Suchergebnisse

The term horse-race coverage refers to one of the most prominent types of election coverage (e.g., Schmuck et al., 2017) that strongly focuses on winners and losers (who is ahead?). Typically, it is related to opinion polls and/or election outcomes. Quite often also "a language of war or games to describe the campaign" (Aalberg et al., 2012, p. 167) is involved in this kind of news stories, although – in a narrow sense – this aspect does not seem to be an essential part of the concept of horse-race coverage (e.g., Banducci & Hanretty, 2014). Regarding the conceptual definitions, a development in the terminology may be noticed: "The original horse race news became part of the game frame which was later discussed as part of the strategy frame." (Aalberg et al., 2012, p. 166) In other words, the term 'game frame' is sometimes used synonymously with 'horse-race' coverage (although some scholars discuss whether these concepts can actually be used synonymously; e.g., Banducci & Hanretty, 2014; de Vreese 2005; Valentino et al., 2001). Field of application/theoretical foundation: Horse-race coverage is a very popular concept that is analyzed in research on the media coverage of politics, especially in times of elections and election campaigns. References/combination with other methods of data collection The analysis of horse-race coverage may be combined or compared with opinion polls and election outcomes. Furthermore, experimental studies that analyze potential effects of the horse-race coverage on recipients (e.g., political cynicism) exist (e.g., Lavrakas et al., 1991; Valentino et al., 2001). Example Although often analyzed, the operationalization of horse-race coverage in quantitative content analyses differs. Aalberg et al. (2012) review existing concepts and operationalizations and provide a set of coding instructions, which are cited below. Coding instructions (direct quotation) by Aalberg et al. (2012, p. 177): Game frame [respectively horse-race coverage] 1 Does the story deal with opinion polls and ...

The term personalization refers to a news factor and to a tendency of media coverage. Personalization as a news factor means that topics and events, where individuals act respectively are affected by actions or events are more likely to become news than topics and events that cannot be portrayed as actions of individuals. A personalized reporting style puts destinies of individuals (and celebrities) in the foreground and/or connects topics and events on personal stories of individuals. As a tendency of media coverage, personalization means an increasing orientation towards (prominent) people (e.g., Blöbaum, 2013; Galtung & Ruge, 1965; Handstein, 2016). Field of application/theoretical foundation: Personalization is widely analyzed in communication science. Probably most often personalization (as a news factor) is analyzed in news value studies respectively studies that analyze journalistic news selection criteria. Furthermore, personalization as a concept is a considerable issue in political communication research. Here, personalization means that, on the one hand, individual politicians (for example election campaign candidates) are becoming increasingly important in the context of political communication (e.g., Rahat & Sheafer, 2007; Van Aelst et al., 2012), whereas less emphasis is being placed on parties, political institutions and/or political issues and content. This form of personalization is also referred to as 'individualization'. On the other hand, personalization also means that, in order to describe and evaluate individual politicians, apolitical characteristics, i.e., their personal characteristics and their personal life, are becoming increasingly relevant in political communication and election coverage. This aspect is also known as 'privatization' (e.g., Adam & Maier, 2010; Kriesi, 2012; Van Aelst et al., 2012). In principle, personalization can be analyzed in almost all subject areas, for example also in science communication, sports coverage and many more. References/combination ...

The term negativity in communication science refers to a news factor and to a tendency of media coverage. To put it simply, negativity as a news factor means that negative events (like controversies, conflicts, aggression, damage and so on) or so-called 'bad news' is more newsworthy than good ones (e.g., Galtung & Ruge, 1965). However, negativity is quite a complex concept and it is defined differently in research depending on the focus of the study. Lengauer et al. (2011) differentiate between actor-related and frame-related dimensions of negativity. At the 'actor level', negativity describes the tonality directed towards individual actors (for example political representatives or their organizations) in media coverage. At the 'frame-related level', negativity describes, for example, the overall tonality of the news story (predominantly negative), a pessimistic outlook in the story and/or a story focus on conflict or incapability and misconduct (Lengauer et al., 2011, pp. 183-185). Field of application/theoretical foundation: Negativity is widely analyzed in communication studies. The focus of this article lies on negativity in election (campaign) coverage. Furthermore, negativity (as a news factor) is often analyzed in news value studies respectively studies that analyze journalistic news selection criteria, in news bias studies as well as in video/media malaise or framing research (and others). References/combination with other methods of data collection: The analysis of negativity in media coverage may be combined or compared with journalist and population surveys (for example in news value studies or in framing research) as well as with so called "extra media data" (Rosengren, 1970, p. 96) (for example in news bias research). Furthermore, experimental studies that analyze the potential effects of a negative tonality of news coverage on recipients are possible. Example: The concept of negativity lacks an agreed-upon operationalization. Lengauer et al. (2011) review and systematize existing concepts and ...

Der Aufmacher-Artikel ist die wichtigste Meldung jeder Zeitungsausgabe. Welche Ereignisse sind es, die die Redakteure als 'aufmacherwürdig' erachten? Erklären verschiedene Zeitungen an ein und demselben Tag den gleichen Sachverhalt zum wichtigsten des Tages? Seit wann gibt es Aufmacher-Artikel in deutschen Tageszeitungen und wie entstehen sie heute in der Zeitungsredaktion? Die Untersuchung beantwortet diese Fragen und ermittelt mit Hilfe von Experteninterviews, wie Aufmacher gegenwärtig in deutschen Zeitungsredaktionen entstehen. Zudem analysiert sie 876 Aufmacher fünf deutscher Tageszeitungen aus zwei Jahrzehnten und überprüft, ob und inwiefern sich diese unterscheiden.

Der Aufmacher-Artikel ist die wichtigste Meldung jeder Zeitungsausgabe. Welche Ereignisse sind es, die die Redakteure als 'aufmacherwürdig' erachten? Erklären verschiedene Zeitungen an ein und demselben Tag den gleichen Sachverhalt zum wichtigsten des Tages? Seit wann gibt es Aufmacher-Artikel in deutschen Tageszeitungen und wie entstehen sie heute in der Zeitungsredaktion? Die Untersuchung beantwortet diese Fragen und ermittelt mit Hilfe von Experteninterviews, wie Aufmacher gegenwärtig in deutschen Zeitungsredaktionen entstehen. Zudem analysiert sie 876 Aufmacher fünf deutscher Tageszeitungen aus zwei Jahrzehnten und überprüft, ob und inwiefern sich diese unterscheiden.

This article starts from the observation that most voters know relatively little about positions and plans of political parties, especially when European Union politics is concerned. One reason for this could be that the main sources for political information, party communication and mass media coverage, provide voters only little concrete information about positions and plans of political parties. We ask how concretely, respectively vaguely, political parties and mass media communicate political positions prior to the 2014 European Parliament elections. We conducted a quantitative content analysis of all European Union–related press releases from 46 national political parties and of all European Union–related articles of 14 national quality newspapers from 7 European countries 12 weeks before the 2014 European Parliament elections. Our analysis shows that press releases as well as media coverage contain more concrete political positions on European Union issues than vague political statements. Other than expected, newspaper coverage provided the public with less concrete information than political actors did. Nevertheless, countries vary with regard to the extent to which party communication or newspaper coverage contain vague statements. We cannot find empirical support that the communication of concrete political positions depends on a party's "extremity" of issue position or on the type of issue.

As main source of information for citizens about political proceedings, media coverage, especially in the run-up to political elections, influences how political parties, candidates and also their election campaign are perceived and evaluated by the citizens. Despite their central role in the election campaign and their possible influence on the outcome of the election, the media coverage of political parties' campaign strategies has hardly been analysed empirically. This is where our study begins. It answers the questions how the national German quality press in the run-up to the 2017 parliamentary elections covered the campaign strategies of the parties and how frequently which content-related and communicative campaign strategies of which parties were addressed and evaluated. Our analysis shows that the parties' campaign strategies are an interesting and newsworthy topic for the media: every second article about the election campaign thematised them. A special focus of the media coverage lies on the campaign strategies of the two main political parties CDU/CSU and SPD - those of the smaller parties receive less media coverage. An exception is the strategic election campaign of the FDP and AfD; both parties attracted media attention with unusual or provocative campaigns. However, in campaign coverage only a very limited and predominantly negative picture of the campaign strategies of the parties is shown. The media coverage focuses on traditional communicative strategies, such as election posters and campaign appearances by individual politicians, but more modern or even more innovative forms are rarely ...

This paper analyses the long-term coverage 1990–2014 of German reunification by six German newspapers. Our quantitative content analysis shows how often the press covers the event, what the content of the coverage is, and how journalists evaluate the reunification process. As we have analysed newspapers of different locations, ranges, types, and editorial lines, we can see whether newspapers cover German reunification differently. Our analysis shows that the amount of coverage of reunification quickly decreases, and only a few articles are published prominently. The press reports on more differences between East and West Germany than similarities; about one third of the articles mentions problems and conflicts, although they become less important over time. All in all, positive evaluations of German reunification outweigh negative judgments and increase over time. We see evidence that the placement, content, and tone of coverage highly depends on the type, editorial line, range, and location of the newspapers.

At the time of the corona pandemic, the population has a great need for information. (Mass) Media try to provide the concerned citizens with answers to their pressing questions with the help of scientific actors and their expert knowledge. Scientific experts serve as an important source of information for journalists and for society. Therefore, it is of particular relevance to examine, which scientific actors are discussing scientific issues related to the Covid-19 pandemic publicly via media coverage. Of particular interest is a look at the scientific expertise of the so-called experts, because the quality of the available information stands and falls with it. Our study describes the journalistic selection of scientific experts in German news coverage on Covid-19 compared to other pandemics. We analyze, which experts get a chance to speak in media coverage, how diverse the spectrum of selected experts is and how their scientific expertise is to be assessed. Our findings show that the Covid-19 coverage is dominated by actors from the political executive and less than in previous pandemics by scientific experts. Further, the Corona debate is characterised by a greater diversity of expert voices than the previous pandemic debates and therefore less concentrated on a few individual scientists only. Further, the journalistic selection of scientific experts is biased in favour of those who have a high scientific expertise. On average, media coverage on the Covid-19 pandemic makes references to more reputable and acknowledged scientific experts compared to earlier ...

At the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific expertise was and is more in demand than perhaps ever before. Scientific "experts" serve as an important source of information for journalists and for society. Our study analyzes, which experts get a chance to speak in German news coverage of COVID-19 compared to other pandemics, how diverse the spectrum of selected experts is and how their scientific expertise is to be assessed. Our findings show that the COVID-19 coverage is dominated by actors from the political executive and less than in previous pandemics by scientific experts. In addition, the coronavirus debate is characterized by a greater diversity of expert voices and the journalistic selection of scientific experts is biased in favor of those who have a high scientific expertise. On average, COVID-19 coverage seems to be biased more pronouncedly in favor of reputable scientific experts compared to previous debates on pandemics.

We investigate the interplay between party communication and media coverage in putting EU issues on the agenda during the 2014 European Parliamentary election campaigns in Austria, Germany and the United Kingdom. A temporal pattern analysis focuses on the dynamic perspective of media–parties' interactions based on a quantitative content analysis of (a) the press releases published by parties and (b) the coverage of two leading newspapers per country 12 weeks prior to the elections. We find that most public discourses are started by the media; however, political parties especially in Austria are also quite successful in initiating discussions about EU issues. Interestingly, once an issue has been placed on the agenda, only a few parties take the opportunity of exploiting their issue-ownership in response to the media agenda. On the other side, media react to publications of all party types, even radical parties.