Advertisement

Media Logic as (Inter)Action Logic—Interaction Interdependency as an Integrative Meta-Perspective

  • Katrin Döveling
  • Charlotte Knorr
Chapter
Part of the Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research book series (TCSCMR)

Abstract

Based on an extensive literature overview,  this chapter discloses an integrative meta-perspective in media logics. The main questions the authors focuse on are: (1) How can the interdependencies between different systems, and corresponding structures and logics be conceptualized? (2) Which (new) transaction spaces are shaped by whom? And: (3) Which theoretical and empirical consequences arise from this perspective? Following Altheide (Communication Theory, 23: 223–238, 2013), the authorsconceptualize the interdependencies of producer, user and consumer as networked transactions in a digitalized network society (Castells/Gardoso in The network society: From knowledge to policy, Washington, DC, Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2005). The implications are far reaching: For instance, blog journalism needs to be understood as hybridization of producing and receiving content. Based on empirical case studies, following this integrative perspective of mediated interdependencies, vital conceptual as well as empirical challenges are mapped out. This paper closes with potential solutions for current theory buildingand presents further implications in the analysis of media logic(s).

References

  1. Altheide, D. L. (1995). An ecology of communication: Cultural formats of control. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  2. Altheide, D. L. (2013). Media logic, social control, and fear. Communication Theory, 23, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altheide, D. L., & Coyle, M. (2006). Smart on crime: The new language of prisoner release. Crime, Media, Culture, 2(3), 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altheide, D. L., & DeVriese, K. (2007). Perps and junkies: Normalizing stigma in the mass media. Crime, Media, Culture, 3(3), 382–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Altheide, D. L., & Grimes, J. N. (2005). War programming: The propaganda project and the Iraq War. The Sociological Quarterly, 46(4), 617–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1988). Toward a theory of mediation. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 11: Information, 4 (pp. 194–223). Nordicom: Göteborg.Google Scholar
  8. Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1992). Media logic and culture: Reply to Oakes. Internation-al Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 5(3), 465–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Asp, K. (1990). Medialization, media logic and mediarchy. Nordicom Review, 11, 47–50.Google Scholar
  10. Asp, K. (2014). News media logic in a new institutional perspective. Journalism Studies, 15(3), 256–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books. Google Scholar
  13. Blumer, H. (1962). Society as symbolic interaction. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes (pp. 179–192). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  14. Boyd, d. (2015). Social, media: A phenomenon to be analyzed. Social Media & Society, 1(1), 1–2.Google Scholar
  15. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, second life and beyond. From production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Castells, M., & Cardoso, G. (eds.) (2005). The network society: From knowledge to policy. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations.Google Scholar
  18. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system. Politics and power. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Couch, C. J., Maines, D. R., & Chen, S.-L. (1996). Information technologies and social orders. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Couldry, N. (2014a). When mediatization hits the ground. In A. Hepp & F. Krotz (Eds.), Mediatized worlds: Culture and society in a media age (pp. 54–71). London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Couldry, N. (2014b). The myth of ‘us’: Digital networks, political change and the production of collectivity. Information, Communication & Society, 18(6), 608–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Döveling, K., & Knorr, C. (2015). Media logic as (inter)action logic. An integrative perspective. Presentation at conference: Media Logic(s) Revisited: Modeling the Interplay between Media Institutions, Media Technology and Societal Change (pp. 21–23). University of Bonn, Germany. September 2015.Google Scholar
  23. Döveling, Katrin & Haju, Anu (in print, 2017a). Digital Emotion Culture(s). From local to global mediatized online emotion practices. Media and Emotions. The New Frontiers of Affect in Digital Culture Special Issue for Open Cultural Studies. New Peer-Reviewed Journal by De Gruyter Open.Google Scholar
  24. Döveling, Katrin & Haju, Anu (in print, 2017b). Globally mediatized emotion culture(s). Social Media and Society. Peer-Reviewed Journal by SAGE.Google Scholar
  25. Dryzek, J. S. (2005). The politics of the earth. Environmental Discourses: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Esser, F. (2013). Mediatization as a challenge: Media logic versus political logic. In H. Kriesi, S. Lavanex, F. Esser, J. Matthes, M. Bühlmann, & D. Bochsler (Eds.), Democracy in the age of globalization and mediatization (pp. 155–176). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Früh, W. (1991). Medienwirkungen. Das dynamisch-transaktionale Modell. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Früh, W., & Schönbach, K. (1982). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz. Ein neues Paradigma der Medienwirkung. Publizistik, 27, 74–88.Google Scholar
  29. Früh, W., & Schönbach, K. (2005). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz III: Eine Zwischenbilanz. Publizistik, 50(1), 4–20.Google Scholar
  30. Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  31. Haßler, J., Maurer, M., & Oschatz, C. (2014). Media logic and political logic online and offline. The case of climate change communication. Journalism Practice, 8(3), 326–341.Google Scholar
  32. Hepp, A., & Krotz, F. (Eds.). (2014). Mediatized worlds: Culture and society in a media age. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  33. Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of society. A theory of the media as agents of social and cultural Change. Nordicom Review, 29(2), 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2014). The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1–17.Google Scholar
  35. Kluver, A. (2002). The logic of new media in international affairs. New Media & Society, 4(4): 499–517.Google Scholar
  36. Landerer, N. (2013). Rethinking the logics: A conceptual framework for the mediatization of politics. Communication Theory, 23, 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Laux, H. (2014). Soziologie im Zeitalter der Komposition. Koordinaten einer integrativen Netzwerktheorie. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  38. Livingstone, S. (2009). On the mediatization of everything. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  39. Luhmann, N. (2000). The reality of the mass media. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lundby, K. (2009). Mediatization. Concepts, changes, consequences. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  41. Mazzoleni, G. (1987). Media logic and party logic in campaign coverage: The Italian general election of 1983. European Journal of Communication, 2, 81–103.Google Scholar
  42. Meyen, M., Thieroff, M., & Strenger, S. (2014). Mass media logic and the mediatization of politics. A theoretical framework. Journalism Studies, 15(3), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The presentation of self in virtual life: Characteristics of personal homepages. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(3), 643–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Quiring, O. (2009). What do users associate with ‘interactivity’? A qualitative study on user schemata. New Media & Society, 11(6), 899–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4).Google Scholar
  46. Saxer, U. (1980). Grenzen der Publizistikwissenschaft. Wissenschaftswissenschaftliche Reflexionen zur Zeitungs-/Publizistik-/Kommunikationswissenschaft seit 1945. Publizistik, 4, 525–543.Google Scholar
  47. Sidoni, M. G. (2013). Spoken and written discourse in online interactions. A Multimodal approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization. An analysis of the mediatization of politics. Politics, 13(3), 228–246.Google Scholar
  49. Strömbäck, J., & Esser, F. (2009). Shaping Politics: Mediatization and Media Interventionism. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, Changes, Consequences (pp. 205–223). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  50. Strömbäck, J., & Esser, F. (2014). Introduction. Journalism Studies, 15(3), 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sumiala, J., & Tikka, M. (2010). Web first to death. Nordicom Review, 31(2), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sundar, S. (2004). Theorizing Interactivity’s Effects. Information Society, 20(5), 385–389.Google Scholar
  53. Svensson, J. (2014). Political participation on social media platforms in Sweden today: Connective individualism, expressive issue engagement and discipline updating. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 10(3), 347–354.Google Scholar
  54. Toepfl, Florian. (2016). Beyond the four theories: Toward a discourse approach to the Comparative study of media and politics. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1530–1547.Google Scholar
  55. Van Aelst, P., Maddens, B., Noppe, J., & Fiers, S. (2008). Politicians in the News: Media or Party Logic? Media Attention and Electoral Success in the Belgian Election Campaign of 2003. European Journal of Communication, 23(2): 193–210.Google Scholar
  56. Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse. How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Dijk, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vorderer, P. (2015). Der mediatisierte Lebenswandel. Permanently online, permanently connected. Publizistik, published online, 07/2015.Google Scholar
  59. White, H. (2008). Identity and control. How social formations emerge. Princeton: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  60. Witschge, T. (2014). Passice accomplice or active disruptor. The role of audiences in the mediatization of politics. Journalism Practice, 8(3), 342–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ziegele, M., Breiner, T., & Quiring, O. (2014). What creates interactivity in online news discussions? An exploratory analysis of discussion factors in user comments on news items. Journal of Communication, 64, 1111–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alpen-Adria-Universität KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria
  2. 2.University of LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations