Search

This article presents the results of a qualitative interview study on citizen opinion writers who are active on a citizen media website in Sweden. The study explores the writers' experiences of participating in the alternative and citizen media landscape online, their purposes, the benefits and finally what impedes their participation. The results paint a picture of a sole grass-roots writer who aims to reach the broad political sphere using a mix of strategies to participate, oppose the mainstream media or use the Web as a writing gym. The restrictive powers they encounter are associated with mainstream media, commentators and organized debaters. This is discussed as causing a narrower public debate, less participation and less counter-hegemonic content. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses discourse on benefit fraud in Swedish and British newspapers. It furthermore compares discourse on fraud in newspapers and political blogs in the two countries. In Sweden, fraud is primarily articulated as a collective social problem in policy discussions related to the health insurance programme. In the UK, it is often articulated employing strategies commonly associated with crime news narratives, and centred on images of individual cheaters. The main result of the analysis presented here is that these observed differences between British and Swedish media representations are related to the ways in which the relationship between the welfare state and the citizens traditionally have been constructed in liberal and social democratic contexts respectively. Political attempts to highlight the issue of benefit fraud, and dominant media representations of such attempts, must therefore be understood not as attempts to combat fraud, but rather as attempts to delegitimize the more general aim and purpose of the welfare state. They challenge the deservingness of welfare recipients in general, not just the ones that cheat, and they thereby transform the conditions for public trust in the welfare state. News discourse on fraud in both countries establishes a neoliberal, financialized and individualized notion of welfare dependency, through which the relationship between social and structural circumstances on the one hand, and poverty, exclusion and inequality on the other, become blurred. The comparison of newspapers and blogs suggests that although dominant media representations are contested through citizen-created journalism in both contexts, they also limit the conditions for discursive struggles over the issue of benefit fraud significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]