Do media systems matter?

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-63
Author(s):  
José Santana-Pereira

Abstract This article reports a comparative analysis of the media’s political agenda setting capacity in 27 European media systems, aimed at testing the hypothesis that the magnitude of this phenomenon is moderated by factors such as development of the press markets, journalist professionalization, strength of public television or political pluralism. The empirical analysis relies on data collected by the expert survey European Media Systems Survey, the World Association of Newspapers, the European Audiovisual Observatory, and the research project Providing an Infrastructure for Research on Electoral Democracy in the European Union (PIREDEU). Results show that political agenda setting is perceived as more common in press markets in which newspapers work as means of horizontal communication (and are, as subsystem, politically imbalanced), but that journalist professionalization and strength of public broadcasting systems foster political agenda setting effects.

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-226
Author(s):  
Soner Tauscher

Avrupa ülkelerinin alışık olduğu düzenli işçi göçü ve kontrollü sığınmacı alımı Suriye iç savaşının üst düzeye ulaştığı 2013/2014 yılından itibaren önemli bir değişim göstermektedir. Avrupa Birliği, kuruluşundan bu yana en yoğun mülteci göçüyle karşılaşmaktadır. Yaşanan bu kontrolsüz ve zorunlu göçe Avrupa toplumları ve devletleri hazırlıksız yakalanmıştır. Mülteci krizini ekonomik olarak fırsata çevirmek isteyen Almanya ise göçmenler için 2015 yazından itibaren açık kapı politikası uygulamaya başlamıştır. Ancak uygulanan açık kapı politikası Alman toplumunun azımsanmayacak bir kesiminde mültecilere ve Müslümanlara yönelik ağır ve şiddetli bir karşı kampanya ortaya çıkardı. Mülteciler ve Müslümanlar aşırı sağ toplumsal hareketlerin gösterilerinde “tecavüzcü”, “işgalci”, “kriminal dolandırıcılar” vb. sıfatlar ile birlikte anılmakta, medya da bu söylemlerin taşıyıcılığını yaparak kamusallaşmasını sağlamaktadır. Böylece aşırı sağı desteklemeyen, apolitik, ya da sığınmacılara karşı hoşgörülü davranan toplum kesimlerinde kamuoyu oluşturularak sığınmacı ve göçmenlere karşı olumsuz algı gündemde tutulmakta, politik olanın merkezine yerleştirilmektedir. Bu çalışmada öncelikle göçmenlere karşı aşırı sağ toplumsal hareketlerin oluşturduğu olumsuz söylemin McCombs ve Shaw’un Gündem Belirleme Kuramı (Agenda Setting Function) bağlamında medya tarafından siyasetin merkezine nasıl oturtulduğu tartışılacaktır. Ayrıca gündemde tutulan mültecilere yönelik olumsuz söylemin gerçeği yansıtıp yansıtmadığı, göçmenlerin ve sığınmacıların biyolojik Almanlardan daha çok suça meyilli olup olmadığı oluşturulan soyut söylemlerden ziyade Almanya İçişleri Bakanlığı’nın yıllık olarak yayınladığı Emniyet Suç İstatistikleri temel alınarak incelenecektir.ABSTRACT IN ENGLISHFar right movements in Germany and evaluation of media discourse of criminal immigrant in the light of official documentsFlows of regular worker migration and regular asylum seekers, of whom European countries are familiar, have significantly changed since 2013/2014 when the civil war of Syria reached its peak. The European Union face probably the most intensive refugee migration since its establishment. European societies and states have not been prepared for this uncontrolled and compulsory immigration. Germany seem to want to turn the refugee crisis into an economic opportunity as evident in their open door policy since the summer of 2015. However, implementation of open-door policy has led a substantial part of German society to a strong campaign against the refugees and Muslims. Refugees and Muslims are referred to as “rapists”, “invaders”, “criminal fraudsters”, and so on in demonstrations of far right movements and media has helped disseminating these discourses. Hence, this manipulated and hateful discourse tries to gain support from the segment of society wh normally does not support far right and often apolitical, or tolerant towards asylum seekers. In this study, the ways in which the negative discourse of far right social movements against immigrants is brought to the centre of the political agenda by media is analysed using the agenda setting framework by McCombs and Shaw. Then, the claims that immigrants are involved in crime, or they are prone to be criminals are analysed and contrasted with the data obtained from the annual Crime and Safety Reports of the German Ministry of the Interior.


2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (8) ◽  
pp. 1118-1150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amie Kreppel ◽  
Buket Oztas

Setting the political agenda is a critical and usually powerful aspect of policy making. However, the ability to set the agenda, without any significant decision-making powers, can undermine this influence, leaving a technical agenda setter without substantive political influence. This research examines the difference between technical and political agenda setting through an analysis of the policy impact of the Commission of the European Union (EU). Using two newly developed databases on Commission policy priorities and all adopted EU legislation, as well as the Decision Making in the European Union (DEU II) dataset, we investigate the ability of the Commission to shape EU legislative outcomes to reflect its policy preferences between 2000 and 2011. Our analyses highlight the comparative weakness of the Commission’s policy influence, despite its formal monopoly of legislative initiation. In this way, we argue for a need to carefully differentiate between technical and political agenda setters when evaluating the policy influence of different political actors.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s222-s222
Author(s):  
Pita Spruijt ◽  
Paul Bergervoet ◽  
Robbin Westerhof ◽  
Merel Langelaar ◽  
Marie-Cécile Ploy

Background: In 2016, the European Union adopted unanimously Council Conclusions on the next steps to combat antimicrobial resistance under a One Health approach. To implement some of the provisions laid down in the Council Conclusions, a European Joint Action on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) and Healthcare-Associated Infections (HCAI) or EU-JAMRAI was set up, gathering 44 partners. Methods: As part of EU-JAMRAI, 13 participating European countries set up a country-to-country peer review system to evaluate each other’s national action plans (NAPs). This review system entailed a self-assessment, strengths–weaknesses–opportunities–threats (SWOT) analysis, and country visits. All steps were executed with representatives from both the human and the veterinary domains (One Health approach). Special attention was given to supervision and the way supervision can enhance the implementation of guidelines on AMR, both at the policy level and within healthcare institutions. Results: Despite differences in the stage of developing and implementing NAPs, all 13 countries are working on NAPs. In this process, country visits function as a moment to exchange best practices and to provide an outsider’s point of view. At the end of 2019, 13 country-to-country visits had taken place, resulting in tailor-made recommendations for each country. These recommendations were shared with the competent authority. An example is a country that used the recommendation to improve infection prevention as an immediate reason to get the topic on the agenda of the Ministry of Health. During the country visits, intersectoral participation was perceived as desirable, but in some cases it was challenging to arrange. For some highly relevant topics, it has been recognized that discussion should take place on a European level. Examples of such topics include supervision, infection prevention guidelines, funding, surveillance, and regular audits of antibiotic prescriptions for physicians including feedback loops. Conclusions: Peer review is a cooperative and friendly working method compared to common audits. The country visits function as an agenda setting tool to get or to keep AMR on the political agenda and presenting the most relevant topic(s) to address for each country.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None


1985 ◽  
Vol 100 (2) ◽  
pp. 331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Armstrong ◽  
Barbara J. Nelson

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Sevenans

While political agenda-setting scholars agree that the news media matter when it comes to agenda setting, surprisingly, there is no consensus on the exact role these media play in the agenda-setting process. In particular, causal interpretations of the media’s role are diverse. This contribution focuses on this ambiguity in the agenda-setting field. First, it outlines the main reasons for the disagreement, both on a theoretical and on an empirical level. Second, it develops a theoretical model that helps to specify what role the news media play under various circumstances. Overall, the paper strongly encourages scholars to reflect more on causal mechanisms in political agenda-setting work, and makes a first attempt at facilitating the interpretation of extant and future findings.


2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bettina Becker ◽  
Martin Theuringer

AbstractContingent Protection, and in particular Antidumping (AD), has grown to become an important trade restricting device in the European Union (EU). This paper analyses whether internal and external macroeconomic pressure may contribute to explain the variations in the intensity of AD policy in the EU. The empirical analysis shows that the filing activity is inversely related to the domestic macroeconomic situation. This result suggests that AD is more a tool of protectionism rather than an instrument to countervail alleged unfair import competition.


Author(s):  
Marcus Maurer

Political agenda setting is the part of agenda-setting research that refers to the influence of the media agenda on the agenda of political actors. More precisely, the central question of political agenda-setting research is whether political actors adopt the issue agenda of the news media in various aspects ranging from communicating about issues that are prominently discussed in the news media to prioritizing issues from the news media agenda in political decision making. Although such effects have been studied under different labels (agenda building, policy agenda setting) for several decades, research in this field has recently increased significantly based on a new theoretical model introducing the term political agenda setting. Studies based on that model usually find effects of media coverage on the attention political actors pay to various issues, but at the same time point to a number of contingent conditions. First, as found in research on public agenda setting, there is an influence of characteristics of news media (e.g., television news vs. print media) and issues (e.g., obtrusive vs. unobtrusive issues). Second, there is an influence of characteristics of the political context (e.g., government vs. oppositional parties) and characteristics of individual politicians (e.g., generalists vs. specialists). Third, the findings of studies on the political agenda-setting effect differ, depending on which aspects of the political agenda are under examination (e.g., social media messages vs. political decision making).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document