Cover of book: Government Communications in a Digital Age
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

Government Communications in a Digital Age

A Comparative Study of Online Government Communications in Germany and Great Britain
Authors:
Publisher:
 13.06.2019

Summary

Just like political parties, governments must adapt to the demands of the digital sphere as their legitimacy is dependent on their ability to communicate decisions to citizens. However, despite abundant research into how the Internet is changing political communications, little is known about how governments use digital technolo-gies to communicate with citizens. There is also little knowledge of how different political systems shape the use of technology in this respect. Therefore, from a comparative perspective this study examines how government organisations in Germany and Great Britain are using websites and social media to interact with citizens and the media on a daily basis. Its empirical approach involves a content analysis of government websites and social media pages and a social network analysis of Twitter networks. Its findings show that government ministries predominantly use websites and social media for one-way communication and that social media is supporting the personalisation of government communications.

Keywords

Bibliographic data

Publication year
2019
Publication date
13.06.2019
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-5658-2
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-9803-0
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Politische Kommunikation und demokratische Öffentlichkeit
Volume
17
Language
English
Pages
276
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 18
    1. 1.1 Research Design No access
    2. 1.2 Outline of the Study No access
    1. 2.1 Political Communications in an Online Age: Theoretical Perspectives No access
      1. 2.2.1. E-government & e-democracy research paradigms No access
      2. 2.2.2. Motivations behind online initiatives within local government No access
      3. 2.2.3. Governments & social media No access
      1. 2.3.1. Comparative government communications No access
      2. 2.3.2. Comparative online political communications No access
    4. 2.4 Summary No access
    1. 3.1 Decentralised, Regulated & Formalised: German Institutional Structures No access
    2. 3.2 Centralised & Professionalised: British Institutional Structures No access
    3. 3.3 Summary & Research Guiding Assumptions I No access
      1. 4.1.1. Political organisations and digital technologies No access
      2. 4.1.2. Summary: political organisational perspectives No access
      1. 4.2.1. Government organisations as unique organisational structures No access
      2. 4.2.2. Summary: government organisational perspectives No access
    3. 4.3 Comparing Political Communications in a Digital Age No access
    4. 4.4 Understanding the New Media Environment: A Network Perspective No access
    5. 4.5 Summary & Research Guiding Assumptions II No access
    1. 5.1 Research Questions No access
    2. 5.2 Research Design: A Comparative Study No access
    3. 5.3 Conceptual and Methodological Challenges: Establishing Equivalence No access
    4. 5.4 Methodological Approach: Online Content Analysis & Social Network Analysis No access
      1. 5.5.1. Defining online government communications No access
      2. 5.5.2. Sampling No access
    6. 5.6 Saving Content: Technological Considerations No access
    7. 5.7 Cultural and Language Considerations in the Codebook No access
    8. 5.8 Developing the Categories of Analysis No access
    9. 5.9 Reliability & Validity No access
    10. 5.10 Social Network Analysis No access
      1. 6.1.1. Structural analysis government websites & social media No access
      2. 6.1.2. Interaction on government websites No access
      3. 6.1.3. Government organisations on Twitter: interaction No access
      4. 6.1.4. Government ministers on Twitter: interaction No access
      5. 6.1.5. Government organisations on Facebook: interaction No access
      6. 6.1.6. Government ministers on Facebook: interaction No access
      7. 6.1.7. Government organisations on YouTube: interaction No access
      8. 6.1.8. Government networking online No access
      9. 6.1.9. Individualised communications on social media No access
      10. 6.1.10. Transparency of government communication online No access
      11. 6.1.11. Changing press relations in an online sphere No access
    2. 6.2 Interim Summary: Results of the Online Content Analysis No access
      1. 6.3.1. Retweet network Great Britain No access
      2. 6.3.2. Retweet network Germany No access
    4. 6.4 Interim Summary: Results of the Social Network Analysis No access
    1. 7.1 Government Organisations and Unidirectional Communications Online No access
    2. 7.2 Organisational Differences in Social Media Use No access
    3. 7.3 Individualisation of Government Communications on Social Media No access
    4. 7.4 Centralised Government Actors in Twitter Networks No access
    5. 7.5 Government Networking on Twitter No access
    6. 7.6 Comparing the Use of Different Social Media Platforms No access
    7. 7.7 Summary No access
  9. 8. Conclusion No access 215 - 224
  10. References No access 225 - 238
    1. Appendix 1. Full Sample of Government Organisations in Great Britain No access
    2. Appendix 2. Full Sample of Government Organisations in Germany No access
    3. Appendix 3. English Language Codebook No access
    4. Appendix 4. Results Formal Reliability Tests DE & GB No access
    5. Appendix 5. Social Network Analysis Codebook No access

Bibliography (198)

  1. Adi, A., Erickson, K., & Lilleker, D. G. (2014). Elite tweets: Analyzing the Twitter communication patterns of Labour party peers in the House of Lords. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 1-27. Open Google Scholar
  2. Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2011). Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. Organization, 18(1), 83-104. Open Google Scholar
  3. Andeweg, R. (1993). A model of the cabinet system: the dimensions of cabinet decision-making processes. In Governing together: The extent and limits of joint decision-making in Western European cabinets (pp. 23-42). London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Open Google Scholar
  4. Andeweg, R. (2003). On studying governments. In J. Hayward & A. Menon (Eds.), Governing Europe (pp. 39-60). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  5. Anstead, N., & Chadwick, A. (2009). Parties, election campaigning, and the internet: Toward a comparative institutional approach. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of internet politics (pp. 56–71). London, UK: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  6. Anstead, N., & Chadwick, A. (2017). A primary definer online: the construction and propagation of a think tank’s authority on social media. Media, Culture & Society, 0163443717707341. Open Google Scholar
  7. Applebaum, A. (2017). A transformed political landscape. Journal of Democracy, 28(1), 53-58. Open Google Scholar
  8. Barczak, T. (2018). Staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit aus rechtswissenschaftlicher Perspektive [Government public relations from a legal perspective]. In J. Raupp, J. N. Kocks, & K. Murphy (Eds.), Regierungskommunikation und staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: Implikationen des technologisch induzierten Medienwandels (pp. 47-72). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  9. Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks (Version 0.92) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://gephi.org/users/download/ Open Google Scholar
  10. BBC. (2015). Westminister lobby [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133781 Open Google Scholar
  11. Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20-39. Open Google Scholar
  12. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739-768. Open Google Scholar
  13. Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15(4), 365-388. Open Google Scholar
  14. Bimber, B., Stohl, C., & Flanagin, A. J. (2009). Technological change and the shifting nature of political organization. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of internet politics (pp. 72–85). London, UK: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  15. Block, A., & Feldgen, K. (2018). "Die Leute erwarten den Dialog und den liefern wir auch": Ein Gespräch über Regierungskommunikation in den Sozialen Medien ["The people expect dialogue and we deliver it": A conversation about government communications on social media]. In J. Raupp, J. N. Kocks, & K. Murphy (Eds.), Regierungskommunikation und staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: Implikationen des technologisch induzierten Medienwandels (pp. 251-258). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  16. Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1995). The crisis of public communication. Psychology Press. Open Google Scholar
  17. Blumler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication, 16, 209-230. doi:10.1080/105846099198596 Open Google Scholar
  18. Blumler, J. G., McLeod, J. M., & Rosengren, K. E. (1992). An introduction to comparative communication research. In J. G. Blumler, J. M. McLeod, & K. E. Rosengren (Eds.), Comparatively speaking: Communication and culture across space and time (pp. 3-18). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Open Google Scholar
  19. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. & Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis (Version 6) [Computer software]. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Open Google Scholar
  20. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. & Johnson, J.C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Open Google Scholar
  21. Borucki, I. (2014a). Online-Regieren angesichts medialer Allgegenwart–Die Kanzlerin auf Youtube und ihr twitternder Regierungssprecher [Governing online in the face of media ubiquity – the Chancellor on YouTube and her twittering government spokesperson]. In H. Sievert & A. Nelke (Eds.), Social Media-Kommunikation nationaler Regierungen in Europa (pp. 34-50). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  22. Borucki, I. (2014b). Regieren mit Medien. Auswirkungen der Medialisierung auf die Regierungskommunikation der Bundesregierung von 1982-2010 [Governing with media: the effects of mediatization on the government communications of the German federal government from 1982-2010]. Berlin, Germany: Barbara Budrich. Open Google Scholar
  23. Borucki, I., & Jun, U. (2018). Regierungskommunikation im Wandel – Politikwissenschaftliche Perspektiven [Changing government communications – political science perspectives]. In J. Raupp, J. N. Kocks, & K. Murphy (Eds.), Regierungskommunikation und staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: Implikationen des technologisch induzierten Medienwandels (pp. 25-46). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  24. Brauck, M., & Schult, C. (2016, July). Regierungssprecher – Ein Job mit Rückfahrticket [Government spokesperson – A job with a return ticket]. Der Spiegel, 31. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/steffen-seibert-darf-zum-zdf-zurueckkehren-a-1105441.html Open Google Scholar
  25. Brüggemann, M., Engesser, S., Büchel, F., Humprecht, E., & Castro, L. (2014). Hallin and Mancini revisited: Four empirical types of Western media systems. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1037-1065. Open Google Scholar
  26. Bundespressekonferenz. (n.d.). Der Verein [Webpage]. Retrieved from www.bundespressekonferenz.de/verein/der-verein Open Google Scholar
  27. Bundesregierung. (2014). Digitale Agenda 2014-2017 [Digital agenda]. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. Retrieved from https://www.digitale-agenda.de/Webs/DA/DE/Home/home_node.html Open Google Scholar
  28. Bundesregierung. (2016). Gut Leben in Deutschland was uns wichtig ist: Bericht der Bundesregierung zur Lebensqualität in Deutschland [Good life in Germany what is important to us: Report of the Federal Government on the quality of life in Germany]. Presse und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung. Retrieved from https://www.gut-leben-in-deutschland.de/static/LB/index.html Open Google Scholar
  29. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. (n.d.). Staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit/Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202110/staatliche-oeffentlichkeitsarbeit-presse-und-informationsamt-der-bundesregierung Open Google Scholar
  30. Burt, E., & Taylor, J. (2001). When 'virtual' meets values: Insights from the voluntary sector. Information, Communication & Society, 4(1), 54-73. Open Google Scholar
  31. Cabinet Office. (2011). Review of government direct communication and the role of COI: Matt Tee, Permanent Secretary for Government Communications. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60819/coi-comms-review-march2011_0.pdf Open Google Scholar
  32. Cabinet Office. (2013). Cabinet Office annual report and accounts 2012-2013. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225980/HC_15.pdf Open Google Scholar
  33. Campus, D. (2010). Mediatization and personalization of politics in Italy and France: The cases of Berlusconi and Sarkozy. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(2), 219-235. Open Google Scholar
  34. Canel, M. J., & Sanders, K. (2014). Is it enough to be strategic? Comparing and defining professional government communication across disciplinary fields and between countries. In M.J. Canel & K. Voltmer (Eds.), Comparing political communication across time and space (pp. 98-116). London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Open Google Scholar
  35. Canel, M. J., & Sanders, K. (2012). Government communication: An emerging field in political communication research. In H.A. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication (pp. 85-97). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. Open Google Scholar
  36. Castells, M. (2000a). The network society (Second ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Open Google Scholar
  37. Castells, M. (2000b). Toward a sociology of the network society. Contemporary sociology, 29(5), 693-699. Open Google Scholar
  38. Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266. Open Google Scholar
  39. Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 78–93. Open Google Scholar
  40. Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Open Google Scholar
  41. Castells, M. (2011a). A network theory of power. International Journal of Communication, 5, 773–787. Open Google Scholar
  42. Castells, M. (2011b). Democracy in the age of the Internet. Journal of Contemporary Culture (6), 96-103. Open Google Scholar
  43. Chadwick, A. (2003). Bringing e-democracy back in: Why it matters for future research on e-governance. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 443-455. Open Google Scholar
  44. Chadwick, A. (2007). Digital network repertoires and organizational hybridity. Political Communication, 24(3), 283-301. Open Google Scholar
  45. Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5(1), 9-41. Open Google Scholar
  46. Chadwick, A. (2011a). Explaining the failure of an online citizen engagement initiative: the role of internal institutional variables. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 8(1), 21-40. Open Google Scholar
  47. Chadwick, A. (2011b). The political information cycle in a hybrid news system: The British prime minister and the “bullygate” affair. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(1), 3-29. Open Google Scholar
  48. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  49. Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  50. Chadwick, A., & May, C. (2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the Internet: “e-Government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance, 16, 271–300. doi:10.1111/1468-0491.00216 Open Google Scholar
  51. Chadwick, A., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2016). Digital media, power, and democracy in parties and election campaigns: Party decline or party renewal? International Journal of Press/Politics, 20(3), 283-294. Open Google Scholar
  52. Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The Internet and democratic citizenship: theory, practice and policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  53. Coleman, S., & Firmstone, J. (2014). Contested meanings of public engagement: exploring discourse and practice within a British city council. Media, Culture & Society, 36(6), 826-844. Open Google Scholar
  54. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147–162. doi:10.1080/10584600590933160 Open Google Scholar
  55. Davis, A. (2009). Journalist-source relations, mediated reflexivity and the politics of politics. Journalism Studies, 10, 204–219. doi:10.1080/14616700802580540 Open Google Scholar
  56. Davis, A. (2010a). New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation. New Media & Society, 12, 745–761. Open Google Scholar
  57. Davis, A. (2010b). Political Communication and Social Theory. London, UK: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  58. Davis, A. (2014). The impact of market forces, new technologies, and political PR on UK journalism. In R. Kuhn & R.K. Nielsen (Eds.), Political journalism in transition. Western Europe in a comparative perspective (pp. 111-128). London, UK: IB Tauris. Open Google Scholar
  59. De Vreese, C.H. (2017). Comparative political communication research. In K. Kenski & K. Hall Jamieson (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.001.0001 Open Google Scholar
  60. Deutscher Bundestag. (2015). Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Dr. Konstantin von Notz, Tabea Rößner, Renate Künast, weiterer Abgeordnete und der Fraktion BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN: Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der Bundesregierung auf Social Media Kanälen [Answer of the federal government to the request of the parliamentarian Dr. Konstantin von Notz, Tabea Rößner, Renate Künast, and other parliamentarians and the Green Party faction: Public relations of the federal government on social media]. Retrieved from http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/066/1806609.pdf Open Google Scholar
  61. DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In P.J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63-82). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar
  62. Donges, P. (2008). Medialisierung politischer Organisationen. Parteien in der Mediengesellschaft. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  63. Donges, P., & Jarren, O. (2014). Mediatization of political organisations: Changing parties and interest groups? In F. Esser & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies (pp. 181-200). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar
  64. Donges, P., & Nitschke, P. (2016). The new institutionalism revisited. In G. Vowe & P. Henn (Eds.), Political Communication in the Online World: Theoretical Approaches and Research Designs (pp. 118-132). New York, NY: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  65. Dowding, K. (2013). The prime ministerialisation of the British prime minister. Parliamentary Affairs, 66(3), 617-635. Open Google Scholar
  66. Drobinski, M. (2018, February 27). Wanka gegen AFD – Warum das Urteil richtig ist [Wanka against the AFD – why the judgement is correct]. Die Suddeutsche Zeitung. Retrieved from http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/meinung-am-mittag-wanka-gegen-afd-karlsruhe-beschraenkt-zu-recht-die-meinungsmacht-der-regierung-1.3884651 Open Google Scholar
  67. Dunleavy, P., & Margetts, H. (2015). Design principles for essentially digital governance. Paper presented at the 111th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, USA. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/64125 Open Google Scholar
  68. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead — long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467-494. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057 Open Google Scholar
  69. Dunleavy, P., & Rhodes, R.A.W. (1990). Core executive studies in Britain. Public Administration, 68(1), 3-28. Open Google Scholar
  70. Döhler, M., Fleischer, J., & Hustedt, T. (2007). Government reform as institutional politics: Varieties and policy patterns from a comparative perspective. Research Paper "Core Executives in Western Europe", (3). Potsdam, Germany: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. Open Google Scholar
  71. Enli, G.S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 757-774. Open Google Scholar
  72. Esser, F. (2008). Dimensions of political news cultures: Sound bite and image bite news in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(4), 401-428. Open Google Scholar
  73. Esser, F. (2013). The emerging paradigm of comparative communication enquiry: Advancing cross-national research in times of globalization. International Journal of Communication, 7, 113-128. Open Google Scholar
  74. Esser, F., & Hanitzsch, T. (2012). On the why and how of comparative inquiry in communication studies. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  75. Esser, F., & Pfetsch, B. (2017). Comparing political communication. In D. Caramani (Ed.), Comparative politics (Fourth ed.) (pp. 327-347). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  76. Figenschou, T. U., Karlsen, R., Kolltveit, K., & Thorbjørnsrud, K. (2017). Serving the media ministers: A mixed methods study on the personalization of ministerial communication. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22(4), 411-430. Open Google Scholar
  77. Foot, K.A., Xenos, M., Schneider, S.M., Kluver, R., & Jankowski, N.W. (2009). Electoral web production practices in cross-national perspective: The relative influence of national development, political culture, and web genre. In A. Chadwick & P. Howard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of Internet politics (pp. 40-55). London, UK: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  78. Garland, R., Tambini, D., & Couldry, N. (2017). Has government been mediatized? A UK perspective. Media, Culture & Society, 40(4), 496-513. Open Google Scholar
  79. Gibson, R., Margolis, M., Resnick, D., & Ward, S. J. (2003). Election campaigning on the WWW in the USA and UK. Party Politics, 9, 47–75. Open Google Scholar
  80. Gibson, R., & Ward, S. (2000). A proposed methodology for studying the function and effectiveness of party and candidate web sites. Social Science Computer Review, 18(3), 301-319. Open Google Scholar
  81. Gibson, R., & Ward, S. (2009). European political organizations and the internet: mobilization, participation and change. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of internet politics (pp. 25–39). London, UK: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  82. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press. Open Google Scholar
  83. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford university press. Open Google Scholar
  84. Government Communication Service. (2015). Government communication service (GCS) handbook. Retrieved from https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/GCS-Handbook.pdf Open Google Scholar
  85. Graber, D.A. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public organizations. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. Open Google Scholar
  86. Gregory, A. (2006). A development framework for government communicators. Journal of Communication Management, 10(2), 197-210. Open Google Scholar
  87. Gregory, A. (2012). UK government communications: Full circle in the 21st century? Public Relations Review, 38(3), 367-375. Open Google Scholar
  88. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Open Google Scholar
  89. Gurevitch, M., Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). Political communication—Old and new media relationships. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 625(1), 164-181. Open Google Scholar
  90. Hallin, D.C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  91. Hanitzsch, T. (2012). Comparing journalism cultures. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 262-275). New York, NY: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  92. Head, B. (2007). The public service and government communication: Pressures and dilemmas. In S. Young (Ed.), Government communication in Australia. New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  93. Heffernan, R. (2006). The prime minister and the news media: Political communication as a leadership resource. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(4), 582-598. Open Google Scholar
  94. Heinze, J. (2012). Regierungskommunikation in Deutschland: Eine Analyse von Produktion und Rezeption [Government communications in Germany: An analysis of production and reception]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  95. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics, economics, and culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  96. Holtz-Bacha, C. (2013). Government communication in Germany: Maintaining the fine line between information and advertising. In K. Sanders & M. J. Canel (Eds.), Government communication (pp. 45-58). New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Open Google Scholar
  97. Holtz-Bacha, C., Langer, A.I., & Merkle, S. (2014). The personalization of politics in comparative perspective: Campaign coverage in Germany and the United Kingdom. European Journal of Communication, 29(2), 153-170. Open Google Scholar
  98. Horsley, J.S., Liu, B. F., & Levenshus, A.B. (2010). Comparisons of U.S. government communication practices: Expanding the government communication decision wheel. Communication Theory, 20, 269–295. Open Google Scholar
  99. House of Lords Select Committee on Communications. (2009). First report of session 2008-09: Government communications report with evidence. London: Authority of the House of Lords. Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldcomuni/7/7.pdf Open Google Scholar
  100. Humphreys, P. (2012). A political scientist's contribution to the comparative study of media systems in Europe: A response to Hallin and Mancini. In N. Just & M. Puppis (Eds.), Trends in communications policy research: New theories, methods and subjects (pp. 157-177). Bristol, UK: Intellect. Open Google Scholar
  101. Jackson, N., & Lilleker, D. (2011). Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(1), 86-105. Open Google Scholar
  102. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: NYU Press. Open Google Scholar
  103. Keyling, T., & Jünger, J. (2013). Facepager (Version f.e. 3.3) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://github.com/strohne/Facepager Open Google Scholar
  104. Kleinnijenhuis, J., van den Hooff, B., Utz, S., Vermeulen, I., & Huysman, M. (2011). Social influence in networks of practice: An analysis of organizational communication content. Communication Research, 38(5), 587-612. Open Google Scholar
  105. Klinger, U., Roesli, S., & Jarren, O. (2015). To implement or not to implement? Participatory online communication in Swiss cities. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1926-1946. Open Google Scholar
  106. Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2015). The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1241-1257. Open Google Scholar
  107. Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2016). Network media logic: Some conceptual considerations. In A. Bruns, G. Enli, E. Skogerbo, A. O. Larsson, & C. Christensen (Eds.), The routledge companion to social media and politics (pp. 23-39). New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  108. Kocks, J. N. (2016). Political media relations online as an elite phenomenon. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  109. Kocks, J. N., & Raupp, J. (2014). Rechtlich-normative Rahmenbedingungen der Regierungskommunikation – ein Thema für die Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft [Legal-normative conditions of government communications – a topic for journalism and communication studies]. Publizistik, 59(3), 269-284. Open Google Scholar
  110. Kocks, J. N., & Raupp, J. (2015). Media relations online – zur Interaktion von politischer PR und Journalismus im digitalen Zeitalter [Media relations online – the interaction between political PR and journalism in a digital age]. prmagazin, (2). Open Google Scholar
  111. Kocks, J. N., Raupp, J., & Murphy, K. (2016). Egos, elites & social capital: Analysing media government relations from a network perspective. Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research General Conference 2016, Prague. Retrieved from https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/e36b098e-b6d6-49ee-8081-0cb6a6c04fd4.pdf Open Google Scholar
  112. Kocks, J.N., Raupp, J., & Schink, C. (2014). Staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit zwischen Distribution und Dialog [Government public relations between distribution and dialogue]. In R. Fröhlich & T. Koch (Eds.), Politik – PR – Persuasion. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  113. Kontopoulos, K.M. (1993). The logics of social structure (Vol. 6). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  114. Korte, K.-R. (2002). Regieren in Mediendemokratien [Governing in a media democracy]. In H. Schatz, P. Rössler, & J.U. Nieland (Eds.), Politische Akteure in der Mediendemokratie (pp. 21-40). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  115. Lauf, E., & Peter, J. (2001). Die Codierung verschiedensprachiger Inhalte: Erhebungskonzepte und Gütemaße [The coding of multi-lingual content: Survey concepts and quality measures]. In W. Wirth & E. Lauf (Eds.), Inhaltsanalyse: Perspektiven, Probleme, Potentiale (pp. 199-217). Cologne: Herbert von Halem. Open Google Scholar
  116. Leveson, B. (2012). An inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. London: The Stationery Office. Open Google Scholar
  117. Liu, B. F., & Horsley, J. S. (2007). The government communication decision wheel: Toward a public relations model for the public sector. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(4), 377-393. Open Google Scholar
  118. Liu, B. F., Horsley, J. S., & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Government and corporate communication practices: do the differences matter? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(2), 189-213. Open Google Scholar
  119. Livingstone, S. (2003). On the challenges of cross-national comparative media research. European Journal of Communication, 18(4), 477-500. Open Google Scholar
  120. Loader, B. D., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. A. (2015). Performing for the young networked citizen? Celebrity politics, social networking and the political engagement of young people. Media, Culture & Society, 38(3), 400-419. doi:0163443715608261 Open Google Scholar
  121. Lombard, M., Snyder‐Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604. Open Google Scholar
  122. Maier, D., Waldherr, A., Miltner, P., Jähnichen, P., & Pfetsch, B. (2017). Exploring issues in a networked public sphere: Combining hyperlink network analysis and topic modeling. Social Science Computer Review, 0894439317690337. Open Google Scholar
  123. Mancini, P. (2015). The Press. In E. Jones & G. Pasquino (Eds.), The oxford handbook of italian politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199669745.001.0001 Open Google Scholar
  124. Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual: The cyberspace "revolution". Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Open Google Scholar
  125. Marx, S. (2008). Die Legende vom Spin Doctor: Regierungskommunikation unter Schröder und Blair [The legends of spin doctors: government communications under Schröder and Blair]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  126. Mayntz, R., & Scharpf, F. W. (1975). Policy-making in the German federal bureaucracy. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Open Google Scholar
  127. McNair, B. (2004). PR must die: spin, anti-spin and political public relations in the UK, 1997-2004. Journalism Studies, 5, 325–338. Open Google Scholar
  128. Meijer, A. J., Koops, B.-J., Pieterson, W., Overman, S., & ten Tije, S. (2012). Government 2.0: Key challenges to its realization. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 10(1), 59-69. Open Google Scholar
  129. Meijer, A. J., & Torenvlied, R. (2014). Social media and the new organization of government communications: An empirical analysis of Twitter usage by the Dutch police. The American Review of Public Administration, 0275074014551381. Open Google Scholar
  130. Mergel, I. (2012). The social media innovation challenge in the public sector. Information Polity, 17(3,4), 281-292. Open Google Scholar
  131. Mergel, I. (2013). Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the US federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 123-130. Open Google Scholar
  132. Mergel, I. (2016). Social media institutionalization in the US federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 142-148. Open Google Scholar
  133. Mergel, I., & Bretschneider, S. I. (2013). A three‐stage adoption process for social media use in government. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 390-400. Open Google Scholar
  134. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1991). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 41-62). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar
  135. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  136. Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major US cities. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 351-358. Open Google Scholar
  137. Murphy, K. (2018). Lost in translation: the methodological challenges of comparative studies. In J. Raupp, J. N. Kocks, & K. Murphy (Eds.), Regierungskommunikation und staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: Implikationen des technologisch induzierten Medienwandels (pp. 203-215). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  138. Murphy, K., Kocks, J. N., & Raupp, J. (2016). Different governments, different approaches: political participation in the online sphere. Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research General Conference 2016, Prague. Retrieved from https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/569d6a29-04d5-4736-b546-91eba15e601e.pdf Open Google Scholar
  139. Müller, W. C. (2011). Governments and bureaucracies. In D. Caramani (Ed.), Comparative politics (Second ed.) (pp. 131-149). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  140. Nitschke, P., Donges, P., & Schade, H. (2014). Political organizations’ use of websites and Facebook. New Media & Society, 18(5), 744-764. Open Google Scholar
  141. Nitschke, P., & Murphy, K. (2016). Organizations as an analytical category: conceptual and methodological challenges. In G. Vowe & P. Henn (Eds.), Political communication in the online world: Theoretical approaches and research designs (pp. 262-274). New York, NY: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  142. Norris, P. (2001). Political Communication. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 11631-11640). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Open Google Scholar
  143. Norris, P. (2011). Political communication. In D. Caramani (Ed.), Comparative politics (Second ed.) (pp. 318-331). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  144. Nuernbergk, C. (2016). Political journalists’ interaction networks: the German federal press conference on Twitter. Journalism Practice, 10(7), 868-879. Open Google Scholar
  145. Nuernbergk, C., & Conrad, J. (2016). Conversations and campaign dynamics in a hybrid media environment: use of Twitter by members of the German Bundestag. Social Media+ Society, 2(1), 2056305116628888. Open Google Scholar
  146. Oltermann, P. (2018, January). Tough new German law puts tech firms and free speech in the spotlight. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/05/tough-new-german-law-puts-tech-firms-and-free-speech-in-spotlight Open Google Scholar
  147. Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 1-24. Open Google Scholar
  148. Olsen, J. P. (2009). Democratic government, institutional autonomy and the dynamics of change. West European Politics, 32(3), 439-465. doi:10.1080/01402380902779048 Open Google Scholar
  149. Ottovordemgentschenfelde, S. (2017). ‘Organizational, professional, personal’: An exploratory study of political journalists and their hybrid brand on Twitter. Journalism, 18(1), 64-80. Open Google Scholar
  150. Papacharissi, Z. (2009a). The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11(1-2), 199-220. Open Google Scholar
  151. Papacharissi, Z. (2009b). The virtual sphere 2.0: The internet, the public sphere, and beyond. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of internet politics (pp. 230–245). London, UK: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  152. Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age: Cambridge: Polity. Open Google Scholar
  153. Penney, J. (2017). Social media and citizen participation in “official” and “unofficial” electoral promotion: a structural analysis of the 2016 Bernie Sanders digital campaign. Journal of Communication, 67(3), 402-423. Open Google Scholar
  154. Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York, NY: Random House. Open Google Scholar
  155. Pfetsch, B. (2001). Political communication culture in the United States and Germany. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6(1), 46-67. Open Google Scholar
  156. Pfetsch, B. (2003). Politische Kommunikationskultur: Politische Sprecher und Journalisten in der Bundesrepublik und den USA im Vergleich [Political communications culture: A comparison of political spokespersons and journalists in the German Federal Republic and the U.S.]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  157. Pfetsch, B., & Esser, F. (2008). Conceptual challanges to the paradigms of comparative media systems in a globalized world. Journal of Global Mass Communication, 118-131. Open Google Scholar
  158. Pfetsch, B., & Esser, F. (2012). Comparing political communication. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), Handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 25-47). New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  159. Phillis, B. (2004). Final report of the independent review of government communications presented to the Minister for the Cabinet Office. London: Cabinet Office. Open Google Scholar
  160. Pötzsch, H. (2009). Deutsche Demokratien: Parteien [Web article]. Retrieved from http://www.bpb.de/politik/grundfragen/deutschedemokratie/39317/parteien?p=all Open Google Scholar
  161. Press Gallery. (2015). The gallery today [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://pressgallery.org.uk/2015/03/06/the-gallery-today/ Open Google Scholar
  162. Prime Minister's Office. (2017). Confidence and supply agreement between the Conservative and Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/conservative-and-dup-agreement-and-uk-government-financial-support-for-northern-ireland/agreement-between-the-conservative-and-unionist-party-and-the-democratic-unionist-party-on-support-for-the-government-in-parliament#confidence-and-supply-agreement-in-the-uk-parliament Open Google Scholar
  163. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Open Google Scholar
  164. Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. H. (1976). Comparing public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 36(2), 233-244. Open Google Scholar
  165. Raupp, J., & Kocks, J. N. (2018). Regierungskommunikation und staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit aus kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Perspektive [Government communications and government public relations from a communications science perspective]. In J. Raupp, J. N. Kocks, & K. Murphy (Eds.), Regierungskommunikation und staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: Implikationen des technologisch induzierten Medienwandels (pp. 7-23). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  166. Raupp, J., Kocks, J. N., & Murphy, K. (Eds.). (2018). Regierungskommunikation und staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: Implikationen des technologisch induzierten Medienwandels [Government communications and government public relations: implications of the technologically induced media change]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  167. R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.4) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/ Open Google Scholar
  168. Reese, S. D., & Shoemaker, P. J. (2016). A media sociology for the networked public sphere: the hierarchy of influences model. Mass Communication and Society, 19(4), 389-410. doi:10.1080/15205436.2016.1174268 Open Google Scholar
  169. Reinemann, C., & Baugut, P. (2014). German political journalism between change and stability. In R. Kuhn & R. K. Nielsen (Eds.), Political journalism in transition: Western Europe in a comparative perspective (pp.73-91). London, UK: I.B. Tauris. Open Google Scholar
  170. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual communication: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Mass: Addison Wesley. Open Google Scholar
  171. Rice, C., & Somerville, I. (2017). Political contest and oppositional voices in postconflict democracy: the impact of institutional design on government–media relations. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22(1), 92-110. Open Google Scholar
  172. Russmann, U. (2011). Targeting voters via the Web: A comparative structural analysis of Austrian and German party websites. Policy & Internet, 3(3), 1-23. Open Google Scholar
  173. Rössler, P. (2010). Inhaltsanalyse (Second ed.). Konstanz, Germany: UVK Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  174. Rössler, P. (2012). Comparative content analysis. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), Handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 459-468). New York, NY: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  175. Sanders, K., Canel Crespo, M. J., & Holtz-Bacha, C. (2011). Communicating governments: a three-country comparison of how governments communicate with citizens. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16, 523-547. Open Google Scholar
  176. Sanders, K., & Canel, M. J. (2013). Government communication. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Open Google Scholar
  177. Sarcinelli, U. (2011). Politische Kommunikation in Deutschland: Medien und Politikvermittlung im demokratischen System [political communication in Germany: media and policy communication in a democratic system] (Third ed.). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar
  178. Schillemans, T. (2012). Mediatization of public services: How organizations adapt to news media. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Open Google Scholar
  179. Siebert, F. S., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and Soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do. University of Illinois Press. Open Google Scholar
  180. Sievert, H., & Nelke, A. (2014). Social-Media-Kommunikation nationaler Regierungen in Europa: Theoretische Grundlagen und vergleichende Länderanalysen [Social media communication of national governments in Europe: theoretical foundations and comparative country analyses]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
  181. Svensson, J. (2015). Political participation on social media platforms in Sweden today: connective individualism, expressive issue-engagement and disciplined updating. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 10(3). Open Google Scholar
  182. Taylor, J. R., & Cooren, F. (1997). What makes communication ‘organizational’?: How the many voices of a collectivity become the one voice of an organization. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(4), 409-438. Open Google Scholar
  183. Thorbjornsrud, K., Figenschou, T. U., & Ihlen, Ø. (2014). Mediatisation in public bureaucracies: A typology. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278165615_Mediatization_in_public_bureaucracies_A_typology Open Google Scholar
  184. Vaccari, C. (2016). Online mobilization in comparative perspective: digital appeals and political engagement in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Political Communication, 34(1), 69-88. Open Google Scholar
  185. Vaccari, C., Chadwick, A., & O'Loughlin, B. (2015). Dual screening the political: media events, social media, and citizen engagement. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 1041-1061. Open Google Scholar
  186. Vaccari, C., Valeriani, A., Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2015). Political expression and action on social media: exploring the relationship between lower‐and higher‐threshold political activities among Twitter users in Italy. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 20(2), 221-239. Open Google Scholar
  187. Van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: an overview. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 54(2), 119-135. Open Google Scholar
  188. Van Dijk, J. (1999). The one-dimensional network society of Manuel Castells. New Media & Society, 1(1), 127-138. Open Google Scholar
  189. Van Dijk, J. (2012). The network society (Third ed.). London, UK: Sage. Open Google Scholar
  190. Van Dijk, J., & Winters-van Beek, A. (2009). The perspective of network government. The struggle between hierarchies, markets and networks as modes of governance in contemporary government. ICTs, citizens & governance: After the hype, 235-255. Open Google Scholar
  191. Van Dijk, J. (2006). The network society (Third ed.). London, UK: Sage. Open Google Scholar
  192. Vogel, M. (2010). Regierungskommunikation im 21. Jahrhundert: ein Vergleich zwischen Großbritannien, Deutschland und der Schweiz [Government communications in the 21st century: a comparison between Great Britain, Germany and Switzerland]. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  193. Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. New York, NY: Bedminister Press. Open Google Scholar
  194. Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: the rise of personalized networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227-252. Open Google Scholar
  195. Wirth, W., & Kolb, S. (2004). Designs and methods of comparative political communication research. In F. Esser & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Comparing political communication: theories, cases, and challenges (pp. 87-111). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  196. Wright, S. (2012). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation. New Media & Society, 14. doi:10.1177/1461444811410679 Open Google Scholar
  197. Yates, J. (1993). Control through communication: the rise of system in American management (Vol. 6). JHU Press. Open Google Scholar
  198. Young, L., & Pieterson, W. (2015). Strategic communication in a networked world: integrating network and communication theories in the context of government to citizen communication. In D. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 93-112). New York and London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "Media Policy & Media Ethics", "Political Communication"
Cover of book: Law & Critique | Recht & Kritik
Edited Book Full access
Greta Olson, Christian Schmidt, Benno Zabel, Jochen Bung, Franziska Martinsen, Hanna Meißner
Law & Critique | Recht & Kritik
Cover of book: Israel in deutschen Medien
Book Titles No access
Jonas Hessenauer, Lukas Uwira
Israel in deutschen Medien
Cover of book: Deepfakes und das Persönlichkeitsrecht
Book Titles No access
Antonia Dicke
Deepfakes und das Persönlichkeitsrecht
Cover of book: Trennen – Verbinden – Takten
Book Titles No access
Patrick Wöhrle, Stephan Hein, Stefan Meißner
Trennen – Verbinden – Takten
Cover of book: Politischer Journalismus
Edited Book Full access
Christian Nuernbergk, Nina Fabiola Schumacher, Jörg Haßler, Jonas Schützeneder
Politischer Journalismus

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Welcome to Inlibra – Your Platform for Digital Professional Information

Nomos, C.H.Beck, VDI and over 100 other publishers combine their content here to create one of the largest platforms for digital professional information.

Research efficiently, cite long-term, use reliably – all united in one place.

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex