German-speaking hyperpartisan, alternative, and conspiracy Telegram channel types: A content analysis

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of Volume: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Volume 15 (2026), Issue 1
Open Access Full access

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Volume 15 (2026), Issue 1

Authors:
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright Year
2026
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Chapter information

Open Access Full access

Volume 15 (2026), Issue 1

German-speaking hyperpartisan, alternative, and conspiracy Telegram channel types: A content analysis

Authors:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Preview:

This article scrutinizes the anti-establishment media sphere in German-speaking countries along high-reach Telegram channels. We are theorizing this sphere as communicative figuration. To describe this figuration, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of the 40 most influential German-speaking hyperpartisan, alternative, and conspiracy ­Telegram channels (HAC) in 2023. Our sample of more than 2,700 single posts allows us to build a typology of these channels. Our seven types represent a broad variety of different practices. Thus, the alternative public discourse emerging from the most influential Telegram channels can be seen as a diverse and dynamic network of interactions. The importance of curation as an editorial practice seems to be a major characteristic of HAC Telegram channels.

Bibliography

  1.   Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  2. Zulli, D., & Zulli, D. J. (2022). Extending the Internet meme: Conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. New Media & Society, 24(8), 1872–1890. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820983603 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  3. Wunderlich, L., Hölig, S., & Hasebrink, U. (2022). Does journalism still matter? The role of journalistic and non-journalistic sources in young peoples’ news related practices. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(3), 569–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 19401612211072547 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  4. Wojcieszak, M., Menchen-Trevino, E., Goncalves, J. F. F., & Weeks, B. (2022). Avenues to news and diverse news exposure online: Comparing direct navigation, social media, news aggregators, search queries, and article hyperlinks. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(4), 860–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211009160 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  5. Wirz, D. S., Zai, F., Vogler, D., Urman, A., & Eisenegger, M. (2023). Die Qualität von ­Schweizer Medien auf Instagram und TikTok [The quality of Swiss media on Instagram and TikTok]. In fög – Forschungszentrum Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft/Universität Zürich (Ed.), Jahrbuch Qualität der Medien 2023 (pp. 47–61). Schwabe. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  6. Wirz, D., & Zai, F. (2024). Politischer Journalismus auf Instagram: Informations- und Unterhaltungspotenzial Schweizer Nachrichtenmedien [Political journalism on Instagram: Information and entertainment potential of Swiss news media] In C. Nuernbergk, N. F. Schumacher, J. Haßler, & J. Schützeneder (Hrsg.), Politischer Journalismus: Konstellationen - Muster - Dynamiken (pp. 259–276). Nomos https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748939702-259 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  7. Welbers, K., & Opgenhaffen, M. (2019). Presenting news on social media. Digital Journalism, 7(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1493939 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  8. Weiß, R., Magin, M., Hasebrink, U., Jandura, O., Seethaler, J., & Stark, B. (2016). Publizistische Qualität im medialen Wandel – eine normativ begründete Standortbestimmung [Journalistic quality in a shifting media landscape – a normative standpoint]. In P. Werner, L. Rinsdorf, T. Pleil, & K.-D. Altmeppen (Eds.), Verantwortung – Gerechtigkeit – Öffentlichkeit: Normativität in den Medien und in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (pp. 27–49). UVK. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  9. Walters, P. (2022). Reclaiming control: How journalists embrace social media logics while defending journalistic values. Digital Journalism, 10(9), 1482–1501. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1942113 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  10. Wahl-Jorgensen, K., & Schmidt, T. R. (2019). News and storytelling. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The Handbook of Journalism Studies (pp. 261–276). Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  11. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315193434-6 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  12. Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2018). The emotional architecture of social media. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self and platforms, stories, connections (pp. 77–93). Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  13. Vermeer, S., Trilling, D., Kruikemeier, S., & de Vreese, C. (2020). Online news user journeys: The role of social media, news websites, and topics. Digital Journalism, 8(9), 1114–1141. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1767509 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  14. Vázquez-Herrero, J., Negreira-Rey, M.-C., & Rodríguez-Vázquez, A.-I. (2021). Intersections between TikTok and TV: Channels and programmes thinking outside the box. Journalism and Media, 2(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia2010001 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  15. Vázquez-Herrero, J., Negreira-Rey, M.-C., & López-García, X. (2022). Let’s dance the news! How the news media are adapting to the logic of TikTok. Journalism, 23(8), 1717–1735. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920969092 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  16. Vázquez-Herrero, J., Direito-Rebollal, S., & López-García, X. (2019). Ephemeral journalism: News distribution through Instagram stories. Social Media + Society, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119888657 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  17. Van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v1i1.70 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  18. Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stępińska, A., Papathanassopoulos, S., Berganza, R., Legnante, G., Reinemann, C., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2017). Political communication in a high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  19. Van Aelst, P., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2012). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 13(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427802 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  20. Yaqub, T. (2022). 77.2 Psychiatric self-diagnoses and suspected social media contagion effects: What is the role of the child and adolescent psychiatrist? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 61(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2022.07.439 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  21. Trilling, D., Tolochko, P., & Burscher, B. (2017). From newsworthiness to shareworthiness: How to predict news sharing based on article characteristics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1), 38–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016654682 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  22. Windmüller, G. (2020). Wie Therapie-Influencer*innen auf Instagram über mentale Gesundheit aufklären [How therapy influencers educate about mental health on Instagram]. https://www.zeit.de/zett/2020-04/wie-therapie-influencerinnen-auf-instagram-ueber-mentale-gesundheit-aufklaeren-psyche-mental-health Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  23. Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2016). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12087 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  24. Williams, A. Z. (2019, August 17). We need to stop making mental illness look cool on social media. Vice. https://www.vice.com/en/article/a35de4/we-need-to-stop-making-mental-illness-look-cool-on-social-media Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  25. Tenenboim, O. (2023). Media production logics in triple-party news-spaces: A five-dimensional framework. Digital Journalism, 11(7), 1250–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2105244 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  26. White, E., & Hanley, T. (2023). Therapist + Social Media = Mental health influencer? Considering the research focusing upon key ethical issues around the use of social media by therapists. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 23(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12577 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  27. Tenenboim, O. (2020). News engagement logics: Examining practices of media outlets and their audiences on social networking sites [Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin]. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/85419/TENENBOIM-DISSERTATION-2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  28. Wardi-Zonna, K., Hardy, J. L., Sanders, E. M., & Hardy, R. M. (2020). Mental health professionals and the use of social media: Navigating ethical challenges. International Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, 17(2), 68–77. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  29. Steiner, M. (2020). Soft presentation of hard news? A content analysis of political Facebook posts. Media and Communication, 8(3), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i3.3152 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  30. Vidamaly, S., & Lee, S. L. (2021). Young adults’ mental illness aesthetics on social media. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 11(2), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCBPL.2021040102 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  31. Sparks, C. (2000). Introduction: The panic over tabloid news. In C. Sparks & J. Tulloch (Eds.), Tabloid tales: Global debates over media standards (pp. 1–40). Rowman & Littlefield. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  32. VFP. (n.d.). Berufsordnung für die Freien Psychotherapeuten und Heilpraktiker für Psychotherapie [Professional code for independent psychotherapists and alternative practitioners for psychotherapy]. https://www.vfp.de/verband/berufsordnung Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  33. Simon, F. M. (2022). Uneasy bedfellows: AI in the news, platform companies and the issue of journalistic autonomy. Digital Journalism, 10(10), 1832–1854. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2063150 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  34. Vaz, A. M. d. A., & Mori, V. D. (2023). Configurações Subjetivas da Psicoterapia em sua Divulgação no Instagram: Reflexões sobre a Atuação do Psicoterapeuta [Subjective configurations of psychotherapy in its promotion on Instagram: Reflections on the role of the psychotherapist]. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 15. https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.15.2022.e759 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  35. Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  36. Utz, S., & Breuer, J. (2016). Informational benefits from social media use for professional purposes: Results from a longitudinal study. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2016-4-3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  37. Sehl, A., Eder, M., & Kretzschmar, S. (2022). Journalismus auf Instagram: Qualität neu definiert? [Journalism on Instagram: Redefining (news) quality?] In J. Schützeneder & M. Graßl (Eds.), Journalismus und Instagram (pp. 45–58). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34603-4_4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  38. Ziegele, M., Weber, M., Quiring, O., & Breiner, T. (2018). The dynamics of online news discussions: Effects of news articles and reader comments on users’ involvement, willingness to participate, and the civility of their contributions. Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1419–1435. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1324505 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  39. Tudehope, L., Harris, N., Vorage, L., & Sofija, E. (2024). What methods are used to examine representation of mental ill-health on social media? A systematic review. BMC Psychology, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01603-1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  40. Scott, K. (2021). You won’t believe what’s in this paper! Clickbait, relevance and the curiosity gap. Journal of Pragmatics, 175, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.023 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  41. Xiao, R., & Li, S. (2024). The effect of positive inter-group contact on cooperation: The moderating role of individualism. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1323710 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  42. Triplett, N. T., Kingzette, A., Slivinski, L., & Niu, T. (2022). Ethics for mental health influencers: MFTs as public social media personalities. Contemporary Family Therapy, 44(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-021-09632-3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  43. Schneiders, P., & Stark, B. (2025). Ensuring news quality in platformized news ecosystems: Shortcomings and recommendations for an epistemic governance. Media and Communication, 13. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.10042 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  44. Wojcieszak, M., & Warner, B. R. (2020). Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Political Communication, 37(6), 789–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1760406 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  45. Strobl, L., Hübner, L., & Eichenberg, C. (2023). Psychodynamic psychotherapists online presence – Conceptual considerations & survey study. Psychodynamic Practice, 29(3), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14753634.2023.2195867 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  46. Schellewald, A. (2023). Understanding the popularity and affordances of TikTok through user experiences. Media, Culture & Society, 45(8), 1568–1582. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221144562 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  47. Wojcieszak, M., & Azrout, R. (2016). I saw you in the news: Mediated and direct intergroup contact improve outgroup attitudes. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 1032–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12266 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  48. Stevens, K., & Al-Abbadey, M. (2024). Compassion fatigue and global compassion fatigue in practitioner psychologists: A qualitative study. Current Psychology, 43(8), 7259–7274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04908-3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  49. Salgado, S., & Bobba, G. (2019). News on events and social media: A comparative analysis of Facebook users’ reactions. Journalism Studies, 20(15), 2258–2276. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1586566 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  50. Weber, M., Viehmann, C., Ziegele, M., & Schemer, C. (2020). Online hate does not stay online – How implicit and explicit attitudes mediate the effect of civil negativity and hate in user comments on prosocial behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106192 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  51. Smith, K. M., Jones, A., & Hunter, E. A. (2023). Navigating the multidimensionality of social media presence: Ethical considerations and recommendations for psychologists. Ethics & Behavior, 33(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2021.1977935 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  52. Russmann, U., & Svensson, J. (2017). Introduction to visual communication in the age of social media: Conceptual, theoretical and methodological challenges. Media and Communication, 5(4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v5i4.1263 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  53. Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Trifiletti, E., & Di Bernardo, G. A. (2017). Improving intergroup relations with extended contact among young children: Mediation by intergroup empathy and moderation by direct intergroup contact. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2292 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  54. Slobogian, V., Giles, J., & Rent, T. (2017). #Boundaries: When patients become friends. Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal, 27(4), 394–396. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  55. Ronzhyn, A., Cardenal, A. S., & Rubio, A. B. (2023). Defining affordances in social media research: A literature review. New Media & Society, 25(11), 3165–3188. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221135187 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  56. Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Wölfer, R. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 314–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.982948 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  57. Schreier, M. (2014). Ways of doing qualitative content analysis: disentangling terms and terminologies. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-15.1.2043 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  58. Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., Scherr, S., & Legnante, G. (2012). Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427803 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  59. Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.163 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  60. Schomerus, G., Spahlholz, J., & Speerforck, S. (2023). Die Einstellung der deutschen Bevölkerung zu psychischen Störungen [The attitudes of the German population towards mental disorders]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 66(4), 416–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-023-03679-3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  61. Rashidian, N., Tsiveriotis, G., Brown, P., Bell, E., & Hartstone, A. (2020). Platforms and publishers: The end of an era. Tow Center for Digital Journalism. https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-sc1s-2j58 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  62. Tone, E. B., & Tully, E. C. (2014). Empathy as a “risky strength”: A multilevel examination of empathy and risk for internalizing disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 26(402), 1547–1565. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414001199 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  63. Samuel, L., Kuijpers, K., & Bleakley, A. (2024). TherapyTok for depression and anxiety: A quantitative content analysis of high engagement Tiktok videos. Journal of Adolescent Health, 74(6), 1184–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2024.02.002 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  64. Poell, T., Nieborg, D., & Van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1425 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  65. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). In: W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–37). Brooks/Cole. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  66. Samuel, H., Hassan, F., & Zaíane, O. (2021). The need for medical professionals to join patients in the online health social media discourse. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies (BIOSTEC 2021) – HEALTHINF, 637–644. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010325806370644 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  67. Poell, T., Nieborg, D. B., & Duffy, B. E. (2023). Spaces of negotiation: Analyzing platform power in the news industry. Digital Journalism, 11(8), 1391–1409. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2103011 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  68. Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  69. Salaschek, M., & Bonfadelli, H. (2020). Digitale Gesundheitskommunikation: Kontext und Einflussfaktoren [Digital health communication and factors of influence]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 63(2), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-019-03086-7 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  70. Peterson-Salahuddin, C., & Diakopoulos, N. (2020). Negotiated autonomy: The role of social media algorithms in editorial decision making. Media and Communication, 8(3), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i3.3001 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  71. Stroud, N. J., van Duyn, E., & Peacock, C. (2016). News commenters and news comment readers. Engaging News Project. Retrieved from https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ENP-News-Commenters-and-Comment-Readers1.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  72. PsychThG (2019). Gesetz über den Beruf der Psychotherapeutin und des Psychotherapeuten vom 15. November 2019 (BGBl. I S. 1604), zuletzt geändert durch Art. 17 G vom 19. Mai 2020 (BGBl. I S. 1018) [Law on the profession of psychotherapist, November 15, 2019 (Federal law gazette i p. 1604), last amended by art. 17 g of May 19, 2020 (Federal law gazette i p. 1018)]. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/psychthg_2020/BJNR160410019.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  73. Otto, L., Glogger, I., & Boukes, M. (2017). The softening of journalistic political communication: A comprehensive framework model of sensationalism, soft news, infotainment, and tabloidization. Communication Theory, 27(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12102 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  74. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination (pp. 43–60). Psychology Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  75. Pretorius, C., McCashin, D., & Coyle, D. (2022). Mental health professionals as influencers on TikTok and Instagram: What role do they play in mental health literacy and help-seeking? Internet Interventions, 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2022.100591 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  76. Örnebring, H., & Jönsson, A. M. (2004). Tabloid journalism and the public sphere: A historical perspective on tabloid journalism. Journalism Studies, 5(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670042000246052 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  77. Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00144 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  78. Pretorius, C., Chambers, D., & Coyle, D. (2019). Young people’s online help-seeking and mental health difficulties: Systematic narrative review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(11). https://doi.org/10.2196/13873 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  79. Newman, N., Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C. T., Nielsen, R. K., & Fletcher, R (2025). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2025 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  80. Spears, R. (2009). Four degrees of stereotype formation: Differentiation by any means necessary. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as Explanations (pp. 127–156). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489877.008 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  81. Pleiss, P. L. (2019, August 15). Warum sich auf Instagram plötzlich so viele Psychotherapeuten tummeln [Why so many psychotherapists are suddenly active on Instagram]. Welt. https://www.welt.de/kmpkt/article198442285/Warum-sich-auf-Instagram-ploetzlich-so-viele-Psychotherapeuten-tummeln.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  82. Newman, N. (2022). How publishers are learning to create and distribute news on TikTok. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/how-publishers-are-learning-create-and-distribute-news-tiktok Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  83. Schemer, C. (2014). Media effects on racial attitudes: Evidence from a three-wave panel survey in a political campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(4), 531–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt041 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  84. Peterson, E. B., Gaysynsky, A., Chou, W. Y. S., & Rising, C. (2019). The role and impact of health literacy on peer-to-peer health communication. Information Services & Use, 39(1–2), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-180039 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  85. Negreira-Rey, M.-C., Vázquez-Herrero, J., & López-García, X. (2022). Blurring boundaries between journalists and TikTokers: Journalistic role performance on TikTok. Media and Communication, 10(1), 146–156. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i1.4699 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  86. Schaller, S., Wiedicke, A., Reifegerste, D., & Temmann, L. J. (2023). (De)Stigmatizing depression on social media: The role of responsibility frames. Journal of Health Communication, 28(11), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2023.2266702 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  87. Neumann, J., Steckling, T., Heimes, J., & Elsche, H. (2022). Social-Media-Profile in Psychotherapie, Beratung und Coaching: Soziale Medien professionell und ethisch nutzen [Social media profiles in psychotherapy, counseling, and coaching: Using social media professionally and ethically]. Beltz. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  88. Meier-Vieracker, S. (2025). Überschreibungen: Multimodale Metaphern auf TikTok [Overwritings: Multimodal metaphors on TikTok]. In F. Fischer, S. Meier-Vieracker, & L. Niendorf (Eds.), TikTok–Memefication und Performance (pp. 47–66). J. B. Metzler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-70712-8_3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  89.   Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  90. Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  91. Naslund, J. A, Bondre, A., Torous, J., & Aschbrenner, K. A. (2020). Social media and mental health: Benefits, risks, and opportunities for research and practice. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 5(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-020-00134-x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  92. Magin, M. (2019). Attention, please! Structural influences on tabloidization of campaign coverage in German and Austrian elite newspapers (1949–2009). Journalism, 20(12), 1704–1724. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917707843 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  93. Weiß, H.-J. (1985). Die Tendenz der Berichterstattung und Kommentierung der Tagespresse zur Neuordnung des Rundfunkwesens in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Media Perspektiven, 12 845–863. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  94. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  95. Müller, T. (2024). Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Medienstudie 2024. Zahl der Social-Media-Nutzenden steigt auf 60 Prozent [Results of the ARD/ZDF media study 2024: Number of social media users rises to 60 percent]. Media Perspektiven, 28, 1–8. https://www.media-perspektiven.de/fileadmin/user_upload/media-perspektiven/pdf/2024/MP_28_2024_ARD_ZDF-Medienstudie_2024._Zahl_der_Social-Media-Nutzenden_steigt_auf_60_Prozent_01.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  96. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  97. Uzelman, S., Hackett, R., & Stewart, J. (2005). Covering democracy’s forum: Canadian press treatment of public and private broadcasting. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22(2), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393180500072053” Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  98. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  99. Mühlig, S., & Jacobi, F. (2020). Psychoedukation [Psychoeducation]. In J. Hoyer & S. Knappe (Eds.), Lehrbuch. Klinische Psychologie & Psychotherapie (3rd ed., pp. 557–573). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61814-1_22 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  100. Lischka, J. A., & Garz, M. (2023). Clickbait news and algorithmic curation: A game theory framework of the relation between journalism, users, and platforms. New Media & Society, 25(8), 2073–2094. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211027174 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  101. Urbániková, M., Goyanes, M., & Smejkal, K. (2025). Understanding the willingness to pay for public service media: Testing the role of socio-political trust and partisan selective exposure. Journalism, Online-Vorabpublikation. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251 339823 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  102. Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  103. Monteith, S., Glenn, T., Geddes, J. R., Whybrow, P. C., Achtyes, E. D., & Bauer, M. (2024). Implications of online self-diagnosis in psychiatry. Pharmacopsychiatry, 57(2), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2268-5441 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  104. Lischka, J. A. (2021). Logics in social media news making: How social media editors marry the Facebook logic with journalistic standards. Journalism, 22(2), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918788472 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  105. Teschendorf, V. S., Kruß, M., Otto, K., & Rusch, R. (2024). Deficits and biases in the leading German press coverage of the Greek sovereign debt crisis. Communications. 49(4), 669–691. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2022-0064 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  106. Park, S. Y. (2012). Mediated intergroup contact: Concept explication, synthesis, and application. Mass Communication and Society, 15(1), 136–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.558804 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  107. McCarthy, K. (2019, July 03). Why people are turning to Instagram for therapy and mental health needs. Good Morning America. https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/wellness/story/people-turning-instagram-therapy-mental-health-64105639 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  108. Lewis, S. C., & Molyneux, L. (2018). A decade of research on social media and journalism: Assumptions, blind spots, and a way forward. Media and Communication, 6(4), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v6i4.1562 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  109. Stumvoll, M., & Vögele, C. (2021). Ein Foto und seine Folgen – der Fall Mesut Özil: Eine quantitative Inhaltsanalyse der Berichterstattung. Journal für Sportkommunikation und Mediensport, 5(1–2), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.11585/JSKMS.2020.1-2.15-30 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  110. Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Logatchova, A., Rubin, M., & Mackiewicz, M. (2021). Emotions in intergroup contact: Incidental and integral emotions’ effects on interethnic bias are moderated by emotion applicability and subjective agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.588944 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  111. Mayring, P. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative Content Analysis: Basics and Techniques]. Beltz. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  112. Lefkowitz, J. (2018). “Tabloidization” or dual-convergence: Quoted speech in tabloid and “quality” British newspapers 1970–2010. Journalism Studies, 19(3), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1190662 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  113. Sehl, A., Fletcher, R., & Picard, R. G. (2020). Crowding out: Is there evidence that public service media harm markets? A cross-national comparative analysis of commercial television and online news providers. European Journal of Communication, 35(4), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120903688 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  114. Paluck, E. L. (2010). Is it better not to talk? Group polarization, extended contact, and perspective taking in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1170–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210379868 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  115. Lind, J., & Wickström, A. (2023). Representations of mental health and mental health problems in content published by female social media influencers. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 13678779231210583. https://doi.org/10.1177/13678779231210583 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  116. Lee, A. Y, Mieczkowski, H., Ellison, N. B., & Hancook, J. T. (2022). The algorithmic crystal: Conceptualizing the self through algorithmic personalization on TikTok [Conference paper]. CSCW 22, Taipei, Taiwan Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  117. Schulz, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2019). Old, educated, and politically diverse: The audience of public service news. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-09/The_audience_of_public_service_news_FINAL.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  118. Ortiz, M., & Harwood, J. (2007). A social cognitive theory approach to the effects of mediated intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(4), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150701626487 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  119. Latha, K., Meena, K. S., Pravitha, M. R., Dasgupta, M., & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2020). Effective use of social media platforms for promotion of mental health awareness. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 9. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_90_20 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  120. Leaver, T., Highfield, T., & Abidin, C. (2020). Instagram: Visual social media cultures. Polity Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  121. Schultz, T., Ziegele, M., Jackob, N., Viehmann, C., Jakobs, I., Fawzi, N., Quiring, O., Schemer, C., & Stegmann, D. (2023). Medienvertrauen nach Pandemie und „Zeitenwende“. Mainzer Langzeitstudie Medienvertrauen 2022. Media Perspektiven, 8, 1–17. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  122. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D., & Nielsen, R. K. (2016). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/Digital%2520News%2520Report%25202016.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  123. Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [Qualitative Content Analysis: Methods, Practice, Computer Assistance]. Beltz. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  124. Lamot, K., Kreutz, T., & Opgenhaffen, M. (2022). “We rewrote this title”: How news headlines are remediated on Facebook and how this affects engagement. Social Media + Society, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221114827 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  125. Scholl, A. (2016). Die Logik qualitativer Methoden in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. In S. Averbeck-Lietz & M. Meyen (Hrsg.), Handbuch nicht standardisierte Methoden in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (S. 17–32). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01656-2_2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  126. Nagda, B. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup dialogues. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001015 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  127. König, L., Hamer, T., & Suhr, R. (2023). Die psychische Gesundheitskompetenz der Bevölkerung in Deutschland [The mental health literacy of the population in Germany]. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. Vorab-Onlinepublikation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11553-023-01079-8 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  128. Lamot, K. (2022). What the metrics say: The softening of news on the Facebook pages of mainstream media outlets. Digital Journalism, 10(4), 517–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1974917 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  129. Scheufele, B., Jost, A., & Spachmann, K. (2023). Krisendeutungen: Die aktuelle Medien­debatte um den öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk. Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/978 3748938378 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  130. Mutz, D. C., & Goldman, S. K. (2010). Mass media. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination (pp. 1–19). SAGE Publications. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  131. Kolmes, K., & Taube, D. O. (2016). Client discovery of psychotherapist personal information online. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000065 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  132. Klein, M., Magin, M., Riedl, A. A., Udris, L., & Stark, B. (2025). From news softening to social news softening: Comparing patterns of political news coverage on different (social) media channels in Germany and Switzerland. Digital Journalism, 13(6), 1089–1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2278044 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  133. Pfetsch, B., & Adam, S. (2008). Die Akteursperspektive in der politischen Kommunikationsforschung: Fragestellungen, Forschungsparadigmen und Problemlagen. In B. Pfetsch & S. Adam (Hrsg.), Massenmedien als politische Akteure (S. 9–26). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90843-4_1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  134. Menke, M., Wagner, A., & Kinnebrock, S. (2020). Communicative care in online forums: how burdened informal caregivers seek mediated social support. International Journal of Communication, 14, 1662–1682. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/12479 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  135. Koinig, I. (2022). Picturing mental health on Instagram: Insights from a quantitative study using different content formats. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031608 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  136. Keyling, T. (2017). Kollektives Gatekeeping. Die Herstellung von Publizität in Social Media [Collective gatekeeping: The creation of visibility on social media]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16686-1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  137. Page, B. I. (1996). The mass media as political actors. PS: Political Science & Politics, 29(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/420185 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  138. Mazziotta, A., Rohmann, A., Wright, S. C., Tezanos-Pinto, P. de, & Lutterbach, S. (2015). (How) does positive and negative extended cross-group contact predict direct cross-group contact and intergroup attitudes? European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 653–667. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2110 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  139. Knox, S., Connelly, J., Rochlen, A. B., Clinton, M., Butler, M., & Lineback, S. (2020). How therapists navigate Facebook with clients. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 14(4), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000267 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  140. Kaye, D. B. V., Zeng, J., & Wikström, P. (2022). TikTok: Creativity and culture in short video. Polity Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  141. NDR. (2022, 7. September). Neue Vorwürfe gegen NDR SH: Verantwortliche von Aufgaben entbunden. https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/Neue-Vorwuerfe-gegen-NDR-SH-Verantwortliche-von-Aufgaben-entbunden,ndrsh104.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  142. Mazziotta, A., Mummendey, A., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Vicarious intergroup contact effects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390533 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  143. Kaluzeviciute, G. (2020). Social media and its impact on therapeutic relationships. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 36(2), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjp.12545 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  144. Karlsson, M. B. (2016). Goodbye politics, hello lifestyle: Changing news topics in tabloid, quality and local newspaper websites in the U.K. and Sweden from 2002 to 2012. Observatorio, 10(4), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS1042016940 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  145. Maurer, T., Vogelgesang, J., Weiß, M., & Weiß, H.-J. (2008). Aktive oder passive Berichterstatter? Die Rolle der Massenmedien während des Kosovo-, Afghanistan- und Irakkriegs. In B. Pfetsch & S. Adam (Hrsg.), Massenmedien als politische Akteure (S. 144–167). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90843-4_7 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  146. Mastro, D., Behm-Morawitz, E., & Ortiz, M. (2007). The cultivation of social perceptions of Latinos: A mental models approach. Media Psychology, 9(2), 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701286106 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  147. June, S. (2019, June 26). Instagram therapists are the new Instagram poets. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/style/instagram-therapists.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  148. Jandura, O., & Friedrich, K. (2014). The quality of political media coverage. In C. Reinemann (Ed.), Political communication (pp. 351–374). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238174.351 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  149. Maier, D., & Dogruel, L. (2016). Akteursbeziehungen in der Zeitungsberichterstattung über die Online-Aktivitäten des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks. Publizistik, 61(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-016-0258-8 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  150. Mastro, D. (2015). Why the media’s role in issues of race and ethnicity should be in the spotlight. Journal of Social Issues, 71(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12093 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  151. Jacobson, J. (2020). You are a brand: Social media managers’ personal branding and “the future audience”. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(6), 715–727. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2019-2299 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  152. Hermida, A., & Mellado, C. (2020). Dimensions of social media logics: Mapping forms of journalistic norms and practices on Twitter and Instagram. Digital Journalism, 8(7), 864–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1805779 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  153. Lüter, A. (2004). Politische Profilbildung jenseits der Parteien? Redaktionelle Linien in Kommentaren deutscher Qualitätszeitungen. In C. Eilders, F. Neidhardt, & B. Pfetsch, Die Stimme der Medien (S. 167–195). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80557-7_7 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  154. Malloy, T. H. (2014). National minorities between protection and empowerment: Towards a theory of empowerment. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 13(2), 11–29. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  155. Issaka, B., Aidoo, E.A.K., Wood, S.F., & Mohammed, F. (2024). “Anxiety is not cute” analysis of twitter users’ discourses on romanticizing mental illness. BMC Psychiatry, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05663-w Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  156. Hendrickx, J., & Vázquez-Herrero, J. (2024). Dissecting social media journalism: A comparative study across platforms, outlets and countries. Journalism Studies, 25(9), 1053–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2324318 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  157. Löblich, M. (2011). Frames in der medienpolitischen Öffentlichkeit: Die Presseberichterstattung über den 12. Rundfunkänderungsstaatsvertrag. Publizistik, 56(4), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-011-0129-2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  158. Lim, T., Neel, R., & Hehman, E. (2024). Intergroup contact is consistently associated with lower prejudice across group properties. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.127426 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  159. Hynes, K.C., Triplett, N.T., & Kingzette, A. (2023). Incidental influencing: A thematic analysis of couple and family therapists’ experiences of professional social media. Contemporary Family Therapy, 45, 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-022-09658-1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  160. Hendrickx, J. (2025). News #foryou on TikTok: A digital methods-based study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990251328623 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  161. Lichtenstein, D. (2011). Kommerzialisierung des Medienjournalismus? Eine empirische Untersuchung zum „Fall Berliner Zeitung“. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59(2), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2011-2-216 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  162. Kim, N., & Wojcieszak, M. (2018). Intergroup contact through online comments: Effects of direct and extended contact on outgroup attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.013 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  163. Heiss, R., Bode, L., Adisuryo, Z. M., Brito, L., Cuadra, A., Gao, P., Han, Y., Hearst, M., Huang, K., Kinyua, A., Lin, T., Ma, Y., Manion, T. O., Roh, Y., Salazar, A., Yue, S., & Zhang, P. (2024). Debunking mental health misperceptions in short-form social media videos: An experimental test of scientific credibility cues. Health Communication, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2301201 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  164. Hendrickx, J. (2023). The rise of social journalism: An explorative case study of a youth-oriented Instagram news account. Journalism Practice, 17(8), 1810–1825. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2021.2012500 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  165. Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Hrsg.), The communication of ideas (S. 37–51). Harper. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  166. Kim, N., Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2018). Intergroup contact in deliberative contexts: Evidence from deliberative polls. Journal of Communication, 68(6), 1029–1051. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy056 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  167. Heimes, J. A. (2023). Therapeut*innen in sozialen Medien: Anwendung professioneller und ethischer Grundprinzipien auf den Raum der sozialen Medien [Therapists in social media: Applying professional and ethical principles to the realm of social media]. Psychotherapie-Wissenschaft, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.30820/1664-9583-2023-1-11 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  168. Hase, V., Boczek, K., & Scharkow, M. (2023). Adapting to affordances and audiences? A cross-platform, multi-modal analysis of the platformization of news on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. Digital Journalism, 11(8), 1499–1520. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2128389 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  169. Krüger, U. M., & Müller-Sachse, K. H. (1998). Medienjournalismus. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-07688-9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  170. Joyce, N., & Harwood, J. (2014). Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact. Communication Research, 41(5), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212447944 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  171. Hayes, D., & Za’ba, N. (2022). What metrics of harm are being captured in clinical trials involving talking treatments for young people? A systematic review of registered studies on the ISRCTN. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 22(1), 108–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12407 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  172. Haim, M., Karlsson, M., Ferrer-Conill, R., Kammer, A., Elgesem, D., & Sjøvaag, H. (2021). You should read this study! It investigates Scandinavian social media logics ☝. Digital Journalism, 9(4), 406–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1886861 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  173. Kösters, R., Jandura, O., Weiß, R., & Schreiber, J. (2021). Diskursallianzen in der Migrationsdebatte? Politischer Parallelismus zwischen Medien und Parteien im Framing der Flucht- und Asylmigration im Jahr 2018. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 62(3), 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-021-00324-z Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  174. Jost, J. T., Chaikalis-Petritsis, V., Abrams, D., Sidanius, J., van der Toorn, J., & Bratt, C. (2012). Why men (and women) do and don’t rebel: Effects of system justification on willingness to protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211422544 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  175. Harris, J., Atkinson, A., Mink, M., & Porcellato, L. (2021). Young people’s experiences and perceptions of youtuber-produced health content: Implications for health promotion. Health Education & Behavior, 48(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120974964 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  176. Hågvar, Y. B. (2019). News media’s rhetoric on Facebook. Journalism Practice, 13(7), 853–872. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1577163 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  177. Kepplinger, M. (2018). Medien und Skandale. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21394-7 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  178. Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology. Group Processes (pp. 56–85). Blackwell Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470998458.ch3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  179. Haeny, A. M. (2014). Ethical considerations for psychologists taking a public stance on controversial issues: The balance between personal and professional life. Ethics & Behavior, 24(4), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.860030 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  180. Gruber, A., & Radü, J. (2022). Die Story-Funktion als Experimentierfeld für journalistische Innovation: Digitales Storytelling auf Instagram am Beispiel des SPIEGEL [The story feature as a field of experimentation for journalistic innovation: Digital storytelling on Instagram using the media outlet SPIEGEL as an example]. In J. Schützeneder & M. Graßl (Eds.), Journalismus und Instagram (pp. 259–270). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34603-4_17 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  181. Kepplinger, H. M., Brosius, H.-B., & Staab, J. F. (1991). Instrumental actualization: A theory of mediated conflicts. European Journal of Communication, 6(3), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323191006003002 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  182. Hewstone, M., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Myers, E., Voci, A., Al Ramiah, A., & Cairns, E. (2014). Intergroup contact and intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 20(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035582 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  183. Gust, B. (2024). Zielgruppenorientierte Kommunikation in Social Media [Target group-oriented communication in social media]. In C. Zerres (Ed.), Handbuch Social-Media-Marketing (pp. 1–13). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42282-0_33-1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  184.   Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  185. Godulla, A., & Wolf, C. (2018). Digitales Storytelling: Nutzererwartungen, Usability, Produktionsbedingungen und Präsentation [Digital storytelling: User expectations, usability, production conditions and presentation]. In C. Nuernbergk & C. Neuberger (Eds.), Journalismus im Internet (pp. 81–100). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93284-2_3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  186. Kepplinger, H. M. (2011). Instrumentelle Aktualisierung. In H. M. Kepplinger (Hrsg.), Journalismus als Beruf (S. 149–167). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92915-6_8 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  187. Hayward, L. E., Tropp, L. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K. (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: Descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216685291 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  188. Greene, A.K., Brownstone, L.M., Dong, Y., Hunsicker, M.J., Cool, J., Maloul, E.K., & Norling, H.N. (2025). Instatherapy: A content analysis of psychotherapists’ Instagram posts and user engagement. Counselling Psychotherapy Research, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12877 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  189. Zimmermann, F., & Kohring, M. (2020). Aktuelle Desinformation – Definition und Einordnung einer gesellschaftlichen Herausforderung [Current desinformation – Definition and contextulization of a societal challenge]. In: Ralf Hohlfeld (Ed.), Fake News und Desinformation (pp. 32–43). Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748901334 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  190. Gibbs, M., Meese, J., Arnold, M., Nansen, B., & Carter, M. (2015). #Funeral and Instagram: Death, social media, and platform vernacular. Information, Communication & Society, 18(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.987152 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  191. Kemner, B., Scherer, H., & Weinacht, S. (2008). Unter der Tarnkappe: Der Einsatz „volatiler Themen“ und „opportuner Zeugen“ in der Berichterstattung zum Übernahmeversuch der ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG durch den Springer-Verlag. Publizistik, 53(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-008-0006-9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  192. Hässler, T., Ullrich, J., Bernardino, M., Shnabel, N., van Laar, C., Valdenegro, D., Sebben, S., Tropp, L. R., Visintin, E. P., González, R., Ditlmann, R. K., Abrams, D., Selvanathan, H. P., Branković, M., Wright, S., Zimmermann, J. von, Pasek, M., Aydin, A. L., Žeželj, I., . . . Ugarte, L. M. (2020). A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0815-z Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  193. Green, J. (2024). TikTok and the changing landscape of therapeutic digital spaces of care. Digital Geography and Society, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diggeo.2023.100077 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  194. Zehring, M., & Domahidi, E. (2023). German corona protest mobilizers on Telegram and their relations to the far right: A network and topic analysis. Social Media + Society, 9(1), 205630512311551. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231155106 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  195. García-Perdomo, V., Salaverría, R., Brown, D. K., & Harlow, S. (2018). To share or not to share: The influence of news values and topics on popular social media content in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina. Journalism Studies, 19(8), 1180–1201. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1265896 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  196. Karppinen, K., & Ala-Fossi, M. (2018). Finland: Maintaining the fragile consensus. In C. Herzog, H. Hilker, L. Novy, & O. Torun (Hrsg.), Transparency and funding of public service media: Die deutsche Debatte im internationalen Kontext (S. 107–117). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17997-7_9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  197. Harwood, J., Hewstone, M., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Tausch, N. (2013). Intergroup contact: An integration of social psychological and communication perspectives. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 55–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679126 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  198. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1998). Grounded theory. Strategien qualitativer Sozialforschung: Original: Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago. Huber. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  199. Wimmer, J. (2014). Öffentlichkeit, Gegenöffentlichkeiten und Medienpartizipation im Zeitalter des Internets [Publics, counter publics, and media participation in times of the internet]. In: C. Schmitt & A. Vonderau (Eds.), Transnationalität und Öffentlichkeit. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven (pp. 285–308). transcript. https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839421543.285 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  200. Ferrer-Conill, R., & Tandoc, E. C. (2018). The audience-oriented editor: Making sense of the audience in the newsroom. Digital Journalism, 6(4), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1440972 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  201. Jarren, O., & Vogel, M. (2011). „Leitmedien“ als Qualitätsmedien: Theoretisches Konzept und Indikatoren. In R. Blum, H. Bonfadelli, K. Imhof, & O. Jarren (Hrsg.), Krise der Leuchttürme öffentlicher Kommunikation (S. 17–29). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93084-8_2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  202. Harwood, J. (2010). The contact space: A novel framework for intergroup contact research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09359520 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  203. Gansner, M. (2022). Social media contagion in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 61(10), 130–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2022.07.517 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  204. Tebaldi C, Del Percio A. (2024). Branding the white nation: Platform capitalism and the semiotics of far-right organizing. Language in Society. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404524001040 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  205. Esser, F. (2013). Mediatization as a challenge: Media logic versus political logic. In H. Kriesi, S. Lavenex, F. Esser, J. Matthes, M. Bühlmann, & D. Bochsler (Eds.), Democracy in the age of globalization and mediatization (pp. 155–176). Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  206. Jarren, O. (1998). Medienpolitische Kommunikation. In O. Jarren, U. Sarcinelli, & U. Saxer (Hrsg.), Politische Kommunikation in der demokratischen Gesellschaft (S. 616–629). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80348-1_54 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  207. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00097.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  208. Foulkes, L., & Andrews, J. L. (2023). Are mental health awareness efforts contributing to the rise in reported mental health problems? A call to test the prevalence inflation hypothesis. New Ideas in Psychology, 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2023.101010 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  209. Stier, S., Mangold, F., Scharkow, M., & Breuer, J. (2021). Post post-broadcast democracy? News exposure in the age of online intermediaries. American Political Science Review, 116(2), 768–774. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421001222 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  210. Esser, F. (1999). ‘Tabloidization’ of news: A comparative analysis of Anglo-American and German press journalism. European Journal of Communication, 14(3), 291–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323199014003001 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  211. Janssen, J., & Laatz, W. (2013). Statistische Datenanalyse mit SPSS. Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32507-6_33 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  212. Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2052 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  213. Evans, S.K., Pearce, K.E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J.W. (2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  214. Staender, A., Humprecht, E., & Esser, F. (2024). Alternative media vary between mild distortion and extreme misinformation: Steps toward a typology. Digital Journalism, 12(6), 830–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2326928 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  215. Eisenegger, M. (2021). Dritter, digitaler Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit als Folge der Plattformisierung [Third, digital transformation of the public sphere as a result of platformization]. In M. Eisenegger, M. Prinzing, P. Ettinger, & R. Blum (Eds.), Digitaler Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit (pp. 17–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32133-8_2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  216. Jakubowicz, K. (2011). Public service broadcasting: Product (and victim?) of public policy. In R. Mansell & M. Raboy (Hrsg.), The Handbook of global media and communication policy (1. Aufl., S. 210–229). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395433.ch13 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  217. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  218. Drude, K., & Messer-Engel, K. (2021). The development of social media guidelines for psychologists and for regulatory use. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 6(2), 388–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-020-00176-1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  219. Schwarzenegger, C. (2021). Communities of darkness? Users and uses of anti-system alternative media between audience and community. Media and Communication, 9(1), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i1.3418 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  220. Dvir-Gvirsman, S., Sude, D., & Raisman, G. (2024). Unpacking news engagement through the perceived affordances of social media: A cross-platform, cross-country approach. New Media & Society, 26(11), 6487–6509. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231154432. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  221. Jäkel, J., Huber, P. M., Cole, M. D., Exner, M., Klass, N., Reitz, B., Sehl, A., & de Weck, R. (2024). Bericht des Rates für die zukünftige Entwicklung des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks. https://rundfunkkommission.rlp.de/fileadmin/rundfunkkommission/Dokumente/Zukunftsrat/ZR_Bericht_18.1.2024.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  222. Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. (2004). The effects of perspective-taking on prejudice: The moderating role of self-evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(5), 594–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262802 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  223. DGPs. (2022). BERUFSETHISCHE RICHTLINIEN des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen e.V. und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie e.V. [Professional ethical guidelines of the professional association of German psychologists and the German Psychological Society]. https://www.dgps.de/die-dgps/aufgaben-und-ziele/berufsethische-richtlinien/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  224.   Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  225. Schulze, H., Hohner, J., Greipl, S., Girgnhuber, M., Desta, I. & Rieger, D. (2022). Far-right conspiracy groups on fringe platforms: A longitudinal analysis of radicalization dynamics on Telegram. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 28(4), 1103–1126. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565221104977 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  226. Dvir-Gvirsman, S., & Tsuriel, K. (2022). In an open relationship: Platformization of relations between news practitioners and their audiences. Journalism Studies, 23(11), 1308–1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2022.2084144 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  227. Herzog, C., Hilker, H., Novy, L., & Torun, O. (Hrsg.). (2018). Transparency and funding of public service media: Die deutsche Debatte im internationalen Kontext. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17997-7 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  228. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  229. Danielsen, H. E., Finserås, T. R., Andersen, A. I. O., Hjetland, G. J., Woodfin, V., & Skogen, J. C. (2024). Mirror, mirror on my screen: Focus on self-presentation on social media is associated with perfectionism and disordered eating among adolescents. Results from the “LifeOnSoMe”-study. BMC Public Health, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19317-9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  230. Zabel, C., Schaffeld, L., & O’Brien, D. (2025). Netflix and chill? The content-related and gratificational antecedents of binge-watching tendency. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(1), 105–139. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-1-105 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  231. Rothut, S., Schulze, H., Hohner, J., & Rieger, D. (2023). Ambassadors of ideology: A conceptualization and computational investigation of far-right influencers, their networking structures, and communication practices. New Media & Society, 26(12), 7120–7147 https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231164409 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  232. Duckwitz, A. (2019). Influencer als digitale Meinungsführer: Wie Influencer in sozialen Medien den politischen Diskurs beeinflussen – und welche Folgen das für die demokratische Öffentlichkeit hat [Influencers as digital opinion leaders: How influencers shape political discourse in social media – and what consequences this has for the democratic public sphere]. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. https://collections.fes.de/publikationen/ident/fes/15736 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  233. Hagen, L. M. (1992). Die opportunen Zeugen: Konstruktionsmechanismen von Bias in der Zeitungsberichterstattung über die Volkszählungsdiskussion. Publizistik, 37(4), 444–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03654310 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  234. Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1720–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02464.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  235. Creators Instagram. (2024). Stell dich vor und teile deine Lieblingsmomente [Introduce yourself and share your favorite moments]. https://creators.instagram.com/profile Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  236. Wurm, A., & Wimmer, J. (2024). Zwischen feministischer Selbstermächtigung und Ausverkauf emotionaler Intimität: Eine qualitative Inhaltsanalyse der deutschen Berichterstattung über OnlyFans von 2020 bis 2023. Studies in Communication and Media, 13(4), 401–429. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2024-4-401 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  237. Molyneux, L., & Holton, A. (2014). Branding (health) journalism: Perceptions, practices, and emerging norms. Digital Journalism, 3(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.906927 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  238. De León, E., & Trilling, D. (2021). A sadness bias in political news sharing? The role of discrete emotions in the engagement and dissemination of political news on Facebook. Social Media + Society, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211059710 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  239. Haarkötter, H., & Kalmuk, F. (2021). Medienjournalismus in Deutschland: Seine Leistungen und blinden Flecken (OBS-Arbeitsheft Nr. 105). Otto Brenner Stiftung. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  240. Esses, V. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1202–1214. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672022812006 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  241. Chen, J., & Wang, Y. (2021). Social media use for health purposes: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(5). https://doi.org/10.2196/17917 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  242. Schwarz, A., & Faj, T. (2025). Public versus individual autonomous mobility and the reference to science in the news media: Frames of risks, benefits, and governance in Germany from 2018 to early 2023. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(3), 421–455. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-3-421 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  243. Meisner, C., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2022). Participatory branding on social media: The affordances of live streaming for creative labor. New Media & Society, 24(5), 1179–1195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820972392 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  244. Costera Meijer, I. (2020). Understanding the audience turn in journalism: From quality discourse to innovation discourse as anchoring practices 1995–2020. Journalism Studies, 21(16), 2326–2342. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1847681 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  245. Geiß, S. (2017). Scandalization. In P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner, & L. Zoonen (Hrsg.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects (1. Aufl., S. 1–11). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0198 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  246. Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M. H., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217712052 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  247. Chandra, R. (2019, June 26). 6 problems of “Instagram therapy”: Is it junk food or comfort food? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-pacific-heart/201906/6-problems-instagram-therapy Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  248. Schorn, A., Hess, L., & Strauß, N. (2025). Influencers going green: How exhibited climate activism and message-sidedness affect the impact of greenfluencer posts. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(2), 268–291, https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-2-268 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  249. Langer, A. I., & Gruber, J. B. (2020). Political agenda setting in the hybrid media system: Why legacy media still matter a great deal. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(2), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220925023 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  250. Cheng, Z., & Li, Y. (2024). Like, comment, and share on TikTok: Exploring the effect of sentiment and second-person view on the user engagement with TikTok news videos. Social Science Computer Review, 42(1), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231178603 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  251. Früh, W. (2017). Inhaltsanalyse: Theorie und Praxis (9., überarbeitete Auflage). UVK. https://doi.org/10.36198/9783838547350 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  252. Dovidio, J. F., Eller, A., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Improving intergroup relations through direct, extended and other forms of indirect contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390555 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  253. Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2017). The affordances of social media platforms. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Media (pp. 233–253). SAGE. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  254. Schoolmann, J., & Coenen, E. (2025). Wissenssoziologische Telegram-Analyse. Einführung eines netzwerkorientierten Verfahrens zur Erhebung und Analyse der Social-Media-Kommunikation. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(2), 292–330. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-2-292 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  255. Jost, P., & Dogruel, L. (2023). Radical mobilization in times of crisis: Use and effects of appeals and populist communication features in Telegram channels. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231186372 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  256. Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The affordances of social media platforms. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (pp. 233–253). SAGE. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  257. fög. (2018). Abstimmungsmonitor: Vorlagen vom 4. März 2018. https://www.foeg.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:0a7ad23e-d48b-48f8-92cb-2acb88a7e29d/Abstimmungsmonitor_M%C3% A4rz_2018.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  258. Doull, M., O’Connor, A. M., Welch, V., Tugwell, P., & Wells, G. A. (2017). Peer support strategies for improving the health and well‐being of individuals with chronic diseases. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005352.pub2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  259. Brijnath, B., Protheroe, J., Mahtani, K. R., & Antoniades, J. (2016). Do web-based mental health literacy interventions improve the mental health literacy of adult consumers? Results from a systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5463 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  260. Schindler, J. (2025). Toward a standardized group survey. Introducing a new approach to group-level measurements in communication studies. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(3), 386–420. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-3-386 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  261. Holzer, B. (2021). Zwischen Protest und Parodie: Strukturen der “Querdenken“-Kommunikation auf Telegram (und anderswo) [Between protest and parody: Structures of „Querdenken“ communication on Telegram (and elsewhere)]. In: S. Reichardt (Ed.), Die Misstrauensgemeinschaft der “Querdenker“. Die Corona-Proteste aus kultur- und sozialwissenschaftlicher Perspektive (pp. 125–157). Campus Verlag. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/9rgtk Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  262. Brown, D. K., Harlow, S., García-Perdomo, V., & Salaverría, R. (2018). A new sensation? An international exploration of sensationalism and social media recommendations in online news publications. Journalism, 19(11), 1497–1516. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1464884916683549 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  263. fög. (2015). Abstimmungsmonitor: Vorlagen vom 14. Juni 2015 [Voting Monitor: Submissions of June 14, 2015]. http://www.foeg.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:00000000-0777-18fa-ffff-ffffbbe1f70e/Abstimmungsmonitor_Juni_2015.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  264. Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  265. Borges-Tiago, M. T., Santiago, J., & Tiago, F. (2023). Mega or macro social media influencers: Who endorses brands better? Journal of Business Research, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113606 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  266. Reißmann, W., Lünenborg, M., & Siemon, M. (2025). Zum Verhältnis von Journalismus und Aktivismus: Boundary work als Navigieren zwischen Komplementarität und Hybridisierung. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(1), 37–98. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-1-37 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  267. Hohlfeld, R., Bauerfeind, F., Braglia, I., Butt, A., Dietz, A-L., Drexel, D., Fedlmeier, J., Fischer, L., Gandl, V., Glaser, F., Haberzettel, E., Helling, T., Käsbauer, I., Kast, M., Krieger, A., Lächner, A., Malkanova, A., Raab, M-K., Rech, A., Weymar, P. (2021). Communicating COVID-19 against the backdrop of conspiracy ideologies: How public figures discuss the matter on facebook and telegram. (Working Paper No. 1/2021). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36822.78406 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  268. Blom, J. N., & Hansen, K. R. (2015). Click bait: Forward-reference as lure in online news headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.010 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  269. Engelmann, I. (2009). Frames und Positionen zur EU-Osterweiterung: Eine Argument- und Framing-Analyse ausgewählter EU-Beitritte. Publizistik, 54(1), 82–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-009-0021-5 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  270. Chen, G. M., & Lu, S. (2017). Online political discourse: Exploring differences in effects of civil and uncivil disagreement in news website comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1273922 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  271. Bhargava, P., MacDonald, K., Newton, C., Lin, H., & Pennycook, G. (2023). How effective are TikTok misinformation debunking videos? Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-114 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  272. Polkowski, J., Theine, H., & Krüger, U. (2025). Gemeinwohl oder Privateigentum? Die Positionen der deutschsprachigen Presse in der Debatte über eine Freigabe der Corona-Impfstoffpatente. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(2), 234–260. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-2-234 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  273. Hepp, A., Breiter, A., & Hasebrink, U. (2018). Rethinking transforming communications: An introduction. In A. Hepp, A. Breiter, & Uwe Hasebrink (Eds.), Communicative figurations. Transforming communications in times of deep mediatization (pp. 3–13). Palgrave McMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65584-0_1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  274. Blassnig, S., & Esser, F. (2022). The “audience logic” in digital journalism: An exploration of shifting news logics across media types and time. Journalism Studies, 23(1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.2000339 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  275. Donders, K., & Bulck, H. V. D. (2013). Scratching the surface of the “digital argument” in contemporary public service media debates: The case of the management contract negotiations in Flanders. In M. Löblich & S. Pfaff-Rüdiger (Hrsg.), Communication and media policy in the era of the Internet (S. 81–95). Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845243214-81 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  276.   Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-97
  277. Capozza, D., Falvo, R., Trifiletti, E., & Pagani, A. (2014). Cross-group friendships, extended contact, and humanity attributions to homosexuals. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 276–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.698 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  278. BDP. (2023). Diagnosen in den sozialen Medien – Fachliche Positionen [Diagnoses on social media – Professional positions]. https://www.bdp-verband.de/aktuelles/detailansicht/diagnosen-in-den-sozialen-medien-fachliche-positionen Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  279. Lindenauer, T. (2022). Das populistische Krisennarrativ: Eine qualitative Analyse der Wahlkampfkommunikation der AfD auf Facebook. Studies in Communication and Media, 11(1), 98–131. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  280. Frerebeau, N. (2023, November 28). Package ‘tabula’: Analysis and visualization of archaeological count data (version 3.0.1) [R package]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tabula Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  281. Berg, H. (2018). Wissenschaftsjournalismus zwischen Elfenbeinturm und Boulevard: Eine Langzeitanalyse der Wissenschaftsberichterstattung deutscher Zeitungen [Science journalism at the crossroads between ivory tower and boulevard: A long-term analysis of science journalism in German newspapers]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21157-8 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  282. Deutschlandfunk. (2022, 26. August). Der Fall Schlesinger: Öffentlich-Rechtliche in der Kritik. https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/schlesinger-rbb-faq-100.html#kurz Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  283. Sehl, A., Fletcher, R., & Picard, R. G. (2020). Crowding out: Is there evidence that public service media harm markets? A cross-national comparative analysis of commercial television and online news providers. European Journal of Communication, 35(4), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120903688 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-97
  284. Capozza, D., Falvo, R., Favara, I., & Trifiletti, E. (2013). The relationship between direct and indirect cross-group friendships and outgroup humanisation: Emotional and cognitive mediators. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 20(4), 383–397. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  285. BDP. (2011). Guidelines for psychologists who contribute to the media. https://www.bdp-verband.de/fileadmin/user_upload/BDP/website/dokumente/PDF/Profession/Berufsethik/efpa_media_guidelines.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  286. Leonhardt, B., Nölleke, D., & Hanusch, F. (2025). The power of perception: How scientific experts’ understanding of media logic affects their media-related behavior. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(2), 203–233. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-2-203 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  287. de Vreese, C. H., Esser, F., Aalberg, T., Reinemann, C., & Stanyer, J. (2018). Populism as an expression of political communication content and style: A new perspective. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(4), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161218790035 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  288. Bell, E. (2021). Do technology companies care about journalism? In A. Schiffrin (Ed.), Media capture: How money, digital platforms, and governments control the news (pp. 291–296). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/schi18882-017 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  289. Cushion, S. (2019). Journalism under (ideological) threat: Safeguarding and enhancing public service media into the 21st century. Journalism, 20(1), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918807036 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  290. Schulz, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2019). Old, educated, and politically diverse: The audience of public service news. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-09/The_audience_of_public_service_news_FINAL.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-97
  291. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.105 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  292. Basch, C. H., Donelle, L., Fera, J., & Jaime, C. (2022). Deconstructing TikTok videos on mental health: Cross-sectional, descriptive content analysis. JMIR Formative Research, 6(5). https://doi.org/10.2196/38340 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  293. Kessler, S. H. (2025). Misinformation on social media: Individual reception and the importance of self-directed internet search for rebuttal. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(1), 140–166. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-1-140 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  294. de León, E., Makhortykh, M., & Adam, S. (2024). Hyperpartisan, alternative, and conspiracy media users: An anti-establishment portrait. Political Communication, 41(6), 877–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2024.2325426 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  295. Belair-Gagnon, V., Zamith, R., & Holton, A. E. (2020). Role orientations and audience metrics in newsrooms: An examination of journalistic perceptions and their drivers. Digital Journalism, 8(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1709521 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  296. Campos Rueda, M. (2023). Influence of public service media consumption on citizens’ perceptions of the need for public media: The moderating role of political ideology. International Journal of Communication, 17, 3844–3864. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  297. Scheufele, B., Jost, A., & Spachmann, K. (2023). Krisendeutungen: Die aktuelle Mediendebatte um den öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk [Interpreting crises: The current media debate on public service broadcasting]. Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748938378 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-97
  298. Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R. M., Harwood, J., Rubin, M., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629–1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  299. Baier, A. L. (2019). The ethical implications of social media: Issues and recommendations for clinical practice. Ethics & Behavior, 29(5), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2018.1516148 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  300. Jungblut, M., & Naderer, B. (2025). A light shade of green: German stock index listed companies’ inclusion of sustainability communication on X and Instagram. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(3), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-3-456 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  301. Buehling, K., & Heft, A. (2023). Pandemic protesters on Telegram: How platform affordances and information ecosystems shape digital counterpublics. Social Media + Society, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231199430 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  302. Bastos, M. T. (2016). Digital journalism and tabloid journalism. In B. Franklin & S. A. Eldridge (Eds.), The Routledge companion to digital journalism studies (pp. 217–225). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315713793-22 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  303. Brettschneider, F., & Wagner, B. (2008). „And the winner should be...“: Explizite und implizite Wahlempfehlungen in der Bild-Zeitung und der Sun. In B. Pfetsch & S. Adam (Hrsg.), Massenmedien als politische Akteure (S. 225–244). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90843-4_10 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  304. Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37–51). Harper. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-97
  305. Banas, J. A., Bessarabova, E., & Massey, z. B. (2020). Meta-analysis on mediated contact and prejudice. Human Communication Research, 46(2–3), 120–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa004 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  306. BACP. (n.d.). Guidance on the use of social media. https://www.bacp.co.uk/membership/membership-policies/social-media/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  307. Grub, M. F. (2025). “A rape is a rape is a rape” – A qualitative content analysis of male rape frames in UK print media. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(3), 362–385. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-3-362 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  308. Broersma, M. (2019). Epilogue: Situating journalism in the digital: A plea for studying news flows, users, and materiality. In S.A. Eldrige, & B. Franklin (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Developments in Digital Journalism Studies (pp. 515–525). Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  309. Arbaoui, B., De Swert, K., & van der Brug, W. (2020). Sensationalism in news coverage: A comparative study in 14 television systems. Communication Research, 47(2), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216663364 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  310. Beck, K. (2001). Medienberichterstattung über Medienkonzentration: Journalistische Strategien am Fallbeispiel der Fusion von AOL und Time Warner. Publizistik, 46(4), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-001-0121-3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  311. Kemner, B., Scherer, H., & Weinacht, S. (2008). Unter der Tarnkappe: Der Einsatz „volatiler Themen“ und „opportuner Zeugen“ in der Berichterstattung zum Übernahmeversuch der ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG durch den Springer-Verlag [In disguise: The use of „volatile issues“ and „opportune witnesses“ in the media coverage of the attempted takeover of the ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG by Springer]. Publizistik, 53(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-008-0006-9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-97
  312. Baden, C., & Springer, N. (2014). Com(ple)menting the news on the financial crisis: The contribution of news users’ commentary to the diversity of viewpoints in the public debate. European Journal of Communication, 29(5), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114538724 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  313. Avella, H. (2023). “TikTok ≠ therapy”: Mediating mental health and algorithmic mood disorders. New Media & Society, 26(10). https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221147284 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  314. Godulla, A., & Hoffmann, C. P. (2025). Ready or not, here I come. How synthetic media challenge epistemic institutions. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(4), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-4-471 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  315. Boydstun, A. E., Bevan, S., & Thomas, H. F. (2014). The Importance of attention diversity and how to measure it. Policy Studies Journal, 42(2), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12055 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  316. Anter, L. (2025). How social media affordances shape journalistic content production: A stimulus-based interview study on journalists’ perceptions. Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251337009 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  317. Bachl, M., & Vögele, C. (2013). Guttenbergs Zeugen? Eine Replikation und Erweiterung von Hagens (1992) „Die opportunen Zeugen“ anhand der Berichterstattung über Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg im Kontext der Plagiatsaffäre. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 61(3), 345–367. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2013-3-345 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  318. Hagen, L. M. (1992). Die opportunen Zeugen: Konstruktionsmechanismen von Bias in der Zeitungsberichterstattung über die Volkszählungsdiskussion [The opportune witnesses: Construction mechanisms of bias in newspaper reporting on the census debate]. Publizistik, 37(4), 444–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03654310 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-97
  319. Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison Wesley. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  320. APA. (2024). Guidelines for the practice of telepsychology. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/telepsychology Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  321. Eder, M., Pohl, K., & Sehl, An. (2025). Journalistic quality in the eye of the beholder: An eye-tracking study on user comments and their effect on journalistic quality perception. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(3), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-3-339 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  322. Bader, K., Müller, K., & Rinsdorf, L. (2023). Zwischen Staatsskepsis und Verschwörungsmythen. Eine Figurationsanalyse zur kommunikativen Konstruktion von Gegenöffentlichkeiten auf Telegram [Between state scepticism and conspirancy myths. A figuration analysis of communicative construction of counter publics on Telegram]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 71 (3–4), 248–265 https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2023-3-4-248 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  323. Anter, L. (2024). How news organizations coordinate, select, and edit content for social media platforms: A systematic literature review. Journalism Studies, 25(9), 1095–1115. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2235428 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  324. Anter, L. (2021). Mein Text, meine Meinung, meine Wissenschaftlerin? Eine qualitative Untersuchung zur Nutzung von Wissenschaftler*innen als opportune Zeugen. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 69(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2021-3-397 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  325. Campos Rueda, M. (2023). Influence of public service media consumption on citizens’ perceptions of the need for public media: The moderating role of political ideology. International Journal of Communication, 17, 3844–3864. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-97
  326. Aberson, C. L., & Haag, S. C. (2007). Contact, perspective taking, and anxiety as predictors of stereotype endorsement, explicit attitudes, and implicit attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207074726 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  327. APA. (2021). APA guidelines for the optimal use of social media in professional psychological practice. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-optimal-use-social-media.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136
  328. Döring, N., Krämer, N., Miller, D. J., Quandt, T., & Vowe, G. (2024). Media representations of sexuality in an era of pornification. Studies in Communication and Media, 13(4), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2024-4-385 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  329. Almodt, R. (2023). From criticism to conspiracies: The populist discourse of COVID-19 sceptics in Germany’s Querdenken community on Telegram. Discourse & Society, 35(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265231191971 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-9
  330. Adam, S., & Maier, M. (2010). Personalization of politics: A critical review and agenda for research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 34(1), 213–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2010.11679101 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-45
  331. Adam, S. (2008). Medieninhalte aus der Netzwerkperspektive: Neue Erkenntnisse durch die Kombination von Inhalts- und Netzwerkanalyse. Publizistik, 53(2), 180–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-008-0074-x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-67
  332. Anter, L. (2021). Mein Text, meine Meinung, meine Wissenschaftlerin? Eine qualitative Untersuchung zur Nutzung von Wissenschaftler*innen als opportune Zeugen [My text, my opinion, my scientist? A qualitative study on the use of scientists as opportune witnesses]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 69(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2021-3-397 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-97
  333. Aberson, C. L. (2015). Positive intergroup contact, negative intergroup contact, and threat as predictors of cognitive and affective dimensions of prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(6), 743–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214556699 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  334. Andalibi, N., Ozturk, P., & Forte, A. (2017). Sensitive self-disclosures, responses, and social support on Instagram: The case of #depression. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 1485–1500. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998243 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-136

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF) Full download (PDF)

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.

Share via email

Media