ECREA WEEKLY digest ARTICLES

Kristiania University College in Oslo, Norway

A full-time (100 %) position as Professor is available at The Department of Communication at Kristiania University College in Oslo, Norway. The position will be connected to the ph.d. program in Communication and Leadership which is under development. The starting date for the position is October 15th 2020, at the latest.

The applicant should further have competence within at least two of the following research areas:

- Strategic communication

- Organizational communication

- Crisis communication

- Ethics in relation to media and communication

- Media production

For more information, please see:

https://www.kristiania.no/en/about-kristiania/vacant-positions/?rmpage=job&rmjob=57&rmlang=UK

New documentary on European security and NATO in the 21st century: https://www.deterrencethemovie.com/

Deterrence is a feature-length documentary and learning resource written, directed and produced by Dr Roman Gerodimos and co-created with staff and students at Bournemouth University.

We have made Deterrence available to watch for free as we believe that it tackles issues in the public interest that deserve maximum exposure. The doc is divided into an introduction/outline ('Chapter 0') and 7 core chapters that can be watched in sequence or as stand-alone episodes.

As the world seems to be entering a period of disorder, Deterrence captures the major strategic questions facing us and tracks the conflicting personalities and agendas involved.

We attended the 2019 NATO Leaders' Meeting, interviewed top NATO diplomats and world-leading foreign correspondents, historians and experts from think-tanks such as RUSI and CER. We also interviewed students and then posed their questions and criticisms to NATO officials.

What are the main security challenges facing us today? Are we living through a New Cold War? Can dialogue ​with Putin work? How should we deal with China? Can Trump be trusted with Europe's security? Is NATO 'obsolete' and 'brain-dead' or more important than ever?

What exactly does 'deterrence' even mean? Is it a relic of the Cold War or the most important tool for our physical security? Can deterrence work against cyber and hybrid? Can media literacy counter fake news?

Is NATO an alliance of values or an alliance of power? Are nuclear weapons relevant anymore? How does NATO need to change in order to survive?

These are some of the questions posed and answered during the doc.

The doc also has an educational strand as it introduces and explains key concepts (deterrence, hybrid warfare, the security dilemma, MAD etc) using simple motion graphics. It also outlines the history of deterrence from WW2 to today. The site also features indicative reading and lesson plans, including slide decks for educators and students.

If colleagues are interested in arranging a screening or showcase as part of a class, conference or event, we are available for a live Q&A with students (e.g. via Zoom) both on the substantive issues raised in the documentary and on the process of making the documentary.

Roman Gerodimos

rgerodimos@bournemouth.ac.uk

Special issue of MedieKultur

Deadline for abstracts: October 15, 2020

Streaming is an increasingly used form of content distribution. Content providers from different areas of the media industries have shifted to this digital form of distribution and many users have followed. With this special issue on streaming media, we are looking for articles that study streaming from different perspectives and contribute to a better understanding of how streaming is a phenomenon that deeply affects established media industries such as film, television, gaming, music, radio/podcasts, books and audio books.

Streaming as a technical notion refers to transmitting and receiving digital data over the internet – a process distinguished by the end-user being able to watch, listen, or read content as the file is being transmitted. Streaming as distribution systems hence facilitates on-demand use and consumption of media content. However, as communication and media scholars we are broadly interested in streaming media, that is, the structures, relations and practices including and surrounding streaming as distribution systems. This encompasses (at least) studies of media industries and production, interfaces, content, and use of streaming media.

We have seen the emergence of many new streaming services from global superplayers as well as national streaming providers and small local services. The amount and size of these new streaming services is so substantial that we have yet to analyze many of the platforms that are available (often through both apps and websites) thoroughly. This special issue seeks empirically grounded, conceptual and methodological contributions about the changes and continuities represented by streaming media.

Accordingly, we encourage contributions to the following topics and are grateful for additional perspectives:

- Key concepts and theoretical discussions in research about streaming

- Studies of media industries and the impact of streaming on organizations and productions

- How streaming media transform value creation and value networks in different industries

- The strategies of commercial and public media providers facing the competition from global superplayers

- Streaming media and national and/or regional media policy (e.g. efforts to sustain media diversity; requirements for a certain percentage share of local content)

- To what extent and how streaming impacts content creation

- How specific genres are impacted by streaming

- How audiences/users appropriate and make sense of streaming media, or how streaming media have consequences for what content people choose to consume

- The consequences of algorithms and/or personalization of content (from a service provider perspective; from a content creator perspective; from an interface perspective; from a media user perspective)

- Methodological reflections and discussions about how we should study streaming

- Comparative studies of streaming from different industries (e.g. comparing gaming platforms with music platforms)

- Studies with different data sources on streaming (e.g. comparing insights about users with insights about a particular media industry)

- Transnational studies of streaming

- The promotion and branding of streaming services and content (e.g. trailers, adverts, etc.)

Please submit an extended abstract of approximately 1000 words (including references) by 15th of October on MedieKultur’s website: https://tidsskrift.dk/mediekultur

Authors will be notified of their acceptance by the end of October. The deadline for submission of full papers is 1st of January 2021.

Articles that are accepted for further process by the editors will go into peer-review in January and February 2021. We expect to have decisions on manuscripts and potential further revisions by March. We expect to publish this special issue by Summer 2021.

Guest editors for this special issue: Mads Møller Tommerup Andersen (Aarhus University) and Marika Lüders (University of Oslo).

Deadline: August 10, 2020

Full name / name of organization: Łukasz Muniowski

Contact email: lukasz.muniowski@gmail.com

Abstracts are sought for a peer-reviewed collection of philosophical essays related to the Naughty Dog action-adventure video game series Uncharted (2007-2017). The essays should refer to the games that are considered the canon of the series: Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception, Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End, and Uncharted: The Lost Legacy. As the production of the movie adaptation of the game has been once again put on hold, and it seems that Naughty Dog will not develop new entries in the series in the foreseeable future, a book of essays seems rather timely.

Uncharted was a groundbreaking series, which combined great characters, spectacular visuals, engaging puzzles, and captivating storylines to create a movie-like experience unlike that of any video game before it. At first, the game was dubbed “Dude Raider” – and indeed, it made its main character go to exotic locations, look for mythical treasures, and embark on other adventures reminiscent of Tomb Raider. In no time, however, Uncharted’s Nathan Drake was able to create identity dissimilar to that of Lara Croft. The character was portrayed as an everyman: he looked rather unimposing, yet was extremely smart, strong, and had an excellent aim. This dissonance created inevitable frictions between his likable persona presented in the cutscenes and in the game itself, as in the course of gameplay he shot multiple NPCs with no remorse.

All the games in the series followed a three-act structure similar to that of classic Hollywood movies, and at times, they were like interactive movies themselves. In a sense, they were the video game equivalent of the summer blockbuster genre. Throughout the years, the developers created numerous memorable sequences, such as the bar fight in Uncharted 4, the plane catastrophe in Uncharted 3, or the train derailment in Uncharted 2.

The series was already analyzed academically in regard to its violence, narrative, and gender representations. While these issues are worthy of further exploration, the game can also be discussed in the context of ideas such as: determinism, randomness, exploitation, orientalism, racism, tourism, civilization, continuity, consequences, war, addiction, white privilege, categorical imperative, or egotism.

Below are some quotes and questions for you to consider:

• “Greatness from small beginnings” – is Drake’s social/economic/familial background to blame for his obsessive personality?
• “It’s like a camera, you just point and shoot, right?” – why does the violence in the game come so frequently from unlikely characters?
• “This is like trying to find a bride in a brothel” – can the series be regarded as sexist, or did its approach towards female characters change with time?
• “Everything you touch does turn to shit” – how much oppression and damage does Drake actually cause (especially in the developing countries he frequently rampages through during his escapades)?
• “You think that I am a monster, but you’re no different” – are the villains in the series significant? How are they different from its protagonists in terms of violence and chaos they create?
• “You should play the hero more often. Suits you” – could Chloe turn into the true hero of the series in the future?

“You two can hold hands though” – how accurately does the game depict local customs and traditions? Does it exoticize and exploit them or represent them with respect and attention to detail?
“He would go to the ends of the world with you Nate” – is forming real-life bonds with NPCs possible?
“Why Nate? Why this obsession?” – the importance of Francis Drake for the story of the game
“Hey, are you happy?” – relationships, friendship, and family life in the series
“I don’t know why people get into video games” – do we really need an Uncharted movie?

• “Same to you, cowboy” – how does Drake correspond with the cowboy archetype?
• “A parasite who exploits our struggle in order to fatten her pockets” – how much of what the Uncharted’s heroes do is morally questionable?
• “Nice work, partner” – what does the series teach us about cooperation?

Please submit abstracts of about 300 words with brief bios to: unchartedessays@gmail.com

Abstracts due: August 10th, 2020

Notification of accepted abstracts: August 15th, 2020

First draft of papers due: November 30th, 2020.

Final papers: 6,000 – 8,000 words

Łukasz Muniowski – holds a PhD in American Literature from the University of Warsaw, Poland. Co-editor of the collection of essays on the Altered Carbon Netflix series (Sex, Death and Resurrection in Altered Carbon, McFarland, 2020).

Kamil Chrzczonowicz –doctoral student at the Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw, Poland.His academic interests include humor theory, history of American satire, and digital humanities.

University of Fribourg

The University of Fribourg’s Department of Communication and Media Research DCM is dedicated to research and teaching in the field of communication and media studies that adheres to the highest international standards. Researchers at the department cover research fields ranging from political communication, journalism, communication management, to communication history, business communication and new media, media systems and media effects. A fund raised by the department’s founding fathers Dr. Max Gressly and Dr. Florian Fleck allows the DCM to offer an

International Visiting Scholarship

or post-doctoral researchers and non-tenured professors. As a trilingual institution (French, German, English) the University of Fribourg provides a truly international research environment with plenty of opportunities to share ideas. Moreover, visiting scholars can benefit from enriching research opportunities in Switzerland. The remuneration consists of CHF 5.000, permitting a stay of two to three months. Visiting scholars will have the chance to collaborate with established scholars and to contribute to academic discussions at the department.

The scholarship addresses young internationally-orientated scholars who are on a research or a sabbatical leave. The quality of the applicants should be demonstrated by publications in international peer-reviewed journals or by promising ongoing research projects. Priority will be given to applicants from outside of Switzerland focusing on research projects which correspond to the research interests at the DCM.

Applicants are requested to submit a letter of application, a statement outlining their research plans and their motivation, a curriculum vitae, a list of publications (with the most significant publications highlighted), copies of degree certificate(s) and an academic letter of recommendation.

Deadline for applications: September 30, 2020

Please send applications by email to: nadege.rives@unifr.ch

For additional information, please contact the Head of the Department of Communication and Media Research, Prof. Dr. Regula Hänggli (regula.haenggli@unifr.ch) or Nadège Rives, administrative assistant (nadege.rives@unifr.ch).

NECSUS

Deadline: July 1, 2020

How do things hold together? The highly complex, capitalistic world that we have built is held by supply chains and financial circuits, digital infrastructures and information streams. It is also held together by individuals and groups that share and support, that give and distribute in ways different from a purely market-oriented exchange of goods. Both forms of connectivity have come under considerable duress during the current COVID19 pandemic - this is also a crisis of and for media, mediation, and mediators. At the moment, life seems to be reoriented toward the more immediate values of home, health, family, and neighborhood where one can discover vast and untapped potentials for solidarity: a sense of interdependent belonging not grounded in logics of exchange but moved by a desire for collective well-being as individual well-being. At the same time, media play a crucial role in how we come together during times of social distancing, allowing for the invention of new modes of assembly, intimacy, and expression.

The Spring 2021 issue of NECSUS intends to explore how media - today, in the past, and even in the future - may facilitate expressions of solidarity in the face of watershed moments such as the current health crisis, or indeed how it might have rendered inequalities and the lack of solidarity more glaring.

Does media help us come together across our differences, and if so how and for whom?

Solidarity is a fundamental social experience, a shared concern that connects individuals to each other and that also forms bonds among groups, collectives, and communities. Solidarity becomes more urgent at times of unrest, change, and social shifts. Our current Covid-19 situation, informed by a new ubiquity of mediated communication and social connections, is such a watershed moment for experiencing and thinking about social fabric and the role of media in particular. Other historical moments with impact on a larger social level, such as the 1989-90 fall of the ‘Eastern bloc’ and its repercussions for a global world order, or the 1968 student and peace protests in its various local forms, also brought forth their specific formations of solidarity with specific media politics. These moments also influenced media production and reception, or can trace memories of solidarity. For this issue we are looking for research articles that connect reflections of solidarity with the specificities of media, be it in the form of memory work and media archives, media influences on community or a revisiting of identity, (self)positioning and collectivity, media technologies and infrastructures, practices and affordances.

Submissions might address modes of im/mediated solidarity that have emerged during the ongoing health crisis, but also prior iterations that need historicisation. This includes the crystallisation of new infrastructures, led most prominently by video conferencing software, and how they reassemble the sociality of, say, the workplace,

but also of nightlife through something like a Zoom dance party. This might be a way to address more fundamental questions regarding media use: what are the limits of the tools deployed in the face of widely divergent access to media? Does the current health crisis reduce the differences that many still perceive between ‘real life’ and digitally mediated experience? How is our sense of solidarity impacted by the absence of co-presence, the sharing of a physical space with others? Other topics include new and old practices of media-related (self-)care. This could be in terms of how media have been enlisted for practices to increase individual and collective well-being or, in contrast, how collective care practices have been developed to protect against unhealthy influences of media. Solidarity is also a key term in relation to the ongoing debate around the migratory regime of the EU and the current ‘leave no one behind’ activism. Last, but certainly not least, solidarity might also be considered in relation to the recent boom n studying community-oriented media practices.

Other topics may include (but are not restricted to):

# Collective media action and its specific forms in history and in the current moment

# Solidarity and technology/infrastructure - what are the affordances and possibilities opened up by media technologies that might allow for expressions and practices of solidarity? How does the unequal penetration of infrastructures prevent or thwart attempts at solidarity?

# Solidarity and viewing practices; interrogating and/or disrupting media consumption habits and forms of spectatorship defined (wholly or in part) by social atomisation and/or solipsism, in the past and/or the present (e.g. responses to the closure of public spaces designed for the consumption of media, such as cinema theaters; digital film festival debates, etc)

# Solidarity, media and phenomenology: how do we experience the lack of physical presence and its ‘replacement’ by dematerialised communication?

# Solidarity and new forms of collective labor, including analysis of media practices that respond to neoliberal models of education and push for a rethink of such models in times of unprecedented crisis

# Mediated networks of care: how does the notion of care change if it is largely practiced at a distance and/or through media?

We also invite submissions on the intersection between academic research and artistic practice. Submissions may address the audiovisual essay as an old and new method of doing media studies; also, practice-based research or research-creation as evolving methods of knowledge production and performance.

We look forward to receiving abstracts of 300 words, 3-5 bibliographic references, and a short biography of 100 words by 1 July 2020 to g.decuir@aup.nl. On the basis of selected abstracts, writers will be invited to submit full manuscripts (6,000-8,000 words, revised abstract, 4-5 keywords) which will subsequently go through a double-blind peer review process before final acceptance for publication.

NECSUS also accepts proposals throughout the year for festival, exhibition, and book reviews, as well as proposals for guest edited audiovisual essay sections. We will soon open a general call for research article proposals not tied to a special section theme. Please note that we do not accept full manuscripts for consideration without an invitation.

Access our submission guidelines at necsus-ejms.org/guidelines-for-submission/

Dr. Benjamin Krämer, Prof. Dr. Christina Holtz-Bacha

This volume assembles a wide range of perspectives on populism and the media, bringing together various disciplinary and theoretical approaches, authors and examples from different continents and a wide range of topical issues. The chapters discuss the contexts of populist communication, communication by populist actors, different types of populist messages (populist communication in traditional and new media, populist criticism of the media, populist discourses related to different topics, etc.), the effects and consequences of populist communication, populist media policy and anti-populist discourses. The contributions synthesise existing research on this subject, propose new approaches to it or present new findings on the relationship between populism and the media.

With contibutions by

Caroline Avila, Eleonora Benecchi, Florin Büchel, Donatella Campus, María Esperanza Casullo, Nicoleta Corbu, Ann Crigler, Benjamin De Cleen, Sven Engesser, Nicole Ernst, Frank Esser, Nayla Fawzi, Jana Goyvaerts, André Haller, Kristoffer Holt, Christina Holtz-Bacha, Marion Just, Philip Kitzberger, Magdalena Klingler, Benjamin Krämer, Katharina Lobinger, Philipp Müller, Elena Negrea-Busuioc, Carsten Reinemann, Christian Schemer, Anne Schulz, Christian Schwarzenegger, Torgeir Uberg Nærland, Rebecca Venema, Anna Wagner, Martin Wettstein, Werner Wirth, Dominique Stefanie Wirz

https://www.nomos-shop.de/titel/perspectives-on-populism-and-the-media-id-88425/

January 20-22 2021

Aix-Marseille University, France

Deadline: June 19, 2020

The Mediteranean Institute of Information and Communication Sciences (IMSIC) & The Journalism and Communication School of Aix-Marseille (EJCAM)

Infomediation platforms (Smyrnaios, Rebillard, 2019) have become the dominant force of a ‘reintermediation’ of information online by organising a large variety of contents and making them available to internet users. Information from journalists, which we would qualify here as news, finds itself subject to exogenous imperatives which finish by influencing editorial decisions on information medias (Bell, Owen, 2017). This ‘platformisation’ of information online has coincided with an acceleration of the circulation of non-journalistic information besides news, from satire to disinformation, which increases the offer of contents proposed to internet users. In this open environment where journalistic productions, disinformation, click traps, infotainment and satire live together, journalism needs to rethink itself.

The aim of this conference is to explore new journalistic practices in relation to “fake news” at the heart of environments dominated by platforms. By “fake news”, and because the polysemy of the term has sometimes contributed to its instrumentalisation, we mean more precisely ‘information problems’ (Wardle, Derakhsan, 2019) in all their diversity.

As such, the conference will consider the question of fact-checking and the way it has been repositioned by criticising “fake news” (Bigot, 2019). Fact-checking has been called upon during electoral campaigns and is becoming increasingly part of a close relationship of collaboration and dependence between editors and web platforms which should be brought into question (Smyrnaios, Chauvet, Marty, 2017; Alloing, Vanderbiest, 2018). Over and above the current political situation, “fake news” on the subjects of health, the environment and even clickbait presenting false promises and strange revelations, questions the expert status of specialist journalists as well as other concerned parties.

Propositions should address the following four lines of research:

• At the information source: media education in the face of the platforms
• Fighting against “fake news”, a reaffirmation of journalism?
• Political journalism and health journalism: the challenge of “fake news” to specialised journalists
• Reception of false information and platforms: a reinforcement of cognitive biais?

At the information source: media education in the face of the platforms

“I saw it on Facebook”. This unequivocal statement from Reuters Institute (Kalogeropoulos, Newman, 2017) demonstrates the way digital environments have changed our relationship to information. The intermediary, in this case Facebook, is more powerful than traditional media as a source of memorised information, opening the door wide to “fake news” by rendering the different sources of information interchangeable. This deconstruction of the source, which journalists call upon and confront, which media use as a reliable source of information is renewing the historic inspiration of media studies. The necessity of a pedagogical attention to source, the one which we often consult via the intermediary of web platforms, overlaps on to understanding the logic of information production. The platforms also present themselves pedagogically when they contribute to highlighting the wheat and the chaff in all the content they host (Joux, 2018). However they are both advocates and judges, which explains why media studies is increasingly transforming into education on web platforms. What are the stakes created by the erasure of the source in the ecosystems where the platforms are dominating? What are the new relationships between information source and information as a source? What are the challenges for media studies?

Fighting against “fake news”, a reaffirmation of journalism?

Fact-checking has been experiencing an important development in publishing since the 2000’s (Bigot, 2017). The increased visibility of “fake news” has given it a new role since the beginning of the 2010’s. While dressing itself up as a social mission with obvious uses, fact-checking has restated the importance of journalism in producing news information in the public sphere. It has also criticised the illusion that anyone can be a journalist which the ease of internet sharing may have led us to hope for (Mathien, 2010). This reaffirmation of specific journalistic savoir-faire is supported differently by the platforms. Facebook, as well Google (through the CrossCheck project), finances publishing to check certain contents, which circulate in their ecosystem. However, this recognition of fact-checking by the platforms can be considered as ambivalent. If it relies on the education of internet users thanks to the visibility of journalistic work, it also corresponds to the imposition of priorities financed by the platforms in publishing. We propose to question these major themes here, fact-checking and its ambitions for journalism as well as the economic and editorial relationships between the platforms and newsrooms.Political journalism and health journalism: the challenge of “fake news” to specialised journalists

Representing a ‘serious symptom of political breakdown’ (Mercier, 2018), the contemporary unfurling of “fake news” is being fed by a growing defiance to the position of the ‘knowledgeable’ elite which journalists belong to, whether they are ‘general’ or ‘specialist’. In two key information areas – politics and health-, areas which are connected to major collective stakes, the question of the transformation/adaptation of journalists’ professional practices is particularly important. Faced with this menace, is it sufficient to generalise the practices of fact-checking and to correct certain problematic practices (hurried treatments, insufficient verification, incomplete scientific acculturation, …) to restore a curtailed legitimacy? Is turning the discursive weapons employed by ‘post-truth’ (Dieguez, 2018) against it the best way to renew the codes and modes of expression of specialised journalism? Is it enough to remove the “barriers” to the exercise of the profession and organise it in a network (Bassoni, 2015), leaning now on the practices of all the parties concerned by the containment of “fake news” (in this case, in health, the health authorities, scientists, carers, patients and “digital opinion leaders”)?

Reception of false information and platforms: a reinforcement of cognitive bias?

If the proliferation of fake news is linked to the technical and economic conditions of information circulation, it also relies on cognitive domains which do not always promote the truth and forms of reception attached to plural contexts. Recognised cognitive biases frequently lead individuals to select and believe false information to encourage consensus within a group (Festinger, 1954) or through an economy of means (Kahneman, 2011). Social illusionism and the illusion of truth can thus favour the propagation of false information (Huguet, 2018). Indeed, individuals perceive “fake-news” as one of the elements of the globally degraded universe of information, including forms of propaganda or mediocre journalism (Nielsen et Graves, 2017). Here, the public’s perception of “fake news” is the combination of the interests of certain medias which publish it, politicians who contribute to it and the platforms who allow it to be distributed. What are the characteristics of the public’s reception of “fake news”? What type of individual or collective sources does “fake news” call upon? How far can platforms and their business models reinforce the cognitive biases associated to “fake news”? These questions will be approached by considering the modalities of the public’s reception of “fake news” through their permanence or, on the contrary, their variation according to contexts.

How to submit

Propositions should be 6000 characters and include a short biography. They will indicate which research theme they are most appropriate to. Descriptions of the field of study/corpus and the research methodology are expected.

Propositions should be sent to the following address: jep2021@outlook.fr

The deadline is June 19, 2020

Propositions will be double blind evaluated, replies will be sent out during September 2020.

Scientific committee

• Amiel Pauline (IMSIC, Aix Marseille Université)
• Bousquet Franck (Lerass, Université Paul Sabatier – Toulouse 3)
• Cabrolié Stéphane (IMSIC, Aix Marseille Université)
• Graves Lucas (University of Wisconsin – Madison)
• Grevisse Benoît (MiiL, UC Louvain)
• Jeanne-Perrier Valérie (GRIPIC, Paris Sorbonne)
• Jenkins Joy (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford)
• Joux Alexandre (IMSIC, Aix Marseille Université)
• Mercier Arnaud (CARISM, Université Paris 2)
• Pignard-Cheynel Nathalie (Université de Neuchatel)
• Sebbah Brigitte (Lerass, Université Paul Sabatier – Toulouse 3)
• Smyrnaios Nikos (Lerass, Université Paul Sabatier – Toulouse 3)
• Vovou Ioanna (ICCA Sorbonne Nouvelle, Université Panteion, Athens)

Organization team

• Coordination : Joux Alexandre (IMSIC) & Amiel Pauline (IMSIC)
• Bassoni Marc (IMSIC)
• Belgacem Fetta (IMSIC)
• Cabrolié Stéphane (IMSIC)
• Cappuccio Alexia (IMSIC)
• D’Aiguillon Benoît (IMSIC)
• Lukasik Stéphanie (IMSIC)
• Pélissier Maud (IMSIC)

References :

Alloing C., Vanderbiest N. (2018), « La fabrique des rumeurs numériques. Comment la fausse information circule sur Twitter ? », Le Temps des médias, 30(1), 105-123.

Bassoni M. (2015), « Journalisme scientifique et public-expert contributeur. Une « nouvelle donne » dans les pratiques du journalisme spécialisé ? », Questions de communication, série actes 25 (sous la direction de Ph. Chavot et A. Masseran), Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 179-189.

Bell E., Owen T. (2017), The Platform Press. How Silicon Valley reengineered Journalism, Columbia Journalism School, Tow Center for Journalism.

Bigot L. (2017), « Le fact-checking ou la réinvention d’une pratique de vérification », Communication & Langages, 2, n°192, 131-156.

Bigot L. (2019), Fact checking versus fake news : vérifier pour mieux informer, Paris : INA Editions.

Dieguez S. (2018), Total Bullshit ! Au cœur de la post-vérité, Paris : Presses universitaires de France.

Festinger L. (1954), « A theory of social comparison processes », Human Relations, 7, 117-140.

Huguet P. (2018), « Eléments de psychologie des fake news », in L’information d’actualité au prisme des fake news, Paris : L’Harmattan, 201-222.

Joux A., Pélissier M. (2018), L’information d’actualité au prisme des fake news, Paris : L’Harmattan.

Joux A. (2018), « Des dispositifs contre les fake news : du rôle des rédactions et des plateformes », in L’information d’actualité au prisme des fake news, Paris : L’Harmattan, 73-93.

Kahneman D. (2011), Thinking, fast and slow, London : Penguin.

Kalogeropoulos A., Newman N. (2017), ‘I saw the News on Facebook’. Brand Attribution when Accessing News from Distributed Environments, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford University.

Mathien M. (2010), « “ Tous journalistes ! ” Les professionnels de l’information face à un mythe des nouvelles technologies »,Quaderni, 72, 113-125.

Mercier A. (2018), Fake news et post-vérité : 20 textes pour comprendre la menace, The Conversation France/e-book, (hal-01819233).

Nielsen K. R., Graves L. (2017), News you don’t believe: audience perspectives on fake news, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford University.

Smyrnaios N., Chauvet S., Marty E. (2017) L’impact de CrossCheck sur les journalistes et les publics, First Draft

Smyrnaios N., Rebillard F. (2019), « How infomediation platforms took over the news: a longitudinal perspective », The Political economy of communication, vol. 7/1, 30-50.

Wardle C., Derakhsan H. (2017) Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making, Strasbourg: Council of Europe

University for the Creative Arts - School of Film, Media and Performing Arts

Location: Farnham

Salary: £35,845 to £49,552 pro rata per annum

Hours: Part Time

Contract Type: Permanent

Placed On: 30th April 2020

Closes: 31st May 2020

Job Ref: 20-AMCD119-0168-1

UCA is The Times / Sunday Times ‘Modern University of the Year 2019’ and the No.1 Specialist Creative University in all three major University league tables. Ranking 13th of all UK universities in the main Guardian League Table 2020 the University is also proud to hold the TEF Gold award for teaching quality from the Office for Students.

As the UK’s No.1 specialist creative university for employment of graduates* and the second largest provider of creative education in Europe, the University has been producing exceptional graduates for the global creative sector for over 150 years. 96.9% of UCA’s graduates were either in employment or further study within 6 months of graduation in the most recent DLHE* survey released in 2018. We have more than 7,500 students studying on 120 creative arts, business and technology courses at campuses in Canterbury, Epsom, Farnham, Rochester, Hampton Court and Maidstone as well as by distance learning. Our exceptional team of world-class teaching and research academics are equipping the next generation of creators, innovators and leaders with the skills they need to thrive in the creative industries.

Destinations of Leavers in Higher Education (DLHE) July 2018

Part-Time Post: 21.75 hours per week

The School of Film, Media and Performing Arts at the University for the Creative Arts has a well-established reputation for developing talented and creative graduates capable of working at all levels of the creative industries.

The School wishes to appoint a Lecturer/Senior Lecturer for the Games programme at our Farnham campus. The role includes; maintaining and developing recruitment, retention, curriculum and assessment, ensuring that the delivery of the courses are carried out in accordance with the mission, policies and regulations of the University and School strategic plans. This appointment provides the right candidate with the opportunity to make a significant contribution to the development and progression of this well-respected provision.

To be a contender for this exciting position you will have solid experience in Games. You will also have a relevant BA and PG degree in a related discipline. Experience of teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate level as well as of curriculum development and academic and administrative management would be a distinct advantage.

You will be an inspirational practitioner, a team player and be interested in applying new technologies to learning and teaching, as well as developing these in a business practice environment. We would encourage you to be actively engaged with industry and your own practice, and to be expected to demonstrate the ability to frame your work as research.

The pro rata salary for this position will be £21,507-£29,731 per annum.

For further details and to apply for this post please visit our website https://jobs.ucreative.ac.uk

The closing date for receipt of applications is 31st May 2020.

Interviews will be held on 10th June 2020.

We value the diversity of our organisation and welcome applicants from all sections of the community.

Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa

Country Experts to assist with the coding of codes of conduct and ethics/disciplinary bodies inside party organisations, willing to contribute to making the largest dataset on ethics self-regulatory measures implemented by representative institutions across the EU democracies.

Ethics and Integrity in Public Life project (ETHICS) is a two-year project, coordinated by Luís de Sousa at the Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa (ICS-ULisboa), Portugal and funded by the Foundation Francisco Manuel dos Santos (FFMS). With this survey we will be mapping codes of conduct and ethics/disciplinary bodies inside party organisations across Europe.

Political ethics strengthen the bonds of trust between citizens and their representatives, and therefore matter to the overall quality of democracy. Yet levels of trust in parties remain low, despite all the laws governing the ethical conduct of individual and collective political actors. The overall perception is that most of these regulatory efforts have not been properly designed and enforced. We want to give parties a chance to speak out and show what they have done so far to reduce this credibility deficit and how successful they have been in their intents.

In these times of uncertainty about the future of representative democracy, volunteering a few hours of your time to contribute to a project that seeks to identify best practices to improve ethics management in political life, is also an act of positive citizenship.

Our institutional profiling questionnaire has 24 detailed indicators and is organised in two sections: one focusing on the legal framework; another on the institutional setting. We will be completing a questionnaire per political party with parliamentary seating. Each questionnaire should not take more than an hour to complete. We are only coding parties with parliamentary representation in the 28 Member States (UK included). The coding procedure is documentary and web-based, through the consultation of both party statutes/constitutions and their institutional websites. The project’s default language is English.

The coding is to be carried out during the month of June and to be completed by mid-July the latest.

We are particularly looking for dedicated and committed collaborators with interest in these topics and familiar with party politics and political ethics in a country or set of countries.

Collaborators will be able to use the data for their research endeavours.

Join our team of country experts!

How to apply:

If you are interested in taking part in this project, just send us an e-mail to (ethics@ics.ulisboa.pt) indicating the country or set of countries you would be in grade of coding, and attach a copy of your CV.