The recent discussion on mediatisation prompts questions about how it arises and how social spheres are marked by it. In this article, we use business as an example of a social sphere to show that the production of normativity by and through the media is a central aspect of mediatisation. The empirical case of the article is the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Six specific techniques were used by the media to construct the case as an instance of corporate misbehaviour that met public recognition. The techniques are instrumental in forming the predicament of a modern mediatised business sphere, it is argued.

This article examines what qualifies as news when public agencies in Sweden claim to engage in media work. We unwrap and explore what happens when ideas about “newsworthiness” enter the practice of public sector communication. What becomes news, and how? What kinds of content are favored, how are stories told, and what voices are heard? The ideas of newsworthiness in a public sector context are here conceptualized as a logic of appropriateness that governs civil servants’ media work. We base our analysis on a three-year case study of a Swedish county council’s digital news channel, VGRfokus. The analysis focuses on how ideas of newsworthiness are constructed and mirrored in and through the content of VGRfokus, as well as how they are reflected and acted upon by communications professionals working at the news channel. We suggest that ideas of newsworthiness may function as a governing principle and tone down or even hide conflicts and tensions between key values of bureaucracy and market, otherwise often manifested in public sector communication.

The purpose of grant peer review is to identify the most excellent and pro- mising research projects. However, sociologists of science and STS scholars have shown that peer review tends to promote solid low-risk projects at the expense of more original and innovative projects that often come with higher risk. It has also been shown that the review process is affected by significant measures of chance. Against this background, the aim of this study is to the- orize the notions of academic judgment and agonistic chance and to present and analyze situations in which expert reviewers are faced with the challenge of trying to decide which grant proposals to select when there is strong dis- agreement. The empirical analysis is based on ethnographic observations of ten panel groups at the Swedish Research Council in the areas of natural and engineering sciences. By focusing on disagreement, the study provides a more in-depth understanding of how agonistic chance creeps into the peer-review process and becomes part of the consensus that is created.