Media logic

Media Logic ( English media logic ) is a term used in communication science provided by David L. Altheide and Robert P. Snow was coined in 1979 for the first time. You first define media logic as rules for the selection, interpretation and creation of messages in media contexts. They explicitly include various formats:

“(Media logic) consists of a form of communication; the process through which media present and transmit information. Elements of this form include the various media and the formats used by these media. Format consists, in part, of how material is organized, the style in which it is presented, the focus or emphasis on particular characteristics of behavior, and the grammar of media communication. Format becomes a framework or a perspective that is used to present as well as interpret phenomena. "

- DL Altheide, RP Snow

Since then, the term has been further developed in various areas, especially in research on journalism, political communication and digital communication.

concept

The concept of media logic includes different definitions. According to Altheide, the media logic connects different areas of media formats. This includes the production, selection, presentation and distribution of media content. Furthermore, media logic shapes the interaction process, everyday routines or institutional arrangements in a reflective way. The aim of these processes is to maximize the audience, as well as the conception of media offers that are oriented towards the values in society.

That means, in media logic, everyday situations and institutional arrangements (e.g. government, market, state, companies) influence the ranking and prioritization of communication by reflecting and objectifying them. The media logic is understood as a process of transferring and communicating information, but also as a separate communication process.

Media logic is based on the assumption of the process of shaping the flow of information within a certain medium (format, rhythm, language). The format is a crucial component with regard to the upstream and downstream information. Upstream is the transmission, after which the downstream represents the reception of the information. For example, there is an essential difference between information being transmitted in the form of a news broadcast or an entertainment show. The symbolism of the media that z. B. is created by grammar and language, is selectively adopted by the recipients (audience members) and is thus carried over into the everyday presentation of information. This process is essential to understanding media logic.

Media logic and mediatization in political communication

The communication scientist Frank Esser described in 2013 that the rules of media communication also influence the behavior of politicians and their media appearances. In Western democratic systems, the media not only have the task of communicating political decisions to the population, but also of reflecting them critically and thus acting as a kind of “gatekeeper” over political processes. Politicians, on the other hand, use the media primarily to publicize their political agenda, to gain approval from the population and to legitimize their actions. This mutual influencing therefore raises the question of the extent to which media logic and / or political logic dominate media reporting.

Because politicians know and value the influence of mass media and their relevance for public attention and legitimation, media logic takes hold of politicians. If politicians did not value the influence of the media on society as highly, the media logic would not work.

One concept that was developed to describe this phenomenon is called the “mediatization of politics”. Here it is examined to what extent media and their logic various other processes, such as B. politics, influence. Mediatization ( medialization ) describes how the decision-making criteria of political institutions adapt to the media logic without them becoming media institutions. In such cases, media logic superimposes rather than replaces political logic. The media determine the contextual framework within which politics can present itself to the public.

News-media logic according to Frank Esser (2013)

From the neo-institutionalist point of view, the media are organized actors who are structured similarly and pursue similar goals. These can be summarized under the term media logic or "news-media logic".

This is made up of three sub-areas: professionalization, commercialization and technologization. The former refers to the norms and rules according to which journalists and other media actors select and design news. These include common practices in news production such as gatekeeping and agenda setting as well as journalistic reporting styles from balanced reporting to critical watchdog reporting . The second aspect of commercialization describes the increasing influence of economic incentives in the field of news production. Many Western media systems have lost their independence from commercial aspects and have thus also moved away from the political system. Effects from this include dramatization, personalization and the increasing focus on confrontation in the news. The third aspect of technologization describes the influence that continuously developing information technology has on media communication. The content, production and reproduction of messages are determined by the physical nature of the information technology available. The internet, for example, offers open, interactive, flexible bottom-up communication, while traditional media tend to function on a top-down principle.

Criticism of the media logic concept

Knut Lundby can be cited as a criticism of mediatization in general and of media logic in particular. He makes three main points of criticism: an over-generalization by the media logic, the lack of topicality and the lack of necessity of the term. As the so-called “logic of the old media”, Lundby sees the media logic as insufficient for the identification of new dynamics. This refers to the new distribution channels of the media via the Internet. Another point of criticism is the lack of need for media logic. This observation arises from the fact that most media scholars do not use media logic as a concept. Most of all, too strong a generalization is criticized by the media logic. The interaction with the Internet is so complex that it cannot simply be subsumed under a general media logic. The limitations of specific formats and transformations are also neglected. Transformations are shown in social interactions and communication processes. In general, the all-encompassing focus of media logic robs the concept of the necessary sharpness with regard to social interactions. In summary, according to Lundby, the concept of media logic in its current form has no theoretical added value unless specific statements are made about real social interactions and the context of the media formats. If this necessary conceptual sharpening is not carried out, the media logic would have no further scientific relevance.

Further developments of the media logic concept

Social Media Logic

In the 1990s, changes in technology, computer-based interaction and the development of social networks gave rise to a new form of technological, economic and socio-cultural mechanisms that José Van Dijck and Thomas Poell call “social-media-logic”. Social media logic must be distinguished from media logic because both have developed from different backgrounds. Social media logic describes the processes, principles, and practices through which social traffic is directed. Within this new social media logic, therefore, new aspects or old aspects must also be viewed from a new perspective. Van Dijck and Poell divide this into the four aspects of programmability, popularity, connectivity and datafication. Particular attention is paid to the influence of algorithms. The authors describe the influence of social media logic on media logic as influencing and “infiltration”. This reorganized media logic, the social media logic, influences the global change in the modern network society and institutions could not escape the change of this logic in the long term. An investigation of media logic in mass media and social platforms can therefore no longer take place separately.

Network Media Logic

Another approach to theoretically describing the media logic of social media comes from Ulrike Klinger and Jakob Svensson (2015, 2016). They argue that the traditional logic of journalistic mass media differs from networked communication via social media in three dimensions: (1) the production of content, (2) the distribution of information, and (3) media use. These dimensions in turn consist of three elements: the underlying ideals and norms, the economic imperatives and the technological affordances. The two logics are not mutually exclusive, and Network Media Logic is no substitute for the logic of journalistic mass media. Rather, they are ideal types that complement, overlap and overlap in the real world.

literature

DL Altheide, RP Snow: Media logic. Sage Beverly Hills, CA 1979.
F. Esser: Mediatization as a challenge: Media logic versus political logic. In: H. Kriesi, S. Lavenex, F. Esser, J. Matthes (Eds.): Democracy in the age of globalization and mediatization. Palgrave Macmillan, London 2013, pp. 155-176.
U. Klinger, J. Svensson: The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. In: New Media & Society. 17 (8), 2015, pp. 1241-1257.
U. Klinger, J. Svensson: Network media logic: Some conceptual considerations. In: A. Bruns, E. Skogerbø, C. Christensen, AO Larsson, G. Enli (Eds.): Routledge companion to social media and politics. Routledge, 2016.
K. Lundby: Mediatization. Concept, changes, consequences. Peter Lang, New York 2009.
M. Meyen, M. Thieroff, S. Strenger: Mass media logic and the mediatization of politics. A theoretical framework. In: Journalism Studies. 15 (3), 2014, pp. 271–288.
J. Van Dijck, T. Poell: Understanding social media logic. In: Media and Communication. (1), 2013, pp. 2-14.

Further literature

G. Mazzoleni: Media logic. In: The international encyclopedia of communication. 2008, pp. 2930-2932.

Individual evidence

^ DL Altheide, RP Snow: Media logic. Sage, S. Beverly Hills, CA 10, 1979.
↑ M. Meyen, M. Thieroff, S. Strenger: Mass media logic and the mediatization of politics. A theoretical framework. In: Journalism Studies. 15 (3), 2014, p. 282.
^ ^A ^b J. Van Dijck, T. Poell: Understanding social media logic. In: Media and Communication. (1), 2013, pp. 2-14.

[1] DL Altheide, RP Snow: Media logic. Sage, S. Beverly Hills, CA 10, 1979.

[2] M. Meyen, M. Thieroff, S. Strenger: Mass media logic and the mediatization of politics. A theoretical framework. In: Journalism Studies. 15 (3), 2014, p. 282.

[VDP-3] A ^b J. Van Dijck, T. Poell: Understanding social media logic. In: Media and Communication. (1), 2013, pp. 2-14.