sagt om norsk medieforskning
Clicks: 161
ID: 164621
1994
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
30.0
/100
161 views
32 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
StarRanked #3 of 3 articles by views in Ûg rossii: Èkologiâ, razvitie
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Norsk medieforskning blir ofte kritisert for å være virkelighetsfjern og teoretiserende, noe som her anskueliggjøres gjennom en liten sitatsamling. Kritikerne er i mange tilfeller utøvende journalister. Det er et paradoks for medieforskere at de som kanskje burde være de viktigste brukerne av ny forskning tilsynelatende er de som finner den minst interessant. Vi ønsker debatt om medieforskningen, og alle kritikere har et stående tilbud om å utdype sin kritikk i våre spalter.
REDAKSJONEN
Abstract Quality Issue:
This abstract appears to be incomplete or contains metadata (77 words).
Try re-searching for a better abstract.
| Reference Key |
noauthor1994norsksagt
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ; |
| Journal | Ûg rossii: Èkologiâ, razvitie |
| Year | 1994 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.