ARTE – problems of creating a European TV Intercultural aspects at micro, meso and macro level at the European Culture Channel Arte

In communication science, the question of Europeanisation as well as a theory of interculturalism and multilingualism in the broader context of a ‘European identity’ has long been raised and discussed. Furthermore, empirical research has been searching for adequate methods to find an answer to this question so as to indicate whether the EU media landscape is coming closer together or drifting further apart. The European Culture Channel Arte started broadcasting in 1992. Since then, German and French TV editors have learned from each other how to produce formats appropriate for recipients of both nationalities or even a European audience. This article discusses possible changes towards Europeanisation through rapprochement and convergency exemplified by the French-German culture magazine programme Metropolis as well as by a diachronic scrutiny of changes in Arte’s general programming structure. Organisational theory and intercultural media analysis at micro, meso and macro level are employed as theoretical foundation

Labeling of groups and events (Terrorism Coverage)

Labeling of groups and events describes how groups connected to religious, political or other forms of violence as well as their acts are labeled or evaluated. These labels might vary from more nominal descriptions (e.g., “gunmen”) to more judgmental descriptions (e.g., “terrorist”), leading to different perceptions of these groups and acts by the public. Field of application/theoretical foundation: Labels for groups and events are of interest in journalism research, political communication, research on terrorism and violence as well as stereotyping. These measurements are often based on “Social Identity Theory” (Brown, 2000) as a theoretical foundation for why some groups and events connected to violence are described in a negative way – i.e., as an out-group –, whilst others are described in a neutral way or even positively, i.e., as an in-group. References/combination with other methods of data collection: A study by Huff and Kertzer (2017) for example combines a conjoint experiment with an “Automated Content Analysis” of media coverage to understand how the public would label different acts of violence in comparison to the media. Two studies that have been particularly influential in studying the labeling of violent acts and perpetrators will be discussed in more detail in the following sections. Example studies: Nagar (2010); Weimann (1985)   Information on Nagar, 2010 Author: Nagar Research question: How did American news media cover politically violent organizations that are not linked to Al Qaeda or the events of 9/11? Object of analysis: News coverage by two American newspapers (The New York Times, The Washington Post) Time frame of analysis: 1998–2004 Info about variables Variable name/definition: Media frame: “First, the labels that describe political violence were coded separately for each segment. Second, the article frame was determined based on the most frequent label.” (Nagar, 2010, p. 537) Level of analysis: Headline, lead paragraph, text Variables and values: four different label categories for labels in text: neutral (“rebel”, “rebellion”, “insurgent”, “insurgency”, “guerrilla”, “militant”, “combatants”, “revolt”, “uprising”, “revolutionary”, “paramilitaries”, “insurrection”, “separatist”), negative (“terror”, “terrorize”, “terrorist”, “terrorism”), positive (“freedom fighter”, “liberation movement”, “independence movement”), no label mentioned Reliability: Krippendorff’s alpha: .82   Information on Weimann, 1985 Authors: Weimann Research question: Which labels did the press use in referring to terrorists when covering terrorist attacks? Object of analysis: Israel’s major newspapers Time frame of analysis: 1979–1981 Info about variables Variable name/definition: Label Variables and values: three different labels categories for labels in text: negative (“murderers”, “saboteurs”, “assassins”, “separatists”), neutral (“guerillas”, “army”, “front”, “nationalists”, “underground”, “separatists”) and positive (“patriots”, “freedom fighters”, “liberation movement”, “liberation organization”) Reliability: not applicable   Table 1. Measurement of “Labeling of Groups and Events” in terrorism coverage. Author(s) Sample Manifestations Reliability Codebook Boyle & Mower (2018) Newspaper articles Computer-assisted key-word search, looking up labels such as “terror” Not applicable Not available De Veen & Thomas (2020) Newspaper articles 3 different label categories: negative (“terrorist”, “racist”, “extremist”, “fundamentalist” and clear links to terrorist organizations such as ISIS), neutral (“perpetrator”, “shooter”, “attacker” or other labels emphasizing race and ethnicity, for example “Muslim” or “American”), or positive (family- or work-related labels such as “father” or “colleagues”) Not reported Not available Nagar (2010) Newspaper articles 4 different label categories: neutral (“rebel”, “rebellion”, “insurgent”, “insurgency”, “guerrilla”, “militant”, “combatants”, “revolt”, “uprising”, “revolutionary”, “paramilitaries”, “insurrection”, “separatist”), negative (“terror”, “terrorize”, “terrorist”, “terrorism”), positive (“freedom fighter”, “liberation movement”, “independence movement”), or no label mentioned Krippendorf’s alpha: .82 Available Picard & Adams (1987) Newspaper articles 2 different label categories: nominal (e.g., “attacker”) or descriptive (e.g., “radical”) Holsti: .98 Not available Samuel-Azran et al. (2015) Newspaper articles 7 different labels for perpetrators: “terrorist/Jewish terrorist”, “the Jewish terrorist”, “terror-accused”, “killer”, “mass murderer”, “serial stabber/criminal”, “other”; 9 different labels for act: “terror”, “massacre/mass murders”, “bombing/shooting”, “right wing crime”, “description assault (stabbing etc.)”, “criminal”, “attack”, “insanity”, “other” Scott’s pi indicating lowest value for any variable in the study: .86 Not available Simmons & Lowry (1990) Magazine articles 13 different labels for perpetrators: “terrorist”, “gunman”, “guerilla”, “attacker”, “extremist”, “radical”, “hijacker”, “revolutionary”, “nationalist”, “armed man/men”, “leftist”, “rightist”, “militiaman/militiamen” Not reported Available Weimann (1985) Newspaper articles 3 different labels categories for perpetrators: negative (“murderers”, “saboteurs”, “assassins”, “separatists”), neutral (“guerillas”, “army”, “front”, “nationalists”, “underground”, “separatists”), or positive (“patriots”, “freedom fighters”, “liberation movement”, “liberation organization”) Not applicable Not available   References Boyle, K., & Mower, J. (2018). Framing terror: A content analysis of media frames used in covering ISIS. Newspaper Research Journal, 39(2), 205–219. doi:10.1177/0739532918775667 Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745–778. De Veen, L., & Thomas, R. (2020). Shooting for neutrality? Analysing bias in terrorism reports in Dutch newspapers. Media, War & Conflict. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1177/1750635220909407 Huff, C., & Kertzer, J.D. (2017). How the public defines terrorism. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 55-71. doi:10.1111/ajps.12329 Nagar, N. (2010). Who is afraid of the t-word? Labeling terror in the media coverage of political violence before and after 9/11. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33(6), 533–547. doi:10.1080/10576101003752655 Picard, R. G., & Adams, P. D. (1987). Characterizations of acts and perpetrators of political violence in three elite U.S. daily newspapers. Political Communication, 4(1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/10584609.1987.9962803 Samuel-Azran, T., Lavie-Dinur, A., & Karniel, Y. (2015). Narratives used to portray in-group terrorists: A comparative analysis of the Israeli and Norwegian press. Media, War & Conflict, 8(1), 3–19. doi:10.1177/1750635214531106 Simmons, B. K., & Lowry, D. N. (1990). Terrorists in the news, as reflected in three news magazines, 1980–1988. Journalism Quarterly, 67(4), 692–696. doi:10.1177/107769909006700423 Weimann, G. (1985). Terrorists or freedom fighters? Labeling terrorism in the Israeli press. Political Communication, 2(4), 433–445. doi:10.1080/10584609.1985.996277

Labeling of groups and events (Terrorism Coverage)

Labeling of groups and events describes how groups connected to religious, political or other forms of violence as well as their acts are labeled or evaluated. These labels might vary from more nominal descriptions (e.g., “gunmen”) to more judgmental descriptions (e.g., “terrorist”), leading to different perceptions of these groups and acts by the public. Field of application/theoretical foundation: Labels for groups and events are of interest in journalism research, political communication, research on terrorism and violence as well as stereotyping. These measurements are often based on “Social Identity Theory” (Brown, 2000) as a theoretical foundation for why some groups and events connected to violence are described in a negative way – i.e., as an out-group –, whilst others are described in a neutral way or even positively, i.e., as an in-group. References/combination with other methods of data collection: A study by Huff and Kertzer (2017) for example combines a conjoint experiment with an “Automated Content Analysis” of media coverage to understand how the public would label different acts of violence in comparison to the media. Two studies that have been particularly influential in studying the labeling of violent acts and perpetrators will be discussed in more detail in the following sections. Example studies: Nagar (2010); Weimann (1985)   Information on Nagar, 2010 Author: Nagar Research question: How did American news media cover politically violent organizations that are not linked to Al Qaeda or the events of 9/11? Object of analysis: News coverage by two American newspapers (The New York Times, The Washington Post) Time frame of analysis: 1998–2004 Info about variables Variable name/definition: Media frame: “First, the labels that describe political violence were coded separately for each segment. Second, the article frame was determined based on the most frequent label.” (Nagar, 2010, p. 537) Level of analysis: Headline, lead paragraph, text Variables and values: four different label categories for labels in text: neutral (“rebel”, “rebellion”, “insurgent”, “insurgency”, “guerrilla”, “militant”, “combatants”, “revolt”, “uprising”, “revolutionary”, “paramilitaries”, “insurrection”, “separatist”), negative (“terror”, “terrorize”, “terrorist”, “terrorism”), positive (“freedom fighter”, “liberation movement”, “independence movement”), no label mentioned Reliability: Krippendorff’s alpha: .82   Information on Weimann, 1985 Authors: Weimann Research question: Which labels did the press use in referring to terrorists when covering terrorist attacks? Object of analysis: Israel’s major newspapers Time frame of analysis: 1979–1981 Info about variables Variable name/definition: Label Variables and values: three different labels categories for labels in text: negative (“murderers”, “saboteurs”, “assassins”, “separatists”), neutral (“guerillas”, “army”, “front”, “nationalists”, “underground”, “separatists”) and positive (“patriots”, “freedom fighters”, “liberation movement”, “liberation organization”) Reliability: not applicable   Table 1. Measurement of “Labeling of Groups and Events” in terrorism coverage. Author(s) Sample Manifestations Reliability Codebook Boyle & Mower (2018) Newspaper articles Computer-assisted key-word search, looking up labels such as “terror” Not applicable Not available De Veen & Thomas (2020) Newspaper articles 3 different label categories: negative (“terrorist”, “racist”, “extremist”, “fundamentalist” and clear links to terrorist organizations such as ISIS), neutral (“perpetrator”, “shooter”, “attacker” or other labels emphasizing race and ethnicity, for example “Muslim” or “American”), or positive (family- or work-related labels such as “father” or “colleagues”) Not reported Not available Nagar (2010) Newspaper articles 4 different label categories: neutral (“rebel”, “rebellion”, “insurgent”, “insurgency”, “guerrilla”, “militant”, “combatants”, “revolt”, “uprising”, “revolutionary”, “paramilitaries”, “insurrection”, “separatist”), negative (“terror”, “terrorize”, “terrorist”, “terrorism”), positive (“freedom fighter”, “liberation movement”, “independence movement”), or no label mentioned Krippendorf’s alpha: .82 Available Picard & Adams (1987) Newspaper articles 2 different label categories: nominal (e.g., “attacker”) or descriptive (e.g., “radical”) Holsti: .98 Not available Samuel-Azran et al. (2015) Newspaper articles 7 different labels for perpetrators: “terrorist/Jewish terrorist”, “the Jewish terrorist”, “terror-accused”, “killer”, “mass murderer”, “serial stabber/criminal”, “other”; 9 different labels for act: “terror”, “massacre/mass murders”, “bombing/shooting”, “right wing crime”, “description assault (stabbing etc.)”, “criminal”, “attack”, “insanity”, “other” Scott’s pi indicating lowest value for any variable in the study: .86 Not available Simmons & Lowry (1990) Magazine articles 13 different labels for perpetrators: “terrorist”, “gunman”, “guerilla”, “attacker”, “extremist”, “radical”, “hijacker”, “revolutionary”, “nationalist”, “armed man/men”, “leftist”, “rightist”, “militiaman/militiamen” Not reported Available Weimann (1985) Newspaper articles 3 different labels categories for perpetrators: negative (“murderers”, “saboteurs”, “assassins”, “separatists”), neutral (“guerillas”, “army”, “front”, “nationalists”, “underground”, “separatists”), or positive (“patriots”, “freedom fighters”, “liberation movement”, “liberation organization”) Not applicable Not available   References Boyle, K., & Mower, J. (2018). Framing terror: A content analysis of media frames used in covering ISIS. Newspaper Research Journal, 39(2), 205–219. doi:10.1177/0739532918775667 Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745–778. De Veen, L., & Thomas, R. (2020). Shooting for neutrality? Analysing bias in terrorism reports in Dutch newspapers. Media, War & Conflict. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1177/1750635220909407 Huff, C., & Kertzer, J.D. (2017). How the public defines terrorism. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 55-71. doi:10.1111/ajps.12329 Nagar, N. (2010). Who is afraid of the t-word? Labeling terror in the media coverage of political violence before and after 9/11. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33(6), 533–547. doi:10.1080/10576101003752655 Picard, R. G., & Adams, P. D. (1987). Characterizations of acts and perpetrators of political violence in three elite U.S. daily newspapers. Political Communication, 4(1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/10584609.1987.9962803 Samuel-Azran, T., Lavie-Dinur, A., & Karniel, Y. (2015). Narratives used to portray in-group terrorists: A comparative analysis of the Israeli and Norwegian press. Media, War & Conflict, 8(1), 3–19. doi:10.1177/1750635214531106 Simmons, B. K., & Lowry, D. N. (1990). Terrorists in the news, as reflected in three news magazines, 1980–1988. Journalism Quarterly, 67(4), 692–696. doi:10.1177/107769909006700423 Weimann, G. (1985). Terrorists or freedom fighters? Labeling terrorism in the Israeli press. Political Communication, 2(4), 433–445. doi:10.1080/10584609.1985.996277

Mediating media usage in times of migration

The use and regulation of mobile media devices of children and adolescents in refugee families is largely unexplored. Our qualitative approach utilizes in-depth guided interviews with parents and children in Arabic speaking refugee families in Germany. All interviewed families have resided in Germany from one to four years. The sample consists of both couples and single parents, while most children are in their final year of kindergarten, in primary school, or secondary school. The study explores the selection and usage of mobile media devices and content in their social context, such as the use of social media platforms and apps at home and for school. Our research highlights changes in mobile media usage after the interviewees’ arrival in Germany due to the different socio-cultural environment and a changed media agency. The amount of change greatly depends on the age of the children, for example, the younger they were when arriving in Germany, the less likely they are to use mobile media to stay in touch with their former friends. Additionally, most children and adolescents tend to consume German media content more often than Arabic content. In the rare cases they do consume Arabic media content, it is in the presence of their parents, who state that they do so to bring their children closer to their roots.Die Nutzung und Regulierung mobiler Medien von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Flüchtlingsfamilien ist weitgehend unerforscht. Einem qualitativen Ansatz folgend führten wir Leitfadeninterviews mit Eltern und Kindern in Arabisch bzw. Deutsch. Alle befragten Familien leben seit ein bis vier Jahren in Deutschland. Die Stichprobe besteht aus Paaren und Alleinerziehenden, wobei sich die meisten Kinder im letzten Jahr des Kindergartens, in der Grundschule oder der Sekundarschule befinden. Die Studie untersucht die Auswahl und Verwendung mobiler Mediengeräte, insbesondere Smartphones und Tablets, und deren Inhalte im sozialen Kontext, beispielsweise die Verwendung von Social-Media-Plattformen und Apps zu Hause und für die Schule. Unsere Studie verdeutlicht Veränderungen in der Nutzung mobiler Medien nach der Ankunft der Befragten in Deutschland, was auf das veränderte sozio-kulturelle Umfeld und mediale Handlungsfähigkeiten zurückzuführen ist. Das Ausmass des Wandels hängt stark vom Alter der Kinder ab. Ein Beispiel: Je jünger die Kinder waren, als sie nach Deutschland kamen, desto weniger wahrscheinlich nutzen sie mobile Medien, um mit ihren ehemaligen Freund*innen in Kontakt zu bleiben. Ausserdem konsumieren die meisten Kinder und Jugendlichen häufiger deutschsprachige Medieninhalte als arabische. In den seltenen Fällen der Rezeption arabischer Medieninhalte geschieht dies in Anwesenheit der Eltern, die wiederum angeben, dies zu tun, um den Kindern ihre Wurzeln näher zu bringen

Media & Terrorism. Global Perspective por Des Freedman & Daya Kishan Thussu (eds.)

Ficha técnica: Des Freedman & Daya Kishan Thussu (eds.) Sage, London, 2012 220 pp. ISBN: 978-1-4462-0157-

The discursive construction of a religious terrorist group identity

Terrorist groups use their own websites in order to recruit novices, distribute propaganda and build a specific identity. In our paper we describe this form of strategic communication from a theoretical perspective and then expose the methodological design and results of a critical discourse analysis by which we examined texts from the websites of Hezbollah, Gama’a al-Islamiyya and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Findings show that the groups use different strategies of identity building. However, the strategies of construction and justification play a major role in each group

¿Continuo ecléctico, disciplina distinta o subdominio de los estudios de comunicación?: Consideraciones teóricas y conclusiones empíricas a propósito de la disciplinariedad, multidisciplinariedad y transdisciplinariedad de los estudios de periodismo

ABSTRACT - Is journalism studies a sub-domain of communication studies, adistinct discipline, a multidisciplinary merger or a transdisciplinary endeavour? This question is discussed by analyzing the 2008 and2009 volumes of seven academic journals focusing on journalismresearch. The sample includes 349 articles published in BrazilianJournalism Research, Ecquid Novi, Journalism & CommunicationMonographs, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, PacificJournalism Review, Journalism Studies, or Journalism: Theory,Practice and Criticism. Overall, the findings reveal that journalismresearch mainly applies theoretical approaches and empiricalmethods deriving from other disciplines, particularly sociology, psychology or cultural studies. In many countries, however, journalism studies has reached a comparatively high level of institutionalization indicated by the large number of specific schools, professorships, professional associations and respective academic journals. In conclusion, we argue that journalism studies is a sub-domain of communication studies, which integrates andtranscends various disciplines aiming to become one of the axialsubjects of the 21st century.RESUMO - Os estudos de jornalismo são um subdomínio dos estudos decomunicação, uma disciplina distinta, uma fusão multidisciplinar ou uma tentativa transdisciplinar? Discute-se esta questão, neste artigo, através da análise dos volumes de 2008 e 2009 de sete publicações acadêmicas que focalizam a pesquisa em jornalismo. A amostra inclui 349 artigos publicados na Brazilian Journalism Research, Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, Journalism & Communication Monographs, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Pacific Journalism Review, Journalism Studies e Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism. De modo geral, as conclusões revelam que a pesquisa em jornalismo utiliza principalmente as abordagens teóricas e os métodos empíricos derivados de outras disciplinas, especialmente da sociologia, da psicologia e dos estudos culturais. Entretanto, em muitos países os estudos de jornalismo já alcançaram um nível comparativamente alto de institucionalização, indicado pelo grande número das escolas específicas, dos cargos de professor, das associações profissionais e das respectivas publicações acadêmicas. Concluímos por defender a tese de que os estudos de jornalismo são um subdomínio dos estudos de comunicação que integra e transcende várias disciplinas visando se tornar uma das matérias mais importantes do século XXI.RESUMEN - ¿Los estudios de periodismo son un subdominio de los estudios de comunicación, una disciplina distinta, una fusión multidisciplinaria o una tentativa transdisciplinaria? Se discute esta cuestión a través del análisis de los volúmenes de 2008 y 2009 de siete publicaciones académicas que focalizan la investigación en periodismo. La muestra incluye 349 artículos publicados en Brazilian Journalism Research, Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, Journalism & Communication Monographs, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Pacific Journalism Review, Journalism Studies, y Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism. De manera general, las conclusiones revelan que la investigación en periodismo utiliza principalmente enfoques teóricos y métodos empíricos derivados de otras disciplinas, en especial de la sociología, la psicología y los estudios culturales. Sin embargo, en muchos países los estudios de periodismo ya han alcanzado un nivel comparativamente alto de institucionalización, indicado por el gran número de escuelas específicas, cargos de profesor, asociaciones profesionales y publicaciones académicas. Como conclusión, defendemos la tesis de que los estudios de periodismo son un subdominio de los estudios de comunicación que integra y trasciende varias disciplinas con vistas a convertirse en una de las materias más importantes del siglo XXI

The diversity of scholarship on journalism: how journalism journals reflect theories, methods, and topics of journalism research - a content analysis (2008-2009)

Over the course of time various changes in journalism created a diverse media landscape. Since generally journalism studies are closely linked to its object, this leads to the question whether the diversity of journalism is reflected by journalism studies. To answer this question, we conducted a content analysis of academic articles published in seven peer-reviewed English language journalism journals. In sum, the paper will lay open gaps and desiderata, draw conclusions and suggest possible improvements for future journalism studies in an emerging media landscape

Kategorisierung der von der Europäischen Union aufgelisteten terroristischen Gruppen gemäß ihrer Motive

States and international organizations have compiled lists of a great variety of terrorist groups. The current European Union list includes 44 entities. This study analyzes the underlying motives of the terrorist organizations named in this list. In order to understand the groups’ motivations and consequently be able to advise on methods of countering them with communication strategies, we employ a three-item typology provided by Waldmann (2001). The results show that only five of the 44 groups were religiously motivated to commit terrorism. Most of the groups (n=20) had nationalist-separatist motives, and 19 groups displayed social-revolutionary motives. Based on the respective motives, differing counter-terrorism strategies are proposed, e.g., developing rhetorical counter-narratives that address and reduce the groups’ motivational and identity-generating characteristics.Es existiert eine Fülle an Auflistungen von Terroristengruppen, zusammengestellt von Staaten und Staatenverbünden. Die Liste der Europäischen Union enthält derzeit 44 solcher Gruppen. Die vorliegende Studie analysiert die Motive dieser Gruppen, um daraus Kommunikationsstrategien abzuleiten, wie diesen zu entgegnen sei. Dazu wird eine dreigliedrige Typologie nach Waldmann (2001) zugrunde gelegt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass ausschließlich religiös motivierter Terrorismus lediglich bei fünf der 44 analysierten Gruppen anzutreffen ist. Die meisten Gruppen (n=20) legen nationalistisch-separatistische Motive an den Tag; 19 Gruppen beziehen sich auf sozial-revolutionäre Motive. Es wird vorgeschlagen, je nach Motiv eine unterschiedliche rhetorische Gegenstrategie zu entwerfen, die spezifisch auf die jeweils identifizierten motivationalen und Identität generierenden Faktoren eingeht beziehungsweise diese widerlegt

Identifying normativity in communication research: a typology and a framework for assessing scientific and extrascientific norms

Normativity in communication research is indicated in identifying a problem, a theory, or a methodology; in interpreting empirical data; and in acknowledging a scholar’s association or affiliation with a particular school of thought. However, scholars are often not aware of—or do not acknowledge—their normative assumptions, resulting in the exclusion of audiences from their arguments. This article, therefore, in arguing for an explication of norms in communication research, distinguishes among three levels of normativity, discusses the legitimacy of norms at those levels, and introduces a framework that enables scholars to reflect on their norms, an action that will help them to further compare, bridge, and synthesize different perspectives, theories, and methodologies in communication scholarship