Advertisement

Regieren die Medien?

  • Kenneth Newton
  • Nicolas Merz
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Verursachen oder verschärfen die Massenmedien eine Krise der Demokratie? Die umfangreiche und mannigfaltige sogenannte Mediamalaise-Literatur geht davon aus, dass Medien in den westlichen Demokratien einen starken Einfluss auf Politik und Regierung ausüben und sie dadurch die Demokratie schwächen oder gar zerstören können. Medien – Presse, TV, Radio und Internet – sind in der modernen Gesellschaft mittlerweile allgegenwärtig und ihre negativen Folgen scheinen in jeden Bereich des politischen Systems vorzudringen. Manche argumentieren, dass die Medien nur einer von vielen Gründen für das Versagen und die Krise der Demokratie sind, doch andere gehen so weit zu behaupten, dass die Medien in Wirklichkeit bereits die Macht von Parlamenten und Regierungen an sich gerissen haben. Die Behauptung, Medien spielten eine bedeutende – und meist negative – Rolle in modernen Gesellschaft en, ist so verbreitet, dass sie mittlerweile zu einem unhinterfragten Gemeinplatz geworden ist.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Adatto, Kiku. 1990. Sound bite democracy: Network evening news Presidential campaign coverage, 1968-and 1988, Research Paper R-2, Joan Shorenstein Barone Center, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  2. Andolina, Molly W. und Clyde Wilcox. 2000. Public opinion: The paradoxes of Clinton’s popularity. In The Clinton Scandal and the Future of American Politics, hrsg. Mark J. Rozell und Clyde Wilcox, 171-194. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ansolabehere, Stephen, Roy Behr und Shanto Iyengar. 1991. Mass Media and Elections: An Overview. American Politics Quarterly 19 (1): 109–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Applegate, Evan. 2013. Two years on. Fukushima casts no shadow over nuclear. Business- Week, 11. März 2013. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-11/two-years-onfukushima-casts-no-shadow-over-nuclear. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  5. Baker, C. Edwin. 2007. Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baudrillard, Jean. 1988. The Evil Demon of Images. Sydney: Power Institute of Fine Arts, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  7. Beck Paul Allen Russell J. Dalton, Steven Greene und Robert Huckfeldt. 2002. The social calculus of voting: Interpersonal, media, and organizational; influences on presidential choice. American Political Science Review 96 (1): 57–73.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, Steve. 2000. Kill the messenger! The public condemns the news media. USA Today Magazine 128 (2656), Januar 2000.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, Stephen Earl. 2002. Another Lesson about Public Opinion during the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal. Presidential Studies Quarterly 32 (2): 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett, W. Lance. 2007. News: The Politics of Illusion. New York: Pearson, 7. Aufl.Google Scholar
  11. Bennett, W. Lance und Shanto Iyengar. 2008. A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication. Journal of Communication 58 (4): 707–731.Google Scholar
  12. Bimber, Bruce A. 2003. Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Blumler, Jay George und Michael Gurevitch. 1995. The Crisis of Public Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Braestrup, Peter. 1977. Big Story. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  15. Brandenburg, Heinz. 2006. Pathologies of the Virtual Public Sphere. In The Internet and Politics: Citizens, Voters, and Activists, hrsg. Sarah Oates, Diana Owen und Rachel K. Gibson, 207-222. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Brants, Kees und Karen Siune. 1998. Politization in Decline? In Media Policy. Convergence, Concentration and Commerce, hrsg. Denis McQuail und Karen Suine, 128-143. Thowbridge, Wiltshire: Cromwell Press.Google Scholar
  17. Buchsbaum, Thomas M. 2005. E-voting: Lessons Learnt from Recent Pilots, Switzerland. Vortrag auf der Conference on E-voting and Electronic Democracy: Present and the Future. Seoul, März 2005.Google Scholar
  18. Cappella, Joseph N. und Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 1997. Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Carruthers, Susan L. 2000. The Media at War. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Coll, Steve. 2011. The Internet: For Better or for Worse. The New York Review of Books, April 7: 22.Google Scholar
  21. Cowell, Allen und John F. Burns. 2012. At British Inquiry, Cameron Denies ‘Deals’ With Murdoch. New York Times, 14. Juni. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/world/europe/cameron-to-testify-over-murdoch-links-at-british-press-inquiry.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  22. Crozier, Michel J., Samuel P. Huntington und Joji Watanuki. 1975. The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Curran, James. Hrsg. 1986. Bending Reality: The State of the Media. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  24. Curran, James und Jean Seaton. 2009. Power without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in Britain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Curtice, John. 1998. Do newspapers change voters’ minds? Or do voters change their papers? Vortrag auf der Jahrestagung der American Political Science Association, Boston, September 1998.Google Scholar
  26. Curtice, John. 1999. Was it the Sun wot won it again: The influence of newspapers in the 1997 election campaign, Working Papers N75. Oxford: Centre for Research into Elections and Social Trends, National Centre for Social Research, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Curtice, John und Holli Semetko. 1994. Does it Matter What the Paper’s Say? In Labour’s Last Chance? The 1992 Election and Beyond, hrsg. Anthony Francis Heath, Roger Jowell und John Curtice, 43-64. Sudbury, MA: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  28. Dahl, Robert A. 1958. A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model. The American Political Science Review 52 (2): 463–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dahlgren, Peter. 1995. Television and the Public Sphere. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Dautrich, Kenneth und Thomas H. Hartley. 1999. How the News Media Fail American Voters: Causes, Consequences and Remedies. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Davison, W. Phillips. 1983. The Third-Person Effect in Communication. Public Opinion Quarterly 47 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar
  32. Debord, Guy. 1990. Comments on ‘The Society of the Spectacle’. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  33. Dowell, Ben. 2012. Rupert Murdoch: ‘Sun wot won it’ headline was tasteless and wrong. The Guardian, 25. April 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/25/rupertmurdoch-sun-wot-won-it-tasteless. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  34. Durante, Ruben und Brian Knight. 2009. Partisan Control, Media Bias, and Viewer Responses: Evidence from Berlusconi’s Italy. NBER Working Paper Series, 14762. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w14762. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  35. Elegant, Robert S. 1981. How to Lose a War. Reflections of a War Correspondent. Encounter LVII (2): 73–90.Google Scholar
  36. Entman, Robert M. 1995. Television, democratic theory and the visual construction of poverty. In Research in Political Sociology Volume 7: Mass Media and Politics, hrsg. P. C. Washburn, 139-160. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.Google Scholar
  37. Entman, Robert M. und Andrew Rojecki. 1993. Freezing out the public: Elite and media framing of the U.S. anti‐nuclear movement. Political Communication 10 (2): 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. European Audiovisual Observatory. 2007. The Public Service Broadcasting Culture. Volume V. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory.Google Scholar
  39. Fallows, James. 1997. Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  40. Franklin, Bob. 1994. Packaging Politics: Political Communications in Britain’s Media Democracy. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  41. Gabler, Neal. 1998. Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  42. Galle, Matthias. 2012. Framing in der Berichterstattung deutscher Zeitungen zu regenerativer- und Atomenergie vor und nach Fukushima und dem deutschen Atomausstieg, Master-Arbeit Technische Universität Dresden.Google Scholar
  43. Gallup Poll. 1998. Embroiled in highly publicized intern controversy, Clinton receives highest job approval ratings of his administration, 31. Januar 1998. http://www.gallup.com/poll/4264/ clintons-popularity-paradox.aspx. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  44. Genest, Marc A. 1995. Negotiating in the Public Eye: The Impact of the Press on the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force Negotiations. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Greenslade, Roy. 2009. The Sun’s political switch is no surprise. The Guardian, 29. September. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2009/sep/29/sun-conservatives. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  46. Gunther Richard und Anthony Mughan. 2000. Democracy and the Media: A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Hachten, William A. 1998. The Troubles of Journalism: A Critical Look at Whats Right and Wrong with the Press. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Hallin, Daniel. 1984. The Media, the War in Vietnam, and Political Support: A Critique of the Thesis of an Oppositional Media. The Journal of Politics 46 (1): 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hallin, Daniel. 1989. The ‘Uncensored War’: The Media and Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Hallin, Daniel. 1991. Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 1968-88. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Centre for International Scholars.Google Scholar
  52. Hallin, Daniel und Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: The Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Hammond, William M. 1988. Military and the Media, 1962-1968. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History.Google Scholar
  54. Hanas, Jim. 1998. Dog the Wag. The Memphis Flyer: Media Watch, 2. Februar 1998.Google Scholar
  55. Hart, Roderick. 1994. Seducing America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Heath, Anthony Francis, Roger Jowell und John Curtice. Hrsg. 1994. Labour’s Last Chance? The 1992 Election and Beyond. London: Dartmouth Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  57. Herman, Edward S. und Noam Chomsky. 1994. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  58. Holbert, R., Lance, R. Kelly Garrett und Laurel S. Gleason. 2010. A New Era of Minimal Effects? A Response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication 60 (1): 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hollingsworth, Mark. 1986. The Press and Political Dissent. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  60. Humphreys, Peter. 1996. Mass Media and Media Policy in Western Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Hundal, Sunny. 2010. What happens to politics after the Sun dies? New Statesman, 3. Juni 2010. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/06/sun-media-labour-politics. Zugegriffen 24. Juni 2014.
  62. Iyengar, Shanto, Mark D. Peters und Donald R. Kinder. 1982. Experimental Demonstrations of the “Not-So-Minimal” Consequences of Television News Programs. The American Political Science Review 76 (4): 848–858.Google Scholar
  63. Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible: How Television Frames PoliticaI Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Jahn, Detlef und Sebastian Korolczuk. 2012. German exceptionalism: the end of nuclear energy in Germany! Environmental Politics 21 (1): 159–164.Google Scholar
  65. Kalb, Marvin. 1998. The Rise of the “New News”. A Case Study of Two Root Causes of the Modern Scandal Coverage. Discussion Paper D-34. Cambridge, MA: Joan Shorenstein Centre on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government.Google Scholar
  66. Karnow, Stanley. 1991. Vietnam: A History. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  67. Kellner, Peter. 2011. Media Power: a myth. Prospect Magazine, 20. Juli 2011. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/power-of-the-sun-newspaper-murdoch-overrated. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  68. Kepplinger, Hans Mathias und Richard Lemke. 2012a. Augen zu und durch. Die Welt 13. August 2012, S. 10.Google Scholar
  69. Kepplinger, Hans Mathias und Richard Lemke. 2012b. Die Reaktorkatastrophe bei Fukushima in Presse und Fernsehen in Deutschland, Schweiz, Frankreich und England. http://www.Kepplinger.de/files/Kepplinge&Lemke%282012%29_Fukushima_in_Presse_und_Fernsehen.pdf. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  70. Key, Valdimer Orlando. 1966. The Responsible Electorate. The Journal of Politics 29 (1): 216–217.Google Scholar
  71. Kimball, Jeffrey. P. 1988. The Stab-in-the-Back Legend and the Vietnam War. Armed Forces & Society 14 (3): 433–458.Google Scholar
  72. Larson, Margali. S. und Robin Wagner-Pacifici. 2001. The dubious place of virtue: Reflections on the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton and the death of the political event in America. Theory and Society 30: 735–774.Google Scholar
  73. Lawrence, Regina. G. und W. Lance Bennett. 2001. Rethinking Media Politics and Public Opinion: Reactions to the Clinton‐Lewinsky Scandal. Political Science Quarterly 116 (3): 425–446.Google Scholar
  74. Linsky, Martin. 1986. Impact. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  75. Maarek, Philippe J. 1995. Political Marketing and Communication. London: John Libby.Google Scholar
  76. Manheim, Jarol. 1991. All of the people, all the time: Strategic communication and American politics. Armonk, NY, ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
  77. Mancini, Paolo. 2011. Between Commodification and Lifestyle Politics: Does Silvio Berlusconi Provide a New Model of Politics for the Twenty-First Century? Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  78. Marcinkowski, Frank und Martin R. Herbers. 2013. Mehr Konkurrenz – bessere Publizistik? Wettbewerbsbedingungen und Informationsqualität im deutschen Zeitungsmarkt. In Media Structures and Media Performance – Medienstrukturen und Medienperformanz,Google Scholar
  79. hrsg. Manuel Puppis, Matthias Künzler und Otfried Jarren, 377-400. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  80. Mason, Rowena 2012. David Cameron‘s five secret meetings with Rupert Murdoch. Daily Telegraph, 25. April 2012.Google Scholar
  81. McChesney, Robert W. 2000. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  82. McChesney, Robert W. 2013. Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  83. Meyrowitz, Joshua. 1995. How television changes the political drama. In Reseach in Political Sociology Volume 7: Mass Media and Politics, hrsg. P. C. Wasburn, 117-138. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.Google Scholar
  84. Miller, Arthur H. 1999. Sex, Politics, and Public Opinion: What Political Scientists Really Learned from the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal. PS: Political Science & Politics 32 (4): 721–729.Google Scholar
  85. Moyers, Bill. 2009. Moyers on Democracy. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  86. Mueller, John E. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  87. Negrine, Ralph und Stylianos Papathanassopoulos. 1996. The “Americanization” of political communication: A critique. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 1 (2): 45–62.Google Scholar
  88. Newman, Brian. 2002. Bill Clinton’s Approval Ratings: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same. Political Research Quarterly 55 (4): 781–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Newton, Kenneth und Malcolm Brynin. 2001. The national press and party voting in the UK. Political Studies 49 (2): 265–285.Google Scholar
  90. Nichols, John und Robert W. McChesney. 2013. Dollarocracy: How the Money-and-Media- Election Complex is Destroying America. New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar
  91. Norris, Pippa. 2000. A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Norris, Pippa. 2001. Apathetic Landslide: The 2001 British General Election. Parliamentary Affairs 54: 564–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Norris, Pippa. 2004. E-campaigning and e-democracy.Experiments in e-voting v. all-postal voting facilities in UK local elections. Paper for the conference on Political Communications in the 21st Century, St Margarett’s College, University of Otago, New Zealand, Januar 2004.Google Scholar
  94. Norris, Pippa, John Curtice, David Sanders., Margaret Scammell und Holli A Semetko. 1999. On Message: Communicating the Campaign. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  95. Oates, Sarah, Diana Owen und Rachel K. Gibson. 2006. The Internet and Politics: Citizens, Voters, and Activists. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  96. Parenti, Michael. 1992. Make-Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  97. Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding From You. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  98. Patterson, Thomas E. 1994. Out of Order. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  99. Pew Research Centre. 1998. Americans unmoved by prospects of Clinton, Lewinsky Testimony, 4. August 1998.Google Scholar
  100. Pfetsch, Barbara. 1996. Convergence through privatization? Changing media environments and televised politics in Germany. European Journal of Communication 11 (4): 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Poguntke, Thomas und Paul Webb. Hrsg. 2007. The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Postman, Neil. 1985. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Viking-Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  103. Price, Lance. 2010. Where Power Lies: Prime Ministers v the Media. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  104. Prior, Markus. 2013. Media and Political Polarization. Annual Review of Political Science 16: 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Protess David L. Fay Lomax Cook Jack C. Doppelt, James S. Ettema, Margaret T. Gordon, Donna R. Leff und Peter Miller. 1992. The Journalism of Outrage: Investigative Reporting and Agenda Building in America. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  106. Putnam, Robert D. 1995. Bowling Alone: America‘s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy 6 (1): 65–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Ranney, Austin. 1983. Channels of Power: The Impact of Television on American Politics. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  108. Rattinger, Hans, Sigrid Roßteutscher, Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, Bernhard Weßels, Thomas Gschwend, Hermann Schmitt, Andreas Wüst und Thomas Zittel. 2012. Kandidatenstudie, Befragung (GLES 2009). GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. ZA5319 Datenfile Version 2.0.0.Google Scholar
  109. Rentoul, John. 2013. It wasn’t the Sun wot won it: official. Independent, 18. April 2013. http://www. independent.co.uk/news/it-wasnt-the-sun-wot-won-it-official-1364910.html. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  110. Ricolfi, Luca. 1997. Politics and the Mass Media in Italy. West European Politics 20 (1): 135–156.Google Scholar
  111. Robinson, Martin. 2012. How David Cameron went to “great lengths” to woo Murdoch empire before 2010 general election. Mail Online, 29. November. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240521/How-David-Cameron-went-great-lengths-woo-Murdochempire-2010-general-election.html. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  112. Sabato, Larry. 2000. Feeding Frenzy: How Attack Journalism has Transformed American Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  113. Sabbagh, Dan. 2011. How Tony Blair was taken into the Murdoch family fold. The Guardian, 5. September. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/05/tony-blair-murdoch-family-fold. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  114. Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger und David Farrell. 2002. Do political campaigns matter? In Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums, hrsg. David Farrell und Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 183-193. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  115. Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger und Ansgar Wolsing. 2010. European TV environments and citizens’ social trust: Evidence from multilevel analyses. Communications 35 (4): 461–483.Google Scholar
  116. Schudson, Michael. 1995. The Power of the News. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Snoddy, Raymond. 1992. The Good, the Bad and the Unacceptable. The Hard News. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  118. Sonne, Paul. 2012. Blair Denies Aiding Rupert Murdoch. The Wall St. Journal, 28. Mai 2012. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303674004577431921039857912. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  119. Sonner, Molly W. und Clyde Wilcox. 1999. Forgiving and Forgetting: Public Support for Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky Scandal. PS: Political Science & Politics 32 (3): 554–557.Google Scholar
  120. Statista. 2013. Umfrage: Waren Sie schon vor dem Super-Gau von Fukushima gegen die Erzeugung von atomarem Strom oder sind Sie danach zum Atomkraftgegner geworden? http://de.statista. com/statistik/daten/studie/191887/umfrage/atomkraftgegner-vor-oder-nach-fukushima/. Zugegriffen: 2. Mai 2013.
  121. Stevens, David und Kieron O’Hara. 2006. Inequality.Com: Power, Poverty and the Digital Divide. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.Google Scholar
  122. Strömbäck, Jesper und Peter Van Aelst. 2013. Why Political Parties Adapt to the Media Exploring the Fourth Dimension of Mediatization. International Communication Gazette 75 (4): 341–358.Google Scholar
  123. Sunstein, Cass. 2001. Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  124. Uslaner, Eric M. 1998. Social Capital, Television, and the “Mean World”: Trust, Optimism, and Civic Participation. Political Psychology 19 (3): 441–467.Google Scholar
  125. Visschers, Vivianne H. M. und Michael Siegrist. 2013. How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster. Risk Analysis 33 (2): 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Ward, David, Oliver Carsten Fueg und Alessandro D’Armo. 2004. A Mapping Study of Media Concentration and Ownership in Ten European Countries. http://77.87.161.246/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/A-Mapping-Study-of-Media-Concentration-and-Ownership-in-Ten-European-Countries.pdf. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  127. Weiss, Stephen, Clark Dougan und Boston Publishing Company. 1983. Nineteen Sixty-Eight (The Vietnam Experience). Boston: Boston Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  128. Wheatcroft, Geoffrey. 2012. What Rupert hath wrought! The New York Review of Books, 21. Juni 2012: 32–35.Google Scholar
  129. Wolff, Michael. 2012. Tony Blair and the Murdochs: a family affair. The Guardian, 29. Mai 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/29/tony-blair-murdochs-family-affair. Zugegriffen: 24. Juni 2014.
  130. Wyatt, Clarence. 1993. Paper Soldiers. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  131. Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  132. Zaller, John R. 1998. Monica Lewinsky’s Contribution to Political Science. PS: Political Science & Politics 31 (2): 182–189.Google Scholar
  133. Zaller, John R. 2001. Monica Lewinsky and the Mainsprings of American Politics. In Mediated Politics, hrsg. W. Lance Bennett und Robert M. Entman, 252-278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abt. Demokratie und DemokratisierungWissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)BerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations