On society’s reachability,representability,and ability for dialogue : Exploring the interrelation between journalism and social cohesion

Abstract

In politics and academia, but also in the broader public, there has been wide discussion concerning a sense of dwindling social cohesion most markedly in liberal democracies. One of the virulent questions in this context is the role journalism plays and the common notion that journalism can strengthen or weaken cohesion. However, there is no shared understanding of whether and how journalism or journalistic reporting influence cohesion and whether and in what way journalism is at all responsible for strengthening a society’s cohesion. Against this background, we conducted four group discussions with a total of 21 experts from the fields of journalism, academia, and ‘cohesion practice’ in order to understand how different actors inside and outside the field of journalism view the relationship between social cohesion and journalism. The analysis reveals that there are no systematic differences between the views of these three expert groups. Nonetheless, the many facets of and different perspectives on the topic are fundamentally ambivalent. This is because the interrelation between journalism and social cohesion is characterized by tensions and trade-offs in and between three dimensions: society’s reachability, representability, and ability for dialogue. This also means that journalists need to balance these tensions time and again and, generally, a society continuously negotiates the interrelation between journalism and cohesion. In modern societies, journalism itself is a forum in which this negotiation takes place; and the fact that it takes place already contributes to cohesion, but can also compromise it.

Introduction

Social cohesion is an issue that becomes the more salient in public discourse, the more it is perceived as being at risk (Markus and Kirpitchenko, 2007; Pahl, 1991). This can be observed in examples from the past decade which has seen several culminations of socio-political polarization such as the US presidential election campaigns, Brexit, and the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe, ¹ to name but a few. Correspondingly, there has been a fair degree of public, political, and academic discourse on (allegedly) dwindling social cohesion especially in liberal democracies (Schiefer and Van der Noll, 2017). However, social cohesion as a concept is elusive, defying a clear and universal definition (Fonseca et al., 2019).

One social institution that is regularly associated with social cohesion is journalism. Among other things, it is repeatedly accused of deepening social divides through superficial and sensationalist reporting (McCluskey and Kim, 2012). This exemplifies two common, but contested notions: first, that journalism, depending on its performance, can in fact strengthen or weaken social cohesion, and second, that, from a democratic theory point of view, journalism should contribute to (a certain degree and form of) cohesion or at least not diminish it (Hasebrink et al., 2020; Weiß and Jandura, 2017).

We cannot assume, then, that there is a shared understanding of the concept of social cohesion. Similarly, there is no agreement on whether and how it is influenced by journalism and, especially, whether journalism is, in fact, responsible for strengthening it. Against this background, this study seeks to understand how different actors inside and outside the field of journalism view the relationship between social cohesion and journalism in Germany.

To that end, we conducted four group discussions with experts from the fields of journalism, academia, and ‘cohesion practice.’ The analysis reveals that there are no systematic differences between the views of these three expert groups. Nonetheless, the many facets of and different perspectives on the topic are fundamentally ambivalent. This is because the interrelation between journalism and social cohesion is characterized by tensions in and between three dimensions that we call society’s reachability, representability, and ability for dialogue. This also means there can be no fixed rules for a ‘cohesion-sensitive’ form of journalism. Instead, journalists need to reflect time and again on how to balance these tensions in a specific situation.

Concepts and context

Both social cohesion and journalism are intricate concepts, and things get even more complex, if we look at the two in relation to each other. To handle this complexity and to be able to discuss the empirically existing understandings of social cohesion and journalism’s interrelation with it, we first look at how these two aspects are conceptualized in academia. Additionally, we must take into account the context of our study: our informants come from and all predominantly refer to the situation of journalism and social cohesion in Germany, which differs from that in other countries and which we briefly describe before presenting our methodology.

Social cohesion

At least since Émile Durkheim’s (1984/1893) seminal study on The Division of Labour in Society “[s]ocial cohesion as a concept has […] occupie[d] a central place in traditional sociological debate” (Markus and Kirpitchenko, 2007: 22; for an overview of the sociological discourse around cohesion and related concepts see also: Chan et al., 2006; Fonseca et al., 2019; Grunow et al., 2022; Münch, 2015; Pahl, 1991; Schiefer and van der Noll, 2017). The cohesion of relatively simple societies, Durkheim (1984/1893: xvii) observed, was based on “the collective way of life, the shared values and beliefs.” Against this background, he asked what it is that keeps modern societies characterized by “ever-increasing” (xxx) differentiation and complexity together. He argued that because in modern societies individuals can, and are even “forced” (212) to, follow their different interests, capabilities, etc., and specialize, they depend on one another since their different roles and activities are complementary. In other words, for Durkheim cohesion in modern societies is based predominantly (though not solely) on “the interdependence in between individuals” (Fonseca et al., 2019: 233). Münch (2015: 243) notes that this “can be more or less harmonious or conflictual. […] Yet, there must be stronger forces of attraction that keep them together than just forces of repulsion”, for instance “because both of them have either no alternative at all or alternatives that are too costly.” Durkheim focused at the micro- and meso-level, explaining the cohesion between individuals and the integration of individuals (or certain categories of them) into a social unit (e.g., a family, neighborhood, or nation).

At the macro-level that is of predominant interest in this paper, researchers seek to ascertain what it is that keeps together “society as a whole” (Grunow et al., 2022: 2; own translation) and how different social systems or institutions are integrated into, or interrelated with, ‘the rest of’ society (in order to analyze this, it can, however, be helpful, even necessary, to look at the meso- and micro-levels, too). There is little agreement on what exactly constitutes social cohesion at the macro-level. However, in their reviews of the literature, Schiefer and Van der Noll (2017) as well as Fonseca et al. (2019) identify certain common tendencies: most approaches consider social relations, a sense of belonging, and an orientation toward the common good components of social cohesion; (in)equality, the quality of life, and shared values are often mentioned, too. Definitions like these belong to the category of normative approaches, which place certain values – equality, orientation toward the common good, justice, etc. – at the heart of social cohesion (Chan et al., 2006).

A normative view, however, appears overly simplistic because cohesion is no value in itself: for instance, a form of cohesion “which to a large extent results from othering – the devaluation and exclusion up to the systematic mass killing of certain categories of people – is morally unacceptable for the vast majority of people” (Grunow et al., 2022: 5; original emphasis, own translation; cf. also Chan et al., 2006). Additionally, it is not suitable for the concrete endeavour we pursue with this paper as we will likely encounter different understandings of how journalism and cohesion are and should be connected, we need an overarching, non-normative, heuristic-analytical framework that helps us analyze this variety of empirically existing normative positions. Such a concept that integrates a number of more concrete approaches is proposed by Forst (2020). It distinguishes between five levels on which social cohesion manifests:

1. individual and collective attitudes towards oneself and others,

2. individual and collective practices,

3. the intensity and scope of social relationships,

4. the institutional contexts of cooperation and integration, and

5. the social discourse on cohesion.

Forst’s model stresses the reflexivity of cohesion, as for instance, the ways in which a society talks about cohesion are considered part of the phenomenon itself – an aspect of particular relevance when looking at the relationship between cohesion and journalism (see below). Forst (2020: 44; own translation) views attitude as the most important level at which “[c]ohesion requires a sense of being connected with one another and the willingness to take actions that follow from this.” This corresponds with Chan et al.’s (2006) understanding.

Additionally, it is important to mention that cohesion should not be equated with consensus: for example, “[d]emocracy as a basic mechanism of orderly negotiating controversial regulations of social coexistence […] never reaches a final agreement but, on the contrary, calls for agreements to be questioned again and again” (Grunow et al., 2022: 5; own translation). Such openness to conflict need not weaken cohesion if a majority accepts it as a principle. Similarly, Münch (2015: 245), with obvious reference to Durkheim, argues that some heterogeneity “is a necessary prerequisite for preserving the potential for [..] innovation” and a society’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Consequently, cohesion is located somewhere between disintegration and overintegration (Grunow et al., 2022).

As Forst (2020) notes, this ultimately means that in modern democratic societies the decisive element of attitude is characterized by certain degrees of tolerance and solidarity, which, again, cannot be regarded as values in themselves. Instead, their respective extents and limits need to be derived from superordinate normative ideas like religious beliefs, human rights, etc. Furthermore, several authors point out that social cohesion depends on a feeling of ‘collective self-efficacy:’ a trust that existing social institutions are in principle capable of dealing with the challenges a society faces (Brand et al., 2020; Chan et al., 2006; Schiefer and Van der Noll, 2017).

Journalism and social cohesion

There is no delimitable strand of research on the interrelation between journalism and social cohesion. The reason for this is that questions about this nexus touch on the very role journalism plays in society, leading to many areas of research referring to aspects surrounding the issue – even if cohesion is not explicitly addressed as such. Systematizing different strands of journalism research with a view to cohesion would be a relevant task, but it is not the topic of this paper. Here, we highlight a number of particularly interesting aspects, but mostly focus on the level we are predominantly concerned with in this study: the macro-level of society as a whole and journalism’s possible connections to its cohesion.

As explained above, the social discourse on cohesion is one of its inherent constituents, and it is obvious that journalism and media play a role here. More specifically, they are (still) considered central instances in the construction of the public sphere “in which topics with collective relevance are communicated (‘agenda setting’); in which social self-understanding and discourses between different social groups become visible; in which, as a result, these social debates are synchronised” (Hasebrink et al., 2020: 335). In other words, journalism helps handle the fundamental problems related to social cohesion: at the macro-level it creates a common knowledge base for the different subsystems (e.g., politics, the economy, education, law) of a functionally differentiated society (Luhmann, 2012), so that they can co-orient themselves with each other (Hanitzsch, 2004). The same applies at the micro-level of the members of an individualized society: journalism highlights those issues that are currently “societally (but not necessarily personally) relevant,” providing the “minimum level of consensus […] on which issues are currently important (common core issues)” (Magin et al., 2022: 888) that a democracy requires (agenda-setting function). In addition, the news media provide citizens with the shared knowledge about these issues that they need “for communicating and making political decisions” (Magin et al., 2022: 888–889; cf. also Viehmann et al., 2022) (information function). Also, by pointing them out, journalism pressures politics to address social problems that might reduce cohesion (Magin et al., 2022). In sum, the news media contribute to a shared sense of reality and a feeling of ‘being in it together’ (integration function). Moreover, “news media convey common social values of a society” (Viehmann et al., 2022: 4) (socialization function).

In this context, journalism is exposed to the conflict of, on the one hand, representing topics of shared interest to the different parts and members of society and, on the other , not neglecting the individual information needs of the respective social subsystems and citizens (Hasebrink et al., 2020; Weiß and Jandura, 2017).

The actual journalistic content lies somewhat transverse to the macro- and micro-level. As the most visible manifestation of journalistic action, it is always at the center of questions regarding the extent to which journalism does or does not fulfill its societal functions. Accordingly, an important part of the relationship between journalism and social cohesion concerns how news is made and how it presents what information, in other words: it concerns questions of news quality and media performance. While there is “a lack of agreement concerning the elements of news media quality” (Bachmann et al., 2022: 10–11), there are some frequently mentioned dimensions or criteria that potentially relate to social cohesion: diversity and neutrality can, for instance, be considered criteria for how to organize the representation of different social groups; clarity, completeness, and factuality may serve as principles for how to depict individual groups without reproducing stereotypes; actuality and relevance appear to be significant when deciding what issues and events to put on the agenda. Hence, studies into news quality, however implicitly, always contain insights into journalism’s performance with regard to social cohesion. McCluskey and Kim (2012: 566), for instance, found that journalists favored advocacy groups with polarized views over those with moderate ones, which may negatively affect cohesion because “politically divided news and commentary [could] create[] even larger divisions in the mass public.” There are, however, obvious tensions between the different criteria as, for instance, representing the diversity of social groups often comes at the expense of the completeness of each individual group’s depiction. As a result, “evaluative criteria depend upon beliefs about the ideal society” (Bachmann et al., 2022: 9) in order to determine how much diversity and completeness are adequate. In other words, just like social cohesion, news quality cannot be defined in isolation, but only in relation to superordinate normative ideas. Examples of such specifications can be found in a variety of guidelines issued by journalism practitioners and NGOs, that offer advice, for instance, on how to write news without reproducing stereotypes and discrimination. ²

Social cohesion and journalism in Germany

The concrete form cohesion takes varies for different societies (Fonseca et al., 2019). That is why we must take into account the context of our study: our informants come from, and all refer to the situation of social cohesion and journalism in Germany, which we briefly describe below.

Recent studies have, by different measures, found cohesion to be relatively strong in Germany compared to other countries (Brand et al., 2020; More in Common, 2022). However, some elements of it (solidarity, willingness to help, participation, and trust in some social institutions) seem significantly less pronounced than others (acceptance of diversity, identification with the community, acceptance of social rules); additionally, cohesion appears weaker in East Germany (Brand et al., 2020). Also, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, other recent crises, and the public debates on how to respond to them, half of Germans experience the country as divided; this, however, is a lower percentage than in the French or British population (More in Common, 2022).

Germany’s media landscape is characterized by trusted and widely used public service media (Heise et al., 2014; Hölig et al., 2022), less than 10 privately owned national quality newspapers with mostly moderate political positions, and one large tabloid. According to the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report, general media trust in Germany is high compared with most of the other 45 countries surveyed (Newman, 2022). Fawzi and Mothes (2020: 343), however, found that “the [German] public has high expectations of the media which they do not see completely fulfilled,” and that this is “associated with lower levels of media trust.” Hasebrink et al. (2019: 511; own translation) discovered that Germans who use media of any kind (TV, radio, print, online; journalistic, non-journalistic) more frequently are more oriented towards cohesion, being more tolerant, more willing to help, and more involved in clubs and other organizations; using print and online media positively correlates with a more positive perception of social cohesion. Similarly, Viehmann et al.’s (2022: 629) study suggests that using the abovementioned public service media and national newspapers “nourished people’s sense of cohesion;” using tabloids and other low-quality media, on the other hand, and contrary to previous research, had no negative effect.

Overall, the situation of both social cohesion and journalism in Germany appears moderate compared to that in other countries (More in Common, 2022; Newman, 2022). At the same time, however, the debate on (allegedly) dwindling social cohesion and journalism’s role in this regard has recently gained considerable importance in Germany.

Methodology

In order to explore how experts conceptualize the interrelation between journalism and social cohesion, between October 2020 and February 2021 we conducted four online group discussions with five to six experts each from three different areas (for an overview of the participants, see Table 1 in the appendix):

1. journalists (online, TV, print, radio) from established media and start-ups dedicated to new forms of journalism (e.g., constructive journalism) as experts on the logics, organizations, processes, and products of the journalistic field;

2. academics from various disciplines related to cohesion (e.g., milieu studies, social psychology, communication studies) as experts on cohesion-related domains as well as journalism’s depiction of and influence on them; and

3. ‘cohesion practitioners,’ such as mediators, representatives of minority advocacy groups, and community integration workers as experts for everyday and practical problems and solutions in relation to social cohesion.

In line with the exploratory character of our study, we used purposive sampling: based on our knowledge of the field, colleagues’ suggestions, and further research we identified potential discussants that “differ[ed] from each other in terms of key characteristics relevant to the research question” (Bryman, 2012: 418): we ensured that the discussants in sum – through their individual backgrounds and/or as representatives of NGOs, etc. – were diverse in terms of social and ethnic background, age, sexual orientation, political views, media type (TV, radio, print, online), reporting style, etc. For each session, we had to ask 12 to 18 people to reach the minimum number of five participants. It proved particularly difficult to recruit representatives of liberal-conservative publications and journalists known for a rather provocative/polarizing style. However, we were able to include these kinds of participants, too.

At the beginning of each discussion, we explained the question guiding all of the group discussions, namely: how, from the participants’ point of view, are journalism and social cohesion interrelated? The participants then debated freely those aspects they deemed most relevant. We occasionally asked follow-up questions or intervened when the discussion digressed.

The transcripts of the discussions were imported into Maxqda and subjected to a thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) to identify patterns and main themes in the data. We chose this method because it is well suited for underresearched areas and participants whose views on the topic are not yet known. Following Braun and Clarke (2006), we first coded the transcripts with broad a priori categories based on our research question: cohesion, journalism, journalism and cohesion. Then we created additional preliminary codes that reflected the semantic content of the respective codings. In the next step, we categorized these codes into potential (sub-)themes which we iteratively refined and labeled in relation to each other in several rounds of discussion. Finally, we re-examined the (sub-)themes and codes to identify differences between the accounts of journalists, cohesion researchers, and ‘cohesion practitioners.’ This procedure yielded the following results.

Results

We now present the results of our thematic analysis of the four group discussions, starting with the general questions of whether journalism and social cohesion are interrelated at all, and if so, whether journalism should actively try to strengthen cohesion. In parentheses, we indicate in each case from which group(s) of experts an assessment comes.

The majority of participants considered rather strong social cohesion a desirable state and explicitly mentioned some aspects that, in their view, promote or essentially constitute it: trust in societal institutions and fellow humans (scientists), social relationships (integration officer), as well as an orientation toward the common good, for example, in the form of civic engagement and volunteer work (integration officer, scientists). Academic experts also emphasized that what exactly one understands as cohesion depended on “the social theory or conception of society with which one approaches the matter” (scientist).

The participants also thought that journalism could contribute to cohesion: being one of society’s central institutions, trust in it was seen as conducive to cohesion. More concretely, news media were considered an “extremely important institution for generating knowledge” (scientist) and thus for the constitution of society and its cohesion, whereas a lack of (shared) knowledge were disastrous.

One scientist, however, stated that the “logic of journalism” also produced news “that has particularly great potential to divide” as it favoured negativity and conflict. Additionally, as a product that serves a market, journalism was susceptible to clickbaiting and tabloidization. The resulting sensationalist reporting was attributed a negative influence on social cohesion and how strong it is perceived to be (scientists, journalists, NGO representatives). Yet, it was emphasized several times that journalism was not the (main) cause of the perceived reduction in cohesion.

One researcher pointed out that there was not only one kind of journalism, but rather different subject areas, formats, and forms of presentation, which could fulfill different functions and, as a consequence, have different effects on social cohesion. According to our participants, cohesion tended to be strengthened by those forms that

1. “inform, analyze, explain” (NGO representative);

2. create a public space for as many perspectives and opinions as possible, so that all people feel represented in and by the media (NGO representative; scientist; journalist);

3. tell “empathic stories” (NGO representative) and “organize social experiences” (scientist) through which users get to know the lifeworlds and perspectives of fellow citizens beyond their own social environment; or

4. as a “translator” (scientist) connect different social domains.

At the same time, journalism was ascribed the task of being “the voice that disagrees” (journalist) and that scrutinizes and stimulates critical debate on, for instance, government decisions or broad social trends. In this modus operandi, journalism tended to produce conflicts rather than solve them. Participants also discussed if and when it was acceptable that journalists position themselves “on some side in some political battle that we are fighting here right now in favor of some values” (researcher). They cautioned against the “dangers of very hasty opinion journalism” (scientist) that were reinforced by social media and could deepen divides. Correspondingly, the separation of news and opinion was considered particularly important to minimize negative effects on cohesion (journalist).

More generally, journalism was found to construct images – also of the state of cohesion – thereby reproducing existing stereotypes and power relations (scientist), since it was itself part of society and its problems (journalist). Through an adapted approach, however, it could just as much act as a “shaper of society” (integration officer) that promotes cohesion.

The opinions on whether journalism should do so were divided: a narrow majority of discussants agreed that journalism should work towards “bringing the separate parts back together and connecting them” (journalist). Other experts stated that “journalists can promote cohesion, but that is not a primary goal” (NGO representative).

Interestingly, there were no systematic differences between the views of the three expert groups in relation to this question. As the quotes above illustrate, it was not that, for instance, the journalists unanimously resorted to the traditional position of the ‘detached observer’ while ‘cohesion practitioners’ demanded newsworkers should actively promote cohesion. Instead, both aforementioned factions included individuals from all three expert groups.

The accounts so far show that while the experts disagreed on whether journalism should strengthen cohesion, they all agreed that it can further or diminish it. Our further analysis revealed that these interrelations between journalism and cohesion can be conceptualized as tensions in and between three dimensions: society’s reachability, its representability and its ability for dialogue. ³ In the following, we present these dimensions in detail.

Society’s reachability

The area of society’s reachability comprises those aspects related to the challenge that parts of the population are no longer reached by journalism, leading to an inability to have a cohesive effect on them.

The experts problematized the (alleged) fragmentation of population and public sphere into so-called ‘filter bubbles.’ Instead, “we urgently need media that, like catch-all parties, manage to reach broad audiences” (scientist), predominantly present moderate opinions, and avoid extremes. Another trend seen as increasing fragmentation was newsrooms’ focus on particular target groups, because a journalism that is concerned with cohesion would have to “maintain the connection with [all] the different audiences” (researcher). In this respect, public broadcasting was ascribed particular potential, as was local journalism due to its proximity to people’s lifeworlds (scientist).

Additionally, it was considered important that journalists are active on social media which are used by many (especially younger) people who are otherwise difficult to reach. Here, news media could also act as a counterweight to “manipulation-oriented or anti-democratic forces” (scientist) that used these platforms to undermine social cohesion. However, journalism and its distribution were also complicated by social media due to their different “storytelling requirements, their algorithms and changes to them that play out in real time” (journalist). Also, journalists were seen as having problems in developing credibility on social platforms as this was not achieved through reliable content (alone), but also depended on the respective platform, its culture, and “how approachably, how authentically, one can communicate” (journalist) in this context.

Journalists, in particular, addressed the problem that news stories didn’t reach certain audiences in the sense that they didn’t understand it: first, the language used “is often too complicated and too highbrow” (journalist), especially for non-native speakers and people with lower literacy skills; second, reporting tended to mention only the latest developments of an issue, assuming audiences know about the events leading up to them, the actors involved, their motivations, etc., when actually they didn’t. The lack of understanding impaired the shared knowledge basis and could cause avoidable disputes. As solutions, discussants suggested using simple(r) language and focusing more on contextualizing stories.

Society’s representability

The question of society’s representability concerns the challenges of appropriately representing social diversity and complexity in journalism.

The discussants perceived a “crisis of media representation” (NGO representative): reporting tended to focus on the experiences of a mostly white, urban, relatively educated, upper-middle class and ignored people from ethnic minorities, rural areas, Germany’s Eastern federal states, and working-class milieus, as well as non-binary citizens, and economic elites, or only “observed [them] from the outside” (journalist, scientist). This was problematic, as it tended to consolidate prejudices and stereotypes and even lead the majority to reject certain groups. Moreover, on the side of those portrayed it resulted in frustration and distrust towards the media (which, in turn, reduced their reachability). The experts contrasted this with an ideal in which journalism “elicits this feeling of representation again […]: this is not condescending and patronizing […], but this is a news program that is there for me and represents me” (scientist). To do that, journalism needed to reflect the diversity of perspectives in society, that is, the range of viewpoints from people with different political orientations, socioeconomic positions, and geographical origins (journalists, scientists). Furthermore, it needed to do so in a multi-faceted way. If, for instance, individuals were presented more holistically, the audience would be more likely to recognize commonalities with them, which stood in the way of rejection (journalists). Such complex reporting would further the different social groups’ understanding for each other’s perspectives and, thus, strengthen cohesion (scientists). It could, however, also put off those who feel overwhelmed by the rapid change and diversity of the modern world (integration officer), effectively reducing cohesion again.

Additionally, journalists would still have to decide whom not to present, such as groups with anti-democratic or counterfactual opinions (NGO representative). While this could be justified as “defending democracy as we know it – civil, constitutional, civic –,” it would certainly be “perceived by the political fringes as mainstream and manipulation” (researcher) and end up being counterproductive to the goal of engaging with them effectively. Other citizens also expected that ‘both sides’ of a story should be presented – even if one is questionable in the ways described above, and criticized every other practice as one-sided and manipulative coverage (scientist, journalist).

Journalism’s intense focus on crises, conflicts, and catastrophes was considered an inadequate depiction of reality, too (NGO representative), as was its tendency to portray the world as simply ‘black and white’ (journalist). Both promoted social divisions, because “by presenting disruptions I simultaneously reinforce this dynamic, the polarization that takes place” (integration officer). By contrast, it strengthened cohesion, if journalism reported more about potential solutions and, in the case of conflicts, not only about what divides the involved parties, but also what they agree on. This is because realizing that challenges and polarizations can be resolved “creates a form of community feeling” (NGO representative).

Society’s ability for dialogue

Society’s ability for dialogue includes all aspects addressed in the group discussions that concern the ability of social groups to participate in public discourse. On the one hand, this means understanding journalism, how it works and, in particular, its limits and selectivity, in order to be able to appropriately follow the social debates it chooses to cover, and to correctly assess and interpret their journalistic representation (which relates to the dimension of reachability). On the other hand, it is about the ability of social groups and other collective actors to bring themselves and their own concerns into this discourse (which relates to representability). Cohesion would improve if representatives of social groups and experts from societal fields improved their media competencies and the transfer of knowledge to other parts of society (scientist). However, the actual “translation task is that of the journalists” (scientist). In that regard, journalism that explains how different social fields and institutions (e.g., science, politics) work was said to further peoples’ trust in them and, subsequently, cohesion (NGO representative, scientist).

Accordingly, another dimension of society’s ability for dialogue is journalistic transparency: explaining editorial decisions, research methods, etc., openly handling errors, disclosing sources, and communicating a medium’s overarching principles or policy were thought to increase trust in journalism (journalists, integration commissioner, scientist). Furthermore, being forced to make their work transparent could help journalists recognize their own blind spots and lead to more adequate reporting (see representability).

The above already indicates that society’s ability for dialogue concerns not only the journalists’ side of the bargain, but also that of the audience, in particular its ‘news literacy,’ or knowledge of journalism. Participants said that in order for citizens to correctly interpret journalistic accounts and form an opinion on the related social events and groups, they need to have a basic understanding of: the media landscape in Germany, field-specific working methods and the principal selectivity of news stories, how to recognize (un)reputable sources and opinion pieces (journalist), and above all, the fact that journalism in Germany is under no significant influence of the state (NGO representative, journalists).

Another aspect of this dimension is the diversity, or lack thereof, in media organizations. Participants mentioned, for example, that people from immigrant and working-class families are underrepresented, as are people with a less left-wing political orientation (than is usually the case in journalism). More heterogeneity in newsrooms would bring journalism closer to the broad spectrum of perspectives and help avoid the reproduction of stereotypes mentioned in the section on representability (journalist, scientists, NGO representative).

In this regard, it was also considered beneficial to engage users and include “suggestions, stories, and protagonists from the community” (journalist), which also made them feel more involved and represented.

As mentioned above, journalism was also seen as interrelated with cohesion in that, in principle, it was one of the spaces where people from different parts of society could still ‘meet’ and exchange ideas. Such encounters were considered particularly effective in counteracting divisions and polarization (journalist), while spaces in which they came about naturally were in decline, which only increased journalism’s relevance (scientist). In this context, it was pointed out that cohesion didn’t mean avoiding uncomfortable issues and disagreements (journalist). Instead, one NGO representative differentiated between “division” and “controversy:” controversies were conducted on the basis of a “democratically negotiated consensus on how a debate can go” and thus not per se problematic for social cohesion; divisions, on the other hand, were “unacceptable” because they didn’t adhere to such shared rules for discussions and decision-making. It was stressed that in this regard, journalistic media did not fully live up to their potential: their coverage suffered from the abovementioned deficits, and the discussions in their online comment sections and communities weren’t (always) the necessary “civilized arguments” based on shared facts (journalists, NGO representative, scientists).

Discussion and conclusion

We conducted four group discussions with experts from the fields of journalism, academia, and ‘cohesion practice’ to explore how these different actors inside and outside journalism view the relationship between journalism and social cohesion.

The participants’ understandings of social cohesion echoed those components that are most often mentioned in the literature, such as a feeling of belonging, and an orientation toward the common good. While most statements revealed normative notions that view cohesion as inherently valuable, some represented more nuanced conceptions acknowledging that cohesion of a certain form or strength can also be negative, for instance, when it leads to the exclusion and discrimination of minority groups. A few remarks even echoed the theoretical thought that what kind of and how much cohesion one values depends on superordinate normative ideals and the related ‘conception of society.’

Similarly, the discussed interrelations between journalism and social cohesion refer to all five levels of Forst’s (2020) non-normative heuristic framework of cohesion: first, the discussants mentioned several aspects of journalism that do or should affect individual and collective attitudes towards oneself and others – for instance, that individuals and social groups feel recognized by society through their representation in newsrooms and journalistic content, as well as that reporting commonalities, more holistically, and ‘understandingly’ may result in a more empathic attitude towards those depicted. Second, the discussants drew connections between cohesion and several individual and collective practices of the production of journalism, its use, and other practices they encourage, such as cooperating in the development of solutions for societal problems that journalism adds to the agenda. Third, many aspects discussed referred to how journalism increases or reduces the intensity and scope of (mediated) social relationships between individuals, groups, and society as a whole – for instance, journalism’s potential to provide ‘spaces’ for encountering people of very different backgrounds. Fourth, the participants mentioned connections between journalism and social cohesion that related to institutional contexts of cooperation and integration – most fundamentally, that journalism itself is an institution with an integration and synchronization function. And fifth, the experts obviously regard journalism as interrelated to social cohesion at the level of social discourse on cohesion, too, mentioning journalism itself as a mediator of and actor in these debates.

The ideas of journalism’s role in relation to social cohesion, however, are ambiguous, if not even contradictory: on the one hand, in accordance with their predominantly positive view of it, the majority of participants considered strong social cohesion a desirable state to which journalism can contribute and which it should not put at risk lightly. In this regard, the discussants’ remarks echoed the literature once more: they stressed journalism’s agenda setting and information functions, including the explanation of complex topics and ‘translation’ of perspectives of other social groups or domains. These ultimately facilitate the synchronization of public debates at the macro-level of societal subsystems as well as at the micro-level of individual members of society, leading to the service of an integration function.

Some experts, on the other hand, believe that promoting social cohesion is not one of journalism’s fundamental goals: it could be a by-product of those kinds of journalism that serve the aforementioned functions; however, the discussants mentioned equally accepted forms of journalism that, for instance, stimulate critical debate on government decisions or broad social trends and as a result tend to weaken shared values and consensus. However, and in line with the literature, participants argue this doesn’t necessarily diminish cohesion of a society or other social units if their members acknowledge openness to conflict as a basic principle and agree on certain rules for debate.

Interestingly, there were no systematic differences between the three expert groups with regard to the question of whether journalism should promote cohesion. This probably is because all three groups showed high levels of self-reflection and differentiated understandings of the respective other fields.

Most importantly, our analysis showed that the diverse aspects of the interrelation between journalism and social cohesion can be conceptualized as tensions in and between three dimensions: society’s reachability, representability, and ability for dialogue. Aggregated in this way, they read as precisely those aspects of the change in media and society’s communicative conditions that are regularly considered problematic or dysfunctional (not only) for social cohesion. This illustrates that journalism and its performance are never evaluated in isolation, but that it is always about journalism in interrelation with society, about the people it reaches and represents, and the discourses it depicts and initiates in society: with regard to society’s reachability, the central challenge is seen in the fact that more or less broadly perceived sections of the population are not (any longer) reached by what journalism provides. This reduces the cohesion between these groups and the rest of society (macro-level). Here, a tension emerges, for instance, between a call for ‘catch-all’, lowest common denominator media that reach a broad spectrum of citizens and the simultaneous realization that, in order to reach certain social groups (again), individually tailored media are needed. This also refers to trade-offs between different criteria of news quality as, for instance, group relevance that motivates news use may conflict with societal relevance, diversity, and neutrality.

As far as the representability of society is concerned, the aspects discussed can be located in the tension between integration and representation of meso-level entities at the macro-level, which are both considered beneficial for cohesion: on the one hand, journalism’s integration function is about integrating the different parts of society through communicating shared topics, interests, and values; it is, therefore, about reducing complexity. On the other hand, journalism’s representation function is about representing the different parts of society, its members, their lives and perspectives, which is about depicting complexity.

Another set of issues relates to society’s ability for dialogue, which is considered to be limited by the fact that different social groups (meso-level) are not equally able to participate in or shape public discourse (macro-level), for example, because they do not communicate their topics and perspectives in a way that is ‘suitable’ for journalism, because they are not represented in newsrooms, or because journalism does not provide adequate ‘spaces’ for encounters and civilized discussions across group boundaries. The obvious fundamental tension in this dimension is that the more capable a social group is of introducing their topics, perspectives, etc., in journalism and the public (ability for dialogue at the meso-level), the less ‘space’ it leaves for other groups, which ultimately reduces the ability for dialogue at the macro-level of society. Additionally, this may reduce the other groups’ reachability because it makes journalism less attractive to them.

According to the literature, a sense of belonging is crucial for social cohesion (Chan et al., 2006; Schiefer and Van der Noll, 2017). Some discussants think journalism can help achieve this by covering the real lives of different social groups so that each group feels better represented and at the same time can develop a better understanding of others. This obviously relates to the quality criteria of completeness and factuality as well as diversity, which, as explained above, aren’t uncontradictory and need to be concretized and reconciled with reference to superordinate normative ideas. This diversity/diversified journalism holds the opportunity for often neglected groups to better participate in public discourse and feel acknowledged, which strengthens their integration into society. There remains the risk, however, that with too much focus on marginalized groups, other, potentially larger communities will feel underrepresented and lose trust and interest in journalism, which endangers cohesion. Then again, too much focus on cohesion could, for example, be interpreted as a suppression of freedom of speech. The challenge for journalists is to find the right balance – time and again, for every story they produce.

It becomes clear that the three dimensions of society’s reachability, representability, and ability for dialogue cannot be clearly separated from one another, but that they are interrelated in many ways. The question of what it means to represent issues, regions, social groups, and individuals appropriately proves to be especially challenging. In particular, the question of which perspectives should not be represented cannot be answered unequivocally: which criteria must be fulfilled? Does a viewpoint have to be compatible with a free democratic order or be based on evidence and facts so that it can be reported on? This is just as unclear as the question of who should decide whether the criteria are met or not. In any case, those holding views that are not represented will inevitably feel discriminated against, which in turn weakens cohesion.

Ultimately, journalism will always be caught in this tension between representing various fields, social groups, and viewpoints, and integrating them for the purpose of providing a less complex basis for further exchange between the different groups (Hasebrink et al., 2020; Weiß and Jandura, 2017) – and both options can (in the eyes of our experts) both strengthen and weaken social cohesion. The situation remains, though, that even the most differentiated form of journalistic representation is always selective: journalism never ‘merely’ reports, but with every selection, every omission, every use of a particular term, it also (co-)constructs the issue reported on and does so from a certain point of view and against the background of a certain understanding of society and the role journalism plays (Hasebrink et al., 2020). This circumstance is only aggravated by particular production conditions, economic pressures, and limits on the part of users with regard to time and attention, information processing capacity and understanding, or excessive expectations and reactance. Consequently, it is not helpful, but even detrimental to assume that journalism could or even does objectively depict reality.

From here, there are several avenues for future research. We want to highlight one: a systematic review of existing media effects studies and other related research could determine to what extent empirical evidence actually supports the experts’ ideas of how the different aspects of journalism mentioned here relate to the elements of cohesion discussed.

Finally, we need to address some limitations of our study: the pandemic conditions forced us to conduct our discussions online. While this requires less time from the participants and facilitates recruitment, on-site discussions develop different dynamics likely beneficial for generating insights. Most importantly, we only conducted four group discussions with a total of 21 participants. Even though we assembled a purposive sample of broad heterogeneity, a broader range and greater number of participants would have raised a more complex assortment of views. Thus, the study is only exploratory in nature.

Then again, this is inherent to the topic: there can be no final findings on the question we explored here because – as theory as well as our empirical findings show – the ways in and extents to which journalism and social cohesion are and should be interrelated depend on the very context: for instance, the society at hand, common superordinate normative ideas that operate as its pillars, and the respective media landscape. Also, the interrelation is socially re-negotiated time and again. At least in modern democratic societies, journalism itself is a forum in which this negotiation takes place; and the fact that it takes place already contributes to cohesion while compromising it at the same time.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material for - On society’s reachability, representability, and ability for dialogue: Exploring the interrelation between journalism and social cohesion

Supplemental Material for On society’s reachability, representability, and ability for dialogue: Exploring the interrelation between journalism and social cohesion by Julius Reimer, Verena Albert and Wiebke Loosen in Journalism.