This study examined the various ways in which Danish news media represented digital media as a problem over a period of three years. We present data from a content analysis of 263 newspaper articles and chi-squared analyses identifying associations between worries, voices, culprits, and those responsible for solving problems. We find professionals significantly responsible for framing problems with screen time in terms of mental health issues and addiction, while the broader discourse is one of, for example, time theft, video game addiction, and issues in schools. Technologies are often diffused using “screens” to describe a broad palette of devices/applications, are represented as responsible for distractions while the technology industry is held culpable for effects on social relations and addictive behaviors. We discuss how patterns in media coverage and expert use affects public understandings, and the overall findings that while technologies are represented as responsible for particular problems, the “screen” discourse is a space in which arguments shift between technologies, problems, and authorities.
AagaardJ (2020) Beyond the rhetoric of tech addiction: why we should be discussing tech habits instead (and how). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. DOI: 10.1007/s11097-020-09669-z.
2.
AagaardJSteningeEZhangY (2021) On the hermeneutics of screen time: a qualitative case study of phubbing. AI & SOCIETY. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-021-01223-y.
3.
AlbækE (2011) The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism12(3): 335–348. DOI: 10.1177/1464884910392851.
4.
AlperM (2015) Digital youth with disabilities. In: The JohnDCatherineT (eds), MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
5.
AltheideDL (2002) Children and the discourse of fear. Symbolic Interaction25(2): 229–250. DOI: 10.1525/si.2002.25.2.229.
6.
AltheideDLMichalowskiRS (1999) Fear in the news: a discourse of control. The Sociological Quarterly40(3): 475–503.
7.
BacchiC (2009) Analysing Policy : What’s the Problem Represented to Be?Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.
8.
BacchiC (2012) Why study problematizations? Making politics visible. Open Journal of Political Science02(01): 1–8. DOI: 10.4236/ojps.2012.21001.
9.
BaradK (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. e-Duke Books scholarly collection. Durham: Duke University Press.
10.
BeanAMNielsenRKLvan RooijAJ, et al. (2017) Video game addiction: the push to pathologize video games. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice48(5): 378–389. DOI: 10.1037/pro0000150.
11.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Theory, Culture & Society. London: Sage.
12.
BellVBishopDVMPrzybylskiAK (2015) The debate over digital technology and young people. British Medical Journal351: h3064. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h3064.
13.
BenjaminiYHochbergY (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)57(1): 289–300.
14.
Blum-RossALivingstoneS (2018) The trouble with “Screen Time” rules. In: MascheroniGPonteCJorgeA (eds), Digital Parenting: The Challenges for Families in the Digital Age. Yearbook/The International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media, 179–187.
15.
BoswellC (2009) The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge : Immigration Policy and Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
boydd (2014) It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.
17.
BromleyH (1997) The social chicken and the technological egg: educational computing and the technology/society divide. Educational Theory47(1): 51–65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-5446.1997.00051.x.
18.
BuckinghamDStrandgaard JensenH (2012) Beyond “Media Panics”: reconceptualising public debates about children and media. Journal of Children and Media6(4): 413–429. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2012.740415.
19.
ChimirriNA (2017) Parenting for digital literacy in Denmark and Germany: between techno-invitationalism and techno-protectionism. In: SörensenE (ed). Cultures of Computer Game Concerns: The Child across Families, Law, Science and Industry. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Available at: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.
20.
ChouliarakiL (2005) Media discourse and the public sphere. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada21(spe): 45–71. DOI: 10.1590/S0102-44502005000300005.
21.
CohenS (2011) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. Routledge Classics. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York: Routledge.
22.
DienlinTJohannesN (2020) The impact of digital technology use on adolescent well-being. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience22(2): 135–142. DOI: 10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/tdienlin.
23.
DownesT (1999) Children’s and parents’ discourses about computers in the home and school. Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies5(4): 104–111. DOI: 10.1177/135485659900500407.
24.
DrotnerK (1999) Dangerous media? Panic discourses and dilemmas of modernity. Paedagogica Historica35(3): 593–619. DOI: 10.1080/0030923990350303.
FacerK (2012) After the moral panic? Reframing the debate about child safety online. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education33(3): 397–413. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2012.681899.
28.
FaircloughN (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Reprint. Cambridge: Polity.
29.
FaircloughN (1995) Media Discourse. Repr. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
30.
FlyverbomM (2019) The Digital Prism: Transparency and Visibility in the Age of Total Information. New York: Cambridge University Press.
GabielkovMRamachandranAChaintreauA, et al. (2016) Social clicks: what and who gets read on Twitter? In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGMETRICS international conference on measurement and modeling of computer science - SIGMETRICS ’16, Antibes Juan-les-Pins, France, 2016. ACM Press, pp. 179–192. DOI: 10.1145/2896377.2901462.
33.
GaleFBolzanN (2016) Online ghettoes, perils or supernannies? Australian young people with chronic illness and disability challenge some moral panics about young people online. Disability and Society31(8): 1112–1126. DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2016.1236717.
34.
GeorgeMJOdgersCL (2015) Seven fears and the science of how mobile technologies may be influencing adolescents in the digital age. Perspectives on Psychological Science10(6): 832–851. DOI: 10.1177/1745691615596788.
35.
GrundmannR (2017) The problem of expertise in knowledge societies. Minerva55(1): 25–48. DOI: 10.1007/s11024-016-9308-7.
36.
GuoLVuHT (2018) Media vs. reality: who sets the public agenda on health?The Agenda Setting Journal2(1): 3–24. DOI: 10.1075/asj.16020.guo.
37.
HabermasJ (1988) Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: MIT Press.
38.
HaddonL (2015) Children’s critical evaluation of parental mediation. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace9(1): Article 2. doi: 10.5817/CP2015-1-2.
39.
HaddonLStaldG (2009) A Cross-National European Analysis of Press Coverage of Children and the Internet. LSE. London: EU Kids Online.
40.
HarrisonC (2019) Anti-Diet: Reclaim Your Time, Money, Well-Being, and Happiness through Intuitive Eating. 1st ed. New York: Little, Brown Spark.
41.
HasebrinkULivingstoneSHaddonL, et al. (2008) Comparing Children’s Online Opportunities and Risks across Europe: Cross-National Comparisons for EU Kids Online. London: LSEEU Kids Online.
42.
HaslamN (2016) Concept creep: psychology’s expanding concepts of harm and pathology. Psychological Inquiry27(1): 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2016.1082418.
HeppAHasebrinkU (2018) Researching transforming communications in times of deep mediatization: a figurational approach. In: HeppABreiterAHasebrinkU (eds), Communicative Figurations. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 15–48. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-65584-0.
45.
HjarvardS (2008) The mediatization of society: a theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review29(2): 105–134.
46.
HjarvardS (2016) Medialisering: Teori og historie. In: HjarvardS (ed). Medialisering: Mediernes Rolle i Social Og Kulturel Forandring. 1. udgave. Kbh: Hans Reitzel, 17–38.
47.
HolmesJ (2009) Myths and missed opportunities: Young people’s not so risky use of inline communication. Information, Communication & Society12(8): 1174–1196. DOI: 10.1080/13691180902769873.
48.
Hürriyet Daily News (2015) Minecraft videogame should be banned, Turkey’s Family Ministry concludes. In: Hürriyet Daily News. 10 March. Istanbul.
49.
JaunzemsKHollowayDGreenL, et al. (2019) Very young children online: media discourse and parental practice. In: GreenLHollowayDStevensonK, et al. (eds) Digitising Early Childhood. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 16–27.
50.
JefferyCP (2020) Parenting in the digital age: between socio-biological and socio-technological development. New Media & Society23: 146144482090860. DOI: 10.1177/1461444820908606.
51.
JensenKLahnLCNerlandM (2012) Introduction: professional learning in new knowledge landscapes: a cultural perspective. In: JensenKLahnLNerlandM (eds). Professional Learning in the Knowledge Society. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 1–24. Available at: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/asb/detail.action?docID=3034744.
52.
JensenKB (1986). Making Sense of the News: Towards a Theory and an Empirical Model of Reception for the Study of Mass Communication. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
53.
JensenKB (2012a) Media effects: quantitative traditions. In: JensenKB (ed), A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies. 2nd ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 153–170.
54.
JensenKB (2012b) Media reception: qualitative traditions. In: JensenKB (ed), A Handbook of Media and Communication Research : Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies. 2nd ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 171–202.
55.
JonesRHChikAHafnerCA (2015) Discourse analysis and digital practices. In: Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 1–17. http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/66501/.
56.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1972) Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology3(3): 430–454. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3.
57.
Kardefelt-WintherD (2017) How Does the Time Children Spend Using Digital Technology Impact Their Mental Well-Being, Social Relationships and Physical Activity?: An Evidence-Focused Literature Review. Innocenti Discussion Papers, 31 December. DOI: 10.18356/cfa6bcb1-en.
58.
KayeLKOrbenAEllisD, et al. (2020) The conceptual and methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17(10): 3661. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103661.
59.
KitzingerJ (1999) Researching risk and the media. Health, Risk & Society1(1): 55–69. DOI: 10.1080/13698579908407007.
60.
KlapperJT (1960) The Effects of Mass Communication. Foundations of Communications Research. New York: Free Press, 3.
61.
KofoedJ (2014) Cyberbullying. In: TeoT (ed), Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. New York, NY: Springer New York, 361–363. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_578.
KrippendorffK (2013) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.
64.
LaclauE (1990) New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: New York: Verso.
65.
LeickK (2019) Parents, Media and Panic through the Years: Kids Those Days.
66.
LemishD (2009) Israeli children online: from moral panic to responsible parenting. Megamot46(1–2): 137–163.
67.
LivingstoneS (2007) Reception studies. In: RitzerG (ed), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, wbeosr031. DOI: 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosr031.
68.
LivingstoneSBlum-RossA (2020) Parenting for a Digital Future: How Hopes and Fears about How Technology Shape Children’s Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
69.
LivingstoneSByrneJ (2018) Parenting in the digital age. the challenges of parental responsibility in comparative perspective. In: MascheroniGPonteCJorgeA (eds), Digital Parenting: The Challenges for Families in the Digital Age. Yearbook/The International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media, 19–30.
70.
LivingstoneSÓlafssonKHelsperEJ, et al. (2017) Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for children online: the role of digital skills in emerging strategies of parental mediation: maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks. Journal of Communication67(1): 82–105. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12277.
71.
LückJWesslerHWozniakA, et al. (2018) Counterbalancing global media frames with nationally colored narratives: a comparative study of news narratives and news framing in the climate change coverage of five countries. Journalism19(12): 1635–1656. DOI: 10.1177/1464884916680372.
72.
LuoYBurleyHMoeA, et al. (2019) A meta-analysis of news media’s public agenda-setting effects, 1972-2015. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly96(1): 150–172. DOI: 10.1177/1077699018804500.
73.
MartellozzoEMonaghanADavidsonJ, et al. (2020) Researching the affects that online pornography has on U.K. adolescents aged 11 to 16. SAGE Open10(1): 215824401989946. DOI: 10.1177/2158244019899462.
74.
MarwickAE (2008) To catch a predator? The MySpace moral panic. First Monday; Volume 13 Number 6 - 2 June 2008. DOI: 10.5210/fm.v13i6.2152.
75.
MascheroniG (2018) Addiction or emancipation? Children’s attachment to smartphones as a cultural practice. In: VincentJHaddonL (eds), Smartphone Cultures. London: Routledge, Taylor & Frances group, 121–134.
76.
MascheroniGÓlafssonK (2016) The mobile internet: access, use, opportunities and divides among European children. New Media & Society18(8): 1657–1679. DOI: 10.1177/1461444814567986.
77.
MascheroniGJorgeAFarrugiaL (2014) Media representations and children’s discourses on online risks: findings from qualitative research in nine European countries. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace8(2): Article 2. doi: 10.5817/CP2014-2-2.
78.
MavoaJGibbsMCarterM (2017) Constructing the young child media user in Australia: a discourse analysis of Facebook comments. Journal of Children and Media11(3): 330–346. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2017.1308400.
79.
McCombsM (2006) Setting the Agenda: The News Media and Public Opinion. Repr. Cambridge: Polity Press.
80.
MeierAReineckeL (2020) Computer-mediated Communication, Social Media, and Mental Health: A Conceptual and Empirical Meta-Review. Preprint, 6 April. PsyArXiv. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/573ph.
81.
MihailidisP (2012) Introduction - news literacy in the dawn of a hypermedia age. In: MihailidisP (ed), News Literacy: Global Perspectives for the Newsroom and the Classroom. Mass Communication and Journalism. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1–17.
82.
MilosevicTDiasPMifsudC, et al. (2019) Media representation of children’s privacy in the context of the use of “smart” toys and commercial data Collection. Medijske Studije9(18): 6–25. DOI: 10.20901/ms.9.18.1.
83.
MonteiroAFOsórioAJ (2016) Digital childhood, risks and opportunities: why is it so important to listen to children? In: PereiraÍRamosAMarshJ (eds), Proceedings of the first Training School of COST Action IS1410. Braga, Portugal: University of Minho, 135–151.
84.
NielsenRK (2019) Economic contexts of journalism. In: Wahl-JorgensenKHanitzschT (eds), The Handbook of Journalism Studies. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 324–340.
85.
NikkenPScholsM (2015) How and why parents guide the media use of young children. Journal of Child and Family Studies24(11): 3423–3435. DOI: 10.1007/s10826-015-0144-4.
86.
O’ConnorJFotakopoulouO (2016) A threat to childhood innocence or the future of learning? Parents’ perspectives on the use of touch-screen technology by 0–3 year-olds in the UK. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood17(2): 235–247. DOI: 10.1177/1463949116647290.
87.
OrbenA (2020a) Teenagers, screens and social media: a narrative review of reviews and key studies. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology55: 407–414. DOI: 10.1007/s00127-019-01825-4.
88.
OrbenA (2020b) The sisyphean cycle of technology panics. Perspectives on Psychological Science15(5): 1143–1157. DOI: 10.1177/1745691620919372.
PonteCBauwensJMascheroniG (2009) Children and the internet in the news: agency, voices and agendas. In: LivingstoneSHaddonL (eds), Kids Online: Opportunities and Risks for Children. Bristol, UK; Portland, OR: Policy Press, 159–172.
RaoNLingamL (2020) Smartphones, youth and moral panics: exploring print and online media narratives in India. Mobile Media & Communication9: 205015792092226. DOI: 10.1177/2050157920922262.
93.
SaldañaJ (2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed. Los Angeles; London: SAGE.
94.
San MartínR (2012) Reaffirming the ‘Journalist’ as vital to the 21st century information flow, civic dialog, and news literacy. In: MihailidisP (ed), News Literacy: Global Perspectives for the Newsroom and the Classroom. Mass Communication and Journalism. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 81–94.
95.
SarathchandraDMccrightAM (2017) The effects of media coverage of scientific retractions on risk perceptions. SAGE Open7(2): 215824401770932. DOI: 10.1177/2158244017709324.
96.
SchäferMS (2011) Sources, characteristics and effects of mass media communication on science: a review of the literature, current trends and areas for future research: mass media communication on science. Sociology Compass5(6): 399–412. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00373.x.
97.
SchemerCMasurPKGeißS, et al. (2020) The impact of internet and social media use on well-being: a longitudinal analysis of adolescents across nine years. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication26: 1–21. DOI: 10.1093/jcmc/zmaa014.
98.
Science Communication Unit (2014) Science for Environment Policy Future Brief: Public risk Perception and Environmental Policy. Report Produced for the European Commission DG Environment, September. Bristol: University of the West of England.
99.
SelwynN (2003) ‘Doing IT for the Kids’: re-examining children, computers and the ‘information society’. Media, Culture & Society25(3): 351–378. DOI: 10.1177/0163443703025003004.
SmahelDMachackovaHMascheroniG, et al. (2020) EU Kids Online 2020: Survey Results from 19 Countries. EU Kids Online.
102.
SmahelovaMJuhováDCermakI, et al. (2017) Mediation of young children’s digital technology use: the parents’ perspective. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace11(3): Article 4. doi: 10.5817/CP2017-3-4.
SternSRBurke OdlandS (2017) Constructing dysfunction: news coverage of teenagers and social media. Mass Communication and Society20(4): 505–525. DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2016.1274765.
105.
SyvertsenTEnliG (2020) Digital detox: media resistance and the promise of authenticity. Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies26(5–6): 1269–1283. DOI: 10.1177/1354856519847325.
106.
TandocECJr. (2017) Follow the click? Journalistic autonomy and web analytics. In: FranklinBEldridgeSA (eds), The Routledge Companion to Digital Journalism Studies. London; New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 293–301.
107.
TurkleS (2008) Always-on/always-on-you: the tethered self. In: KatzJE (ed). Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 121–138.
108.
UNICEF (2017). Children in a Digital World. The State of the World’s Children 2017. New York, NY: UNICEF.
109.
ValkenburgPMPeterJWaltherJB (2016) Media effects: theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology67(1): 315–338. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033608.
110.
Van PetegemSde FerrerreESoenensB, et al. (2019) Parents’ degree and style of restrictive mediation of young children’s digital gaming: associations with parental attitudes and perceived child adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies28(5): 1379–1391. DOI: 10.1007/s10826-019-01368-x.
111.
VuHTJiangLChacónLMC, et al. (2019) What influences media effects on public perception? A cross-national study of comparative agenda setting. International Communication Gazette81(6–8): 580–601. DOI: 10.1177/1748048518817652.
112.
VuorreMOrbenAPrzybylskiAK (2021) There is no evidence that associations between adolescents’ digital technology engagement and mental health problems have increased. Clinical Psychological Science9: 216770262199454. DOI: 10.1177/2167702621994549.
113.
WahlbergAAFSjobergL (2000) Risk perception and the media. Journal of Risk Research3(1): 31–50. DOI: 10.1080/136698700376699.
114.
WestSM (2019) Data capitalism: redefining the logics of surveillance and privacy. Business & Society58(1): 20–41. DOI: 10.1177/0007650317718185.
115.
WienC (2014) Commentators on daily news or communicators of scholarly achievements? The role of researchers in Danish news media. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism15(4): 427–445. DOI: 10.1177/1464884913490272.
116.
WillettRJ (2015) The discursive construction of ‘good parenting’ and digital media – the case of children’s virtual world games. Media, Culture & Society37(7): 1060–1075. DOI: 10.1177/0163443715591666.
117.
WilsonKCodeCDornanC, et al. (2004) The reporting of theoretical health risks by the media: Canadian newspaper reporting of potential blood transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. BMC Public Health4: 1. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-4-1.
118.
ZuboffS (2015) Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology30(1): 75–89. DOI: 10.1057/jit.2015.5.
119.
ZuboffS (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism : The Fight for the Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. London: Profile Books.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
