Eurosphere Working Paper 3 Barenreuter Etal

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER SERIES
Online Working Paper No. 03, 2009
An Overview of Research on the

European Public Sphere
(updated version)
Christoph Brenreuter, Cornelia Brll,
Monika Mokre, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen
This paper can be downloaded without charge from:

http://eurosphere.uib.no/knowledgebase/workingpapers.htm
ISSN 1890-5986
EUROSPHERE ONLINE WORKING PAPER SERIES

Title: Overview of Research on the European Public Sphere
Author(s): Christoph Brenreuter, Cornelia Brll, Monika Mokre, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen
Working Paper No.03
This version: March 2009
Webpage: http://www.eurosphere.uib.no/knowledgebase/workingpapers.htm
EUROSPHERE, 2009
http://www.eurosphere.uib.no
2009 by Christoph Brenreuter, Cornelia Brll, Monika Mokre, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen

All rights reserved.
Short sections of text, not to exceed
two paragraphs, may be quoted without
explicit permission provided that full credit,
including notice, is given to the source.
The views expressed in this paper do not
necessarily reflect those of the EUROSPHERE
Project.
The statement of purpose for the
EUROSPHERE Online Working Paper Series
is available from the EUROSPHERE working papers website,
http://www.eurosphere.uib.no/knowledgebase/workingpapers.htm
Christoph Brenreuter
Austrian Academy of Sciences, EIF
christoph.baerenreuter@univie.ac.at
Cornelia Brll
Cornelia.Brll@oeaw.ac.at
Monika Mokre
Monika.Mokre@oeaw.ac.at
Karin Wahl-Jorgensen
Cardiff University
School of Journalism, Media&Cultural Studies
wahl-jorgensenk@Cardiff.ac.uk
ISSN 1890-5986 (online)
Overview of Research on the European Public

Sphere
Christoph Brenreuter, Cornelia Brll, Monika Mokre,
Karin Wahl-Jorgensen*
1. Introduction
Since the mid-1990s, there has been increasing research on the European
Public Sphere (EPS). The interest in this question has to be understood within
the context of discussions on the EUropean democratic deficit. It is broadly
agreed that the problematic democratic quality of the EU has become an issue
of concern in the aftermath of the Treaty of Maastricht. However, there are
two differing explanations for this phenomenon, one focussing on the
important institutional changes of the EUropean polity due to the Treaty of
Maastricht, the other one on the growing scepticism of EUropean citizens.
According to the first understanding, the EU has gained crucial state-like
features by the institutional innovations of Maastricht; thus, the democratic
set-up of the Member States does not longer suffice to legitimize EUropean
integration (Cf. e.g. Andersen/Burns 1996; Rommetsch/Wessels 1996; Van
der Ejik/Franklin 1996; Wincott 1998; Brzinski/Lancaster/ Tuschhoff 1999;
ONeill 1999; Schmitt/Thomassen 1999). The second understanding rather
emphasizes the viability of EUropean integration that has been endangered by
the dissatisfaction of citizens and democratisation has been understood as a
way to improve this situation (Cf. e.g. Beetham und Lord 1998; Scharpf
1999).
The two arguments are related to each other but, nevertheless, point
towards different understandings of democratic legitimacy. Due to both
conceptualizations, the question for a EUropean demos has come more to the
fore, and it is with regard to the question of (existing or emerging)
commonalities of EUropean citizens that debates on the EPS have started (cf.
e.g. Kirchhof 1994, Weiler 1995, Habermas 1995 and 1996).
With this normative understanding of the EPS, as a means of increasing
the legitimacy of EU-policymaking and democratizing the EU-polity,
empirical research has revolved around the important questions of (1) whether,
to which extent, and in what arenas/sectors a EPS exists, (2) whether, to which
extent, and in what areas/sectors European and national policymaking reflects
the public debates (the EPSs democratizing/legitimizing function), and (3)
*
The authors would like to thank Hakan G Sicakkan and Riza Acar Kutay for our intense discussions of this
paper and their valuable comments and recommendations.
EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03
BRENREUTER ET AL.
which social and political actors inhabit the EPS. In addition to technical
questions and contributions about how to design empirical EPS research and
how to operationalize concepts, important ingredients in these research efforts
were European integration in different fields, existence/viability/compatibility
of a European identity and a European public/demos (as participants and
audience in the EPS), communication across national borders, emergence of
pan-European communication structures, Europeanization of national public
spheres, domestication of Europe, similarities and differences in national
discourses/narratives/ framings of issues in public debates, etc.
The valuable contributions to the study of EPS, some of which will be
mentioned in this report, have increased our understanding of the EU
integration and democratization processes. However, within the body of
existing empirical research on the EPS, there are still some important gaps to
fill. Firstly, the assumption that a common European public sphere will
increase the legitimacy of the EU polity and democratize the EU needs to be
substantiated more, not only on the normative level but also empirically.
Secondly, focusing primarily on certain arenas (like the mass media) and
methods/contents/procedures of deliberation and communication in the public
sphere, the present research has paid relatively less attention to the concerns
about inclusion and exclusion of diversity groups in the EPS.
In this sense, the Eurosphere project takes a different but complementary
normative starting point with a focus on inclusion/exclusion in the public
sphere. Eurosphere emphasizes that the existing focus on democratic
legitimacy in empirical EPS studies may inadvertently have led to emergence
of criteria to define who the legitimate participants of the public sphere are or
should be first, by developing definitions of the demos, and, secondly, by
presupposing certain procedural rules, based on a certain understanding of
rationality on which rules of the game and the principles of public deliberation
and communication are to be founded. However, it has been empirically
shown in numerous sociological and social anthropological studies that, in
contexts of diversity such standards of public deliberation and discourse can
be discriminatory and excluding.1 As a supplement to the premises laid down
by the democratic legitimacy debate in empirical EPS studies, Eurosphere
conceptualizes the European Public Sphere as a means of inclusion, which
bridges the two approaches to the EPS. Thereby, the project both contests and
complements hitherto academic work on the EPS.
This paper delivers a short discussion of different normative
understandings of public spheres. It then describes (1) definitions of a
EUropean public sphere in different academic disciplines as well as (2)
different ways of empirically grasping the EPS (3). Underway, it also points
out the (expected) contributions that Eurosphere aims to make to the presently
accumulated knowledge on the EPS.
In general, a huge body of contemporary minority and migrant integration research, gender and gay
studies, research on the disabled, and on other marginalized groups strengthen the view that universalistic
discourses and rules of participation/communication in public debates result in exclusion of some groups.
For examples of theoretical discussions about these, see, among many others: Bader (1995), Fraser
(1992, 2007), Sandel (1998), Sicakkan (2004, 2005, 2008), Taylor (2001, et al 1994), Walzer (1983),
Young (1990, 1995, 1998).
ISSN 1890-5986
BRENREUTER ET AL.
2. General Concepts of the Public Sphere

2.1 Definitions of the Public Sphere
As the concept of the public sphere has developed over long periods of time
and in quite different contexts, it has been defined in various different ways.
However, there are a few common denominators for the different strands of
thought on the public sphere. On the most general level, everything is public
that is part of the common (as opposed to the private) life of people in a
community: the public space in its literal sense, i.e. streets, squares, parks etc.,
public events that are open to everyone, public matters that are of everybodys
concern. In the pragmatic understanding, the public consists of all those who
are affected by the indirect consequences of transactions to such an extent that
it is deemed necessary to have those consequences systematically cared for
(Dewey 1954, 15).
One mainstream trend in political theory defines the concept of politics in
terms of the public and private division; the public is related to the political,
and the private to the non-political. Hence, the private realm is defined as
the domain where the political power does not penetrate, and is not preferred
to intervene with. As Arendt puts it, public is always related to the political.
According to Arendt, the private, the household, was the realm of necessity,
however the public was the realm of freedom where the self could escape from
the boundaries of the necessities. Nevertheless, further, Arendt claims that due
to modernization all public became a household, hence the Public sphere has
lost its feature of being a realm of freedom but became a realm of necessity.
The differentiation between the public and the private is thus not a
precondition of politics but contingent on historical change. It can be changed,
transformed and politically contested (Mouffe 1995, 324-328). Further, the
strict public and private division is criticized by feminists; since the public
power can penetrate into the private, they claim, the private is political.
On a very general level, one can state that public sphere is a categorical
realm that is related to the exertion of power or, more precisely, to the exertion
of legitimate power. This holds true for all kinds of political regimes,
including the absolutist monarchs: Power holders have to prove to their
subjects that they are entitled and able to exert power and they do so - among
other ways - by publicly displaying their power and its assumed legitimacy e.g. their god-like qualities, respectively the will of God that gives them
power. The feudal model corresponds to a representative definition of the
public sphere, however, the democratic model rests on the modern definitions
of nation state, citizenship and popular sovereignty.
2.2 The Democratic Public Sphere

As, in democracy, the demos is the sovereign, the democratic public sphere
has to have specific characteristics: It does not suffice to show people the
power of the power holder but this power has to be derived from the will of
the people and - depending on the respective theoretical understanding - the
public sphere is either understood as the place where this will shows itself or
where it is developed. This concept is a very fuzzy one due to the impossibility
of defining several key-terms, above all the people. Early concepts of
ISSN 1890-5986
BRENREUTER ET AL.
national public spheres disregard this problem as they equate the people with
national citizens. While such an understanding has been problematic for a long
time even within nation states, it becomes unfeasible with regard to the
European public sphere. The inclusiveness of democratic politics and of
democratic public spheres and the accommodation of diversity stand, thus, at
the normative core of Eurosphere.
The ideal of the liberal-democratic public sphere was developed as civic
critique of absolutist traditions. It was part of the claim for political change,
for new power holders and new forms of exerting and legitimizing power. This
claim was understood as a universal one, based on the modern understanding
of man as a rational, self-transparent subject and bearer of political rights that
can be summarized as the right to self-government (Cf. Hohendahl et. al.
2000, 39).
As long as the normative assumptions of the early civic public sphere are
taken on face-value the ideal concept remains largely incompatible with
empirical evidence on public spheres. This discrepancy becomes obvious in
Habermas understanding of the early civic public sphere as a never fully
realized ideal and has been frequently criticized. When Habermas (1961/1989)
told his tale of the emergence of the public sphere in seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries in England, Germany and France, he was simultaneously
providing empirical evidence of an actual historical formation, and sketching
out a counter-factual normative ideal of public deliberation. Habermas
original work on the concept of the public sphere, then, was at least in part an
empirical investigation based on a selective reading of history. From early on,
other scholars have picked up on Habermas empirical work, and questioned
the details of its historical account (e.g. Baker 1992, Schudson 1992). Critique
on the exclusionary character of the public sphere (e.g. Negt/Kluge 1972 with
regard to the proletariat, or feminist authors on the exclusion of women, see
e.g. Fraser 1992) as well as descriptions of the manipulative character of mass
publics (e.g. Lippman 1922, Adorno/Horkheimer 1947) make a complete
realization of the early civic ideal of the public sphere difficult to envisage.
The ideal of the civic public sphere is based on commonality, on a
universal form of rationality which makes it possible to decide unequivocally
which issues have to be dealt with in the public sphere and which processes
can lead to rational decisions. Universal concepts have been deconstructed by
many influential contemporary political theories , e.g. Chantal Mouffe has
pointed out that democratic societies cannot be conceived of without a
common ethical understanding that she sees - in accordance with Wittgenstein
- as derived out of a common way of life.
Procedures always imply substantial ethical requirements. Thus, they cannot
work adequately if they are not based on a specific ethos. (Mouffe 2000, 69)
However, the Habermasian ideal of a potential rational consensus in the public

sphere plays an important role for studies on the EPS. As Fraser (2007) has
pointed out, thereby, the parity between participants in the public sphere (the
how of legitimacy) figures much more prominently than the inclusiveness of
the public sphere (the who of legitimacy). Rather counter-intuitively, thus,
research on a transnational public sphere bases its reasoning on a Westphalian
nation-state-model with clearly delimited territories and citizenships. Not
ISSN 1890-5986
BRENREUTER ET AL.
least, this understanding of public spheres was supported by Habermas later

work. Fraser (2007) makes plausible that even Habermas post-national
concept of constitutional patriotism is, in fact, based on a Westphalian
understanding, i.e., a concept of clear territorial boundaries.
But, on the other hand, it is commonly agreed that no EUropean demos
similar to national demoi can be discerned (while, at the same time, the
existence of unified national demoi is also doubtable). This empirical situation
forms the starting point for the politico-theoretical questions of Eurosphere:
The EPS is criss-crossed by various forms of diversity among others of
cultural backgrounds, political understandings, and institutional set-ups. It
seems, thus, of utmost importance to re-think the potentials of the EPS against
the background of diversity: How much diversity and how much
fragmentation can be allowed for a social/political space to be called a public
sphere? What is the form and structure of a EPS that is capable of
accommodating the diversity in Europe? Or, else, is it more appropriate in a
normative and/ or empirical sense to speak of multiple European public
spheres?
Both the choice of question and the answers depend on the understanding
of democracy on which normative concepts of a public sphere are based. In
the following, different models of democratic society are summarized with
regard to their perspective on the public sphere. Two forms of differentiation
have to be taken into account (1) the aims and ambitions of a public sphere (is
it a mirror of public opinion or is public opinion constructed within the public
sphere), and (2) the structure of the public sphere (single public sphere versus
different conceptualizations of multiple public spheres.)
2.2.1 Different Ambitions of Public Spheres
2.2.1.1 The Public Sphere as a Mirror
In this approach, based on liberal thought, democracy mainly consists of

aggregation of citizens interests by political representation. The function of
the public sphere is to be a mirror of public opinion that is produced outside of
the political sphere (and whose conditions of production are of no interest for
this model) and these opinions do not have to be synergized in the public
sphere as its aggregation within the political system suffices (cf. Gerhards
1997).
In the liberal democratic understanding, the main aim of the political
system is to safeguard the equal freedom of all citizens. Freedom and equality
are, within this concept, not to be produced by politics, they are essential
qualities of human beings and it is the task of the political system to respect
these essential qualities. This means, above all, that the political system has to
interfere as little as possible with the private lives of the citizens including
their economic freedom.
Out of such an understanding of the political, concepts of the public sphere
tend to be limited in their ambition. The public sphere is rather seen as the
possibility for citizens to control the government than as a realm of developing
and debating conflicting political projects. The public sphere is, thus,
translated as transparency of and information about politics, and not as the
space where political agency takes place. One of the earliest contributions to
this understanding of the public sphere was develop by Jeremy Bentham who
ISSN 1890-5986
BRENREUTER ET AL.
conceived of publicity as a form of democratic curtailment of improper behaviour

of individuals and groups in power, and of public opinion as a system of
distrust, making political actions visible to the public. His ideas of publicity also
substantiated the theory of the press as the fourth estate (or fourth power)
focusing on control over the traditional (legislative, executive, judiciary) powers
by the press. (Splichal 2006, 698)
As Simon Hix (2003) has shown, even this very limited understanding of
citizens participation claims for a certain amount of competence and interest
and, thus, for a public sphere:
Democracy is also about the ability of voters to choose between rival groups of
elites, with rival candidates for political leadership and rival programmes for
public policy. This competition not only allows voters to reward or punish leaders
for their action, but also promotes policy debate, deliberation, innovation and
change. (Hix 2003, 2)
Arguably, thus, the democratic deficit of the EU is a hindrance for the

development of such a liberal EPS. Remedies for this problem are mainly to
be found on the institutional level, e.g. by enhancing transparency and
strengthening EU political parties. The question of diversity versus unity does
not play a prominent role within this strand of thought as reasons for and
origins of political opinions are not dealt with.
However, some authors tackle the problem that there is no congruency
between citizens, political decision makers, and the public sphere. For the
nation state, this congruency is assumed - the citizens elect their
representatives, media report on government and opposition, and citizens can
make their own judgments on the basis of this information (Gerhards 2000).
Gerhards understands these relationships as first and second order
responsiveness. On the EUropean level a democratic deficit exists as the
addressee of political decisions is not identical with the sovereign demos, and
a public deficit exists as the public sphere is nationally structured (Gerhards
2000).
Eurosphere also tackles the problem of nationally structured public
spheres, but from another normative point of view: Not a unified EUropean
public sphere is necessarily to be strived for, but diversity has to be
acknowledged by enabling broad participation of different groups within the
EPS. In other words, the question is not exclusively one of public deficit,
but also a deficit of horizontal and vertical trans-European structures,
channels and networks that legitimize the diverse modes of belonging to,
being in, and participating in public spaces.
2.2.1.2 The Public Sphere as the Realm of Rational Debates
Academic work on the institutional set-up of the EUropean Union is mostly

based on a liberal understanding of democracy and, frequently, focuses on the
representative quality of EUropean institutions. Studies of the EPS, on the
other hand, mainly take their starting point from various forms of discourse
theory and analysis. Thereby, the deliberative approach based on the thought
of Jrgen Habermas is clearly the most prominent one. One could understand
ISSN 1890-5986
BRENREUTER ET AL.
Habermas project as an attempt to safeguard the normative origins of the

early civic public sphere. His early work compared the (then) contemporary
public sphere with an ideal political public sphere situated according to his
understanding in the beginnings of the bourgeois public in the 18th century.
During the long and intensive debates of this approach, Habermas himself
conceded that his description of the early bourgeois public sphere presented a
stylized picture of the liberal elements of the bourgeois public sphere
(Habermas 1989, xix) rather than an exact historical description. His linguistic
turn made Habermas leave his ideal of a former, better public sphere in favour
of a philosophical understanding of the intrinsic qualities of language as
opposed to its domination by political and economic interests. Out of this
understanding, the political claim for unrestricted public spheres is derived:
Only the principles of the guaranteed autonomy of public spheres and competition
between different political parties, together with the parliamentary principle,
exhaust the content of popular sovereignty. (Habermas 1996, 171)
In this way, Habermas reconciles principles of liberal representative

democracy with principles of deliberative democracy. According to his
understanding
the internal institutional designs of the legislative, executive, and judicative power
ensure that their decisions can at least be understood as being based on good
reasons. Each of the powers concentrates on one set of reasons: the legislative on
the ethical question of collective self-realization, the executive on the pragmatic
question of effective application and implementation of law, and the judicative ()
on the moral question whether a specific law equally considers the liberty and
benefit of all. () for their effectiveness and legitimacy, institutionalized
democratic decision-making procedures depend on a functioning public sphere.
(Kohler-Koch/Humrich/Finke 2006, 6-7)
The ontological understanding of language as resisting domination has been

contested by the argument that language supports hegemony instead of
destabilizing it. (Kellner 2000, 11) Another critique of Habermas is based on
his assumption that the eventually progressive function of language is located
in the lifeworld (understood as civil society), while the feudalization and
domination of public spheres is (an inevitable) part of the political and the
economic system (Kellner 2000, 13). This argument leads consequently to a
depolitization of all conceptions of the public sphere (if political influence on
the public sphere is necessarily of evil, no political change of this situation can
be conceived of) and again as in the case of the golden age of the bourgeois
public sphere to romanticizing a concept that can fundamentally not be
saved (or, at least, not be influenced, but only be defended), namely the
lifeworld opposing by its communicative links political and economic
domination.
2.2.2 Diversity and the Public Sphere
The two approaches summarized above are the base of a broad range of
studies on the EPS. Interestingly, they do not spend much thought on the
question of diversity in the public sphere although it is widely acknowledged
ISSN 1890-5986
BRENREUTER ET AL.
that diversity especially with regard to national cultures and political systems
as well as languages is an impediment of a EPS and vice versa. Still, the
overall solution for this problem is seen in overcoming diversity, i.e. in
creating (to a certain extent) a common public sphere enabling either
aggregation or exchange of opinions.
However, other strands of political theory deal precisely with the impact of
diversity on society and develop different normatively desirable models for
diverse societies. According to Sicakkan (2008) three principal perspectives
on diversity and society can be discerned:
() individualism, communalism, and pluralism. Giving ethical priority to
individual identities and persons' dignity, individualists founded their models of
political rights on the atomist ontology of autonomous individuals. With groups'
collective identities in their moral focus, communalists cemented their models of
political rights on the holistic ontology of embedded persons. Whereas the former
suggested models of political rights to accommodate individual differences, the
latter delineated forms of political rights to accommodate group differences.
Rejecting both for their singular recipes for the good life, pluralists advocated the
midway perspective of accommodating both individual and group differences.
The commonality of these three citizenship paradigms individualism,
communalism, and pluralism as well as their different unfoldings along the lines
of liberalism, republicanism, communitarianism, multiculturalism and
nationalism is their embedded perspective of difference and their focus on
accommodation of differences. Difference thinking conceives either individuals
or groups, or both, as indivisible wholes and blinds us to what is common or
shared between people and between communities. (Sicakkan 2008, 6)
These understandings of society also inform conceptualizations of the EPS:

To accommodate individual differences, individualists suggest a single,
discursive public sphere (e.g., Jrgen Habermas). For the European case, this
implies the Europeanization of national public spheres (e.g., Jrgen Gerhards,
Erik O. Eriksen). Communalists and multiculturalists propose multiple,
segmented public spheres at two levels to accommodate separate
historical/cultural communities which meet at the top (e.g., Charles Taylor). In
the case of Europe, this implies a segmented public sphere divided along the lines
of national cultures (e.g., Peter G. Kielmannsegg). Criticizing both alternatives
because of their singular recipes for the good life, pluralists advocate the midway
perspective of accommodating both individual and group differences in multiple
and multi-level public spheres (e.g., Nancy Frasers subaltern counter-publics).
The implication of this for the European case is a European sphere of publics
(e.g., Philip Schlesinger). (Eurosphere Application, 6)
Eurosphere aims at a normative as well as empirical assessment of these

models of the EPS while, at the same time, introducing a fourth perspective on
the EPS, namely the diversity perspective.
The diversity perspective is based on the notion of otherness rather than
difference. Whereas difference signifies disparities between persons or between
groups, or between both, otherness signifies both disparities and
commonalities. Otherness here is not about being the Other (noun); but being
other (adjective). (Sicakkan 2008, 6)
ISSN 1890-5986
BRENREUTER ET AL.
Within Eurosphere, models derived from these differing normative

perspectives are theoretically discussed as well as empirically tested with
regard to their relevance for the EPS.
3. The EUropean Public Sphere (EPS)

3.1 Approaches to the EPS
Definitions and ascribed aims of a European Public Sphere (EPS) vary through
literature as well as the empirical indicators used to analyse this phenomenon.
In general, communication is the common denominator of all these concepts
of the EPS and, probably, the definition by Trenz (quoted after
Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 11) is applicable to all studies of the EPS: According to
this definition, a public sphere is an intersubjectively shared, communicatively
constructed system of mutual observance without a concrete social order or
membership and therefore applicable to contingent situations. A public sphere
is, thus, at the same time, a communicative space and a collective constructed
by this communicative space and developing it (Trenz 2002, 20).
Usually, the EPS in singular is used as a theoretical-normative ideal,
however, empirically, it is, usually, differentiated in public arenas or particular
public spheres (Tobler 2006 and Klaus 2006, quoted after Latzer/Saurwein
2006, 11). In this vein, above all, the differentiation between elite and mass
publics is seen as relevant (Gerhards 2002, 148; Schlesinger 1999, 271 ff,
quoted after Neidhardt 2006, 54)2. The existence of a public sphere and its
functionality are usually judged by the relative density of communicative
activity (Koopmans/Erbe 2003, quoted after Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 11).
According to Latzer/ Saurwein (2006, 16) requirements for an EPS can be
differentiated in (1) cultural concepts of the EPS focussing on cultural factors
such as historical experiences and traditions, historical images and national
identities), (2) institutional/infrastructural concepts dealing with the
organisational infrastructure of political and media organisations, (3)
discursive/processual concepts interested in transnational communication
processes. Within the Eurosphere approach, these three requirements are
linked.
With regard to empirical analyses, the inputs, throughputs and outputs of
political communication on the EU (Trenz 2007, 5) were measured:
a) The scope of political communication: the role of European actors and
institutions as the initiators of debates on Europe and their agenda-setting strategies
is taken into account. This includes the analysis of media and communication
policies of the EU (Mak 2001; Brggemann 2005), the role of public intellectuals
and media entrepreneurs (Lacroix 2005), the impact ofprotest movements (Imig and
Tarrow 2000) or the contestation within political parties (Eijk and Franklin 2004).
b) The scope of mediation: This comprises the information management through
journalists as the mediators of Europeanisation in the Member States. Research has
so far focused mainly on the organisational capacities of journalism and the media.
2
Some recent studies indicate that an academic elite public sphere is developing due to the research
programmes of the European Commission (Schlesinger 2005, van der Meulen 2002, Wickham 2004,
quoted after Fossum/Schlesinger 2007, 36).
ISSN 1890-5986
BRENREUTER ET AL.
Field studies were carried out to analyse the performance of EUcorrespondents and
the agenda-setting and control function of the Brussels corps de presse (Meyer
2002; Siapera 2004; AIM research consortium 2007).
c) The scope of public reception and resonance. This includes research on the
changing attitudes and preferences of the publics as the receivers of political
communication on the EU (Bruter 2004; Hooghe 2003). Attentive structures and
the knowledge of European citizens are regularly surveyed through the
Eurobarometer, which becomes the common reference point for institutional actors
as well as for the European research community to observe European publics.
(Trenz 2007, 5-6)
Most empirical work on the EPS has focused on mediated deliberation about
European issues, whether in national or transnational media (e.g. Schlesinger,
1997; Schlesinger & Kevin, 2000, Kunelius & Sparks, 2001, Pfetsch, 2004,
Krzyzanowski and Wodak, 2006; Wodak & Wright, 2006). This approach is
based on the premise, evident in Habermas original work, that citizens in
mass societies cannot rely solely on face-to-face interaction, but rather
participate in political deliberation and gain the vast majority of their political
information from the media (Kunelius and Sparks, 2001; Peter, 2003). Much
of this empirical research on media and the European public sphere has used
methods focusing on the analysis of media texts, including content analysis
(e.g. Schlesinger & Kevin, 2000; Kevin, 2001; Kevin, 2003; Peter, 2003) and
discourse analysis (e.g. Anderson and Weymouth, 1999; Krzyzanowski and
Wodak, 2006). Few have looked at citizens or institutions Peters (2003)
research on the effects of European television news is an exception to this rule,
alongside Slaattas work (2001) on Norwegian EU-correspondents in Brussels.
Eurosphere aims at including these possible empirical approaches by
interviewing initiators and mediators of the EPS (politicians on national, subnational, and European level, representatives of civil society, think tanks, and
media), carrying out a media content analysis and making secondary use of
data from Eurobarometer and the European Social Survey.
Research on the EPS has been carried out in different disciplines:
Communication research asks for the formation of public opinion by media
communication, political science is rather oriented on institutional and
systemic questions as well as on a normative perspective while sociology
focuses on the interdependence of different sub-systems, especially the media
system and the political system, as well as on the historical development of
social systems (Saxer 2006, 64) and, above all, of (national) societies (Trenz
2002, 20). The historical dimension of social systems as well as of myths,
concepts, and ideas of Europe are also dealt with in historical analyses3.
3.2 Measurements of the EPS

According to Neidhardt (1994) a public sphere consists of speakers, media,
and an audience. With regard to speakers, a small range of studies deals with
public statements and P.R. efforts of EUropean institutions and individual
3
There are authors coming from further disciplines dealing with the EPS (see e.g. Poeschke 2004 from the
perspective of legal studies and Suchanek 2004 using institutional economics); however, these
contributions have remained singular and rarely influenced more general debates on the EPS.
ISSN 1890-5986
10
BRENREUTER ET AL.
politicians (e.g. Bender 1997; Gramberger 1997; Gramberger/Lehmann 1995,

Hoesch 2003). These studies usually come to the result that P.R. on the
EUropean level is underdeveloped, underfinanced and unsystematic although
growing efforts especially of the European Commission since the Treaty of
Maastricht are acknowledged (Cf. Kantner 2004, 136). However, while
information campaigns increase public attention for certain subject matters,
they are not necessarily able to give public opinion the direction they aim for
(Kantner 2004, 137). Equally pessimistic accounts are given with regard to the
Council (Curtin 2006, quoted after Schlesinger/Fossum 2007, 30) while the
European Parliament has been understood as becoming a strong public that is
in the process of building a wider general public (Liebert 2001, quoted after
Schlesinger/Fossum 2007, 30). Eurosphere will contribute to this strand of
EPS-studies by studying attitudes of political elites (rather than their
publicized opinions) towards the EPS.
Another strand of empirical studies has focused on journalists and also
came to rather sceptical results with regard to the general EUropean
competence of journalists and to the ability of EUropean correspondents to
attract the interest of their respective media and their readers. But also the
development of journalism is cautiously positively assessed. (Kantner 2004,
140). Within Eurosphere not only journalists specialized on EU questions are
interviewed but also leading figures of the respective media. Thereby, possible
differences between EU-specialists and their superiors can be traced which
influence media coverage.
Finally, also a EUropeanisation of EUropean civil society is acknowledged
(Kantner 2004, 144-145). Trenz (2001, quoted after Trenz 2002, 40) assessed
that political opportunity structures have led to a specific development of civil
society activities - from loud protest to quiet lobbyism, information policy and
monitoring. We are, thus, observing, a restricted articulation of voice, not a
mobilisation of support in a diffuse public. Haug (2008) makes the important
point that transnational social movements are not only actors in the EPS but
create arenas within the movements. Again, Eurosphere will contribute to this
strand of research by assessing the interest of civil society agents in a EPS as
well as their concrete networking activities.
3.2.1 Media Studies on the EPS
Most studies of the EPS deal with media, thereby, above all print media, and
within this group, mostly quality papers are analysed while TV studies are rare
Eurosphere includes a content analysis of print as well as electronic media.
Internet communication has, up to now, not found much academic
attention. An important exception from this overall assessment is the analysis
of internet sites by Erbe, Koopmans, Schlecht and Zimmermann, carried out
within the europub.com-project. Furthermore, the study on the EU platform
Your Voice in Europe by Winkler, Kozeluh, Brandstetter (2006) should be
mentioned.
Media studies have described two possible ways towards a EPS, (1) a EPS
realized in pan-european media and (2) a EPS via the Europeanisation of
national public spheres (Gerhards 1992, 560ff, quoted after Neidhardt 2006,
54). It is commonly agreed that the first way is empirically much less probable
than the second one and a majority of EPS-literature sees the possibility that a
ISSN 1890-5986
11
BRENREUTER ET AL.
EPS can emerge due to the Europeanisation of national public spheres

(Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 16). Usually, this latter perspective is derived from the
deliberative paradigm of possible universal communication; more specifically,
it is assumed that the translation between specialized public spheres and the
broad audience does not need EUropean media but can be achieved by
national media as well (Trenz 2000).
3.2.1.1 A Common European Public Sphere
Taken as a whole, the emerging empirical research tradition of seeking the

European public sphere by tracing mediated deliberation agrees that there is
one major stumbling block to the notion of a transnational, pan-European
public sphere: The mass media, as the locus for analysis, tend to be either
national or sub-national, rather than supranational. As Michael Billig (1995)
pointed out, the formation of supranational identities, such as that of the
European are limited by the national or sub-national character of the most
influential mass media; national-level television and newspapers: That is to
say, they take the national context for granted. The national context is what
underlies the language of media texts. Any story is told within the conceptual
framework of the nation, and any claims about us and them assume that
the nation is the central imagined community (Anderson, 1983). Interestingly,
even within the Internet that is per se a transnational medium, political
communications have, up to now, remained to a high degree nationalised (cf.
Zimmermann/ Koopmans 2003; Zimmermann/Koopmans/Schlecht 2004).
The few supranational media that do exist are primarily oriented towards
political and business elites, or specialised interests such as sports and music,
and therefore do not appeal to a more general public (Kevin, 2004). As
Schlesinger (e.g. 1997; 1999; see also Schlesinger and Kevin, 2003) has
argued on the basis of both empirical and theoretical considerations, there will
probably never be just one European public sphere, but rather a multiplicity of
public spheres. One of the earliest articles on the EPS (Gerhards 1993) made
the claim for an integrated media system distributing its contents to the
citizens of several European countries (Gerhards 1993, 100). While Gerhards
understands a pan-European media system as indispensable for an EPS he
formulates, at the same time, serious doubts on its practicability due to
language differences, differing habits of media reception and the costs for
translations and distribution.
The claim for a pan-European media system as well as the pessimistic
evaluation of its possibility was taken up by Dieter Grimm in his article Does
Europe need a Constitution? (Grimm 1995). Grimm argues that a
Constitution would enhance the democratic deficit of the EU that is, among
other things, brought about by the lack of intermediary institutions and a
EUropean media system. The reason for this lack is seen by Grimm in the fact
that there is no EUropean people. In a similar vein Sue Wright (2000) argues
her pessimistic outlook on the possibility of a EUropean democracy on the
linguistic plurality of EUrope. Due to the different languages of the
Europeans, pan-EUropean media cannot develop that would be needed to
inform EUropean citizens in a not nationally framed way. Similarly,
Koopmans/Erbe see the emergence of a supranational public sphere as
improbable in which European-level institutions and collective actors debate
ISSN 1890-5986
12
BRENREUTER ET AL.
EUropean themes and which is ideally accompanied by (and creating the

basis for) the development of European-wide mass media. (Koopmans/Erbe
2003, 6).
The chances for and even the existence of pan-EUropean media is
evaluated more optimistically by Schlesinger and Kevin (2000) due to the
existence of pan-EUropean elite media like the Financial Times, The
Economist, and Euronews. While Schlesinger and Kevin make this claim
without supporting it by empirical evidence, a study of Euronews by Meinhof
(2001) comes to a pessimistic evaluation of the effects of this TV channel on
the creation of an EPS. She sees Euronews as hardly more than a collage of
bits and pieces from national TV-stations with an added Euro-text, edited for
a pan-European audience and accordingly sallow.
Moreover, Schlesinger (1999: 269, 276) asserts a Europeanized political
communication in political consulting, lobbyism, public relations and
representation of interests. These domains reflect the multilevel governance of
the EUropean polity and do not produce a single EUropean public sphere, but
an often contradictory field of political forces (Schlesinger/Kevin 2000:
228).
Eder (2003) also maintains that, at the EU-level, a certain kind of public
sphere already exists, namely in the academic, artistic and economic field.
Moreover the public sphere spreads by integration through law, i.e. by the
appeal at the development, implementation and practice of European
Community Law (Eder 2003; Abels 2006: 368). However, for the
development of a general public sphere transnational communication upon
similar issues would be necessary (Eder 2000).
3.2.1.2 The EUropeanisation of National Public Spheres
As a result of the mostly pessimistic accounts of a transnational EPS, most

media researchers have now moved on to a belief that the roots of a European
public sphere must be sought within national media, by looking at their
treatment of European issues and particularly any trends towards
Europeanization (Kevin, 2004). While some of this research has focused on
particular national contexts (e.g. Anderson/ Weymouth 1999; Slaatta 1999;
rsten 2003), other studies have been cross-culturally comparative (Kevin
2004; Peter 2003). As Slaatta (2006) has summarized these projects, they are
often concerned with what scope and kind of diversity that exists in the
coverage, for instance in terms of themes, genres styles and narratives, and
whether there are structured uses of sources, news priorities and frames (p.
10).
Empirical studies of the EUropeanization of national public spheres use as
indicators for the emergence of a EPS (1) the attention of national media for
EU politics, (2) similarities between media coverage of EUropean issues in
different Member States, (3) communicative exchange between national public
spheres, and (4) EUropean identity constructions. Interestingly,
most research on political communication at the EU level, and how this
articulates with national public spheres, tends to be overwhelmingly concerned
with what is eventually represented, with the content that appears and then
circulates. Whether the national media are themselves functioning effectively, or
ISSN 1890-5986
13
BRENREUTER ET AL.
the kinds of structural change to which they are subject and which might affect
media performance, tend to be issues that are bracketed for the purposes of
assessing whether or not they are acting as conduits of
Europeanization.(Schlesinger/Fossum 2007, 10)
Also, the question if mass media communication delivers, in fact, input into
the political system, is usually not empirically dealt with (although it is
mentioned as an important part of the public sphere, e.g. by Kantner (2004)
and Tobler (2006).
The attention of National Media for EU Politics
This issue is mainly dealt with by quantitative approaches. Purely quantitative
studies are, however, rare, and criticized as insufficient for the question at
hand:
A Europeanised communication system is not to be confounded with increased
coverage of European subjects in national media. This coverage is aimed towards
a national public and, thus, linked to national perspectives. (Grimm, quoted after
Kantner 2004, 85)
Quantitative studies were carried out by Gerhards (2000, 2002) comparing the
percentage of reports on EUropean issues with the overall share of political
reports in German newspapers, by Kevin, counting articles on EUropean
issues in eight Member States (Kevin 2003, quoted after Wimmel 2006, 41)
and by Peter/Lauf/Semetko (2003, 2004, quoted after Wimmel 2006, 44) with
regard to TV coverage of EP elections. Peters et al. (2006) use quantitative
indicators based on a more differentiated scheme of dimensions. They are
interested in (1) the monitoring of EUropean politics and (2) the discursive
integration of EUrope. Within the first dimension, attention towards
institutions and policies is measured by counting the mentioning of EU
institutions in the media as well as articles where EU policy making is the
main subject. The second dimension is operationalized by counting quotations
by foreign actors and we-references.
Most studies use quantitative criteria besides qualitative ones, e.g. Trenz
(2004) measures the visibility of communication, respectively the absolute
degree of resonance, a purely quantitative indicator which measures the
percentage of European political communication in relation to other forms of
political communication in the newspaper. (Trenz 2004, 294-295). Also
Eilders/Voltmer (2003) use quantitative as well as qualitative dimensions. In
general, most studies come to the result that coverage of EUropean affairs is
rather limited but continuously increasing and that, in fact, national media in
most countries are quite open to discussion of European issues and also
positive towards the idea of Europe, the European Union and European
integration (Pfetzsch, 2004). For instance, the Europub integrated project
report on a frame analysis of a large sample of newspaper editorials reflected
the positions of national elites, displaying an openness to European scopes and
ideas of European integration (Pfetzsch, 2004, p. 60). Peter et al., however,
maintain, that it is rather a general increased interest in geopolitical affairs
than a genuine EUropean interest that has enlarged the percentage of articles
dealing with EUrope.
ISSN 1890-5986
14
BRENREUTER ET AL.
Similarities between Media Coverage in Different Member States

Similar forms of covering EUropean issues play a prominent role within a
broad strand of studies on the EPS. In their minimal form these studies ask for
the coverage of the same EUropean topics at the same time (e.g. Trenz 2004).
Out of more ambitious definitions, the national framing of certain issues has
been analysed. E.g. Trenz and Eder/Kantner complement the criteria of the
same topics at the same time by the dimension of the same criteria of
relevance (Trenz 2002, Eder/Kantner 2000). When the same criteria of
relevance apply, the public sphere can create either consensus or conflict; in
any case, a room of in-between emerges which surmounts distance as all
are dealing with the same question (Arendt, quoted after Trenz 2002, 27).
According to Risse (who has taken up this dimension),
()(s)imilar criteria of relevance do not mean that we agree on an issue. But we
have to agree on what the problem actually is: we need to know what we are
talking about. We can disagree on whether the attack on Iraq is consistent with
international law or not. But same criteria of relevance requires that we do agree
that compliance with international law is significant in debating questions of war
and peace. If we do not agree about international law as a frame of reference to
discuss the war against Iraq, we cannot meaningfully communicate the issue. (Risse
2003, 6-7)
Renfordt (2007) has empirically tested this dimension with regard to the Iraq
war and found, indeed, a European community of communication that relates
to the legal dimension of the Iraq-debate.
Various authors see similarities between national framings of EUropean
questions as a precondition of a EPS. Out of this perspective, e.g. Trenz (2000,
quoted after Kantner 2004, 156) found nationally different frames when
analysing coverage of corruption in the EU. Similar findings are reported by
Grundmann/Smith/Wright in a case study on the Kosovo crisis (Kantner 2004,
157). Van de Steeg (2002, quoted after Wimmel 2006, 62) sees broad
similarities and concrete differences in her analysis of the coverage of Eastern
enlargement4. Eder/ Kantners studies on BSE, the Schengen process and
corruption in the EU come, in general, to rather optimistic results5: According
to them EUropean communication already takes place in the EU6 in the sense
that a listening audience has developed. Similarly, Deirdre Kevin (e.g. 2004),
who conducted cross-national comparative content analysis of European
media coverage, found that even if the British press remains stringently
Eurosceptic, French and German media generally provided a fairly wide range
of information and some positive coverage. However, the emerging EUropean
audience is not a democratic political agent but only a potential part of
collective opinion formation. Conditions for collective opinion and will
4
Similarly Diez Medrano (2003) in a longitudinal study from 1946 to 1997.

Similarly Tobler (2002) with regard to taxation policies.
6
And Kantners interpretation of other case studies with differing results shows that results do not only
depend on the respective definition of the EPS and the selection of case studies, but that these results can
also be interpreted in different ways according to the respective understanding of the EPS. In this vein,
Kantner makes the claim with regard to studies denying the existence of a EPS that these studies should
not be understand as proofs for lack of communication but for existing communication. (Kantner 159)
5
ISSN 1890-5986
15
BRENREUTER ET AL.
formation are currently developing in EUrope but, up to now, these conditions

do not suffice to create a public sphere in a normatively ambitious sense that
would require affirmative or critical positions aiming at influencing political
decision making in a legally regulated form. The emerging EUropean public
lacks possibilities of feeding its opinions into the political system; public
political communication is not sufficiently linked to political decision making
(Eder/Kantner 2000).
Other scholars share this rather cautious and pessimistic judgment on the
existence of a European public sphere. Peters (2003) large-scale, crossnational content analysis and effects study of television news around the 1999
European elections found a complex variety of orientations among media and
audiences among countries including Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands
and the United Kingdom. His most significant conclusion, however, was that
news about the European elections was largely invisible in most of the
countries he studied, and that the preponderance of coverage he did find was
negative in tone. As a result, citizens of European countries who rely primarily
on television news would be hard pressed to find adequate or useful
information about the European Union. On this basis, he concluded that
...there is no European public sphere. Traces of a European public sphere
may exist in some international elite media and in issue-specific circles of
political, economic or cultural elites, but not in mainstream television news
coverage. (p. 173)
Domestication of EUropean issues
Differently from those authors who focus on similarities in national framing
others see the domestication of EUrope as a means to develop a EPS.
Eilders/Voltmer (2003), e.g., measure the domestication of Europe, by
second-level agenda-setting, i.e. the relation between EUropean topics and
national themes. Their study shows that coverage of EURopean affairs is in
general weak; however, EUropean matters are frequently linked to national
affairs. Sifft et. al. come to similar results but interpret them in a rather
sceptical way with regard to their function for EUropean democracy as the
legitimacy of EUropean politics making still mainly depends on national
actors.
Krzyzanowski and Wodak (2006) have suggested, within national public
spheres, the media construct national filter perception of Europe which are
specific to particular national contexts, providing diversified sets of
interpretations of Europe and Europeanness. Similarly, Anderson and
Weymouths (1999) study of how the British press covered the European
Union in 1997 and 1998, used discourse analysis of selected articles to
understand representations of Europe. As these authors argued, the British
media are, for long-standing cultural reasons, overwhelmingly Eurosceptic,
viewing the European Union and issues around European integration from a
perspective that focuses narrowly on threats to British sovereignty.
Communicative Exchange between National Public Spheres
Risse and his team understand the transnational character of communication as
the extent to which fellow European authors/speakers participate in the
various national public debates as represented in the media and the degree
ISSN 1890-5986
16
BRENREUTER ET AL.
to which foreign European media are represented in the national public space
and treated as legitimate voices in ones home debate (Risse 2003, 7). A
similar criterion is defined by Trenz (2004, 294-295) as connectivity of
communication or degree of reciprocal resonance, i.e. the degree of
convergence and synchronicity of communication between different media.
Communications between elite publics lead to a EPS if they find resonance in
a transnational broad public (Trenz 2002, 43). For Tobler (2002), it is
precisely this communicative exchange that stands at the core of an EPS which
can only be perceived of
if, as a consequence of a communicative exchange between actors of different
national spheres (Geltungsrume) as well as involved multinational
organizations, a transnational arena of communication can be discerned. (Tobler
2002, 68)
Koopmans/Erbe (2003) use a claim analysis that allows for two possibilities
for communicative exchange on EUropean matters, vertical Europeanisation
consisting of communicative exchanges between the national and the
European level, either in a bottom-up variant (national actors addressing
actors at the European level) or in a top-down variant (European actors
addressing actors at the national level. (Koopmans/Erbe 2003, 6; Koopmans
2004, 6). Horizontal Europeanisation, on the other hand, consists of
communicative linkages between different member states. They define a
weak and a strong variant of this second form - in the weak form, media cover
debates in other Member States while, in the strong one, actors from one
country explicitly address, or refer to actors or policies in another member
state (Koopmans/Erbe 2003, 7; Koopmans 2004, 6). In order to analyse
vertical and horizontal Europeanisation, the authors investigate patterns of
communicative flow and assess the relative density of public communication
within and between different political spaces. (Koopmans/Erbe 2003, 7).
These qualities of media communication are researched by reporting on
different claims in national media whereby a claim is
a unit of strategic action in the public sphere. It consists of the expression of a
political opinion or demand by way of physical or verbal action, regardless of the
form this expression takes (statement, violence, repression, decision, demonstration,
court ruling etc.) and regardless of the nature of the actor (governments, social
movements, NGOs, individuals, anonymous actors, etc.) (Koopmans 2004, 13)
For Wimmel (2004), only the strong variant of the Koopmans/Erbe definition,
i.e. direct references to actors from other countries count for the EPS
(Wimmel 2004, 11):
The existence of discursive references can only be stated if a speaker in his
expression of opinion first refers to the position held by another discourse
participant and directly afterwards or in the further course of the article refers to his
position in an approving, rejecting or assessing way. (Wimmel 2004, 16)
These references have, furthermore, to lead to a collective discourse of selfunderstanding, i.e. a discourse of EUropeans on the future direction of the
EUropean integration project (Wimmel 2004, 49). Thus, the existence of a
ISSN 1890-5986
17
BRENREUTER ET AL.
EPS depends on the reciprocal opening of national public spheres (Wimmel

2004, 57). In his analysis of the debates on the accession of Turkey in
Germany, France, and the UK, Wimmel does not see a sufficient amount of
direct references to speak of an EPS (Wimmel 2004, 208).
Another form of operationalizing transnational exchange is by focusing on
referentiality between media (Tobler 2002, 68). Koopmans/Erbe (2003) name
as examples for this form of communicative exchange press reviews, partially
overlapping media audiences, same news input into different media arenas
by speakers, same news input into different media arenas via news
agencies, and inter-media cooperation (Koopmans/Erbe 2003, 5-8) For
Scherer/Vesper (2004), on the other hand, the decisive criterion for media
communications is
if they allow for the observation of other national public spheres, and by doing so
communicate which questions are being discussed in other countries of the
European Union. (Scherer/Vesper 2004, 199)
They operationalize this criterion by analyzing references to foreign media in

the reporting of German media. In addition to similarities between EUropean
public spheres, van de Steeg (2006) introduces the criterion that coverage
within EUrope has to show strong differences to coverage outside of EUrope.
EUropean identity constructions
Risse/van de Steeg (2003) see the emergence of a EUropean identity when
EUrope is recognized as an issue of common concern (Risse/van de Steeg
2003, 2). This criterion is operationalized by (1) differentiating EU coverage
by the title of the section in which EUropean issues are presented in the media
(domestic pages, foreign pages, Europe pages) and (2) by analyzing the use of
we (as a EUropean or a national we, respectively by reconstructing the
relationship between these two we). A EUropean identity (or, at least, its
emergence) can, thus, be spoken of if (1) a collective European we is
constructed in the media discourses, and (2) national media not only use the
same reference points, but European reference points, and (3) issues are
framed as common European ones, as questions of common fate. (Risse/ van
de Steeg 2003, 21) Trenz (2004) further differentiates the framing of
EUropean issues by analysing whether these issues are presented in terms of
interests, terms of values or in terms of identity, if they are, thus, seen as
relevant because () (they) touch () our particular sphere of interests, ()
a universal sphere of values or () our collective identity (Trenz 2004, 309).
Trenz (2000) furthermore emphasizes the possible positive impact of shared
protest against specific forms of EUropean politics (e.g. scandals) on the
development of a EUropean identity.
A different perspective on the development of a EUropean identity is
chosen by Berkel (2006). Berkel asks for the contribution of conflicts to the
development of a EPS and distinguishes between destructive and constructive
effects of conflicts. The destructive effects of conflicts are their potential to
harden boundaries, thereby excluding the opinions, interests and goals of the
excluded group. The positive effects of conflicts, on the other hand, lie in the
integrative role they can play for group identities. Constructive effects of
conflicts can only be achieved if public debates meet three criteria. Besides
ISSN 1890-5986
18
BRENREUTER ET AL.
making the positions of the participating groups (1) transparent, public

communication should also lead to what Berkel calls (2) validation, i.e. the
validity of the positions brought forward by speakers in the public sphere is to
be put to a test. This process of validation requires to adopt the perspective of
the political adversary and to understand the respective other position. The
process of validation should, ideally, lead to (3) the development of common
patterns of orientation.
Discourses on EUropean Matters
Out of a discourse theoretical perspective, it is necessary to identify discourses
on EUropean matters in order to assess the existence or emergence of a EPS.
The Europub Project came to the result that EU-discourses on concrete
policies can be found whereas debates about the future of Europe and
European institutions still lack a shared political language even within
political elites.
A study on the ratification of the Constitution (cf. Brenreuter et.al 2006)
came to similar results. Discourses on this institutional question remained (1)
limited primarily to national spheres and, more importantly, (2) they tended to
focus on subject matters of a short temporary impact (like the quality of the
debates on the Constitution) instead on more far reaching questions for
EUropean integration. The only common issue which was identified in all
newspapers was the elite-citizens gap. However, the feeling of being
underrepresented is probably a general phenomenon of representative
democracies than a genuine EUropean one.
The lack of common discourses poses a serious problem for a EPS while,
out of the understanding of these projects, consensus on concrete political
aims and measures is not necessary and, probably, not even desirable for
public spheres, the creation of discourses based on a common understanding
of the matters at stake is indispensable. This does not necessarily mean that
one EPS based on such a common understanding has to exist but even if we
speak of several European public spheres, each of them has to create common
discourses.
With regard to the research questions of Eurosphere diversity between as
well as within public spheres in a polity is possible; and within a public
sphere, diversity of goals, values, opinions, interests etc. do not have to be
complemented by a shared understanding of the questions at stake. Rather, we
know from the modern history of states and nations that a polity can be, and is,
possible with the co-existence of diverse discourses and different
understandings of which questions are of public relevance. The stipulation that
prescribes a common frame of understanding and a common discourse as a
condition for the existence of a public sphere is either in contradiction to the
public spheres own democratic end by excluding diversity, or it will need to
create or find itself a homogenous demos.
The challenge for contemporary societies is to discuss whether the political
structure and the public sphere should aim to accommodate the diversities with
an ethos of seeking for a common rationality; or, if it should rather recognize
and allow the diverse rationalities and modes of being in order to make the
diverse society possible. Unlike the liberal republican understanding,
Eurosphere does not categorically exclude the probability of the latter option.
ISSN 1890-5986
19
BRENREUTER ET AL.
Contrary to the universal definition of commonality, it asserts that the

integrative principle of the society is contingent and reproduced again and
again in and by multiple, overlapping public spheres inhabited by inter- and
counter-acting structures, institutions, groups, and individuals, who may or
may not agree on the rules of the game or what questions are at stake.
4. Summary
Little surprisingly, the differing understandings of the EPS outlined in this
chapter lead to equally differing empirical evaluations of the existence or
emergence of an EPS. Early attempts at finding a European public sphere,
conceptualized in terms of transnational forms of public deliberation, often
came up empty-handed. However, more recent efforts at reconceptualizing the
European public sphere towards a view of a pro-European orientation within
national contexts have been somewhat more optimistic, however, their
assessment is also in no way unequivocal. In general, one can state that studies
dealing with specific public spheres see more transnational networks than
those dealing with mass media in general and that specific subject matters find
broader public attention than every day EUropean politics. Both results come
hardly as a surprise and probably apply to national public spheres as well7.
Furthermore, and equally expectably, media coverage of EUropean matters
follows political power distribution, i.e. more influential Member States gain
more attention than less important ones and policies within EU competence
are rather dealt with in a EUropean dimension than those that are nationally
decided on (Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 22). In general, national points of view
dominate even in articles dealing with EUropean matters. However, if innerEUropean exchange is compared to transnational exchange beyond EUropean
borders, the public sphere seems mostly Europeanized as e.g. Erbes research
on press reviews has shown (Erbe 2006, 172).
As a general result, it can be stated that the development of the EPS is seen
as insufficient (Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 23). Reasons for this fact are seen in
socio-cultural factors (languages, differing cultural identities), politicalinstitutional factors (intransparency and low news worthiness of EUropean
politics as well as lacking possibilities of participation for the citizens in EU
politics), media specific factors (fragmentation of the media system, demand
orientation,
commercialisation,
national
fixation
of
journalism)
(Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 23).
Mostly, literature on the EPS lacks a self-critical evaluation of its own
theoretical presuppositions or, in an opposite move, tries to neglect all
normative differences by calling e.g.
for the end of one-sided fixations and extreme requirements in favour of multidimensional profiles of requirements covering the continuum from minimal
claims (transparency) to optimal conditions (transnational interdiscursivity)
(Latzer/Saurwein 2006, 19)
7
While overview literature on the EPS usually deplores the lack of longitudinal studies as well as the
negligence of electronic media and, above all, the Internet (cf. Langenbucher/Latzer 20), interestingly,
the lack of studies on national public spheres or, e.g., other very differentiated public spheres like the US
public sphere is rarely mentioned.
ISSN 1890-5986
20
BRENREUTER ET AL.
While negligence of ones own normative presuppositions makes the

comparison of different approaches to the EPS impossible, the second quasiobjective approach simulates the possibility to understand all theories of
democracy as parts of one continuum and to ascribe to them, consequently,
different requirements for a public sphere. This is, obviously, an especially
generalizing attempt to create a hegemonic discourse excluding all
considerations on democracy that cannot be included in such a continuum. It,
furthermore, makes considerations on the EPS ultimately pointless as a public
sphere can only be evaluated with regard to requirements of democracy and
inclusiveness.
5. The EPS and the Diversity Perspective of Eurosphere

Eurosphere will contribute to hitherto research on the EPS in various ways:
The project is based on a usually neglected but highly relevant normative

framework by focussing on the question if and up to what degree diversity
can be accommodated in one or several European Public Sphere(s).
It has been frequently claimed that a EPS should be conceptualized
differently from national public spheres (see, e.g., Risse 2003). Eurosphere
takes this claim seriously by searching with a bottom-up approach for
types of public spheres developing in Europe. In this way, Eurosphere
does not only contribute to new understandings of the EPS but also to
different conceptualizations of national public spheres, rather based on
empirical evidence than on the mere assumption of unification and
coherence.
As the European governance system is fragmented and multi-level, the
questions arises if the public sphere follows the EU's existing governance
system by also developing a multi-level-structure in which, at each level,
citizens relate to different institutions of governance. This hypothesis has
not been tested in previous literature. With a simultaneous focus on
national, trans-European, and European level organizations, Eurosphere is
systematically testing this hypothesis.
Finally, the empirical research within Eurosphere includes different
speakers/actors in the EPS (political parties, media, think tanks, NGOs),
internal communicative arenas of these institutional actors (networks and
communication structures), media communication, and the responses of
the citizens. Thus, the empirical results of Eurosphere can be expected to
deliver a more elaborated picture and analysis of the EPS.
ISSN 1890-5986
21
BRENREUTER ET AL.
6. References
Abels, G. (2006): Feministische Perspektiven, in: Bieling, H. J./ Lerch, M. (Eds.),
Theorien der europischen Integration, Wiesbaden, 347-372.
Andersen S.S./Burns T.R. (1996), The European Union and the Erosion of
Democracy: A Study of Parliamentary Governance, in: Contemporary
Development Analysis, Vol.1 (2), 33-65.
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities. London: Verso.
Anderson, P. J., and Weymouth, A. (1999). Insulting the public? The British Press
and the European Union. London and New York: Longman.
Arendt, H. (1965), ber die Revolution. Mnchen.
Bader, V. (1995) "Citizenship and Exclusion: Radical Democracy, Community and
Justice. Or, What Is Wrong with Communitarianism." Political Theory 23, no. 2:
211-46.
Baker, K. M. (1992). Defining the public sphere in eighteenth-century France:
Variations on a theme by Habermas. In Calhoun, C., (Ed.), Habermas and the
Public Sphere (pp. 181-211). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brenreuter, C./ Bruell, C./ Gaisbauer, H./ Grner, U./ Kimmel, M./ Mokre, M./
Pausch, M. (2006), The Referenda on the European Constitution: A Crucial
Moment for the Development of a European Public Sphere?. EIF Working Paper
No. 24, http://www.eif.oeaw.ac.at/downloads/ workingpapers/wp24.pdf, 2007-0713
Beetham, D/ Lord, C. (1998): Legitimacy and the EU, London.
Bender, P. (1997), Europa als Gegenstand politischer Kommunikation - eine
vergleichende Untersuchung der Informations- und ffentlichkeitsarbeit von
Europischer Kommission, Europischem Parlament und Regierungen
ausgewhlter Mitgliedstaaten. Freiburg/Breisgau.
Berkel, B. (2006), Konflikt als Motor europischer ffentlichkeit. Eine Inhaltsanalyse
von Tageszeitungen in Deutschland, Frankreich, Grobritannien und sterreich.
Wiesbaden.
Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage.
Brague, R. (1993), Europa. Eine exzentrische Identitt. Frankfurt/M.
Brzinski J., Lancaster T.D. and Tuschhoff C. (1999), Compounded Representation in
Western constitutionalist thought on the future of Europe. London/Portland.
Dewey, J. (1954), The Public and its Problems. Athens, Ohio.
Dez Medrano, J. (2003), Qualittspresse und europische Integration, in: Klein, A./
Koopmans, R./ Trenz, H. J./ Lahusen, C./ Rucht, D. (Eds.), Brgerschaft,
ffentlichkeit und Demokratie in Europa. Opladen, 193-214.
Eder, K. (2000), Zur Transformation nationalstaatlicher ffentlichkeit in Europa. Von
der Sprachgemeinschaft zur issuespezifischen Kommunikationsgemeinschaft, in:
Berliner Journal fr Soziologie 10 (2), 167-184.
Eder, K. (2003), ffentlichkeit und Demokratie, in: Jachtenfuchs, M./ Kohler-Koch,
B. (Eds..), Europische Integration, Opladen, 85-120.
ISSN 1890-5986
22
BRENREUTER ET AL.
Eder, K. (2004), Europische ffentlichkeit und multiple Identitten - das Ende des
Volksbegriffs?, in: Franzius, C./ Preu, U. K. (Eds.), Europische ffentlichkeit.
Baden-Baden, 61-80.
Eder, K./ Kantner, C. (2000) Transnationale Resonanzstrukturen in Europa. Eine
Kritik der Rede vom ffentlichkeitsdefizit, in: Bach, M. (Ed.) Klner Zeitschrift
fr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft 40, Die Europisierung
nationaler Gesellschaften, 306 331.
Eilders, C./Voltmer, K. (2003), Zwischen Deutschland und Europa. Eine empirische
Untersuchung zum Grad von Europisierung und Europa-Untersttzung der
meinungsfhrenden
deutschen
Tageszeitungen,
in:
Medienund
Kommunikationswissenschaft 51 (2), 250 270.
Eley, G. (1992), Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the
Nineteenth Century, in: Calhoun, C. (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere,
Cambridge, Mass./London, 289-339.
Erbe, J. (2006), Integration der politischen ffentlicheit in Europa durch Vernetzung.
Der Fall der grenzberschreitenden Presseschauen in Deutschland, in:
Langenbucher, W. R./ Latzer, M. (Eds.), Europische ffentlichkeit und medialer
Wandel. Eine transdisziplinre Perspektive. Wiesbaden, 156-178.
Eriksen, E.O./ Fossum J. E. (2001), Democracy through strong publics in the
European Union? ARENA Working Paper Series 16/2001.
European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) (2002), Governance by
Committee, the Role of Committees in European Policy-Making and Policy
Implementation, Final Report, Maastricht; http://improvingser. jrc. it/ default/
page.gx?app.page=entity.html&_app.action=entity&entity.object=TSER-000000
0000001291&_entity.name=Final%20Report1; 2007-07-12
Europub Final Report (2004), The European Public Space Observatory. Assembling
Information that Allows the Monitoring of the European Public Space.
Eurosphere Proposal (2005), Diversity and The European Public Sphere: Towards a
Citizens Europe. Bergen.
Fraser, N. (1992), Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of
Actually Existing Democracy, in: Calhoun, C. (Ed.), Habermas and the Public
Sphere, Cambridge, Mass./London, 109-142.
Fraser, N. (2007), Transnationalizing the Public Sphere. On the Legitimacy and
Efficacy of Public Opinion in a Post-Westphalian World. http://eipcp.net/
transversal/0605/fraser/en, 2009-03-12.
Gerhards, J. (1993), Westeuropische Integration und die Schwierigkeiten der
Entstehung einer europischen ffentlichkeit, in: Zeitschrift fr Soziologie, 22
(2), 96-110.
Gerhards, J. (1997), Diskursive versus liberale ffentlichkeit. Eine empirische
Auseinandersetzung mit Jrgen Habermas, in: Klner Zeitschrift fr Soziologie
und Sozialpsychologie, 49, 1-34.
Gerhards, J. (2002) Das ffentlichkeitsdefizit der EU im Horizont normativer
ffentlichkeitstheorien, in: Kaelble, H./M. Kirsch, M./ A. Schmidt-Gernig, A.
(eds.), Transnationale ffentlichkeit und Identitten im 20. Jahrhundert,
Frankfurt.
Gerhards, Jrgen (2000), Europisierung von konomie und Politik und die Trgheit
der Entstehung einer europischen ffentlichkeit. In: Bach, Maurizio (Hrsg.): Die
Europisierung nationaler Gesellschaften. Sonderheft 40 der Klner Zeitschrift
fr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Opladen, 277-305.
ISSN 1890-5986
23
BRENREUTER ET AL.
Gramberger, M. R. (1997), Die ffentlichkeitsarbeit der Europischen Kommission

1952-1996. PR zur Legitimation von Integration? Baden-Baden.
Gramberger, M. R./ Lehmann, I. (1995), UN und EU: Machtlos im Kreuzfeuer der
Politik? Informationspolitik zweier internationaler Organisationen im Vergleich,
in: Publizistik 40/2, 186-204.
Grimm, D. (1995), Braucht Europa eine Verfassung?, in: Juristenzeitung 50 (12), pp.
581 591.
Habermas, J. (1961/1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere
(Thomas Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge,
MA
Habermas, J. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere. In Calhoun, C., (Ed.),
Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 421-462). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1994). Citizenship and national identity. In B. van Steenbergen (Ed.),
The condition of citizenship (pp. 20-35) Newbury Park: Sage.
Habermas, J. (1995), Remarks on Dieter Grimms Does Europe need a
Constitution?, in: European Law Journal 3/1995, 303-307
Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory
of Law and Democracy, Cambridge, Mass.
Haug, C. (2008), Public Spheres within Movements. Challenging the (Re)search for a
European Public Sphere. RECON Online Working Paper 2008/02.
http://www.reconproject.eu/projectweb/portalproject/RECONWorkingPapers200
8.html, 2009-02-17.
Hix, S. (2003), The End of Democracy in Europe? How the European Union (As
Currently Designed) Restricts Political Competition; http://personal.lse.ac.uk/
hix/Working_Papers/Hix-End_of_Democracy_in_Europe.pdf, 2007-07-12.
Hoesch, K. (2003), Kontinuitt und Wandel in der Kommunikationsstrategie der EUKommission. Osnabrck.
Hohendahl, P. U./ Berman, R. A./ Kenkel, K./ Strum A. (2000), ffentlichkeit.
Geschichte eines kritischen Begriffs. Stuttgart.
Horkheimer, M./Adorno, T. (1947), Dialektik der Aufklrung : philosoph. Fragmente.
Amsterdam
Joerges, C./ Neyer J.(2006), Deliberative Supranationalism Revisited. EUI Working
Papers Law, 2006/20.
Kant, I. (1795/1983), Zum ewigen Frieden, Anhang II: Von der Einhelligkeit der
Politik mit der Moral nach dem transzendentalen Begriffe des ffentlichen
Rechts; in: Werke Bd. 9, Darmstadt, 244251.
Kantner, Cathleen (2004) Kein modernes Babel. Kommunikative Voraussetzungen
europischer ffentlichkeit. Wiesbaden.
Kellner, D.(2000), Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical
Intervention, http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/; 2007-07-12
Kevin, D. (2001). Coverage of the European Parliament elections of 1999: national
public spheres and European debates. Javnost/The Public 8(1), 21-38.
Kevin, D. (2004). Europe in the media: A comparison of reporting, representation and
rhetoric in national media systems in Europe. Mahwah and London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
ISSN 1890-5986
24
BRENREUTER ET AL.
Kirchhof, P. (1994), Kompetenzaufteilung zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten und der EU,

in: Europisches Forum: Die knftige Verfassungsordnung der Europischen
Union. (Europische Gesprche 2/94), hrsg. von der Vertretung der Europischen
Kommission in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bonn.
Kohler-Koch, B./Humrich,C./Finke, B.(2006), Enhancing Multi-level Democracy by
Organizing Civil Society Input. Paper presented at the 20th IPSA World
Congress, Fukuoka, July 9-13, 2006; http://www.sowi.unimannheim.de/
lehrstuehle/lspol2/service/dl/fukuoka2006paper_2300.pdf;2007-07-12
Koopmans, R. (2004), Integrated Report WP 2: Cross-National, Cross-Issue, CrossTime, http://europub.wz-berlin.de, 2007-07-13
Koopmans, R./ Zimmermann, A. (2007), Visibility Biases in Political
Communication on the Internet: Search Engine Results and Hyperlink Networks
Compared to Print Media Content. Paper presented at the Recon Workshop, May,
18th-20th, Delmenhorst.
Koopmans, R./Erbe, J. (2003), Towards a European Public Sphere? Vertical and
Horizontal Dimensions of Europeanised Political Communication. Discussion
Paper SP IV 2003-4003,
Krzyzanowski, M., and Wodak, R. (2006). Comparative report on media research.
EMEDIATE Project Report, WP2 Media Research, Lancaster University.
Kunelius, R, and Sparks, C. (2001). Problems with a European public sphere: An
introduction. Javnost/The Public 8(1), 5-20.
Laclau ,E./Mouffe, C. (2001/1985), Hegemonie und radikale Demokratie. Zur
Dekonstruktion des Marxismus, Wien.
Landfried, C. (2004), Das Entstehen einer europischen ffentlichkeit, in: Franzius,
C./ Preu, U. K. (Eds.), Europische ffentlichkeit. Baden-Baden, 123-138.
Latzer, M./ Saurwein, F. (2006), Europisierung durch Medien: Anstze und
Erkenntnisse der Medienforschung, in: Langenbucher, W. R./ Latzer, M. (Eds.),
Europische ffentlichkeit und medialer Wandel. Eine transdisziplinre
Perspektive. Wiesbaden, 10-45.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York
Luetzeler, P. M. (1994), Writers on European Identity, in: Luetzeler, P. M.
(Ed.),Europe after Maastricht. American and European Perspectives. Providence
and Oxford.
Malmborg M./ Strth, B. (2002), The Meaning of Europe. Variety and Contention
with and among nations. Oxford.
Meinhof, U. H. (2001), Auf der Suche nach Euro-news-land Satellitenfernsehen und
die Konstruktion transnationaler Identitten, in: Busch, B./Hipfl, B./ Robins, K.
(Eds.) Bewegte Identiten. Medien in transkulturellen Kontexten.
Klagenfurt/Celovec.
Meyer, J.-H. (2004), Europische ffentlichkeit aus historischer Sicht, in: Franzius,
C./ Preu, U. K. (Eds.), Europische ffentlichkeit. Baden-Baden, 209-229.
Mouffe, C. (1995), Feminism, citizenship, and radical democratic politics, in:
Nicholson, L./ Seidman, S. (Eds.), Social Postmodernism: Beyond Identity
Politics. Cambridge, 315-331.
Mouffe, C. (2000), The Democratic Paradox. London/ New York.
Nanz, P./ Steffek, J. (2006), Transnationale ffentlichkeit, Zivilgesellschaft und die
Demokratisierung internationalen Regierens, in: Niesen, P. (Ed.)
ISSN 1890-5986
25
BRENREUTER ET AL.
Intersubjektivitt und internationale Politik. Zur Theorie Jrgen Habermas',

Frankfurt.
Negt, O./ Kluge, A. (1972), ffentlichkeit und Erfahrung. Zur Organisationsanalyse
von brgerlicher und proletarischer ffentlichkeit. Frankfurt a. M.
Neidhardt, F. (1994), Die Rolle des Publikums. Anmerkungen zur Soziologie
politischer ffentlichkeit, in: Derlien, H.-U./ Gerhard, U./ Scharpf, F. W. (Eds.),
Systemrationalitt und Partialinteresse. Festschrift fr Renate Mayntz. BadenBaden, 315-328.
Neidhardt, F. (2006), Europische ffentlichkeit als Prozess. Anmerkungen zum
Forschungsstand, in: Langenbucher, W. R./ Latzer, M. (Eds.), Europische
ffentlichkeit und medialer Wandel. Eine transdisziplinre Perspektive.
Wiesbaden, 46-61.
Niederberger, A. (2004), Aufteilung(en) unter Gleichen. Zur Theorie der
demokratischen Konstitution der Welt bei Jacques Rancire, in: Flgel, O./ Heil,
R./ Hetzel A. (Eds.), Die Rckkehr des Politischen. Demokratietheorien heute.
Darmstadt.
Nowotny,S. (2003), The Condition of Becoming Public. http://www.republicart.net/
disc/realpublicspaces/nowotny03_en.htm, 2009-03-12.
ONeill M. (1999), Between Regime and Republic: The Polity Problem in the
European Union.Paper presented to the UACES-CESPG-AMLRF workshop on
The State of the Art: Theoretical Approaches to the European Union in the PostAmsterdam Era, Aston University, Birmingham, 6-7 May 1999.
rsten, M. (2003). Transnational politisk journalistik. Unpublished PhD dissertation,
Department of Communication, Roskilde University Centre.
Persson, H.- ./ Strth (2007) (Eds.), Reflections on Europe. Defining a Political
Order in Time and Space. Brussels.
Peter, J. (2003). Why European TV news matters: A cross-nationally comparative
analysis of TV news about the European Union and its effects. Amsterdam:
Ascor.
Peters, B./ Wessler, H./ Sifft, S./ Brggemann, M./ Kleinen-von Knigslw, K./
Wimmel, A. (2006), The Transnationalization of Public Spheres. Basingstoke
Pfetsch, B. (2004). The voice of the media in European public sphere: Comparative
analysis of newspaper editorials. Integrated report WP3, Europub.com Project.
Poeschke,O. (2004), Fraktale ffentlichkeit: Zur Bemessung des Verflechtungsgrades
von Recht und Politik in Europa, in: Franzius, C./ Preu, U. K. (Eds.),
Europische ffentlichkeit. Baden-Baden, 155-190.
Renfordt, S. (2007), Do Europeans speak with one another in time of war? Results of
a media analysis on the 2003 Iraq war. RECON Online Working Paper 2007/17;
http://www.reconproject.eu/projectweb/portalproject/RECONWorkingPapers.htm
l, 2009-02-17
Risse, T. (2003), An Emerging European Public Sphere? Theoretical Clarifications
and Empirical Indicators. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the European
Union Studies Association (EUSA) Nashville TN, March 27 30, 2003.
Risse, T./ van de Steeg, M. (2003) An Emerging European Public Sphere? Empirical
Evidence and Theoretical Clarifications, Paper presented to the conference on the
Europeanisation of Public Spheres, Political Mobilisation, Public
Communication and the European Union, Science Center Berlin, June 20 22,
2003.
ISSN 1890-5986
26
BRENREUTER ET AL.
Rommetsch D./Wessels W. (eds.) (1996), The European Union and Member States.
Towards institutional fusion? , Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Sandel M (1998). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. 2 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Saussure, Ferdinand de (2001), Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft,
hrsg.
Saxer, U. (2006), Europischer Gesellschafts-, Medien- und ffentlichkeitswandel eine kommunikationssoziologische Perspektive, in: Langenbucher, W. R./ Latzer,
M. (Eds.), Europische ffentlichkeit und medialer Wandel. Eine
transdisziplinre Perspektive. Wiesbaden, 62-92.
Scharpf, F. W. (1999), Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford.
Scherer, H./ Vesper, S. (2004), Was schreiben die anderen? Auslndische
Pressestimmen als Vorform paneuropischer ffentlichkeit - Eine Inhaltsanalyse
deutscher Qualittszeitungen, in: Hagen, L. (Ed.), Europische Union und
mediale ffentlichkeit. Theoretische Perspektiven und empirische Befunde zur
Rolle der Medien im europischen Einigungsprozess. Kln, 195 211.
Schlesinger, P. (1997), From cultural deference to political culture: Media, politics
and collective identity in the European Union. Media, Culture & Society, 19(3),
369-391.
Schlesinger, P./ Fossum, J. (2007), The European Union and the Public Sphere. A
communicative space in the making?. Oxford.
Schlesinger, P./ Kevin, D. (2000), Can the European Union Become a Sphere of
Publics?", in: Eriksen, E. O./ Fossum, J. E. (Eds.), Democracy in the European
Union. Integration through Deliberation?, London/New York,206-229.
Schmitt H./Thomassen J. (eds.) (1999), Political Representation and Legitimacy in
the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schudson, M. (1992). Was there ever a public sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the
American case. In Calhoun, C., (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 143163). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sicakkan, Hakan G. (2004) "The Modern State, the Citizen, and the Perilous
Refugee." Journal of Human Rights, no. 4: 445-63.
Sicakkan, H. (2008), The Boundaries of Political Rights in Europe. How can the
diversity perspective, as an alternative to difference-thinking, contribute to
justifying inclusive practices? Eurosphere Working Paper 2008/04,
http://www.eurosphere.uib.no/knowledgebase/wpsdocs/Eurosphere_Working_
Paper_4_Sicakkan.pdf, 2009-02-16.
Sicakkan, HG., YG Lithman (2005). "Theorizing Politics of Identity, Modes of
Belonging and Citizenship." In Changing the Basis of Citizenship in the Modern
State. Political Theory and the Politics of Diversity, edited by Hakan G. Sicakkan
and Yngve Lithman. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Slaatta, T. (1999). Europeanisation and the Norwegian news media: Political
discourse and news production in the transnational field. Unpublished PhD
Dissertation, Department of Media and Communication, University of Oslo.
Slaatta, T. (2001). Transnational politics and news production: Norwegian
correspondents on the Brussels Beat. In S. Hjarvard (Ed.), News in a globalised
society. Gothenburg: Nordicom.
ISSN 1890-5986
27
BRENREUTER ET AL.
Slaatta, T. (2006). Europeanisation and the news media: Issues and research
imperatives. Javnost/The Public 13(1), 5-24.
Splichal, S. (2006), In search of a strong European public sphere: some critical
observations on conceptualizations of publicness and the (European) public
sphere, in: Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 28, No. 5, 695-714.
Strth, B. (2000), Introduction: Myth, Memory and History in the Construction of
Community, in: Strth, B. (Ed.), Myth and Memory in the Construction of
Community. Historical Patterns in Europe and beyond. Brussels.
Suchanek, A. (2004), Europische ffentlichkeit aus institutionenkonomischer
Sicht, in: Franzius, C./ Preu, U. K. (Eds.), Europische ffentlichkeit. BadenBaden, 191-208.
Taylor, C (2001). On Social Imaginary, Contemporary Sociological Theory.
http://www.nyu.edu/ classes/calhoun/Theory/Taylor-on-si.htm
Tobler, S. (2002) Transnationale Kommunikationsverdichtungen im Streit um die
internationale Steuerpolitik, in: Berliner Debatte Initial,13 (5/6), 67 78.
Tobler, S. (2006), Konfliktinduzierte Transnationalisierung nationaler und
supranationaler ffentlichkeitsarenen. Indikatoren einer europischen
ffentlichkeit, in: Langenbucher, W. R./ Latzer, M. (Eds.), Europische
Wiesbaden, 107-131.
Trenz, H.-J. (2000), Korruption und politischer Skandal in der EU. Auf dem Weg zu
einer europischen politischen ffentlichkeit? In: Bach, M. (Ed.), Die
Europisierung nationale Gesellschaften. Sonderheft 40 der Klner Zeitschrift fr
Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Opladen, 332-359.
Trenz, H.-J. (2002), Zur Konstitution politischer ffentlichkeit in der Europischen
Union. Zivilgesellschaftliche Subpolitik oder schaupolitische Inszenierung.
Baden-Baden.
Trenz, H.-J. (2004), Media Coverage on European Governance. Exploring the
European Public Sphere in National Quality Newspapers, in: European Journal of
Communication 19 (3), 291 319.
Trenz, H.-J. (2007), Measuring Europeanisation of Public Communication. The
Question of Standards. RECON Online Working Paper 2007/12, http://www.
reconproject.eu/projectweb/ portalproject/RECONWorkingPapers.html, 2009-0216.
Trenz, H.-J. (2008), In Search of the European Public Sphere. Between Normative
Overstretch and Empirical Disenchantment. RECON Online Working Paper
2008/07,http://www.reconproject.eu/projectweb/portalproject/RECONWorkingP
apers.html, 2009-02-16.
Triandafyllidou, A./ Strth, B. (2003) (eds), Representations of Europe and the Nation
in Current and Prospective Member States: Media, Elites and Civil Society. The
Collective State of the Art and Historical Reports, Brussels
Van de Steeg (2006), Does a public sphere exist in the European Union? An analysis
of the content of the debate on the Haider case, in: European Journal of Political
Research, Vol.45/No.4, 609-634.
Van der Eijk C./Franklin M. (1996), Choosing Europe?: The European Electorate and
National Politics in the Face of Union, Ann Arbor.
von Charles Bally. Berlin
ISSN 1890-5986
28
BRENREUTER ET AL.
Walzer, Michael (1983). Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality.

New York: Basic Books.
Weiler, J. H. H. (1995), The state ber alles, Demos, Telos and the German
Maastricht Decision, Harvard Jean Monnet Working Papers 6/95, Cambridge.
Wimmel, Andreas (2004), Transnationale Diskurse. Zur Analyse politischer
Kommunikation in der europischen Medienffentlichkeit, in: Zeitschrift fr
Internationale Beziehungen, 11 (1), pp. 7 25.
Wimmel,A. (2006), Transnationale Diskurse in Europa. Der Streit um den TrkeiBeitritt in Deutschland, Frankreich und Grobritannien. Frankfurt/M.
Wincott D. (1998), Does the EU pervert democracy? Questions of democracy in new
constitutionalist thought on the future of Europe, in: European Law Journal 4 (4),
411-428.
Winkler, R./ Kozeluh, U./ Brandstetter, G. (2006), Deliberation im europischen
Kontext: Online Debatten und Online Konsultationen auf der EU Plattform Your
Voice in Europe, in: Langenbucher, W. R./ Latzer, M. (Eds.), Europische
Wiesbaden, 378-401.
Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fr Sozialforschung (WZB).
Wodak, R. and Wright, S. (2006). The European Union in cyber-space: Multilingual
democratic participation in a virtual public sphere? Journal of Language and
Politics 5(2), 251-275.
Wright, S. (2000), Amnesia in the cause of national cohesion, in: B.Axford, B./
Berghahn D. (Eds.), Unity and Diversity in the New Europe. Frankfurt, 41-63
Young, IM (1990), Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton N.J.: Princeton
UP.
Zimmermann, A./ Koopmans, R. (2003), Political communication on the Internet.
Part 1: Representative sample of websites. http://europub.wzb. eu/ project%20 re
ports.en.htm, 2009-02-17
Zimmermann, A./ Koopmans, R./ Schlecht, T. (2004), Report: Political
communication on the Internet. Part 2: Link structure among political actors in
Europe, http://europub.wzb.eu/ project%20reports.en.htm, 2009-02-17.
ISSN 1890-5986
29

Eurosphere Working Paper 3 Barenreuter Etal

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Eurosphere Working Paper 3 Barenreuter Etal

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER SERIES

Online Working Paper No. 03, 2009

An Overview of Research on the

This paper can be downloaded without charge from:

EUROSPHERE ONLINE WORKING PAPER SERIES

2009 by Christoph Brenreuter, Cornelia Brll, Monika Mokre, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen

ISSN 1890-5986 (online)

Overview of Research on the European Public

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

2. General Concepts of the Public Sphere

2.2 The Democratic Public Sphere

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

However, the Habermasian ideal of a potential rational consensus in the public

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

least, this understanding of public spheres was supported by Habermas later

In this approach, based on liberal thought, democracy mainly consists of

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

conceived of publicity as a form of democratic curtailment of improper behaviour

Arguably, thus, the democratic deficit of the EU is a hindrance for the

Academic work on the institutional set-up of the EUropean Union is mostly

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

Habermas project as an attempt to safeguard the normative origins of the

In this way, Habermas reconciles principles of liberal representative

The ontological understanding of language as resisting domination has been

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

These understandings of society also inform conceptualizations of the EPS:

Eurosphere aims at a normative as well as empirical assessment of these

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

Within Eurosphere, models derived from these differing normative

3. The EUropean Public Sphere (EPS)

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

3.2 Measurements of the EPS

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

politicians (e.g. Bender 1997; Gramberger 1997; Gramberger/Lehmann 1995,

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

EPS can emerge due to the Europeanisation of national public spheres

Taken as a whole, the emerging empirical research tradition of seeking the

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

EUropean themes and which is ideally accompanied by (and creating the

As a result of the mostly pessimistic accounts of a transnational EPS, most

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

Similarities between Media Coverage in Different Member States

Similarly Diez Medrano (2003) in a longitudinal study from 1946 to 1997.

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

formation are currently developing in EUrope but, up to now, these conditions

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

EPS depends on the reciprocal opening of national public spheres (Wimmel

They operationalize this criterion by analyzing references to foreign media in

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

making the positions of the participating groups (1) transparent, public

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

Contrary to the universal definition of commonality, it asserts that the

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

While negligence of ones own normative presuppositions makes the

5. The EPS and the Diversity Perspective of Eurosphere

The project is based on a usually neglected but highly relevant normative

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03

Gramberger, M. R. (1997), Die ffentlichkeitsarbeit der Europischen Kommission

EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER No.03