Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Vernetzte Öffentlichkeit

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mediensoziologie

  • 4981 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Das Internet ermöglicht mediales Produktionshandeln für jeden. Die industriegesellschaftliche Trennung zwischen relativ wenigen Medienakteure einerseits und der Bevölkerung als passiven Rezipienten ist Vergangenheit. Individuelle Produktions- und Weitergabeprozesse sind Formen sozialen Handelns mit medialem Aggregationspotenzial. Sie erreichen zwar im normalen Einzelfall nur ein begrenztes Publikum, schaffen aber in der Summe eine neue Art der Öffentlichkeit. Dazu betrachten wir (1) auf Mikroebene die Fragen, was erfolgreich weitergegeben wird und wie das Internet sich auf Beteiligung auswirkt; (2) auf Mesoebene die alte politiksoziologische Frage kollektiven Handelns und ihre neue mediensoziologische Relevanz und (3) auf Makroebene, ob das Internet zur Fragmentierung der Öffentlichkeit führt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

Zentrale Referenzen

  • Bennett, W.L., und A. Segerberg. 2012. The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information Communication & Society 15:739–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Jonah. 2013. Contagious: Why things catch on. London: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Jonah. 2014. Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology 24:586–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, Manuel. 1996. The rise of the network society, the information age: Economy, society and culture, vol. I. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauss, Armand L. 1975. Social problems as social movements. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcadam, Doug, und David A. Snow. 1997. Social movements: Readings on their emergence, mobilization, and dynamics. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Mancur. 1965. The logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D.A., S.K. Worden, et al. 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51:464–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, Cass R. 2007. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, Charles. 1978. From mobilization to revolution. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

Beispiele mediensoziologischer Studien

  • Alaimo, K. 2015. How the Facebook Arabic page „we are all Khaled said“ helped promote the Egyptian revolution. Social Media + Society 1:10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beam, M.A., M.J. Hutchens, und J.D. Hmielowski. 2018. Facebook news and (de)polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Information Communication & Society 21:940–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bimber, Bruce, Andrew J. Flanagin, und Cynthia Stohl. 2005. Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory 15:365–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulianne, S. 2015. Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information Communication & Society 18:524–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brym, R., M. Godbout, et al. 2014. Social media in the 2011 Egyptian uprising. British Journal of Sociology 65:266–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burri, M. 2016. Nudging as a tool of media policy understanding and fostering exposure diversity in the age of digital media. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, H.S., und A. Bengtsson. 2011. The political competence of internet participants: Evidence from Finland. Information Communication & Society 14:896–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, H.C. 2018. Redefining filter bubbles as (Escapable) socio-technical recursion. Sociological Research Online 23:637–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Vicario, M., F. Zollo, et al. 2017. Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks 50:6–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van De Donk, Wim. 2004. Cyberprotest: New media, citizens and social movements. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, E., und G. Blank. 2018. The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information Communication & Society 21:729–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, Henry. 2012. The consequences of the internet for politics. Annual Review of Political Science 15:35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freelon, D., S. Merritt, und T. Jaymes. 2015. Focus on the tech: Internet centrism in global protest coverage. Digital Journalism 3:175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groshek, J., und K. Koc-Michalska. 2017. Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign. Information Communication & Society 20:1389–1407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassanpour, N. 2014. Media disruption and revolutionary unrest: Evidence from Mubarak’s Quasi-experiment. Political Communication 31:1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helberger, N., K. Karppinen, und L. D’acunto. 2018. Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Information Communication & Society 21:191–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, S., E. Myung, und S.L. Johnson. 2016. Open media or echo chamber: The use of links in audience discussions on the Facebook Pages of partisan news organizations. Information Communication & Society 19:875–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Just, N., und M. Latzer. 2017. Governance by algorithms: Reality construction by algorithmic selection on the Internet. Media, Culture and Society 39:238–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, J., und J.F. Hovden. 2018. Distinctions in the media welfare state: Audience fragmentation in post-egalitarian Sweden. Media, Culture and Society 40:639–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance, S. 2016. Was the revolution tweeted? Social media and the Jasmine revolution in Tunisia. Digest of Middle East Studies 25:155–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mccoy, Jennifer, Tahmina Rahman, und Murat Somer. 2018. Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist 62:16–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richey, S., und J.Y. Zhu. 2015. Internet access does not improve political interest, efficacy, and knowledge for late adopters. Political Communication 32:396–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D.A., R. Vliegenthart, und C. Corrigall-Brown. 2007. Framing the French riots: A comparative study of frame variation. Social Forces 86:385–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theocharis, Y., und W. Lowe. 2016. Does Facebook increase political participation? Evidence from a field experiment. Information Communication & Society 19:1465–1486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufekci, Z., und C. Wilson. 2012. Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication 62:363–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youmans, W.L., und J.C. York. 2012. Social media and the activist toolkit: User agreements, corporate interests, and the information infrastructure of modern social movements. Journal of Communication 62:315–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DCM, Universität Fribourg, Zürich, Schweiz

    Hanno Scholtz

  2. Soziologisches Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz

    Hanno Scholtz

Authors
  1. Hanno Scholtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scholtz, H. (2020). Vernetzte Öffentlichkeit. In: Mediensoziologie. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26011-8_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26011-8_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-26010-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-26011-8

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation