Abstract
This article describes the covert seeding by political parties of forums and blogs hosted by one of the leading Slovak daily newspapers, and the techniques developed by journalists, administrators, bloggers and discussants to defend these ‘public spheres’ against perceived colonisation by professional political communicators acting under false identities. We follow a trajectory of accusatory forms and registers—a collective inquiry which gathered and evaluated evidence to support public accusations. The episode demonstrates the vulnerability of the sociotechnical systems used by the media to host e-participation as well as their capacities for self-regulation. It shows how citizens, journalists and party political communicators are engaged in complex boundary struggles for the appropriation and regulation of these new spaces of sociability in order to qualify the forms of knowledge that emerge there, agree conventions for the expression of disquiet and negotiate practically enforcable definitions distinguishing political marketing from free public debate.
[1] Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press and London: Clarendon Press. Search in Google Scholar
[2] Boltanski, L. (1996). Point de vue de Luc Boltanski. In Risques Collectives et Situations de Crise (CNRS), Alertes, affaires et catastrophes. Logique de l’accusation et pragmatiques de la vigilance ? Actes de la cinqui me séance du Séminaire du programme (pp. 14–51). Grenoble: Maison des sciences de l’homme. Search in Google Scholar
[3] Boltanski, L. (2009). De la critique. Précis de sociologie de l’émancipation. Paris: Gallimard. Search in Google Scholar
[4] Boltanski, L., & Claverie, É. (2007). Du monde social en tant que sc ne d’un proc s. In N. Offenstadt & S. Van Damme (Eds.), Affaires, Scandales et Grandes causes (pp. 395–452). Paris: Stock. Search in Google Scholar
[5] Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthes, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Seuil. Search in Google Scholar
[6] Chateauraynaud, F. (1996). Point de vue de Francis Chateauraynaud. In Risques Collectives et Situations de Crise (CNRS), Alertes, affaires et catastrophes. Logique de l’accusation et pragmatiques de la vigilance ? Actes de la cinqui me séance du Séminaire du programme (pp. 54–85). Grenoble: Maison des sciences de l’homme. Search in Google Scholar
[7] Chateauraynaud, F., & Torny, D. (2013). Les sombre précurseurs. Une sociologie pragmatique de l’alerte et du risque. Paris: EHESS. Search in Google Scholar
[8] Greimas, A.-J. (1966). Sémantique structurale: recherche de méthode. Paris: Larousse. Search in Google Scholar
[9] Habermas, J. (1989/1962). The Structural transformation of the public sphere. An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: Polity. Search in Google Scholar
[10] Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: OUP. Search in Google Scholar
[11] Rabeharisoa, V., Moreira, T., & Akrich, M. (2013). Evidence-based activism: Patients’ organisations, users’ and activist’s groups in knowledge society. CSI working paper no.033. http://www.csi.mines-paristech.fr/working-papers/DLWP.php?wp=WP_CSI_033.pdf Search in Google Scholar
[12] Searle, J. (1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 535–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00627773Search in Google Scholar
[13] Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (Transl., ed. and with an introduction by Kurt H. Wolff). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Search in Google Scholar
[14] SME (2012). Kódex diskutujúceho na sme.sk. http://diskusie.sme.sk/diskusie/kodex/ Search in Google Scholar
[15] Smith, S., Ward, V., & Kabele, J. (2014). Critically evaluating collaborative research. Why is it difficult to extend truth tests to reality tests. Social Science Information, 53(3). Search in Google Scholar
[16] Thévenot, L. (2001). Pragmatic regimes governing the engagement with the world. In K. Knorr-Cetina, T. Schatzki, & E. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 56–73). London: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar
[17] World Editors Forum (2013). Online comment moderation: emerging best practices. A guide to promoting robust and civil online conversation. Darmstadt, Germany: World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers. Search in Google Scholar
[18] Zask, J. (2004). L’enqu te sociale comme inter-objectivation. In La croyance et l’enqu te. Aux sources du pragmatisme (pp.141–166). Paris, EHESS (Raisons pratiques, no 15). Search in Google Scholar
[19] Zask, J. (2008). Situation ou contexte? Une lecture de Dewey. Revue internationale de philosophie, 245(3), 313–28. Search in Google Scholar
[20] Zask, J. (2011). Participer; essai sur les forms démocratique de la participation. Paris: Le bord de l’eau. Search in Google Scholar
© 2014 Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
