Mass-Mediated Expertise as Informal Policy Advice

Scientific policy advice is usually perceived as a formalized advisory process within political institutions. Politics has benefited from this arrangement because the science-based rationalization of policy has contributed to its legitimacy. However, in Western democratic societies, scientific expertise that is routinely mobilized to legitimate political positions has increasingly lost its power due to controversial expertise in the public sphere in particular within the mass media. As a consequence of the medialization of science, political decision makers are increasingly confronted with mass-mediated expertise. Empirical results of a qualitative survey among decision makers in the German political and administrative system, presented in this article, support the hypothesis that mass-mediated expertise has a significant impact on policy processes. Five functions of media coverage on science-based issues for policy making were identified. Mass-mediated expertise has therefore altered the established relations between scientific policy advisors and political decision makers and can be seen as informal policy advice complementing institutionalized advisory arrangements.

[1]  Hilke Rebenstorf,et al.  Abgeordnete und Bürger , 1990 .

[2]  B. Marchi,et al.  The crisis of scientific expertise in fin de siècle Europe , 1995 .

[3]  M. McCombs,et al.  THE IMPACT OF INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING ON PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICYMAKING TARGETING TOXIC WASTE , 1987 .

[4]  W. Schulz.  Medialisierung von Wahlkämpfen und die Folgen für das Wählerverhalten , 2006 .

[5]  G. Vowe,et al.  Professionelle Kommunikationsdienstleister - ein neuer Akteurstyp in der strategischen politischen Kommunikation? , 2006 .

[6]  L. Salter,et al.  Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards , 1988 .

[7]  H. P. Peters,et al.  Culture and technological innovation: impact of institutional trust and appreciation of nature on attitudes towards food biotechnology in the USA and Germany , 2007 .

[8]  D. Mark,et al.  Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology , 1995 .

[9]  Matthias Kohring.  Wissenschaftsjournalismus : Forschungsüberblick und Theorieentwurf , 2005 .

[10]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology , 2006 .

[11]  Shimon Gadir,et al.  Agenda Setting , 1980 .

[12]  H. Kepplinger.  Reciprocal Effects: Toward a Theory of Mass Media Effects on Decision Makers: , 2007 .

[13]  Peter Weingart.  Die Stunde der Wahrheit? : zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft , 2001 .

[14]  Fadwa Allabadi.  Controversy , 2008 .

[15]  R. Andersen,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers , 1991 .

[16]  A. Mazur.  Nuclear power, chemical hazards, and the quantity of reporting , 1990 .

[17]  G. Vowe.  Mediatisierung der Politik? , 2006 .

[18]  Allan Mazur,et al.  Bias in risk-benefit analysis , 1985 .

[19]  M. Bauer.  Public Perceptions and Mass Media in the Biotechnology Controversy , 2005 .

[20]  K. Imhof.  Mediengesellschaft und Medialisierung , 2006 .

[21]  D. Herzog.  Abgeordnete und Bürger : Ergebnisse einer Befragung der Mitglieder des 11. Deutschen Bundestages und der Bevölkerung , 1990 .

[22]  Hans Peter Peters,et al.  Medialization of Science as a Prerequisite of Its Legitimization and Political Relevance , 2008 .

[23]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[24]  H. Scherer.  Wer reden will, muss hören , 2002 .

[25]  H. Brosius,et al.  Instrumental Actualization: A Theory of Mediated Conflicts , 1991 .

[26]  W. Schulz.  Die Konstruktion von Realität in den Nachrichtenmedien : Analyse der aktuellen Berichterstattung , 1976 .

[27]  Eleanor Singer,et al.  Reporting on Risk: How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Disasters and Other Hazards , 1993 .

[28]  H. Heinrichs.  Advisory Systems in Pluralistic Knowledge Societies: A Criteria-Based Typology to Assess and Optimize Environmental Policy Advice , 2005 .

[29]  Harvey Brooks.  chapter one – SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION , 1982 .

[30]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. , 1991 .

[31]  P. Diehl.  Jens Tenscher: Professionalisierung der Politikvermittlung Politikvermittlungsexperten im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Massenmedien. Wiesbaden, 2003 , 2005 .

[32]  W. Gamson,et al.  Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach , 1989, American Journal of Sociology.

[33]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy , 1990 .

[34]  Amy M. Hightower,et al.  Science and Engineering Indicators , 1993 .

[35]  E. Kardorff,et al.  Qualitative Sozialforschung , 2006 .

[36]  Barbara Pfetsch.  Regieren unter den Bedingungen medialer Allgegenwart , 1998 .

[37]  W. Davison.  The Third-Person Effect in Communication , 1983 .

[38]  James W. Dearing,et al.  The Anatomy of Agenda‐Setting Research , 1993 .

[39]  Jens Tenscher.  Professionalisierung der Politikvermittlung , 2003 .

[40]  Jerry Palmer.  Spinning into Control: News Values and Source Strategies , 2001 .

[41]  H. Kepplinger.  Mediatization of Politics: Theory and Data , 2002 .

[42]  Winfried Schulz,et al.  Die Konstruktion von Realität in den Nachrichtenmedien , 1976 .