17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Satirical news from left to right: Discursive integration in written online satire

      1 , 1 , 2 , , 1
      Journalism
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Previous research suggests that a defining characteristic of satirical news shows (e.g. The Daily Show) is discursive integration: a creative blend of genre conventions of regular news and fiction. This study aimed to extend the concept of discursive integration to another popular form of satirical news: written satirical news. We focused on both liberal (e.g. The Onion) and conservative (e.g. The Babylon Bee) online outlets of satire. We collected texts published in 2018 by a total of 36 satirical news, regular news and fiction websites (65,530,647 words). Discursive integration was measured by means of linguistic register, because genres can be effectively identified through patterns of linguistic features. Four linguistic register dimensions were identified. Findings showed that written satirical news is indeed characterised by discursive integration because written satirical news’ register scored in between the registers of written regular news and written fiction. No differences in discursive integration levels were found between liberal and conservative satirical news. This study demonstrates the value of discursive integration for understanding the genre of satirical news across partisan lines.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations.

              How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007; J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004), the authors developed several ways to measure people's use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), "sacredness" reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American "culture war." Copyright (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journalism
                Journalism
                SAGE Publications
                1464-8849
                1741-3001
                August 2022
                December 10 2020
                August 2022
                : 23
                : 8
                : 1626-1644
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                Article
                10.1177/1464884920979090
                51d7e49a-7214-4add-b2bc-210bf04c5fbe
                © 2022

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log