UN General Comment No. 25 (2021) emphasizes the importance of safeguarding children’s rights in the digital sphere. However, in Turkey, media coverage often focuses on the negative aspects of the relationship between digital media and children, overshadowing opportunities, and rights. This study aims to analyze news articles focused on digital media and children to address this issue. Key concepts such as moral panic, framing and discourse are incorporated. Initially assuming a perception of digital media as a threat to social norms and children’s interests, the study utilizes a discourse-historical approach (DHA) to contextualize and explore the discursive strategies employed by national daily newspapers. Conducting a cross-sectional study, textual data from national dailies between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2020, in Turkey are collected, resulting in a corpus of 187 news articles. These articles undergo discourse historical analysis guided by the research question: “How is children’s relationship with the digital world portrayed and discussed in public discourse?” The findings reveal a predominant focus on risks over opportunities and rights, contributing to moral panic and impeding children’s civic participation. In conclusion, this study advocates for the adoption of a child rights perspective in Turkish newspapers to better serve the interests of children.
AustinJWillardM (1998) Generations of Youth Movement. New York: New York University Press.
2.
BauerMWAartsB (2000) Corpus construction: a principle for qualitative data collection. 2000. In BauerMWGaskellG (eds) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound.London: Sage, pp. 19–37
3.
Beck-GernsheimE (1996) The Normal Chaos of Love. Cambridge: Polity Press.
4.
BoulianneS (2020) Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation. Communication Research47(7): 947–966.
5.
BoulianneSTheocharisY (2020) Young people, digital media, and engagement: A meta-analysis of research. Social Science Computer Review38(2): 111–127.
6.
BuckinghamD (2013) Making Sense of the ‘Digital Generation’: Growing Up with Digital Media. Self & Society40(3): 7–15.
7.
ClarkLS (2012) The Parent App: Understanding Families in a Digital Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
CohenS (2002) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: Routledge.
9.
D’AngeloP (2017) Framing: Media frames. In RoesslerPHoffnerCAvan ZoonenL (eds), The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. West Sussex: Wiley, pp.1–10.
10.
de VreeseCH (2005) News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal + Document Design13(1): 51–62.
11.
DrotnerK (1999) Dangerous media? Panic discourses and dilemmas of modernity. Nordicom Review35(3): 593–619.
KrinskyC (2013) The Ashgate Research Companion to Moral Panics. New York: Routledge.
23.
LeeEMacvarishJBristowJ (2010) Risk, health and parenting culture. Health, Risk & Society12(4): 293–300.
24.
LivingstoneSBlum-RossA (2020) Parenting for a Digital Future: How Hopes and Fears about Technology Shape Children’s Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LivingstoneSStoilovaM (2021) The 4Cs: classifying online risk to children. CO: RE Short Report Series on Key Topics. Leibniz-Institut für Medienforschung, Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI). Hamburg. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21241/ssoar.71817 (accessed 14 June 2024).
27.
LuptonD (2012) Risk. London: Routledge.
28.
MarshADownsJSCranorLF (2017) Experts’ Views on Digital Parenting Strategies. Pittsburgh: CyLab Carnegie Mellon University.
29.
McCombsMEShawDLWeaverDH. (2014) New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication and Society17: 781–802.
OsgerbyB (2021) Youth Culture and the Media Global Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
32.
PonteC (2007) Mapping news on children in the mainstream press. European Societies9(5): 735–754.
33.
PonteCBauwensJMascheroniG (2009) Children and the internet in the news: Agency, voices and agendas. In: LivingstoneSHaddonL (eds) Kids Online. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.159–172.
34.
ReisiglMWodakR (2009) The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, pp.87–121.
35.
RussellA (2004) The truth about youth: Media portrayals of young people and politics. Journal of Public Affairs4(4): 347–354.
36.
ScheufeleDATewksburyD (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication57(1): 9–20.
37.
StaksrudE (2013) Children in the online world: Risk, regulation, rights. Nordicom Review34(Special Issue): 3–12.
StaksrudE (2021b) Sexual images, risk, and perception among youth: A Nordic example. In: GreenLHollowayDStevensonK, et al. (eds) The Routledge Companion to Digital Media and Children. New York: Routledge, pp.549–561.
40.
StaksrudELivingstoneS (2009) Children and online risk: Powerless victims or resourceful participants?Information, Communication & Society12(3): 364–387.
TurrowJ (1999) The Internet and the family: The view from parents, the view from the press. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science566(1): 35–47.
WallG (2022) Being a good digital parent: Representations of parents, youth and the parent-youth relationship in expert advice. Families, Relationships and Societies11(3): 340–355.
48.
WeissJ (2020) What is youth political participation? Literature review on youth political participation and political attitudes. Frontiers in Political Science2(1): 1–9.
49.
ZamanBMascheroniGHollowayD (2020) Opposing narratives about children’s digital media use: A critical discourse analysis of online public advice given to parents in Australia and Belgium. Media International Australia176(1): 120–137.
