-called media logic narrative techniques took root during this time in political newspaper writing. These techniques are applied in order to reduce the amount of information and to attract readers´ attention. Media researchers have claimed that the techniques are predominately applied in today´s political writing. The purpose of this essay is to examine whether the press coverage of the two scandals verify this claim. In other words, if the coverage of the latter affair to a higher extent is shaped by media logic story telling. In the essay I ask if the narrative techniques intensification and personalization/stereotypization are more often manifested in the coverage of the latter affair. If it proves to be the case, I intend to explain why from the results of my content analysis. Aided by a questionnaire borrowed from a media researcher, I have analysed 58 articles from the four aforementioned newspapers. The vast majority of the articles are editorial ones. Regarding the narrative technique intensification, the results are consistent: intensification is more frequently applied during the latter affair. Regarding the inter-related, thus fused, techniques personalization and stereotypization, however, the analysed coverage of the latter affair do not always show that the techniques are comparatively more frequently applied. As for the majority of the indicators where the latter affair has been established as decidedly more intensified and personalized, I have arrived at the conclusion that the differences depend chiefly on the nature of the scandals (its prerequisites and courses of events) and the main characters (their actions, crisis management and contributions to personalization).
|
|---|
