The dominant part of the somewhat limited Scandinavian media research on political debate tends to ignore a most crucial element in political television debates, namely the argumentation itself. With examples from televised Norwegian debates on EU membership and from a rhetorical point of view, the article discusses some strategies in political television debates that lack objectivity or are dishonest or unfair. The four main areas of strategies are: 1) ambiguity and vagueness, 2) unfair presupposition and the straw-manfallacy, 3) the grandfallon-technique and finally 4) personal attack and ad hominem argumentation. On the basis of rhetorical theory the author concludes that in televised debates where the viewer is not supposed to choose a political representative or party, but to make a decision about an issue – so-called issue debates – these nonobjective, dishonest or unfair strategies cannot be expected to form an effective debate weapon.

Social scientists who undertake to produce knowledge relevant to social and political planning, should feel obliged to investigate the implicit limitations with which our quest for knowledge and understanding will at some pointinevitably as well as reflecting on how to meet thischallenge professionally. The same might be said of each scientist's challenge to mediate her or his research findings: The job is incomplete until you are capable of explaining why public opinion remains potentially untouched by what you have found out. Or, to twist a familiar saying: The idea that we have a society based on knowledge, is the main reason why we cannot have one. And this is why it is of paramount importance to develop a better understanding of the discursive processes that shape, maintain and pervert our shared conceptions of society. The author bases his discussion on his experiences in the field of immigration research

As the Norwegian field of mass communication and media research was proliferating in the 70s and 80s, a major social science research programme known as Maktutredningen (The Norwegian Power Studies) was launched by the Norwegian Research Council (NFR). The research programme united several academic fields and researchers in an ambitious attempt to analyse the various powers and power relations between the political and economical institutions in the Norwegian society. Media power was singled out as a particular field of interest, and a core group of researchers and assistents in Oslo and Bergen embarked on the task. This essay sketches out the historical background, the theoretical positions and the empirical analyses that were conducted and discusses the general impact of Maktutredningen on the Norwegian media research field. The theoretical and methodological debates on media power are tracked until their fading in the late 80s and discussed in relation to contemporary needs for new empirical research.

By tracing the historical record of journalist training and academic courses in Norway, the essay shows how conflicting interests of academia, the media profession and politicians obstructed the formation of a strong and independent tradition in journalis tie research and education. Going back to the 19th century, the essay uncovers the conflicts, values and arguments for education in the joumalistic profession. Regular courses in journalism were etstablished after WWII, but became institutionalised outside, rather than inside the academic institutions. Hence, the postgraduate courses in journalism now being planned at the University of Oslo is a historical occasion for rethinking the strong alliance between the journalist profession and media researchers.

Through an analysis of the case of the oppositional paper The Daily Gazette in Zimbabwe, the author traces some aspects of Norwegian development funding for media and cultural development. Such support must be firmly rooted in a local knowledge of markets, politics and customs, if it is to succeed. The fate of The Daily Gazette illustrates well how good projects sometimes meet too severe obstacles, the author argues.

The article aims to show how the NRK is currently using the continuity segments between its programmes to promote itself in the fashion of commercial channels. It discusses how the NRK's schedule may be seen as the result of conflicting expectations toward the institution as a public service broadcaster. In addition to concrete analyses of one day's schedule, the article contains discussions of the place of qualitative schedule analysis in media research, as well as suggesting a set of theoretical and conceptual tools appropriate for such analysis.

The article gives a historical view on the proliferation of quantitative audience research in the broadcast industry in Norway and discusses the methodological difficulties connected to various measuring techniques. The new context of market competition in the Norwegian television industry changed justifications and needs for measuring the distributions of viewers on programmes and channels. The introduction of electronic meters is related to a discussion on the theoretical conceptualisation of the notion of "viewing". Various methods and techniques are offered to the broadcasting industry from professional monitoring companies. The author shows how different definitions of "viewing" gives different assessments of the television audience and suggests ways of coping with the difficulties.