Advertisement

Vernetzte Öffentlichkeit

Chapter
  • 2.3k Downloads

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.

Literatur

Zentrale Referenzen

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, Jonah. 2013. Contagious: Why things catch on. London: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, Jonah. 2014. Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology 24:586–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castells, Manuel. 1996. The rise of the network society, the information age: Economy, society and culture, vol. I. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  6. Mauss, Armand L. 1975. Social problems as social movements. Philadelphia: Lippincott.Google Scholar
  7. Mcadam, Doug, und David A. Snow. 1997. Social movements: Readings on their emergence, mobilization, and dynamics. Los Angeles: Roxbury.Google Scholar
  8. Olson, Mancur. 1965. The logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  9. Snow, D.A., S.K. Worden, et al. 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51:464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sunstein, Cass R. 2007. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Tilly, Charles. 1978. From mobilization to revolution. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Beispiele mediensoziologischer Studien

  1. 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
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bimber, Bruce, Andrew J. Flanagin, und Cynthia Stohl. 2005. Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory 15:365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulianne, S. 2015. Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information Communication & Society 18:524–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brym, R., M. Godbout, et al. 2014. Social media in the 2011 Egyptian uprising. British Journal of Sociology 65:266–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Christensen, H.S., und A. Bengtsson. 2011. The political competence of internet participants: Evidence from Finland. Information Communication & Society 14:896–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies, H.C. 2018. Redefining filter bubbles as (Escapable) socio-technical recursion. Sociological Research Online 23:637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Del Vicario, M., F. Zollo, et al. 2017. Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks 50:6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Van De Donk, Wim. 2004. Cyberprotest: New media, citizens and social movements. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farrell, Henry. 2012. The consequences of the internet for politics. Annual Review of Political Science 15:35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freelon, D., S. Merritt, und T. Jaymes. 2015. Focus on the tech: Internet centrism in global protest coverage. Digital Journalism 3:175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hassanpour, N. 2014. Media disruption and revolutionary unrest: Evidence from Mubarak’s Quasi-experiment. Political Communication 31:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Helberger, N., K. Karppinen, und L. D’acunto. 2018. Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Information Communication & Society 21:191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Just, N., und M. Latzer. 2017. Governance by algorithms: Reality construction by algorithmic selection on the Internet. Media, Culture and Society 39:238–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowrance, S. 2016. Was the revolution tweeted? Social media and the Jasmine revolution in Tunisia. Digest of Middle East Studies 25:155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Theocharis, Y., und W. Lowe. 2016. Does Facebook increase political participation? Evidence from a field experiment. Information Communication & Society 19:1465–1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DCMUniversität FribourgZürichSchweiz
  2. 2.Soziologisches InstitutUniversität ZürichZürichSchweiz

Personalised recommendations