Boundary Work: Intermedia Agenda-Setting Between Right-Wing Alternative Media and Professional Journalism

Abstract

Through a quantitative content analysis (n = 878), this study examines and compares intermedia agenda-setting between right-wing alternative media outlets and mainstream online newspapers in the Scandinavian countries of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Scholars have described the process of intermedia agenda-setting as an instrument used to uphold news norms within the journalistic community. Giving issue attention to another news media institution is considered a validation of the first news media's decision to report on a specific issue. This study, however, demonstrates how mainstream newspapers most often give issue attention to right-wing alternative media outlets in order to protect the boundaries of professional journalism as an institution as well as the limits of the debate from actors that are perceived as both journalistically and ideologically deviant. Regarding differences between the three countries, the findings reveal that the intermedia agenda-setting influence of alternative media outlets is higher in countries where populist actors are placed within "the sphere of legitimate controversy" (Norway and Denmark) than in countries where populist actors are banished to "the sphere of deviance" (Sweden).

On the Mainstream/Alternative Continuum: Mainstream Media Reactions to Right-Wing Alternative News Media

“…Thus, when analysing how the mainstream media react to right-wing alternative news media, it is expected that not only their journalistic practices but also their ideological positions will be the target of mainstream media reactions. An empirical study of the intermedia agenda-setting influence of right-wing alternative news media also confirmed that the mainstream media tend to criticize right-wing initiatives for being ideologically deviant (Nygaard 2020). Because the concepts of boundary work and interloper media do not take into account whether the mainstream media demarcate boundaries for the ideological positions of interlopers, this study also draws on Hallin's (1986) three-sphere model to examine whether right-wing alternative news media are labelled ideologically deviant.…”

“…Right-wing alternative news media differ from other interlopers in the sense that they not only challenge journalism by claiming to belong to the profession but also challenge professional journalism's role as guardians of the boundaries of legitimate debate (Nygaard 2020). In this view, right-wing alternative news media can be placed within a particular category of interlopers: provocative interlopers operating on a spectrum between "agonism" (which refers to constructive disagreement) and "antagonism" (which refers to destructive opposition).…”

Migration Discourse in Sweden: Frames and Sentiments in Mainstream and Social Media

“…One might, thus, suggest that social media served as a channel for the communication of counter-frames for migration-skeptic groups who lacked representation in the mainstream discourse. Conversely, the mainstream newspapers largely avoided using these migration-skeptic frames, possibly to distance themselves from right-wing narratives that were attributed to the “sphere of deviance” (Nygaard, 2020).…”

Migration Discourse in Sweden: Frames and Sentiments in Mainstream and Social Media

“…One might, thus, suggest that social media served as a channel for the communication of counter-frames for migration-sceptic groups who lacked representation in the mainstream discourse. Conversely, the mainstream newspapers largely avoided using these migration-sceptic frames, possibly to distance themselves from right-wing narratives that were attributed to the "sphere of deviance" (Nygaard, 2020).…”

“…Further, Swedish media were reported to be historically the most positive in respect of migration across the Nordic countries (Hovden et al, 2018), while migration was a suppressed topic with low salience in the official discourse, at least until recently (Dahlgren, 2016;Rydgren & Van der Meiden, 2019). Migration-critical narratives, therefore, could have been perceived by journalists as being located outside "the boundaries of legitimate debate" (Nygaard, 2020), which could create something of a gap between what could and could not be said in the mainstream newspapers. These observations might explain the more neutral reporting of the topic by Swedish journalists when compared with that of their European colleagues.…”