Mediatization


 * Etymology and Definition **

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) traces mediatization back to early 19th century Germany usage: “The action of reducing a price or state in position in power” (2015, n.p.). The definition is broadened by the word’s Early 20th century usage in American English: “Reduction in power or effect by the interposition of a mediating agent, or as a function of a medium of transmission.” (2015, n.p.). In the 1980’s, within political study, American English also used this word to describe: “The action or process whereby the mas media comes to control or affect something.” (2015, n.p.) Mediatization carries the sense of the word // mediatize // (v.) and // media // (n.) (2015).

In her presidential address to the International Communication Association, Livingstone (2009) mostly confirms the OED’s etymology, but adds that mediatization is the increasing trend of institutional dependence, government or otherwise, on mass media (p. 3-4; see also Mazzoleni & Schultz, 1999). Additionally, Hjavard (2008) notes that mediatization is a non-normative concept, meaning that it cannot be described based on it's perceived moral character. Beyond this, the definition of mediatization is highly dependent on the methodological approaches used to study it (Ampuja, Koivisto & Väliverronen, 2014).

Associated terms: //Digital media,// //government media, institutional media, media, media logic, media matrix, mediate, new media, traditional media//


 * Media Logic **

The media logic perspective was first introduced by Altheide & Snow’s //Media Logic// (1976), a book that argues the notion that media transforms government and social institutions. Mazzoleni & Shultz (1999) synthesizes this notion with political science’s notion of //mediatization// (see Etymology section, first paragraph; see also Landerer, 2013) to argue the importance of studying how media shapes political processes, a claim separate from the notion that political processes shape media. Finneman (2011, p. 67) notes that this perspective, once intended for traditional media, has successfully adapted to include new media and media not yet created.

The communication discipline’s understanding of mediatization as media logic is outlined by Schultz (2004) as follows: 1. Media is the extension of natural limits (time and space) 2. Media may substitute, in part or whole, social activities & institutions 3. Media may amalgamate with non-media activities 4. Media sets forth a logic that is accommodated to Strömbäck (2008), for example applies this notion of mediatization to his investigation of mass media storytelling patterns.

This approach is also known as the //institutionalist tradition// (Couldry & Hepp, 2013, p. 196).

 **Media Matrix**

Couldry (2008) contends that the media logic perspective, as overly deterministic, reductionist, and improperly linear, does not sufficiently explain mass media storytelling patterns (p. 377-378). Furthermore, Couldry suggests that the study of mediation fills in the theoretical and practical lacunae left by mediatization. Thus, mediatization should be considered a distinctly different concept from mediation (p. 389). However, despite claiming not to address terminological issues, Finneman (2011) strongly implies that, in fact, mediation is a phase of mediatization’s historical development as a concept, citing Rothenbuhler (2009) and Hepp’s (2009) observations that mediatization as a concept has matured since its articulation of media accommodation processes (for media accommodation, see Schultz, 2004).

Rothenbuhler states that “all communication is always, already mediatized” (p. 287) and Hepp (2009) generally argues that mediatization is enmeshed in and inextricable from other social and cultural processes. Finneman (2011, p. 68) adds that media are not independent from one another. These three claims suggest that mediatization is non-formulaic and complex, leading Finneman (2011, p. 68) to conclude that mediatization may be understood and studied as a matrix of media, a notion borrowed from Meyorwitz (1985; see also Krotz, 2007).

The media matrix approach is also known as the //socio-constructivist tradition// (Couldry & Hepp, 2013, p. 196).  **Other disciplinary considerations**

Ampuja, Koivisto & Väliverronen (2014) categorizes the media logic approach as a strong form of mediatization and the media matrix approach as the weak form of mediatization. The strong from allows researchers to make assert claims confidently, but leave researchers's work open to strong criticism (p. 116). The weak form abates criticism, but decreases the level of certainty and clarity researchers may offer (p. 116-120). The problems within and between the strong and weak forms of mediatization prevent it from transforming into a recognizable discipline or sub-discipline (p. 121). However, the core notion of mediatization as the trending importance, increasing integration, and increasing power of media in social, cultural and institutional contexts is still conceptually useful even when expanded in different directions (p. 121-122).

First posted by Kristopher Weeks (2015)

include component="comments" page="page:Mediatization" limit="10"


 * References **

Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). //Media logic.// Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ampuja, M., Koivisto, J., & Väliverronen, E. (2014). Strong and weak forms of mediatization theory [Special issue]. //NORDICOM Review//, //35,// 111-123. Retrieved from []

Couldry, N. (2008). Mediatization or mediation? Alternative understandings of the emergent space of digital storytelling. //New Media and Society, 10//(3), 373-391. []

Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2013). Conceptualizing mediatization: Contexts, traditions, arguments. //Communication Theory 3//(3), 191-202. []

Finneman, N. O. (2011). Mediatization theory and digital media. Communications: //The European Journal of Communication Research, 36//(1), 67-89. []

Hepp, A. (2009). Differentiation: Mediatization and cultural change. In Lundby, K. (Ed.), //Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences// (pp. 139-157). New York: Peter Lang.

Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of society: A theory of the mediating agents of social and cultural change. //NORDICOM Review, 29//(2), 105-134. []

Krotz, F. (2007). The meta-processes of "mediatization" as a conceptual frame. //Global Media and Communication 3//(3), 256-260. []

Landerer, N. (2013). Rethinking the logics: A conceptual framework for the mediatization of politics [Special issue]. //Communication Theory, 23//(3), 239-258. []

Livingstone, S. (2009) On the mediation of everything: ICA presidential address 2008. //Journal of Communication, 59//(1). 1-18. []

Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). 'Mediatization' of politics: A challenge for democracy? //Political Communication//, //16//(3), 247-261. []

Meyrowitz, J. (1985). //No Sense of Place: the Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior.// New York: Oxford University Press.

Mediatization (2015). In Oxford English Dictionary online. Retrieved from []

Rothenbuhler, E. W. (2009). Continuities: Communicative Form and Institutionalization. In K. Lundby (Ed.), //Mediatization: concept, changes, consequences.// (pp. 277-292). New York: Peter Lang.

Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. //European Journal of Communication, 19//(1), 87-101. []

Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. //The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13//(3), 228-246. []