To Örebro University

Media in Europe have undergone profound transformations. These changes involve structural transformation (global trends, the role of politics, EU, etc.); sectoral transformation (e.g., deriving from within the media domain), and the role of particular individuals (such as media moguls). In this respect, there is a lack of comparative studies which systematically explore the relations between these three dimensions in European transformative processes. To add new insights to existing knowledge about media systems across parts of Northern, Eastern and Central Europe, the purpose is to compare understandings of media transformation during the last two decades from a structural, sectoral, and individual perspective. 80 interviews were conducted with media experts from Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia, Latvia, and Sweden. The results demonstrate detailed examples of an emerging commonality, with similar changes across Europe, but also consistent differences concerning areas such as the role of history, the pandemic, and geopolitical tensions.

Peter Berglez undrar vad som händer med hållbarhetsmålen i det rådande politiska landskapet och argumenterar för de bakomliggande idéernas potential.

Media freedom is often seen as the main value against which the quality of media systems is judged. While the levels of media freedom in Europe are generally higher than the world average, there are yet significant variations in how certain European countries score on media freedom indices and scales. This paper uses comparative quantitative data and applies the fsQCA method to analyze how macro-, meso-, and micro-levels of journalism as a field relate to different levels of media freedom in Europe. The results suggest that media market structure, journalistic skills, and journalists adhering to the monitorial role of journalism constitute the “core” conditions for the implementation of media freedom.

This article argues that journalism scholars and practitioners worldwide should not view 2030, i.e. the year in which the UN Agenda sustainable development goals are to be fulfilled, as a symbolic date, but instead as a real deadline. Such a posture could spur discussion about what more the media could do in these remaining years to promote sustainable development, as well as concrete action. To normatively support such a process in this context, the purpose of this contribution is to suggest news value criteria tailored to manage the challenges of sustainable development. They presuppose a well-functioning relationship between the media’s business and planetary needs. The former concern how to finance journalism and attract audiences/users, while the latter concern what kind of journalism a sustainable world de facto requires. The proposed news value criteria could serve as a point of departure for the development of sustainability-oriented news, which could be jointly tested and configurated by scholars and practitioners.

In research into interorganizational collaboration (IOC), the number of contributions highlighting the constitutive role of communication constantly seems to increase. However, surprisingly few contributions are devoted to communication studies that concentrate on the use of different media. An advanced “mediatedness” perspective is increasingly required, not least in terms of theory, focusing on how different media, as objects, tools and agents altogether constitute collaboration through complex combinations and asymmetric usage patterns. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to develop a theoretical framework for analyzing IOCs as media-driven processes and practices, which is highly relational. Of particular importance are the diachronic transformations of meaning-making when discursive content (sketchy notes, brainstorming, digital threads, presentation program slides, etc.) is transferred and materialized into stable ideas, proposals or solutions; moving from one media context to another; and its impact on the collaborations’ outcome.

Samverkan har kanske aldrig varit så förekommande som det är idag. Samverkan används av både offentliga och privata organisationer för att utbyta erfarenheter och uppmuntra innovativa projekt, men också för att adressera problem som ingen organisation kan lösa på egen hand. Samverkan har kommit att bli självklart för dagens organisationer. En anledning till att samverkan har ökat är på grund av de organisatoriska men också tekniska möjligheterna som idag finns att binda ihop organisationer över geografiska, institutionella och tidsmässiga avstånd. Samhället är idag avsevärt mycket mer kommunikativt ihopkopplat än bara för några decennier sedan genom den mångfald av digitala medier som tillkommit, från epost och ordbehandlingsprogram till digitala möten, samarbetsplattformar, sociala medier, och mycket mer. De utökade möjligheterna att kommunicera över tid och rum har bidragit med möjligheter att utan större ansträngning börja samverka. Med dessa ökade kontaktmöjligheter kommer också ökade förhoppningar om utsikter att hitta gemensamma riktningar, samordna resurser och finna gemensamma ageranden. Något som erfarenheter visar är lättare sagt än gjort.

The editorial introduces the topic of this thematic issue, which is the important role of society’s media monitoring capabilities, i.e., to produce information about what media “do” to society, and more precisely for democratic development both the here and the now and in the longer term. The theoretical and methodological aspects of the thematic issue are presented according to the approach of an EU‐funded project Mediadelcom, which aims to explain interconnections between the news media transformations and the risks and opportunities for deliberative communication. One of the stages of the project investigates media monitoring capabilities in different countries. The eight articles introduced in the editorial contribute to deepening the perspectives on the capabilities of media monitoring in the 21st century, and to understanding their function in detecting potential risks and opportunities for democratic public deliberation.

Seldom in the era of the convoluted Gordian knot of mediatised societies has a theoretical concept emerged that has the potential to cut through the tangle of information, misinformation and disinformation. Seldom have theoretical concepts allowed academia and media policymakers to trumpet EUREKA!

In the era of mediatised societies simultaneously experiencing information overload and scarcity of truthful and reliable information, societal potential for deliberative communication becomes more important than ever.

A central proposition of this book is that contemporary democratic societies ought to create a resilient communication culture to strengthen European democracy. Proactive, wisdom-based media governance is proposed to mitigate the risks for deliberative communication resulting from media transformations. The novelty of this book is the methodology for detecting those emerging risks through regularly analysing and assessing each country’s capability of monitoring their mediascapes.

This monitoring of mediascapes means asking critical questions, such as: What exactly is known about the consequences of media transformations producing risks for deliberative communication and consequently, democracy? What is the worth of this knowledge (or What is this knowledge worth)? What knowledge is not known and where are the information gaps? This book focuses on the capability of a sample of 14 EU countries to collect relevant data, carry out research and analysis and finally assess the risks and opportunities associated with media development in terms of the societies’ potential for deliberative communication.

To turn the risks into opportunities, three strategies can be used: (1) setting a research agenda that takes into consideration the needs of society, not enterprises, and establish a policy of sustainable funding of journalism, media and communication research; (2) addressing the trend of the increasing volume of publications and the challenge of information overload; (3) improve the mechanisms for data and information collection outside academia.