Advertisement

Publizistik

, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 299–323 | Cite as

Politische Skandalberichterstattung: ein Forschungsüberblick und Systematisierungsversuch

  • Christian von Sikorski
Aufsatz

Zusammenfassung

Im vorliegenden Forschungsüberblick werden alle verfügbaren deutsch- und englischsprachigen Studien, die sich mit der Verbreitung und Darstellung politischer Skandalberichterstattung beschäftigt haben, systematisch analysiert. Die Ergebnisse von insgesamt 20 quantitativen Studien zeigen, dass es in den vergangenen beiden Dekaden länderübergreifend zu einer Zunahme an politischer Skandalberichterstattung gekommen ist. Zudem legen die Ergebnisse nahe, dass sich in bestimmten Ländern (z. B. USA, Großbritannien) eine generelle Veränderung hin zu einer zunehmenden Skandalisierung der politischen Berichterstattung vollzogen hat. Spezifische Besitzstrukturen sowie die politische Ausrichtung und Wettbewerbssituation von Medienorganisationen können zudem einen Einfluss auf die politische Skandalberichterstattung haben. Unklarheiten ergeben sich beim Begriffsverständnis und der Messung von politischer Skandalberichterstattung. In diesem Beitrag werden sowohl eine verbesserte Definition und Operationalisierung politischer Skandalberichterstattung vorgeschlagen als auch zentrale Forschungslücken herausgearbeitet. Zudem wird ein Ordnungsmodell vorgestellt, das dazu dienen kann, die Intensität politischer Skandalberichterstattung systematisch vorherzusagen.

Schlüsselwörter

Skandal Politische Skandalberichterstattung Skandalisierung Forschungsüberblick 

Political Scandals in the News: A Review and Systematization of International Research

Abstract

Political scandals are a frequent feature of political communication around the world nowadays. Scandals serve important societal functions, e. g., public discussion and reformation of norms in a society; holding political actors accountable for certain (political) behaviors. Scholars have argued that the news media are increasingly reporting about norm violations of political candidates. Surprisingly, no review of international research dealing with the dissemination and media coverage of political scandals is available. Thus, in the current paper the state-of-the-art in research on political scandals is systematically reviewed. Based on an extensive literature research a total of 20 relevant studies (published in German and English language) could be found. These studies were selected and examined in depth. The results revealed that – within the last two decades – there is an increasing number of political scandals around the world (data from 31 countries were examined). Besides increases in news reports about political scandals in Germany and the United States these studies show, for example, that there is a steep increase of political scandals in northern European countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), and therefore in countries that used to be considered as rather “scandal-free” in the past. Furthermore, the results indicate that in specific countries (e. g., United States, UK) political news are increasingly presented in a scandalizing way. Based on these findings, the number of political scandals (the number of individual cases published by the news media) has to be analytically separated from scandalization in political communication more generally (e. g., the expression of public anger, the use of language of escalation, or the public condemnation of a behavior in political communication). Moreover, the results reveal that particular ownership structures, partisanship of a news organization, and the competitive context tend to influence news coverage about political scandals. The results also show that the definition and operationalization of political scandals – partially – remains unclear. More precisely, definitions used in previous research are either too unspecific and broad and thus do not allow for a precise operationalization and measurement of political scandals. In contrast, other definitions used in previous studies are too specific and needlessly restrict the measurement of political scandals. Thus, quite relevant cases are not accounted for. Therefore, an improved definition and operationalization of political scandals is proposed. According to that, scandals are defined as follows:

Political scandals refer to real or conjectured norm transgressions of political actors or institutions. A particular norm transgression may occur in the context of political processes or in a politician’s private life and may or may not have legal consequences (e. g., official investigation by the office of the district attorney). National scandals have to be repeatedly covered by two or more independent media organizations (e. g., The New York Times and CNN in the U.S.). Regional scandals have to be repeatedly covered by two or more independent regional media organizations (however, the above-mentioned criterion for national scandals does not have to be fulfilled). News coverage about an alleged norm transgression must be framed as scandalous (scandal frame) and the scandalous behavior has to be unambiguously condemned.

Based on the review, several research gaps are identified and a model for predicting the intensity of political scandal news coverage is introduced. The model comprises four central dimensions to predict the intensity of scandal news coverage (intensity is defined as duration, frequency, thematization, extent, and valence of coverage). The first dimension relates to the features of a particular scandal. Cases relating solely to verbal norm transgressions (talk scandals) are differentiated from cases involving other forms of scandalous behavior. Furthermore, cases with/without official investigations are differentiated and cases high/low in moral reprehensibility are distinguished. The second dimension relates to specific features of a particular politician (e. g., type of position, popularity, if he or she has made moralizing/hypocritical statements in the past). As a third dimension, the model takes the particular reaction of a politician to scandal allegations into account (reaction appropriate/inappropriate). Finally, the fourth dimension takes the general context into consideration (e. g., the particular media agenda, political leaning of a news outlet, social/cultural/economic context). Based on these four dimensions, as is argued, the intensity of scandal news coverage can be predicted and – in line with the model – specific assumptions are formulated that may be tested in future research. For instance, it is assumed that the news media will cover a case intensively when a political candidate is accused of transgressing a norm (e. g., corruption) that engenders an official investigation (e. g., state’s attorney) and is high in moral reprehensibility. Furthermore, the model predicts that the coverage will be intense when a politician’s popularity is rather low (compared to high), when a candidate made moralizing/hypocritical statements in the past (compared to no such comments), when he or she holds a high office (e. g., president, minister compared to a back-bencher), and when he or she reacts inappropriate (e. g., unconfident, contradictory, incredible statements) to an allegation (compared to more appropriate reactions). Finally, the model predicts that the news coverage of a political scandal will be more intense, when there are no other important topics (e. g., terror attack, disaster) on the news agenda and when a potential norm violation is culturally especially relevant in a particular society (e. g., sex scandals in the United States).

Keywords

Political scandals Scandal news coverage Scandalization Literature review 

Literatur

  1. Adut, A. (2005). A theory of scandal: Victorians, homosexuality, and the fall of Oscar Wilde. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 213–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allern, S., Kantola, A., Pollack, E., & Blach-Orsten, M. (2012). Increased scandalization. Nordic political scandals 1980–2010. In S. Allern & E. Pollack (Hrsg.), Scandalous! The mediated construction of political scandals in four nordic countries (S. 29–50). Göteborg: Nordicom.Google Scholar
  3. Allern, S., & Pollack, E. (2012). The marketplace of scandals. In S. Allern & E. Pollack (Hrsg.), Scandalous! The mediated construction of political scandals in four nordic countries (S. 9–28). Göteborg: Nordicom.Google Scholar
  4. Allern, S., & Pollack, E. (2016). Nordic political scandals. Frequency, types and consequences. In M. Ludwig, T. Schierl & C. von Sikorski (Hrsg.), Mediated scandals – Gründe, Genese und Folgeeffekte von medialer Skandalberichterstattung (S. 146–163). Köln: Halem.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, K. B. (2016). Politisches Skandalmanagement. Strategien der Selbstverteidigung in politischen Affären der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Opladen: Budrich.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, W. L., Lawrence, R., & Livingston, S. (2006). None dare call it torture: Indexing and the limits of press independence in the Abu Ghraib scandal. Journal of Communication, 56, 467–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bulkow, K., & Petersen, C. (2011). Skandalforschung: Eine methodologische Einführung. In K. Bulkow & C. Petersen (Hrsg.), Skandale. Strukturen und Strategien öffentlicher Aufmerksamkeitserzeugung (S. 9–25). Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  8. Burkhardt, S. (2006). Medienskandale. Zur moralischen Sprengkraft öffentlicher Diskurse. Köln: Halem.Google Scholar
  9. Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266.Google Scholar
  10. Costas-Pérez, E., Solé-Ollé, A., & Sorribas-Navarro, P. (2012). Corruption scandals, voter information, and accountability. European Journal of Political Economy, 28, 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downey, J., & Stanyer, J. (2013). Exposing politicians’ peccadilloes in comparative context: Explaining the frequency of political sex scandals in eight democracies using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Political Communication, 30, 495–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekström, M., & Johansson, B. (2008). Talk scandals. Media, Culture, and Society, 30, 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Entman, R. M. (2012). Scandal and silence: Media responses to presidential misconduct. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Esser, F., & Hartung, U. (2004). Nazis, pollution, and no sex: Political scandals as a reflection of political culture in Germany. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 1040–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feng, M., Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2012). Framing the Chinese baby formula scandal: A comparative analysis of US and Chinese news coverage. Asian Journal of Communication, 22, 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fonseca Galvis, Á., Snyder, J. M., & Song, B. K. (2016). Newspaper market structure and behavior: Partisan coverage of political scandals in the United States from 1870 to 1910. The Journal of Politics, 78, 368–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hafner, G. M., & Jacoby, E. (1992). Die Skandale der Republik. Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  18. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harlow, S. (2011). A political boss and the press: The impact on democracy of two Brazilian newspapers. Journalism, 13, 340–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hondrich, K. O. (2002). Enthüllung und Entrüstung. Eine Phänomenologie des politischen Skandals. Franfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  21. Hopkin, J. (2004). The problem with party finance. Theoretical perspectives on the funding of party politics. Party Politics, 10, 627–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Imhof, K. (2002). Medienskandale als Indikatoren sozialen Wandels. Skandalisiserung in den Printmedien im 20. Jahrhundert. In K. Hahn (Hrsg.), Öffentlichkeit und Offenbarung. Eine interdisziplinäre Mediendiskussion (S. 73–98). Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  23. Kalb, M. (1998). The rise of the “new news”. A case study of two root causes of the modern scandal coverage. Cambridge: Harvard University. Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public PolicyGoogle Scholar
  24. Kantola, A. (2012). Warriors for democracy. Scandal as a strategic ritual of journalism. In S. Allern & E. Pollack (Hrsg.), Scandalous! The mediated construction of political scandals in four nordic countries (S. 73–85). Göteborg: Nordicom.Google Scholar
  25. Katz, E., Gurevitch, & Haas, H. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kepplinger, H. M. (1996). Skandale und Politikverdrossenheit – ein Langzeitvergleich. In O. Jarren, H. Schatz & H. Wessler (Hrsg.), Medien und politischer Prozeß. Politische Öffentlichkeit und massenmediale Politikvermittlung im Wandel (S. 41–58). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Kepplinger, H. M. (2009). Publizistische Konflikte und Skandale. Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kepplinger, H. M. (2012). Die Mechanismen der Skandalisierung. München: Olzog.Google Scholar
  29. Kepplinger, H. M., Ehmig, S. C., & Hartung, U. (2002). Alltägliche Skandale. Eine repräsentative Analyse regionaler Fälle. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  30. Kepplinger, H. M., Geiss, S., & Siebert, S. (2012). Framing scandals: Cognitive and emotional media effects. Journal of Communication, 62, 659–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumlin, S., & Esaiasson, P. (2012). Scandal fatigue? Scandal elections and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe, 1977–2007. British Journal of Political Science, 42, 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ludwig, M., & Schierl, T. (2016). Mediated scandals und ihre Folgeeffekte. Eine einführende Betrachtung der Risiken und Relevanz medialer Skandalberichterstattung. In M. Ludwig, T. Schierl & C. von Sikorski (Hrsg.), Mediated Scandals – Gründe, Genese und Folgeeffekte von medialer Skandalberichterstattung (S. 16–32). Köln: Halem.Google Scholar
  33. Lull, J., & Hinerman, S. (1997). The search for scandal. In J. Lull & S. Hinerman (Hrsg.), Media scandals. Morality and desire in the popular culture marketplace (S. 1–33). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Maier, J. (2003). Der CDU-Parteispendenskandal: Medienberichterstattung und Bevölkerungsreaktion. Publizistik, 48, 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Markovits, A. S., & Silverstein, M. (1988). Introduction: Power and process in liberal democracies. In A. S. Markovits & M. Silverstein (Hrsg.), The politics of scandal: Power and process in liberal democracies (S. 1–12). New York: Holmes & Meier.Google Scholar
  36. Matthes, J. (2009). What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the world’s leading communication journals, 1990–2005. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86, 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McDermott, M. L., Schwartz, D., & Vallejo, S. (2015). Talking the talk but not walking the walk: Public reactions to hypocrisy in political scandal. American Politics Research, 43, 952–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris, J. S., & Clawson, R. A. (2005). Media coverage of Congress in the 1990 s: Scandals, personalities, and the prevalence of policy and process. Political Communication, 22, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muir, H. (2005). Livingstone faces inquiry over Nazi guard jibe at Jewish reporter. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/feb/12/pressandpublishing.londonpolitics (Erstellt: 24.02.).Google Scholar
  40. Neckel, S. (1989). Das Stellhölzchen der Macht. Zur Soziologie des politischen Skandals. In R. Ebbighausen & S. Neckel (Hrsg.), Anatomie des politischen Skandals (S. 55–80). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  41. Nyblade, B., & Reed, S. R. (2008). Who cheats? Who loots? Political competition and corruption in Japan, 1947–1993. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 926–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nyhan, B. (2014). Scandal potential: How political context and news congestion affect the president’s vulnerability to media scandal. British Journal of Political Science, 45, 435–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nyhan, B. (2017). Media scandals are political events: How contextual factors affect public controversies over alleged misconduct by U.S. governors. Political Research Quarterly, 70, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peters, J. G., & Welch, S. (1980). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections. The American Political Science Review, 74, 697–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T., & Carley, K. M. (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pflügler, S., & Baugut, P. (2015). Normverstoß, Medienkonstrukt, Machtkampf oder Internethysterie? Der Skandal und die Typen seiner Erforschung. Publizistik, 60, 305–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pörksen, B., & Detel, H. (2012). Der entfesselte Skandal. Das Ende der Kontrolle im digitalen Zeitalter. Köln: Halem.Google Scholar
  48. Puglisi, R., & Snyder, J. M. (2011). Newspaper coverage of political scandals. The Journal of Politics, 73, 931–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Romano, M. K. (2014). Tuning in to scandal: Television news coverage of congressional scandals. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47, 386–390.Google Scholar
  50. Sabato, L. J. (1991). Feeding frenzy: How attack journalism has transformed American politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sabato, L. J., Stencel, M., & Lichter, S. R. (2000). Peepshow: Media and politics in an age of scandal. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Sennett, R. (1977). The fall of public man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Shah, D. V., Watts, M. D., Domke, D., & Fan, D. P. (2002). News framing and cueing of issue regimes. Explaining Clinton’s public approval in spite of scandal. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Swedish election news coverage: Towards increasing mediatization. In J. Strömbäck & L. L. Kaid (Hrsg.), The handbook of election news coverage around the world (S. 158–172). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Thompson, J. B. (2000). Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Cambridge: Polity Press Blackwell.Google Scholar
  56. Thompson, J. B. (2011). Shifting boundaries of public and private life. Theory, Culture & Society, 28, 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Toepfl, F. (2011). Managing public outrage: Power, scandal, and new media in contemporary Russia. New Media & Society, 13, 1301–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tumber, H. (2004). Scandal and media in the United Kingdom. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 1122–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tumber, H., & Waisbord, S. R. (2004a). Introduction: Political scandals and media across democracies, volume I. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 1031–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tumber, H., & Waisbord, S. R. (2004b). Political scandals and media across democracies, volume II. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 1143–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Umbricht, A., & Esser, F. (2016). The push to popularize politics. Understanding the audience-friendly packaging of political news in six media systems since the 1960 s. Journalism Studies, 17, 100–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. von Sikorski, C. (2016). The effects of reader comments on the perception of personalized scandals: Exploring the roles of comment valence and commenters’ social status. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4480–4501.Google Scholar
  63. von Sikorski, C., & Hänelt, M. (2016). Scandal 2.0: How valenced reader comments affect recipients’ perception of scandalized individuals and the journalistic quality of online news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 93, 551–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. von Sikorski, C., & Ludwig, M. (2017). The effects of visual isolation on the perception of scandalized politicians. Communications. The European Journal of Communication Research.Google Scholar
  65. von Sikorski, C., & Matthes, J. (2016). Political scandal: The state-of-the-art and an agenda for future research. In G. Antanasov (Hrsg.), Media and communication – 40 years faculty of journalism and mass communication (S. 205–216). Sofia: Sofia University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Waisbord, S. (1994). Knocking on newsroom doors: Press and political scandals in Argentina. Political Communication, 11, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Welch, S., & Hibbing, J. R. (1997). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections, 1982–1990. The Journal of Politics, 59, 226–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Williams, B. A., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2004). Monica and Bill all the time and everywhere. The collapse of gatekeeping and agenda setting in the new media environment. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 1208–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear. What right-wing populist discourses mean. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Publizistik- und KommunikationswissenschaftUniversität WienWienÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations