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).
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Likewise, Lundby (2009) argues to focus more on interaction processes (especially social interaction ), less on the formats and their linearity.
- 2.
The selection criteria are, first, that the authors refer to the construct of media logic to Altheide and Snow (1992) for further developments, accordingly, that they propose an extension. In several publications of the same authors with the same design, the latter is used.
- 3.
See also Svensson (2014), who divided political participation on three levels—depending on the origin and directionality of the communicated message. Parliamentary participation comes from the government and is addressed to the citizens. Activist participation comes from the citizens and is addressed to the government. The third type, popular cultural participation , means an aligned communication from citizens to citizens (Svensson, 2014, 347–348).
- 4.
https://.com/MailOnline/status/756552313616101376/photo/1 and https://.com/MailOnline/status/756552313616101376/photo/1, both retrieved 7/27/2016.
References
Altheide, D. L. (1995). An ecology of communication: Cultural formats of control. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Altheide, D. L. (2013). Media logic, social control, and fear. Communication Theory, 23, 223–238.
Altheide, D. L., & Coyle, M. (2006). Smart on crime: The new language of prisoner release. Crime, Media, Culture, 2(3), 286–303.
Altheide, D. L., & DeVriese, K. (2007). Perps and junkies: Normalizing stigma in the mass media. Crime, Media, Culture, 3(3), 382–389.
Altheide, D. L., & Grimes, J. N. (2005). War programming: The propaganda project and the Iraq War. The Sociological Quarterly, 46(4), 617–643.
Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
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.
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.
Asp, K. (1990). Medialization, media logic and mediarchy. Nordicom Review, 11, 47–50.
Asp, K. (2014). News media logic in a new institutional perspective. Journalism Studies, 15(3), 256–270.
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.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
Blumer, H. (1962). Society as symbolic interaction. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes (pp. 179–192). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Boyd, d. (2015). Social, media: A phenomenon to be analyzed. Social Media & Society, 1(1), 1–2.
Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, second life and beyond. From production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.
Castells, M., & Cardoso, G. (eds.) (2005). The network society: From knowledge to policy. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations.
Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system. Politics and power. Oxford University Press.
Couch, C. J., Maines, D. R., & Chen, S.-L. (1996). Information technologies and social orders. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
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.
Couldry, N. (2014b). The myth of ‘us’: Digital networks, political change and the production of collectivity. Information, Communication & Society, 18(6), 608–626.
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.
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.
Döveling, Katrin & Haju, Anu (in print, 2017b). Globally mediatized emotion culture(s). Social Media and Society. Peer-Reviewed Journal by SAGE.
Dryzek, J. S. (2005). The politics of the earth. Environmental Discourses: Oxford University Press.
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.
Früh, W. (1991). Medienwirkungen. Das dynamisch-transaktionale Modell. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Früh, W., & Schönbach, K. (1982). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz. Ein neues Paradigma der Medienwirkung. Publizistik, 27, 74–88.
Früh, W., & Schönbach, K. (2005). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz III: Eine Zwischenbilanz. Publizistik, 50(1), 4–20.
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
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.
Hepp, A., & Krotz, F. (Eds.). (2014). Mediatized worlds: Culture and society in a media age. London: Palgrave.
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.
Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2014). The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1–17.
Kluver, A. (2002). The logic of new media in international affairs. New Media & Society, 4(4): 499–517.
Landerer, N. (2013). Rethinking the logics: A conceptual framework for the mediatization of politics. Communication Theory, 23, 239–258.
Laux, H. (2014). Soziologie im Zeitalter der Komposition. Koordinaten einer integrativen Netzwerktheorie. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.
Livingstone, S. (2009). On the mediatization of everything. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 1–18.
Luhmann, N. (2000). The reality of the mass media. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lundby, K. (2009). Mediatization. Concepts, changes, consequences. New York: Peter Lang.
Mazzoleni, G. (1987). Media logic and party logic in campaign coverage: The Italian general election of 1983. European Journal of Communication, 2, 81–103.
Meyen, M., Thieroff, M., & Strenger, S. (2014). Mass media logic and the mediatization of politics. A theoretical framework. Journalism Studies, 15(3), 271–288.
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The presentation of self in virtual life: Characteristics of personal homepages. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(3), 643–660.
Quiring, O. (2009). What do users associate with ‘interactivity’? A qualitative study on user schemata. New Media & Society, 11(6), 899–920.
Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4).
Saxer, U. (1980). Grenzen der Publizistikwissenschaft. Wissenschaftswissenschaftliche Reflexionen zur Zeitungs-/Publizistik-/Kommunikationswissenschaft seit 1945. Publizistik, 4, 525–543.
Sidoni, M. G. (2013). Spoken and written discourse in online interactions. A Multimodal approach. London: Routledge.
Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization. An analysis of the mediatization of politics. Politics, 13(3), 228–246.
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.
Strömbäck, J., & Esser, F. (2014). Introduction. Journalism Studies, 15(3), 243–255.
Sumiala, J., & Tikka, M. (2010). Web first to death. Nordicom Review, 31(2), 17–29.
Sundar, S. (2004). Theorizing Interactivity’s Effects. Information Society, 20(5), 385–389.
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.
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.
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.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse. How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2–14.
Vorderer, P. (2015). Der mediatisierte Lebenswandel. Permanently online, permanently connected. Publizistik, published online, 07/2015.
White, H. (2008). Identity and control. How social formations emerge. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Witschge, T. (2014). Passice accomplice or active disruptor. The role of audiences in the mediatization of politics. Journalism Practice, 8(3), 342–356.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Döveling, K., Knorr, C. (2018). Media Logic as (Inter)Action Logic—Interaction Interdependency as an Integrative Meta-Perspective. In: Thimm, C., Anastasiadis, M., Einspänner-Pflock, J. (eds) Media Logic(s) Revisited. Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65756-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65756-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65755-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65756-1
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)