Consensus and dissent after terror: Editorial policies in times of crisis

Abstract

This article analyses the role of central editors in constructing a national debate in the Norwegian media after the 2011 Oslo terror attacks. A broad literature has documented that after crisis, mainstream media move away from their everyday critical function to a ritual type of journalism that fosters adherence to shared values and support for national authorities. Based on in-depth interviews with debate editors, this article analyses how this type of national crisis discourse is substantiated and guarded through editorial decisions and policies. Second, it gives insights into how changes in the perceived climate of opinion and increasingly vocal critical voices gradually affect editorial practices and challenge consensus. Theoretically, the article combines perspectives from a critical approach (the media as channels for political authorities during crisis) and a cultural approach (the media as constitutive for resilience and recovery) to contribute to the understanding of crisis journalism in a multi-platform, multi-directional media landscape.

Journalism, solidarity and the civil sphere: The case of Charlie Hebdo

“…Our starting point was the proposition that the media’s performance can play an important role in triggering shared feelings of solidarity and consensus as a form of resistance to noncivil radical actions and polarization in civil societies. Our study shows that the coverage across most of the newspapers ( The Sun being the exception) was built on a strong sense of solidarity in the aftermath of the attack, mirroring the findings of other studies (Matthews, 2016; Thorbjørnsrud and Figenschou, 2016). The main discourse was constructed around the wide inclusion of those who believe in freedom and liberal democracy, and the exclusion of those who do not – that is, extremists of all forms (religious as well as far-right extremism).…”

“…Extremist acts of terror raise crucial questions concerning how to report on such attacks in a context of polarization in European societies. Previous research has pointed to how the media coverage in the aftermath of radical acts of violence often offers a dramaturgical display of civil solidarity (Matthews, 2016; Thorbjørnsrud and Figenschou, 2016). Matthews argues that media scripts and choreography lose their usual tone of ‘prose of information’, objectivity and impartiality, to become ‘prose of solidarity’ that incorporates ‘we’ and ‘the other’.…”

Do we have to agree? Accommodating unity in diversity in post-terror Norway

“…Various societal actors contributed to this consensus. Interviews with debate editors, for example, reveal that Norwegian media actively postponed raising critical debate about security breaches and the police follow-up after the attacks (Figenschou and Thorbjørnsrud, 2016;Thorbjørnsrud and Figenschou, 2016). Meanwhile, although a united consensus may have been important as a national response, studies have shown that it was not as all-encompassing as it seemed at the time.…”

Revisiting The Research on Crisis Communication and Media Use During The Time of Crisis

“…[33]), terrorism such as CBRN Terrorism (e.g. [34]) accidents such as Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 crash and "Nut Rage" Incident on Korean Air (e.g. [35]), multi-crisis (e.g.…”