A nomeação como fundamento do jornalismo

Abstract

The thesis argues that naming is one of the foundations of journalism. Naming is understood as a phenomenon of the language responsible for making known about speech objects crucial to the production of news. In journalism, it is argued in this paper that nominating words are crucial from the process of preparing the agenda to editing, because by naming the journalist uses resort to one of the basic principles of his function: accuracy. In this context, the journalistic practice of naming is elaborated in the process of selecting and using certain terms to the detriment of others. It is considered crucial in this process to reflect on journalism as a form of knowledge (Park, 1972; Genro Filho, 2012; Meditsch, 1992, 1997; Sponholz, 2007, 2009) without losing sight of its character as a legitimate social institution to narrate the present and elaborate knowledge in an innovation context (Franciscato, 2005, 2018, 2019, 2020a, 2020b) and admittedly involved in a post-industrial news production ecosystem (Anderson et al., 2013). A literature review presents how different areas of knowledge collaborate to think about naming in speeches and their dialogue with journalism. We initially resorted to the interactionist perspective of textual linguistics and the understanding of referencing (Mondada, 2020; Koch, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2020) and the concept of the presence of the new rhetoric in the theory of argumentation is presented (Perelman, 2014; Breton, 2003). In the methodological scope, the research is anchored in content analysis, more precisely in the co-occurrence analysis technique, also known as contingency analysis (Krippendorff, 2004; Bauer, 2005; Bardin, 2016). The basis for collecting the corpus is three newspapers that appear, year after year, among those with the largest national circulation: Folha de S.Paulo, Estado de S.Paulo and O Globo. We analyzed 387 statements found in content separated between informative and opinionated. The proposal was to carry out a diachronic analysis with content published at different historical moments, from 1969 to 2019. The intention was to identify how the nomination of a particular social group, the LGBTQIA + community, has changed over 50 years. Among the final considerations is the location of different modalities of the journalistic practice of the nomination.