Mediocracy (media domination)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The mediocracy (dt. Media reign ; also Mediakratie , telecracy or Videocracy called) is a media theory , and above all, a concept of political science that political decisions and discussions as well as the political communication in modern democracies no longer primarily by the political parties, but increasingly from the interests of the mass media , but also the influence of politicians on them.

The thesis of the mediocracy is mainly represented by the political and media scientist Thomas Meyer . The term mediocracy is used by different authors with different meanings, whereby there are overlaps with the thesis of media democracy and the theory of the media as the fourth estate in the state. In the case of strong media concentration , journalistic texts sometimes also use telecracy (from television “television” and Greek  κρατειν “rule”) to describe the excessive political influence of television on democratic decisions.

The term mediocracy takes on a completely different meaning as a specialist social science term in sociology , where it is used in the special field of elite sociology to describe the rule of the mediocre . For this alternative meaning, see the keyword mediocracy (rule of mediocrity) . Since both theories touch each other in marginal areas, there is not always a clean separation between the terms in journalistic texts.

Use of terms

Mediocracy, according to Meyer, goes beyond the concept of media democracy and not only didactically mean the elimination of the demos and thus above all the disempowerment of the actual sovereign , the citizen. He only observes the political debate in the media without actively intervening himself, for example on talk shows . So it is the media that decide on the articulation and selection of their interests.

With the loss of importance of the parties, the importance of the citizen dwindles . The actual form of participation democracy, according to Meyer, thus becomes an alleged viewer democracy.

A similar criticism of the media can be found in the work of Giovanni Sartori , a proponent of democratic theory . In homo videns. La sociedad teledirigida , he criticizes above all the basic democratic ideas ( participation , direct democracy ) that are seen in the possibilities of modern media. In his opinion, the media are not subject to the principle of competition. The media, especially private television, reflect the opinion of the sponsors, i.e. the advertisers, not that of the viewers.

The term telecracy was coined at the time of the so-called “telerevolution” in Romania and, on the occasion of the election of the media entrepreneur Silvio Berlusconi in Italy as prime minister in 1994 and 2001, was again in the public discussion, when many observers saw democracy in danger and from a “ new form of government of the telecracy ”. Even in the “media duel” between Gerhard Schröder and challenger Edmund Stoiber in 2002, the “ghost of telecracy” was conjured up. Thus telecracy also used as a pejorative or jocular word, in terms of a "form of government in which power not by the people but by television or by its owner runs out (rule by television)" or the "fusion of political and media power in one hand ".

The broader term mediocracy deals with a much older phenomenon: the largest period in which one can speak of “media” comprises the written word: pronouncements that have been placarded, newspapers, journals: initially published by state institutions of authoritarian forms of rule, subject to one strict censorship. With the Enlightenment and increasing democratization, independent media emerged; in the twentieth century the triumph of the ubiquity of the media, the mass media, and their largely unrestricted access in large parts of the world took place. The simultaneous establishment of marketing as an essential scientific instrument for the decision-making of consumers means that it is also increasingly integrated into politics, and with it the media. " Paul Lazarsfeld began to grapple with the influence of the media on political decisions as early as the 1930s."

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Kathrin Ackermann-Pojtinger, Berlusconi's Mediocracy and Italian Television History, Romance Studies 3, 2016, online .
  2. ↑ Seißelberg, 1996, p. 716
  3. ↑ See Hamburger Abendblatt, August 27, 2002.
  4. ^ Wallisch, 1997, p. 11
  5. ↑ Uesseler, 1996, p. 467
  6. ^ Wallisch, 1997, p. 42

literature

  • Wolfgang Hecker, Hans Karl Rupp (ed.): On the way to telecracy? Perspectives of a media society . UVK, Konstanz 1997, ISBN 3-89669-213-5
  • Thomas Meyer : Mediocracy . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 2001, ISBN 3-518-12204-5
  • Hans Karl Rupp / Wolfgang Hecker (eds.): On the way to telecracy? Perspectives of the media society . UVK Medien, Konstanz 2002, ISBN 978-3896692139
  • Rolf Uesseler: Laboratory Italy . In: Blätter for German and international politics , Bonn 41/4 (April 1996), pp. 464–473
  • Stefan Wallisch: The rise and fall of telecracy. Silvio Berlusconi, Romano Prodi and politics in the television age . Böhlau, Vienna 1997, ISBN 3-205-98568-0
  • Peter Weibel (ed.): From bureaucracy to telecracy. Romania on TV . Merve, Berlin 1990, ISBN 3-88396-077-2
  • Andrea Wolf: Telecracy or Tele Morgana? Politics and television in Italy . Lang (Italy in the past and present 6), Frankfurt am Main 1997, ISBN 3-631-30234-7

Web links

See also