Examining and problematizing the journalistic discourses of radical rightism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the popular journalistic discourses on the terroristic actions and ideological beliefs of Brenton Tarrant as a way to illuminate the problematic ways in which the notions of radicalization and extremism of rightism are framed. I argue that the journalistic discourses implicitly frame radicalization and extremism as isolated standalone phenomena in terms of their ideas and ideological proponents. This framing is problematic because it stimulates a practical solution of suppression and a moral reaction of condemnation that serve to inadvertently fuel the growth of radicalization towards extremist attitudes and violence. Therefore, through my elaboration, I aim to lead the discussion towards a reframing of radicalization and extremism as not only standalone phenomena but also inherently interactive social processes. Such reframing carries important educational implications. I conclude that the educational role in the face of problematic discourses on radical rightism is to ensure that the classroom understands radicalization as a shared and interactive social process rather than as only an individual outcome. It is through such understanding that the educational approaches can then optimally resist radicalization and extremism through the acknowledgement of the social importance of inclusive dialogues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".