Advertisement

Where Berlin Got It Terribly Wrong: German Foreign Policy Fiascos in the News Media

  • Mischa Hansel
  • Henrike Viehrig
  • Danae Ankel
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is based on salience and framing analysis of German news media coverage. We conceptualize fiascos as extreme subcase of mistakes and hypothesize that influential foreign policy norms trigger a fiasco framing in German media coverage. Our empirical results show a stable consensus about what can be regarded major foreign policy fiascos: Germany’s Yugoslavia policy in the 1990s, the failed referendums on the European Constitution in 2005, the decision on Libya in 2011 and, finally, the transatlantic crisis over Iraq in 2003. These findings as well as a qualitative analysis of a puzzling negative case confirm that a perceived violation of the norm of multilateralism is indeed almost a necessary condition for fiasco framing. Other findings relate to blame attribution and authorship of fiasco framing.

References

  1. Bauchmüller, Michael, and Stefan Braun. 2011. Plötzlich Partner. Außenminister Westerwelle korrigiert zögerlich seine Haltung zum Libyen-Einsatz – und besänftigt damit die FDP. Süddeutsche Zeitung, August 29: 8.Google Scholar
  2. Baumann, Rainer. 2006. Der Wandel des deutschen Multilateralismus. Eine diskursanalytische Untersuchung deutscher Außenpolitik. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, W. Lance. 1994. The News About Foreign Policy. In Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and US Foreign Policy in the Gulf War, ed. W. Lance Bennett and David L. Paletz, 12–40. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boin, Arjen, Paul ‘t Hart, and Allan McConnell. 2009. Crisis Exploitation: Political and Policy Impacts of Framing Contests. Journal of European Public Policy 16 (1): 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bovens, Mark, and Paul ‘t Hart. 1996. Understanding Policy Fiascos. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Bovens, Mark, Paul ‘t Hart, and B. Guy Peters. 2001. Analysing Governance Success and Failure in Six European States. In Success and Failure in Public Governance: A Comparative Analysis, ed. Mark Bovens, Paul ‘t Hart, and B. Guy Peters, 12–29. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brändström, Annika, and Sanneke Kuipers. 2003. From “Normal Incidents” to Political Crises: Understanding the Selective Politicization of Political Failures. Government and Opposition 38 (3): 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007. Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10 (1): 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Der Spiegel. 2011. Ein einziges Debakel. August 29: 29.Google Scholar
  10. Duffield, John S. 1999. Political Culture and State Behavior: Why Germany Confounds Neorealism. International Organization 53 (4): 765–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FAZ. 1993a. Wir sind hier, weil wir hier sind. June 22: 32.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 1993b. Christophers Sündenbock. June 19: 1.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 2008. Im Notfall in ganz Afghanistan. May 2: 5.Google Scholar
  15. Flockhart, Trine. 2012. Constructivism and Foreign Policy. In Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, ed. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne, 78–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Galtung, Johan, and Mari Holmboe Ruge. 1965. The Structure of Foreign News: The Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norwegian Newspapers. Journal of Peace Research 2 (1): 64–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilboa, Eytan. 2005. The CNN Effect: The Search for a Communication Theory of International Relations. Political Communication 22 (1): 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harcup, Tony, and Deirdre O’Neill. 2001. What Is News? Galtung and Ruge Revisited. Journalism Studies 2 (2): 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hellmann, Gunther. 2006. Deutsche Außenpolitik: Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hellmann, Gunther, Christian Weber, and Frank Sauer. 2007. “Selbstbewusst“ und „Stolz“: Das außenpolitische Vokabular der Berliner Republik als Fährte einer Neuorientierung. Politische Vierteljahreschrift 48 (4): 650–679.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2008. Die Semantik der neuen deutschen Außenpolitik: Eine Analyse des außenpolitischen Vokabulars seit Mitte der 1980er Jahre. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Howlett, Michael. 2012. The Lessons of Failure: Learning and Blame Avoidance in Public Policy-Making. International Political Science Review 33 (5): 539–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kazim, Hasnain. 2014. Irak-Debatte bei Jauch: Krieg mit den Waffen des Westens. Spiegel Online, June 23. Available at http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/guenther-jauch-talkshow-zur-irak-krise-a-976766.html. 15 Sept 2014.
  24. Kundnani, Hans. 2015. Leaving the West Behind: Germany Looks East. Foreign Affairs 94 (1): 108–116.Google Scholar
  25. Longhurst, Kerry. 2004. Germany and the Use of Force. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Malici, Akan. 2006. Germans as Venutians: The Culture of German Foreign Policy Behavior. Foreign Policy Analysis 2 (1): 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maull, Hanns W. 2001. Germany’s Foreign Policy, Post-Kosovo: Still a Civilian Power? In Germany as a Civilian Power? The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic, ed. Sebastian Harnisch and Hanns W. Maull, 106–127. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2015. Deutsche Außenpolitik – Verantwortung und Macht. In „Früher, entschiedener und substantieller“? Die neue Debatte über Deutschlands Außenpolitik, ed. Gunther Hellmann, Daniel Jacobi, and Ursula Stark-Urrestarazu, 213–237, Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, Special Issue, no. 6. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Mayntz, Renate. 2008. Embedded Theorizing: Perspectives on Globalization and Global Governance. In Politikwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, ed. Stephan Bröchler and Hans-Joachim Lauth, 93–116. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. NYT. 2009. Afghan Official Says NATO Strike Killed 99. September 14: 7.Google Scholar
  31. Oppermann, Kai. 2012. National Role Conceptions, Domestic Constraints and the New ‘Normalcy’. In German Foreign Policy: The Eurozone Crisis, Libya and Beyond. German Politics, 21 (4): 502–519.Google Scholar
  32. Robinson, Piers. 2008. The Role of Media and Public Opinion. In Foreign Policy: Theories – Actors – Cases, ed. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne, 168–187. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sandschneider, Eberhard. 2012. Deutschland: Gestaltungsmacht in der Kontinuitätsfalle. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 62 (10): 3–9.Google Scholar
  34. Schenk, Michael. 2007. Medienwirkungsforschung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  35. Schmiese, Wulf, Nikolas Busse, and Michaela Wiegel. 2009. Die Verbündeten schließen die Reihen: Berlin bekommt im Afghanistan-Streit Zuspruch aus Washington, Paris und Brüssel. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 10: 6.Google Scholar
  36. Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Michael D. Jones, and Mark K. McBeth. 2011. Policy Narratives and Policy Processes. The Policy Studies Journal 39 (3): 535–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Signitzer, Benno. 1993. Anmerkungen zur Begriffs- und Funktionswelt der Public Diplomacy. In Image und PR: Kann Image Gegenstand einer Public Relations-Wissenschaft sein? ed. Wolfgang Armbrecht, Horst Avenarius, and Ulf Zabel, 199–211. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. SZ. 2005. Die einigende Wirkung des Konflikts. June 16.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2007. Offene Kritik am Auftritt der Kanzlerin beim G-8-Gipfel. June 11: 6.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2009. Irritiert über die Verbündeten: Die Kritik von EU und Nato stößt in Berlin auf Unverständnis. September 7: 2.Google Scholar
  41. de Vreese, Claes H., and Sophie Lecheler. 2012. News Framing Research: An Overview and New Developments. In The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication, ed. Holli A. Semetko and Margaret Scammell, 292–306. New York: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. de Vries, Michiel S. 2004. Response Patterns to Explosions in Firework Factories. Administration & Society 36 (5): 594–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wagener, Martin. 2004. Auf dem Weg zu einer „normalen“ Macht? Die Entsendung deutscher Streitkräfte in der Ära Schröder. In Deutsche Sicherheitspolitik: Eine Bilanz der Regierung Schröder, ed. Sebastian Harnisch, Christos Katsioulis and Marco Overhaus, 89–118. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  44. Zaller, John, and Dennis Chiu. 2000. Government’s Little Helper: U.S. Press Coverage of Foreign Policy Crises, 1946–1999. In Decisionmaking in a Glass House: Mass Media, Public Opinion, and American and European Foreign Policy in the 21st Century, ed. Brigitte L. Nacos, Robert Y. Shapiro, and Pierangelo Isernia, 61–84. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mischa Hansel
    • 1
  • Henrike Viehrig
    • 2
  • Danae Ankel
    • 3
  1. 1.RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Europe Direct Information Centre, City of CologneCologneGermany
  3. 3.University of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations