IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbpcm/spiv2004402.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Das Kommentariat: Rolle und Status einer Öffentlichkeitselite

Author

Listed:
  • Pfetsch, Barbara
  • Eilders, Christiane
  • Neidhardt, Friedhelm

Abstract

Im Mittelpunkt des WZB-Papers stehen die „Meinungsmacher“ der überregionalen Qualitätszeitungen in der Bundesrepublik. Die Kommentare dieser „Leitmedien“ wer-den im politischen System intensiv wahrgenommen. Die Themenpräferenzen und Meinungen der Kommentatoren dienen als Hinweise auf allgemeine Stimmungen in der Bevölkerung und auf die Durchsetzbarkeit konkreter Entscheidungen. Auch in öffentlichkeitstheoretischer Perspektive stellen Kommentatoren einen besonders herausgeho-benen „Sprecher“-Typus dar. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Sprechern, die um Medienauf-merksamkeit konkurrieren, besitzen Kommentatoren ein entscheidendes Privileg: sie produzieren nicht nur Themen und Meinungen; sie können selber dafür sorgen, dass ihre Äußerungen tatsächlich öffentlich werden. Angesichts der öffentlichkeitstheoretischen und politischen Bedeutung der Kommentatoren überrascht, dass das „Kommentariat“ in der bisherigen Forschung eine merkwürdig unbeschriebene Größe geblieben ist. Auf der Basis einer schriftlichen Befragung und persönlicher Gespräche mit Kommen-tatoren der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung, der Süddeutschen Zeitung, der Frankfurter Rundschau, der Welt und der tageszeitung gibt diese Studie einen Einblick in die wich-tigsten Charakteristika dieser Sprechergruppe. Wer sind also die Meinungsmacher der deutschen Qualitätspresse? Wie viele Journalisten umfasst diese Öffentlichkeitselite und welche sozio-kulturellen Profile kennzeichnen sie? Wie sehen die Zugangschancen aus? Handelt es sich um einen vergleichsweise offenen Kreis von Journalisten, die von Zeit zu Zeit kommentieren, oder um eine abgeschlossene Gruppe von Vordenkern der Nation, die dauerhaft und fast ausschließlich mit der Meinungsproduktion betraut ist? Was sind die Kriterien für den Zugang zu dieser Öffentlichkeitselite und wie unterscheiden sich die Zeitungen in Hinblick auf die Zugangschancen? Und führt die Auswahl der Kommentatoren zu Themenspezialisierungen oder Meinungsoligopolen innerhalb und möglicherweise auch zwischen den Zeitungen?

Suggested Citation

  • Pfetsch, Barbara & Eilders, Christiane & Neidhardt, Friedhelm, 2004. "Das Kommentariat: Rolle und Status einer Öffentlichkeitselite," Discussion Papers, Working Group Political Communication and Mobilization SP IV 2004-402, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbpcm:spiv2004402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/56468/1/477905692.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Page, Benjamin I. & Shapiro, Robert Y. & Dempsey, Glenn R., 1987. "What Moves Public Opinion?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 23-43, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hayo, Bernd & Neumeier, Florian, 2017. "The (In)validity of the Ricardian equivalence theorem–findings from a representative German population survey," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 162-174.
    2. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Henry Mayer & David Kosson & Charles W. Powers, 2014. "Sustainability as a Priority at Major U.S. Department of Energy’s Defense Sites: Surrounding Population Views," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Antoine Loeper & Jakub Steiner & Colin Stewart, 2014. "Influential Opinion Leaders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(581), pages 1147-1167, December.
    4. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2023. "Measuring partisan media bias in US newscasts from 2001 to 2012," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    5. Donald L. Jordan & Benjamin I. Page, 1992. "Shaping Foreign Policy Opinions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(2), pages 227-241, June.
    6. Latré, Edwin & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter, 2017. "Public opinion change after the Fukushima nuclear accident: The role of national context revisited," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 124-133.
    7. Hill, Joshua & Oliver, Willard M. & Marion, Nancy E., 2010. ""Shaping history" or "Riding the wave"?: President Bush's influence on the public opinion of terrorism, homeland security, & crime," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 896-902, September.
    8. Kriesi, Hanspeter, 2001. "Die Rolle der Öffentlichkeit im politischen Entscheidungsprozess: Ein konzeptueller Rahmen für ein international vergleichendes Forschungsprojekt," Discussion Papers, Working Group Political Communication and Mobilization P 01-701, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    9. Katerina Linos & Kimberly Twist, 2016. "The Supreme Court, the Media, and Public Opinion: Comparing Experimental and Observational Methods," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 223-254.
    10. Carisa Bergner & Bruce A. Desmarais & John Hird, 2019. "Speaking truth in power: Scientific evidence as motivation for policy activism," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    11. Benjamin I. Page, "undated". "Is Social Security Reform Ready for the American Public?," IPR working papers 99-6, Institute for Policy Resarch at Northwestern University.
    12. Taylor-Clark, Kalahn Alexandra & Mebane, Felicia E. & SteelFisher, Gillian K. & Blendon, Robert J., 2007. "News of disparity: Content analysis of news coverage of African American healthcare inequalities in the USA, 1994-2004," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 405-417, August.
    13. Herman Bakvis & Jennifer Smith, 1997. "Third-Party Advertising and Electoral Democracy: The Political Theory of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Somerville v. Canada (Attorney General) [1996]," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 23(2), pages 164-178, June.
    14. Asher Arian & Sigalit Olzaeker, 1999. "Political and Economic Interactions with National Security Opinion," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(1), pages 58-77, February.
    15. David Bartolini & Agnese Sacchi & Domenico Scalera & Alberto Zazzaro, 2023. "Voters’ Distance, Information Bias and Politicians’ Salary," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 9(2), pages 637-664, July.
    16. Simone Dietrich & Amanda Murdie, 2017. "Human rights shaming through INGOs and foreign aid delivery," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 95-120, March.
    17. Adrian Rinscheid, 2020. "Business Power in Noisy Politics: An Exploration Based on Discourse Network Analysis and Survey Data," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 286-297.
    18. Ganghof, Steffen & Manow, Philip, 2005. "Mechanismen der Politik: Strategische Interaktion im deutschen Regierungssystem," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 54, number 54.
    19. Benjamin E. Goldsmith & Yusaku Horiuchi & Takashi Inoguchi, 2005. "American Foreign Policy and Global Opinion," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(3), pages 408-429, June.
    20. Ralf Dewenter & Uwe Dulleck & Tobias Thomas, 2020. "Does the 4th estate deliver? The Political Coverage Index and its application to media capture," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 292-328, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbpcm:spiv2004402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wzbbbde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.