Mario Carlón 120 happened in the mass media, social media, and at the Plaza del Congreso was conducted - in which an ethnographic observation was put into play through photographic research. We mainly put into play three different analytical dispositifs. Concerning the temporal dimension, the analysis was divided into three periods: before, during, and after the event. This chronological distinction was essential not only because, obviously, we knew that the President’s speech was going to have a limited duration, but also because we understood that putting into play a distinction of this type was going to allow us to carry out a first ordering of the corpus to be analyzed. At the same time, we thought that this distinction was important be- cause we wanted to compare the event with postmodern ones. And as we saw with the paragraph by Verón that we quoted ear- lier, we knew that this question was crucial because it had occu- pied a central place in postmodern analyzes (in the conclusions, we will see that it had also been a very important distinction for Dayan and Katz (1995 [1992]), who had relied on it in their classic La historia en directo. La retransmisión televisiva de los acontecimientos. But we also knew that differentiating a before, during, and an after was not going to solve all the problems, and, in fact, it was going to constitute a specific challenge at the level of the temporal dimension because we expected that, due to the transformations of the hypermediated contemporary society, the activation of multiple flows of circulation of meaning, simul- taneously, took place in the three instances, either, on the one hand, in a vertical-horizontal way (between the different media systems in all directions of circulation, top-down, bottom-up, and horizontally) and transversally (“inwards” and “outwards” of the different actors/enunciators). Not only that: we also ex- pected that different circulation flows of meaning would jump from before to during or after. This challenge was overcome, as we hope to demonstrate, because simultaneity did not prevent the theoretical distinctions that we put into play from identify- ing the main circulation flows of meaning that were established between actors/enunciators and media systems, and because the analysis finally allowed us to obtain results that enabled us to make comparative hypotheses about what is specific to before, during, and after contemporary events.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz