Egos, Elites and Social Capital:

Analyzing Media-Government Relations from a Network Perspective

Paper submitted to the ECPR General Conference 2016

Section: Elites and Political Leadership: Moving Ahead

Panel: Elite Political Communication

Authors: Jan Niklas Kocks (corresponding author)

Juliana Raupp

Kim Murphy

Affiliation: Freie Universität Berlin

Department of Political and Social Sciences

Institute for Media and Communication Studies

Garystrasse 55

14195 Berlin

Germany

Contact: E-Mail: j.n.kocks@fu-berlin.de

Telephone: 0049-30-838-58585

2

ABSTRACT

This paper approaches the relations between government communication and the media in

Germany from a perspective of social network analysis, focusing especially on aspects of

social capital.

So far, media-government relations have predominantly been considered elite phenomena.

Government communicators preferably pursue their communicative and political interests

through connecting with high ranking journalists from established (offline-) media outlets.

Such connections guarantee the accumulation of high amounts of social capital and lead to the

formation of dense and relatively closed networks (Kocks, 2016).

Technologically induced changes are however often attributed with the potential to erode

established patterns and structures of political communication (Chadwick, 2011; Wright,

2012). In an age of digitization and media abundance, it becomes questionable if established

communicative patterns still persist. Which connections define networks of media-

government relations in the digital age, and in how far are structures of social capital altered

under such conditions?

In this paper, we seek to enquire into these questions focusing on the communication

networks of the most senior government communicators from the federal government in

Germany. We identify their recent partners of (professional) communicative exchange and

evaluate the regularity of their contact with these. Further dimensions within the analysis

operationalize social capital and focus on the perceived connectedness of these contacts and

on their agenda-setting capabilities.

Findings indicate networks that are still coined by structural conservatism. Central positions

are occupied by established offline-media outlets – actors that would always have been

considered promising for the accumulation of social capital in such networks. Integrated

online media outlets mostly constitute the online-variants of leading offline outlets. The

integration of new actors (e.g. bloggers) is a scarce phenomenon. Networks in media-

government relations are still largely coined by a ‘classic’ set of actors; highly predictable

through reflections on theoretically defined and established dimensions of social capital. For

that matter, they remain an elite phenomenon.

3

1 INTRODUCTION

Media-government relations, understood here to be the interaction between government

communication and political journalism, have often been considered a very exclusive variant

of political communication. Government communicators predominantly pursue their (and

their organizations’) communicative and political interests through connecting with leading

political journalists from established (offline-) media outlets, utilizing the media as a form of

political arena (Van Aelst & Walgrave, 2016), and vice versa serve as central sources for the

political coverage provided by these journalists. These exclusive arrangements are considered

mutually beneficial (Burgert, 2009). Accordingly, media-government relations have so far

often been described as elite phenomena.

The proliferation of digital means of communication – the digitization of political

communication – has however repeatedly been described as a process that could potentially

alter the conditions for these exchanges and thereby erode established patterns and structures

(Coleman & Blumler, 2009). This assumption is not undisputed (Wright, 2012), yet questions

surrounding an opening of networks of political communication in general and of media-

government relations in particular remain salient.

So far, several studies have indicated that established structures and patterns of interaction

often persist under the conditions of digitization (e.g. Davis, 2010a; Heinze, 2012; Kocks,

2016). However, in a field that is facing constant changes under the conditions of the ever

accelerating process of digitization, this does anything but put a halt to a need for further

research.

In network research, the perspective of social capital has long served as a powerful paradigm

(Jansen & Diaz-Bone, 2011). From this theoretical perspective, network ties serve as a means

to secure benefits for those that maintain them (Portes, 1998). From an economical point of

view, actors profit from their connections to other actors rich in resources, these connections

become their social capital. Understanding media-government relations from a network

perspective, it is to assume that dimensions of social capital function as an explanatory factor

here as well.

Here, our interest focuses on the media actors that government communicators approach and

maintain contact with in their day to day work. Which contacts do they select and how are

their networks constructed? Which resources do these contacts (potentially) provide for the

government communicators (and their organizations)? Do established dimensions of social

4

capital – in particular those regarding potentially provided resources – still apply or has

digitization diminished the importance of these factors?

In the following, we first contextualize our approach with regard to existing research focusing

on the relations between (external) political communication and the media, in particular under

the conditions of technological change. We then reflect on dimensions of social capital, their

explanatory value for networks in the field of political communication and the potential

implications that digitization might have for these. Subsequently, we present findings from a

social network analysis based on interviews with leading government spokespersons from

Germany’s federal government. We conclude with a discussion of networks in the field of

media-government relations, their layouts and their boundaries and reflect on the explanatory

value of established dimensions of social capital for these. In doing so, we seek to analyze

media-government relations from a network perspective.

2 STATE OF RESEARCH

Especially in Germany, government communication as a particular form of political

communication is characterized by a high degree of formalization and comparatively severe

legal constraints (Gebauer, 1998; Kocks & Raupp, 2014, 2015b; Sanders, Canél, & Holtz-

Bacha, 2011; Vogel, 2010). It has sometimes been labelled an under-researched area of

political communication (Canél & Sanders, 2012). The latter finding partially reflects on a

level of interactions (i.e. media-government relations) which have so far been researched

tentatively, especially with regard to the effects of digitization on them. Yet, despite the fact

that political media relations in general are a comparatively young field of research (Raupp &

Kocks, 2016), there are some studies enquiring into the (communicative) relations between

political actors, political communicators and the media.

Interactions analyzed include those between political actors and the media (e.g. Davis, 2010a;

Ross, 2010; Schwab Cammarano, 2013; Schwab Cammarano, Donges, & Jarren, 2010; Van

Aelst, Sehata, & Van Dalen, 2010) and those between political communicators and the media

(e.g. Burgert, 2009; Heinze, 2012; Pfetsch & Mayerhöffer, 2011; Wenzler, 2008). The

majority of studies do not utilize social network analysis as a means of approaching these

interactions and relations. There are however a few which make recourse to this perspective

when enquiring into political media relations under the conditions of digitization, either

focusing on political communicators (e.g. Kocks, 2016; Kocks & Raupp, 2015a) or on

5

political journalists (Krüger, 2013; Nuernbergk, 2016). In these studies, network analysis is

either grounded in interview data, social media connections or membership data of clubs and

associations.

Studies on the interaction of politics, political communication and political journalism

indicate that it is generally perceived as mutually beneficent; journalists gain valuable

information and elevate their medium’s competitive position, politicians and political

communicators profit from the agenda-setting capabilities of prestigious media outlets

(Burgert, 2009; Maurer, 2011). In some cases, journalists additionally function as sources of

background information for political actors (Davis, 2009). Accordingly, the interaction

between journalism and political communication often tends to be dominated by elite actors

(Davis, 2009; Heinze, 2012; Maurer, 2011).1

While journalists often tend to provide more favorable coverage towards opposition

politicians, they tend to stick to high ranking politicians – often from the executive level of

government – when it comes to the formation of their communication networks (Davis, 2009).

With the professionalization of political communication, professional spokespersons become

an increasingly important group in these interactions and networks (Lesmeister, 2008; Pfetsch

& Mayerhöffer, 2011; Schwab Cammarano et al., 2010).

The fact that the interactions between political communication and media tends to be mutually

beneficent does however not necessarily imply an inherent lack of conflict; as a matter of fact

they are often described as being characterized by a constant competition for leadership in

which patterns of power often shift and in which it is not always clear who is actually leading

and who is lead (Bennett, Lawrence, & Livingston, 2007; Reich, 2009; Strömbäck & Nord,

2006; Van Aelst & Vliegenthart, 2014).

The so far few actual network studies approaching interactions in media relations in Germany

generally confirm these findings. On a level of personal contacts between political

communicators and political journalists they often indicate a network structure that is largely

shaped by what could be described as a form of structural conservatism; patterns of

interaction (analyzed in 2012/13) often appear fairly traditional in so far as they are mostly

coined by relatively few established actors. This holds true for both political parties and

1 Admittedly findings have to be differentiated between national contexts here. While studies show a high degree

of elite-elite interaction in all political fields in inter alia Germany (Kocks, 2016; Pfetsch & Mayerhöffer, 2011)

and the UK (Davis, 2009), findings are less unanimous for Switzerland (Wenzler, 2008) and New Zealand

(Ross, 2010), where empirical research has found significant differences in terms of the predominance of this

form of interaction between fields of politics.

6

governmental bodies (Kocks, 2016; Kocks & Raupp, 2015a). Analyses of networks

surrounding leading political journalists conducted in 2010/11 draw a comparable picture;

based on common membership in associations and clubs, they are very well connected to

leading representatives of the political system and of political communication in particular

(Krüger, 2013). Recent studies on the interaction of political journalists on Twitter show that

these do often interact with leading political communicators and representatives but to an

even higher degree with other leading journalists, often rendering these Twitter-conversations

a form of closed expert discourse (Nuernbergk, 2016).

A brief overview over the empirical state of research concerning political media relations in

general and media-government relations in particular illustrates that the interactions coining

these fields of political communication have so far often been seen as fairly exclusive and

mutually beneficent arrangements between leading communication professionals. Yet they

take place in a field in a state of flux with changing technological conditions and sets of

actors. This – and the political and societal importance of this field – calls for further research

on media-government relations under online conditions.

3 BACKGROUND AND OPERATIONALIZATION

The interaction between political communication and political journalism (i.e. political media

relations) and more particular the one between government communication and political

journalism (i.e. media-government relations) is a salient field of research. Yet so far, there is

no such thing as a unitary theory of media relations, the field is rather characterized by a

multitude of diverse approaches and, at least in some instances, it sometimes also suffers from

a lack in theorization (Raupp & Kocks, 2016).

Theoretical Considerations

So far, research has approached the interactions between politics, political communication and

the media from a variety of different theoretical perspectives. Journalism-centered approaches

have focused on the journalistic side of the interaction and on the effects that political

communication has on media content. In this context, approaches subsumed under the notion

of sourcing focus on the relationship between the media and their sources, on the vital

function that central political communicators have for the foundation of political coverage

7

(Davis, 2009; Herman & Chomsky, 1994; Reich, 2009). Approaches concentrating on

gatekeeping draw a stronger focus on the patterns of selection prevalent among political

journalists. From this perspective, the interactions between political communication and

journalism are primarily coined by the communicators’ attempts to overcome media

thresholds and by journalists who function as gatekeepers guarding access to the limited

commodity of mainstream media coverage (Shoemaker & Reese, 1993; Shoemaker & Vos,

2009; Shoemaker, Vos, & Reese, 2009). Technological change has given new momentum to

such debate due to the major alterations it potentially brings for both sides involved in the

interaction (Bruns, 2009; Neuberger & Quandt, 2010). The indexing-hypothesis again focuses

on the role of journalism in political media relations, this time bringing the role of elites into

the equation. It argues on the predominant or sole representation of elite political discourse in

the mainstream media (Bennett, 1990; Castells, 2013). It has previously been implemented to

analyze networks in political media relations in Germany (Krüger, 2013).

Other approaches do not draw their main focus of attention on the journalistic side of political

media relations. They have inter alia argued that analyses of political media relations would

have to incorporate a stronger elite perspective (e.g. approaches towards critical elite theory),

conceptualizing both parties involved as (positional) elites and analyzing their interests and

strategies from this point of view (Davis, 2003). This perspective that has also been

implemented to analyze networks in political media relations in Germany (Kocks, 2016).

They have furthermore argued for a concentration on the relationship management of the

actors involved (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) or on the strategies utilized to build media

agendas (Lang & Lang, 1981). In how far the latter are altered under the conditions of

digitization has lately become a salient question of research (Sweetser, Golan, & Wanta,

2008).

This brief selection of approaches illustrates the diversity of theoretical perspectives in media

relations research; there is no unitary theory of political media relations. However new

structural conditions call for new (complementary) theoretical perspectives. Network analysis

and network perspectives have recently gained importance in political communication

research; the relational dimension of communication has shifted into the focus of interest

(Castells, 1996, 2011; Klinger & Svensson, 2014; Raupp, 2011).

It has been argued that approaches focusing on dimensions of social capital would potentially

be fruitful in the analysis of network phenomena (Burt, 2000), since these allow for a

theoretical linkage between actors and the structures into which they are embedded (Jansen &

8

Diaz-Bone, 2011). In a basic understanding, social capital can be defined in terms of the

ability of actors to secure benefits for themselves through becoming members of social

structures such as networks (Portes, 1998). In an economic understanding, it is through

maintaining ties to actors rich in a variety of resources that an actor can potentially access

(shares of) these resources, accumulating a form of capital understood as social capital

(Bourdieu, 1992; Lin, 2001). Accordingly, the ties maintained to resource rich actors become

an important asset for an actor, the network membership itself a desired resource (Bastié,

Cussy, & Nadant, 2014).

The nature of the desired resources potentially becoming available through the benefit of

network membership varies with the specific fields that a network is created in. While access

to information is often regarded as an almost universal resource (Burt, 2010), others are more

specific, inter alia to the fields of business and economics, which has been subjected to a

comparatively large number of network studies and approaches (Bastié et al., 2014;

Javakhadze, Ferris, & French, 2016), or to networks created in local communities and sub-

populations (Ryan, Sales, Tilki, & Siara, 2008). There is no general consensus on what being

well-connected really means (Burt, 2000); the evaluation of the quality of sets of ties is again

dependent on the specific field of analysis. The same holds true for questions surrounding

differences between strong and comparatively week ties, which can both be understood as

desirable, depending on the individual context in which they exist (Granovetter, 1973, 1983).

Accordingly, analyses of networks of communication from a perspective of social capital

demand definitions of the assets potentially available through network ties. What is it that

grounds the social capital that political communicators can potentially accumulate through

connecting to certain actors from the field of political coverage? Which ties lie in their

assumed interest?

Operationalization: Social Capital in Networks of Media-Government Relations

In accordance with the understanding of social capital as the ability to secure benefits derived

from the resources of other actors within one’s network, we take for potentially valuable

assets of actors from the field of political coverage into account: the size of their audience, the

frequency with which they are cited by other (important) media outlets, their agenda setting

capability and their connectedness within the political field.

9

Fig. 1: Network connections and the resources available through them.

Political communicators seek to reach large audiences, inter alia to secure popular support and

their democratic legitimacy. Mediatized democracy implies that such audiences are primarily

reached through the mass media (Esser, 2013; Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999; Strömbäck &

Esser, 2014; Van Aelst & Walgrave, 2016). Therefore the size of a medium’s audience has to

be considered a direct asset potentially available to those political communicators that have

ties with this medium in their network. This renders the size of an audience a dimension of

social capital in our operationalization.

Political communicators can furthermore seek to broaden their audiences by getting messages

into various media outlets and channels without directly communicating with these, trying to

influence their agenda through other channels such as their own social media presences

(Sweetser et al., 2008) or, more importantly here, through communicating with (few)

influential and well cited media outlets (Vliegenthart & Walgrave, 2008). The more such a

source is cited, the better for the political communicator tied to that source. This renders the

citation index value of an actor from the field of political coverage.

In accordance with these two dimensions, the agenda setting capability of an actor from the

field of political coverage is to be understood as a potential asset available to those that

maintain ties to this specific actor. Media agendas have often been proven to have the

10

potential to directly influence public agendas which are of elevated importance for political

actors (McCombs & Bell, 1996). Even though one might have to include further (intervening)

factors into this equation (Walgrave & Van Aelst, 2006), the overall importance of the agenda

setting capability of an actor from the field of political coverage for political communicators

is apparent.

Last but not least, networks allow for access to the contacts of one’s contacts; maintaining a

lot of (not even necessarily strong) ties to a variety of (well connected) actors broadens one’s

scope and efficacy (Granovetter, 1983) and yields further (structural) profits (Portes, 1998).

Accordingly, the connectedness of actors from the field of political coverage is also to be

understood as a valuable resource potentially available to those actors that maintain ties with

them.

Research Questions

As indicated, this paper seeks to enquire into the networks that define media-government

relations in Germany. It seeks to identify the constellations of actors that are prevalent within

these networks and to find out about the potential ascent of new actors into them under the

conditions of digitization. Therefore the first research question focuses on a primarily

descriptive analysis of communication networks in media-government relations:

RQ1: Which actors and connections define the communication network surrounding

government communicators in Germany?

Subsequently established dimensions of social capital as discussed in the previous theoretical

section are in the focus of interest. Here we seek to analyze their explanatory value in the

analysis of communication networks in media-government relations under the conditions of

digitization:

RQ2: In how far do established dimensions of social capital still function as an explanatory

factor for an actor’s access to and centrality in these networks of government

communication?

11

Here the analysis focuses on four dimensions of social capital potentially accumulated

through maintaining ties with actors from the field of political coverage: audience size,

citations, (perceived) agenda setting capability and (perceived) connectedness. Arguably,

these dimensions could be considered determinants of tie selection in a ‘classic’

understanding of how the media sphere functions in contemporary democracies. The question

however is whether or not this still holds true under the conditions of digitization, a process

that has been attributed with a variety of potentials to alter established structures and patterns

of communication (Chadwick, 2011; Coleman & Blumler, 2009; Wright, 2012).

Both audience numbers and citations can be measured objectively and the data is widely

available, also to those political communicators that seek to build network ties to actors from

the field of political communication. For our operationalization, we can make recourse to the

same (objective) data. The agenda setting capability and connectedness of an actor is harder to

determine and in many cases a question of perceptions inter alia shaped by organizational

backgrounds and the political field a communicator is active in (Kocks, 2016). Accordingly,

we operationalize agenda setting capability and connectedness both in terms of perceptions

(i.e. ‘perceived agenda setting capability’ and ‘perceived connectedness’) and evaluate them

by analyzing (subjective) perceptions.

4 EMPIRICAL STUDY

To enquire into German government communications and media-government relations under

the conditions of digitization in particular, we conducted telephone interviews with leading

government communicators. The following is to briefly discuss our methodological approach

and to then present some key findings of our enquiry into media-government relations from a

network perspective.

Methodology

Our interviews were conducted as computer-assisted telephone interviews with leading

government communicators and spokespersons between 09/2015 and 02/2016. These

interviews focused on both their perceptions of technological and organizational change under

the conditions of digitization and on their (professional) communication networks. Since the

analysis of communication networks involves potentially sensitive information and is

12

therefore to be considered demanding in terms of research ethics (Kadushin, 2005), we

allowed the interviewees to opt out of this bloc of questions during the interview.

We first sampled on an organizational level, identifying the communication departments of 14

ministries and the federal communication office as relevant organizations. We then contacted

these asking for interviews with their leading communicators and spokespersons. Ten

ministries and the federal communication office agreed to participate; two of these gave us

more than one interview.2 Network data was provided by ten interviewees, four interviewees

decided to opt out of this bloc of questions.

Governmental Body n(interviewees)

AA (Foreign Office) 01

BMBF (Federal Ministry of Research and Education) 01

BMF (Federal Ministry of Finance) 03

BMFSFJ (Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth) 01

BMI (Federal Ministry of the Interior) 02

BPA (Federal Information Office) 01

BMUB (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety) 01

BMVI (Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure) 01

BMVg (Federal Ministry of Defence) 01

BMWi (Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy) 01

BMZ (Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development) 01

BMEL (Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture) n/a

BMG (Federal Ministry of Health) n/a

BMJV (Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection) n/a

BMAS (Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs) n/a

Tab. 1 Sample of governmental organizations/ interviewees.

To collect the network data grounding this analysis, we first asked the interviewees to name

around ten individual or organizational actors out of the field of political coverage (e.g.

individual journalists or bloggers, media organizations or blogs) with whom they had recently

been in contact. We proceeded with the list of contacts derived from this step, first asking the

interviewees to indicate the frequency of their contact with these actors. This was

operationalized on a five point scale ranging from 1 (less than monthly) to 5 (several times a

week). Subsequently we asked them – again utilizing their list of contacts – to indicate

whether or not they deemed these actors a) well connected within the political field and b)

influential agenda setters who could significantly influence topics and timing of public

discussions.

2 The Federal Ministry of Finance and the Federal Ministry of the Interior offered additional interviews with the

coordinators of their online-communications/ their digital public relations to provide further information on their

communication activities in the online-sphere.

13

The data derived from this bloc of four network analysis questions first lead to individual ego-

networks for each interviewee, showing the individual set of contacts from the sphere of

political coverage, the frequency of contact with these actors and perceived connectedness

and agenda setting capabilities. In the next step, this individual network data was aggregated

to create a network representing all informational ties analyzed (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson,

2013). Since the analysis focuses on uni-directional inter-group ties (i.e. ties from government

communicators to actors from the field of political broadcasting), this was designed as a two-

mode network.

Data grounding the assumed dimensions of social capital is collected in the network

interviews (hence the questions concerning perceived connectedness and agenda setting

capabilities) and subsequently through research on circulation numbers (respectively page

visits or viewer shares) and ranks within the generally accepted citation index of Media

Tenor.

Findings

In accordance with our first research question concerning the composition of communication

networks in the field of government communication, we firstly seek to identify the various

nodes present in the analyzed network: Which actors from the field of political coverage are

identified as recent contacts by governmental communicators? Which organizational

background do they have?

Fig. 2 Media contacts named by the interviewees by sector; (not weighed by number of mentions); n=41.

Public Service Broadcasters

Commercial Broadcasters

News Agencies

Newspapers & Magazines

(offline; German)

Newspapers & Magazines

(offline; International)

Independent Journalists

Newspapers & Magazines (online;

German)

14

Taking into account all actors from the field of political coverage named by the interviewees,

we find that a large share of these contacts is from a background of offline journalism. With

only four contacts from a background of online magazines and newspapers and a further four

contacts from a background of weblogs and videoblogs, online actors make up less than a

fifth of the list of contacts from the field of political coverage named by our interviewees.

Around a fourth of the contacts is from the field of news broadcasting, either public service

(n=4) or commercial (n=3). Five contacts are from a background of news agencies while 17

can be labelled as newspaper and magazine contacts, among these 15 from a German and two

from an international background. Last but not least, there is one independent journalist in the

list of contacts.

Translated into a social network structure, the interview data on contacts from the field of

political coverage yields the following picture:

Fig. 3 Media-government relations as a network; node size adjusted according to degree based centrality

(n=51); circles: governmental bodies, squares: actors from the field of political coverage, light grey

squares: blogs or independent journalists; 2 mode network; visualization according to geodesic

distance; to ensure the anonymity of interviewees three contacts have been de-labelled.

15

Central ranks in this network of media-government relations are occupied by large quality

newspapers, news agencies and television newscasts. Furthermore there are also a weekly

political magazine, its online variant and a tabloid newspaper in a focal position.

Rank Media Actor Centrality (Indegree)

1 Süddeutsche Zeitung .900

2 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung .800

3 Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen .600

4 ARD – Das Erste .500

Der Spiegel

dpa – Deutsche Presse-Agentur

5 RTL .400

Bild

Spiegel Online

Reuters

Tab. 2 Media actors ranked by their (degree-based) network centrality.

Germany’s two large quality newspapers (Süddeutsche Zeitung and Frankfurter Allgemeine

Zeitung) occupy the most central ranks here, followed by two public service newscasts, a

weekly political magazine and a news agency. On the fifth rank we find a commercial

newscast, Germany’s leading tabloid (Bild), a large online magazine and another news

agency.

Fig. 3 Ten most central media actors named by the interviewees by sector; n=10.

The analyzed network of media-government relations is clearly dominated by a set of actors

that could be described as well established in the German media landscape. Quality

Public Service Broadcasters

Commercial Broadcasters

News Agencies

Newspapers & Magazines (offline;

German)

Newspapers & Magazines (online;

German)

16

newspapers, television newscasts and political magazines play a focal role here, the same

holds true for news agencies and Germany’s major tabloid newspaper.

In comparison to that, new actors like online magazines or weblogs play a comparatively

smaller role in the analyzed network. One large online media outlet (Spiegel Online)

admittedly occupies a rank within the top ten here – though within a considerable distance

from high ranking quality newspapers – yet the rest of Germany’s online media landscape

appears rather marginal. At a first glace the network structure found here shows a high degree

of structural conservatism, often showing constellations of actors that were already prevalent

in a pre-online age.

In a next step, we then seek to incorporate the various forms of capital that actors from the

field of political coverage potentially provide to those that maintain network ties to them.

Firstly, this regards the two (objective) dimensions of audience and citations. We measure

audience either in circulation numbers (newspapers and magazines), viewer share (TV

newscasts) or page visits (online media).3

Tab. 3 Ten most central media actors, their audiences and their citation-ranks.

3 Unfortunately, there is currently no data available for the news agencies in the network. 4 For newspapers: average copies sold per day in the first quarter of 2016; for the weekly magazine ‘Der

Spiegel’: average copies sold per week in 2015; source for both: de.statista.com (accessed 09.06.2016). 5 Average daily viewer share of the channel’s main newscast (ARD Tagesschau im Ersten; ZDF heute journal;

RTL aktuell); source: de.statista.com (accessed 09.06.2016). 6 Accumulated page visits in May 2016; source: de.statista.com (accessed 09.06.2016). 7 Based on the ‘Media Tenor’-citation ranking 2016; source: de.mediatenor.com (accessed: 10.06.2016). 8 Read: RTL was not ranked among the top 20 sources in this ranking. 9 While ranked separately for different political fields; Spiegel Online is subsumed under Spiegel-group in the

general group-based ‘Media Tenor’-ranking. Spiegel Online ranks among the top 20 in being cited on the fields

of domestic security and international politics; source: de.mediatenor.com (accessed 10.06.2016).

Rank Media Actor Centrality

(Indegree)

Circulation4 Viewer

Share5

Page Visits6 Citation

Rank7

1 Süddeutsche Zeitung .900 382.050 -- -- 04

2 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung .800 252.676 -- -- 05

3 Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen .600 -- 3.720.000 -- 16

4 ARD – Das Erste .500 -- 4.990.000 -- 19

Der Spiegel 833.000 -- -- 02

dpa – Deutsche Presse-Agentur -- -- -- --

5 RTL .400 -- 3.140.000 -- < 208

Bild 1.997.319 -- -- 01

Spiegel Online -- -- 206.340.000 029

Reuters -- -- -- --

17

As the data illustrates, all central media actors in the analyzed network of media-government

relations have a large audience. The two quality newspapers on the first and second centrality

rank have the largest circulation numbers in their market, the same holds true for the weekly

political magazine Der Spiegel and the tabloid newspaper Bild (which at the same time is still

Germany’s best-selling daily newspaper). The newscasts of both public service broadcasters

enjoy the highest viewer share of all German newscasts; RTL provides the commercial

newscast with the largest audience. The online magazine Spiegel Online is on the second rank

of Germany’s most visited news websites (beaten online by the online variant of Bild).

In terms of citations by other media outlets, most actors in this list also occupy high ranks.

Bild and Der Spiegel are the most cited sources in the 2016 citation ranking. The two quality

newspapers (Süddeutsche Zeitung and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) are also ranked in the

top ten tier of this index. Spiegel Online is not ranked independently in all dimensions of this

citation ranking, yet it is proven to be one of the most cited sources in various political areas

by individual sub-rankings of the MediaTenor-ranking. The two public service newscasts are

ranked in the top 20 of media sources cited in 2016. Only the commercial newscasts produced

by RTL is not occupying one of the top ranks here. There are no individual numbers available

for the two news agencies, yet dpa - Deutsche Presse Agentur is the leading provider of such

services on the German media market (with a market share of over 52% in 2010)10 which

indicates some importance in this regard.

In a further step, we now incorporate perceived agenda setting capability and connectedness:

Rank Media Actor Centrality

(Indegree)

Agenda Setting

Capability?

Connectedness? Av. Contact

Frequency?

1 Süddeutsche Zeitung .900 89% 100% 3,8

2 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung .800 50% 88% 3,6

3 Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen .600 67% 100% 3,2

4 ARD – Das Erste .500 60% 100% 3,8

Der Spiegel 100% 100% 4,4

dpa – Deutsche Presse-Agentur 100% 100% 4,8

5 RTL .400 0% 50% 2,5

Bild 75% 100% 4,5

Spiegel Online 100% 100% 3,8

Reuters 100% 100% 5,0

Tab. 4 Ten most central media actors, their agenda setting capability and connectedness; additionally:

frequency of contact, operationalized on a five point scale.

10 Source: de.statista.com (accessed 30.06.2016); the newest data available is unfortunately the dataset for 2010.

18

We first focus on the agenda setting capability that our interviewees attribute to actors from

the field of political coverage: In how far do they consider their media contacts able to

influence public discussion about politics and political topics? Do they consider them able to

shape the public agenda? As the data shows, most media contacts are described as potentially

influential agenda setters by the interviewees. Opinions are somewhat divided on one quality

newspaper, the commercial newscast provided by RTL is not considered an influential agenda

setter by those that maintain network ties to it. We then focus on perceived connectedness. Do

the interviewees deem their media contacts well connected within the political field,

especially in their own political field? As the data shows, most media contacts are described

as well connected by all interviewees that maintain ties to them. In the case of Frankfurter

Allgemeine Zeitung, 88% agree while opinions are more divided on the newscast of RTL,

which is only described as well connected by half of the interviewees maintaining network

ties with it.

Setting aside these potential assets available through network ties, we take the contact

frequency between political communicators and actors from the field of political coverage

into account. This is operationalized on a five point scale ranging from 1 (less than monthly)

over 2 (monthly), 3 (every two weeks) and 4 (each week) to 5 (several times a week). On

average,11 interviewees claim to be in contact with both news agencies and Bild several times

a week and at least once a week with both quality newspapers, weekly magazine Der Spiegel

and its online magazine Spiegel Online and the public service newscast produced by ARD.

Values are slightly lower for the public service newscast produced by ZDF. Only the

commercial newscast produced by RTL stands out again with an average of 2.5 (i.e. ranging

between monthly and every two weeks).

5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Media-government relations in Germany are still very much coined by routines and patterns

that have shaped the field in previous decades. In accordance with the majority of empirical

studies enquiring into similar interactions (i.e. political media relations), we find a high

degree of what could be labeled structural conservatism. While technological change greatly

affects structural conditions, it hardly alters the interactions defining the field.

11 Despite the ordinal scale level of this five point scale, we chose to indicate means for an improved overview

and a high degree of comparability.

19

Without a doubt, digitization is to be considered an important factor in contemporary political

communication. Analyzing the output of public government communication, we now find a

high degree of digitized communication. Governmental actors communicate professionally

and regularly through a variety of digital channels (Murphy, Kocks, & Raupp, 2016). The last

years have clearly seen a drastic increase in that; earlier studies still found a rather cautious

adaptation of digital channels by governmental actors (Kocks, Raupp, & Schink, 2014), often

attributed to a rather peculiar legal situation potentially hindering the widespread adaptation

of new means and forms of communication (Kocks & Raupp, 2015b). This picture has

changed: the output of public government communication is now highly digitized.

However, when we take the network level of analysis into account another picture emerges.

As our findings illustrate, communication networks in the field of media-government relations

are still largely coined by a high degree of structural conservatism. Political communicators

overwhelmingly opt for leading journalists from established media outlets when

communicating with actors from the field of political coverage. Online media outlets play a

comparatively smaller role and weblogs are still largely marginal. Here, we find a replication

of established patterns of interaction in the online-sphere.

In our second research question we tried to enquire into the explanatory value of established

dimensions of social capital for the communication networks of media-government relations.

Do traditional explanations still function under the conditions of digitization? As our findings

show, this is the case. The media and its political coverage are often described as having a

double function for the political sphere: to provide information and to provide a platform, an

arena in which arguments and positions can compete, inter alia for public interest and support

(Van Aelst & Walgrave, 2016). In a traditional understanding, circulation numbers (as a

predicator of audience size), citation-indexes, (perceived) connectedness and (perceived)

agenda setting capabilities could be seen as important factors in the latter regard, i.e. as assets

serving political actors utilizing the media as an arena. Additionally, well connected actors

from the field of political coverage could also serve as valuable sources of information for

their counterparts in political communication (Davis, 2009) As we can see here, most actors

from the field of political coverage that are central in the network of media-government

relations rank high on all of these dimensions. High values in them mostly serve as a great

predicator of network centrality here; these dimensions still persist to function under the

conditions of digitization.

20

So how do these findings relate to the existing research on political media relations under the

conditions of digitization? Which further implications do they have? As most studies on the

interactions of politics and the media show, they have so far been considered exclusive

phenomena. Digitization was then often framed as a process potentially altering these

conditions (Coleman & Blumler, 2009). This assumption is however not undisputed and there

is increasing evidence that many patterns of offline communication get in fact replicated

under online conditions (Gerhards & Schäfer, 2007; Schweitzer, 2011), ultimately leading to a

state of ‘normalization’ (Margolis & Resnick, 2000; Resnick, 1998). While findings are

somewhat ambiguous for pure social media networks (Nuernbergk, 2016; Ross, Fountaine, &

Comrie, 2014) – which sometimes show at least some degree of integration – there is

evidence that networks of communication in general tend to be far more structurally

conservative (Kocks, 2016; Kocks & Raupp, 2015a) with interactions mostly dominated by

already established actors and very limited integration of any new actors (Davis, 2010a,

2010b). The findings of the present analysis relate to this, also bringing forward the picture of

a fairly structurally conservative network of media-government relations. The drastic change

of technological conditions is not replicating on a level of network ties. Under these

conditions, it is apparent that established dimensions of social capital – often considered

effective explanatory factors under ‘classic’ conditions – would still have a high explanatory

value here.

Yet one has to be cautious against any over-interpretation of these findings. There is sound

evidence that media-government relations in Germany are in fact a continuing elite

phenomenon coined by structurally conservative networks of communication and it is also

apparent that the criteria that influence the centrality of an actor are very much persistent. It is

however important to note that the media outlets represented on the central ranks of the

network analyzed here are in fact quite diverse in terms of inter alia their political background

and their target audience. The inner core of the media-government relations network analyzed

here is quite heterogeneous. Furthermore, communicative network ties in this field have to be

interpreted cautiously when it comes to direct influence (Neuberger, 2014). Close interaction

does not necessarily imply (illegitimate) influence.

What we find here is a dense and persistent network of media-government relations in

Germany. Technological conditions are largely altered while basic patterns of interaction

most often remain the same. Egos, elites and social capital are (so far) not rendered

superfluous under the conditions of digitization.

21

Literature:

Bastié, F., Cussy, P., & Nadant, L. (2014). Network or Independent Business? Entrepreneurs'

Human, Social and Financial Capital as Determinants of Mode of Entry. Managerial

and Decision Economics, 37(3), 167-181.

Bennett, W. L. (1990). Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States. Journal

of Communication, 40(2), 103-127. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02265.x

Bennett, W. L., Lawrence, R. G., & Livingston, S. (2007). When the Press Fails: Political

Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. London:

Sage.

Bourdieu, P. (1992). Die verborgenen Mechanismen der Macht. Hamburg: VSA.

Bruns, A. (2009). Vom Gatekeeping zum Gatewatching. Modelle der journalistischen

Vermittlung im Internet. In C. Neuberger, C. Nuernbergk, & M. Rischke (Eds.),

Journalismus im Internet: Profession – Partizipation – Technisierung (pp. 107-128).

Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Burgert, D. (2009). Politisch-mediale Beziehungsgeflechte: Ein Vergleich

politikfeldspezifischer Kommunikationskulturen in Deutschland und Frankreich.

Münster: LIT Verlag.

Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in organizational

behavior, 22, 345-423.

Burt, R. S. (2010). Neighbor networks: Competitive advantage local and personal. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Canél, M. J., & Sanders, K. (2012). Government Communication: An emerging field in

political communication research. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The Sage

Handbook of Political Communciation (pp. 85-96). London: Sage.

Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society and culture. Vol. I: The rise of

the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.

Castells, M. (2011). A network theory of power. International Journal of Communication,

5(1), 773-787.

Castells, M. (2013). Communication power. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chadwick, A. (2011). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The Internet and democratic citizenship: Theory,

practice and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, A. (2003). Whither Mass Media and Power? Evidence for a Critical Elite Theory

Alternative. Media, Culture & Society, 25(5), 669-690.

Davis, A. (2009). Journalist-Source Relations, Mediated Reflexivity and the Politics of

Politics. Journalism Studies, 10(2), 204–219. doi:10.1080/14616700802580540

Davis, A. (2010a). New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation. New

Media & Society, 12(5), 745-761.

Davis, A. (2010b). Political Communication and Social Theory. New York: Routledge.

Esser, F. (2013). Mediatization as a Challenge: Media Logic vs. Political Logic. In H. Kriesi

(Ed.), Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization (pp. 155-176).

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gebauer, K.-E. (1998). Regierungskommunikation. In O. Jarren, U. Sarcinelli, & U. Saxer

(Eds.), Politische Kommunikation in der demokratischen Gesellschaft (pp. 464-472).

Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

22

Gerhards, J., & Schäfer, M. (2007). Demokratische Internet-Öffentlichkeit? Ein Vergleich der

öffentlichen Kommunikation im Internet und in den Printmedien am Beispiel der

Humangenomforschung. Publizistik, 52(2), 210–228. doi:10.1007/s11616-007-0084-0

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),

1360-1380.

Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited.

Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.

Heinze, J. (2012). Regierungskommunikation in Deutschland: Eine Analyse von Produktion

und Rezeption. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (1994). Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the

mass media. New York: Random House.

Jansen, D., & Diaz-Bone, R. (2011). Netzwerkstrukturen als soziales Kapital. In J. Weyer

(Ed.), Soziale Netzwerke: Konzepte und Methoden der sozialwissenschaftlichen

Netzwerkforschung (pp. 71-108). München: Oldenbourg.

Javakhadze, D., Ferris, S. P., & French, D. W. (2016). Managerial Social Capital and

Financial Development: A Cross‐Country Analysis. Financial Review, 51(1), 37-68.

Kadushin, C. (2005). Who benefits from network analysis: ethics of social network research.

Social Networks, 27(2), 139-153.

Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2014). The emergence of network media logic in political

communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society.

Kocks, J. N. (2016). Political Media Relations Online as an Elite Phenomenon. Wiesbaden:

Springer VS.

Kocks, J. N., & Raupp, J. (2014). Rechtlich-normative Rahmenbedingungen der

Regierungskommunikation. Publizistik, 59(3), 269-284.

Kocks, J. N., & Raupp, J. (2015a). Media Relations Online - Zur Interaktion von politischer

PR und Journalismus im digitalen Zeitalter. prmagazin (02/2015).

Kocks, J. N., & Raupp, J. (2015b). Social Media and Juridical Constraints: Possibilities and

Limitations of Digitized Governmental PR in Germany. In E. Ordeix, V. Carayol, &

R. Tench (Eds.), Public Relations, Values and Cultural Identity (pp. 215-232).

Bruxelles: Peter Lang.

Kocks, J. N., Raupp, J., & Schink, C. (2014). Staatliche Öffentlichkeitsarbeit zwischen

Distribution und Dialog: Interaktive Potentiale digitaler Medien und ihre Nutzung im

Rahmen der Außenkommunikation politischer Institutionen. In R. Fröhlich & T.

Koch (Eds.), Politik - PR - Persuasion. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Krüger, U. (2013). Meinungsmacht: Der Einfluss von Eliten auf Leitmedien und Alpha-

Journalisten - eine kritische Netzwerkanalyse. Köln: Halem.

Lang, G. E., & Lang, K. (1981). Watergate: An Exploration of the Agenda-Building Process.

In C. C. Wilhoit & H. d. Bock (Eds.), Mass Communication Review Yearbook (pp.

447-468). London: Sage.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations:

Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1),

55-65.

Lesmeister, C. (2008). Informelle politische Kommunikationskultur: hinter den Kulissen

politisch-medialer Kommunikation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital: Theory and Research. New York: de Gruyter.

Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual: The cyberspace "revolution". London:

Sage.

Maurer, P. (2011). Explaining perceived media influence in politics. Publizistik, 56(1), 27-50.

doi:10.1007/s11616-010-0104-3

Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). "Mediatization" of politics. A challenge for democracy?

Political Communication, 16, 247-261.

23

McCombs, M. E., & Bell, T. (1996). The Agenda-Setting Role of Mass Communication. In

M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), An Integrated Approach to Communication:

Theory and Research (pp. 176-187). New York: Routledge.

Murphy, K., Kocks, J. N., & Raupp, J. (2016). Different Governments, Different Approaches:

Political Participation in the Online Sphere. Paper presented at the General

Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), Prague.

Neuberger, C. (2014). Meinungsmache statt Macht. medium magazin (11/2014), 24-25.

Neuberger, C., & Quandt, T. (2010). Internet-Journalismus: Vom traditionellen Gatekeeping

zum partizipativen Journalismus? In W. Schweiger & K. Beck (Eds.), Handbuch

Online-Kommunikation (pp. 59-79). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Nuernbergk, C. (2016). Political Journalists’ Interaction Networks: The German Federal Press

Conference on Twitter. Journalism Practice, 1-12.

Pfetsch, B., & Mayerhöffer, E. (2011). Vordergründige Nähe: Zur Kommunikationskultur von

Politik- und Medieneliten in Deutschland. Medien- & Kommunikationswissenschaft,

59(1), 40-59.

Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual

Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24.

Raupp, J. (2011). Organizational Communication in a Networked Public Sphere: Strategische

Organisationskommunikation in einer Netzwerköffentlichkeit. Studies in

Communication/Media (1), 15-36.

Raupp, J., & Kocks, J. N. (2016). Theoretical Approaches to Grasp the Changing Relations

between Media and Political Actors. In G. Vowe & P. Henn (Eds.), Political

communication in the online world: Theoreical approaches and research designs.

New York: Routledge.

Reich, Z. (2009). Sourcing the news: key issues in journalism - an innovative study of the

Israeli press. Cresskill: Hampton Press.

Resnick, D. (1998). The normalization of cyberspace. In C. Toulouse & T. W. Luke (Eds.),

The politics of cyberspace (pp. 48-68). New York: Routledge.

Ross, K. (2010). Danse macabre: Politicians, journalists, and the complicated rumba of

relationships. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(3), 272-294.

Ross, K., Fountaine, S., & Comrie, M. (2014). Facing up to Facebook: politicians, publics and

the social media(ted) turn in New Zealand. Media, Culture & Society.

Ryan, L., Sales, R., Tilki, M., & Siara, B. (2008). Social networks, social support and social

capital: The experiences of recent Polish migrants in London. Sociology, 42(4), 672-

690.

Sanders, K., Canél, M. J., & Holtz-Bacha, C. (2011). Communicating governments. A three

country comparison of how governments communicate with citizens. International

Journal of Press and Politics, 16(4), 523-547.

Schwab Cammarano, S. (2013). Rollen in der Politikvermittlung: Die Interaktion zwischen

Politik und Journalismus in der Schweiz. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Schwab Cammarano, S., Donges, P., & Jarren, O. (2010). Politische Kommunikationskultur

im Wandel. Studies in Communication Science, 10(1), 7-21.

Schweitzer, E. J. (2011). Normalization 2.0: Evidence from German Online Campaigns in the

National Elections 2002-2009. Paper presented at the APSA 2011 Annual Meeting,

Seattle.

Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1993). Mediating the messages. Theories of influence on

mass media content. New York: Longman.

Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. New York: Routledge.

Shoemaker, P. J., Vos, T. P., & Reese, S. D. (2009). Journalists as Gatekeepers. In K. Wahl-

Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The Handbook of Journalism Studies (pp. 73-87).

New York: Routledge.

24

Strömbäck, J., & Esser, F. (2014). Mediatization of Politics: Towards a theoretical

framework. In J. Strömbäck & F. Esser (Eds.), Mediatization of Politics:

Understanding the transformation of western democracies (pp. 3-30). Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Strömbäck, J., & Nord, L. W. (2006). Do politicians lead the tango? A study of the

relationship between Swedish journalists and their political sources in the context of

election campaigns. European Journal of Communication, 21(2), 147-164.

Sweetser, K. D., Golan, G. J., & Wanta, W. (2008). Intermedia Agenda Setting in Television,

Advertising, and Blogs During the 2004 Election. Mass Communication and Society,

11(2), 197-216.

Van Aelst, P., Sehata, A., & Van Dalen, A. (2010). Members of Parliament: Equal

Competitors for Media Attention? An Analysis of Personal Contacts Between MPs

and Political Journalists in Five European Countries. Political Communication, 27(3),

310-325.

Van Aelst, P., & Vliegenthart, R. (2014). Studying the tango: An analysis of parliamentary

questions and press coverage in the Netherlands. Journalism Studies, 15(4), 392-410.

Van Aelst, P., & Walgrave, S. (2016). Information and Arena: The Dual Function of the News

Media for Political Elites. Journal of Communication, 66(3), 496-518.

Vliegenthart, R., & Walgrave, S. (2008). The contingency of intermedia agenda setting: A

longitudinal study in Belgium. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(4),

860-877.

Vogel, M. (2010). Regierungskommunikation im 21. Jahrhundert: ein Vergleich zwischen

Großbritannien, Deutschland und der Schweiz. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Walgrave, S., & Van Aelst, P. (2006). The Contingency of the Mass Media's Political Agenda

Setting Power: Toward a Preliminary Theory. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 88-

109.

Wenzler, M. (2008). Journalisten und Eliten: das Entstehen journalistischer Nachrichten

über Energie-und Kulturpolitik. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.

Wright, S. (2012). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online

deliberation. New Media & Society, 14(2). doi:10.1177/1461444811410679