What can we say about substance use? Dominant discourses and narratives emergent from Australian media

Abstract

Discourses are conceptualised as context-specific frameworks that constrain what can be presented as rational when considering psychoactive substances. Given the implications of this for Australian policy debate and development, research and health promotion, an integrative analysis explored the nature of the dominant discourses as they pertain to substance use. Newspaper articles spanning a 12-month period (April 2005(April -2006 were analysed with the analysis triangulated with visual media and newspapers from 5-years prior. We conclude that within Australia, psychoactive substance use is framed within the dominant discourses of medicine, morality, law, economics, politics and popular culture. The linguistic landscape circumscribed by each discourse is described and the power dynamics underpinning the maintenance of the discourses considered, with each discursive framework shown to delineate unique subject positions that define the numerous individuals concerned with substance use issues (e.g. substance users, politicians, medical experts, etc.).

Mapping Trajectories of Attention to Drug Related Issues in Estonian Main Dailies

“…Qualitative studies concentrating on some significant case have been rather commonplace (McArthur, 1999;Lawrence et al, 1999;Elliott & Chapman, 2000). Scientists have often blamed the media for the sensational, biased and one-sided angle characteristic of their drug accounts which could exert a disorienting effect on the public perception of the issue (Craig, 1981;Murji, 1998;Chermak, 1997;Manning, 2006;Noto et al, 2006;Bright et al, 2008;Taylor, 2008). Only some scholars have concentrated on changes in media coverage of drug issues (e.g.…”

“…Many scientists have analyzed the context, in which illegal drugs have been represented in the media as well as the prevalent attitudes regarding drug use (e.g. Törrönen, 2004;Manning, 2006;Bright et al, 2008;Hellman, 2010;Hughes et al, 2010). Other researchers have focused on the interconnections between media coverage, public opinion and public policies (Shoemaker et al, 1989;Deseran & Orcutt, 2009).…”

Kronic hysteria: Exploring the intersection between Australian synthetic cannabis legislation, the media, and drug-related harm

“…Bright et al (2008) determined that in Australia, six dominant discourses framed AOD-related issues: medical, moral, legal, political, economic, and glamour (see Table 1). Within medical discourse, for example, drug use is often pathologised such that drug users are sick.…”

“…Nonetheless, there are competing dominant discourses with some being more privileged than others, and it is in the interest of any given institution to promote those discourses that maintain the institution's version of reality as 'truth' since this provides the institution with power. Bright, Marsh, Bishop, and Smith (2008) undertook an analysis of the dominant discourses within Australia that frame Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD). They examined newspaper reports of AOD over a 12 month period, and then triangulated this analysis with a sample of newspaper reports from five years prior and a televised Table 1 Description of the dominant AOD-related discourses in Australia, as reported by Bright et al (2008).…”

“…Bright, Marsh, Bishop, and Smith (2008) undertook an analysis of the dominant discourses within Australia that frame Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD). They examined newspaper reports of AOD over a 12 month period, and then triangulated this analysis with a sample of newspaper reports from five years prior and a televised Table 1 Description of the dominant AOD-related discourses in Australia, as reported by Bright et al (2008).…”