Mapping Emerging and Legacy Outlets Online by Their Democratic Functions—Agonistic, Deliberative, or Corrosive?

Abstract

In this study, we offer a novel approach to research on migration reporting by focusing on the argumentative substance prevalent in different online outlets. Taking German refugee policy as our case in point we map the role that moral, ethical–cultural, legal, and pragmatic argumentations play within journalistic, partisan, and activist outlets; and how these coincide with incivility and impoliteness. Using dictionary-based content analysis on a data set of 34,819 articles from thirty online news outlets published between April 10, 2017, and April 10, 2018, we find that legacy mainstream media, partisan media, and activist media perform vastly different functions for the larger public sphere. We observe that human rights activist media perform an advocatory function by making the moral case for refugees, whereas corrosive partisan media at the fringe—particularly within the contra-refugee camp—often present opponents as inherently illegitimate enemies. Implications for public sphere theory and directions for future research on emerging and legacy media are discussed.

Dissemination of RT and Sputnik Content in European Digital Alternative News Environments: Mapping the Influence of Russian State-Backed Media Across Platforms, Topics, and Ideology

“…The shared articles primarily focus on divisive issues already contentious within Western public discourse, thereby amplifying societal divides. This aligns with existing research pinpointing the destabilizing and propagandistic strategies of these Russian-backed media in domestic news environments (Freudenthaler and Wessler 2022). The shared articles do not overtly glorify Russia or its politics but emphasize the deficiencies of Western liberal democracies (Glazunova et al 2022).…”

“…On the other hand, they all add to the greater narrative of a Western world besieged by conflicts, protests, and lack of political trust. This greater narrative is in line with the understanding of RT/Sputnik as media with destabilizing functions in wider information environments that are capable of propagating societal dissatisfaction (Freudenthaler and Wessler 2022: 432). Furthermore, most topics are globally oriented toward larger geo-political and normative conflicts such as the Russian–Ukraine war, WikiLeaks, immigration and Western military operations in Africa and the Middle East, where meta-political struggles are carried out.…”

“…As Wagnsson and authors demonstrates for Swedish RT/Sputnik audiences, characteristics like being “anti-woke,” media-skeptic or anti-establishment are often more pronounced than an alignment with pro-Russian political narratives (Wagnsson 2023). In contrast to alternative media characterized by hyper-partisanship, RT has therefore been described as a “destabilizing” (Freudenthaler and Wessler 2022: 432) and as an “anti-systemic” media outlet (Audinet 2017: 7) that resides in more fundamental opposition to the political and social order. This type of anti-systemic alternative news media also becomes increasingly relevant in domestic alternative news environments (Kristensen et al 2023).…”

“…Due to their self-proclaimed counter-hegemonic positioning in information environments outside Russia, RT and Sputnik have also been studied as alternative news media (Freudenthaler and Wessler 2022; Müller and Freudenthaler 2022; Müller and Schulz 2021; Rawnsley 2015). Alternative news media are generally understood as “a proclaimed and/or (self-)perceived corrective, opposing the overall tendency of public discourse emanating from what is perceived as the dominant mainstream media in a given system” (Holt et al 2019).…”

More than news! Mapping the deliberative potential of a political online ecosystem with digital trace data

“…Of course, deliberative potential does not directly imply deliberation. Online environments may provide accurate political information but also misinformation, they may enable deliberative discussion but also host toxic exchanges, they may provide platforms for civic engagement but also hostile participation (Freudenthaler and Wessler 2022;Quandt 2018). However, if the fundamental conditions of deliberative potential are not met in the infrastructure and usage of online environments, deliberation itself is impossible.…”