Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.
Public Underst Sci. 2012 Aug;21(6):674-88. doi: 10.1177/0963662510385309. Epub 2010 Nov 23.
Studies of the use of research-based expertise in the mass media often demonstrate how experts are used to confirm journalists' angles on particular stories or how research-based knowledge claims are twisted. Both among practitioners and science communication scholars, such practices are often explained with reference to a pervasive "media logic." "Media logic" is constructed as governing choices and interactions of researchers and journalists. This article critically examines the extensive use of the term "media logic" to explain choices, changes or content in media production, and presents Actor-Network-Theory as an approach that invites us to ask what takes place in practice without resorting to such generalizing explanatory devices. The article argues that a quick jump to "media logic" as an explanation may imply that we forget its contingency and ignore what actually takes place in journalists' and researchers' negotiations about texts and facts in the mass mediation of science.
研究表明，在大众媒体中运用基于研究的专业知识时，专家经常被用来证实记者对特定新闻的看法，或者研究知识主张被歪曲。在从业者和科学传播学者中，这种做法通常被解释为普遍存在的“媒体逻辑”。“媒体逻辑”被构建为支配研究人员和记者的选择和互动。本文批判性地审视了广泛使用“媒体逻辑”一词来解释媒体制作中的选择、变化或内容，并提出了行动者网络理论作为一种方法，邀请我们在不诉诸此类概括性解释手段的情况下，询问实践中发生了什么。本文认为，快速将“媒体逻辑”作为一种解释可能意味着我们忘记了它的偶然性，忽略了记者和研究人员在大众媒体科学传播中对文本和事实进行协商时实际发生的事情。
