„Die Presse verrät ihren Beruf“. Theodor Geiger (1891–1952) – ein (fast) vergessener Klassiker auch der Kommunikationswissenschaft

Table of contents

Bibliographic information


Cover of Volume: M&K Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft Volume 67 (2019), Edition 4
Open Access Full access

M&K Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft

Volume 67 (2019), Edition 4


Authors:
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright year
2019
ISSN-Online
2942-3317
ISSN-Print
1615-634X

Chapter information


Open Access Full access

Volume 67 (2019), Edition 4

„Die Presse verrät ihren Beruf“. Theodor Geiger (1891–1952) – ein (fast) vergessener Klassiker auch der Kommunikationswissenschaft


Authors:
ISSN-Print
1615-634X
ISSN-Online
2942-3317


Preview:

Theodor Geiger, who emigrated from Germany to Scandinavia in 1933 and never returned after 1945, was one of the last universal scholars in the field of social science. Among many contributions, Geiger provided decisive contributions to the sociology of law, to social stratification, and to the sociology of education and ideology criticism. Yet, his extensive research in the field of journalism, the public sphere and the media has only received scarce attention so far. His expertise as a classic also in the field of communication studies can, above all, be seen from the still existing topicality of his theoretical-normative, and at the same time empiric-analytical investigations. In his analysis of the intelligentsia which in his view includes journalists, he postulates that ideology critique based on facts and sober rationality should be the main task of this public-related occupation, which should confront all parties involved in the political power struggle in a fundamentally independent distance. In his ‘Criticism of Advertising’ he reconstructs the history of the development of this phenomenon, characteristic to affluent capitalistic societies, and designs a systematic typology of the methods of persuasive public communication. He also unmasks in precise economic argumentation as ideological errors the common assumptions that cross-financing by adverting would enhance the journalistic quality and would mean real money-saving to audiences. Moreover, of his empirical research on radio reception can teach us that there are realistic chances of popular distribution of cultural products, as well as methodical potentials are resulting from his experiment. From the example of Theodor Geiger, a classic forgotten in communication science and journalism, productive possibilities of an interdisciplinary subject history can be derived which does not understand itself as hagiography.

Bibliography


  1. Albæk E., Christiansen, P. M. & Togeby, L. (2003). Experts in the mass media: Researchers as sources in Danish daily newspapers, 1961–2001. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(4), 937–948. doi: 10.1177/107769900308000412. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  2. Allgaier, J., Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., Lo, Y. Y. & Peters, H. P. (2013). Medialized science? Neuroscientists’ reflections on their role as journalistic sources. Journalism Practice, 7(4), 413–429. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  3. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  4. Bauer, M. W. & Jensen, P. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  5. Baurmann, M. & Vowe, G. (2014). Governing the Research Club. Wie lassen sich Kooperationsprobleme in Forschungsverbünden lösen? Forschung. Politik – Strategie – Management, 7(3), 73–84. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  6. Besley, J. C. & Nisbet, E. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 644–659. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  7. Besley, J. C., Oh, S. H. & Nisbet, E. (2013). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 971–987. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  8. Bonney, R., Shirk, J. L., Phillips, T. B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H. L., Miller-Rushing, A. J. & Parrish, J. K. (2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343(6178), 1436–1437. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  9. Braun, M., Starkbaum, J. & Dabrock, P. (2015). Safe and sound? Scientists’ understandings of public engagement in emerging biotechnologies. PloS one, 10(12), e0145033. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  10. Carver, R. (2014). Public communication from research institutes: Is it science communication or public relations? Journal of Science Communication, 13(3), C01. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  11. Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  12. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (2007). 52.07 Modul Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. https://www.dfg.de/formulare/52_07/ [01.10.2019]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  13. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (2018). Förderatlas 2018. Kennzahlen zur öffentlich finanzierten Forschung in Deutschland. https://www.dfg.de/sites/foerderatlas2018/ [01.10.2019]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  14. Entradas, M. & Bauer, M. M. (2017). Mobilisation for public engagement: Benchmarking the practices of research institutes. Public Understanding of Science, 26(7), 771–788. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  15. Fähnrich, B., Kuhnhenn, M. & Raaz, R. (2018). Organisationsbezogene Theorien der Hochschulkommunikation. In B. Fähnrich, J. Metag, S. Post & M. Schäfer (Hrsg.). Forschungsfeld Hochschulkommunikation (S. 61–94). Wiesbaden: Springer. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  16. Fahy, D. & Nisbet, M. C. (2011). The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism, 12(7), 778–793. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  17. Gascoigne, T. & Metcalfe, J. (1997). Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Science Communication, 18(3), 265–282. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  18. Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J. & Beyleveld, D. (1999). The media and public understanding of biotechnology. A survey of scientists and journalists. Science Communication, 20(4), 373–394. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  19. Holmberg, T. & Ideland, M. (2010). Secrets and lies: ”Selective openness” in the apparatus of animal experimentation. Public Understanding of Science, 21(3), 354–368. doi: 0.1177/0963662510372584 Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  20. Holmberg, K. & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1027–1042. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  21. Horst, M. (2013). A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication. Science Communication, 35(6), 758–779. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  22. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  23. Jensen, E. (2010). Between credulity and scepticism: Envisaging the fourth estate in 21st-century science journalism. Media, Culture & Society, 32(4), 615–630. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  24. Klimmt, C., Link, E., Emde, K. & Schneider, B. (2016). Communication as integral element of biomedical implant innovation. BioNanoMaterials (Special Issue „Biofabrication“), 17(1-2), 93–102. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  25. Koh, E. J., Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D. & Allgaier, J. (2016). Mapping neuroscientists’ perceptions of the nature and effects of public visibility. Science Communication, 38(2), 170–196. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  26. Kohring, M. (2005). Wissenschaftsjournalismus. Forschungsüberblick und Theorieentwurf. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  27. Locker-Gruetjen, O., Ehmann, B., Jongmanns, G. (2012). Definition für optimales Forschungsmanagement. Wissenschaftsmanagement, 3, 34–38. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  28. Marcinkowski, F. & Kohring, M. (2014). The changing rationale of science communication: A challenge for scientific autonomy. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3), C04. http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/13/03/JCOM_1303_2014_C01/JCOM_1303_2014_C04/JCOM_1303_2014_C04.pdf [01.10.2019]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  29. Marcinkowski, F., Kohring, M., Fürst, S. & Friedrichsmeier, A. (2014). Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public. An empirical investigation. Science Communication, 36(1), 56–80. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  30. Martín-Sempere, M. J., Garzón-García, B. & Rey-Rocha, J. (2008). Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 349–367. doi: 10.1177/0963662506067660. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  31. Peters, H. P. (2012). Scientific sources and the mass media: Forms and consequences of medialization. In S. Rödder, M. Franzen & P. Weingart (Hrsg.), The sciences’ media connection – Public communication and its repercussions (S. 217–239). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  32. Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., De Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S. & Tsuchida, S. (2008). Science-media interface. It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication, 30(2), 266–276. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  33. Poliakoff, E. & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science events? Science Communication, 29(2), 242–263. doi: 10.1177/1075547007308009. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  34. Ramus, C. A. & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Business & Society, 44(4), 377–414. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  35. Roche, J. P. & Muskavitch, M. A. (2003). Limited precision in print media communication of West Nile virus risks. Science Communication, 24(3), 353–365. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  36. Rödder, S. (2009). Reassessing the concept of a medialization of science: A story from the “book of life”. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 452–463. doi: 10.1177/0963662507081168. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  37. Samuel, G., Williams, C. & Gardner, J. (2017). UK science press officers, professional vision and the generation of expectations. Public Understanding of Science, 26(1), 55–69. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  38. Schäfer, M. S. (2007). Wissenschaft in den Medien: Die Medialisierung naturwissenschaftlicher Themen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  39. Schäfer, M. S. (2009). From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30(4), 475–505. doi: 10.1177/1075547008326943. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  40. Scheu, A. M., Volpers, A.-M., Summ, A. & Blöbaum, B. (2014). Medialization of research policy: Anticipation of and adaptation to journalistic logic. Science Communication, 36(6), 706–734. doi: 10.1177/1075547014552727. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  41. Tambor, E. S., Bernhardt, B. A., Rodgers, J., Holtzman, N. A. & Geller, G. (2002). Mapping the human genome: An assessment of media coverage and public reaction. Genetics in Medicine, 4(1), 31–36. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  42. Trench, B. (2012). Vital and vulnerable: Science communication as a university subject. In B. Schiele, M. Claessens & S. Shi (Hrsg.), Science communication in the world: Practices, theories and trends (S. 241–258). Dodrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_16. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  43. Trench, B. & Miller, S. (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 722–731. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  44. Weingart, P. (2017). Wissenschaftskommunikation unter digitalen Bedingungen: Funktionen, Akteure und Probleme des Vertrauens. In P. Weingart, H. Wormer, A. Wenniger & R. Hüttl (Hrsg.), Perspektiven der Wissenschaftskommunikation im digitalen Zeitalter (S. 31–60). Weilerswist-Metternich: Velbrück Wissenschaft. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  45. Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23(2), 164–193. doi: 10.1177/1075547001023002005. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  46. Williams, A. J. & Gajevic, S. (2013). Selling science: Source struggles, public relations, and UK press coverage of animal–human hybrid embryos. Journalism Studies 14(4), 507–522. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2012.718576. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  47. Winter, S. & Krämer, N. C. (2012). Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 18(1), 80–96. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-375
  48. Adriaansen, M./van Praag, P./de Vreese, C. (2010): Substance matters: How news content can reduce political cynicism. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(4), S. 433–457. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  49. Bernhard, U./Dohle, M. (2014): Do even journalists support media restrictions? Presumed political media influences and the consequences. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, S. 250–271. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  50. Bird, S./Loper, E./Klein, E. (2009): Natural language processing with python. Newton: O’Reilly Media. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  51. Blum, R. (2014): Die Medienregulierung in der Schweiz. In: R. Blum/P. Rieder (Hrsg.), Zwischen Medienfreiheit und Publikumsschutz, Bern: UBI, S. 9–36. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  52. Blum, R. (2017): Jahresbericht 2016 des Ombudsmannes SRG.D; Bern: SRG Deutschschweiz. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  53. Bonfadelli, H./Marr, M. (2008): Kognitive Medienwirkungen. In: B. Batinic/M. Appel (Hrsg.), Medienpsychologie. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, S. 127–147. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  54. Buturoiu, D./Corbu, N. (2015): Moderators of framing effects on political attitudes: Is source credibility worth investigating? Central European Political Studies Review, XVII (2), S. 155–177. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  55. Cichosz, P. (2011): Assessing the quality of classification models: Performance measures and evaluation procedures. Central European Journal of Engineering, S. 132–158. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  56. Cohen, J./Tsfati, Y./Sheafer, T. (2008): The influence of presumed media influence in politics: Do politicians’ perceptions of media power matter? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, S. 331–344. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  57. Cohen, J./Weimann, G. (2008): Who’s afraid of reality shows? Exploring the effects of perceived influence of reality shows and the concern over their social effects on willingness to censor. Communication Research, 35, S. 382–397. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  58. Connors, J. (2005): Understanding the third person effect. Communications Research Trends, 24, S. 3–22. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  59. Craft, S./Vos, T./Wolfgang, D. (2016): Reader comments as press criticism: Implications for the journalistic field. Journalism, 17, 6, S. 677–693. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  60. Dohle, M. (2013): Third Person Effect. Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlag. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  61. Dohle, M./Bernhard, U. (2014): Presumed online media influence and support for censorship: Results from a survey amongst German parlamentarians. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26, S. 256–268. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  62. Dohle, M./Bernhard, U./Kelm, O. (2017): Presumed media influences and demands for restrictions: Using panel data to examine the causal direction. Mass Communication and Society, 20, S. 595–613. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  63. Dohle, M./Hartmann, T. (2008): Alles eine Frage hoher Reichweite? Eine experimentelle Untersuchung zur Ursache der Entstehung von Hostile-Media-Effekten. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 56(1), S. 23–43. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  64. Doty, D./Glick W. (1994): Typologies as a unique form of theory building. Academy of Management Review, 19, S. 230–251. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  65. Entman, R. (1993): Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, S. 51–58. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  66. Entman, R. (2004): Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  67. fög (2012): Jahrbuch Qualität der Schweizer Medien 2012. Basel: Schwabe Verlag. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  68. Friedrich, K. (2010): Publikumskonzeptionen und Medienwirkungsmodelle politischer Kommunikationsforschung. Wiesbaden: VS. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  69. Goodwin, B. (2011): Die Perspektive von Wissenschaftlern auf die Wissenschaftskommunikation am Beispiel deutscher Forstwissenschaftler. München: Technische Universität. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  70. Gunther, A./Storey, J. (2003): The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53, S. 199–215. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  71. Gürtler S./Ciucci, R. (2016): „Verantwortungslos, unausgewogen, unsorgfältig, unsachlich“. UBI-Beschwerden aus kommunikationstheoretischer Sicht. medialex 5/16, S. 17–23. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  72. Hagen, L. (2015): Nachrichtenjournalismus in der Vertrauenskrise. Communicatio Socialis, 48(2), S. 152–163. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  73. Haim, M. (2019): Die Orientierung von Online-Journalismus an seinen Publika: Anforderungen, Antizipation, Anspruch. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  74. Hansen, K. (2007): The sophisticated public: The effect of competing frames on public opinion. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(3), S. 377–396. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  75. Ho, S./Lee, E./Ng, K./Leong, G./Tham, T. (2016): For fit’s sake: A norms-based approach to healthy behaviors through influence of presumed media influence. Health communication, 31, S. 1072–1080. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  76. Holody, J. (2011): Constructing the end: Framing and agenda-setting of physician-assisted suicide. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  77. Huck, I./Brosius, H.-B. (2007): Der Third-Person-Effekt. Über den vermuteten Einfluss der Massenmedien. Publizistik, 52(3), S. 355–374. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  78. Kepplinger, H. (2010): Medieneffekte. Wiesbaden: VS. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  79. Kluge, S. (1999): Empirisch begründete Typenbildung. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  80. Kluge, S. (2000): Empirically grounded construction of types and typologies in qualitative social research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), Art. 14, nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0001145 [30.09.2019]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  81. Künzler, M. (2013): Mediensystem Schweiz. Konstanz: UVK. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  82. Ladner, A. (2004): Stabilität und Wandel von Parteien und Parteiensystemen. Wiesbaden: VS. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  83. Lambe, J./McLeod, D. (2005): Understanding third-person perception processes: Predicting perceived impact on self and others for multiple expressive contexts. Journal of Communication, 55, S. 277–291. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  84. Lo, V.-H./Wei, R./Lu, H.-Y. (2017): Issue importance, third-person effects of protest news, and participation in Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 94, S. 682–702. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  85. Lo, V.-H./Wei, R./Zhang, X./Guo, L. (2016): Theoretical and methodological patterns of third person effect research: A comparative thematic analysis of Asia and the world. Asian Journal of Communication, 26(6), S. 583–604. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  86. Loretan, M. (2000): Positionierung des Service public im deregulierten Rundfunkmarkt. Medienheft, 14, S. 4–13. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  87. Marcus, G./Neuman, W./MacKuen, M. (2000): Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  88. Marcus, G./Sullivan, J./Theiss-Morse, E./Stevens, D. (2005): The emotional foundation of political cognition: The impact of extrinsic anxiety on the formation of political tolerance judgments. Political Psychology, 26(6), S. 949–963. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  89. Martignoni, W. (1978): Der Kanton Jura: Konsequenzen für den Kanton Bern. Schweizer Monatshefte, 58(9), S. 699–708. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  90. McLeod, D./Eveland, W./Nathanson, A. (1997): Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24, S. 153–174. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  91. Meier, W. (1997): Öffentlicher Rundfunk in Europa. ZOOM K&M, 9, S. 30–44. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  92. Meirick, P. (2005): Rethinking the target corollary: The effect of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on first-person and third-person perception. Communication Research, 32, S. 822–843. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  93. Mikos, L. (1992): Fernsehen im Kontext von Alltag, Lebenswelt und Kultur. Versuch zur Klärung von Begriffen zum Zwecke der theoretischen Annäherung. Rundfunk und Fernsehen, 40(4), S. 528–543. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  94. Mikos, L. (2011): Medienbiographische Erfahrung, subjektive Medientheorien und die Wissenschaft. In: W. Früh (Hrsg.), Empirisch-praktisch Forschen. Anwendungsfelder der Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft. München: Meidenbauer Verlag, S. 125–136. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  95. Müller, P./Hohlfeld, R. (2013): Journalistische Vorstellungen von Medienwirkungen. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 61(2), S. 166–182. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  96. Nelson, T./Oxley, Z./Clawson, R. (1997): Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), S. 221–246. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  97. Neuman, R./Just, M./Crigler, A. (1992): Common knowledge: News and the construction of political meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  98. Neyer, F./Asendorpf, J. (2001): Personality-relationship transaction in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, S. 1190–1204. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  99. Noguti, V./Russell, C. (2014): Normative influences on product placement effects: Alcohol brands in television series and the influence of presumed influence. Journal of Advertising, 43, S. 46–62. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  100. Park, S.-Y. (2005): The influence of presumed media influence on women’s desire to be thin. Communication Research, 32, S. 594–614. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  101. Perloff, R. (2009): Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In: J. Bryant/M. Oliver (Hrsg.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research, New York: Routledge, S. 252–268. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  102. Presserat (2018): Das Verfahren. https://presserat.ch/beschwerde/ablauf-beschwerde/ [30.09.2019]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  103. Rieder, P. (2007): Kostenrisiko bei Beschwerden an die UBI. Medialex 1/07, S. 6–7. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  104. Rieder, P. (2014): Die Unabhängige Beschwerdeinstanz für Radio und Fernsehen und ihre Rechtsprechung. In: R. Blum/P. Rieder (Hrsg.), Zwischen Medienfreiheit und Publikumsschutz, Bern: UBI, S. 37–94. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  105. Rim, H./Ha, J. /Kiousis, S. (2013): The evidence of compelling arguments in agenda building. Relationships among public information subsidies, media coverage, and risk perceptions during a pandemic outbreak. Journal of Communication Management, 18(1), S. 101–116. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  106. ROG Reporter ohne Grenzen (2017): Rangliste der Pressefreiheit 2017. NahaufnahmeDeutschland. www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/uploads/tx_lfnews/media/ROG-Nahaufnahme_Deutschland_2017_03.pdf [30.09.2019]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  107. Rojas, H. (2010): „Corrective“ actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, S. 343–363. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  108. Salwen, M. (1998): Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person effect in the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 25, S. 259–285. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  109. Schemer, C./Wirth, W./Matthes, J. (2012): Value resonance and value framing effects on voting intentions in direct-democratic campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), S. 334–352. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  110. Scheufele, D. (1999): Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), S. 103–122. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  111. Schiffer, K./Ennemoser, M./Schneider, W. (2002): Die Beziehung zwischen dem Fernsehkonsum und der Entwicklung von Sprach- und Lesekompetenzen im Grundschulalter in Abhängigkeit von der Intelligenz. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 14, S. 12–13. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  112. Schmierbach, M./Boyle, M./Xu, Q./McLeod, D. (2011): Exploring third-person differences between gamers and nongamers. Journal of Communication, 61, S. 307–327. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  113. Schramm, H./Knoll, J. (2014): Medienwirkungen. In: M. Blanz et al. (Hrsg.), Kommunikation. Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, S. 168–177. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  114. Schuck, A./de Vreese, C. (2006): Between risk and opportunity. European Journal of Communication, 21(1), S. 5–32. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  115. Schwarb, U. (2007): Medienvielfalt und publizistische Leistung: 20 Jahre nach Einführung des lokalen Rundfunks in der Schweiz. Konstanz: UVK. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  116. Sebastiani, F. (1999): A tutorial on automated text categorization. In: A. Amandi/A. Zunino (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 1st Argentinian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence (ASAI'99). Buenos Aires, S. 7–35. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  117. Senn, M. (2013): Die Rechtsfigur des Durchschnittsrezipienten. Kunst und Recht, 1, S. 17–22. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  118. Sommer, K. (2013): Wirkung von Wirtschaftsberichterstattung – eine Systematisierung. In: W. Schweiger/A. Fahr (Hrsg.), Handbuch Medienwirkungsforschung. Wiesbaden: VS, S. 369–384. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  119. Stiehler, H.-J. (1999): Subjektive Medientheorien – Zum Begriff. In: B. Schorb/H.-J. Stiehler (Hrsg.), Idealisten oder Realisten? Die deutschen Kinder- und JugendfernsehmacherInnen und ihre subjektiven Medientheorien. München: KoPäd, S. 12–26. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  120. Studer, S./Schweizer, C./Puppis, M./Künzler, M. (2014): Darstellung der Schweizer Medienlandschaft. Bern: BAKOM. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  121. Sun, Y. (2013): When presumed influence turns real: An indirect route of media influence. In: J. Dillard/L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion. Thousand Oaks: Sage, S. 371-387. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  122. Sun, Y./Shen, L./Pan, Z. (2008): On the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 35(2), S. 257–278. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  123. Tal-Or, N./Tsfati, Y./Gunther, A. (2009): The influence of presumed media influence. Origins and implications of the third-person perception. In: R. Nabi/M. Oliver (Hrsg.), The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects. Thousand Oaks: Sage, S. 99–112. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  124. Vallone, R./Ross, L./Lepper, M. (1985): The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the „Beirut Massacre“. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, S. 577–585. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  125. Weber, S. (2000): Was steuert Journalismus? Ein System zwischen Selbstreferenz und Fremdsteuerung. Konstanz: UVK. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  126. Wei, R./Lo, V.-H./Lu, H.-Y. (2011): Examining the perceptual gap and behavioral intention in the perceived effects of polling news in the 2008 Taiwan presidential election. Communication Research 38, S. 206–227. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  127. Wen, N./Chia, S./Xiaoming, H. (2017): Does gender matter? Testing the influence of presumed media influence on young people’s attitudes toward cosmetic surgery. Sex Roles, 76, S. 436–447. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  128. Yankov, A. (2010): Auswertungsmethoden leitfadengestützter Interviews. In: N. Schöneck-Voss/W. Voss (Hrsg.), Methodenintegrative Forschung. Bochum: Diskussionspapiere aus der Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaft – 10-1, S. 15–30. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  129. Zeller, F. (2012): Medien- und Kommunikationsrecht. Universität Basel, unveröff. Manuskript. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-396
  130. Ahrens, R. (2012). Nachhaltigkeit in der deutschen Familienpolitik. Grundlagen – Analysen – Konzeptualisierung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  131. Bandelow, N. (2015). Advocacy Coalition Framework. In G. Wenzelburger & R. Zohlnhöfer (Hrsg.), Handbuch Policy-Forschung (S. 305–324). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  132. Beaudoin, C. E. (2011). News Effects on Bonding and Bridging Social Capital: An Empirical Study Relevant to Ethnicity in the United States. Communication Research, 38(2), 155–178. doi: 10.1177/0093650210381598. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  133. Briggs, X. d. S. (1997). Social Capital and the Cities: Advice to Change Agents. National Civic Review, 86(2), 111–117. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  134. Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  135. Carey, J. W. (1965). The Communications Revolution and the Professional Communicator. The Sociological Review, 13(1_suppl), 23–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1965.tb03107.x. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  136. Cotter, T. F. (2006). Some Observations on the Law and Economics of Intermediaries. Michigan State Law Review, 67, 67–82. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  137. Ganter, S. A. & Maurer, P. (2015). Von der Medien- zur Netzpolitik? Eine Analyse des Leistungsschutzrechts für Presseverlage in Deutschland. In M. Emmer & C. Strippel (Hrsg.), Kommunikationspolitik für die digitale Gesellschaft (S. 259–281). Digital Communication Research, 1. doi: 10.17174/dcr.v1.12. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  138. Gasser, U. & Schulz, W. (2015). Governance of Online Intermediaries: Observations from a Series of National Case Studies. Cambridge, MA: Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (Research Publication No. 2015-5). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  139. Gerhards, J. & Neidhardt, F. (1990). Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit. Fragestellung und Ansätze. (= WZB-Paper FS III 90-101) Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  140. Geys, B. & Murdoch, Z. (2008). How to Make Head or Tail of ‘Bridging’ and ‘Bonding’? Addressing the Methodological Ambiguity. The British Journal of Sociology, 59(3), 435–454. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2008.00202.x. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  141. Geys, B. & Murdoch, Z. (2010). Measuring the ‘Bridging’ versus ‘Bonding’ Nature of Social Networks: A Proposal for Integrating Existing Measures. Sociology, 44(3), 523–540. doi: 10.1177/0038038510362474. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  142. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  143. Greef, S. (2017). Netzpolitik – Entsteht ein Politikfeld für Digitalpolitik? Kassel: Kassel University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  144. Grenz, F. & Donges, P. (2018). Fachöffentlichkeiten in der politischen Kommunikation. Erkundungen zwischen Medienöffentlichkeit und Policy-Netzwerken. SCM Studies in Communication and Media, 7(3), 392–422. doi: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-3-392. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  145. Ingold, K. & Varone, F. (2011). Treating Policy Brokers Seriously. Evidence from the Climate Change. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 319–346. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  146. Jarren, O. (2008). Massenmedien als Intermediäre. Zur anhaltenden Relevanz der Massenmedien für die öffentliche Kommunikation. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 56(3-4), 329–346. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  147. Jentges, E., Brändli, M., Donges, P. & Jarren, O. (2012). Die Kommunikation politischer Interessengruppen in Deutschland: Adressaten, Instrumente und Logiken. SCM Studies in Communication and Media, 1(3–4), 381–409. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  148. Koch-Baumgarten, S. & Voltmer, K. (2009). Policy matters – Medien im politischen Entscheidungsprozess in unterschiedlichen Politikfeldern. In F. Marcinkowski & B. Pfetsch (Hrsg.), Politik in der Mediendemokratie (S. 299–319). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  149. Loer, K., Reiter, R. & Töller, A. E. (2015). Was ist ein Politikfeld und warum entsteht es? der moderne staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 8(1), 7–28. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  150. Marcinkowski, F. (2002). Massenmedien und die Integration der Gesellschaft aus Sicht der autopoietischen Systemtheorie: Steigern die Medien das Reflexionspotential sozialer Systeme? In K. Imhof, O. Jarren & R. Blum (Hrsg.), Integration und Medien (S. 110–121). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  151. Nisbet, M. C. & Fahy, D. (2015). The Need for Knowledge-Based Journalism in Politicized Science Debates. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 223–234. doi: 10.1177/0002716214559887. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  152. Nollert, M. (2010). Kreuzung sozialer Kreise: Auswirkungen und Wirkungsgeschichte. In C. Stegbauer & R. Häußling (Hrsg.), Handbuch Netzwerkforschung (S. 157–165). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  153. Norris, P. (2002). The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(3), 3-13. doi: 10.1177/1081180x0200700301. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  154. Patulny, R. V. & Lind Haase Svendsen, G. (2007). Exploring the Social Capital Grid: Bonding, Bridging, Qualitative, Quantitative. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27(1/2), 32–51. doi: 10.1108/01443330710722742. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  155. Perset, K. (2010). The Economic and Social Role of Internet Intermediaries. OECD Digital Economy Papers(171). doi: 10.1787/20716826. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  156. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  157. Putnam, R. D. & Goss, K. A. (2004). Introduction. In R. D. Putnam (Hrsg.), Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society (S. 3–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  158. Rössler, P. (2017). Inhaltsanalyse (3. Aufl.). Konstanz, München: UVK. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  159. Rucht, D. (1991). Parteien, Verbände und Bewegungen als Systeme politischer Interessenvermittlung. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum (WZB Discussion Paper FS III 91–107). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  160. Sabatier, P. & Weible, C. M. (2007). The ACF. Innovations and Clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Hrsg.), Theories of the Policy Process (2nd Aufl., S. 189–222). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  161. Sabatier, P. (1993). Policy Change over a Decade or More. In P. Sabatier & H. C. Jenkins-Smith (Hrsg.), Policy Change and Learning. An Advocacy Coalition Approach (S. 13–39). Boulder, CO: Westview Press,. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  162. Sarcinelli, U. (1998). Politikvermittlung. In O. Jarren, U. Sarcinelli & U. Saxer (Hrsg.), Politische Kommunikation in der demokratischen Gesellschaft. Ein Handbuch mit Lexikonteil (S. 702–703). Opladen, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  163. Scheidegger, N. (2010). Strukturelle Löcher. In C. Stegbauer & R. Häußling (Hrsg.), Handbuch Netzwerkforschung (S. 145–155). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  164. Schmidt, J.-H., Merten, L., Hasebrink, U., Petrich, I. & Rolfs, A. (2017). Zur Relevanz von Online-Intermediären für die Meinungsbildung. Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-Institut. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  165. Stark, B., Magin, M. & Jürgens, P. (2018). Politische Meinungsbildung im Netz: Die Rolle der Informationsintermediäre. UFITA, 82(1), 103-130. doi: 10.5771/2568-9185-2018-1-103. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  166. Streeck, W. (1987). Vielfalt und Interdependenz. Überlegungen zur Rolle von intermediären Organisationen in sich ändernden Umwelten. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 39(4), 471–495. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  167. Weible, C. M. & Sabatier, P. (2007). A Guide to the Advocacy Coalition Framework. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller & M. S. Sidney (Hrsg.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Theory, Politics, and Methods (S. 123–136). Boca Raton et al.: CRC Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  168. Wolfe, M., Jones, B. D. & Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). A Failure to Communicate: Agenda Setting in Media and Policy Studies. Political Communication, 30(2), 175–192. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.737419. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417
  169. Yanovitzky, I. & Weber, M. S. (2018). News Media as Knowledge Brokers in Public Policymaking Processes. Communication Theory, 29(2), S. 191–212, doi: 10.1093/ct/qty023. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-4-417

Citation


Download RIS Download BibTex