Abstract
Drawing on theories of affect, emotion, and new institutionalism, we analyze discourse around the right-wing terrorist attack in Hanau, Germany, to identify the different ways in which emotions and affect circulate on legacy media and Twitter and how they help establish varying emotional communities. Building upon an understanding of journalism as an affective institution, our article takes a close look at how journalism attempts to assert its role in public spheres not only by circulating information but also by providing emotional interpretations of events. Journalism’s emotional interpretations, however, do not remain unchallenged. With the emergence of the hybrid media system, users engage in various forms of interaction on social media platforms, forming “affective publics” by connecting through their affective reactions to current issues and events. In these interactions, distinct emotional communities may emerge, built around performative, political emotions. Our data comprises various news shows aired on the German public service broadcaster ARD as well as a dataset of tweets about #Hanau that were collected in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The results of our mixed-methods analysis reveal that different performances of grief played a central role both on TV news and on social media. On TV, grief was nationally connotated and aimed at uniting Germany’s population. On social media, it fueled anti-racist activism, as seen on the hashtag #SayTheirNames, honoring the victims of the attack.
Reference56 articles.
1. Aymaz, B. [@berivan_aymaz]. (2020, February 22). Der schmerz ist unbeschreiblich. Bitte unternehmen sie alles, damit keine mutter mehr diesen schmerz erfahren muss [The pain is indescribable. Please, do everything so no mother has to endure such pain] [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/berivan_aymaz/status/1231319214386032640
2. Bell, K. M., & Cervantez, A. (2021). News coverage of racism, white supremacy, and hate speech. In S. J. A. Ward (Ed.), Handbook of global media ethics (pp. 1143–1161). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32103-5_57
3. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
4. Bentivegna, S., & Marchetti, R. (2018). Journalists at a crossroads: Are traditional norms and practices challenged by Twitter? Journalism, 19(2), 270–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917716594
5. Berg, A. L., von Scheve, C., Ural, N. Y., & Walter-Jochum, R. (2019). Reading for affect: A methodological proposal for analyzing affective dynamics in discourse. In A. Kahl (Ed.), Analyzing affective societies: Methods and methodologies (pp. 46–62). Routledge.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献