Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Öffentlichkeitstheorien

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbuch Politische Kommunikation

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C. Edwin. 2002. Media, markets, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, Benjamin R. 2003. Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, Peter. 2009. Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esser, Frank, und Jesper Strömbäck. 2014. Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaus, Gerald F. 1996. Justificatory liberalism: An essay on epistemology and political theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1994. Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarren, Otfried, und Patrick Donges. 2017. Politische Kommunikation in der Mediengesellschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, Chantal. 1999. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research 66(3): 745–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, Chantal. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neidhardt, Friedhelm. 1994. Jenseits des Palavers: Funktionen politischer Öffentlichkeit. In Öffentlichkeit und Kommunikationskultur, Hrsg. Wolfgang Wunden, 19–30. Stuttgart: J. F. Steinkopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strandberg, Kim, und Janne Berg. 2013. Online newspapers ‚readers‘ comments: Democratic conversation platforms or virtual soapboxes? Comunicação e Sociedade 23:132–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uldam, Julie, und Tina Askanius. 2013. Online civic cultures? Debating climate change activism on YouTube. International Journal of Communication 7:1185–1204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfgang, Schwieger. 2017. Der (des)informierte Bürger im Netz. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessler, Hartmut. 2008. Investigating deliberativeness comparatively. Political Communication 25(1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600701807752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessler, Hartmut. 2018. Habermas and the media. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessler, Hartmut, und Eike Mark Rinke. 2016. Journalismus und Politik. In Handbuch Journalismustheorien, Hrsg. Martin Löffelholz und Liane Rothenberger, 639–653. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Mannheim, Mannheim, Deutschland

    Hartmut Wessler, Rainer Freudenthaler & Julia Jakob

  2. Forum Institut für Management GmbH, Heidelberg, Deutschland

    Hans Patrik Haffner

Authors
  1. Hartmut Wessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rainer Freudenthaler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julia Jakob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hans Patrik Haffner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hartmut Wessler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany

    Isabelle Borucki

  2. Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw

  3. Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Stefan Marschall

  4. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany

    Thomas Zerback

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Wessler, H., Freudenthaler, R., Jakob, J., Haffner, H.P. (2020). Öffentlichkeitstheorien. In: Borucki, I., Kleinen-von Königslöw, K., Marschall, S., Zerback, T. (eds) Handbuch Politische Kommunikation. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26242-6_3-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26242-6_3-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-26242-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-26242-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Sozialwissenschaften und Recht

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation