Re-emerging Discourse:
Assessing the German Press Coverage of the Census Debates 1987 and 2011
Master Thesis
Research Master Communication Science
Graduate School of Communication
University of Amsterdam
Marco Lünich
10393684
University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: dr. Richard van der Wurff
Date: June 26th, 2014
i
Abstract
This study assessed the working of the public sphere in the recurring census debate in Germany.
With regard to developments in the media, society, and politics potential differences were
investigated between the debates in 1987 and 2011. A content analysis of press coverage was
conducted for different types of press (i.e., quality newspapers, the alternative press, and the
tabloids). Indicators were based on the normative criteria of democratic public sphere models.
Results show that the overall coverage of the census decreased significantly in 2011, even
though privacy concerns are of ongoing importance for the citizenry. The findings did not show a
comprehensive trend for the mediated public sphere. The analysis of the process of discourse, the
styles of speech, and the discussion of solutions suggest that the media coverage performed
worse in 2011. However, the latter debate showed an improvement towards more balance of
speakers, as journalists and political periphery speakers had a higher share of arguments. Overall,
the diversity of speakers is similar compared with previous discourses and there was greater
empowerment and more responsiveness in the arguments than in prior studies. Such findings
might be attributed to the less intimate, but highly controversial topic at hand. Furthermore, the
results suggest ambiguous developments between the tabloid press and outlets from the quality
and alternative press in terms of incivility and the justification of arguments. Contrary to the
discourse in 1987, tabloids reported more neutral but also more superficial in the latter debate. In
general, the public sphere fell short of its normative ideals. Still, the diversity of speakers and the
discussion of solutions show a considerable participation and solution orientation of the census
debate. Consequently, future research of other issues may put an emphasis on the evaluation of
speakers and the content of their arguments in different arenas of the public sphere.
ii
Keywords: Public Sphere, Deliberation, Content Analysis, Census Debate, Discussion of
Problems and Solutions
Re-emerging Discourse
1
Re-emerging Discourse: Assessing the German Press Coverage of the Census Debates 1987
and 2011
A national population census is a recurring event in developed countries. In a census the
state aims at gathering certain data about its people such as the general population count, age
distribution, and living circumstances. In the European Union a census is required to take place
every ten years in each member state. However, different countries use different methods to
compile the national statistics. For instance, in Germany the last two major censuses took place
in 1987 and 2011. They were based on responses from a majority of the population, as the
government decided not to use existing databases to assemble the data, but to directly survey the
people (or a randomly chosen one-third of the population and all house owners in 2011,
respectively). The censuses thus personally concerned all 80 million inhabitants. Considerable
controversy was raised because a census is accompanied with privacy concerns and issues such
as the costs, the objectives, and usefulness as well as the representativeness of the inquiry and its
method.
As a consequence, there are nearly identical arguments for and against a census in 1987
and 2011 that resulted in a societal debate in each year. In this study, the focus lies on a complete
assessment of the quality of a discourse in the media that plays out over a limited period of time
of media coverage around the date of the census. This discourse is picked up again after several
years have passed with no explicit discussion about a census in between. Thus, the approach at
hand falls in line with Wessler (2008), who calls for more research on discourse in the media and
the public sphere in a comparative perspective.
Consequently, this study aims at contrasting substantial changes and their magnitude with
respect to a well-defined discussion topic in the mediated public sphere. In this regard, the debate
Re-emerging Discourse
2
differs from studies that arbitrarily investigated issues that had no specific time frame. For
instance, Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards, and Rucht (2002a, 2002b) analyzed the abortion discourse
in the USA and Germany, while Wessler (1999) addressed the German press coverage on drugs
over the years, adding a long-term process perspective on the workings of the discourse.
To a certain extent, those previous studies addressed over-arching changes in the
landscape of journalism, the media, society, and politics. Their research objects, however, are
broad and involve a lot of different multi-dimensional topics (e.g., illegal vs. legal drugs, medical
vs. recreational drugs). Hence, they differ from the census debate with respect to the topical and
temporal specifics of the discourse in the public sphere.
The Censuses and the Public Sphere
According to Marcinkowski there are certain conceptions defining the general public
sphere. To begin with, “the term refers to the institutionalization of a realm of social life for the
exchange of information and opinions” (2008, p. 4041) that is described above with the societal
discussion of the pro and contra concerning the census. To be more precise, it “is the act of free
citizens gathering together for debate in order to achieve a rational regulation of public affairs”
(p. 4041) such as the execution of the census. The public sphere is seen as “a political process in
which common cause is built through the search for solutions to problems initially encountered
as private concerns” (Johnson, 2009, p. 1, emphasis added). Eventually, the public sphere plays
out in different “spaces in which public communication regularly takes place: streets and
squares, formal and informal gathering places, publicly meeting institutions of the political
system, and the arena of the mass media” (Marcinkowski, 2008, p. 4041f.).
This study is particularly interested in how the public debate on the censuses in 1987 and
2011 played out in the mass media. For most people, mass media outlets are primary sources to
Re-emerging Discourse
learn about information and opinions concerning critical societal issues (McQuail, 2010).
Newspapers especially are seen as significant providers for daily information concerning public
affairs and recent developments (Ghanem, 2008). Despite steadily decreasing circulation
numbers, they are still seen as relevant for the formation of public opinion and are a crucial
source of information for decision makers in politics and the economy (Schenk & Mangold,
2011). Thus, this study investigates the quality of debate with special regard to the media
coverage of the major press outlets from different types of press that exist in Western media
systems such as Germany (McQuail, 2010; Hallin & Mancini, 2000).
To assess the quality of the debate, we will first give an overview of the normative
conceptions of different democratic models of the public sphere. Their most important criteria
for evaluation refer to the participants, the process, and the styles of speech present in a public
discourse and are extended by the public discussion of solutions. Based on such normative
criteria, we will introduce indicators from the literature that help to address and measure them.
We will then turn to an analysis of the press coverage in 1987 and 2011 that tries to answer the
following research question:
How did the public sphere in Germany operate in the public debate on the national censuses in
1987 and 2011?
In answering this question this study aims at using a comparative perspective on the
public discourse in the media about a recurring issue. Addressing the different qualities of this
mediated public discourse in a democratic society in depth might lead to an understanding of
how societies and their media manage controversial and complex issues over time. Insights will
be gained of what a debate looks like if it reappears after a certain time interval without
discourse in-between. The census debate in Germany is used as an exemplary model that can
3
Re-emerging Discourse
4
serve as an indication for other substantial issues that nations occasionally face, such as social
reforms or dangerous technical developments, but also war and natural disasters. In such
instances it is important to understand how discourse in the public sphere plays out, so all
stakeholders in a democratic society can make informed decisions and take well-conceived
actions.
Theoretical Models of the Public Sphere and Their Normative Criteria
Jarren and Donges (2002) suggest that any empirical-analytic conceptions of the public
sphere and respective indicators are necessarily based on a variety of normative assumptions
constructed on distinct concepts of democracy. Thus, differences in the normative assumptions
of the theories of the public sphere concerning the media and journalism have to be thoroughly
discussed before any empirical investigation can begin.
Strömbäck (2005) reviews the normative implications for journalism based on different
models of democracy. As his procedural democracy model has no normative implications for
journalism, only the competitive model, the participatory model, and the deliberative model are
discussed. Those models have specific demands for journalism and the public sphere with regard
to how the discourse should look. In particular, Strömbäck places significant emphasis on how
the stakeholders in the mediated debate should behave and be involved with the discourse. He
also addresses the mechanisms of the process and style of debate in the media. This is very
similar to the guiding questions of Ferree et al. (2002a) in their respective discussion of different
models of the public sphere (see also Wessler, 2008):
•
“Who participates?
•
In what sort of process?
•
How ideas should be presented?” (Ferree et al., 2002a, p. 316)
Re-emerging Discourse
5
The distinct models of the public sphere have different normative perspectives and
consequently different demands and answers to the questions above. Based on the similar
demands of Strömbäck and Ferree and colleagues the normative criteria for the different models
will now be introduced and possible indicators from previous research are connected to their
concepts. Eventually, the performance of the different concepts and indicators might suggest
which model of the public sphere can describe the public debate of the censuses in 1987 and
2011.
The Participants in the Public Debate
With regard to all of the different models of the public sphere an important question is
usually who participates and contributes to a discussion. Models such as the representative liberal
model of Ferree et al. (2002a) and Strömbäck´s concept of competitive democracy (2005) see it
as sufficient if the diversity of speakers appropriately reflects the composition of political and
ideological perspectives as found in parliament to guarantee a free marketplace of different ideas.
This way, all relevant societal interests are represented via party speakers that voice their interest
on behalf of the voters. The voter consequently does not participate in the discussion but can
make an enlightened decision at election time based on the media´s ability to transparently
document and report on issues. In this conception, the focus lies predominantly on the expertise
of the speaker that qualifies him or her to participate and contribute to the discussion.
In contrast, other models require popular inclusion and thus place more emphasis on the
participatory element of democracy and its citizens. “The common thread in participatory liberal
theories is the desirability of maximizing the participation of citizens in the public decisions that
affect their lives” (Ferree et al., 2002a, p. 295). More specifically, Strömbäck states for the
participatory model of democracy that “the role of citizens is active. In order for democracy to
Re-emerging Discourse
6
thrive, people must be actively engaged in public life and part of political processes and decision
making” (2005, p. 340).
With regard to who gets to speak in the deliberative model of the public sphere, Wessler
calls the assessment of the diversity of speakers “the central yardstick for assessing public
deliberation” (2008, p.1). Thus, deliberative democracy also calls for popular inclusion. The
measurement of the diversity of speakers must consequently take into account a broad range of
possible participants. For instance, it should include speakers from the political center (e.g., from
government, administration, and judiciary) and the periphery of the political system (e.g., civic
associations, ordinary citizens, artists, etc.) to distinguish actors with institutional power from
actors with less of such power (Wessler, 2008; Ferree et al., 2002b).
The Process of Public Discourse
While the assessment of the diversity of speakers is an important aspect of the public
sphere and its normative conceptions, a second relevant perspective for the evaluation of the
public sphere is in “what sort of process” (Ferree et al., 2002a, p. 316) the discourse is held. To
begin with, the process of discussion can foster empowerment. Ferree et al. define empowerment
as “the extent to which the mass media provide support and encouragement of a sense that, by
acting together, grass-roots constituencies can influence the policies and conditions that affect
their daily life" (2002b, p. 236). This resembles Strömbäck´s call for journalism to “mobilize the
citizens’ interest, engagement and participation in public life” (2005, p. 341).
Empowerment provides people with the opportunity and encouragement to speak up in
the media and is an important normative criterion in participatory models of the public sphere.
With regard to the opportunity for citizens to speak up on issues and different from the
Re-emerging Discourse
7
representative model, their appearance can give a first hint at the empowerment of ordinary
citizens in the media.
While the aforementioned indicators refer to their respective concept´s presence in the
article, the following indicators are present in the arguments made by individual speakers to give
more detailed insights into the discussion (Wessler, 2008; Ferree et al., 2002b). For instance,
presented arguments should justify how society and its citizens profit in order to help the citizens
understand. Steenbergen, Bächtiger, Spörndli, and Steiner (2003) address this as the content of a
justification. They propose to base the reasoning for or against an argument on either specific
group interest or the common interest of citizens. Furthermore, empowerment is seen as the
encouragement to show citizens that they have the capability to bring about social change and to
show ordinary citizens how to act to overcome a problem. For instance, arguments can explain
that the solution to a problem can be brought about on the individual level of the citizen (Kim &
Willis, 2007). Beyond that, the speaker can encourage or even demand that the citizens perform a
specific action in an argument (Kensicki, 2004; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000).
While empowerment is important in participatory conceptions of the public sphere,
discursive or deliberative conceptions place a high value on the deliberative quality of the
discussion. Not only is it important that citizens have their say in the debate, but that the sharing
of their ideas plays out in a considerate, well-reasoned, and mutually recognized manner. Even
though Ferree et al. (2002a) refer to the process of discourse as deliberative most aspects of the
deliberative quality of discourse touch upon the style of utterances and consequently how ideas
should be presented.
Re-emerging Discourse
8
The Styles of Public Discourse
With regard to the question of how ideas in public democratic discourse should be
presented there are different styles of speech that the different models of the public sphere refer
to. While the norm in the representative liberal model by Ferree et al. (2002a) is a detached and
civil style their participatory liberal model recognizes different kinds of styles that might also
include incivility – that is the absence of certain standards of politeness and courtesy
(Papacharissi, 2004). The reason is that “polemical speech acts or symbols that capture the
emotional loading of public issues as well as their cognitive content can play a very important
mobilizing role” (Ferree et al., 2002a, p. 298).
According to the deliberative quality of a discourse, which is seen as a crucial normative
criterion in the discursive model, there are additional indicators of different deliberative
dimensions that refer to the style of speech (Ferree et al., 2002a). Rinke, Wessler, Löb, and
Weinmann (2013) single out three major aspects that are based on theoretical considerations in
the literature of mediated deliberation (Gastil, 2008; Wessler, 2008).
Deliberation starts with the need for mutual respect that includes especially the presence
of civility mentioned above. Furthermore, based on Bennett et al. (2004), deliberation requires
responsiveness, which “involves recognizing, incorporating, and rebutting the arguments of
others” (Ferree et al., 2002a, p. 306). On the one hand, this means that the discussion should
include speakers with opposing views and of different tone – positive, neutral or negative –
towards the issue. On the other hand, it is important that their arguments refer to each other in a
dialogue (Ferree et al., 2002a; Rinke et al., 2013; Wessler, 2008). This dialogue involves the type
of arguments of the speaker, which can either be about (1) the census in general, (2) another
Re-emerging Discourse
9
speaker without addressing his or her argument, or (3) about another speaker´s argument. It also
involves rebuttals, i.e., a speaker refers to another speaker´s argument and tries to refute it.
Eventually, a necessary requirement of deliberation is reason-giving (Rinke et al., 2013;
Wessler, 2008). This is addressed by the extent to which one justifies one´s arguments.
Steenbergen et al. (2003) introduce the level of justification of an argument as a necessary part of
reason-giving that assesses the extent to which an argument is justified by the speakers. This
ranges from giving no reference why a speaker regards his argument as justified, over arguments
that give a broad general justification, up to specified justifications, where an argument contains
a detailed reasoning for its justification.
The presented normative criteria and their indicators for the public discourse help to
assess the state of the mediated public sphere. Expecting potential differences in terms of the
indicators in between both census debates, we turn to closer considerations of the potential
developments in society and the media.
The Census Debate in the Public Sphere
While there are no specific considerations that the societal situation in Germany has
dramatically changed between the census debate in 1987 and 2011 (i.e., a system change such as
in the Soviet countries), there are some likely differences because of general developments in the
media that need to be addressed. Concerning the question who is participating in the public
sphere, mass communication research already has a long tradition of communicator research
analyzing the different stakeholders in public communication. A recurring theme here is that of
elite dominance, in which a small elite of political and societal actors receives the biggest share
of attention and opportunities to speak (Norris, 2000; Schudson, 2003; Tuchman, 1978). While
the participatory and discursive conceptions of the public sphere call for popular inclusion,
Re-emerging Discourse
10
Wessler (2008) mentions two reasons why this is most likely not a realistic case and how it could
even be detrimental to public discussion: On the one hand there is the limited carrying capacity
of the media and on the other hand “it would also undermine the capacity of public deliberation
to produce new, interesting, relevant, and competent ideas rather than just any kinds of ideas”
(2008, p. 3).
The development of increasing personalization of politics (McAllister, 2007) and the
mediatization of politics (Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999) might add to the effect of elite dominance,
but also concern the presentation of ideas. Wessler (2008) argues that the media´s focus on
personalization, i.e., the focus on (powerful or famous) persons might restrict the likelihood for
deliberation, which rather concerns the discourse of issues. Accordingly, the mediatization of
politics requests speakers to adhere to a media logic. Attention is given to the speaker who is
able to cater to the requirements of the media and their preferred news values such as negativity
and unexpectedness (Blumler & Kavanagh, 1999; Harcup & O’Neill, 2001). It might thus be
assumed that professional speakers from the political center are better prepared than ordinary
citizens to fulfill such requirements of the media – be it because they are better trained or more
experienced for such situations (Negrine & Lilleker, 2002). Consequently, it could be expected
that the diversity of speakers is imbalanced, tending to favor speakers from the political center
and a certain kind of presentation of ideas that devalues reasoned and in-depth discussion of
arguments. It might also be expected that the higher the focus on a limited set of speakers
(especially from the political center) the lower the deliberative quality of the discourse as there
would initially be fewer chances for different speakers to engage in mutual discourse (Bennett et
al., 2004).
Re-emerging Discourse
11
Prior empirical research suggests that the state of the diversity of speakers, of
empowerment, and of deliberation falls short of its theoretically imagined ideal (Ferree et al.
2002b, Bennett et al., 2004). There is no argument to assume that this has changed for the better,
but rather to have worsened based on the aforementioned considerations.
RQ1: To what extent is there a difference between the diversity of speakers in the census debate
in Germany in 1987 and 2011?
RQ2: To what extent is there a difference between the sort of process of the census debate in
Germany in 1987 and 2011?
While the two former questions address the participants and process of discourse in the
public sphere, there are also considerations concerning the style of debate. With regard to the
media system and its latest development introduced above there are also potential influences on
said styles. For instance, research that investigates TV news and sound bites of speakers finds
less and less time dedicated to the arguments of politicians and other speakers (Esser, 2008;
Hallin, 1992). Accordingly, it might be suspected that there is also less room for dialogue in
newspapers. This might also be associated with the general trend towards horse race journalism
(Iyengar, Norpoth, & Hahn, 2004). This trend where the media focuses on a candidate´s
performance and not on the public issue might not be as severe as sometimes imagined
(Sigelman & Bullock, 1991). Still, it might negatively influence the amount of space given to
dialogue.
As far as other important aspects of the style of debate, there might be considerable
differences between the different types of press (McQuail, 2010). For instance, one could also
assume that especially tabloid newspapers paid higher attention to utterances that were uncivil.
After all, tabloids are known for favoring sensationalism (Örnebring & Jönsson, 2004). Then
Re-emerging Discourse
12
again, the market for newspaper journalism significantly changed in the last years because of
dwindling circulation numbers, which resulted in a newspaper crisis (Siles & Boczkowski,
2012). Consequently, there could be increased competitiveness between newspapers altogether
that diminished differences in reporting news between the distinct press types (Blumler &
Kavanagh, 1999). This might eventually also lead to less variation regarding the discussion in
2011 in terms of style of speech of the reported arguments. Based on the developments in the
media system described above, there might be differences concerning the styles of speech in the
debate.
RQ3: To what extent is there a difference in the styles of speech in the census debate in Germany
in 1987 and 2011 and in the different newspapers?
The Discussion of Solutions
When we look at the conceptual components of the models of the public sphere and the
discussed indicators, it becomes obvious that they are mostly referring to the procedure and style
of the discourse. None of the indicators directly discuss the content of the arguments and the
necessity to address concrete solutions or at least the process of deriving to them. While
questions on speakers and the process and style of their discourse are important, the discussion of
solutions is also a crucial part of the function of a democratic media system from a normative
perspective. All normative models aim for a working democracy with outcomes based on
different forms of closure for which solutions need to be found (Ferree et al., 2002a). For
instance, Gastil states one of the core requirements for the media with regard to mediated
deliberation: “Present the broadest possible range of solutions to problems, including
nongovernmental and unpopular ones” (2008, p. 52). Even the least demanding form of
Re-emerging Discourse
13
procedural democracy supports the marketplace of ideas and thus the discussion of various
solutions (Strömbäck, 2005).
Consequently, solutions to overcome issues fit well into the normative criteria of the
mediated public discourse, since media theory sees the mass media for better or worse as
important agents of social change (McQuail, 2010). More specifically, when discussing the
normative implications for journalism Strömbäck sees the following requirement for journalists:
“They should try to find the information necessary to understand a particular issue, and be able
to link factual conditions, underlying moral values, and proposed solutions as to what
consequences are likely” (2005, p. 337, emphasis added). He demands that politics is not framed
as a strategic game such as in horse race journalism (Broh, 1980; Rinke et al., 2013), but that
“journalism should frame politics as a continuous process of finding solutions to common
problems” (Strömbäck, 2005, p. 341).
This study consequently also wants to emphasize the content of the discourse and the
empirical assessment of the discussion of solutions in particular. Similar to the complex latent
constructs introduced above (e.g., empowerment, deliberative quality), the discussion of
solutions possesses different dimensions and consequently different indicators. Thus, previous
empirical approaches on the discussion of solutions are introduced to give an idea of what is
known about the mediated discussion of solutions and what aspects it should involve.
Empirical Approaches to the Discussion of Solutions
Concerning the discussion of solutions, research results so far are rather daunting. In
general, research finds the discussion of solutions in the media to be somewhat rare (Trumbo,
1996; Eickelkamp, 2011). Kensicki (2004) finds that US media coverage often does not mention
and discuss solutions when it comes to topics such as pollution, poverty, and incarceration. Kim
Re-emerging Discourse
14
and Willis (2007) find mixed results in their investigation on news framing of obesity in the US.
While solutions on the societal level received greater coverage over time, solutions on the
individual level decreased. Based on such previous findings there are potential differences
between the two debates in 1987 and 2011 in terms of the discussion of solutions.
RQ4: To what extent are solutions discussed in the census debate in Germany in 1987 and 2011?
Empirical communication research follows different approaches in content analyses to
investigate the aforementioned aspects of discussing problems and suggesting solutions and
remedies. Kensicki (2004) suggests that readers receive a general impression concerning critical
societal problems and their solutions in the media coverage. Thus, a multi-dimensional approach
to the discussion of a solution can give a better idea of how readers learn about potential
improvements and how and by whom those improvements might be achieved. A frequently
found basic approach initially asks if a story suggests whether there is a solution to a problem
(Kensicki, 2004; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). Some approaches go beyond this evaluation
and measure the solution discussion in more detail (Zhou & Moy, 2007; Kim & Willis, 2007).
To begin with an argument can refer to a problem or a problematic issue. This is not
necessarily the case but most often serves as a starting point to introduce solutions for said
problem. The leading question assessed in prior studies (Trumbo, 1996; Saguy & Almeling,
2008) is: “Does the argument address something as problematic?”. In a next step it is important
whether the argument sees room for improvement or if there is already a particular solution to
the problem. This is addressed by the indicator question “Does the argument suggest that there is
an improvement or a solution to the problem?” that is introduced in various studies (Semetko &
Valkenburg, 2000; Trumbo, 1996; Eickelkamp, 2011; Kensicki, 2004). Research by Saguy and
Almeling (2008) and Kim and Willis (2007) furthermore distinguishes between the levels on
Re-emerging Discourse
15
which a solution can be achieved. In his or her argument the speaker can see the solution either
on the individual level, the level of the group/an institution, or on the societal level. The indicator
question consequently asks, “On which level can the improvement be brought about?”.
Subsequently, it is of interest if the speaker mentions specific measures or proposed actions that
might be able to alleviate and improve problematic situations (Zhou & Moy, 2007, Kim &
Willis, 2007). It is thus of interest, if the argument addresses a specific treatment, action or
measure that aims at improving the problematic solution. While mentioning a specific action is
one possibility other studies specifically evaluate whether there is a call to action. The speaker
can suggest or even demand a specific course of action from someone. Based on prior studies,
this can be assessed by asking “Does the argument make an explicit call or suggestion for action
to improve the problematic situation?” (Zhou & Moy, 2007; Kensicki, 2004; Semetko &
Valkenburg, 2000).
All in all, those studies give a first idea of how to approach different aspects of the
discussion of solutions. However, each of them addressed distinct dimensions individually. Most
of them did so on the article level only, while the present study aims at investigating the five
aspects of the discussion of solutions also on the argument level.
Method and Data
The research questions were investigated by conducting a standardized quantitative
media content analysis of German press coverage in 1987 and 2011.
Content Analysis Time Frame and Sample
The time frame for each census debate has been selected based on a similar study
conducted by Hagen (1993) that based its analysis on a pre-study. The latter found that the
relevant media coverage took place roughly five months prior to and one month after the
Re-emerging Discourse
16
respective census date (25th of May, 1987 and 9th of May, 2011). Consequently, this time frame
(1st of January until 30th of June) was adopted for this study´s media coverage in 1987 and 2011,
respectively, to achieve comparability.
Four newspapers were selected that reflect a broad variety of influential German press
outlets, ranging from established quality newspapers over yellow press tabloids and alternative
media: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) is a center-right newspaper (Hagen, 1993)
with a mostly subscription-based circulation of 355.000 units in 1987 and 360.000 in 2011. The
Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) is a center-left newspaper (Hagen, 1993) with a mostly subscriptionbased circulation of 370.000 in 1987 and 430.000 units in 2011. The Bild Zeitung is a daily
tabloid newspaper with a circulation of roughly 4.800.000 units in 1987 and 2.900.000 units in
2011. Taz – die tageszeitung is the dominant alternative left-wing newspaper with a mostly
subscription-based circulation of 84.000 units in 1987 and 18.500 units in 20111.
All articles by the four newspapers that addressed the census and were issued within the
time frame were collected. Due to the unavailability of the newspapers (except the taz) in digital
format for 1987, archived newspapers were consulted and screenshots of relevant pages and
articles were taken. It is possible that a few articles that mentioned the census might have been
accidently but unsystematically missed because all material needed to be manually scanned on
microfilm. For the press coverage in 2011, all articles were downloaded from digital databases or
bought directly from the publishing company. Due to the abundance of articles in 1987 for three
of the four newspapers (taz, FAZ, and SZ) a random sample of exactly one-third of the articles
was drawn and coded.
1
Despite its decline in hard copy circulation the taz still plays a considerable role in the German media landscape,
which can also be seen in the 5 million unique visits to their online outlet in May 2011 where the taz publishes all of
its print articles free of charge.
Re-emerging Discourse
17
Coding Procedure and Pre-Test
An extensive pre-testing phase ensured sufficient reliability of the codebook. In a first
step, after a detailed discussion of the codebook and coder training, two German native speakers
coded a sample of articles that addressed the census but did not belong to the sampling
population for the eventual study (such as local reports from other newspapers). Following this
first coding procedure the problematic categories were adjusted, coding categories were
condensed, and coding instructions were clarified and/or extended.
In a second step, coding 32 arguments from randomly selected articles, the same two
coders revealed satisfactory inter-coder reliability based on Krippendorf´s Alpha coefficients. All
Alpha values of the measures are reported below. The reliability values were obtained by opting
for a “hard” coding approach whereby coders only coded a category if indicators were manifest
in the argument (Früh, 2011; Berelson, 1952). Thus, it could be that sometimes a meaning inbetween the lines was present, but was not coded because of potential ambiguous interpretation
by the coders. In the experience of the coders there was hardly any ambiguity present in the press
coverage, as the focus of the present study was on political news and information. Still, the data
at hand might underestimate certain categories for the sake of good inter-coder reliability.
Measures
The codebook of the content analysis addressed the concepts and constructs that were
introduced in the theoretical section. Most measures were consequently based on previous
studies as indicated above. The recording units were on the one hand the whole article and on the
other hand each unique argument made in the article (Riffe, Lacy, & Fico, 2006). Initially, the
argument and its components need to be defined: Adapted from Ferree et al. (2002b), an
argument is a directly repeated or indirectly referenced utterance (i.e., speaking act) by an
Re-emerging Discourse
18
identifiable actor over a distinct subject within an article. There are consequently three criteria
for demarcation that distinguish an argument (1) from other arguments, (2) from arguments from
other actors, and (3) from general statements that are not counted as arguments at all. Arguments
are distinguished from each other by their thematic reference to a specific topic that they
evaluate. If the topic changes there is a new argument. There also needs to be a speaker that
gives the argument. This speaker is either directly giving the argument (Helmut Kohl says:
“XYZ”) or the author of the article is citing the speaking act (Helmut Kohl said XYZ). It is also
possible that an argument is made, but no speaker is identified. In such a case the argument is
attributed to the journalist (e.g., “XYZ is not good”). A new argument is coded when the speaker
changes. Mere statements that refer to general actions and are not directly or indirectly repeated
(evaluative) speaking acts by any speaker (e.g., “Kohl arrived in Bonn.”) are no arguments.
Formal Categories on the Article Level
The first categories from the codebook addressed the formal features of the respective
article and were coded on the article level. Those variables were the article ID, the date of
publication, and the outlet.
Categories on the Argument Level
The most important unit of analysis was the argument. Categories coded on the level of
the argument were the type of speaker2, who made the argument (Krippendorf´s α = .959). A list
of potential speakers that reflects a broad variety of different societal stakeholders was adopted
from studies conducted by Wessler (2008, 1999) and Rinke et al. (2013). Their measure does not
just cover the requested broad range of possible speakers but also differentiates between the
political center and the periphery to distinguish between actors with and without political power.
2
All measures introduced in the following paragraphs can be found in the codebook of this study in Appendix A.
Re-emerging Discourse
19
The tone of the argument (α = .946) concerning the census was adapted from Schuck and
de Vreese´s study on public support for the EU enlargement (2006). With this measure the
speaker´s argument can be evaluated as either positive, negative, or balanced/neutral (“indicating
no dominant evaluative direction”, p. 14) towards the census.
The type of argument (α = .938) was based on the distinction by Ferree et al. (2002b) of
what the argument referred to. It could address the census itself, another speaker or another
speaker´s argument. This distinction was made to distinguish statements that addressed another
speaker or his or her argument and could consequently contain incivility and responsiveness. For
instance, an indicator for rebuttals (Ferree et al., 2002b) is whether the argument rejects or
approves another speaker’s argument (α = .937). Incivility (α = .933) can be measured by several
indicator questions adopted from Papacharissi (2004) that consider different dimensions of
incivility such as impoliteness and mutual respect (see also Rinke et al., 2013; Zhang, Cao, &
Tran, 2012).
Based on Steenbergen et al. (2003) the measures level of justification (α = .904) and the
content of the justification (α = .932) were used. The former evaluated the argument as having
either no justification at all, or having a general or a specified justification. The latter measures
whether the argument is based on a specific group interest or the common interest of the people.
Eventually the five questions related to the discussion of solutions were introduced that
were discussed above. First, it was coded if the argument discussed something as problematic (α
= .848). In a next step it was assessed if the argument mentioned at least the possibility of an
improvement or a specific solution (α = .875) of the situation. Supposing this was the case, it had
to be assessed on which level (α = .896) the argument locates the possible improvement
(individual, group/institutional and societal level, or two or more levels at the same time). The
Re-emerging Discourse
20
next category assessed if the argument contained specific measure or action (α = .938) that
might bring about the improvement. Another category assessed whether a call to action (α =
.798) was made or if a specific measurement or course of action was explicitly suggested or
demanded.
Method of Analysis
To answer the four research questions, the findings of the respective indicators on the
argument level will be compared for 1987 and 2011 on the basis of Chi-Square difference tests.
Subsequently, for each research question we will compare the findings over all newspapers
between the two debates. As research question three concerns differences in the style of speech
in the media coverage in the different types of press there will be an additional investigation of
the arguments in the newspapers from the quality press (FAZ & SZ), the alternative press (taz),
and the tabloid press (Bild) between the two debates.
Results
As discussed above a random sample of one-third of all articles was drawn from three of
the four newspapers for the 1987 period. This resulted in 84 articles in the taz that referenced the
keyword “census.” The samples of the FAZ and SZ consisted of 65 and 49 coded articles,
respectively. Only for the Bild were all 67 articles from 1987 coded. On the contrary, in 2011 all
articles that addressed the census were coded. There were 35 articles coded for the taz, 10 for the
FAZ, 14 for the SZ, and 9 articles coded for the Bild. Looking at the number of articles in both
census debates there were altogether fewer articles in 2011 (N= 68) than in the 1987 sample (n =
263). On average there were 3.7 arguments per article in 1987 and 5.2 arguments per article in
Re-emerging Discourse
21
20113. The data analysis was eventually performed for n = 969 arguments in 1987 and N = 356
arguments in 2011.
Diversity of Speakers
To answer the first research question that asks whether there is a difference in the diversity of
speakers the results show there are some significant changes between the two debates. Overall in
1987 almost half of the speakers were from the political center (see Table 1). This share went
down to less than one-third in 2011. The share of speakers from the periphery rose at the same
time from one-quarter to one-third. Journalists represented the biggest change, increasing their
share from 22.4% to 35.7%. This difference in the distribution of the speaker groups between the
two debates is highly significant (Χ2(3, N=1325) = 46.06, p < .001).
Table 1
Amount of arguments of different speakers
1987
No. of
Relative
arguments
share
Political Center total
474
48.9%
Political Periphery total
243
25.1%
Journalists (Internal)
217
22.4%
Other
35
3.6%
N
969
2
Note. χ (3, N=1325) = 46.06, p < .001; Cramér’s V = .186
Type of speaker
2011
No. of
arguments
107
115
127
7
356
Relative
share
30.1%
32.3%
35.7%
2.0%
Eventually, in 2011 the share of arguments was more equally distributed between the
speakers than in 1987, with each group making roughly one-third of the arguments.
The Process of Discourse
The second research question asks whether there are differences in the process of
discourse between the years. Here the focus is on the indicators that evaluate the concept of
3
In 33 articles there was no argument found. Those were short reports that just addressed facts and events without
any quoted statements and evaluation.
Re-emerging Discourse
22
empowerment. Those indicators are the appearance of citizens and social movements as
speakers, as well as a justification based on the interest of the people and the individual level
where a solution can be brought about. Also of interest is whether a speaker who sees the
solution on the individual level of citizens calls them to action in his or her argument. Assessing
the prevalence of speakers that are citizens or social movements the results show that taken
together their share of arguments did significantly differ between 2011 and 1987 (χ2(1, N=1325)
= 6.33, p = .012). In 2011 the share of citizens and social movements was 13.2 percent of all
arguments compared to 8.6 percent in 1987.
Furthermore, the justification of arguments can contain a reference to the interest of the
people, i.e., the common interest. The results show that 2.7 percent of all arguments in 1987 and
4.5 percent of arguments in 2011 contained a reference to the interest of the people. In 5 percent
of all arguments in 1987 and 7 percent of the cases in 2011 the justification was based on a
specific group interest. Arguments that were not justified by any interest amounted to 92.4
percent in 1987 and 88.5 percent of all arguments in 2011. There was no significant difference of
referenced interests as the content of justification between the two points in time (χ2(2, N=1325)
= 5.15, p = .076).
Moreover, an argument can suggest that a solution can be brought about on the individual
level of the citizen. In 1987 10.4 percent of all arguments referred to this level of the solution. In
2011 this share amounted to 11.2 percent of the arguments. This difference was nonsignificant
and thus the content of justification stayed constant between both points of time (χ2(1, N=1325)
= 0.18, p = .671). In a next step it is interesting how often a speaker, who sees the solution on an
individual level, is explicitly encouraging or appealing to citizens to take action. In 1987, 43.6
percent of arguments that see the solution on the individual level make a call to action (0.5 % of
Re-emerging Discourse
23
all arguments in 1987). In four out of ten of such arguments in 2011 (0.5 % of all arguments in
2011), the speakers are calling the citizens to action. There is no difference in the share of such
arguments between both points in time (χ2(1, N=141) = 0.15, p = .700).
Different Types of Arguments in the Census Debates
Before discussing the styles of speech in the census debates, the results for the different
types of arguments in the debate are addressed, as some of the indicators only apply to certain
types of those arguments. The distribution shows a significant difference between the types of
given arguments in 1987 and 2011 (see Table 2). The majority of arguments at both points in
time did directly address the census and did not refer to any other speakers. In roughly 15 percent
of the cases in 1987 and 2011 the argument did only address another speaker. Reference to
another speaker´s argument was prevalent in one out of four arguments in 1987. This number
declined to 13 percent of all arguments in 2011.
Table 2
Distribution of the types of arguments in the newspapers in 1987 and 2011
1987
2011
Type of Argument concerns
No. of
Relative
No. of
…
arguments
share
arguments
Relative
share
… the census.
566
58.4%
261
73.3%
… another speaker.
143
14.8%
48
13.5%
… another speaker´s
argument.
260
26.8%
47
13.2%
Total
969
Note. χ2(2, N=1325) = 30.43, p < .001; Cramér’s V = .152
356
Re-emerging Discourse
24
The Style of Speech in the Census Debate
On the one hand, the third research question asked whether the styles of speech differed
between the two census debates. On the other hand, it addresses the difference in styles of speech
between the distinct newspapers, especially as it concerns their type of press. Consequently, the
results of different indicators such as the incivility of the debate and the deliberative quality are
reported. First, the difference between the two points in time is addressed, and then the results
for the different newspapers are evaluated.
Differences Between the Two Census Debates
With regard to uncivil arguments, the results show that of the arguments referring to
another speaker or to his or her argument 13.2 percent were uncivil in 1987 and 8.4 percent were
uncivil in 2011. This difference between the two years was non-significant χ2(1, N=498) = 1.60,
p = .206). On the contrary, the tonality of the arguments between the two years differed
significantly (see Table 3).
Table 3
Tonality of the arguments in 1987 and 2011
1987
2011
Tone of argument No. of arguments Relative share No. of arguments Relative share
Negative
158
16.3%
80
22.5%
Neutral/Balanced
679
70.1%
233
65.4%
Positive
132
13.6%
43
12.1 %
Total
969
Note. χ2(2, N=1325) = 6.79, p = .034; Cramér’s V = .152
356
Re-emerging Discourse
25
The majority of arguments in 1987 and 2011 were neutral or balanced. There were more
negative than positive arguments in both debates. However, in 2011 even more of the arguments
were negative while relatively fewer arguments were positive.
In 1987, of all arguments that concerned another speaker´s argument (n = 260) 63.8
percent were rebuttals and 11.2 percent did approve of what another speaker said. One-quarter of
such arguments did neither approve nor rebut the other speaker. In 2011 (n = 47), the results
show that 76.6 percent of all arguments that addressed another speaker´s argument were rebuttals
and 10.6 percent approved it while 12.8 percent of the arguments contained neither rebuttal nor
approval. There is no significant difference between the two years (χ2(2, N=307) = 3.57, p =
.168).
Concerning the justification of arguments, the results show that in 1987, 1.5 percent of all
arguments were not justified at all while that share amounted to 21.9 percent of all arguments in
2011. A general justification was given to 60.1 percent of the arguments in 1987 and to 50
percent of the arguments in 2011. In 1987, 38.4 percent and in 2011, 28.1 percent of all articles
received a specified justification. The findings show that in 2011 significantly less general
justification and less specified justification were given to the arguments than in 1987 (χ2(2,
N=1325) = 166.14, p < .001).
Differences Between the Distinct Types of Press
As far as the differences between the types of press, the results for 1987 show that 12.7
percent of all arguments in the quality press and 9.7 percent of arguments in the alternative press
were uncivil. This share amounted to 26.2 percent in the tabloid press. The differences between
the press types were significant (χ2(2, N=403) = 7.16, p = .022). In 2011, there were no
arguments in the quality press and no arguments in the tabloid newspaper at all that were uncivil.
Re-emerging Discourse
26
Only in the alternative press were 10.5 percent of the arguments uncivil. Thus, the amount of
uncivil arguments in the alternative press did not significantly differ between the two debates
(χ2(2, N=200) = 0.38, p = .846).
Concerning the tonality between the different types of press, the results show that almost
three-quarters of all arguments in the quality press and the alternative press in 1987 were
balanced or neutral and that this share significantly decreased in 2011 (see Table 4). In 2011,
more arguments evaluated the census as positive or negative, while in the quality press the share
of negative arguments and in the alternative press the share of positive arguments grew the most.
Table 4
Tonality of arguments in the press types in 1987 and 2011
1987
Tone of
No. of
Relative
Press type
argument
arguments
share
2011
No. of
arguments
Relative share
Quality
pressa
Negative
Neutral/Balanced
Positive
Subtotal
58
379
86
523
11.1%
72.5%
16.4%
29
73
17
119
24.4%
61.3%
14.3%
Alternative
pressb
Negative
Neutral/Balanced
Positive
Subtotal
77
249
16
342
22.5%
72.8%
4.7%
49
118
25
192
25.5%
61.5%
13.0%
Negative
Neutral/Balanced
Positive
Subtotal
Total
23
51
30
104
969
22.1%
49.0%
28.8%
2
42
1
45
356
4.4%
93.3%
2.2%
Tabloid
pressc
Note.
a
. χ2(2, N=642) = 14.60, p = .001; Cramér’s V = .151
b
. χ2(2, N=534) = 13.92, p = .001; Cramér’s V = .161
c
. χ2(2, N=149) = 26.42, p = .001; Cramér’s V = .421
Re-emerging Discourse
27
In contrast, for the tabloid press the results show that more than half of the arguments in 1987
had a positive or negative tone. However, the share of arguments that are neutral or balanced
significantly increased to 93 percent in 2011.
Concerning the rebuttal or approval of other speakers’ arguments, there were no
differences between the distinct types of press in 1987 (χ2(4, N=403) = 3.08, p = .433) and 2011
(χ2(4, N=95) = 5.16, p = .271). To the contrary, there were significant differences in the level of
justification between the distinct types of press in 1987 (χ2(4, N=969) = 46.86, p < .001) and
2011 (χ2(4, N=95) = 89.61, p < .001). Of all arguments in 1987, there were 0.4 percent in the
quality press, 2 percent in the alternative press, and 5.8 percent in the tabloid press that were not
justified at all. Those shares increased in 2011 to 29.4 percent of all arguments in the quality
press, 6.2 percent in the alternative press, and 68.9 percent of all arguments in the tabloid press.
The Discussion of Solutions
The last research question concerned potential differences in the discussion of solutions
between the two debates. Indicators for the discussion of solutions evaluated if the argument
suggested a problem, indicated the possibility of a solution, and potentially even introduced a
specific solution or measure. The argument could discuss on which level the solution could be
brought about. Furthermore the speaker could demand or appeal to take a certain action. While
the argument did not necessarily have to refer to a problem to suggest a solution, the indicators
that accrue in the presence of a potential improvement or solution in the argument are connected
with each other. To begin with, there had to be a potential improvement before the speaker could
refer to the level on which it could be brought about and what the solution and its measures could
specifically look like. Thus, the indicators and the findings of the discussion of solutions are
related with each other.
Re-emerging Discourse
28
Out of all arguments in 1987, 88.6 percent addressed a problem or a problematic issue. In
2011, this was the case in 70.8 percent of all arguments. This difference was highly significant
(χ2(1, N=1325) = 61.33, p < .001). Furthermore, 58.5 percent of the arguments saw opportunity
for a solution or an improvement in 1987, while in 1987 this was the case in 37.9 percent of the
arguments. Again this difference between the years was highly significant (χ2(1, N=1325) =
44.32, p < .001). In 1987, 46.3 percent of the arguments mentioned a specific measure or a
solution to improve a problem. This share amounted to one-third of all arguments in 2011. The
difference between the years was also highly significant (χ2(1, N=1325) =17.72, p < .001).
Taking all arguments into consideration, in 1987 there was a call to action in 18 percent of them
while this was the case in 10.1 percent of the arguments in 2011. The difference is highly
significant as well (χ2(1, N=1325) =12.01, p = .001).
Discussion
Before discussing the results, we will briefly refer to some important limitations of the
scope of this study. To begin with, the two census debates lie 24 years apart. Recent surveys
show that data security and privacy issues still play an important role in Germany (DIVIS, 2013).
However, there might be potential events or developments in society and politics besides
changes in the media system that had an effect on the issue and its discourse (e.g., a difference in
sense of privacy). Especially, as the overall lower amount of articles and arguments suggest less
debate in the press coverage, one might argue that the debate was of less interest in 2011.
Additional research should therefore also introduce the perspectives of the communicators and
the audience in the census debate, as this study does not consider what the stakeholders in the
debate did with the information they received in the media.
Re-emerging Discourse
29
Concerning the development of the digital media and the proliferation of the Internet and
online news in particular, this study takes into account only the traditional press media.
Therefore, parts of the debate that took place in the public sphere of online media in 2011 were
not included and addressed. However, due to reasons of comparability between the specific
outlets in 1987 and 2011 there was no inclusion of online news in this study. Future research
should take online media into account and could presumably analyze differences in the census
debate in 2011 and prospective population censuses. Likewise, the focus on the press coverage as
one important part of the public sphere does not consider the discourse that can be found in other
media such as television or in interpersonal encounters of citizens. Lastly, the findings at hand do
only apply to the German case of the census debate, especially as other countries use different
methodologies for their census and have different cultures of discourse.
With regard to the results, the different amount of arguments first needs to be addressed.
It was shown that the absolute number of articles and arguments in 2011 was lower than for the
sample in 1987. In general, there was less space and attention given to the census debate in 2011
by the print media. However, if an article in 2011 addressed the census it contained on average
two more arguments than an article in 1987. This difference might be based on more short
articles concerning a lot of smaller events during the census in 1987.
Starting with the first research question and whether there is a difference in the diversity
of the speakers, the results showed some relevant changes between the years. The census debate
in Germany showed a higher elite dominance of speakers in 1987, but a more evenly balanced
diversity of speakers with a greater appearance of arguments from political periphery speakers
and journalists in 2011. In line with Hallin´s (1992) research on the development of news sound
bites, the results suggest that media coverage was more journalist-centered, as the journalists in
Re-emerging Discourse
30
the German press coverage devoted less time and space on presenting arguments by other
speakers in 2011. They preferably delivered the arguments themselves.
Furthermore, the higher share of arguments from speakers of other parts of society than
the political center suggests a greater popular inclusion than in public discourse on other issues.
This share of arguments from the periphery is even greater in 2011 than in 1987. The numbers at
both points in time resemble more those that Ferree et al. (2002b) found in the US than in
Germany in their study on the abortion discourse in both countries. They showed that 29 percent
of speakers in the US were only from the periphery, and 15 percent in Germany. Wessler (1999)
found similar numbers for the media coverage on drugs in Germany with citizens making up 16
percent of the speakers. A reason for the different numbers might be that it was easier for
journalists to find engaged speakers from the periphery. The topic of the census affected every
citizen and was presumably less intimate than drug consumption and abortion.
Concerning the second research question and whether there was a difference in the
process of the discourse the results above addressed changes in the indicators of empowerment.
It was shown that the debates only differed in the amount of space that was given to the civil
society speakers. The results indicated that the share of arguments made by citizens and social
movements was lower in 1987 than in 2011. In the former debate, less than one in ten arguments
was made by a speaker belonging to the two groups and rose to more than one out of eight
arguments in 2011. This is consistent with the share of such speakers that Ferree et al. (2002b)
found in the abortion discourse in Germany. Otherwise, the process of discourse appeared to be
identical in both debates. Regarding the indicators such as the content of justification and the
level of the solution and its encouragement, the results suggest a certain amount of
empowerment, but no difference of its extent between both points in time. Hence, developments
Re-emerging Discourse
31
in the media system and in political communication described above did not have any effect on
the extent of empowerment and the process of communication. Concerning the content of
justification, the arguments quite scarcely referenced anyone´s interest at all. Thus, in most cases
it is not made clear to citizens how they can profit or be put at a disadvantage directly by the
census. Based on the results, neither are many arguments present in the media coverage that refer
to specific group interests (e.g., the interest of corporations, etc.). Furthermore, in a majority of
the arguments the speakers do not suggest that individuals are able to do something to improve a
situation. In the arguments, in which they do see that a solution can be brought about on the
individual level, the speakers actively and explicitly encourage the individual citizen to take
action four out of ten times in both debates.
As far as the prevalence of the different types of arguments, it was shown that in both
debates the majority of arguments addressed only the census without any reference to other
speakers or their arguments. To begin with, the share of arguments addressing other speakers and
their arguments that covered certain aspects of the style of speech in the third research question
were consequently less common in 2011.
On the one hand the third research question addressed differences in the style of speech
of such arguments between both debates. One the other hand, it was asked whether there were
any differences between the two debates regarding the type of press of the newspapers and the
presented arguments. For both parts of the third research question, the results show a mixed
picture. For the general debate, there was no difference in civility and the responsiveness, which
addresses rebuttals and approvals of others’ arguments. A greater share of arguments had a
positive or negative tonality in 2011, but at the same time the extent of the level of justification
performed worse in 2011 than in 1987. More than one out of five arguments did not give any
Re-emerging Discourse
32
justification in 2011 compared with 1.5 percent of the arguments in 1987. This development
shows that the level of justification decreased the most in the tabloid press. One could argue that
the debate became more superficial as arguments became less justified. With regard to the press
types, the tabloid press differed from the quality and the alternative press as it showed stronger
and reverse changes between the two debates. Contrary to expectations of higher negativity and
sensationalism in the tabloid press, their media coverage appears to be more detached and neutral
but also more superficial in the latter debate.
The results show that overall the share of uncivil arguments appeared no different in 1987
than in 2011 and that about one out of ten arguments addressing another speaker was uncivil.
This share is almost identical with the assessment by Ferree et al. (2002b) of the abortion issue.
More specifically, in 1987 the tabloid press contained a significantly higher share of uncivil
arguments than the quality and alternative press. In 2011, there were no uncivil arguments at all
in the tabloid press and in quality newspapers. The share of uncivil arguments in the alternative
press, however, stayed constant between the debates, attributing to the constant incivility in both
debates. The tendency of increasing negativity and sensationalization in the media coverage did
not lead to more incivility in the press coverage of the census debate. There was actually no
room for incivility at all in the revision of the debate in 2011, except for the alternative press that
was also the most negative towards the census.
Furthermore, the tonality of arguments differed between the two debates of the census.
While still a majority of arguments neither approved nor disapproved of the census, this share
was lower in 2011. As one might falsely conclude that the debate was more heated in 2011, it has
to be kept in mind that the overall amount of arguments in the media coverage was substantially
lower in this debate. Still, the results suggest that a higher share of arguments stated a clear
Re-emerging Discourse
33
evaluation of the census. As far as the tonality, the results indicated a reverse development
between the tabloid press, and the quality and alternative press. As the share of arguments with a
specific tone rose for the latter two press types to almost 40 percent, the share of such arguments
dropped from more than half of all arguments to less than ten percent in the tabloid press in
2011. This also suggests a greater neutrality of the tabloid press in the latter debate.
Concerning the dialogic structure, the results show that there was no difference between
the two debates and the press types in terms of the share of arguments that rebutted or approved
of another speaker´s argument. In general, the majority of such arguments in both debates were
rebuttals. Only about one in ten arguments approved of what another speaker said. Interestingly,
those results suggest that there was quite a substantial amount of responsiveness as speakers in
both debates referred to another´s arguments and actively rebutted or approved them at least to a
certain extent. In a study by Bennett et al. (2004), no responsiveness at all was found in the
debate about the World Economic Forum and the Word Social Forum. As the authors suggested,
findings will vary depending on the context of the debate and issue. Speakers in the present study
were not organizationally and ideologically separated, which could have led to greater
responsiveness in the debate. There were speakers pro as well as contra the census from the
political center and from the political periphery.
Regarding the last research question and asking for differences in the discussion of
solutions, the results show differences for all indicators between the two debates. More precisely,
each of the indicators performed worse in 2011 than in 1987. This shows that solutions appear
not to be clearer and perspectives not more consolidated in the media when an issue reappears in
the discourse. Still, there is a substantial discussion of solutions for both points in time.
Compared with the indicators of deliberative qualities of the discourse (e.g., incivility and the
Re-emerging Discourse
34
level of justification) there was a more prevalent discussion of solutions and less decrease
between the two debates and the different press types.
Conclusion
The answers to the four research questions give an impression concerning the initially
introduced guiding questions and their normative criteria of the different models of the public
sphere. Other studies that investigated the abortion issue and the drug discourse in Germany
came to the conclusion that the German public sphere mostly resembled the representative liberal
model of the public sphere. The findings of the present study suggest a similar result.
However, showing a more balanced diversity between the speakers of the political center
and periphery in 2011, the findings indicate better popular inclusion of all parts and groups of
society and consequently a higher participatory element to the discourse. This is supported by the
presence of empowerment indicators in the media coverage at both points in time. Such
differences to other discourses might be based on the topic of the debate. The census affected all
citizens and was a less intimate issue than abortion or drugs. Moreover, the specifics of the
census debate result in a certain extent of responsiveness and dialogue that is apparently lacking
for other issues such as the globalization debate (Bennett et al., 2004). This is arguably based on
the palpable individual impact of the census on all citizens that required their cooperation in the
survey and that politics and the media could consequently not ignore. They had to personally
address the arguments of the adversaries of the census as information campaigns alone did not
appease the protesters and boycotters, whose participation was needed.
While some of the indicators for the process of discourse and the styles of speech were
scarcely found in the arguments, the focus on the discussion of solutions and therefore on the
content level yielded interesting additional results. On the one hand the analysis of the discussion
Re-emerging Discourse
35
of solutions showed that the census debate in 2011 was less solution-oriented compared with that
of 1987. This suggests that discourses can vary in the extent on which they focus on solutions
and that they do not necessarily improve over a longer period of time. On the other hand there
was still quite a substantial reference to problems and solutions in both census debates. While the
speakers did not talk to each other and engage in an ideal deliberation, the discourse was after all
addressing the need to find solutions.
In accordance with other studies, it was shown that the deliberative qualities of the
discourse did not meet the ideal standards of the normative criteria of participatory or discursive
models of the public sphere. Following Graber (2003), the media and the quality of their debate
fall short of their expected ideal roles in a democratic discourse. The political culture of a
country might be a more decisive element in the proceedings of a democracy. However, the
content of the arguments in this study was still oriented towards finding solutions for the issue of
the census. Accordingly, a suggestion for future research involving the public sphere might be to
pay more attention to the speakers and the actual content of their argumentation and less on how
and in which process ideas are shared in the media.
Further investigations that involve different issues and their debates can give additional
insights into the interrelationships of the speakers in a debate and their discussion of solutions in
changing contexts. Particularly, comparing differences between countries and between different
media systems and journalistic cultures appears to be worthwhile (Hallin & Mancini, 2000). As
there are already considerable differences between different types of outlets in the press within
one country, it is interesting how the census debate and the discussion of solutions play out in
different parts of the public sphere over time. Social movements especially might have carried
their engagement in the debate to online media in an attempt to better organize and coordinate
Re-emerging Discourse
support for their concerns (van de Donk, Loader, Nixon, & Rucht, 2004). It is up to further
evaluation, how such developments affect the workings of the public sphere and the necessary
search for solutions to societal issues.
36
References
Bennett, W. L., Pickard, V. W., Iozzi, D. P., Schroeder, C. L., Lagos, T., & Caswell, C. E. (2004).
Managing the Public Sphere: Journalistic Construction of the Great Globalization Debate.
Journal of Communication, 54(3), 437–455. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02638.x
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Blumler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and
Features. Political Communication, 16(3), 209–230. doi:10.1080/105846099198596
Broh, C. A. (1980). Horse-Race Journalism: Reporting the Polls in the 1976 Presidential Election.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(4), 514–529. doi:10.1086/268620
DIVSI. (2013). Umfrage: Politische-Einstellungen – Datenschutz so wichtig wie die Bewältigung der
Finanzkrise. DIVSI. Retrieved from https://www.divsi.de/umfrage-politische-einstellungendatenschutz-so-wichtig-wie-die-bewaeltigung-der-finanzkrise/
Eickelkamp, A. (2011). Der Nutzwertjournalismus. Herkunft, Funktionalität und Praxis eines
Journalismustyps. Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.
Esser, F. (2008). Dimensions of Political News Cultures: Sound Bite and Image Bite News in France,
Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. The International Journal of Press/Politics,
13(4), 401–428. doi:10.1177/1940161208323691
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002a). Four models of the public sphere
in modern democracies. Theory and Society, 31(3), 289–324.
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002b). Shaping Abortion Discourse:
Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge, UK ; New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Früh, W. (2011). Inhaltsanalyse: Theorie und Praxis. Stuttgart: UTB.
The Census Debate
2
Gastil, J. W. (2008). Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Ghanem, S. I. (2008). Newspaper. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication. (Vol. VII,
pp. 3294-3298).Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.
Graber, D. (2003). The Media and Democracy: Beyond Myths and Stereotypes. Annual Review of
Political Science, 6(1), 139–160. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085707
Hagen, L. M. (1993). Opportune Witnesses: An Analysis of Balance in the Selection of Sources and
Arguments in the Leading German Newspapers’ Coverage of the Census Issue. European
Journal of Communication, 8(3), 317–343. doi:10.1177/0267323193008003004
Hallin, D. C. (1992). Sound Bite News: Television Coverage of Elections, 1968-1988. Journal of
Communication, 42(2), 5–24. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00775.x
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2000). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics.
Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harcup, T., & O’Neill, D. (2001). What Is News? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism Studies,
2(2), 261–280. doi:10.1080/14616700118449
Iyengar, S., Norpoth, H., & Hahn, K. S. (2004). Consumer demand for election news: The horserace
sells. Journal of Politics, 66(1), 157–175.
Jarren, O., & Donges, P. (2002). Politische Kommunikation in der Mediengesellschaft : eine
Einführung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Johnson, P. (2009). Habermas. New York: Routledge Chapman & Hall.
Kensicki, L. J. (2004). No Cure for what Ails US: The Media-Constructed Disconnect between
Societal Problems and Possible Solutions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1),
53–73. doi:10.1177/107769900408100105
The Census Debate
3
Kim, S.-H., & Willis, L. A. (2007). Talking about Obesity: News Framing of Who Is Responsible for
Causing and Fixing the Problem. Journal of Health Communication, 12(4), 359–376.
doi:10.1080/10810730701326051
Marcinkowski, F. (2008). Public Sphere. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication. (Vol.
IX, pp. 4041-4048). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.
Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). “Mediatization” of Politics: A Challenge for Democracy?
Political Communication, 16(3), 247–261. doi:10.1080/105846099198613
McAllister, I. (2007). The personalization of politics. In The Oxford handbook of political behavior.
(p. 571-588). Oxford: Oxford University Press
McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. London ; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Negrine, R., & Lilleker, D. G. (2002). The Professionalization of Political Communication:
Continuities and Change in Media Practices. European Journal of Communication, 17(3), 305–
323. doi:10.1177/0267323102017003688
Norris. (2008). A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge,
UK ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Örnebring, H., & Jönsson, A. M. (2004). Tabloid journalism and the public sphere: a historical
perspective on tabloid journalism. Journalism Studies, 5(3), 283–295.
doi:10.1080/1461670042000246052
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online
political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283.
doi:10.1177/1461444804041444
The Census Debate
4
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2006). Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content
Analysis in Research. New York: Routledge.
Rinke, E. M., Wessler, H., Löb, C., & Weinmann, C. (2013). Deliberative Qualities of Generic News
Frames: Assessing the Democratic Value of Strategic Game and Contestation Framing in
Election Campaign Coverage. Political Communication, 30(3), 474–494.
doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.737432
Saguy, A. C., & Almeling, R. (2008). Fat in the Fire? Science, the News Media, and the “Obesity
Epidemic” 2. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 23, pp. 53–83). Wiley Online Library. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2004.00399.x-i1/full
Schenk, M., & Mangold, F. (2011). Entscheider, Meinungsführer und Qualitätsmedien – Die
Bedeutung der Qualitätspresse für Entscheidungsträger in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. In R.
Blum, H. Bonfadelli, K. Imhof, & O. Jarren (Eds.), Krise der Leuchttürme öffentlicher
Kommunikation (pp. 239–254). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. doi:10.1007/978-3-53193084-8_15
Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2006). Between Risk and Opportunity: News Framing and its
Effects on Public Support for EU Enlargement. European Journal of Communication, 21(1), 5–
32. doi:10.1177/0267323106060987
Schudson, M. (2012). The sociology of news (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Semetko, H., & Valkenburg, P. (2000). Framing European politics: a content analysis of press and
television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109. doi:10.1111/j.14602466.2000.tb02843.x
The Census Debate
Sigelman, L., & Bullock, D. (1991). Candidates, Issues, Horse Races, and Hoopla Presidential
Campaign Coverage, 1888-1988. American Politics Research, 19(1), 5–32.
doi:10.1177/1532673X9101900101
Siles, I., & Boczkowski, P. J. (2012). Making sense of the newspaper crisis: A critical assessment of
existing research and an agenda for future work. New Media & Society, 14(8), 1375–1394.
doi:10.1177/1461444812455148
Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political
Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002
Strömbäck, J. (2005). In Search of a Standard: four models of democracy and their normative
implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6(3), 331–345.
doi:10.1080/14616700500131950
Trumbo, C. (1996). Constructing climate change: claims and frames in US news coverage of an
environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science, 5(3), 269–283.
Tuchman, G. (1980). Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: Free Press.
Van de Donk, W., Loader, B. D., Nixon, P. G., & Rucht, D. (2004). Cyberprotest: New Media,
Citizens and Social Movements. New York: Routledge.
Wessler, H. (1999). Öffentlichkeit als Prozess : Deutungsstrukturen und Deutungswandel in der
deutschen Drogenberichterstattung. Opladen: Wiesbaden.
Wessler, H. (2008). Investigating Deliberativeness Comparatively. Political Communication, 25(1),
1–22. doi:10.1080/10584600701807752
Zhang, W., Cao, X., & Tran, M. N. (2013). The structural features and the deliberative quality of
online discussions. Telematics and Informatics, 30(2), 74–86. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2012.06.001
5
The Census Debate
Zhou, Y., & Moy, P. (2007). Parsing Framing Processes: The Interplay Between Online Public
Opinion and Media Coverage. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 79–98. doi:10.1111/j.14602466.2006.00330.x
6
Appendix
1
Appendix
Codebook Content Analysis (translated from German)
Final Version
Last updated: April 23th, 2014
Note: This is the translation of the original codebook that was set up in German to address the
German language articles. I translated all instructions and codes into English. However, some of
the examples were left untranslated to give an impression how the categories are reflected in the
text. A translation would have distorted the actual meanings here.
Coding Process
There are three levels to the coding process:
A. Newspaper
B. Article
C. Argument
To begin with, the article is opened and the codes on the newspaper level are assigned without
reading the entire article. The actual relevance of the article is checked by reading the headline
and, if present, the teaser. If there are doubts about the relevance the article can be briefly
scanned.
In case of relevance the codes on the newspaper level are assigned and the coder then turns to the
article level to assign the formal codes.
After coding the last formal category of the author of the article, the whole story is read in its
entirety at least (also see note below) and only then the coding will be proceeded. To reaffirm
some of the information of the article the coder is allowed to skip back and forth in the article at
any time.
First level: Newspaper
A1. Coder ID
Please insert coder ID.
Codes:
Appendix
2
1 Marco
2 Kim
A2. Relevance
Is the article relevant? Does it belong to the population of articles?
Coding instruction: The keywords to identify relevant articles were „Volkszählung“ or „Zensus“
(eng.: census). It is possible that articles that contain one or both words do not belong to the
population of relevant articles as they do not address any of the two censuses we are interested
in. Such articles will not be coded.
It is also possible that the article addresses an issue or topic that does not concern any census and
its discussion, but the censuses in 1987 or 2011 are briefly mentioned (be it as an example or
such). In this case only arguments that directly address the censuses at hand are coded.
Arguments about other topics/issues are neglected.
If the code 0 is assigned the coding of the article stops and the next article is coded. Due to
previous filtering and selection of relevant articles the assignment of code 0 should be
rather rare.
Codes:
0 No
1 Yes
Example:
"The data protection law is often confusing, unreadable and contradictory. The
Federal Constitutional Court is to blame for that, as it demanded in its census
decision that “the purpose needs to be area-specific and precise" in the legislature
of all processing of personal data.”
„The first sign was the census of 2002 in Silesia“.
Code:
0 No
A3. Source
What is the newspaper source of the article?
Code next article.
Appendix
Codes:
1 Süddeutsche Zeitung
2 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
3 taz
4 Bild Zeitung
A4. Year
In which year was the article published?
Codes:
1 1987
2 2011
A5. Month
In which month was the article published?
Codes:
1 Januar
2 February
3 March
4 April
5 May
6 June
A6. Day
On which day was the article published?
Codes:
3
Appendix
Manually enter number of the day of the month.
Second Level: Article
Definition Article:
An article is a closed unit of text and usually consists of a headline and a text body. Sometimes
there is a small teaser text between headline that gives a brief summary or introduction to the
article. Subheadlines might structure the text and can be found between the text parts. An article
can be differentiated from other articles by the use of teasers, empty areas that surround it, or
visual frames.
Pictures that belong to an article are neglected in this study.
B1. Article ID/Article number
What is the article´s number?
Codes:
Fill in consecutive number that is found above the article.
B2. Page number
On which page was the article published?
Codes:
Fill in page number.
B3. Author
How is the author of the article credited?
Codes:
1 No mentioning
2 (Journalist-)byline, (Journalist-)name, editorial team, or news desk
4
Appendix
5
3 News agency, or wire service
4 Outside author
5 Other
*********************Attention: Before proceeding to code please read the whole article first
and then continue with assigning the codes!*********************
B4. Article style
What is the Style of the Article?
Codes:
1 Other
2 Information: News bit, Report, Documentation
3 Opinion: Editorial, comment
5 Entertainment: Gloss, column, joke
6 Interview
7 Press commentaries
8 Letter to the editor
Coding instruction and example:
There are two steps in identifying the style of an article. In a first step, there is often a direct hint
or information about its style attached to the article. Those articles are clearly denoted as
comments or report.
The text also gives away the style of the article. This is the second step in determining the style.
If the article reproduces factual information such as in a brief report or documentation the style is
informational. Articles can also be humorous and intended for entertainment. Those articles can
be jokes of often a gloss or column. The interview is dominated by alternating speakers and the
journalist is asking questions that the person interviewed answers. Press commentaries are
denoted as such, as they are quoted from another newspaper. The comment or editorial is also
often denoted as such and is reflecting an opinion to an issue. The letter to the editor is also often
denoted as such.
Appendix
6
In case of uncertainties code „1 Other“.
Third level: Argument
All arguments per article are coded. For each argument all categories of the letter C are repeated.
After each coded argument there is a question in between that asks if there are additional
arguments in an article. As soon as such a question is negated the coding procedure stops.
Definition Argument:
An argument is a directly or indirectly made utterance of an actor within an article. There are two
criteria for demarcation that distinguish an argument from other utterances and statements.
Example:
In the following sentence there is no actor (see below category Type of Actor: code 4 „no actor
present“) and consequently no argument:
„The first German census since 1987 started yesterday. Roughly one third of the population is
inquired. Results are expected to be presented at the end of the next year.”
In the following sentence there is an actor (see below category Type of Actor: code 1-3 or 99),
but there is no statement or utterance of that actor and consequently no argument:
„Helmut Kohl travelled to Bonn on early Tuesday to participate in talks with the Worker´s
Union.“
*****
Special Case Opinion articles and press commentaries
Opinion pieces (Article Style Code 3), Entertainment articles (Code 5), press commentaries
(Code 7) and letters to the editors (Code 8) most often do not have an actor, but contain
arguments as the author of the piece is giving his or her opinion and argument. In such a case no
actor is present in the argument, but the author of the article is coded as the actor.
Example (all codes for speakers; see below C1):
•
•
Comment of the chief editor, who discusses the census = Speaker Code 3 for all
arguments in which he or she is not reciting other speakers.
Press commentary of the Hannoversche Allgemeinen Zeitung (local newspaper not in the
sample) = Speaker Code 3 for all arguments in which the newspaper is not reciting other
speakers.
Appendix
• Letter to the editors with arguments = Speaker Code 25
*****
New argument/Change of argument:
1. The actor/speaker: The simplest distinction is the one made when the speaker of an
argument changes between utterances. This is following the lead question in journalism
“Who?“ is saying something in a story. Who is commenting or addressing something or
someone else. The speaker of an argument is always the sender of an utterance and not
someone that this utterance is about. The Speaker is the active part/the subject of the
sentence.
Examples (Speaker in bold):
•
•
„The federal office of statistics reports… „
„The members of SPD and the Greens…“
2. The thematic reference: The second criterion of demarcation is the thematic reference
of an argument. It is possible that the speaker remains the same but that he or she
switches the topic in between arguments.
Examples (thematic reference – different argument ins different colors):
•
Chancellor Kohl (speaker 1) met his adversaries of the census in Bonn. The difference
of their opinions over data security was discussed. Kohl (speaker 1) critically addressed
their adherence to a boycott of the census (topic 1). The Greens (new speaker 2= new
argument) made clear that they will cling to a boycott. They (same speaker) criticized
the missing data security and privacy (new thematic reference).
1. Argument
2. Argument
3. Argument
C1. Type of speaker
This category addresses the speaker of an argument, who makes an utterance. Those can be
external speakers, but also utterances of journalists that are cited in the articles.
Codes
01 Centre of the political system
11 Legislative / Parties
111CDU/CSU
7
Appendix
8
112FDP
113SPD
114Die Grünen (The Greens)
115Die Linke (The Left)
119Others:
12 Administration and government
121CDU/CSU
122SPD
129Other
13 Judicial branch
02 Periphery of the political system
21 Interest groups, associations
22 Social movements
23 Experts/intellectuals
24 Lawyers
25 Concerned or affected people/Citizens
26 Artists Celebrities
27 Journalists and other media people (that do not belong to the newspaper of the
article)
03 Journalists (belonging to the newspaper of the article)
99 Others
Coding instructions and Examples:
With regards to the coding of the speaker it needs to be mentioned that the category is coded that
is relevant to the argument at hand. Chancellor Helmut Kohl can be addressed as a member of
Appendix
9
parliament but also as his function of chancellor. The predominantly mentioned position is coded
in such instances. If two positions are equally important and mentioned after each other, only the
first position is coded.
It must be noted that a recurring mentioning of the speaker is not necessary. If a position is
mentioned and subsequently the speaker is addressed only by his name, the position is repeated
for each argument that the speaker makes.
Sometimes it is possible that very popular persons such as the chancellor or the president are not
addressed by their position but only by their name. In such a case, the coder is allowed to use his
or her prior knowledge to choose the appropriate code. In case of uncertainties the code “other”
(99) is assigned.
C2. Tone of the speaker
This category measures the tone of the speaker towards the census. The speaker can explicitly be
for or against the census, or address the census in a balanced or neutral fashion. If the speaker
makes positive as well as negative statements the dominant code is assigned.
Codes:
- 1 Negative
0 Neutral/Balanced
+ 1 Positive
C3. Type of Argument
Codes:
1 General Argument over the census (e.g. addresses procedure, risks, etc.)
2 Argument towards another actor, without addressing his or her position, perspective or
argument
3 Argument towards another actor and his or her argument
C4. Falsification or Approval
Appendix
10
**** Filter:
This is only coded if C3 (Type of Argument) addressed another actor and his position (code
3 was assigned).
****
Falsification means the “presence of an idea that refers to and argues against an idea that it
opposes” (Wessler, 2008, S. 10). Approval by implication is the utterance of a speaker that
approves of another speaker´s argument or position.
The variable contains two aspects: (1) On the one hand the reference of statements that refer to
ideas and conceptions of another actor (coded via C3), (2) on the other hand additionally to the
reference the utterance of contra-argument or an approval for another actor´s utterance.
Codes:
- 1 Falsification of another argument
0 neither falsification nor approval of another actor´s argument
1 Approval of the argument
Coding instructions and Examples:
For every utterance it is coded, if it references another speaker´s argument and furthermore, if it
rejects or approves his or her argument:
Example:
„The Federal Audit Office mentioned that the government expects costs of
200 Euro for the census.”
Code:
0 neither falsification nor approval of another actor´s
argument
„If the Greens fear for data security, than that is ridiculous. The demands of the
constitutional court are completely met.“
Code:
- 1 Falsification of another argument
„If Mr. Kohl thinks that a boycott is senseless than this is completely right and
he is allowed to have that opinion.“
Code:
1 Approval of the argument
Appendix
11
C5. Incivility
**** Filter:
Is only coded if C3 (Type of Argument) addresses another actor (codes 2 and 3 are
assigned).
****
Papacharissi (2004), Rinke et al. (2013)
„Der Indikator Inzivilität misst in wie weit die Debattenteilnehmer, aber auch die
Medienschaffenden gegen die für deliberative Diskurse zentrale Zivilitätsnorm
verstoßen“ (Loeb & Weinmann, 2010, p. 150). This category is hard-coded, i.e., only
manifest explicit indicators as they are discussed below are coded. Finer forms of
incivility are disregarded, so that there is no far-reaching interpretation of coders.
Indicator questions for incivility:
•
Does the actor/speaker use a degrading style of speech/insults, prejudices,
stereotypes or is he or she using generalizing wording?
•
Does the actor use synonyms for liar or is he or she accused someone of telling lies?
•
Is there a personal attack at another actor (e.g. Ad hominem Argument)?
•
Is the speaker threatening other persons or actors and their rights (e.g. personal
liberty, freedom of speech and opinion)?
Codes:
0 No
1 Yes
Example insults and degrading speech: It does not necessarily have to be insults. It more
important that the opponent is attacked and degraded.
„… the worldview and the ideas of the census adversaries are really funny.“
„The idiots of the boycott movement.“
Code:
01 Yes
Example prejudice: Stereotypes and prejudices associate an opponent with attributes of a
group that presumably belong to all of its members. It does not matter if the prejudice is
Appendix
12
weak– ‘liberal/rote Socke/Öko’, or rather offensive – ‘Kümmeltürke/Öko-Nazi’.
Generalizing insults are stereotypes and insults at the same time and thus are coded.
„… die Sandalenträger von den Grünen.“
„… XYZ, die Öko-Mami“
Code:
01 Yes
Example attack: An attack addresses the person of the opponent and does neither
contribute to the discussion nor does it address and actual argument made by the
opponent.
„… Schily, der Rechtsanwalt der terroristischen RAF, bezieht ….“
„Kohl hat schon oft seinen Vertrauten ohne Vorwarnung die Unterstützung
entzogen.“
Code:
01 Yes
Example Threats: The speaker is threatening an opponent. This is also coded if a speaker
is rejecting elementary rights of someone. It is important that this is always referring to a
specific opponent or to another group and not generally to specific rights or democracy in
general.
„die Grünen sollten aufpassen, dass man ihnen nicht das Rederecht entzieht“
„Solche Leute sollte man einfach einsperren.“
Code:
01 Yes
C6. Justification (Steenbergen et al., 2003)
***
Is coded for every argument (C3).
***
(Rinke et al., 2013)
Justifications are expressions that support an argumentative structure and do not only consist of
factual information, polemics, threats and narratives (Schultz, 2006). They offer either
explanations or proof (Kuhlmann, 1999): An explanation supports the demand of clarity, is
Appendix
13
proof, and furthers the demand of truth, by giving an inter-subjectivly understandable reference
to reality. We code only if an utterance gives a justification to a made claim or a taken position
or not.
(Loeb & Weinmann, 2010)
An important element in deliberative discourse is justification. They are understood as „the
demand to give reasons for a claim” (Wessler, 2008, S. 10). Justifications are statements, that are
supported by an explanation and reasoning of the speaker.
C6a. Level of justification
This category addresses the type of justification of an argument. The interest is how the
argument and its claim´s workings are justified. There are three steps of a justification of an
argument: No justification, general justification and a specific justification.
Codes:
0 No justification
1 General justification
2 Specific justification
Coding instructions and Examples
The whole argument of the speaker is coded (see definition above). An argument and its claims
can have different justifications. To begin with, there is the general claim that goes completely
unjustified. An argument is made but it is not addressed why something is this or that way. No
facts or explanations are given. Furthermore, there are arguments that come with a general
justification that reasons for a made claim. Such an argument makes a claim and gives an
explanation for the claim of the speaker. This can be very general. E.g. “This is wrong because X
is good/bad” is an argument that claims something and gives a very general reasoning. However,
it is merely a general justification and cannot be compared with specific justifications that go
into detail why an argument and its claim are the way they are. For instance, an argument that
states why something is wrong and why the causes of the wrongness or rightness are important
can count as a specific justification. To give a better picture of the assessment of the level of
justification, see the examples below.
Example:
Appendix
14
0 no justification
Example:
„Die Volkszählung muss stattfinden/nicht stattfinden.“
Code:
0 no justification
1 General justification
Example:
„Die Volkszählung nützt uns allen und muss daher stattfinden.“
„… kritisieren die betroffenen Kommunen mangelnde Transparenz
beim Zählverfahren.“
Code:
1 General justification
2 Specific justification:
Example:
„Die Volkszählung ermöglicht große Planungssicherheit mit Bezug auf
die Mietpreisentwicklung und den Studienplatzbedarf und sollte daher
durchgeführt werden.“
„Immerhin basierten sie auf einem soliden Datenbestand und seien
auch kleinräumig - also für die Stadtbezirke und Stadtteile - stimmig.“
Code:
2 specific justification
C6b. Content of the justification
This category addresses the content of the justification and asks who is profiting from an
argument. If the speaker justifies an argument he or she can refer to general or specific interests
of actors in a particular argument, which serve as a justification. There are either specific group
interests or the common interest that can serve as the foundation of a justification.
There are four indicator questions for coders: neutral argument, specific group interest, explicit
arguments towards the common interest either from a utilitarian perspective or in the sense of the
difference principle.
Codes:
0 Neutral statement
1 Explicit statement towards group interest
2 Explicit statement towards the common interest of the people
Appendix
15
Coding instructions and examples:
0 Neutral statement: There are no explicit hints and references in the argument towards group
interest and the common interest.
1 Explicit statement towards group interest: If the interest of one or more specific groups is
mentioned then code 1 is assigned.
Example:
„Die Immobilienwirtschaft profitiert von der Volkszählung.“
2 Explicit statement towards the common interest of the people
There are two possible perspectives here. Both are coded with a two.
Utilitarian perspective: There is an explicit reference to the common interest that addresses the
"greatest good for the greatest number" (Mill, 1998).
Example:
„Unser Land braucht eine verlässliche Planungsbasis“.
With regards to the difference principle: There is an explicit reference of the common interest
and this is addressed in such a way that the argument refers to the profit of the people that are the
most indigent and troubled in society (Rawls , 1971).
Example:
„Die Volkszählung dient der Bedarfsermittlung für den sozialen
Wohnungsbau“.
„Vor allem einkommensschwache Familien in den Problembezirken der
Großstädte profitieren von der neuen Erfassung.“
C7x. Characteristics of the discussion of solutions
C7a. Does the argument address something as problematic?
Indicator questions: Does the argument suggest that a situation or an event had, has or will
have negative consequences? Does the argument suggest that there was, is or will be a
problem or that the state of being or should-be is or will be problematic? Does the speaker
evoke the impression that something is in danger or dangerous?
Is there something that is rejected or evaluated as being negative?
Codes:
0 No
Appendix
16
1 Yes
Example:
„Das wird nicht funktionieren.“
„Dies führe zu nicht hinnehmbaren Bedingungen.“
Code:
1 Yes
C7b. Does the argument suggest that there is an improvement or a solution to the problem?
Codes:
0 No
1 Yes
Example:
„Dworzak setzte sich deshalb im Gemeinderat dafür ein, dass sich die
Gemeinde einer Klage gegen den „Zensus 2011“ anschließt.“
„Andererseits geben die nun vom Landratsamt vorgelegten Zahlen durchaus
Anlass zu vorsichtigem Optimismus.“
Code:
1 Yes
„Bürgermeister Schmit-Veltin sagt, er sei über die Differenz der
Bevölkerungszahlen nicht glücklich, es sei aber nicht zu ändern.“
Code:
0 No
C7c. On which level can the improvement be brought about? On the individual level, the
level of the group/an institution, or on the societal level? (Level of solution)
Coding instructions:
The individual level means, that the simple citizen is able to bring about alleviation or
improvement of the situation. This is also the case, when a specific citizen is presented in the
article, who serves as a role model for other citizens. There is a solution on the societal level
when only society as a whole or a sub-system such as politics or the media can bring about
alleviation or improvement. Every specific group, being it a party, an association or a union, or
Appendix
17
even smaller groups can be seen as an organization or a group and thus is coded on the mesolevel with the code 2.
Codes:
1 on the individual level
2 on the level of the group/organization
3 on the societal level
4 is mentioning/referring to several different levels
99 none of the above/not mentioned
Example:
„Im Rahmen der Haushalts-Stichprobe gab es bayernweit nur 21 Personen, die
vor Gericht bis zum Letzten gekämpft haben.“
„… die Bürger arbeiten sehr gut mit …“
Code:
1 auf der individuellen Ebene
„Zahlreiche Gemeinden akzeptieren das Ergebnis der Volkszählung jedoch gar
nicht und haben Widerspruch eingelegt.“
Code:
3 auf der gesellschaftlichen Ebene
C7d. Does the argument address a specific treatment, concrete action or measure of an
actor (e.g. a person/a group/an institution) that aims at improving the problematic
solution?
Codes:
0 No
1 Yes
Example:
„Noch bei der Volkszählung 1987 hatte es heftige Proteste gegeben.“
„Der Mieterverein fordert in seinem Schreiben den zuständigen Bürgermeister
Martin Schairer (CDU) auf, die unterschiedlichen Ergebnisse zu erklären.“
Appendix
Code:
18
1 Yes
C7e. Does the argument make an explicit call or suggestion for action to improve the
problematic situation? (Kensicki, 2004) Does the argument contain a call for action, an
appeal, a plea, a wish or a demand?
Codes:
0 No
1 Yes
Example:
„Der Mieterverein fordert in seinem Schreiben den zuständigen
Martin Schairer (CDU) auf, die unterschiedlichen Ergebnisse zu
Bürgermeister
erklären.“
„Darin werden sie aufgefordert, den beiliegenden Fragebogen auszufüllen.“
Code:
1 Yes
C7f. Dramatization: Does the speaker dramatize (positively/negatively) in his argument
when he discusses something as problematic and/or an improvement? Is he or she talking
about crises, epidemics, dystopian sceneries or chances? Is he or she using positive or
negative metaphors? Is the speaker using superlatives or exaggerations?
Codes:
0 No
1 Yes
Example:
„… dass ein Unbekannter mit einem Zettel in der Hand an der Tür
klingelt, um einen unverblümt auszufragen“
„Insgesamt, so Keck, seien die Prognosen für den Kreis auch langfristig
äußerst günstig.“
„… in der Widerstandsdiskussion wurden Bedrohungsszenarien à la
„Big Brother“ beschworen…“
Code:
1 Yes