Who is Responsible for Doping in Sports? The Attribution of Responsibility in the German Print Media

Abstract

The fight against doping has been one of the most profound challenges in the world of (media-) sports. However, communication research has not addressed the mediated attribution of responsibility for this problem. Drawing on the distinction between episodic and thematic framing, this study analyzes the attribution of responsibility in three quality German national newspapers. We find that responsibility for causing performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) use is equally attributed to the individual and systemic levels, while responsibility for finding solutions is directed at the systemic level. Individual responsibility attributions occur more frequently in articles with an episodic news frame. Given the often proclaimed ambiguous role of the media with regard to PED use, the study attaches particular importance to the self-attribution of responsibility by the media. Our findings show that the media neglect to discuss their own role and do not see themselves as responsible for the problem of doping. This study demonstrates that the investigation of mediated responsibility attribution provides a fruitful new approach to the research on media and PED use in sports.

Who Is Responsible for Causing and Solving the Problem? Responsibility Attribution of Medical Disputes in Chinese Print Media

“…This deficit of the self-attribution has been termed as "a blind spot" of medical journalism in previous studies. 58 It is difficult to detect the reason behind the blind spot in media discourse about medical disputes just based on the descriptive findings presented in this paper. Further research may consider asking journalists why they do not think they should take causal or solution responsibility for medical disputes occurring nationwide, as many researchers have suggested.…”

Can the credibility of global sport organizations be restored? A case study of the athletics integrity unit

“…The way the issues are framed largely determines how individuals both classify and interpret the information or situations they encounter, and how they behave (Scheufele, 1999). In the literature on anti-doping, frame analysis has been used to showcase how different social groups (journalists, athletes in particular) make sense of doping and anti-doping, albeit through various instrumentations of the concept (Sandvik et al, 2017; Starke and Flemming, 2017). When it comes to judging sports integrity, journalists, social media, and researchers do not always use similar frames (Stanley, 2022).…”

On the same team: A call for increased medicolegal knowledge exchanges between forensic psychiatry and sports psychiatry

“…Alongside others, the anchoring effect could shape decision-making processes given prominent media narratives about athletes in the public eye. Notably, this may be pertinent in anti-doping incidents, which can provoke emotive press reports ( 60 ). Other concerns center around dual agency bias, particularly if the forensic mental health expert has previously interacted with the athlete or their medical team ( 61 ).…”