Skip to main content

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

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).

Keywords

  • Media logicMedia Logic
  • Altheide
  • interactionInteraction
  • Political communicationPolitical Communication
  • Social mediaSocial Media Platforms

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 7.1
Fig. 7.2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Likewise, Lundby (2009) argues to focus more on interaction processes (especially social interaction ), less on the formats and their linearity.

  2. 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. 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. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altheide, D. L. (2013). Media logic, social control, and fear. Communication Theory, 23, 223–238.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Altheide, D. L., & Coyle, M. (2006). Smart on crime: The new language of prisoner release. Crime, Media, Culture, 2(3), 286–303.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Altheide, D. L., & DeVriese, K. (2007). Perps and junkies: Normalizing stigma in the mass media. Crime, Media, Culture, 3(3), 382–389.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Altheide, D. L., & Grimes, J. N. (2005). War programming: The propaganda project and the Iraq War. The Sociological Quarterly, 46(4), 617–643.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Asp, K. (1990). Medialization, media logic and mediarchy. Nordicom Review, 11, 47–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asp, K. (2014). News media logic in a new institutional perspective. Journalism Studies, 15(3), 256–270.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Boyd, d. (2015). Social, media: A phenomenon to be analyzed. Social Media & Society, 1(1), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, second life and beyond. From production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M., & Cardoso, G. (eds.) (2005). The network society: From knowledge to policy. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system. Politics and power. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couch, C. J., Maines, D. R., & Chen, S.-L. (1996). Information technologies and social orders. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Couldry, N. (2014b). The myth of ‘us’: Digital networks, political change and the production of collectivity. Information, Communication & Society, 18(6), 608–626.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Döveling, Katrin & Haju, Anu (in print, 2017b). Globally mediatized emotion culture(s). Social Media and Society. Peer-Reviewed Journal by SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2005). The politics of the earth. Environmental Discourses: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Früh, W. (1991). Medienwirkungen. Das dynamisch-transaktionale Modell. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Früh, W., & Schönbach, K. (1982). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz. Ein neues Paradigma der Medienwirkung. Publizistik, 27, 74–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Früh, W., & Schönbach, K. (2005). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz III: Eine Zwischenbilanz. Publizistik, 50(1), 4–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hepp, A., & Krotz, F. (Eds.). (2014). Mediatized worlds: Culture and society in a media age. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kluver, A. (2002). The logic of new media in international affairs. New Media & Society, 4(4): 499–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landerer, N. (2013). Rethinking the logics: A conceptual framework for the mediatization of politics. Communication Theory, 23, 239–258.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Laux, H. (2014). Soziologie im Zeitalter der Komposition. Koordinaten einer integrativen Netzwerktheorie. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. (2009). On the mediatization of everything. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (2000). The reality of the mass media. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundby, K. (2009). Mediatization. Concepts, changes, consequences. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Meyen, M., Thieroff, M., & Strenger, S. (2014). Mass media logic and the mediatization of politics. A theoretical framework. Journalism Studies, 15(3), 271–288.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The presentation of self in virtual life: Characteristics of personal homepages. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(3), 643–660.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Quiring, O. (2009). What do users associate with ‘interactivity’? A qualitative study on user schemata. New Media & Society, 11(6), 899–920.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxer, U. (1980). Grenzen der Publizistikwissenschaft. Wissenschaftswissenschaftliche Reflexionen zur Zeitungs-/Publizistik-/Kommunikationswissenschaft seit 1945. Publizistik, 4, 525–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidoni, M. G. (2013). Spoken and written discourse in online interactions. A Multimodal approach. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization. An analysis of the mediatization of politics. Politics, 13(3), 228–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Strömbäck, J., & Esser, F. (2014). Introduction. Journalism Studies, 15(3), 243–255.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sumiala, J., & Tikka, M. (2010). Web first to death. Nordicom Review, 31(2), 17–29.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sundar, S. (2004). Theorizing Interactivity’s Effects. Information Society, 20(5), 385–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse. How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2–14.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Vorderer, P. (2015). Der mediatisierte Lebenswandel. Permanently online, permanently connected. Publizistik, published online, 07/2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (2008). Identity and control. How social formations emerge. Princeton: Princeton UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witschge, T. (2014). Passice accomplice or active disruptor. The role of audiences in the mediatization of politics. Journalism Practice, 8(3), 342–356.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrin Döveling .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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