Magnus Hoem Iversen

Magnus Hoem Iversen

Participant in 2014
Work history 2013-2014: Scientific assistant at the department of information science and media studies

2013 - : Founded the debate-series "Mediesamfunn" (Media Society) at the Bergen House of Literature. A meeting place for media industry, academics in media and interested citizens in general.

2012 - 2013: Seminar-leader at the department of information science and media studies at the following courses: Mevi101: Institutions and history, Mevi103: Media texts: theory and analysis, Mevi104: Representation and identity, Infomevi201: Technology, culture and society, Ret101: Practical/Applied rhetorics, Mevi223: Film history and Mevi110: An introduction to the norwegian media system in a global context.

2007 - 2014: Artist Liasion for the Hove Festival. Communicative link between festival production and incoming headliner-productions of musical acts. Lots of experience on organizing and hectic work. Also: contact with press/media.

2005 - 2011: Board member (non profit): The Mountain Park Rock Music Festival in Flekkefjord, Norway.
Study history 2010-2012: Masters degree in communication and media studies. Topic of master: The Norwegian ban on televised adertisements. An investegation of dominating arguments in relation to actual examples of ads.

2008-2010: Bachelors degree in communication and media studies. Topic for bachelor: The media rhetoric of Richard Nixon, as illustrated by campaign ads from 1960 and 1968.

2004-2006: Undergraduate studies in literature. Specialization in latin.

Phd Projects


Direct political communication: Exploring production, rhetoric and audience reception through the case of political advertisements.

This project will investigate how Norwegian political moving-image advertisements can shed light upon the process of direct and paid political communication between political parties and voters. My goal is to explore the entire chain of communication, paying particular attention to the use of visual and emotional argumentation throughout, both in the process of production, the advertisements themselves and in the reception of concrete groups of voters.
A central premise regarding reception is that these films, often referred to as very powerful, harmful and manipulative propaganda in the public debate as well as government white paper, will be received with variation across basic demographic factors as well pre-existing identification with political parties, trade unions or other political organizations.
I speculate that a lot of interpretative power lies in the texts themselves – but that the evaluations of the fixed textual meanings vary from respondent to respondent. What is interesting here then, is the how: How do people decode highly intentional and strategic messages that argue heavily through visuals and pathos-appeals? If they are in agreement or disagreement, what argumentative strategies are employed to oppose, support or negotiate the messages presented?
Although political advertisements have received bountiful scholarly attention, more knowledge on the use of emotional arguments and the visual components of political web advertisements has been called for.
My research questions are as follows:
RQ1: Production: How is visual and emotional argumentation facilitated by political parties and the advertising agencies?
RQ2: Content analysis of advertisements: How do concrete examples of political moving image advertisements argue visually and emotionally?
RQ3: Media reception: How do journalists, commentators and experts treat these messages and the argumentation inherent in them?
RQ4: Reception of empirical voters: How does concrete respondents relate to the visual and emotional argumentation in these advertisements?
Methodology: I will carry out production studies in connection with the national election of 2013 as well as the local elections of 2015 utilizing expert interviews as well as observation. The contents of the advertisements themselves will be analyzed rhetorically, the media reception through qualitative content analysis, and the response of different voters will be examined using focus groups.
Theory: The empirical data collected will be analyzed in light of theories of the deliberative democracy and rhetorical argumentation theory as well as theories of professionalization, hybridization and globalization of national campaigning.

Go back