Die Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie der Medien/Kommunikation: ein hochaktueller Ansatz

This debate article discusses how topical the approach of the Critique of the Political Economy of Media/Communication is today. The paper analyses the status of this field. At the international level, there is a longer tradition in the Critical Political Economy of Media/Communication, especially in the United Kingdom and North America. Since the start of the new crisis of capitalism in 2008, the interest in Marx’s works has generally increased. At the same time communicative and ideological features of societal changes’ unpredictable turbulences have become evident. This contribution introduces some specific approaches. It also discusses 14 aspects of why the complex, multidimensional, open and dynamic research approach of the critique of capitalism and society that goes back Marx’s theory remains relevant today.After an introduction (sect. 1), the article’s second section provides a brief introduction to the critique of the political economy of media/communication by presenting the understandings of this field advanced by Peter Golding/Graham Murdock and Vincent Mosco. It also points out that there have been single representatives of the Critique of the Political Economy of Media/Communication in the German-speaking world, but that this approach is largely forgotten in German media and communication studies. The article provides a brief introduction to Horst Holzer’s version of the critique of the political economy of media/communication: Holzer combined critical social theory and empirical social research in order to critically theorise and understand communication(s). He was critical of both systems theories of communication (e.?g. Niklas Luhmann) and theories of communicative action (Jürgen Habermas) and worked out foundations of an alternative approach that are grounded in Marx’s theory.The third section argues that Karl Marx is not just a critic of capitalism, but that his approach can also help us to ground a critical theory of communication. It stresses that there are many elements in Marx’s works that can help us to critically understand communication: critical journalism, limits on the freedom of the press, the analysis of the commodity form, the analysis of labour, exploitation, class, surplus-value, globalisation, crisis, modern technology, the General Intellect, communication, the means of communication, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, dialectics, ideologies, social struggles, and democratic alternatives.Sect. 4 provides an example of how to use the approach of the Critique of Political Economy for analysing concrete communication phenomena. After the 2011 Arab Spring, there were many discussions about the role of digital and social media in protests. Some observers claimed that we had experienced Facebook and Twitter revolutions. Others argued that such claims are technologically deterministic and that protests would not be a matter of communications, but of crowds gathering in the streets and occupying squares. Using the critique of the Political Economy of Media/Communication as framework, the OccupyMedia!-study analysed how activists used social media and how capitalist power and state power limited protest communication. It also explored the potential of alternative digital media in protest and the challenges that political economy posed for the establishment and use of such communications.The article concludes that the Critique of the Political Economy of Media/Communication is a fruitful, praxis-oriented approach for the empirical and theoretical analysis of contemporary communication(s). In the German-speaking world and in German media and communication studies, there has been unjustified fear of Marx. In addition, examples from the 1970s until today show that representatives of the Critique of the Political Economy of Media/Communication in the German-speaking world have had justified fears over being considered as Marxists.The future will show if new developments and attempts to advance the Critique of the Political Economy of Media/Communication in the German-speaking world will make a difference that makes a difference or not.     

Grenzen der Wirksamkeit von Fallbeispielen?

It is a widely shared assumption in exemplification research that exemplars in the media strongly influence people’s judgements, in contrast to the rather ineffective base-rate information. The aim of this study is to reassess this assumption. Because there are hardly any studies that systematically vary the content of the base-rate information, it has been impossible so far to detect any influence of this type of information. Using an experiment with 214 subjects, the influence of both exemplars and base-rate information are investigated in the context of political communication. The influence of predispositions on the effects of both types of information is examined. The results show that the subjects formed their judgements on the basis of the base-rate information, and not on the basis of the exemplars. Predispositions seem to play but a subsidiary role in this effect.     

Die These der Negativitätsumkehrung

The article explores the effects of negativity bias in political coverage on cognitions, emotions and attitudes. Starting from psychological considerations on cognition and emotion as well as from the assimilation-contrast-effect, the article develops a hypothesis of ‘negativity inversion’. This postulates that cumulative media criticism that politicians are unable to solve political problems does not only shape a negative image of politicians, but also establishes the impression that many political problems remain unsolved. This impression is the backdrop for judgments on specific political solutions which appear more positively and find more approval among recipients than without such a contrasting background. Results from an experiment manipulating (1) media images of politicians’ capability to solve problems and (2) media images of a regional political problem support the hypothesis of negativity inversion.     

„Infotainment“ in der Presse

This paper answers, by means of a content analysis of three regional daily papers, the question of whether political journalism in regional newspapers is more entertaining today than it was in 1980. On the level of articles, increased entertainment can consist of using specific design elements. On the thematic level, topics that are entertaining per se (e. g. human interest topics) can take the place of or occur in addition to political information. In all the papers that were examined, political articles possess a larger potential for entertainment today than they did in 1980. Additionally, the percentage of political information has decreased, while the number of articles on human interest topics has increased. Finally, this paper discusses how that result is to be evaluated from the point of view of the theory of democracy: “Infotainment” can be beneficial in some circumstances. Therefore, entertainment should not be disparaged in general; one needs to be careful when assessing it normatively.     

Legitimität in der Medienpolitik

This study develops a theoretical perspective on legitimacy in media policy that can be used to study debates taking place in the media. This perspective assumes that contentions about legitimacy are inscribed in media policy debates; in debates about which media content, business models and forms of media usage are legitimate. The aim of this perspective is to stimulate research questions and guide research. It contributes to understand why some regulation is successful and another is not. This article first discusses the state of research in communication studies. According to it, legitimacy can influence decisions in media policy. Legitimacy is a precondition for the effectiveness of regulation and regulatory procedures and for the stability of the media order. The media may operate as self-interested actors and deprive regulatory attempts of legitimacy. Most studies use a normative concept of legitimacy.Based on new institutionalism and the theory of structuration by Anthony Giddens, in the first step, an analytical (not normatively determined) and dynamic concept of legitimacy is developed. Legitimacy is with Suchman understood as a “generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions”. Drawing on both strategic and institutional approaches, legitimacy is conceptualized both as strategic reference to and as effect of normative structures. Media policy actors try to strategically employ legitimacy in order to assert or defy collectively binding rules. They cannot do this, however, without referring to expectation structures (normative structures) that at the same time constrain and enable them. Because legitimacy has these two sides, is part of action and structures, it can be defined as institution.New institutionalism differentiates between attributing, depriving of, repairing and maintaining legitimacy. The structuration theory is used to define these processes as a recursive interaction of actors and structures that takes place in public debates (structuration of legitimacy). The structuration theory provides a framework that integrates the strategic aspect of legitimacy related action and the institutional aspect of legitimacy. Furthermore, it includes the distribution of resources, political capabilities and authority in media policy and allows studying the influence of these factors on gaining, depriving of and repairing legitimacy. The following sections elaborate this framework and for this purpose, use the terms legitimacy episodes, structuration of legitimacy, grammar of legitimation, media communication.Due to legitimacy episodes, legitimacy becomes an issue in media policy. Arguing with Giddens, episodes are processes of social change that reorganize institutions. They occur with transgressions. Transgressions related to the media system can be expected when new media proliferate because new forms of media production, distribution and media usage develop, new actors enter media markets and public communication changes. Old issues of media regulations are raised from new perspectives, new regulatory problems emerge. Emerging debates and conflicts also concern legitimacy: the threats of certain new services, the acceptability of new business practices or the lawfulness of certain user behaviour.The structuration of legitimacy encompasses attributing, depriving of, repairing of and maintaining legitimacy and can be studied through the “grammar of legitimation”, resource distribution and the rules of the media. The abovementioned processes related to legitimacy take place in recursive interactions of actors and structures: within communication, sanction and power. These forms of interaction are closely related to each other. Language is a regulative force and reflects structures of domination. Three propositions can be derived from Giddens regarding the structuration of legitimacy: First, media policy conflicts can be understood through debates. Second, these debates are not only about exchanging arguments but about validity and influence. Third, public debates influence collectively binding decision-making processes because they construct legitimate definitions of an actor, a procedure, of existing rules or of other problems and discursively restrict available options. The structuration of legitimacy can be analysed by studying the grammar of legitimation, the resource distribution among actors and media related rules. The grammar of legitimation, resource distribution and media related rules are both enabling and constraining actors. The grammar of legitimation demands actors to include an interpretation of the legitimation object, a norm, an evaluation and arguments in their statements. It furthermore, demands actors to consider the structure of expectation and signification: prevailing norms, values, and patterns of interpretation. Resource distribution, more specifically the extent to which actors can invest allocative and authoritative resources structures debates about legitimacy. Legitimacy claims can be raised most effectively via mass media. The mass media are self-interested actors in media policy debates. They provide therefore not only a forum for but are actors in legitimacy debates. The rules of the media that affect legitimacy debates and their outcome are threefold: selection, interpretation and depiction of a media policy debate, the media’s own interests, and to what extent leading media cover a media policy issue. The present perspective allows identifying episodes of legitimacy, studying the structure of legitimacy statements, investigating the reasons of successful legitimacy strategies and media organizations’ self-interests.     

Publizistische Chancengleichheit in der Wahlkampfberichterstattung?

A true democracy is based on political competition. Political parties set up programmes and suggest solutions which the electorate is then asked to choose between. Competition for tomorrow??s leadership positions can only be fair if today there are equal opportunities for all parties. The German legislative body passed several laws which are meant to guarantee equal opportunities in this contest. In times of an ever increasing importance of the mass media for political communication, this paper is meant to answer the question of whether??besides equal political opportunities??there is something like equal media opportunities, and if so, which indicators can be used to measure them. After a broad theoretical examination, an empirical analysis of the media coverage prior to the general elections in 1998, 2002 and 2009 follows. It reveals that??from a quantitative point of view??there certainly are equal media opportunities for the political parties sitting in the German Bundestag. The chances for media coverage are, especially for smaller parties, better than the gradation of equal chances by formal regulations.     

Das Erklärungsdilemma der Medienwirkungsforschung.

Starting from the deductive-nomological model, the partitioning of variance, several classifications of media effects a multi-level logic, the paper presents a variance-based model of media effects beyond the single recipient. However, when explaining media effects on meso- and macro-level units, media effects research faces a dilemma. The article discusses this dilemma both formally and by using selected examples (stock market, public opinion, right-wing violence). The dilemma of explaining media effects has to be taken seriously since it entails problems going far beyond the simple question of individual and aggregate data. Part of it are the problems of modeling the link between micro and macro-level as well as its dynamics – which raises further questions such as “where do media effects end?“.     

Auf der Flucht vor dem Tod?

Escapism is one of the oldest concepts for the explanation of media use but is still lacking theoretical differentiation. The dimensions reason, means and duration of escape are used to differentiate three modes of escapism: modification, postponement and repression. Repression should be of special interest for communication science because media use on the one hand and long phases of escapism on the other hand are of higher probability in this mode than in the others. Hypotheses are formulated and empirically tested for the existential issues of death and the meaning of life. Results show that television is the preferred mean of escaping from displeasing thoughts. On the other hand we do not find a connection between the amount of television use and thinking about existential issues. The hypothesis of a narcotic dysfunction is not confirmed. For the matter of existential issues television seems to offer escape and stimulation at the same time.     

Glaubwürdigkeit in der CSR-KommunikationCredible CSR communication

Credibility is a central and well-established concept in communication science, particularly in public relations (PR) research. When it comes to the communication about their corporate social responsibilities (CSR), companies are under public scrutiny and should therefore be eager to communicate in a credible fashion with their stakeholders. However, existing concepts of credibility in PR research do not account for the specific demands of ethical CSR theory. Thus, this article develops a concept of credibility that embraces sender, message, and recipient and the central concept of corporate legitimacy at the same time. Based on the political-normative approach to CSR, this concept builds on the theory of communicative action and the validity claims of the ideal speech situation. This novel approach to credibility in CSR communication is normative, but also opens promising paths for future empirical research in the field.     

Digitale Spaltung im Zeitalter der S?ttigung

Using Bourdieu??s Habitus-Capital theory and a representative dataset this study shows that social position influences internet use. The study is thus connected to the research about thedigital divide. A secondary analysis of the ACTA 2008 (n?=?7.623, representative of Germans between 14 and 64 years who use the internet) shows on the one hand that there are still gaps in internet usage (gender, generation, and education gap). On the other hand the results indicate acapital gap. Since the accumulation of capital in the internet is connected with education as well as economic status, there is a threat of a downward spiral: Those who have less capital (education, money) gather less internet knowledge. Since cultural capital influences a person??s social position, internet use enhances social inequality.     

Aufstieg der Semiöffentlichkeit: Eine relationale Perspektive

In this theoretical contribution we reflect previous attempts to re-conceptualize the public sphere in a digital era and suggest an alternative perspective: to combine public sphere theory with relational sociology. By doing so, we are better able to understand the transformation of public spheres as a transformation of communicative relations within public spheres.In the past decades, scholars have addressed these transformations by mainly two strategies: a fragmentation and/or a conceptual extension of the public sphere. The first approach, fragmenting the public sphere concept, deals with the question if and how new publics emerge as a result of digital communication tools. It sees the “remnants” of the mass-mediated public sphere as only one of many new public spheres—and not necessarily as a central one in network societies, resulting in a differentiation of new types of public spheres. The second approach, extending the public sphere, focuses mainly on how digital communication technologies change traditional, mass-mediated publics. In this view, the multiple forms of digital communication add to the mass-mediated public sphere: The public sphere now contains the diversity of mass media, the Internet and mobile media. Thus, the public sphere now encompasses all forms of mediated communication, resulting in more complex structures.This contribution argues that the current “relational turn” promises new avenues to understand what changes within public spheres in a digital era. Relational sociology shares its roots with network theories, but it focuses on the edges, the links between nodes, thereby overcoming the nodocentrism of network approaches. Relations are seen as the constitutive elements, molecules of society and public spheres. In a relational paradigm, all analysis of public spheres begins with social relations. This means that it is no longer necessary to define a new “space” for new forms of interaction, such as virtual public spheres, digital public spheres or networked public spheres. Instead, we add new forms of interactions and social relations that constitute public spheres. In this view, social relations within public spheres are diversified, not public spheres as such. The argument continues with a discussion of different types of social relations: chains, triads and categorical pairs.In connection with public sphere theories, social relations can be differentiated as public, semi-public and private. Based on the notion that public communication, whether personal or impersonal, always requires an addressee beyond the closest circle of friends, family and acquaintances, public social relations are defined as relations containing strangers. In this perspective, private social relations take place between social entities that know each other and are shielded from strangers. Public social relations, on the contrary, take place between social entities that are (still) strangers to each other and, in principle, open for participation. If private social relations must not encompass strangers, and public social relations must encompass strangers, then semi-public social relations can encompass strangers: either as addressees or only as observers and otherwise passively involved social entities. Thus, semi-public social relations are delimited, as are private social relations (not open for everyone), but the demarcation is permeable for strangers. The public sphere contains only specific social relations based on communication: those that can encompass strangers and those that must encompass strangers. Thus, we can define the public sphere as a dynamic configuration of social relations of various types that encompass strangers.It is argued that with the waning dichotomy of public and private, semi-public social relations are a major consequence of the current transformations within public spheres. In connection with the different kinds of relations introduced above, we then discuss private, semi-public and public chains, triads and categorical pairs, illustrating them with examples.A focus on communicative relations that constitute public spheres allows to understand—across micro, meso and macro perspectives—how different platforms and their affordances impact the formation of social phenomena, e.?g., how protest publics emerge from low-threshold interactions and below the radar of mass media. Semi-public relations are key: Public spheres are no longer built only on addressing as many strangers as possible (in the form of an audience), as was and is the modus operandi of mass media. Social media enable individuals to communicate beyond their private networks: friends of friends, weak ties bringing visibility, relevance, reach for information from non-redundant, socially distant sources. Semi-public communicative relations enable the formation of protest groups from Facebook groups of friendship circles (e.?g., the German right-wing nationalist movement Pegida), proliferate “fake news” and stimulate public discourse through hashtags (e.?g., #metoo). A relational perspective of semi-public communication allows for a better understanding of viral phenomena. Due to the current transformations of the public sphere, we do not only experience more semi-public communication, but a diversification of semi-public communicative relations.     

„Der Pranger der Schande““The Pillory of Shame”

We investigated whether the publication of names and profile pictures of several Facebook users posting hate comments against refugees in the German tabloid Bild on 20th October 2015 caused a change in content and style of comments posted on Bild’s Facebook page. We used the spiral of silence and the theory of reactance as a theoretical framework. A quantitative content analysis of all Facebook comments concerning refugees on several days before and after the publishing of the Bild intervention was conducted. The dependent variables were the comment’s valence and rhetorical style. Although the number of hate comments against refugees decreased slightly after the Bild intervention, analyses indicated that valence became more negative. The observed effects diminished over time.     

Essay: Verantwortbare Anwaltschaften. Amerikanische Erörterungen eines neuen Begriffs der Kommunikationsethik

Ohne Zusammenfassung Dr. Christoph Butterwegge ist Professor für Politikwissenschaft an der Universit?t zu K?ln.     

Rechtlich-normative Rahmenbedingungen der Regierungskommunikation – ein Thema für die Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft

Governmental public relations, the tax-funded political communication by administrative bodies in Germany, can very well be described as an area of constant conflict. Actors are legally obliged to communicate their policies and decisions to the electorate; on the other hand there is the constant peril of infringements of democratic rights of oppositional actors through communicative measures. Major juridical debates have arisen. Communication studies have approached the subject of legal restrictions of governmental public relations rather cautiously so far. With the issue becoming more and more salient—especially due to the accelerating process of digitisation—the question of whether this is still satisfactory gains importance. This paper is to stimulate a debate. It highlights connections and delimitations between the different perspectives and points out the possible contributions of communication studies to the establishment of valid normative and legal frameworks and the emerging fields of research for the discipline itself.