Problem definition and purpose: In 2015, the newspapers sports columns is filled with opinions and analyzes of the events foretold by self-proclaimed experts, sports journalists at the newspapers, This is done to market themselves and their employer, create a relationship with their readers and stand out from the competition. In this thesis we researched two Swedish tabloids, to try to establish whether there has been a notable change in opinions on the sports sections during the last twenty years. Method and material: Quantative content analysis of sport pages of Swedish tabloids Aftonbladet and Expressen during 4-10 November 1995, 2005 and 2015. By identifying how many of the published articles that can be categorized as opinions, and by measuring those articles in square centimeter, we are using graphs and tables to show how the opinion-based material has changed fron 1995 until 2015. Main result: The thesis shows an increasing in opinions and opinion based journalism in Swedish tabloids sport pages over the course of a twenty-year period.

No description available.

No description available.

It is well known that males dominate politics, both in elected positions and in the media as political pundits (Melber, 2011). Is it the masculine style that is appealing to society? Do popular political pundits (male and female) emulate this masculine style in order to appeal to and persuade their audience? Through a content analysis of the rhetoric of six specified political pundits, it is hypothesized that both males and females are more likely to incorporate masculine styles of rhetoric, and those who display more masculine style traits will be more acceptable to the general audience leading to more airtime and appearances across networks. Through the analysis of the programs' 2013 transcripts, the communicative style of both male and female political pundits of the top five news programs from the big five networks will be studied: ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, and NBC's Meet the Press with Chuck Todd. / Master of Arts

Dans les démocraties occidentales, la notion d’opinion publique occupe une place importante dans l’action des politiciens et le discours des médias. Elle y renvoie généralement à la somme des opinions individuelles des citoyens, aux résultats de sondages. Or, les limites de l’opinion publique ainsi conceptualisée apparaissent de plus en plus clairement aux chercheurs en sciences sociales, et cela jette un doute sur sa valeur comme guide des politiques publiques. Pour mieux comprendre la place de l’opinion publique dans le processus démocratique québécois, nous avons cherché à connaître les conceptions qu’en ont certains acteurs-clés : les chroniqueurs politiques et éditorialistes francophones du Québec. Au moyen d’entrevues, nous avons documenté leurs « théories profanes » à ce sujet, c’est à dire leurs façons de voir l’opinion publique et sa place dans le processus démocratique. L’exercice nous apprend que ces « commentateurs habituels » distinguent plusieurs formes d’opinion publique, de valeur inégale. Celle qui revêt le plus d’intérêt pour eux est une « opinion publique latente », qui intègre des dimensions d’intensité et de propension à changer. Ils jugent les sondages utiles mais insuffisants pour appréhender l’opinion publique; aussi l’interprètent-ils à partir de conversations et d’un certain « sens de l’opinion publique ». Selon eux, les médias peuvent influencer l’opinion publique, mais surtout influencer la tenue d’une délibération publique et la façon dont les décideurs lisent l’opinion publique. Ils estiment aussi pouvoir, par leur travail journalistique, favoriser l’émergence d’une opinion publique raisonnée, ce qui est conforme à leur idéal de démocratie participative. / The notion of public opinion is central to political action and media coverage of politics, in western democracies. It usually refers to the sum of all citizens’ individual attitudes, and to survey results. Yet, the limitations of public opinion thus conceptualized appears ever more clearly to scholars, calling into question its value as an input to the political process. In order to better understand the role of public opinion in the political process in Quebec, we have been seeking to understand how some important political actors — elite francophone political columnists and editorialists — view public opinion. By interviewing those journalists, we gathered their “lay theories”, i.e. the way they understand public opinion and its place in the democratic process. We found out that these pundits distinguish different types of public opinion, which are of unequal value to them. They are mostly interested in “latent public opinion”, a concept that includes dimensions of intensity and transformation potential of opinion. They believe surveys are somewhat useful, but incomplete tools for assessing public opinion. Therefore, they turn to other means of knowing it: conversations, and a certain “public opinion sense”. According to them, the media can have an influence on public opinion, but above all it can have an influence on public deliberation and on the way politicians view public opinion. Respondents also believe they can contribute, by their journalistic work, to the construction of a more considered public opinion — which is in tune with their ideal of participatory democracy.

Dans les démocraties occidentales, la notion d’opinion publique occupe une place importante dans l’action des politiciens et le discours des médias. Elle y renvoie généralement à la somme des opinions individuelles des citoyens, aux résultats de sondages. Or, les limites de l’opinion publique ainsi conceptualisée apparaissent de plus en plus clairement aux chercheurs en sciences sociales, et cela jette un doute sur sa valeur comme guide des politiques publiques. Pour mieux comprendre la place de l’opinion publique dans le processus démocratique québécois, nous avons cherché à connaître les conceptions qu’en ont certains acteurs-clés : les chroniqueurs politiques et éditorialistes francophones du Québec. Au moyen d’entrevues, nous avons documenté leurs « théories profanes » à ce sujet, c’est à dire leurs façons de voir l’opinion publique et sa place dans le processus démocratique. L’exercice nous apprend que ces « commentateurs habituels » distinguent plusieurs formes d’opinion publique, de valeur inégale. Celle qui revêt le plus d’intérêt pour eux est une « opinion publique latente », qui intègre des dimensions d’intensité et de propension à changer. Ils jugent les sondages utiles mais insuffisants pour appréhender l’opinion publique; aussi l’interprètent-ils à partir de conversations et d’un certain « sens de l’opinion publique ». Selon eux, les médias peuvent influencer l’opinion publique, mais surtout influencer la tenue d’une délibération publique et la façon dont les décideurs lisent l’opinion publique. Ils estiment aussi pouvoir, par leur travail journalistique, favoriser l’émergence d’une opinion publique raisonnée, ce qui est conforme à leur idéal de démocratie participative. / The notion of public opinion is central to political action and media coverage of politics, in western democracies. It usually refers to the sum of all citizens’ individual attitudes, and to survey results. Yet, the limitations of public opinion thus conceptualized appears ever more clearly to scholars, calling into question its value as an input to the political process. In order to better understand the role of public opinion in the political process in Quebec, we have been seeking to understand how some important political actors — elite francophone political columnists and editorialists — view public opinion. By interviewing those journalists, we gathered their “lay theories”, i.e. the way they understand public opinion and its place in the democratic process. We found out that these pundits distinguish different types of public opinion, which are of unequal value to them. They are mostly interested in “latent public opinion”, a concept that includes dimensions of intensity and transformation potential of opinion. They believe surveys are somewhat useful, but incomplete tools for assessing public opinion. Therefore, they turn to other means of knowing it: conversations, and a certain “public opinion sense”. According to them, the media can have an influence on public opinion, but above all it can have an influence on public deliberation and on the way politicians view public opinion. Respondents also believe they can contribute, by their journalistic work, to the construction of a more considered public opinion — which is in tune with their ideal of participatory democracy.