Suchergebnisse

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Birgir Guðmundsson, published by Sciendo 2021. ; My main objective in this article is to examine the importance of political parallelism in Iceland through establishing the extent to which political parallelism is perceived to char-acterise political communication in Iceland by politicians and voters. Political parallelism is one of the defining elements of Hallin and Mancini's typology of media systems. Based on candidate surveys from five elections and a voter survey, indexes of perceived political parallelism are configured for politicians and voters. The analysis suggests a high degree of perceived political parallelism and that the perceptions are reflected in partisan ideologi-cal views of individual media outlets. The same – or at least similar – perceptions about political parallelism in the media system seem to penetrate the system irrespective of age and at the national, local, and individual level of politics. However, voters and candidates of social democratic and liberal internationally oriented parties perceive a significantly lower degree of parallelism than others. ; My main objective in this article is to examine the importance of political parallelism in Iceland through establishing the extent to which political parallelism is perceived to char-acterise political communication in Iceland by politicians and voters. Political parallelism is one of the defining elements of Hallin and Mancini's typology of media systems. Based on candidate surveys from five elections and a voter survey, indexes of perceived political parallelism are configured for politicians and voters. The analysis suggests a high degree of perceived political parallelism and that the perceptions are reflected in partisan ideological views of individual media outlets. The same - or at least similar - perceptions about political parallelism in the media system seem to penetrate the system irrespective of age and at the national, local, and individual level of politics. However, voters and candidates of social democratic and liberal internationally oriented parties perceive a significantly lower degree of parallelism than others. ; Peer reviewed

Media systems where political parallelism co-exists with political clientelism have contradictory influences on journalistic practices. Journalists are encouraged to actively defend a cause and influence public opinion while expected to remain subservient to their political masters. The media studies literature has analyzed the impact of political parallelism and clientelism separately, without reflecting on the tensions that emerge when they operate together. The article examines journalism under instrumentalized political parallelism and argues that it plays out in a field defined by both horizontal and vertical conflicts. We add an elite-grassroots analytical perspective to the inter-elite tensions associated with a polarized public sphere. Political parallelism in non-democratic contexts seemingly leaves little room for journalistic agency, as the politically powerful tend to instrumentalize media outlets. However, by looking closely at the case of Lebanon, we argue that journalists are still able to act independently of and contrary to the elite's intentions. The empirical analysis shows how journalists navigate vis-à-vis the politicians by playing the relations game, exploiting internal contradictions in the system and connecting with popular grievances. The article contributes new knowledge about journalists' resilience to instrumentalization in a context of media/politics connections that is commonly found outside the West.

Media systems where political parallelism co-exists with political clientelism have contradictory influences on journalistic practices. Journalists are encouraged to actively defend a cause and influence public opinion while expected to remain subservient to their political masters. The media studies literature has analyzed the impact of political parallelism and clientelism separately, without reflecting on the tensions that emerge when they operate together. The article examines journalism under instrumentalized political parallelism and argues that it plays out in a field defined by both horizontal and vertical conflicts. We add an elite-grassroots analytical perspective to the inter-elite tensions associated with a polarized public sphere. Political parallelism in non-democratic contexts seemingly leaves little room for journalistic agency, as the politically powerful tend to instrumentalize media outlets. However, by looking closely at the case of Lebanon, we argue that journalists are still able to act independently of and contrary to the elite's intentions. The empirical analysis shows how journalists navigate vis-à-vis the politicians by playing the relations game, exploiting internal contradictions in the system and connecting with popular grievances. The article contributes new knowledge about journalists' resilience to instrumentalization in a context of media/politics connections that is commonly found outside the West. ; publishedVersion

Media systems where political parallelism co-exists with political clientelism have contradictory influences on journalistic practices. Journalists are encouraged to actively defend a cause and influence public opinion while expected to remain subservient to their political masters. The media studies literature has analyzed the impact of political parallelism and clientelism separately, without reflecting on the tensions that emerge when they operate together. The article examines journalism under instrumentalized political parallelism and argues that it plays out in a field defined by both horizontal and vertical conflicts. We add an elite-grassroots analytical perspective to the inter-elite tensions associated with a polarized public sphere. Political parallelism in non-democratic contexts seemingly leaves little room for journalistic agency, as the politically powerful tend to instrumentalize media outlets. However, by looking closely at the case of Lebanon, we argue that journalists are still able to act independently of and contrary to the elite's intentions. The empirical analysis shows how journalists navigate vis-à-vis the politicians by playing the relations game, exploiting internal contradictions in the system and connecting with popular grievances. The article contributes new knowledge about journalists' resilience to instrumentalization in a context of media/politics connections that is commonly found outside the West. ; publishedVersion

Used by Seymour-Ure and by Blumler and Gurevitch the concept of "political parallelism" gained further prominence after Hallin and Mancini took it as one of their key variables in the comparison of media systems. The concept seems to work well for analyzing western societies, but how useful is it for dealing with the rest of the world? This article suggests that the concept of political parallelism only can be productively used when two conditions are satisfied. There must be a competitive political system, with political cleavages clear enough to allow the media to reproduce them, and an institutionalized relationship between media and political agents that is sufficiently stable to allow the observer to identify recurrent patterns of interaction. However, these requirements are not met everywhere. By "provincializing" the concept of political parallelism – taking it as a product of specific circumstances, rather than as a universally applicable category – this article proposes a new and more globally applicable framework for studying political communication

We examine why a significant proportion of the policy issues passed in either the U.S. House or Senate often fail to pass in the other chamber. We hypothesize that much of this failure of the House and Senate to coordinate their agendas occurs because committee jurisdictions are not parallel across chambers. To compare House and Senate agendas, we develop a comprehensive issue-level data set covering all bills introduced in the 103rd Congress. We estimate a multinomial logit model that reveals that the degree of jurisdictional parallelism across chambers is indeed one of the most important determinants of whether issues that pass in one chamber also pass in the other chamber.

We examine why a significant proportion of the policy issues passed in either the U.S. House or Senate often fail to pass in the other chamber. We hypothesize that much of this failure of the House and Senate to coordinate their agendas occurs because committee jurisdictions are not parallel across chambers. To compare House and Senate agendas, we develop a comprehensive issue-level data set covering all bills introduced in the 103rd Congress. We estimate a multinomial logit model that reveals that the degree of jurisdictional parallelism across chambers is indeed one of the most important determinants of whether issues that pass in one chamber also pass in the other chamber. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

Avec ses organisations militaires et économiques exclusives et idéologiquement opposées, l'Europe de l'après 1945 incarne parfaitement le développement symétrique et parallèle des blocs de la guerre froide. En s'appuyant sur la riche historiographie des quinze dernières années, cet article conclusif nuance cette interprétation et invite plutôt à considérer le continent comme un espace complexe où parallélisme, asymétries diverses et convergence coexistaient et traversaient les deux blocs, et où la coopération s'installa entre une multitude d'acteurs divers et dans plusieurs domaines.

AbstractIn this paper I defend a particular analysis of pseudogapping in which the focused remnant is moved by leftward A′‐movement (Jayaseelan, Gengel). Noting the superficial similarity between pseudogapping and stripping, I show that pseudogapping is much more restricted than we would expect if it were just another version of stripping, failing to apply across clause boundaries and allowing a much narrower range of remnants. I provide an analysis of these restrictions in terms of Parallelism, arguing that the difference between pseudogapping and stripping is keyed to the different ways in which their correlates may take scope. The proposal accounts for the exceptional behavior of pseudogapping in comparatives, and it leads us to the conclusion that there exists a set of movement operations that occur only in the context of ellipsis.