Advertisement

Öffentlichkeitstheorien

Living reference work entry
  • 477 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Aus vier Traditionen normativer Demokratietheorie (liberal, republikanisch, deliberativ und agonistisch) leiten wir vier Kerndimensionen öffentlicher Kommunikation ab, anhand derer man die demokratische Qualität politischer Öffentlichkeiten messen und bewerten kann. Sodann fassen wir den Kenntnisstand zu den öffentlichkeitsrelevanten Leistungen prototypischer Medienangebote auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen von Öffentlichkeit zusammen. Abschließend bilanzieren wir, wie die Leistungen der unterschiedlichen Teilöffentlichkeiten aus der Perspektive der vier normativen Theorietraditionen zu bewerten sind.

Schlüsselwörter

Demokratietheorie Inklusivität Responsivität Argumentation Zivilität Massenmedien Veranstaltete Öffentlichkeit Bürgeröffentlichkeit 

Literatur

  1. Althaus, Scott L. 2012. What’s good and bad in political communication research? Normative standards for evaluating media and citizen performance. In Sage handbook of political communication, Hrsg. Holli A. Semetko und Margaret Scammell, 97–112. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, C. Edwin. 2002. Media, markets, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barber, Benjamin R. 2003. Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, W. Lance, Victor W. Pickard, David P. Iozzi, Carl L. Schroeder, Taso Lagos, und C. Evans Caswell. 2004. Managing the public sphere: Journalistic construction of the great globalization debate. Journal of Communication 54(3): 437–455.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02638.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cinalli, Manlio, und Ian O’Flynn. 2014. Public deliberation, network analysis and the political integration of Muslims in Britain. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 16(3): 428–451.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.12003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, Luke, und Brigitte Nerlich. 2015. Examining user comments for deliberative democracy: A corpus-driven analysis of the climate change debate online. Environmental Communication 9(2): 189–207.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.981560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahlgren, Peter. 2009. Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Della Porta, Donatella, und Nicole Doerr. 2018. Deliberation in protests and social movements. In The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy, Hrsg. André Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge und Mark Warren, 392–406. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Esau, Katharina, Dennis Friess, und Christiane Eilders. 2017. Design matters! An empirical analysis of online deliberation on different news platforms. Policy & Internet 9(3): 321–342.  https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Esser, Frank, und Jesper Strömbäck. 2014. Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferree, Myra Marx, William Anthony Gamson, Jürgen Gerhards, und Dieter Rucht. 2002. Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fishkin, James. 2018. Deliberative polling. In The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy, Hrsg. André Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge und Mark Warren, 315–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Freudenthaler, Rainer. 2020. Which online counter-publics on Facebook are fostering agonistic respect? Javnost: The Public (Forthcoming).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2020.1804121.
  14. Friess, Dennis, und Christiane Eilders. 2015. A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet 7(3): 319–339.  https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaus, Gerald F. 1996. Justificatory liberalism: An essay on epistemology and political theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gerhards, Jürgen, und Freidhelm Neidhardt. 1991. Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit: Fragestellungen und Ansätze. In Öffentlichkeit, Kultur, Massenkommunikation: Beiträge zur Medien- und Kommunikationssoziologie, Hrsg. Stefan Müller-Doohm und Klaus Neumann-Braun, 31–89. Oldenburg: BIS.Google Scholar
  17. Gerhards, Jürgen, und Mike S. Schäfer. 2010. Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society 12(1): 143–160.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerhards, Jürgen, Friedhelm Neidhardt, und Dieter Rucht. 1998. Zwischen Palaver und Diskurs: Strukturen öffentlicher Meinungsbildung am Beispiel des Abtreibungsdiskurses in der Bundesrepublik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Habermas, Jürgen. 1994. Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  20. Himmelroos, Staffan. 2017. Discourse quality in deliberative citizen forums – A comparison of four deliberative mini-publics. Journal of Public Deliberation 13(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
  21. Holt, Kristoffer, Tine Ustad Figenschou, und Lena Frischlich. 2019. Key dimensions of alternative news media. Digital Journalism 7(7): 860–869.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1625715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huspek, Michael. 2007. Habermas and oppositional public spheres: A stereoscopic analysis of black and white press practices. Political Studies 55(4): 821–843.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00661.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobi, Carina, Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, und Nel Ruigrok. 2016. Political news in online and print newspapers: Are online editions better by electoral democratic standards? Digital Journalism 4(6): 723–742.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2015.1087810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jarren, Otfried, und Patrick Donges. 2017. Politische Kommunikation in der Mediengesellschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  25. Kaiser, Jonas, Adrian Rauchfleisch, und Nikki Bourassa. 2019. Connecting the (far-)right dots: A topic modeling and hyperlink analysis of (far-)right media coverage during the US elections 2016. Digital Journalism 8(3): 422–441.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1682629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karlsen, Rune, Kari Steen-Johnsen, Dag Wollebæk, und Bernard Enjolras. 2017. Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. European Journal of Communication 32(3): 257–273.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323117695734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Larson, Kyle R., und George F. McHendry Jr. 2019. Parasitic publics. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 49(5): 517–541.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2019.1671986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mouffe, Chantal. 1999. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research 66(3): 745–758.Google Scholar
  29. Mouffe, Chantal. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  30. Neidhardt, Friedhelm. 1994. Jenseits des Palavers: Funktionen politischer Öffentlichkeit. In Öffentlichkeit und Kommunikationskultur, Hrsg. Wolfgang Wunden, 19–30. Stuttgart: J. F. Steinkopf.Google Scholar
  31. Oz, Mustafa, Pei Zheng, und Gina Masullo Chen. 2018. Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society 20(9): 3400–3419.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rohlinger, Deana A. 2007. American media and deliberative democratic processes. Sociological Theory 25(2): 122–148.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2007.00301.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rowe, Ian. 2015. Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the deliberative quality of online news user comments across platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 59(4): 539–555.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruiz, Carlos, David Domingo, Josep Lluís Micó, Javier Díaz-Noci, Koldo Meso, und Pere Masip. 2011. Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics 16(4): 463–487.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211415849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stevenson, Neil. 2010. Chatting the news: The democratic discourse qualities of non-market and market political talk television. Journalism Studies 11(6): 852–873.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14616701003711405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Strandberg, Kim, und Janne Berg. 2013. Online newspapers ‚readers‘ comments: Democratic conversation platforms or virtual soapboxes? Comunicação e Sociedade 23:132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Uldam, Julie, und Tina Askanius. 2013. Online civic cultures? Debating climate change activism on YouTube. International Journal of Communication 7:1185–1204.Google Scholar
  38. Wolfgang, Schwieger. 2017. Der (des)informierte Bürger im Netz. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.Google Scholar
  39. Wessler, Hartmut. 2008. Investigating deliberativeness comparatively. Political Communication 25(1): 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600701807752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wessler, Hartmut. 2018. Habermas and the media. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wessler, Hartmut, und Eike Mark Rinke. 2014. Deliberative performance of television news in three types of democracy: Insights from the U.S., Germany, and Russia. Journal of Communication 64(5): 827–851.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wessler, Hartmut, und Eike Mark Rinke. 2016. Journalismus und Politik. In Handbuch Journalismustheorien, Hrsg. Martin Löffelholz und Liane Rothenberger, 639–653. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wessler, Hartmut, und Tanjev Schultz. 2007. Can the mass media deliberate? Insights from print media and political talk shows. In Media and the public sphere, Hrsg. Richard Butsch, 115–127. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. Ziegele, Marc, Oliver Quiring, Katharina Esau, und Dennis Friess. 2018a. Linking news value theory with online deliberation: How news factors and illustration factors in news articles affect the deliberative quality of user Discussions in SNS’ comment sections. Communication Research: 1–31.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884.
  45. Ziegele, Marc, Pablo Jost, Marike Bormann, und Dominique Heinbach. 2018b. Journalistic counter-voices in comment sections: Patterns, determinants, and potential consequences of interactive moderation of uncivil user comments. Studies in Communication and Media 7(4): 525–554.  https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität MannheimMannheimDeutschland
  2. 2.Forum Institut für Management GmbHHeidelbergDeutschland

Personalised recommendations