Public Discourses and Political Online Communication

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

This chapter critically reviews the impact of online communication on public discourses and refines the research angle on digital public spheres as discursive contexts based on online platforms. The Web left a lasting impact on public communication and provided a diversity of communicators with gateways to audiences. However, pluralisation is accompanied by tendencies towards fragmentation. Internet technology triggered ambivalent transformations, in which integration, diversification, fragmentation, individualisation, mass-consumption, participation, exclusion, globalisation, transnationalisation, and localisation are coupled in a relation of mutual affect and tension. The chapter further includes a review of public sphere models; it differentiates between democratic-integrative (inspired by Habermas’s work) and descriptive models (especially systems-theory inspired approaches), before the case is made for a complementary model of public spheres as mediated discourses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allcott, H., and M. Gentzkow. 2017: Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. NBER Working Paper No. 23089 Issued in January 2017. Online available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w23089. Accessed 07 March 2015.
  2. Armingeon, K., and K. Guthmann. 2014. Democracy in Crisis? The Declining Support for National Democracy in European Countries, 2007–2011. European Journal of Political Research 53 (3): 423–442.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  4. Benjamin H. Detenber, Sonny Rosenthal. 2017. Public Support for Censorship in a Highly Regulated Media Environment: The Influence of Self-Construal and Third-Person Perception Over Time. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Online available at https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijpor/edw029/2866466/Public-Support-for-Censorship-in-a-Highly?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Accessed 19 August 2017.
  5. Benkler, Y. 2006. The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom Contract, Freedom in the Commons. New Haven (Connecticut): Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Black, L.W., S. Burkhalter, J. Gastil, and J. Stromer-Galley. 2013. Methods for Analyzing and Measuring Group Deliberation. In The Sourcebok for Political Communication Research. Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques, ed. E.P. Bucy and R.L. Holbert. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Boczkowski, P., E. Mitchelstein, and M. Matassi. 2017. Incidental News. How Young People Consume News on Social Media. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Google Scholar
  8. Bohman, J. 2004. Expanding Dialogue: The Internet, the Public Sphere and Prospects for Transnational Democracy. In After Habermas. New Perspectives on the Public Sphere, ed. N. Crossley and J.M. Roberts, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing and Sociological Review.Google Scholar
  9. Bousquet, F., D. Bertelli, and N. Smyrnaios. 2014. What Is the Impact of the Web on Local Journalism? Two case studies in Toulouse, France. Brazilian Journalism Research 10 (1): 144–161.Google Scholar
  10. boyd, d. 2008. Taken Out of Context. American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics. PhD Thesis at the University of California, Berkley. Online available at http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf, Accessed 23 Dec 2014. 58.
  11. Brundidge, J. 2010. Toward a Theory of Citizen Interface with Political Discussion and News in the Contemporary Public Sphere. International Journal of Communication 4: 1056–1078.Google Scholar
  12. Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond. New York: Lang.Google Scholar
  13. Calhoun, C. 1992. Introduction. Habermas and the Public Sphere. In Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. C. Calhoun. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, S.W., and N. Kwak. 2011. Political Involvement in ‘‘Mobilized’’ Society: The Interactive Relationships Among Mobile Communication Network Characteristics, and Political Participation. Journal of Communication 61: 1005–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Castells, M. 2009. Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Castells, M. 2012. Networks of Outrage and Hope. Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Choi, S.Y., and Y. Cho. 2017. Generating Counter-Public Spheres Through Social Media: Two Social Movements in Neoliberalised South Korea. Javnost –The Public 24 (1): 15–33.Google Scholar
  18. Chu, C.H. 2017. Censorship or Protectionism? Reassessing China’s Regulation of Internet Industry. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 7 (1): 28–32.Google Scholar
  19. Coleman, S. 2005. It’s Interactivity, Stupid! In Spinning the Web. Online Campaigning in the 2005 General Election, ed. V. Gibbons, 5–13. London: Hansard Society.Google Scholar
  20. Coleman, S., and S. Wright. 2008. Political Blogs and Representative Democracy. Information Polity 13: 1–5.Google Scholar
  21. Dahlberg, L. 2001. Extending the Public Sphere Through Cyberspace. The Case of the Minnesota E-Democracy. First Monday 6 (3). Online available at http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/838/747. Accessed 03 Nov 2011.
  22. Dahlberg, L. 2005. The Internet as a Public Sphere or Culture Industry? From Pessimism to Hope and Back. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 1 (1): 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dahlberg, L. 2007. The Internet Deliberative Democracy and Power: Radicalizing the Public Sphere. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 3 (1): 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Kayser, J., and A. Sehl. 2007. May They Come In? A Comparison of German and Flamish Efforts to Welcome Public Participation in News Media. First Monday 16 (10). Online available at http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/-ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3457/3064. Accessed 03 Nov 2011.
  25. de Vreese, C. 2002. Framing Europe. Television News and European Integration. Amsterdam: Aksant Academic.Google Scholar
  26. Dean, J. 2003a. Why the Net is not a Public Sphere. Constellations 10 (1): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dean, J. 2003b. Publicity’s Secret. How Technoculture Capitalizes on Democracy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Dean, J. 2005. Communicative Capitalism: Circulation and the Foreclosure of Politics. Cultural Politics. An International Journal 1 (1): 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dean, J. 2013. Society Doesn’t Exist. First Monday 18 (3). Online available at http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4616/3419. Accessed 04 Dec 2014.
  30. Drake, Michael S. 2010. Political Sociology for a Globalizing World. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  31. Entman, R.M. 1993. Framing Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fenton, N. 2012a. The Internet and Social Networking. In Misunderstanding the Internet, ed. J. Curran, N. Fenton, and D. Freedman. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Fenton, N. 2012b. The Internet and Radical Politics. In Misunderstanding the Internet, ed. J. Curran, N. Fenton, and D. Freedman. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Fouskas, V.K., and C. Dimoulas. 2013. Greece, Financialisation, and the EU. The Political Economy of Debt and Destruction. Houndsmill: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  35. Fraser, N. 1990. Rethinking the Public Sphere. A Contribution to the Critic of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text (25/26): 56–80.Google Scholar
  36. Fraser, N. 1992. Rethinking the Public Sphere. A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. In Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. C. Calhoun. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Fultner, B. 2011. Communicative Action and Formal Pragmatics. In Jürgen Habermas Key Concepts, ed. B. Fultner. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
  38. Gallie, D. (ed.). 2013. Economic Crisis, Quality of Work, and Social Integration: The European Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Gerhards, J., and F. Neidhardt. 1990. Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit. Fragestellung und Ansätze. Berlin: WZB.Google Scholar
  40. Gerhards, J., A. Offerhaus, and J. Roose. 2009. Wer ist verantwortlich? Die Europäische Union, ihre Nationalstaaten und die massendiale Attribution von Verantwortung für Erfolge und Misserfolge. In Politik in der Mediendemokratie. Politische Viertelsjahrschrift, ed. F. Marcinkowski and B. Pfetsch. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  41. Görke, A. 2002. Journalismus und Öffentlichkeit als Funktionssystem. In Systemtheorie und Konstruktivismus in der Kommunikationswissenschaft, ed. A. Scholl. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  42. Grusin, R. 2010. Premedation. Affect and Mediality after 9/11. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Habermas, J. 1972. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Ulm: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
  44. Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1. Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. T. McCarthy. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  45. Habermas, J. 1990. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, 274. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  46. Habermas, J. 1991. Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  47. Habermas, J. 1995a. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 1. Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  48. Habermas, J. 1995b. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 2. Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main: Surhkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  49. Hall, S. 2000. Who Needs Identity?. In Identity. A Reader, ed. J. Evans and P. Redman. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Heath, J. 2003. Communicative Action and Rational Choice. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Hepp, A., M. Brüggemann, K. Kleinen-von Königslöw, S. Lingenberg, and J. Möller. 2012. Politische Diskurskulturen in Europa. Die Mehrfachsegmentierung europäischer Öffentlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hindman, M.S. 2009. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence Culture. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Jensen, M.J. 2016. Social Media and Political Campaigning. Changing Terms of Engagement? International Journal of Press/Politics 22 (1): 23–42.Google Scholar
  55. Joerges, B., and I. Braun (eds.). 1994. Technik Ohne Grenzen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  56. Karatzogianni, A. 2006. The Politics of Cyberconflict. London: Routlege.Google Scholar
  57. Karatzogianni, A. 2012. WikiLeaks Affects: Ideology, Conflict and the Revolutionary Virtual. In Digital Cultures and the Politics of Emotion: Feelings, Affect and Technological Change, ed. A. Karatzogianni and A. Kuntsman. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  58. Kluba, M. 2002. Massenmedien und Internet. Eine systemtheoretische Perspektive. Networx 26. Online accessible at: http://www.mediensprache.net/networx/networx-26.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2013.
  59. Keller, R. 2007. Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse. Grundlegung eines Forschungsprogramms. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  60. Kitchin, R. 2014. The Data Revolution. Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures and their Consequences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Kohring, M. 2002. Vertrauen im Journalismus. In Systemtheorie und Konstruktivismus in der Kommunikationswissenschaft, ed. A. Scholl. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  62. Kohring, M. 2006. Öffentlichkeit als Funktionssystem der modernen Gesellschaft. Zur Motivationskraft von Mehrsystemzugehörigkeit. In Medien der Gesellschaft—Gesellschaft der Medien, ed. A. Ziemann. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  63. Laurin, S. 2008. Interview mit Niklas Luhmann: Das Internet ist kein Massenmedium? Online available at http://www.ruhrbarone.de/niklas-luhmann-„das-internet-ist-kein-massenmedium“/1109. Accessed 04 Dec 2014.
  64. Lee, H., N. Kwak, and S.W. Campbell. 2013. Hearing the Other Side Revisited: The Joint Workings of Cross-Cutting Discussion and Strong Tie Homogeneity in Facilitating Deliberative and Participatory Democracy. Communications Research 20 (10): 1–28.Google Scholar
  65. Lippmann, W. 1925. The Phantom Public. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  66. Lippmann, W. 1946. Public Opinion. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  67. Lovink, G. 2008. Zero Comments. Blogging and Critical Internet Culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Lovink, G. 2011. Networks Without a Cause. A Critique of Social Media, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  69. Luhmann, N. 1986. Ökologische Kommunikation. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  70. Luhmann, N. 1987. Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  71. Luhmann, N. 1992. Die Beobachtung der Beobachter im politischen System. Zur Theorie der öffentlichen Meinung. In Öffentliche Meinung. Theorie, Methoden, Befunde. Beiträge zu Ehren von Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, ed. J. Wilke. Freiburg: Verlag Karl Alber.Google Scholar
  72. Luhmann, N. 2002a. Die Politik der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  73. Luhmann, N. 2002b. Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  74. Luhmann, N. 2002c. Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  75. Luhmann, N. 2006. Einführung in die Systemtheorie. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer Verlag.Google Scholar
  76. Luhmann, N. 2009. Die Realität der Massenmedien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  77. Lynch, M., D. Freelon, and S. Aday. 2013. Blogs and Bullets III. Syria’s Socially Mediated Civil War. Washington: United States Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
  78. Máiz, Ramón. 2006. Nation and Deliberation. In Democracy, Nationalism, and Multiculturalism, ed. R. Máiz and R. Requejo. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Matthes, J., and M. Kohring. 2008. The Content Analysis of Media Frames. Toward Improving Reliability and Validity. Journal of Communication 58: 258–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. McKee, A. 2005. The Public Sphere. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (6th ed). London/ Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  82. Meraz, S. 2007. Analyzing Political Conversation on the Howard Dean Candidate Blog. In Blogging, citizenship, and the Future of Media, ed. Mark Tremyane, 60–83. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Mercea, D. 2011. Digital Prefigurative Participation. The Entwinement of Online Communication and Offline Participation in Protest Events. New Media and Society. Online available at http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/12/06/1461444811429103. Accessed 04 April 2012.
  84. Meikle, G., and S. Young. 2011. Media Convergence Networked Digital Media in Everyday Life. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  85. Mig@net. (6 May 2012). Mig@net Transnational Digital Networks, Migration, and Gender. Online available at http://www.mignetproject.eu/. Accessed 07 May 2012.
  86. Miller, V. 2011. Understanding Digital Culture. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  87. Morin, D.T., and M.A. Flynn. 2014. We Are the Tea Party! The Use of Facebook as an Online Political Forum for the Construction and Maintenance of In-Group Identification During the “GOTV” Weekend. Communication Quarterly 62 (1): 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Neidhardt, F. 1994. Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen. In Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen, ed. F. Nedihardt. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  89. Neuberger, C. 2009. Internet, Journalismus, Öffentlichkeit. Analyse des Medienumbruchs. In Journalismus im Internet. Profession, Partizipation, Technisierung, ed. C. Neuberger, C. Nuernbergk, and M. Rischke. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  90. New York Times. 2016. Anthony Weiner’s Latest Sexting Scandal: Here is What We Know. Online available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/us/politics/anthony-weiners-latest-sexting-scandal-heres-what-we-know.html?_r=1. Accessed 07 March 2017.
  91. Nisbet, M. (2010). Knowledge into action: Framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In: P. D’Angelo & J.A. Kuypers, J.A. (eds). Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives, 43–83. New York/ London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  92. Noelle-Neumann, E. 2001. Die Schweigespirale. Öffentliche Meinung. Unsere soziale Haut. München: Langen Müller.Google Scholar
  93. Norman, W. 2006. From Nation-Building to National Engineering. The Ethics of Shaping Identities. In Democracy, Nationalism, and Multiculturalism, ed. R. Máiz and R. Requejo. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  94. Occupy London. 2014. Online accessible at http://occupylondon.org.uk. Accessed 03 Sept 2014.
  95. Papacharissi, Z. 2002. The Virtual Sphere. The Internet as the Public Sphere. New Media & Society 4 (1): 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Papacharissi, Z. 2007. Audiences as Media Producers. Content Analysis of 260 Blogs. In Blogging, Citizenship, and the Future of Media, ed. M. Tremyane. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  97. Papacharissi, Z. 2009. ed. Jorunalism and Citizenship. New Agendas. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  98. Papacharissi, Z. 2010. The Virtual Sphere 2.0. The Internet, the Public Sphere and beyond. In Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, ed. A. Chadwick and P. Howard. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  99. Peters, B. 2007a. Recht, Staat und politische Öffentlichkeit als Formen sozialer Selbstorganisation. In Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit, ed. H. Weßler. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  100. Peters, B. 2007b. Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit. In Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit, ed. H. Weßler. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  101. Peters, B. 2007c. Über öffentliche Deliberation und öffentliche Kultur. In Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit, ed. H. Weßler. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  102. Peters, B. 2007d. Die Leistungsfähigkeit heutiger Öffentlichkeiten. Einige theoretische Kontroversen. In Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit, ed. H. Weßler. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  103. Peters, B. 2007e. Nationale und transnationale Öffentlichkeiten. Eine Problemskizze. In Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit, ed. H. Weßler. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  104. Peters, B. 2007f. Öffentlicher Diskurs, Identität und das Problem demokratischer Legitimität. In Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit, ed. H. Weßler. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  105. Peters, B., T. Schultz, and A. Wimmel. 2007. Publizistische Beiträge zu einer diskursiven Öffentlichkeit. In Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit, ed. H. Weßler. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  106. Pfetsch, B., and A. Heft. 2015. Theorizing Communication Flows within a European Public Sphere. In European Public Spheres. Politics is Back, ed. T. Risse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Requejo, F. 2006. Multinational, not ‘Postnational, Federalism’. In Democracy, Nationalism, and Multiculturalism, ed. R. Máiz and F. Requejo. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  108. Rettberg, J.W. 2013. Blogging, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  109. Rogers, R. 2015. Digital Methods for Web Research. In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, ed. R. Scott and S. Kosslyn. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  110. Risse, T. 2015. Introduction, In European Public Spheres. Politics is Back, ed. T. Risse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Scaramuzzino, G., and R. Scaramuzzino. 2017. The Weapon of a New Generation? Swedish Civil Society Organizations Use of Social Media to Influence Politics. Journal of Information Technology & Politics (Feb 2017), 1–16.Google Scholar
  112. Schneider, S.M., and K.A. Foot. 2006. Web Sphere Analysis. An Approach to Studying Online Action. In Virtual Methods. Issues in Social Research on the Internet, ed. C. Hine. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  113. Schweitzer, E.J. 2010. Politische Websites als Gegenstand der Online Inhaltsanalyse. In Die Online-Inhaltsanalyse. Forschungsobjekt Internet, ed. M. Welker and C. Wünsch. Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.Google Scholar
  114. Searle, J.R. 1979. Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Smyrnaios, N., and B. Riedler. 2013. Social Infomediation of News on Twitter: A French Case Study. In NECSUS European Journal of Media Studies. Online available at http://www.necsus-ejms.org/social-infomediation-of-news-on-twitter-a-french-case-study/. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
  116. Smyrnaios, N., E. Marty, and F. Rebillard. 2010. Does the Long Tail Apply to Online News? A Quantitative Study of French-Speaking News Websites. New Media & Society 20 (10): 1–18.Google Scholar
  117. Strange, M. 2011. “Act Now and Sign our Joint Statement!” What Role Do Online Global Group Petitions Play in Transnational Movement Networks? Media, Culture and Society 33 (8): 1236–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Sunstein, C.R. 2007. Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  119. Terfrüchte, L. 2011. Symbolverwendung im Jorunalismus. Eine empirische Fallstudie zur öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehberichterstattung. Münster: University of Münster.Google Scholar
  120. Tönnies, F. 1922. Kritik der öffentlichen Meinung. In Ferdinand Tönnies Gesamtausgabe (TG) Band 14. 1922. Kritik der Öffentlichen Meinung, 2002, ed. A. Deichsel, R. Fechner, and R. Waßner. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  121. Tremayne, M. (ed.). 2009. Blogging, Citizenship, and the Media. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  122. Trenz, H.-J. 2006. “Banaler Europäismus”. Eine latente Kategorie der Europäisierung politischer Kommunikation. In Europäische Öffentlichkeit und medialer Wandel. Eine transdisziplinäre Perspektive, ed. W.R. Langebucher and M. Latzer, 192–213. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  123. Uricchio, W. 2008. We Europeans? Media, Representations, Identities. In We Europeans? Media, Representations, Identities, ed. W. Uricchio. Bristol: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
  124. Vromen, A. 2017. Digital Citizenship and Political Engagement. The Challenge from Online Campaigning and Advocacy Organisations. London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Wallstreet Journal. 2017. PewDiePie Says WSJ Took Anti-Semitic Content Out of Context. Online available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/pewdiepie-says-wsj-took-anti-semitic-content-out-of-context-1487278375. Accessed 07 March 2017.
  126. Webster, F. 2006. Theories of the Information Society, 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  127. Welker, M., C. Wünsch, S. Böcking, A. Bock, A. Friedemann, M. Herbers et al. 2010. Die Online-Inhaltsanalyse. Methodische Herausforderung, aber ohne Alternative. In Die Online-Inhaltsanalyse. Forschungsobjekt Internet, ed. M. Welker and C. Wünsch. Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.Google Scholar
  128. Weßler, H., and L. Wingert. 2007. Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeitsforschung. Worum es Bernhard Peters ging. Eine Einleitung. In Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit, ed. B. Peters. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Applied SciencesUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations