The Framing of the Alternative Für Deutschland's Election Result in The

Home , Alexander Gauland, Alice Weidel, Andrea Nahles, Anton Hofreiter, Bernd Baumann, Bernd Lucke

The Framing of the Alternative für Deutschland’s Election Result in the German

Print Media after the Federal Election 2017

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University and the Institute for Communication and Media Studies of Leipzig University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degrees

Master of Science in Journalism (Ohio University),

Master of Arts in Global Mass Communication (Leipzig University)

Lara-Tanita Rust

December 2019

This thesis titled

The Framing of the Alternative für Deutschland’s Election Result in the German

Print Media after the Federal Election 2017

LARA-TANITA RUST

has been approved for

the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism,

the Scripps College of Communication,

and the Institute for Communication and Media Studies by

Alexander Hagen Godulla

Professor of Institute for Communication and Media Studies

Scott Titsworth

Dean, Scripps College of Communication, Ohio University

Christian Pieter Hoffman

Director, Institute for Communication and Media Studies, Leipzig University

Abstract

RUST, LARA-TANITA, M.S., Journalism; M.A., Global Mass Communication,

December 2019

3750188

The Framing of the Alternative für Deutschland’s Election Result in the German Print

Media after the Federal Election 2017

Director of Thesis: Alexander Hagen Godulla

Committee Members: Christian Pieter Hoffmann, Bernhard Debatin

In the German federal election 2017, the party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) enters the Bundestag as the first right-wing populistic party after Nazi Germany. Com- bined with the fact that there is research gap on post-election coverage, this poses several questions. Which frames do German print media use to present the AfD election result, which differences are there between the newspapers and how does the framing develop over time? How negative is the party’s portrayal? To answer these research questions, a quantitative content analysis is used to analyze articles focusing mainly on the AfD’s result in the week after the election in six German newspapers. A descriptive analysis of frame elements identifies five frames. The ratio of the frames among the papers is almost the same, with the conflict frame being used the most. There is a significant difference between the papers regarding their implicit negativity about the AfD and their election result and a focus on issue framing. Apart from that, differences in the news coverage over

iii

the AfD between the papers are small. This study offers a first contribution to the research gap on post-election coverage.

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ...... iii List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... viii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Theoretical Background ...... 5 2.1. The Framing Approach ...... 7 2.2. The Framing Process ...... 8 2.3. The Frame Elements ...... 10 2.4. Explicit and Implicit Assumptions of the Framing Approach ...... 11 2.5. Challenges to the Framing Approach ...... 12 2.6. Frames in Political Communication ...... 13 2.6.1. Party framing ...... 15 Chapter 3: Literature Review ...... 17 3.1. Media as Arenas for Politics ...... 17 3.2. Politics in the Media ...... 19 3.3. Research on Post-Election Coverage ...... 22 3.3.1. The battle for interpreting...... 27 3.3.2. Framing as winner or loser...... 28 3.4. The Alternative für Deutschland ...... 33 3.4.1. The AfD members and voters...... 33 3.4.2. The topics of the AfD...... 37 3.4.3. The political position of the AfD...... 39 3.4.4. The AfD in the political and societal context of the German federal election 2017...... 40 3.4.5. The AfD in the media...... 42 3.5. Summary, Research Questions and Hypotheses ...... 48 Chapter 4: The Research Design ...... 54 4.1. The Sampling Unit ...... 55 4.2. Unit of Analysis ...... 56 v

4.3. Population and Selection Procedure ...... 57 4.4. Operationalization ...... 58 4.5. Pretest ...... 60 Chapter 5: Analysis and Results ...... 65 5.1. Research Question 1 ...... 65 5.1.1. Conflict frame...... 66 5.1.2. Inequality frame...... 69 5.1.3. Administration critical frame...... 73 5.1.4. Right-wing populistic election campaign frame...... 77 5.1.5. Consequences and reactions frame...... 82 5.1.6. No identifiable frame...... 85 5.2. Research Question 2 ...... 87 5.2.1. Conflict frame...... 87 5.2.2. Inequality frame...... 88 5.2.3. Administration critical frame...... 88 5.2.4. Right-wing populistic election campaign frame...... 89 5.2.5. Consequences and reactions frame...... 90 5.3. Hypothesis 1 ...... 92 5.4. Hypothesis 2 ...... 95 5.5. Hypothesis 3 ...... 97 Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion ...... 103 References ...... 120 Appendix A: List of Abbreviations ...... 131 Appendix B: List of Sample Material with Numbering ...... 132 Appendix C: Overview of Variables and Labels ...... 140 Appendix D: Codebook ...... 142 Appendix E: SPSS Outputs ...... 172

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Cross table newspaper and frame ...... 95 Table 2 Tenor of AfD depending on newspaper ...... 97

vii

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1 Bar chart timeline of frames ...... 101

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Right-wing parties have been on the rise in various European countries the past years, including Germany (Joffe, 2017; Tartar, 2017). Additionally, the migration crisis in Germany enabled nativist and racial nationalist networks to gain support and manifest themselves parliamentary as the Alternative für Deutschland, hereinafter referred to as the AfD (Appendix A: List of Abbreviations) (Virchow, 2017). In the

German federal election 2017, the right-wing party AfD won 12.6% of the seats in the federal parliament (Bundestag) (Der Bundeswahlleiter, 2018). In the new federal states of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) the AfD even reached an average of 21.6% (Der Bundeswahlleiter, 2018).

The AfD has changed the German political landscape. The election in 2017 has shown that the party will continue to shape this landscape on the federal level

(Schärdel, 2017, p. 76). Therefore, the party is worth intensive social scientific observation, which this thesis contributes to.

The literature demonstrates that the right-wing populist AfD has gone through several changes since its foundation due to contrasting social situations, disagree- ments, and the urge to succeed on the federal level (Bebnowski, 2015; Bergmann, Di- ermeier, & Niehues, 2017; Niedermayer, 2014; Plehwe & Schlögl, 2014). A lot of former voters of traditional parties and former non-voters elected the AfD. Other parties were unsuccessful to approach possible AfD voters and win them over (Dostal, 2017, pp. 597–600). Since the AfD is now part of the Bundestag, it is important to comprehend how newspapers present the result of the AfD.

It is relevant to inspect the news coverage of the AfD’s election result because the promotion of division can affect the cohabitation of different ethnic groups in many ways (Schmuck, 2017, p. 8).

Next to the mentioned political and societal relevance, an analysis is important for media and communication science for several reasons. Studies on post-election coverage are rare and relatively old, even though media interpret the numeric election result for the public (Stiehler, 2000, p. 106; Stiehler & Marr, 1996, pp. 119, 122). The daily and weekly press is one of the arenas for the interpretation of election results

(Stiehler, 2000, p. 112). Given the time that most studies on post-election coverage were conducted, social media and online platforms were not included. Today however, social media and online platforms including commentary functions, play an important role for populist parties like the AfD (Schärdel, 2017, p. 84). The coverage after an election is important to investigate because it gives the numerical result a meaning, especially in a multi-party system like Germany. Since the formation of a government is often a longer process, the concept of winning and losing is discussed in post- election coverage. The election result normally opens several options for a functional administration, thus it is ambiguous and needs a social interpretation (Scherer, Hagen,

Rieß, & Zipfel, 1996, p. 155). The race to win the sovereignty of interpretation in the media is a central point to the framing approach (Matthes, 2014, p. 9). The battle of interpreting starts directly after an election.

The interpretations offered in media can be used by members of the public to interpret the result for themselves (Stiehler & Marr, 1996, p. 120). Usually, recipients copy media frames or parts of media frames and look at media coverage with their

own frames in the background (Matthes, 2014). In other words, the definition by the media is important to society.

With the AfD as the strongest individual oppositional party, it is crucial to examine how the success of the party is featured in several German newspapers. The presentation of the election result is investigated with the framing approach (Chapter

2: Theoretical Background). This way, coverage of the AfD’s success can be looked at in detail by examining the frame elements (Chapter 2.3. The Frame Elements) separately. Moreover, the frames can be compared among different German newspapers.

The goal of this thesis is to comprehend how the election result of the populist right- wing party is framed for the society by German newspapers. As mentioned above, the framing of the election result is important for citizens because the applied frames make certain aspects of the AfD and their election result salient to the people. This means that certain elements can appear more important or in a specific light to the readers based on a chosen frame. On the one hand, framing can occur at certain times in the communication process (chapter 2.2.), which means that not only media frame, but recipients, too. Media framing can have frame-effects on recipients. On the other hand, strategic frames are also used in political communication, which can have an influence on media frames (chapter 2.6.). Thus, this study examines which frames different German newspapers use to present the AfD election result. More specifically, this study intends to compare the framing between the newspapers and over the course of one week.

Chapter 2 discusses the framing approach as the theoretical background for this study. Furthermore, the literature review shows research on the media and politics

(chapter 3.1.; 3.2.; 3.3.) and characterizes the AfD (chapter 3.4.). Chapter 3.5 outlines the hypotheses and further research questions. In chapter 4, the research design is introduced, including the sampling unit (4.1.), unit of analysis (4.2.), population and selection procedure (4.3.), operationalization (4.4.) and the pretest (4.5.). This leads to chapter 5, which outlines the analysis strategy and results for the two research questions and three hypotheses. The thesis ends with a discussion and conclusion in chapter 6.

Chapter 2: Theoretical Background

Media play an important role as information intermediaries between the political elite and the public (Schärdel, 2017, p. 80). Thus, media possess a significant amount of agency in this process and do not just function as a passive channel of information, but as an actor (Schärdel, 2017, p. 80). Media are the most important source for the public’s information process (Im Winkel, 2015, p. 3) and can take influence on which subjects get onto the political agenda and how these are presented

(Entman, 1993).

Why media report on a subject or event and why they do so in a certain way can be explained by several approaches, such as the news value theory and the framing approach. In contrast to frames as multidimensional meso-concepts, news values are micro-concepts (Dahinden, 2006, p. 71). The framing approach is used in this thesis because it incorporates the idea of an active selection procedure of the journalist.

The influencing factors on how an issue is portrayed in the media can be conceptual- ized in different ways, for example in the four-sphere-model by Donsbach (1987), which helps to draw the line between the meso and micro level.

Factors that influence the journalist as an individual are part of the subject sphere (Donsbach, 1987). Working conditions and structures, the editorial line and ownership are factors of the media organization and belong to the institutional sphere

(Donsbach, 1987, p. 112). The professional sphere includes factors referring to the professional socialization of the journalist that lead to working routines and norms, e.g. the prioritization of certain news values (Donsbach, 1987, p. 112). The societal

sphere describes the political and cultural circumstances journalism is embedded in

(Donsbach, 1987).

Since the investigated papers in this content analysis are all embedded in the same societal sphere, the influencing factors on the micro level (subject sphere, professional sphere) and meso level (institutional sphere) are most likely what can cause dissimilarities in the framing of the election result. Media frames, which are of interest in this study, are a journalistic output, meaning they are the result of journalistic work. Various factors, like news values, influence journalistic work.

Stiehler (2000) points out that the explanations media offer for election results are limited by news values (pp. 113–114). Staab (1990) shows that news values like proximity, conflict, prominence, negativism and surprise can be applied to election results. Frames are increasingly oriented according to media logic to have the biggest possible impact. News values like conflict, negativity, emotionality, and national values can maximize this impact (Matthes, 2014, p. 56). The news value of the event itself, which is connected to the distinctiveness and the degree of sensationalism, partly determines the media coverage (Galtung & Ruge, 1965; Schulz, 2009).

Potthoff (2012) names determinants of the selection and composition of frames, such as the journalists‘ ideology, anticipated readership expectations, the organization culture, the orientation according to other journalists, the availability of material and the cultural context (p. 204-215). But media also have some practical con- straints, like time pressure, competition, and a limited budget, which can influence media output (Schärdel, 2017, p. 81).

The following subchapters explain the framing approach (2.1.), the framing process (2.2.), the different frame elements a frame consists of (2.3.), explicit and implicit assumptions of the framing approach (2.4.) and challenges of the framing approach (2.5.). To contrast media frames from strategic political frames, frames in political communication (2.6.) and party framing are debated (2.6.1.).

2.1. The Framing Approach

Goffman’s (1974) sociological work forms the basis of the framing approach.

He sees a frame as an interpretation scheme that individuals use to contextualize information. Hence, individuals construct mental images of actual objects. Scientists widely use the framing approach to discover trends in the definition of issues and to compare the news coverage among various media, for example on political campaigns and elections (e.g. Cenite, Yee, Juan, Qin, & Lin, 2008; Doles, 2009; Esser & D’An- gelo, 2016; Gerrits & Scheller, 2016; Mendelsohn, 1998).

The framing approach assumes that media present issues in different ways, which results in different perspectives. Gamson (1989) describes the analysis of news content by applying the framing approach as bridging the gap between manifest and latent content (p. 158). Entman‘s “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Para- digm” (1993) is one of the most cited sources concerning the framing theory in communication science. The definition is a basis for this analysis because it focuses on selection and salience:

To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way, as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation. (Entman, 1993, p. 52)

Salience means that one part of information is made “more noticeable, meaning- ful, or memorable to audiences“(Entman, 1993, p. 53). Thus, framing is the active process of selective emphasis on information and positions and frames are the result of that process (Entman, 2007, p. 164; Matthes, 2014, pp. 10–11).

2.2. The Framing Process

There are certain moments in a communication process where framing can occur: in the mind and statements of communicators, in texts, in the mind of recipients and in culture (Entman, 1993, pp. 52–53). Matthes (2014) differentiates strategic frames, journalistic frames, media frames, and recipients frames (pp. 15-18).

The typical process is that one or several communicators, e.g. politicians, use strategic framing to establish their frame against others (Matthes, 2014, pp. 14–15).

The idea of strategic framing is persuasion and the legitimation of own activities (Ent- man, 2007, pp. 164–165; Matthes, 2014, p. 14). This strategic framing is dynamic

(Matthes, 2014, p. 14). Hence, involved actors fight for frames, newly define, adjust and swap them during the discourse (Dahinden, 2006, p. 216; Matthes, 2014, p. 14).

These strategic frames influence journalistic frames (Entman, 2003, p. 422;

Matthes, 2014, p. 15). Journalistic frames are cognitive frames (B. Scheufele, 2004, p. 31). Journalistic frames are the patterns that determine which aspects of a subject are central (Matthes, 2014, p. 15). Journalistic frames include the knowledge and perspective of journalists concerning an issue (Matthes, 2014, p. 15). However, journalists do not copy the communicator frames but incorporate their own arguments, viewpoints and interpretations (Matthes, 2014, p. 15). Journalists select and construct frames because these schemes simplify their work (Matthes, 2014, p. 15).

Next in the process are media frames, which are textual frames. A textual frame is a structure of statements that is based on a discursive range concerning a con- troversial subject (Potthoff, 2012, p. 19). The structure of statements is located in the text and is characterised by the selection of certain aspects of a subject and the salience thereof (Potthoff, 2012, p. 19). These frames are called media frames (B.

Scheufele, 2004, p. 31).

Media frames are closely linked to journalistic frames (Matthes, 2007, pp. 128–129, 2014, p. 15). Media frames can influence journalistic frames and the strategic frames of communicators (Matthes, 2014, p. 15). Frame-building describes the influence of communicator frames on journalistic frames and therefore on media frames (Matthes, 2014, p. 18; D. A. Scheufele, 1999, pp. 114–115). Frame-setting means the impact of media frames on recipients frames (Matthes, 2014, p. 18; D. A.

Scheufele, 1999, pp. 114–115). Media frames contextualize a subject and consist of four frame elements, which is further looked at in chapter 2.3.

In fourth place are the recipients frames, which are frames in the reactions of the audience, like polls, elections, blogs, demonstrations or other expressions of opinion (Matthes, 2014, p. 15). These frames help recipients to understand and interpret a problem (Matthes, 2014, p. 18; D. A. Scheufele, 1999, p. 117). Recipients frames can impact the strategic framing of the communicators and the journalistic frames (Mat- thes, 2014, p. 15). Another research field looks at these recipients frames. It investigates the way and the success frames have in influencing recipients, the framing effects. The framing effects of the presentation of the AfD election result cannot be part

of this study for research economical reasons but can be an interesting avenue for further research. This thesis analyzes media frames that occur in texts, which clarifies how the AfD election result is pictured to readers and the narrative is formed.

2.3. The Frame Elements

Entman (1993) not only stresses the selection principle, but also introduces four elements of frames: the problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation (p. 51-58). The specific pattern of these elements forms a media frame (Matthes, 2014, p. 18).

The problem definition fixes a part of the subject and emphasizes which actors, information and facts are relevant (Entman, 1993; Harden, 2002, p. 86; Matthes,

2014, p. 11). This frame element gives the terminology for the subject and arranges it in the social, factual and timely context (Matthes, 2014, p. 11). This defines the factual aspect itself (Matthes, 2014, p. 11). A problem definition can also be the negation of the existence of a problem (Matthes, 2014, p. 11).

The causal interpretation evaluates the condition as positive or negative (Ent- man, 1993; Harden, 2002, p. 86; Matthes, 2014, p. 11). It includes one or several causes (Matthes, 2014, p. 11). These causes can be, for example, situational or personal (Matthes, 2014, p. 11). It is common that the attribution of responsibility defers depending on whether the condition is a success or failure (Matthes, 2014, p. 11). In the latter case, other actors and circumstances are responsible (Matthes, 2014, p. 11).

In the case of success, actors usually claim the responsibility for themselves (Matthes,

2014, p. 11).

The next frame element includes the attribution of a solution and a treatment recommendation, which can be situational or personal (Entman, 1993; Matthes, 2014, p. 11). This frame element holds recommendations on how to act and recommendations on which actions not to take (Matthes, 2014, p. 12). Actors that are capable to solve the problem are named (Matthes, 2014, p. 12). This frame element is future oriented and can name a whole set of measures (Matthes, 2014, p. 12). It can also be characterized by the lack of a solution (Harden, 2002, pp. 86–87).

The frame element moral evaluation is a moral or evaluative classification of the problem (Entman, 1993; Harden, 2002, p. 87; Matthes, 2014, p. 12). This element represents how negative the condition is (Harden, 2002, p. 87; Matthes, 2014, p. 12).

This is a gradual evaluation (Matthes, 2014, p. 12). Some subjects can be negative by definition, thus it needs to be investigated how negative the evaluation is (Matthes,

2014, p. 12).

2.4. Explicit and Implicit Assumptions of the Framing Approach

First, the ambivalence principle describes that several frames can present the same issue (Matthes, 2007, p. 148, 2014, p. 20). The ambivalence stems from the fact that several viewpoints on the same issue are possible and the issue is open for different selections (Matthes, 2007, p. 148, 2014, p. 20).

Second, the selection principle assumes that the journalist makes certain aspects salient and therefore gives them a higher importance (Matthes, 2014, p. 20).

Hence, frames are a selective extract of an issue (Matthes, 2014, p. 20).

The third principle, the consistency principle, assumes that frames offer a co- herent purpose horizon for all actors (Entman, 1993; Kohring & Potthoff, 2014; Mat- thes, 2014, p. 21; B. Scheufele, 2003). This means that all four frame elements are connected logically and build a line of arguments (Matthes, 2014, p. 21).

In public discourse, there is a competition among communicators for the leading frame in media content to dominate the public opinion (competition principle)

(Matthes, 2014, p. 22). This leads to a dynamic in the framing process in which actors are directly involved and influence each other (Matthes, 2014, p. 19; Scherer, Fröh- lich, Scheufele, Dammert, & Thomas, 2005, p. 275). This process varies between phases of routine and phases of orientation (Matthes, 2014, pp. 16–19). In routine phases new events are assorted into already existing frames and in orientation phases new frames are introduced (Matthes, 2014, pp. 16–19). Communicators have to deal with the frames of other communicators to be a part of this dynamic (Matthes, 2014, p. 22). But the audience is also in a competition to reach their own goal (Matthes,

2014, p. 22). The recipients are in a rivalry to assess the frames (Matthes, 2014, p. 22). Thus, frames can be changed and modified over time (B. Scheufele, 2003, p. 105).

2.5. Challenges to the Framing Approach

Not all scholars accept the universal paradigm Entman (1993) asks for. D'An- gelo (2002) contradicts the alleged inconsistency in framing research. D'Angelo

(2002) sees the multiparadigmatic approach as an enrichment that makes the framing approach vital. He develops a model for the process of news framing (D'Angelo,

2002). This is an example for the discussion in the field: Many scholars do not agree

on the definition and the methodological strategy in the framing approach. Therefore, it is hard to talk about a framing theory or a framing paradigm. Other problems in framing research are the missing operationalizing precision, the descriptive focus of many analyses, the ignorance of visual components and the insufficient reports on reliability (Matthes, 2009, p. 349). Difficulties that occur are the double naming of identical frames or, in reverse, the different naming of identical frames. Dahinden (2006) uses a meta-analysis to categorize already existing frames in research and identifies five basic frames: conflict frame, economy frame, moral frame, progress frame and personalization frame (p. 105-109). Therefore, this study checks the identified frames for these five basic frames to avoid an unnecessary double naming. Then, the identified frames are named as close to the text as possible to clarify the specifics to the narrative of the AfD election result. Moreover, the illustrations are coded and included in the description of the frames and the reliability is reported and improved in chapter 4.5. With these actions, this thesis tackles the named problems.

2.6. Frames in Political Communication

The explained strategic framing plays a special role in political communication. The following digression based on Neumann (2016) helps to distinguish media frames that are of interest for this thesis from strategic frames by politicians.

Parties and politicians use frames intentionally with the motive to convince the public, whereas journalists and recipients mostly use frames simply to present and understand complex issues (Neumann, 2016, p. 26). Snow and Benford (1988) even see the frame element of the treatment recommendation and solution as a call to mobilization (p. 199).

Because frames make certain interpretations of events salient, framing plays an important role in influencing the public opinion through media (Entman & Herbst,

2001, p. 203).

According to Entman’s (2003) cascading activation model, the political elite has a bigger influence on media coverage than citizens, who can only have a retrospective impact (p. 419). Thus, the political elite has an indirect influence on the public agenda (Entman, 2003, p. 419).

This is insofar relevant for this study as the cognitive frames of journalists, which shape media frames in texts (Matthes, 2014, p. 15), are to a great part under the impact of political actors.

Since frames consist of arguments that are relevant for the public discourse, a discussion can be seen as multilayered when several frames exist in media (Harden,

2002, p. 88). Entman (2003) states that there can be “frame dominance“, “frame contestation”, or “frame parity” about an issue, event, or person in the media (p. 418).

This reflects the intensity of the frame-competition (Entman, 2003, p. 418).

In the case of “frame dominance“, one frame dominates the coverage of an issue and other interpretations are seen as irrelevant (Entman, 2003, p. 418). If there are two different frames debated in the media and sometimes even critically reflected, it is a “frame contestation” (Entman, 2003, p. 418). In the case of “frame parity“, a man- datory, completely independent counter frame interprets the events opposing the frame that the political elite communicates (Entman, 2003, p. 418). Considering the goal of an independent and free opinion formation and the responsibility of the media

within that process, a “frame parity” should provide the balanced display of frames

(Neumann, 2016, p. 27).

2.6.1. Party framing. Furthermore, Neumann (2016) outlines party framing as a specific form of strategic framing. This part follows the discussion by Neumann

(2016) to explain how political actors and parties try to establish frames in the media that work in their benefit and interpret an issue in their best interest.

Party framing is the marketing core of a party that it communicates to the citizens in the hope that they copy the frame (König & König, 2013, 2016, p. 8). To receive support from citizens, politicians try to inaugurate their frames as media frames on important subjects (Fröhlich & Rüdiger, 2004, p. 127). This process is medium- term (B. Scheufele & Engelmann, 2016, p. 448). Usually, journalists do not take over frames by parties without critically reflecting them. As mentioned in the introduction already and later on in chapter 3.4., the AfD makes heavy use of social media to communicate with their target group. This reflects the fact that politicians have their own channels to establish their frames. This is easier than journalists taking over frames by parties, but also reaches different people. Hence, it is still important to the AfD how they are presented in quality press because it is a major part of public discourse.

Moreover, there are no framing-effects on recipients through only one presentation of a new frame in the media. Recipients stick to their individual frames and, if at all, only slowly integrate parts of the communicated media frames into their own.

To introduce a frame successfully, it is most important that the party makes the frame believable and trustworthy because a community should be based on the same values

(König & König, 2013, p. 214).

Even though frames can influence the judgement of citizens, media frames are never the only factor considered for the interpretation of a subject or the decision process of a person. Personal viewpoints, social surroundings and other, partly unknown, factors also play a role. Frames barely change fixed viewpoints. In the case of weak opinions, framing can have a bigger impact (B. Scheufele, 2003, p. 226).

Swing voters, especially unpolitical ones, are easily influenced by framing tactics of parties and media frames (B. Scheufele, 2003, pp. 225–226). The AfD win a lot of swing votes and convince people that have a weak party connection or are non-voters before (Der Bundeswahlleiter, 2018). One possible explanation is that these voters are convinced by AfD frames that no other party uses (Neumann, 2016, p. 28), which can however not be part of this study since it explores media frames, not political framing.

This underlines the importance of frames in political communication. Moreo- ver, this chapter shows that there are different ways of using the framing approach in empiric research. The most important thing to take away is that many different kinds of frames exist and that they appear at different moments in the framing process. In this study, media frames and their four frame elements problem definition, causal interpretation, treatment recommendation and moral evaluation are analyzed.

Chapter 3: Literature Review

This chapter reviews the relevant literature on media as arenas for politics

(3.1.) and research on the portrayal of politics in the media, like the framing of Ger- man and international elections (3.2.). This is followed by an elucidation of inspec- tions on post-election coverage (3.3.), including the battle for interpreting after an election (3.3.1.) and the concept of framing a political party or actor as a winner or loser (3.3.2.). This way, it is illustrated how the framing approach outlined in chapter

2 is applied by different scholars and how it fits into the area of politics and elections.

Afterwards, the party AfD is looked at in detail (3.4.) to characterize the party (3.4.1. and 3.4.2.), explain its political position (3.4.3.), discuss the political and societal context (3.4.4.) and draw a picture of the relationship between the media and the party

(3.4.5.).

3.1. Media as Arenas for Politics

Democracy theory assumes that media arenas are the most important institu- tionalized form of the public (Gerhards, Offerhaus, & Roose, 2009, p. 529; Wied,

2007, p. 21). Coverage of politics does not only observe changes in society and politics, but also constructs the sense of these changes (Gerhards et al., 2009, p. 529).

This construction includes the discussion of responsibility of political actors (Ger- hards et al., 2009, p. 529). The interpretation of politics in the media has an impact on citizens (Gerhards et al., 2009, p. 529).

This process of social interpretation incorporates two groups of actors, the politicians and the mass media (Scherer et al., 1996, p. 155). Mass media are the public

arenas for political disputes, in which politicians as central actors try to interpret election results in their favor and make this interpretation look obligatory (Augenstein,

2005, p. 44; Scherer et al., 1996, p. 155). Scherer et al. (1996) note that media and politics are interdependent, as both sides work together and benefit from the coopera- tion (p. 157). Politicians want publicity and offer information in return (Scherer et al.,

1996, p. 157). A big part of politics is the image of politics in media, which is the dominant form voters can experience it in (Augenstein, 2005, p. 44; Scherer et al.,

1996, p. 156). Hence, the interpretation of politics by media is extremely effective

(Scherer et al., 1996, p. 156). While politics follow the logic of media, media also follow the logic of politics (Scherer et al., 1996, p. 158). Thus, a mediatization of politics occurs, which entails, for example, that politics use symbols that are appropriate for media, and that the degree of personalization increases (Augenstein, 2005, p. 44;

Scherer et al., 1996, p. 158).

Several scholars investigate what exactly the interdependency between media and politics looks like. For example, Strömbäck and Shehata (2007) state that election campaigns are highly mediated events in advanced democracies. Even though news coverage of elections tends to be structurally biased, the electorate is dependent upon the media for information (Strömbäck & Shehata, 2007). In a later study, Strömbäck et al. (2011) express that the mediatization of media content varied significantly across countries in the EU and indicators. Schmid-Petri (2012) concludes that both media and politics fulfil their purpose for society (p. 247). Media offer a forum for various groups to voice their opinions and enable these groups to monitor each other

and enter a discourse (Schmid-Petri, 2012, p. 247). Politics concentrate on the relevant problems that need to be decided and make universally valid decisions (Schmid-

Petri, 2012, p. 247). However, both are not independent from the other because in their treatment of issues they use the other as an orientation and adapt to each other

(Schmid-Petri, 2012, p. 247). This is important to enable a common discourse for the whole society (Schmid-Petri, 2012, p. 247). Matthes (2011) argues that political logic mostly governs media content and not the other way around. Schulz (2015) concludes that media became a necessary part of election campaigns, which led to campaigns following the logic of the media more and more (p. 121). He is convinced that this trend is not as valid anymore today because the dominance of television as an election campaign media is declining (Schulz, 2015, p. 121).

These few studies already illustrate that the interdependency between the media and politics can be different, as the degree of orientation and adaption, as well as the direction of the dependence, may vary. This is based on various indicators. Since media can be an important arena for politics and the two have a strong connection, it is crucial to inspect how studies analyze the representation of politics in the media, as that is the goal of this study, too.

3.2. Politics in the Media

A number of studies, many of them on the basis of the framing approach, look at elections, other political subjects, campaigning, effects on voters and related aspects in Germany (e.g. Albrecht, Lübcke, & Hartig-Perschke, 2007; Gerrits & Schel- ler, 2016; Rinke, Wessler, Löb, & Weinmann, 2013; Schulz & Zeh, 2005; Schulz,

Zeh, & Quiring, 2005; Semetko & Boomgaarden, 2007) and internationally (e.g. Ce- nite et al., 2008; Hopmann, Vliegenthart, Vreese, & Albæk, 2010; Kim, 2014; B.

Scheufele & Engelmann, 2013; Wen, 2014). Other scholars compare election coverage between countries (e.g. Esser & D’Angelo, 2016; Schuck, Vliegenthart, &

Vreese, 2014; Strömbäck & Dimitrova, 2016). As the following review on literature underlines, the research on media and politics has many different foci, approaches, and topics.

A study by Semetko and Boomgaarden (2007) shows that gender plays a con- siderable role in framing certain stories in the coverage of Angela Merkel and Ger- hard Schröder in evening national television newscasts and newspapers six weeks prior to the German federal election 2005. Results of an investigation by Sisco and

Lucas (2014) of framing during the 2008 presidential election suggest that “feminist movement actors and goals may not substantially benefit from greater media attention prompted by increasing numbers of female candidates.” (Sisco & Lucas, 2014, p. 492). This is one example of a factor (gender) influencing journalistic output, as discussed in chapter 2.

Few studies test the mobilizing effect of conflict news framing during an election campaign, but Schuck et al. (2014) conduct a multi-method and comparative cross-national inspection in the context of the 2009 European Parliamentary elections.

A media content analysis and a two-wave panel survey in twenty-one countries point out that conflict framing in campaign news mobilizes voters, especially in countries where the EU is evaluated more positively (Schuck et al., 2014).

A comparison of the broadcast coverage of the 2000 U.S. presidential election, the 2001 British general election, and the 2002 German general election conducted by

Esser and D’Angelo (2016) states that “press and publicity topics co-occur with, and press and publicity frames contextualize, the same rank order of campaign topics in all three countries” (p. 44). This indicates convergence among political communication cultures in these countries (Esser & D’Angelo, 2016). Another example for a comparative study is Vreese, Banducci, Semetko, and Boomgaarden (2016) comparing 2004 European parliamentary elections coverage in 25 EU member states.

On the basis of data on television news coverage of the German federal election campaign in 2009, Rinke et al. (2013) examine how strategic game frames and substantive contestation frames of politics contribute to public discourse and discussion of political positions. The researchers demonstrate that strategic game framing harms mediated democratic deliberation, whereas contestation frames in some cases contribute (Rinke et al., 2013).

A content analysis of the coverage of the 1976, 1983, 1994, and 2002 German federal election investigates how the quality- and boulevard press display the values of the CDU/CSU and SPD, as well as the tenor of the presentation of the parties and their candidates (B. Scheufele & Engelmann, 2013). B. Scheufele and Engelmann

(2013) conclude that, on the one hand, the quality press covers the values of the parties and their candidates mostly independently of their editorial line. On the other hand, the evaluation of the parties and their candidates are clearly influenced by an editorial bias (B. Scheufele & Engelmann, 2013).

This underlines the variety of issues at hand when investigating politics in the media. This subchapter points out how German election coverage has already been tested by different scholars, also compared to other countries and over time. As the chapter on the AfD (3.4.) outlines later, conflict plays a big role in the development of the party and political position, as well as for its relationship to other parties. The analysis and results of the research questions (chapter 5.1. and 5.2.) may illustrate how the findings on conflict framing by Schuck et al. (2014) and Dahinden’s (2006) identification of a conflict frame as a basic frame repeat in this study. The same goes for the impact of the editorial line that is studied by B. Scheufele and Engelmann

(2013). These are two examples of how research on politics in the media is relevant to this thesis. However, the review by Holtz-Bacha (1996) that introduces several research areas concerning mass media and elections, barely mentions research on post- election coverage. Since this study does not focus on the coverage before an election, but after an election, the following subchapter is a detailed revision of the few studies about post-election coverage.

3.3. Research on Post-Election Coverage

The assessment of the existing literature points out that only a few scholars focus on news coverage after an election (Stiehler, 2000, p. 105). Missika and Bregman

(1987) apply the framing concept to the negotiation of the meaning of an election.

Later on, Stiehler (2000) illustrates that post-election coverage includes the interpretation of the result and the analysis of the election result. Even though these studies are relatively old, they are presented because they are the only empiric references on post- election coverage and still offer some important insights. This is further discussed at

the end of this subchapter, before the battle of interpreting (3.3.1.) and the framing as winner or loser (3.3.2.) is explained.

Missika and Bregman (1987) point out that the framing of the election campaign can influence the interpretation of the election result and that new subjects can arise from the election results. They conclude that the task of media is to condensate, simplify and summarize the main controversies, which “will give the meaning to the vote after the election” (Missika & Bregman, 1987, p. 306). Thus, the focus is not on the issues of the election, but on the controversies (Missika & Bregman, 1987, p. 306). Additionally, the controversies of one election are reconsidered in the next election (Missika & Bregman, 1987, p. 307).

Melischek and Seethaler (2000a) examine the post-election coverage in the

Berlin daily press from 1928-1932 to analyze media’s function to define the political power relations (p. 122). Among other things, they outline that the post-election coverage constructs an image of the NSDAP as a winner after the first election success in

1929 (Melischek & Seethaler, 2000a, p. 150).

Stiehler (2000) bases his work on an earlier contribution by Stiehler and Marr

(1996), which tests the extent to which attribution theoretical approaches can be used for new subjects in media research. Stiehler and Marr (1996) deduct hypotheses from

Kelley‘s (1973) attribution theory that can only partly be confirmed. The scholars investigate explanations for the result of the left-wing PDS party in the 1994 municipal and European elections. The process of detecting explanations is modeled by a variance analysis with the factors of person (voters’ preferences, their lack of interest, their disappointment), the stimulus (the subject of the election, like municipal politics,

election campaigns, candidates, parties) and the circumstances (external factors, like sentiment, economics, and weather) as causes for the election result (Stiehler & Marr,

1996, pp. 122, 136) .

Stiehler and Marr (1996) find that, strictly speaking, not all articles offer an explanation because some simply give an outlook, like the building of the government or the next election. Overall, the covariance model predicts the attributions media make (Stiehler & Marr, 1996, p. 146).

The secondary analysis of the coverage in 20 German newspapers after the election in 1994 by Scherer et al. (1996) explores the structures of the interpretation process that media are picturing.

Scherer et al. (1996) discuss elections in different political systems and the relation between mass media and politics to illustrate that a social interpretation process gives meaning to election results. They identify the election system in Germany as a personalized proportional representation system, a mix of proportional representation and majority representation (Scherer et al., 1996, p. 153). Usually, the distribution of seats in the parliament follows proportional representation (Scherer et al., 1996, p. 153). The scholars note that administrations are usually formed through a coalition

(Scherer et al., 1996, p. 153). In many cases there is another possible coalition next to the coalition that then forms the administration (Scherer et al., 1996, p. 154). This determines that the election result normally opens several options for a functional administration, thus it is ambiguous and needs a social interpretation (Scherer et al.,

1996, p. 155).

Scherer et al. (1996) discover that the extent of the post-election coverage on the first two days after the election is bigger than the coverage during the entire week before the election (p. 173). Most of the coverage focuses on speculations about the consequences for the entire political system, a little on the facts about the results and personal reactions (Scherer et al., 1996, pp. 173–174). Very few newspapers, mostly the Eastern German ones, concentrate on the reasons for the result and another group of newspapers mostly covers the election itself (Scherer et al., 1996, pp. 173–174).

They also point out that most journalists assess the news values of the actors identically, which gives the winners of the election and the chancellor significantly more coverage than the opposition leader and smaller coalition partners (Scherer et al., 1996, p. 174). Moreover, the degree of personalization is higher in the post-election coverage compared to the pre-election coverage (Scherer et al., 1996, p. 174).

While pre-election coverage does include polarizing evaluations by journalists and actors, post-election coverage does not (Scherer et al., 1996, p. 174). Besides, candidates are quoted a lot in the post-election coverage, which gives them the possibility to spread their interpretation of the result (Scherer et al., 1996, p. 174).

Mendelsohn (1998), who conducts an international study on post-election coverage, concludes that media quickly settle on one narrative that is not necessarily sup- ported by data. This means that the narrative that this thesis detects directly after the election can be the narrative that is used for the next four years when covering the

AfD.

The research reviewed above shows that there is little knowledge on post-election coverage, which may have even lost in relevance over the years with changes in

the media environment. Most of it is based on attribution theories, not the framing approach. Empiric research mostly focuses on the analysis of election campaign coverage (Stiehler, 2000, p. 105; Stiehler & Marr, 1996, p. 119). Even today, 19 years after

Stiehler (2000) noted this research gap, this exploration of publications confirms that this research gap still exists. This study forms a first contribution to close this gap.

The existing investigations on post-election coverage needs to be treated with caution today because the media system has since changed. While journalists are still functioning as strong gatekeepers in the time these studies were conducted, the media landscape has changed with the accessibility of information on the internet and social media platforms.

While the old literature focusing on post-election coverage assumes that media play a very important role to interpret the numeric result of an election for the public, there is a lack of more recent work that verifies this assumption in the changed media environment we have today. Information is easily accessible online and can be discussed on social media platforms, which leads to different conditions. One can argue that the gatekeeping function of journalists is not as strong as two decades ago. Since the AfD is successful in using social media, it is relevant to find how the party is portrayed in the classic media. Even more so because the AfD is to a certain extent dependent on a negative representation in the mainstream media as it is part of their success (subchapter 3.4.5.). The following two chapters explore the battle for interpreting election results (subchapter 3.3.1.) and an important concept in media framing, especially when it comes to politics, the framing of winners and losers (subchapter 3.3.2.).

3.3.1. The battle for interpreting. Immediately after the election, “the battle for interpreting the results begins” (Missika & Bregman, 1987, p. 290). Scholars like

Missika and Bregman (1987), Scherer et al. (1996) or Stiehler and Marr (1996) underline that there is a necessity for an interpretation of an election because its message is unclear and ambiguous (Missika & Bregman, 1987, p. 290; Stiehler & Marr, 1996, p. 119). Wied (2007) explicates that television coverage on election night consists of fixed elements, including the interpretation and explanation of the result (p. 383).

It is necessary to look at the interpretation process because “even if individual votes can be added up to make a total result, the same thing cannot be done for the individual meaning of those votes.” (Missika & Bregman, 1987, p. 290). Mendelsohn

(1998) points out that it is important to look at the framing of election results because the frames are the interpretation of the victory and therefore help construct the election mandates. The interpretation itself is what gives the election result its actual meaning (Scherer et al., 1996, p. 151). Thus, the biggest part of post-election coverage is the interpretation of the result that can include an explanation or an outlook

(Zeh, 1992). During this interpretation process, involved actors aim to push the meaning through that aligns with their intentions (Stiehler & Marr, 1996, p. 119).

As Stiehler and Marr (1996) state, the involved actors of the election have the goal of imposing their own interpretation of the election result, the interpretation that corresponds with their intentions (p. 119). While this finding and the assumption of a battle for interpreting is relatively old, the race to win the sovereignty of interpretation in the media is a central point to the framing approach (Matthes, 2014, p. 9). This

means that interpretation is a process during which different interpretations by different actors are offered. Or, to put it differently, the framing process is dynamic, as mentioned in chapter 2.4.

3.3.2. Framing as winner or loser. Another key concept in election coverage is the framing as winner or loser and the use of strategic or game framing. Pedersen

(2014) states that election campaign coverage “is often characterized by use of the strategic game frame and a focus on politicians’ use of negative campaigning.” (p.

898). His study shows that news coverage of negative campaigning uses the strategic game frame more often than coverage of positive campaigning (Pedersen, 2014).

As Aalberg, Strömbäck, and Vreese (2012) note, the game or strategy frame is

“a key concept in research on media coverage of politics” (p. 162). Opposing this stands the coverage of politics as issues (Aalberg et al., 2012). Framing politics as a strategic game incorporates characteristics like winning and losing or opinion polls

(Aalberg et al., 2012). Based on their analysis of existing examinations, Aalberg et al.

(2012) identify problems in the conceptualization, operationalization and naming of game and strategy frames. Their review of studies on the media’s framing of politics as a strategic game, and of what concepts are used with what operationalization, offers a synthesis to make investigations on the media’s use of strategy and/or game frames more clear and comparable (Aalberg et al., 2012). The scholars see “the game and the strategy frames as two equal but separate dimensions of an overall macro frame” (Aalberg et al., 2012, p. 174). Thus, Aalberg et al. (2012) propose to not only identify the strength of a game frame and of a strategic frame, but then also recogniz- ing whether an article uses a dominant strategic game frame or an issue frame (p.

174). Strömbäck et al. (2011) find in a comparison of media coverage in EU member states, that a focus on winning and losing in politics is most common in Britain, followed by Sweden, Germany, and Finland. The concept of winning and losing is present in many studies on elections in the media.

According to Melischek and Seethaler (2000b), the images of winners and losers are already central factors in the communication during election campaigns, which is proven for example by Graber (1980), Jamieson (1992), and Cappella and Jamieson

(1996, p. 127). The early research by Försterling and Groeneveld (1983) elucidates differences between the attributions and emotions by politicians in response to success or failure. While success causes more statements about emotions than failure does, more attributions are made following failure than following success. These attributions diverge: The attributions for success are more internal, stable and controlla- ble than those for failure.

Melischek and Seethaler (2000a) note that Gerbner’s (1985) approach of cultural indicators names the perception and the attribution of success and failure a fre- quent characteristic of media discourse (p. 127). This is of high significance in the post-election coverage because success and failure are to a big part a construct of the interpretation of the result in media (Melischek & Seethaler, 2000a, p. 127; Schulz,

1997, p. 182). In line with this is the claim by Jamieson (1992), who discovers that the schemes in media coverage are the same before and after the election (p. 165-166).

These schemes circle around winning and losing (Cappella & Jamieson, 1996, p. 74).

Considering the framing approach, the presentation as a winner or loser can also be

indicated by a success/failure or a gain/loss framing (Melischek & Seethaler, 2000a, p. 130).

The definition of winners and losers is a concept Missika and Bregman (1987) look at to explain why it is necessary to negotiate the meaning of a vote. Elections are not a simple process with winners and losers because the answer to the question of who won is not always obvious (Missika & Bregman, 1987, p. 289). It is common for several parties to claim the win in multi-party systems (Missika & Bregman, 1987, p. 289). Correspondingly, scholars find that winners of the election get more than double of the attention in post-election coverage than losers (Scherer et al., 1996, p. 174).

In the examination of the television coverage the night of the state parliament elections in Thuringia, Saxony and Brandenburg in 1999, Tennert and Stiehler (2001) observe the evaluation by mostly political actors and explanations for the result to be the main issues (p. 146). Losers of the elections blame the result on unfavorable circumstances and barely mention their own performance or mistakes (Tennert & Stieh- ler, 2001, p. 147). On the other hand, winners discuss the result with their own capaci- ties, whereas characteristics of the voters do not play a big role (Tennert & Stiehler,

2001, p. 147). Winners talk more about other parties and subjects, since they do not have to underline their success frequently, but election losers mostly talk about themselves (Tennert & Stiehler, 2001, p. 147). Post-election communication is mostly explanation and interpretation, not confrontation and escalation communication (Tennert

& Stiehler, 2001, p. 148).

Shikano (2002) examines how interpretations of political events in 1998 Ger- man federal election coverage influence and change the perceptions of voters. He stresses that both the causal attribution and the definition as a winner or loser are important for the representation of a party in media. He is convinced that it is necessary to investigate how both winners and losers are portrayed (p. 97). Accordingly, the content of the causal attributions should be registered (p. 97), which is done in this study by coding the frame element causal interpretation including a variable on the winner and loser evaluation (chapter 4.4.)

Tennert (2006) analyzes interpretations of the 2002 German federal election results, based on the attribution of success and failure as a significant element in the representation of politics in media. Tennert (2006) assumes that media define how events are interpreted not by describing them, but by identifying responsible persons and trying to outline solutions. The scholar classifies attribution processes in the context of communications theories to concentrate on how media defines political reality

(Tennert, 2006, p. 3). The analysis of the television and print media coverage after the

German federal election in 2002 finds a focus on the failures of the parties indicating a news bias (Tennert, 2006, p. 3). An internal bias can also be found because both failure and success are explained by internal causes (Tennert, 2006).

This interpretation of winners and losers is likewise important because the phases of campaigning, election and post-election are fluent transitions (Augenstein,

2005, p. 23).

Focusing on the satisfaction with democracy of the voters, Singh (2014) studies that not all election winners are equal. Rather, satisfaction depends on the align- ment of expressed preferences and the vote. This assumption is based on explorations by Anderson, Blais, Bowler, Donovan, and Listhaug (2005), who demonstrate that electoral losers tend to see democracy with changing ambivalent attitudes toward the political system and its authorities. Winners hold more positive attitudes regarding several aspects of the democratic process (Anderson et al., 2005). This underlines the importance of the representation of winners and losers in media.

Given that the numbers of an election result get a meaning when media define the winners and losers of the result (Cappella & Jamieson, 1996, p. 74; Melischek

& Seethaler, 2000a, p. 127; Missika & Bregman, 1987, p. 289; Schulz, 1997, p. 182;

Shikano, 2002, p. 97; Stiehler, 2000, p. 106), it is obvious that the AfD, too, is framed as either a winner or a loser. Content analyses (e.g. Försterling, 2000; Stiehler, 2000;

Stiehler & Marr, 1996; Tennert & Stiehler, 2001) prove that the attributions for success and failure follow the same logic as in social psychological experiments. For instance, unfavorable circumstances explained election failure, whereas the election success is traced back to the own competence (Gerhards, Offerhaus, & Roose, 2005, p. 7).

Now that the research on politics and media has been pointed out, the party

AfD (3.4.) as the political actor in this study, as well as its members and voters

(3.4.1.), topics (3.4.2.), and political position (3.4.3.) will be looked at. The review will also explore the political and societal context the AfD was in leading up to the

German federal election in 2017 (3.4.4.) and the portrayal of the AfD in the media

(3.4.5.).

3.4. The Alternative für Deutschland

Today, the AfD consists of three wings: The right win populists, the national conservatives and the neoliberals (Merkle, 2016, pp. 133–134). Members of the first wing are known for racist, anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic statements (Niedermayer,

2015, p. 197). The national conservatives are led by Alexander Gauland, and the neoliberals are led by Alice Weidel, the two co-chairs in the German parliament (Bun- destag) (Dostal, 2017, p. 598). Gauland joined the AfD in 2013, but was a representa- tive of the right-wing of the CDU for 40 years (Dostal, 2017, p. 598). This wing of the party focuses on family policy and inner security (Niedermayer, 2015, p. 195). The economist Weidel was part of the cadre group Friedrich A. von Hayek Society

(Dostal, 2017, p. 598). A lot of disappointed conservatives belong to this wing

(Bebnowski, 2015, p. 19).

The two latter wings unify over their criticism of the refugee and migration policies of the Merkel government, since the conservatives see them as a threat to

German cultural identity and the neoliberals fear an economic burden for the German tax payer (Dostal, 2017, pp. 598–599).

3.4.1. The AfD members and voters. When the party was founded, around two thirds of its members had a doctoral degree, which means, on average, the members had a high level of education (Merkle, 2016, p. 134). According to their member- ship magazine “AfD Kompakt” the party has more than 30.000 members and 1.400 sponsors at the moment (Alternative für Deutschland, 2018).

The AfD has had several conflicts within the party due to their different viewpoints and positions. For example, Bernd Lucke, the former party leader, left the AfD with around 2000 other members in 2015 (Boese, 2017). He criticized the radicalization of the party, when Frauke Petry was elected the next party leader (Boese, 2017).

Then, one day after the federal election in 2017, Frauke Petry left the AfD and founded the conservative party “Die blaue Partei” (the blue party) (Gensing, 2017). In

December 2017, the AfD elected Jörg Meuthen and Alexander Gauland as federal spokesmen of the party (Kreutzmann, 2017). Overall, this gives more strength to the right-wing nationalists of the party (Kreutzmann, 2017).

The party is very heterogeneous when it comes to age and occupation of their members and voters (Niedermayer, 2015, p. 191). The AfD defines five target groups that include all sections of society:

(1) those opposing the ‘rescue of the euro’ and the ‘European super state’; (2) bourgeois voters with liberal and conservative orientations opposing further migration; (3) protest voters in general and those opposed to ‘political correctness’; (4) former non-voters; (5) the socially disadvantaged and those in declining urban areas that support ‘order, safety and patriotism’ and feel themselves to be ‘losers of globalization’, including ‘workers and the unem ployed’. (Dostal, 2017, p. 599)

Addressing these target groups, the AfD won over the biggest percentage of voters in the 2017 election, gaining around 1.2 million voters from former non-voters and 1 million voters from former CDU/CSU voters (Dostal, 2017, p. 600). Moreover,

470.000 former SPD voters and 400.000 former Left party voters switched to the AfD

(Dostal, 2017, p. 600). Newcomers in the parliament, like the AfD, make the political system seem more polarized (Dostal, 2017, p. 600). This means that the party is suc-

cessful in reaching their target groups and mobilizes a big number of former non-voters. The voter mobility is an indicator for the discontent of the voters with their former parties. Based on the results in the federal election in 2013, Schmitt-Beck (2014) finds that the success of the young party is due to the voters‘ reaction to a gap in the political system and deficits in the communication strategies of the other parties (p.

111).

Bergmann et al. (2017) analyze polling data and discover that AfD voters are usually workers with an average income and a pessimistic worldview. They reveal a severe difference between Western and Eastern Germany (Bergmann et al., 2017, p. 66) and less AfD voters in university cities (Bergmann et al., 2017, p. 71). Moreo- ver, Bergmann et al. (2017) show that the AfD voters support the party out of an alleged lack of alternatives (Bergmann et al., 2017, p. 72). Furthermore, Lengfeld

(2017) finds no empirical support for the assumption that losers from Germany’s economic globalization-influenced modernization are significantly more likely to vote for the AfD. Schmitt-Beck, van Deth, and Staudt (2017) also point out that this assumption cannot explain the motivation to vote for the AfD sufficiently.

The explorative study by Schmitt-Beck et al. (2017) manifests that a general dissatisfaction with the performance of the government on the national and state level is the strongest factor to explain the motivation to vote for the AfD (p. 297-298).

Moreover, the perception of a lack of responsivity of political leaders can partly explain the motivation (Schmitt-Beck et al., 2017, p. 298). Additionally, some voters seem to doubt the legitimacy of democracy (Schmitt-Beck et al., 2017, p. 298). Other factors to vote for the AfD are identification with right ideology, a strong resonance

between nativist attitudes and rhetoric of the party, an ethnocentric worldview, a low appreciation of liberal components of democracy, a lack of party bonds, a high political interest and a lack of social trust (Schmitt-Beck et al., 2017, p. 298).

For communicating with their potential voters, the AfD uses several traditional channels, like posters, television spots, press releases, and personal talks at stands.

Compared to other German political parties, the AfD is very successful on social media. The party is present on Google+, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube (Neumann,

2016, p. 13). On Facebook, the AfD has 411.212 likes and 426.103 followers (status as of 02.08.2018). This is significantly more than the other parties: the SPD has

186.364 likes and 200.906 followers, the CDU has 181.761 likes and 207.179 followers, the Bündnis 90/Die Grünen have 179.905 likes and 192.798 followers, and the

FDP 148.025 likes and 164.365 followers (status as of 02.08.2018). Considering that the other parties have existed longer and some of them have many members more, it is especially remarkable how many more people the AfD reaches on platforms like

Facebook. The AfD is very active on Facebook and makes several posts a day, many of them photos with catch phrases. Posts consist of information, comments and selected news, like crimes by alleged offenders that have a migration background or conservative laws in other countries, e.g. ban of burqas. The AfD has more Facebook pages for the different German states, e.g. AfD Sachsen (Saxony), and parliamentary groups, e.g. AfD Fraktion Niedersachsen (Lower-Saxony). Many AfD members also have their own Facebook accounts to communicate with their voters. This demonstrates the special role social media plays for the AfD.

3.4.2. The topics of the AfD. The AfD stems from the action group

“Wahlalternative 2013” (election alternative 2013) that promoted the removal of the

Euro (Niedermayer, 2015, p. 181). Members of this group included Bernd Lucke,

Konrad Adam and Alexander Gauland (Niedermayer, 2015, p. 181).

Therefore, the criticism of the EU and the Euro was the main subject of the

AfD for the German federal election in 2013, which made them known as an “anti- euro-party” (Merkle, 2016, p. 134). Pieper, Haußner, and Kaeding (2015) indicate that

AfD’s Euroscepticism has several dimensions and does not have an ideological, but a strategical character. Due to this specific focus, the AfD was seen as a one-subject- party, which is not the case anymore (Niedermayer, 2015, p. 191; Schmitt-Beck et al.,

2017, p. 274).

In its party program for the federal election in 2017, the party focused on refugee policies, inner security, family policies and euro criticism (Alternative für

Deutschland, 2017a). The agreement on these subjects is part of the result of the inner-party policies conflict.

The party wants the acceptance of refugees to stop immediately and asks to make the “Armutszuwanderung” (poverty immigration) from other EU-countries less attractive (Alternative für Deutschland, 2017b, p. 29).

To strengthen inner security, the AfD wants more and better resources for the police and the justice system, a voluntary police service, a younger age of criminal responsibility, stricter policies of deportation for foreign offenders and a fight against

Islamism (Alternative für Deutschland, 2017b, pp. 22–25).

In addition, the AfD is against gender equality (Alternative für Deutschland,

2017b, pp. 36–41). The AfD supports the traditional family image, a father, mother and several children, and is against abortion (Alternative für Deutschland, 2017b, pp. 36–41).

Furthermore, the party wants to stop the policies for the transition of the energy system, a better infrastructure, incentives for construction and the abolition of the policies concerning the control of rental prices (Alternative für Deutschland, 2017b, pp. 64–70). Additionally, they are against an inclusion of children with disabilities in schools (Alternative für Deutschland, 2017b, p. 44).

Moreover, the AfD wants to support direct democracy to achieve sovereignty of the people (Alternative für Deutschland, 2017b, p. 8). This way, the party presents itself as a people party and an advocate for the people (Merkle, 2016, p. 149). How- ever, the AfD’s demand for direct democracy is not democratic in itself, but rather enables a populist mobilization (Plehwe & Schlögl, 2014, p. 35).

Niedermayer (2014) analyzes the reasons for the 4.7% the AfD gained in the

General election 2013 and finds that the party’s organizational personal, and financial resources, as well as its position regarding the Euro crisis helped the AfD’s success on the supply side. On the demand side, the euro-critical voter potential and its position as a single-issue-party helped the AfD’s success (Niedermayer, 2014). Back then,

Niedermayer (2014) could still identify trust in Angela Merkel’s crisis management and the connection of the AfD to right-wing populism as constraining factors in the election. When Lehmann and Matthieß (2017) compare the AfD party programs from

2013 and 2016, they prove a shift further to the right. While the AfD first focused on

EU criticism, democracy and economic orthodoxy, the focus is on nationalism, social homogeneity, and traditional morality three years later (Lehmann & Matthieß, 2017, p. 21).

3.4.3. The political position of the AfD. Bebnowski (2015) explores the background of the AfD. This introduces the party’s concept of freedom of ideology, the focus on the family as the basis of society and the goal of complete sovereignty

(Bebnowski, 2015). Bebnowski (2015) concludes that the AfD expresses reactionary, conservative, and neoliberal political contents (p. 39). Their opinions are expressed by ciphers to reach the right fringe of the political spectrum (Bebnowski, 2015, p. 39).

Moreover, Bebnowski (2015) confirms that rhetoric plays an important role in the news coverage because the AfD uses these ciphers to convince voters.

Lewandowsky, Giebler, and Wagner (2016) develop a measurement concept based on the theoretical framework of right-wing populism to analyze parties’ positions in the 2013 federal election. Their candidate survey points out that the AfD is a right-wing populist party (Lewandowsky et al., 2016).

Merkle (2016) conducts a qualitative content analysis of AfD’s press releases and political campaign for the European election 2014. She finds a strong populist tendency with absolute claims and simple solutions for complex issues (Merkle, 2016, p. 149). Moreover, the author proves a clear anti-elite position in the press releases

(Merkle, 2016, p. 149). Merkle (2016) concludes that the party uses rhetoric that can be interpreted as harmless in neoliberal and conservative way, but in combination with the context of the people, the AfD positions itself against the other (p. 150).

Häusler and Roeser (2016) inspect the AfD in the context of the election of the

European parliament in comparison to other right-wing parties in Europe and confirm the right-populist, as well as the neoliberal and neoconservative orientation of the party (p. 124).

Overall, the AfD portrays itself as a supporter of traditional values and the

German culture, the democracy and the rule of law (Alternative für Deutschland,

2017a). The party clearly distances itself from the establishment and sees its task in the criticism against the current government (Alternative für Deutschland, 2017a).

They see themselves as the only alternative for the free German citizens (Alternative für Deutschland, 2017a).

Overall, the positioning of the party since its foundation is subject to many studies in political science (Schmitt-Beck et al., 2017, p. 275). While earlier research does not agree on a clear positioning of the AfD as right-wing populist, the change of course in 2015 leads to scholars agreeing on the classification of the AfD as a right- wing populist party (Schmitt-Beck et al., 2017, p. 275).

3.4.4. The AfD in the political and societal context of the German federal election 2017. Dostal (2017) describes refugees and migration as “the ultimate wedge issue” (p. 591) in the 2017 election. The open borders, no clear distinction between the two terms ‘refugee status’ and ‘temporary protective status’ by politicians and in- cidents like the downplayed large-scale sexual violence on New Year’s Eve 2015 in

Cologne, as well as the terror attack on the Christmas market in Berlin in December

2017, lead to uncertainty and a split in all political camps (Dostal, 2017, pp. 591–

592). The AfD concentrates on this “wedge issue,” which may help to explain their election result.

Dostal (2017) states that the “wedge issue” of refugees and migrants took four politically significant dimensions, consisting of two communication issues and two substantive ones (p. 593).

The temporal dimension exhibits a “dramatic overshooting in public debate, from a naïve ‘welcome culture’ to a deep-seated fear” (Dostal, 2017, p. 593).

Secondly, the media discourse dimension shows a split between government and elite discourse and “a large strand of popular opinion” (Dostal, 2017, p. 593).

Online media start to help along with critical reporting when public attitudes divide, which is followed by a radicalization (Dostal, 2017, p. 593).

The third dimension is the ideological one, which becomes obvious in the division of all political parties over the refugee and migration issue (Dostal, 2017, p. 593). For example, the CDU/CSU loses many members of their national conservative wings (Dostal, 2017, p. 593). Now, many AfD members are former CDU/CSU members or draw support from former CDU/CSU conservatives (Dostal, 2017, p. 593). Issues like the admission of family members, upper numerical limits on the right to ‘political asylum’, the handling of the ‘Balkan route’ and declaration of ‘safe third states’ are impossible for the parties to agree on (Dostal, 2017, p. 593).

The fourth dimension is the psychological aspect that makes people with “personal negative experiences that came with the loss of control that globalization has imposed on the sense of historical continuity in a local cultural context” hostile to immigration (Dostal, 2017, p. 595). The split into winners and losers of modernization,

low fertility levels, the lack of experience to exercise the own agency, the fear of stigma and the use of migration as a metaphor for the general loss of political control by right-wing parties help this development (Dostal, 2017, p. 595). Moreover, welfare and social policies lead to a worried middle class, as significant cuts are made in un- employment insurance, pension replacement rate, occupational sickness insurance and others since the early 2000s (Dostal, 2017, p. 596). This puts the election campaigns and results into context and explains the political situation in Germany.

Spier (2017) notes that the success of right-wing parties in Germany compared to other Western European countries is relatively moderate. However, these parties are significantly more successful in Germany compared to the 1970s and 1980s

(Spier, 2017). Spier (2017) concludes that these results are not consistent, but depend on time and region specific foci. The AfD is a good example for using the refugee crisis as a timely focus to succeed. Several scholars (e.g. Caiani & Kröll, 2017; Mo- lodikova & Lyalina, 2017; Weber, 2015) look at the role of racism, fear of the unknown, and the migration crisis as a challenge for Germany. For example, Tort,

Guenther, and Ruhrmann (2016) find five frames German news media use to portray refugees. They spot differences in the negativity of the frames depending on the editorial line of the paper and the cultural closeness of the origin of the refugees (Tort et al., 2016, p. 497).

3.4.5. The AfD in the media. There are few empiric analyses of the representation of the AfD in the media. Out of these studies, there is only one study specifically focusing on the pre-election phase, namely Schärdel (2017). Thus, besides the

research gap on post-election coverage, there is limited research on the AfD in the media, especially in an election context, too.

The connection of the party’s popularity to media is controversially discussed ever since its foundation (Schärdel, 2017, p. 76). Media play an important role for the public perception of a party, especially because they often present a party’s election program to the public (Schärdel, 2017, p. 76). Most scholars agree that media have a big influence on the perception of actors and subjects in the public and therefore possibly on election results, too (Schärdel, 2017, p. 81). On top of that, the AfD makes the alleged oppression of the party by media part of their self-image, even though there is only very few studies on this matter that offer little and very limited empirical proof for this claim (Schärdel, 2017, p. 76). Often, the AfD portrays itself as a victim of hostilities by the political elite (Merkle, 2016, pp. 149–150). The party criticizes this political elite and states that media and politics misunderstand them (Merkle,

2016, pp. 149–150). Schärdel (2017) combines a quantitative and qualitative method to analyze how journalists in the German states are positioned regarding the AfD and how much impact the AfD has on the picture the media painted of them with own proclamations (Schärdel, 2017, p. 77).

Schärdel (2017) illustrates that the total coverage of the AfD in relation to other parties and their significance is below-average, even though he predicts otherwise (pp. 88–89). There are variations in the coverage depending on the German states, though (Schärdel, 2017, p. 89). The regional newspapers in Hamburg and

Rhineland-Palatinate report about the AfD above-average, whereas the regional newspapers in Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt have the littlest coverage (Schärdel, 2017,

p. 89). The comparison of the coverage in Western and Eastern Germany shows that the coverage of the AfD in the new German states is significantly below-average, whereas the coverage in the old German states almost exactly mirrors the polls

(Schärdel, 2017, p. 89). Confirming one of the scholar’s assumptions, the results prove that newspapers in Eastern Germany give less attention to the AfD than newspapers in Western Germany, especially when considering the high regional significance of the AfD in Eastern Germany (Schärdel, 2017, p. 89). This can be due to the stronger right orientation of the regional associations of the AfD in Eastern Germany, which made the newspapers there deliberately choose not to give the party and their views a platform (Schärdel, 2017, p. 99). It can also be because the regional newspapers referred to the federal importance of the party for their coverage (Schärdel, 2017, p. 99).

However, journalists assigned a high news value to the AfD, which can be seen in its visibility in the headlines (Schärdel, 2017, p. 89). The research points out that 70% of the statements about the AfD include an evaluation, often by quoting an external source (Schärdel, 2017, p. 100). The only group judging the party mostly positively are AfD-members (Schärdel, 2017, p. 100). Nevertheless, there are strong differences in the valence among the German states, so it is not a completely negative coverage (Schärdel, 2017, p. 100). The scholar tests a significant time effect in the shift of attributions about the party, meaning that the description of the AfD becomes more and more right-populist and negative as the party itself becomes increasingly more right (Schärdel, 2017, p. 100). As the more already established political parties

start to vocalize their criticism of the AfD over time, the image of the AfD in the media gets worse (Schärdel, 2017, p. 100). Nevertheless, this does not harm the success of the AfD, as the party interprets any critique from other parties as defamation and oppression by the establishment (Schärdel, 2017, p. 101).

Schärdel (2017) elucidates how the communication strategy of the AfD is traceable in the regional newspapers. In quotes by the party members, the AfD pro- tects itself against criticism by others and depicts the party as a serious alternative to traditional parties (Schärdel, 2017, p. 95). The party members stress previous successes and the alleged systematic oppression of the AfD by the political and media establishment (Schärdel, 2017, p. 95). However, proof for horse-race-coverage cannot be found (Schärdel, 2017, p. 97), since there is a discussion of the election subjects, like security and immigration (Schärdel, 2017, pp. 100–101). Overall, Schärdel

(2017) underlines that the right-populist party AfD has a tough job in the politically liberal German press.

Neumann (2016) looks at the framing of the AfD in the Tagesschau, the main

German TV news program, from February 2013 to October 2016. Even though this source is a Bachelor thesis and may have limited validity, it is noteworthy that Neu- mann (2016) finds five frames in the news coverage: The AfD-critical frame, the administration critical frame, the Islam-critical frame, the solution-frame and the conflict-frame. However, Neumann (2016) cannot determine a dominant frame and conflicts within the party lead to numerous changes that influence the positioning of the party (p.55). Since this thesis investigates print media, not television, and Neumann’s

(2016) study is three years old and is conducted when the AfD is not in the federal

parliament yet, it is interesting to see how the framing of the election result in 2017 compares to Neumann’s findings (see chapter 6).

The characterization of the AfD reveals that rhetoric play an important role for the party (Bebnowski, 2015; Merkle, 2016). Schärdel (2017) states that the AfD is using a radical election campaign rhetoric (p.78). Rhetoric of the AfD incorporates elements that classify the party as right-wing populist (Schärdel, 2017, p. 79).

As Schärdel (2017) says, populist parties generally have a tough standing in the German media due to historic reasons (pp. 83–84). Moreover, preceding research focusing on the AfD has found a tense relationship between the right-wing populist party AfD and the media (Schärdel, 2017, p. 84). However, this does not necessarily lead to a negative perception of the party by its supporters (Schärdel, 2017, p. 84).

For example, Schärdel (2016) conducts a qualitative content analysis examining the news coverage about the AfD in German online media during the German federal election 2013 and the European election 2014. The analysis clarifies that the AfD receives above-average attention from three major online platforms, especially during the European election. This coverage is clearly negative.

A study comparing the quality press coverage of three new Eurosceptic parties in the respective national elections (Movimento Cinque Stelle/M5S, Italy; Alternative für Deutschland/AfD, Germany; Team Stronach/TS, Austria) shows differences in the portrayal (Schärdel & König, 2017). M5S and the TS focus on events and have a strong personalization and negativity in the presentational style, whereas the AfD has a slightly stronger focus on issues (Schärdel & König, 2017). Overall, the coverage of all three parties is characterized by a marginal role of issues and an overall negative

bias (Schärdel & König, 2017). The three parties are depicted as dangerous and irresponsible populist protest parties (Schärdel & König, 2017).

The tense relationship can be seen in other occasions, too. For instance, some members of the AfD, including Alexander Gauland, sympathize with the Pegida movement, which revived the term mendacious or lying press (“Lügenpresse”) (Neu- mann, 2016, p. 14). This expression is a defamatory, abusive term that is first used by the Nazis and has the intention of doubting the credibility of all media (Neumann,

2016, p. 14). Additionally, the AfD has proven that it knows how to express provoca- tions to gain the attention by the media (Neumann, 2016, p. 15). For example, Beatrix von Storch and Frauke Petry suggested the use of firearms to protect the German borders against refugees and Alexander Gauland made a dismissive announcement about the German soccer player Jérôme Boateng (Neumann, 2016, p. 15).

According to Söllner (2017), the press explains the especially good results for the AfD in Eastern Germany by criticizing the voters in that part of Germany (p. 21).

Söllner (2017) names a few examples for reasons the press express, like little experience in living with people that have other nationalities or cultures and prejudices against these people, as well as disappointment with the handling of the reunification of Germany and the challenging time thereafter, political immaturity, easy availability and a tendency for an authoritarian political style in the new states (Söllner, 2017, p. 21). However, Söllner (2017) sees the real reason in the economic discrepancy between Western and Eastern Germany (p. 21).

3.5. Summary, Research Questions and Hypotheses

Combining the knowledge about media and politics, post-election coverage and the AfD, this subchapter deducts the research questions and hypotheses for this study.

The explanation of the framing approach (chapter 2) indicates that there can be differences in the understanding of events (Potterf, 2014, p. 16). When we are con- fronted with events, circumstances, actors and developments, we look at them with a certain perspective (B. Scheufele, 2011, p. 269). According to the framing approach, these interpretations and references are frames (B. Scheufele, 2011, p. 269). There- fore, politicians use frames to influence public opinion in a way that supports their viewpoint (Andsager, 2000, p. 577). The persuasiveness of the positions of an interest group can have an impact on journalists’ frames (Andsager, 2000).

In this study, media frames and their development over time are looked at.

Thus, this examination is closer to the field of frame-building than frame-setting. A frame is considered to consist of four elements: the problem definition, the causal interpretation, the moral evaluation and the treatment recommendation (Entman, 2003, p. 417). It is important to distinguish the various kinds, times and actors of framing, even though they are all interconnected. Hence, the overarching research question is:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): How is the election result of the party Alternative

für Deutschland (AfD) framed in different German newspapers after the fed-

eral election 2017 in Germany?

As discussed in chapter 2, there are several factors influencing framing that can lead to diversity in the frames. One reason can be the political orientation of the

papers, but other factors can include regional differences, as well as target audiences and education. Hence, the following research question is:

Research Question 2 (RQ2): How do the frame elements of the election result

differ from each other among German newspapers?

This research question illustrates if the papers define the problem differently and which causal interpretation the papers offer for the election result. As reviewed in chapter 2.3., the attribution of responsibility varies depending on success or failure. In this context it is interesting to see whether newspapers hold themselves responsible, since the AfD as a populist party is to a certain degree dependent on a negative representation in the media (Schärdel, 2017, p. 84). Moreover, the comparison of frame elements manifests if the papers offer different solutions and treatment recommendations for the election result. When interpreting the discrepancies in the frame elements, the political orientation of the paper is taken into account to find in which way the differences correspond with the editorial line. This research question focusing on the frame elements is accompanied by the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1(H1): Frames of the AfD’s election result differ among

German newspapers.

Due to the variety of reasons for discrepancy, no direction can be defined in the hypothesis. However, it tests the utilization of frames in connection with the editorial line and opens up the discussion about the distribution of frames among the papers. Since it is yet unknown which frames can be identified, the hypothesis cannot be more concrete.

Following the close look at the frames by analyzing and comparing the frame elements, it can be seen if the used frames have certain overlapping elements or if they fundamentally contradict each other. This explores if the newspapers have a single-sided coverage of the AfD and the result or if there is a variety of frames.

If articles include an evaluation of the party, it can be assumed that these are mostly critical because the AfD has a tense relationship with the media (Schärdel,

2017, p. 84). Therefore, the party’s positive election result can be assumed to be viewed negatively. The frame element of the moral evaluation answers the question of how negatively the condition is framed (Matthes, 2014, p. 11). This explicit evaluation is gradual (Matthes, 2014, p. 11). For this study, that is considered the explicit negativity. As mentioned in chapter 2.3., some subjects can be negative by definition, thus it needs to be investigated how negative that evaluation is, too (Matthes, 2014, p. 12). The latter evaluation, meaning the tenor concerning the AfD, the tenor concerning the election result, and the overall tendency of the article, is considered the implicit negativity. Media output can diverge according to preferences and views of advertising customers, owners or journalists, due to preferences of consumers, or due to political and social power relations (Im Winkel, 2015, p. 3). Hence, the second hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): The degree of negativity in the framing of the AfD elec-

tion result in the German federal election 2017 differs among German newspa-

pers.

The interpretation of the result of this hypothesis incorporates a close look at the differences and similarities between the newspapers to examine how exactly the

degree of negativity varies. This hypothesis does not include a direction because preceding research cannot prove a stronger degree of negativity in certain papers, for example depending on the editorial line, the region with the paper’s most readers or its level of sensationalism. If the negativity varies due to the editorial line, one could argue that right-wing oriented newspapers cover the AfD less negatively than left-wing oriented newspapers because they are naturally more conservative. However, the AfD is not just a conservative party, but a right-wing populistic party. This changes the nature of the narrative. Considering the region with the highest readership, one can make the argument that Neues Deutschland, with a wide readership in Eastern Ger- many, would portray the AfD less negatively because the party has more voters in that region. Yet, this completely contradicts the first assumption, since ND is a socialist paper. The level of sensationalism is higher in the tabloid BILD and ND compared to the other four newspapers, but existing research does not show whether that leads to the AfD being portrayed more negatively because the success by a right-wing populistic party is considered more outrageous by those papers. These examples explain why the second hypothesis cannot be directed but is formulated openly to test for differences and then find a possible explanation for these differences.

As explained in chapter 2.4., framing is not static, but dynamic. Hence, it can change over time because it varies between phases of routine and phases of orientation. Involved actors fight for frames, newly define, adjust and swap them during the discourse enabling this dynamic (Matthes, 2014, p. 14). Hence, the framing process is dynamic, which is ignored by many studies (Matthes, 2014, p. 62). It is interesting to see if the reaction to the AfD’s success varies within one week of reporting, like from

a more emotional to a more fact-based coverage, due to for example, some sort of hysteria or shock. Signs of shock, hysteria or other emotions are suspected because preceding research focusing on the AfD has found a tense relationship between the right-wing populist party AfD and the media (Schärdel, 2017, p. 84). Moreover, populist parties generally have a tough standing in the German media due to historic reasons (Schärdel, 2017, pp. 83–84). The tense relationship can be seen in several occasions. For instance, some members of the AfD, including Alexander Gauland, sympathize with the Pegida movement, which revives the term mendacious or lying press

(“Lügenpresse”) (Neumann, 2016, p. 14). This speaks for the AfD doubting the credibility of all media. Additionally, the AfD uses negative campaigning and radical rhetoric to attract attention. There are controversies about the party due to its right-wing populistic character. All these factors can contribute to shock or hysteria with this exact party making it into the federal parliament.

As an indicator for hysteria and shock, it is investigated whether the articles show characteristics of a strategic frame or a game frame, and whether the dominant macro frame is a strategic game frame or an issue frame. A strategic game frame of politics focuses “on questions related to who is winning and losing, the performances of politicians and parties, and on campaign strategies and tactics.” (Aalberg et al.,

2012, p. 163). On the other hand, a focus on political substance and issues is called an issue frame (Aalberg et al., 2012, p. 163). Hence, strategic game framing is considered an indicator for hysteria and shock and issue framing is considered an indicator for fact-based coverage. Morover, Pedersen (2014) outlines that news coverage of

negative campaigning uses the strategic game frame more often than coverage of positive campaigning. Due to the reasons named above and the fact that it is the first time a right-wing populistic party makes it into the Bundestag, the election result may come as a shock or lead to hysteria in the media coverage. Therefore, the following is assumed:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The frames used to present the AfD’s election result

change in the course of the first week after the election from game and strate-

gic frames to issue frames.

Next to the concept of game, strategic and issue framing, the use of the identified frames from the first research question are looked at to detect whether their utilization changes over the course of one week, too.

The following chapter explains the research design that is used to inspect the mentioned hypotheses and research questions.

Chapter 4: The Research Design

To analyze how the success of the AfD is framed in German newspapers, a quantitative content analysis is used. This method is suitable because the occurrence of specific features, the frame elements, are to be measured. Quantitative content analyses measure manifest contents only to make the study as objective as possible.

The method fosters a systematic representation of the media content. Advantages of this method include possible easy reproducibility of such an investigation and the fact that a big amount of analysis units can be coded. The codebook (Appendix D: Code- book) can be used to approach further research suggested in chapter 6. Moreover, the same material can easily be examined with a modified instrument, which presents another advantage.

To answer the overarching research question, this researcher assumes that a frame is visible as a certain pattern in the text (Kohring & Matthes, 2002, p. 143).

This pattern is constructed by various text elements (Kohring & Matthes, 2002, p. 143). According to Kohring and Matthes (2002) these text elements are grouped systematically in a specific manner (p. 143). To identify the frames, it is more practi- cable to identify the frame elements (the problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation). This demonstrates what the frames specifically consist of. The following subchapters explain the sampling unit (4.1.), the unit of analysis (4.2.), the population and selection procedure (4.3.), the operationalization (4.4.) and the pretest (4.5.).

4.1. The Sampling Unit

According to Stiehler (2000), newspapers and magazines start the interpretation of the election result immediately after the Sunday election night, on Monday (p.

105). One week later, this process is already almost over (Stiehler, 2000, p. 105). To cover the reaction of the newspapers to the AfD’s result in the election on Sunday, 24

September 2017, the investigation period is from Monday, 25 September 2017, until

Saturday, 30 September 2017. The geographic scope of the study is Germany because a German federal election is of interest in this case. Since this research investigates the coverage after a federal election, national newspapers that function as leading media are the inspection material. Leading media have a wide circulation and a possible influence on other media outlets, thus playing a role in shaping public opinion. Ac- cording to the Informationsgemeinschaft zur Feststellung der Verbreitung von Werbe- trägern e.V. (2019), the following papers are the seven nationwide German daily newspapers with the highest circulation: Handelsblatt, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei- tung (FAZ), Die Welt, BILD, tageszeitung (taz), Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), and Neues

Deutschland (ND). Handelsblatt is not considered because it is a financial newspaper and therefore has a different focus.

Media report in a somewhat biased way in Western democracies, thus German newspapers can be assigned to a political direction that impacts their choice of subjects and their interpretation of content (Im Winkel, 2015, p. 2). According to Dons- bach (1987), there are several influencing factors within the institutional sphere that can influence newspaper coverage, including the editorial line (p. 112). Thus, for a sufficient analysis, the editorial line of the newspapers is considered. The editorial

line is the orientation of the content of media which expresses a specific view of political events (Eilders, 2008, p. 30). The editorial line represents the collective political attitude of a media company (Eilders, 2008, p. 30) and is independent of current events (Maurer & Reinemann, 2006, p. 129). Kepplinger (1998) first sorts German print media in a left-right-continuum by using a scale. According to Kepplinger

(1998), taz and Frankfurter Rundschau (FR) are left-wing oriented, whereas Die Welt and BILD are right-wing oriented (p. 251). Moreover, Der Spigel, Der Stern, Die Zeit, and SZ are rather left-wing oriented (Kepplinger, 1998, p. 251). Opposed to that, Han- delsblatt, Focus and FAZ are oriented further to the right (Kepplinger, 1998, p. 251).

The editorial line has been investigated in the context of German political subjects by many scholars in the past (e.g. Bachl & Vögele, 2013; Brettschneider, 2002; Eilders,

Neidhardt, & Pfetsch, 2004; Hagen, 1992; Wilke & Reinemann, 2000).

Hence, the editorial line of the six selected papers is considered. Die Welt and

BILD are considered right-wing oriented (Kepplinger, 1998, p. 251). Moreover, BILD is a tabloid. FAZ is regarded to be conservative, but not as right-wing oriented than

BILD and Die Welt (Kepplinger, 1998, p. 251). SZ is considered as slightly left of centre, and ND and taz as left-wing oriented (Kepplinger, 1998, p. 251). ND is a socialist paper, that has a wide readership in Eastern Germany, where the AfD is especially successful.

4.2. Unit of Analysis

For the analysis, headlines, sub-headlines, introductions and the articles are coded. One article is defined as “any semantic complex of journalistic origin”

(Kohring & Matthes, 2002, p. 146), more specifically news pieces, which have the

AfD election result as a central subject. Articles include all publications that are longer than three rows, as well as continuations on the following pages. Articles with page references and corresponding articles are coded separately. If articles incorporate visuals, like photos or graphics, they are coded, too. Due to their opiniated and biased nature, letters to the editors and commentaries are not chosen.

4.3. Population and Selection Procedure

A preliminary search with the search word “AfD OR Alternative AND für

AND Deutschland” in the time frame 25 September 2017 until 30 September 2017 on

Nexis finds 120 results for die tageszeitung and 73 results for Die Welt. Frankfurter

Allgemeine Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Neues Deutschland are not accessible on Nexis, WISO or PressReader, the three available digital newspaper archives Leip- zig university library has access to. Therefore, the same search is conducted on the three websites. This yields 119 results for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 191 results for the Süddeutsche Zeitung and more than 100 results for Neues Deutschland and BILD. These results are verified by the print versions of the newspapers. These are available at the press archive of the Institute for Communication and Media Stud- ies of Leipzig University. In case of the newspaper BILD, BILD Leipzig is used.

Then, the articles are selected. To choose relevant articles, cases that make the

AfD or their result a main topic are singled out. That means the result is put in a context, e.g. explaining the result, looking at reactions to the result or consequences. Arti- cles that give an overview over the general result are included if a party’s loss to the

AfD is a subject or the AfD plays a significant role in it. Based on these criteria, there are 18 articles selected for BILD, 23 for Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 26 for Die

Welt, 20 for Neues Deutschland, 26 for Süddeutsche Zeitung and 36 for die tageszeitung. All 149 chosen articles are coded (Appendix B: List of Sample Material with Numbering).

4.4. Operationalization

Media frames are accessible through several different approaches. In this study the frame elements are coded separately with several variables and the data matrix is then analyzed for patterns. If the same pattern can be found in several texts, a frame can be identified (Matthes, 2014, pp. 42–44). Even though this poses the risk of the researcher defining the frames, the interpretation of the frames and their elements are closer to the text than a statistical dimension reduction, that would also be too sensible considering the relatively small sample size.

The development of categories for the codebook is based partly on codebooks by other scholars explored in chapter 2 and 3 and partly deduced from the content and findings of these studies. For example, chapter 3.4.1. is used to find codes for the variable “reasons for the election result” [REAS]. An overview of all variables names and labels is attached (Appendix C: Overview of Variables and Labels) to make it easier to understand the following chapters referring frequently to the variables.

The codebook for the content analysis (Appendix D: Codebook) starts with nine formal categories, like the running number of the article [NUM], number of the coder [COD], the newspapers [PAP], the date [DAT], the placement of the article

[PLACE], the section [RES], the scope of the article [DIM], the style form [STYL], and the illustration [ILLU]. This is followed by the categories that record the content of the article.

For RQ1, H1, RQ2, H2 and H3 the four frame elements are classified separately. The subject of the illustration is ciphered to see if certain aspects get a higher prominence by being underlined by the illustration [ILLU_SUB].

The problem definition is coded by the main subject [SUB], the second subject

[SEC_SUB], the attributions the AfD is given [ATT_1],[ATT_2], the actors

[ACT_ACTOR_1, ACT_ACTOR_2, PAS_ACTOR_1, PAS_ACTOR_2] and whether the article mentions protests against the AfD [PROT]. The causal interpretation incorporates the variables for the benefits [BEN] and disadvantages [DIS] of the election result of the AfD and the reasons [REAS] for the election result. Since the concept of winning and losing is central to elections, the evaluation of the degree of winning or losing (Melischek & Seethaler, 2000a) by the AfD is coded as part of the causal interpretation, too [WIN].

The treatment recommendation is identified by mentioned solutions [SOL], recommendation for action [ACT] and a call to action [CALL]. For moral evaluation, it is coded how neutral the article is [BAL] and how the degree of negativity [NEG], the tenor of the article concerning the AfD [TEN_AfD] and concerning the election result of the AfD [TEN_EL] vary. This is used to classify the overall tendency of the article [BIAS]. The tenor is understood as the fundamental position. A tenor can be judged by the context the subject is put into. For the analysis of H2, the degree of negativity is considered the explicit negativity, and the tenor and overall tendency is considered the implicit negativity.

The RQ1 is answered by using all the frame elements to construct frames by using descriptive statistics. For RQ2, the frame elements are compared between the

newspapers and the constructed frames to answer H1. H2 is answered by testing differences of the frame element of the moral evaluation statistically. The constructed frames are also compared per newspaper and in total on a timeline to answer H3. Fur- thermore, as an indicator for the third hypothesis, it is coded if a game frame (opinion polls [POLL], outcomes [OUT], winning or losing [LOS], and language [LANG]), strategy frame (strategies and tactics [STRAT], motives [MOT], campaign style or performance [CAMP], media’s role [ROLE]), strategic game frame or issue frame

[DOM] is used according to the operationalization of Aalberg et al. (2012, pp. 177–

178).

4.5. Pretest

To pretest the codebook (Appendix D: Codebook), around 15% of the articles are tested by eight raters. Hence, three articles of BILD, Frankfurter Allgemeine

Zeitung and Neues Deutschland are coded, as well as four articles of Die Welt and

Süddeutsche Zeitung and five of die tageszeitung. Each article is coded three times.

One article (NUM 088) is coded by all eight coders after a training for a discussion.

The validity of the analysis, meaning the validity of the researcher and the raters, is insured by conducting a coding training with the raters in which the codebook is explained. The researcher-rater-reliability is tested by including the coding of the researcher in the pretest. The content validity is insured by analyzing categories that describe “other” or “not clearly attributable” and adding more categories to a variable where appropriate.

The intercoder reliability (ICR) is checked by calculating Krippendorff’s Al- pha for each category separately. Krippendorff’s Alpha offers several advantages

compared to other coefficients (Krippendorff, 2004). It can be used for all types of data and can include more than two coders. The ICR is not dependent on the number of characteristics per category. Opposed to the Holsti-coefficient, Krippendorff’s Al- pha does not increase in its value due to missing data. The codebook consists of formal and content categories. For the interpretation, 훼 ≥ .80 is seen as a very good value for content categories and a good value for formal categories. Content categories are interpreted as good with a value of 훼 ≥ .70, whereas formal categories are only acceptable in exceptional cases with this value.

The formal categories newspaper [PAP], date [DAT], placement [PLACE], resort/section [RES], illustration [ILLU], style [STYL], and the content categories Call to action [CALL], motives [MOT], campaign style or performance [CAMP], achieve a perfect reliability of 훼 = 1. Therefore, no changes are necessary here. The category

[DIM] capturing the length of the article is estimated for articles of BILD, Frankfurter

Allgemeine Zeitung, Neues Deutschland and Süddeutsche Zeitung in a reproducible manner, thus a variation is acceptable in this category.

The testing of the category concerning the subject of the celebration

[ILLU_SUB] presents difficulties in the choice of codes. In the pretest, the raters have the possibility to choose many details like which member of the AfD exactly is portrayed and how the emotion is. The photo in the pretest combines two actors on the election party being happy, which is appropriate for four codes. This leads to an unac- ceptably low Krippendorff’s Alpha. After the pretest, the codes are reduced, concen- trating on three groups of actors that are either depicted positively or negatively, as well as the simple visualization of numbers or the campaign material of the AfD.

Testing the category again in a second run with the pretest coders, it achieves a perfect score of 훼 = 1.

The content categories describing the active actors [ACT _ACTOR_1;

ACT_ACTOR_2], balance [BAL], tenor of the AfD [TEN_AfD], winning or losing

[LOS], reasons [REAS], subject and second subject [SUB; SEC_SUB], and strategic game frame or issue frame [DOM] reach a reliability of 훼 = .7 or higher and are therefore acceptable.

The data for the attributes is slightly modified. In cases where the coders choose the same attributes but assign them differently to the first and second category, the same attributes are changed into the same categories [ATT_1; ATT_2]. The attribute variables reach a reliability of 훼 = .78. Other variables that score a Krippendorff’s

Alpha of 훼 = .75 or higher are winner or loser evaluation [WIN], recommendation for action [ACT], tenor of the article in relation to the AfD election result [TEN_EL], overall tendency of the article [BIAS], outcome [OUT], and strategies and tactics

[STRAT].

The categories describing the benefits of the election result [BEN], disadvantages of the election result [DIS], passive actors [PAS_ACTOR_1; PAS_AC-

TOR_2], solutions [SOL], language [LANG], media role [ROLE], and opinion polls

[POLL] achieve a reliability of 훼 = .8 or higher. The variable negativity [NEG] has a reliability of 훼 = .91.

In List 1 for main subject [SUB] and secondary subject [SEC_SUB], the code

413 is changed from “radicalization” to “radicalization to the right” to make it more specific. Furthermore, the codes “voters of the AfD” (204), “Petry splits from the

AfD” (307) and “general division of the AfD” (308) are added. For the categories attribute 1 [ATT_1] and attribute 2 [ATT_2] code 15 “divided/fragmented (gespalten)” is added because two coders note they are missing an attribute that is stronger than

“quarreled/estranged”. More additions include “negative effects on economy” (07) in the category of disadvantages [DIS], several reasons for the result [REAS], like “frustration” (812), “(old-age) poverty” (815), “rural depopulation” (816), “socially and/or culturally suspended” (817), “inequality between Eastern and Western Germany”

(818), as well as solutions [SOL] “win voters back” (300), “change migration policies” (301), “societal problems have to be addressed better” (302), “analysis of reasons for the AfD success” (303), and “ new/reorientation of politics” (304).

In list 3, which is used for the coding of actors [ACT_ACTOR; PAS_AC-

TOR], “citizen(s) as voter(s)” (405) is added and the choice of actors is adjusted to the frequency of their mentions, e.g. code 103 is changed from Beatrix von Storch to

Marcus Pretzell. Moreover, Marcus Frohnmaier, Bernd Baumann, Armin-Paul Ham- pel, Frank Magnitz, Bernhard Wildt, Michael Kretschmer, Monika Grütters, Christian

Lösel, Reiner Haseloff, Volker Kauder, and Oskar Lafontaine are added in exchange for other actors that play no or no prominent role in the articles.

Moreover, the categories for the game frame (opinion polls [POLL], outcomes

[OUT], winning or losing [LOS], and language [LANG]), strategy frame (strategies and tactics [STRAT], motives [MOT], campaign style or performance [CAMP], media’s role [ROLE]), strategic game frame or issue frame [DOM] are implemented according to the operationalization of Aalberg et al. (2012, pp. 177–178), who offer a synthesis by analyzing existing research. This gives additional reliability.

Now that the research design and the development and testing of the codebook are clear, the analysis and results follow in the next chapter.

Chapter 5: Analysis and Results

This chapter explores the analysis strategy and results for RQ1, RQ2, H1, H2 and H3. The chapters concerning the research questions are organized according to the five identified frames, which are presented in subchapter 5.1. The second subchapter (5.2.) outlines the discrepancy in the frame elements between the six newspapers. In the third subchapter (5.3.), the first hypothesis is tested with the identified frames. Subchapter four (5.4.) then shows how negative the papers report on the AfD.

Hypothesis 3, which thematizes the development of the frames over the course of a week, is tested in the fifth subchapter (5.5.). The SPSS outputs of the analysis can be found in Appendix E: SPSS Outputs.

5.1. Research Question 1

RQ1: How is the election result of the party Alternative für Deutschland

(AfD) framed in different German newspapers after the federal election 2017

in Germany?

To identify the frames in the coverage, descriptive statistics and interpretation are used. The data matrix is analyzed to spot patterns in the coding of the variables that describe the frame elements. According to the consistency principle (Matthes,

2014, p. 21) discussed in chapter 2.4., all frame elements are connected logically and build a line of arguments. Therefore, the cases in the data matrix are grouped according to visible patterns. To find a pattern in the frame elements, special attention is given to the subject variables [SUB; SEC_SUB] and reasons for the election result

[REAS] because these include codes that identify a focus on explanation or outlook.

According to Zeh (1992) and Stiehler and Marr (1996) these are the two general

themes post-election coverage circles around. Consistent with Dahinden‘s (2006) meta-analysis, there are five common basic frames: conflict frame, economy frame, moral frame, progress frame, personalization frame (Dahinden, 2006, pp. 105–109), which are the starting point for identifying the frames in this study.

5.1.1. Conflict frame. A first grouping of the cases exposes that characteristics of a conflict frame can indeed be found in 33 articles. In these articles, the problem definition sheds light on the general division of the AfD and Frauke Petry splitting from the party, hence the conflict within the AfD. In total, 21 articles (63.3%) with a conflict frame contain both subjects. 60.6% of the articles make Frauke Petry leaving the AfD the main subject and 24.2% the general division. Two articles (6.1%) focus on the consequences of the election result, whereas one article each has the AfD election result (3%), reasons for the AfD election result (3%) and a characterization of the AfD (3%) as main subject. In 16 cases (48.5%) the general division of the AfD is the secondary subject of the article and in 8 cases (24.2%) Frauke Petry splitting from the AfD is the secondary subject. Three articles (9.1%) deal with the consequences of the election result and another three (9.1%) with a characterization of the AfD as secondary subject. One article (3%) contains reasons for the AfD election result as secondary subject, whereas one (3%) has no secondary subject and one (3%) another subject as secondary subject. None of the articles with a conflict frame report on protests against the AfD. Each article can be assigned two attributes. A total of 21 articles

(63.6%) with a conflict frame describe the AfD as divided/fragmented and eight articles (24.2%) as quarreled/estranged. Eight articles each use the attribute of right-wing extremism (24.2%) and right/nationalist (24.2%) for the AfD. Three articles (9.1%)

consider the AfD right-wing populist. One article (3%) describes the AfD as dubious/untrustworthy and one (3%) as racist.

28 articles (84.8%) contain Frauke Petry as an active or passive actor. Other members of the AfD are mentioned as actors 41 times. Because each article can mention up to two active actors and two passive actors, there are four times more actors possible to code than there are articles. Within the conflict frame, that makes a total of

132 coding possibilities for an actor. This means that other members of the AfD are mentioned in 31.1% of all actor codes, e.g. Alexander Gauland (6 times, 4.5% of all actor codes) and Marcus Pretzell (8 times, 6% of all actor codes). This underlines that

AfD members are mostly shaping the conflict frame as active or passive actors. Vot- ing citizens as actors are only mentioned twice (1.5% of actor codes). Moreover,

Frank-Walter Steinmeier (0.8% of actor codes) and Volker Kauder (0.8% of actor codes) as actors appeared one time each.

The frequencies of the variables describing the problem definition point out a strong focus on AfD members as actors, mostly Frauke Petry. Her splitting from the party as well as the general division of the AfD are defined as a problem for the conflict frame.

For the causal interpretation, none of the articles mention any benefits of the

AfD’s election result and 97% do not mention any disadvantages either. One article

(3%) describes the division of society as a disadvantage of the result. 45.5% do not use a winner or loser evaluation, but in 14 articles (42.4%) the result is seen as a win.

One article (3%) depicts it as a stagnation, one (3%) as a triumph and two (6.1%) as a victory. Most of the articles do not name a reason for the election result, only six

(18.2%) do so. However, there is no specific characteristic to this frame element as they all mention a different reason, e.g. fear in general or of refugees, relevance of the

AfD’s topics and calculated provocation by the party.

Overall, the frequencies of the variables describing the causal interpretation see the election result as a win, but no cause, benefits or disadvantages characterize the conflict frame.

The conflict frame does not contain a single call to action. 93.9% of the articles do not mention a solution either. Furthermore, 90.9% do not give a recommendation for action. Two articles (6.1%) present a political action recommendation and one

(3%) a social action recommendation. As solutions, one article (3%) mentions an analysis of the reasons for the AfD’s election result and one suggests (3%) for the other parties to win voters back.

Just as the frame element of causal interpretation, this frame element does not display any significant patterns. This underlines the focus of the articles on the problem definition, the conflict within the AfD.

The frame element of the moral evaluation indicates that most of the articles containing a conflict frame are objective and neutral. Only one (3%) is considered subjective/judgmental, three rather (9.1%) subjective/judgmental and five (15.2%) rather objective and neutral. Almost all articles (87.9%) do not evaluate the election result of the AfD and the consequences negatively. One article (3%) describes it as slightly negative and one (3%) as somewhat negative. Two articles (6.1%) see it as moderately negative. 75.8% of the articles have an ambivalent tenor in relation to the

AfD and 93.9% an ambivalent tenor in relation to the election result of the AfD. Ex- cept for one article (3%), which uses a positive tenor for the AfD. Seven articles

(21.2%) have a negative tenor regarding the AfD and two (6.1%) have a negative tenor regarding the election result. The overall tendency of the article is balanced in

31 cases (93.9%), rather negative in one case (3%) and very negative in one case

(3%).

Sixteen articles (48.5%) with a conflict frame do not have an illustration. Nine articles (27.3%) are accompanied by a photo of the AfD, two articles (6.1%) by a photo of the AfD celebrating. An illustration of the defeated AfD, celebrating members of other parties, and the election campaign of the AfD are found with one article respectively (3% each). One article (3%) has illustrations of several subjects. For one article (3%) it is not possible to identify whether there is an illustration and one (3%) has an illustration of another subject.

All in all, this subchapter displays how the conflict frame is constructed specifically. It can be noted that the focus lies on Frauke Petry and other AfD members and the conflict they have within the party, while the articles are to a big part very neutral and often visualized with photos of the AfD. The problem definition is what shapes this frame since there is no striking treatment recommendation or causal interpretation.

5.1.2. Inequality frame. The second identified frame is the inequality frame, which is characterized by naming rage and anger of voters, poverty, rural depopulation, social and cultural suspension and inequality between Eastern and Western Ger- many as a reason for the AfD’s election result. 27 articles contain this frame.

Most of the articles focus on reasons for the AfD election result as the main subject or secondary subject of the article (17 articles, 63%). Naturally, this is the case, because the inequality frame focuses on reasons for the AfD’s success in the election: They define inequality as the problem. Ten articles (37%) report on the AfD election result in general. Three articles (11.1%) make reactions to the AfD result a subject and eight articles (29.6%) one or several voters of the AfD. The consequences of the election result are a main subject in two articles (7.4%) and a secondary subject in one article (3.7%). Three articles (11.1%) offer a general characterization of the

AfD and eight articles (29.6%) have another subject. None of the articles with an inequality frame report on protests against the AfD. 14 articles (51.9%) describe the AfD as right-wing populist, five (18.5%) as right/nationalist, four (14.8%) as right-wing extremist, four (14.8%) as racist, two (7.4%) as people-oriented and one article each as divided/fragmented (3.7%) or serious/reliable (3.7%). Most commonly as actors are the AfD in general (23 times, 21.3% of all possible actor codes) and citizens as voters (13 times, 12% of all actor codes). Moreover, a single citizen as an active actor can be found four times (3.7% of all actor codes), and so can the public generally. The

CDU/CSU is mentioned as an actor three times (2.8% of all actor codes) and the SPD once (0.9% of all actor codes). Moreover, some politicians from various parties are mentioned once (0.9% of all actor codes), e.g. Frauke Petry, Cem Özdemir, and Oskar

Lafontaine. An actor from the science and education sector appears three times (2.8% of all actor codes) and another cultural actor twice (1.9% of all actor codes).

The frame element of causal interpretation in the inequality frame is defined by 55.6% of the articles (15 articles) describing the election result as win. In 18.5% of

the cases (5 articles) it is seen as a victory and one article (3.7%) describes it as a triumph. 22.2%, so six articles, do not contain a specific winner or loser evaluation. Fur- thermore, 96.3% of the articles do not mention a benefit of the election result. Only one article (3.7%) sees it as a beneficial lesson or warning for other parties. However,

13 articles (48.1%) name disadvantages of the election result: 44.4% (12 articles) suggest a further division of society due to the AfD election result. 51.9% do not mention any disadvantages.

Still, almost half of the articles with an inequality frame mention the division of society as a negative impact, which is an important characteristic for this frame. In correspondence with the problem definition, all articles with an inequality frame mention a reason for the election result. All the reasons describe an inequality within the society or refer to a received inequality that led to frustration and anger among the voters.

40.7% of the articles see rage, anger and frustration of voters as the reason for the AfD’s success. 37% of the articles describe a social and/or cultural suspension as the motivation to vote for the AfD. Feeling socially or culturally suspended can have various reasons. Five articles (18.5%) specifically focus on the inequality between

Eastern and Western Germany as a reason for the election result. Moreover, one article (3.7%) mentions the rural depopulation as the reason for the AfD’s voter turnout.

However, many of the ten articles identifying social and cultural suspension as the reason also mention rural depopulation as a factor of feeling suspended.

Generally, the inequality frame does not incorporate a clear treatment recommendation. None of the articles carries a call to action. 44.4% of the articles do not include an action recommendation or a solution. 40.7% of the articles (11 articles) mention a political action recommendation and four articles (14.8%) contain a social action recommendation. 18.5% of the articles suggest an analysis of the reasons for the election result as a solution and 14.8% state that societal problems must be addressed better by the parliament. The latter goes hand in hand with the causal interpretation of this frame. Two articles (7.4%) see information for the public as a solution. Sugges- tions to deal with the AfD in the parliament, dialogue with the voters and an adjust- ment of the media coverage as solutions are introduced in one article each (3.7%).

The moral evaluation in the inequality frame tends to be slightly negative of the AfD, but it is only barely noticeable. 51.9% of the articles are objective and neutral, 33.3% are rather objective and neutral and 14.8% are rather subjective or judgmental. More than half of the articles (55.6%) have a negative tenor regarding the

AfD and regarding the election result of the AfD. 40.7% of the articles with an inequality frame have an ambivalent or not decidable tenor regarding the AfD and only one article (3.7%) shows a positive tenor regarding the AfD. The tenor of the article concerning the election result of the AfD is ambivalent or not decidable in 44.4% of the cases. Overall, 14 articles (51.9%) are balanced and 13 articles (48.1%) have a rather negative tendency. Eleven articles each (40.7%) are not at all negative or slightly negative when it comes to describing the AfD. Five articles (18.5%) are somewhat negative.

Most of the articles (11 articles, 40.7%) with an inequality frame do not have an illustration or it is not possible to identify an illustration. Illustrations of eight articles (29.6%) have another subject than the ones that are listed and three articles each are accompanied by a visualization of facts (11.1%) or an illustration with several subjects (11.1%). One illustration (3.7%) presents members of other parties and one photo the disappointed, sad or angry public (3.7%).

That concludes the presentation if the inequality frame, which is strongly defined by the reasons the articles give for the election result.

5.1.3. Administration critical frame. The third identified frame is the administration critical frame, which is used in 30 articles. These articles are selected by filtering out the cases that name reasons for the election result that criticize the administration (REAS = 600-707, 805, 303). A discussion of the AfD election result in general can be found as main or secondary subject in 11 articles (36.7%). Eight articles

(26.7%) have the reasons for the election result as a main subject and another eight articles as a secondary subject. Nine articles (30%) talk about reactions to the AfD election result and eight articles (26.7%) about the consequences of the election result.

One article each focuses on the election party of the AfD (3.3%), the voters of the

AfD (3.3%), a general characterization of the AfD (3.3%) and the dealing of the media with the AfD as a main subject (3.3%). The latter three subjects are also a secondary subject in one article each (3.3% each). Other secondary subjects are a general characterization of the AfD in four articles (13.3%), political failure in one article

(3.3%) and the content of the AfD election campaign in one article (3.3%). In 96.7% of the cases, protest is not mentioned within the administration critical frame, only

one article does so. The most commonly used attribute for the AfD is right/nationalist

(10 articles, 33.3%). Nine articles (30%) call the AfD right-wing populist, three (10%) divided/fragmented, two (6.7%) powerful and two (6.7%) right-wing extremist. The following attributes are used one time each (3.3%): racist, conflictual, quarreled/estranged, inflammatory, harmless, racist, and Eurosceptic. The AfD as a party plays the role of an active actor 12 times (20% of possible active actor codes) and of a passive actor 11 times (18.3% of possible passive actor codes). Seven times (5.8% of all possible actor codes), an AfD politician (e.g. Alice Weidel) is mentioned as an actor. The public, voters and citizens are registered as actors nine times (7.5% of all possible actor codes). 26 times (21.7% of all possible actor codes) other parties or members of other parties play a role in the articles with the administration critical frame. This number is higher than the other two groups because the administration and therefore other parties and their members play a significant role in this frame. Moreover, an EU politician or the EU generally and a French politician are coded as in actor one time each (0.8% of all possible actor codes). Moreover, national media are the most common active actor in two articles (3.3% of active actor codes). Regional TV stations play the role of an active actor in four articles (6.7% of active actor codes), social science and industry in two articles each (3.4% of active actor codes). The combination of these actors, attributes and subjects defines the problem in the administration-critical frame.

In the causal interpretation, 50% of the articles (15 articles) see the AfD result as a win, 30% (9 articles) as a victory and 13.3% (4 articles) as a triumph. Two articles (6.7%) do not use a winner or loser evaluation. Most articles do not mention any

benefits from the election result (76.7%) or disadvantages (70%). Three articles

(10%) describe the AfD election result as a lesson or warning for other parties, two articles (6.7%) as an impulse for other parties to rethink their strategies and one article

(3.3%) hopes that it leads to livelier debate in the Bundestag. These benefits can be seen as characteristic for the administration critical frame because they refer to other parties, or more generally the administration, being at fault for the AfD’s success.

13.3% of the articles fear that the AfD entering the Bundestag will decrease the quality of the debates in the Bundestag or will lead to a rougher tone. One article (3.3%) mentions possible negative effects on the economy and another one (3.3%) a division of society, whereas three articles (10%) name other disadvantages. The variable of reasons for the election result is especially interesting because it illustrates the articles’ statements to the administration. 20% of the articles (6 articles) point out that the topics of the AfD are more relevant to the voters than the subjects of other parties.

Moreover, one article (3.3%) says that the AfD also approached current subjects better than other parties. Protest voters are named as a reason for the result in 16.7% of the articles (5 articles), and so is an above average representation of the AfD in the media (16.7%) and the failure to approach voters by other parties (16.7%). Four articles (13.3%) say that the AfD’s position towards the refugee crisis lead to their success. One article (3.3%) finds that the radicalization of the AfD is the reason for the election result. On the other hand, another article (3.3%) says that the shift to the left of other parties is the problem. One case (3.3%) states that other parties did not oppose the AfD enough and one (3.3%) says other parties are generally responsible for the AfD’s result.

In the frame element of treatment recommendation, it is striking that 60% of the articles (18 articles) suggest a political action recommendation. Three articles

(10%) recommend organizational action, one (3.3%) social action and one (3.3%) another action. 23.3% of the cases do not contain a recommendation for action. 26.7% of the articles do not discuss a solution for the result, 20% focuses on suggestions on how to cope with the AfD in the Bundestag. Five articles (16.7%) underline the importance for other parties to win their voters back and four articles (13.3%) suggest that other parties need to rethink their politics and orientate differently. That societal problems must be addressed better by the administration is reported in two articles

(6.7%). Another two articles (6.7%) want media to adjust their coverage. In one case

(3.3%) it is mentioned that dialogue between voters is the solution, whereas another one suggests changing migration policies. The first solution is likewise a direct call to action in one article (3.3%). Two articles (6.7%) call the readers to change their own behaviors and habits generally to react to the AfD’s election result. However, 90% of the articles (27 articles) do not contain a call to action.

46.7% of the articles are completely objective and neutral and another 33.3% are rather objective and neutral. Two articles (6.7%) are considered subjective/judgmental and four articles (13.3%) as rather subjective/judgmental. The tenor of the article in relation to the AfD is negative in 50% of the articles (15 articles), ambivalent or not decidable in 36.7% of the cases (11 articles) and positive in 13.3% of the articles

(4 articles). The tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD is negative in 50% of the articles (15 articles), ambivalent or not decidable in 40% of the ar-

ticles (12 articles) and positive in 10% of the articles (3 articles). This leads to a balanced overall tendency in 50% of the articles (15 articles), a rather negative overall tendency in 36.7% of the articles (11 articles), a rather positive overall tendency of the article in 10% of the articles (3 articles), and to a very negative overall tendency of the article in one article (3.3%). The AfD is described as slightly negative in 56.7% of the articles (17 articles), not at all negative in 30% of the articles (9 articles), somewhat negative in 10% of the articles (3 articles) and moderately negative in one article

(3.3%).

The articles with an administration critical frame mostly do not contain an illustration (36.7%). Six articles portray member of other parties in their illustration

(20%) and another six articles (20%) are accompanied by an illustration with another subject. Two articles (6.7%) present the celebrating AfD and another two articles

(6.7%) contain illustrations with several subjects. One article each (3.3%) shows a visualization of facts, the election campaign of the AfD, or disappointed, sad or angry members of other parties.

All in all, the presentation of the administration critical frame demonstrates a few variables that circle around the administration and therefore building a pattern.

Compared to the first two introduced frames, the administration critical frame is also strongly characterized by its treatment recommendation.

5.1.4. Right-wing populistic election campaign frame. This frame is identified by selecting cases that carry an explanation for the election result that circles around the election campaign and right-wing populism, such as negative campaigning, verbal radicalization, calculated provocation, instrumentalization of fear and anti-

Semitism. The entire sample counts only one article that makes the election campaign of the AfD its main topic. This article is also included in this group, since it names negative campaigning as the reason for the election result. Even though cases 29, 31,

37 and 39 name reasons for the election result that are used to filter articles for this frame, they are not added to this group of articles. They focus more on the conflict within the AfD and are therefore picked as articles using a conflict frame. This equals

17 articles using the right-wing populistic election campaign frame.

The problem definition consists of five articles (29.4%) focusing on the AfD election result as the main subject. One article (5.9%) mainly talks about consequences of the election result and another five articles (29.4%) make this their secondary subject. Three articles (17.6%) mainly report on the reasons for the AfD election result, whereas another four articles (23.5%) contain reasons as secondary subjects.

The content of the AfD election campaign, viewpoints and topics of the AfD is the main subject of one article (5.9%). Two articles generally report on the AfD as a main subject (11.8%), two have another main subject (11.8%) and one article focuses on

AfD voters (5.9%). Two articles do not contain a secondary subject (11.8%) and another two have another secondary subject (11.8%). Two articles generally characterize the AfD as secondary subject (11.8%) and one article each has anti-Semitism (5.9%) or Islamophobia (5.9%) as secondary subject. Out of the 17 articles, only one mentions protest (5.9%). Most commonly, the attribute right-wing populist is used (8 articles, 47.1%). Five articles (29.4%) describe the AfD as right/nationalist, four (23.5%) as right-wing extremist. One article each uses the attributes people-oriented (5.9%), powerful (5.9%), conflictual (5.9%), and competent (5.9%). In two cases, the AfD is

called divided/fragmented (11.8%) and in another two cases inflammatory (11.8%).

Seven times (20.9% of active actor codes, 41.2% of articles), the AfD generally functions as an active actor. Alexander Gauland is the main actor in three articles (17.6% of articles). Other AfD members are featured as active actors in two articles (11.8% of articles), Alice Weidel in one article (5.9% of articles) and Frauke Petry in another one (5.9% of articles). In five articles (29.4% of articles), voters play an active role and in three articles (17.6% of articles) other parties in general are mentioned as active actors. Other active actors that are mentioned are Angela Merkel (2 articles,

11.8% of articles), Horst Seehofer (1 article, 5.9% of articles), Oskar Lafontaine (1 article, 5.9% of articles) and Die Linke (1 article, 5.9% of articles). Actors from the field of social science appear twice (11.8% of the articles), from economics (5.9% of the articles) and media and culture once (5.9% of the articles). The most common passive actor is the AfD in general (41.2% of articles).

The causal interpretation shows that the AfD’s election result is described as a win in eight articles (47.1%), as a victory in five articles (29.4%) and as a triumph in three articles (17.6%). The winner or loser evaluation is not identifiable in one article

(5.9%). 94.6% of the articles do not mention any benefits of the election result and one article sees it as a lesson or warning for other parties (5.9%). Most articles also do not contain any disadvantages (64.7%). Three articles (17.6%) fear a division of society from the election result. One article expects a decreasing quality of debates in the

Bundestag or a rougher tone (5.9%) and another article mentions an increasing instrumentalization of subjects like fear, crimes, and terror (5.9%). Since it is the filtering

variable for this group of articles, all of them incorporate a reason for the election result. These reasons can be assorted into motives that characterize right-wing populism and the election campaign of the AfD. For example, the AfD used negative campaigning and calculated provocation to spark attention. These reasons are seen as the origin for the AfD’s success in two articles each (11.8%). One article (5.9%) specifically mentions Alice Weidel leaving a talk show with Marietta Slomka as part of the strategy that made the AfD’s success possible. Another article sees the AfD’s rhetoric, their radical statements and verbal radicalization generally as a reason for the election result (5.9%). Three cases (17.6%) use the general fear in society that is used by the

AfD in their election campaign as a reason. Two more articles (11.8%) specify this by naming the fear of refugees and the refugee crisis as a reason. Another two articles

(11.8%) discuss external societal or personal factors as a reason for the result. More specifically, one other article (5.9%) makes higher crime rates or the fear thereof responsible and another article (5.9%) anti-Semitism. Furthermore, one article (5.9%) reports that the AfD is the heritage of racism present in Germany. One article names another reason (5.9%).

The frame element of treatment recommendation consists of six articles giving a political action recommendation (35.3%) and 11 articles (64.7%) not giving any recommendation for action. 13 articles (76.5%) do not contain a solution. Three articles

(17.6%) give suggestions on how to approach and cope with the AfD in parliament.

One article (5.9%) requests a new orientation or formation of other parties’ politics.

None of the articles with a right-wing populistic election campaign frame includes a call to action.

The moral evaluation consists of eleven articles that are completely objective and neutral (64.7%), three articles that are rather objective and neutral (17.6%), two articles that are rather subjective or judgmental (11.8%) and one article that is subjective or judgmental (5.9%). In most cases (58.8%) the articles have an ambivalent or not decidable tenor towards the AfD. Five articles have a negative tenor in relation to the AfD (29.4%) and two articles a positive tenor (11.8%). When it comes to the tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD, ten articles have an ambivalent or not decidable one (58.8%) and seven articles a negative one (41.2%). The overall tendency of the article is balanced in ten cases (58.8%), rather negative in six cases (35.3%) and very negative in one case (5.9%). The AfD election result and its implications are described as not at all negative in six articles (35.3%), slightly negative in seven articles (41.2%), somewhat negative in three articles (17.6%) and extremely negative in one article (5.9%).

23.5% of the articles are not accompanied by an illustration (4 articles). Six of the illustrations hold another subject (35.3%). Two illustrations visualize facts regarding the election results (11.8%) and another two portray the AfD celebrating (11.8%).

One article (5.9%) presents a neutral photo of the AfD, one (5.9%) a photo of the election campaign of the AfD and one disappointed/sad/angry members of other parties.

As discussed in chapter 3.4., many scholars investigate the positioning of the

AfD in the political spectrum. The indicators for right-wing populism are what characterize this frame, most importantly in the causal interpretation frame element.

5.1.5. Consequences and reactions frame. This frame is filtered by the subject variables. In total, 32 articles contain the consequences and reactions frame. All articles reporting on reactions to or consequences of the AfD election result as a main or secondary subject are considered. 12 articles (37.5%) focus on reactions to the AfD election result and ten articles (31.3%) focus on the consequences of the election result. Four articles (12.5%) mainly characterize the AfD in general, two articles (6.3%) mention possible AfD members becoming chairmen of committees as a consequence as their main subject and one article (3.1%) mostly reports about how much money the AfD will receive as a consequence of being elected into the Bundestag. The AfD election result in general is the main subject of two articles (6.3%) and one article as a different main subject (3.1%). 25% of the articles do not have a secondary subject, seven articles (21.9%) discuss the consequences of the election result as a secondary subject. Another five articles report on specific consequences: Two articles (6.3%) give a factual outlook (e.g. how many seats the AfD gets in the Bundestag and where they sit), two articles (6.3%) report on AfD members becoming chairmen and one article (3.1%) sheds light on the amount of money the AfD will receive. Six articles

(18.8%) have another subject as secondary theme. Two articles (6.3%) feature reactions to the AfD election result (6.3%) as secondary subject. The following secondary subjects are included in one article each (3.1%): AfD election result in general (3.1%), the election party of the AfD (3.1%), and right-wing populism (3.1%). Seven articles

(21.9%) mention protests against the AfD. Most commonly used is the attribute of right-wing populist (12 articles, 37.5%). Ten articles (31.3%) describe the AfD as right/nationalist and eight articles (25%) as right-wing extremist. Two articles (6.3%)

call the AfD racist and two articles (6.3%) Eurosceptic. The attributes quarreled/estranged, divided/fragmented, inflammatory and powerful are used in one article each

(3.1%). In seven articles (21.9%), participants of protests and demonstrations are the main active actor. Another seven articles (21.9%) have the AfD as a party as the main active actor. Specific AfD politicians (e.g. Alexander Gauland, Frauke Petry, Armin-

Paul Hampel) are mentioned as an active actor in 14 articles (43.8%). Other German parties in general or a specific member of other German parties (e.g. Cem Özdemir,

Andrea Nahles, FDP) are evident as active actors in 12 articles (37.5%). In seven cases (21.9%), an international politician is mentioned (e.g. from Belgium, UK, Hun- gary). Other active actors are a citizen group (1 article, 3.1%), cultural actors (2 articles, 6.3%), the parliament (1 article, 3.1%), activists (1 article, 3.1%), artists (1 article, 3.1%), academic experts (1 article, 3.1%), international NGOs (1 article, 3.1%) and the national police (2 articles, 6.3%). As passive actors, the AfD appears 14 times

(21.9% of passive actor codes), Angela Merkel and Björn Höcke appear twice (3.1% of passive actor codes), and other parties in general, the CDU/CSU, TV-Stations and the national police one time each (1.6% of passive actor codes).

In eleven articles (34.4%), the winner or loser evaluation is not clearly attributable. In 15 cases (46.9%) the result is called a win, in 5 cases (15.6%) a victory and in one case a triumph. None of the articles mentions any benefits and most of them (65.6%) do not name any disadvantages. Seven articles (21.9%) mention other disadvantages and two articles (6.3%) see a possible division of society as a disadvantage, another two articles (6.3%) suspect negative effects on economy. There are no reasons given for the election result.

59.4% of the articles give no action recommendation. 12 articles (37.5%) suggest political action and one article (3.1%) gives a social action recommendation. A solution is not mentioned in 75% of the articles. Seven articles give suggestions on how to approach and cope with the AfD in parliament (21.9%) and one article (3.1%) promotes a dialogue among voters as a solution. A call to action cannot be found in any of the articles.

In 84.4% of the cases, the article is objective and neutral. Only one article

(3.1%) is rather objective and neutral and four articles are rather subjective/judgmental (12.5%). The tenor of the articles in relation to the AfD is mostly negative (59.4%) and in 40.6% ambivalent or not decidable. 14 articles (43.8%) have a negative tenor in relation to the election result of the AfD and 18 articles (56.3%) an ambivalent or not decidable one. The overall tendency of the article is balanced in 19 articles

(59.4%) and rather negative in 13 articles (40.6%). The AfD election results and its implications is evaluated as not at all negative in 15 cases (46.9%), slightly negative in 13 cases (40.6%), somewhat negative in three cases (9.4%) and moderately negative in one case (3.1%).

50% of the articles do not include an illustration and in two cases it is not identifiable (6.3%). Four articles each portray members of other parties or the illustration has another subject (12.5%). Three articles show the AfD neutrally (9.4%), two articles are accompanied by illustrations with several subjects (6.3%) and one vis- ualizes facts (3.1%).

This finishes the description of all five identified frames in this study. There are a few articles without an identifiable pattern.

5.1.6. No identifiable frame. After the procedure described above there are ten articles left that do not use one of the five identified frames. Two of the articles

(Number 13 and 105) are only 37 and 75 words long. Therefore, the articles are presumably too short to elaborate the different frame elements. Three articles (Number

82, 138, 149) are coded to have a subject as a focus that is not part of the coding variable (SUB=999) (30%). In four other cases (Number 67, 68, 69, 126) the secondary subject is identified as “other” (SEC_SUB=999) (40%). Moreover, the main subject of these four articles are either recognized as “the result of the AfD in the election”

(SUB=200) or “the AfD in general” (SUB=400), which are codes that function as an umbrella term and describe the subject of an article more generally than the respective sub-codes. These are indicators for the codebook not containing the specifics of these articles and their possible frame elements. Article number 3 is the only article that mainly reports on the handling or dealing of the media with the AfD. Even though this is a particular view on the election result, it is not a pattern in the reporting on the

AfD result the first week after the election. The article contains no secondary subject and describes the AfD as right/nationalist and racist. The AfD as a party and newspapers appear as active actors. The author calls the result a win but does not mention any benefits, disadvantages, reasons or a call to action. An organizational action recommendation is mentioned. The article is objective and neutral, the tenor in relation to the AfD is negative and the tenor in relation to the election result of the AfD is ambivalent/not decidable, which results in a balanced overall tendency of the article. The election result of the AfD and its implications are seen as slightly negative.

To conclude the presentation of the results of the first research question and the identified frames, one further comparison is made. As chapter 3.3.2. explores, the concept of winning and losing plays a central role in the interpretation of election results. Therefore, the variable winner or loser evaluation [WIN] is used to calculate the average degree of how much the AfD’s result is seen as a win per frame. The smaller the number, the more the result is seen as a win (01 – triumph/sweeping victory to 07- catastrophe). The Analysis of Variance displays no significant difference in the average winner and loser evaluation between the frames. Still, the average rating for the frames is reported to note the differences within this sample. The average winner evaluation is the weakest in articles containing a conflict frame, 푀 = 2.83 (푆퐷 =

.618, 푁 = 18). In the inequality frame, the average winner evaluation is 푀 =

2.67 (푆퐷 = .577, 푁 = 21). The consequences and reactions frame also contains an average winner evaluation of 푀 = 2.67 (푆퐷 = .577, 푁 = 21). This is followed by the administration critical frame (푀 = 2.39, 푆퐷 = .737, 푁 = 28) and the right-wing populistic election campaign frame (푀 = 2.31, 푆퐷 = .793, 푁 = 16). This equals an overall average winner evaluation of 푀 = 2.56 (푆퐷 = .709, 푁 = 111) in the entire sample. In the rest of the 38 cases it is not possible to identify the evaluation. This means that the conflict frame, inequality frame and consequences and reactions frame contain a slightly weaker average winner evaluation than the other two frames. How- ever, as mentioned, these differences are not significant and also only marginal.

Now that all five frames are introduced, they are compared with respect to their composition and how it varies between papers.

5.2. Research Question 2

RQ2: How do the frame elements of the election result differ from each other

among German newspapers?

The first research question is accompanied by a second one to further explore the details of the frame elements and the way newspapers report about the AfD. This chapter is structured according to the frames established in the previous chapter (5.1.).

Each subchapter concentrates on one frame.

5.2.1. Conflict frame. Concerning the conflict frame, there are no big differences in the frame elements among the German newspapers. There are a few features that are unique to the FAZ. Two of the seven FAZ articles mention a political action recommendation, whereas 30 articles do not mention any and only one taz article mentions a social action recommendation. Moreover, only the FAZ offers solutions in two of seven articles with a conflict frame: One sees an analysis of the reasons as a solution and one the winning back of voters. Looking at the variable of neutrality, one can see that each paper, except for ND, has one article that is rather objective and neutral. Additionally, two of the FAZ articles are rather subjective/judgmental, as well as one ND article. One taz article is considered subjective/judgmental. The articles that are coded as slightly and somewhat negative are both FAZ articles, so are the two articles describing the election result as a victory. Most articles of the FAZ with a conflict frame offer a reason for the election result. Another irregularity is that most of the articles including the attribute quarreled/estranged to describe the AfD are BILD articles.

5.2.2. Inequality frame. Comparing the cross tables of the frame elements among the papers, ND exhibits a focus of the entire article on the reasons for the AfD election result as a main subject. The left-wing oriented newspapers SZ, taz and ND use the attribute right-wing populist more frequently than the other three more conservative papers. The same applies for the attributes of right/nationalist, racist, divided/fragmented which are not used by the BILD, Die Welt and FAZ at all. However, the BILD and FAZ describe the AfD as in touch with people or serious/reliable, which are attributes not used by the left-wing newspapers. 75% of the articles mentioning the division of society as a disadvantage of the election result are published in the left- wing oriented newspapers. Six out of 11 articles explaining the election result with rage, anger and frustration by the voters are SZ articles and 80% of the articles seeing social or cultural suspension as a reason are part of the left-wing oriented papers. Ten out of 11 articles recommending political action as an answer to the AfD’s success are in the SZ, taz or ND. Out of the 15 articles with a negative tenor in relation the AfD, eight are published in the SZ, two in the taz and two in ND. A negative tenor of the article regarding the election result of the AfD is found 15 times within the inequality frame, six of which are SZ articles, four ND articles and two taz articles. Hence, out of the 13 articles with an overall rather negative tendency concerning the AfD, six are SZ articles, two taz articles and two ND articles. A similar trend can be found in the variable of negativity.

5.2.3. Administration critical frame. The comparison between papers regarding the administration critical frame finds few differences. 75% of the articles making the consequences of the election result their main subject are FAZ articles.

Reasons for the election result are the main subject in three BILD articles, three SZ articles and two ND articles. Reasons are part of three Die Welt articles, four FAZ articles and one ND articles as secondary subject, too.

50% of the illustrations showing members of other parties are published in Die

Welt. Five out of the seven cases naming a benefit of the election result are articles of the three right-wing oriented newspapers. The variable of disadvantages demonstrates diversity between the more conservative and more liberal oriented papers, too: All articles mentioning any disadvantages are published in the three conservative newspapers.

5.2.4. Right-wing populistic election campaign frame. Generally, it can be noted that no SZ articles use this frame. The frame element of problem definition only has slight differences. All three articles with reasons for the AfD election result as main subject are published in the right-wing oriented papers, two of them in the FAZ.

The only article mentioning protests against the AfD is a BILD article. This is also the paper that contains the only article calling the AfD powerful, conflictual and competent. Comparing the frame element of causal interpretation between the papers, one can see that the three articles calling the election result a triumph are articles of right- wing oriented papers, two in Die Welt and one in FAZ. taz contains the article mentioning a lesson or warning as a benefit. Four out of six articles that carry disadvantages are published in one of the right-wing oriented papers. The FAZ is the only paper naming the fear of refugees or the refugee crisis as a reason for the election result. Negative campaigning is only mentioned in BILD articles. For the treatment recommendation, it can be said that none of the BILD or ND articles include an action

recommendation. Looking at the moral evaluation it is notable that the article that is considered subjective/judgmental is published in ND. Of the two articles treated as rather subjective/judgmental, one is a taz article and one a FAZ article. The overall tendency of the article is classified very negative in the ND article, as is the evaluation of the AfD’s election result and its implications.

5.2.5. Consequences and reactions frame. Eight out of 13 taz articles have reactions to the AfD election result as main subject. The two articles with the main subject of AfD members becoming chairmen are published in taz and ND. All articles containing protests against the AfD are published in left-wing oriented papers, five in taz and two in ND. The attribute racist is used twice, both times in taz articles. Euro- sceptic is only used by Die Welt to describe the AfD, inflammatory only by BILD, divided/fragmented only by FAZ and quarreled/estranged only by taz. In correspondence with the taz and ND reporting on the protests, these two are the only papers in which participants of protests and demonstrations and national police play a role, too.

Die Welt is the only newspapers calling the result a triumph. Most disadvantages are mentioned in left-wing oriented papers, of the right-wing oriented newspapers only

Die Welt mentions negative effects on economy once and another disadvantage once.

Out of twelve articles including a political action recommendation, only two articles are published in one of the three more conservative papers, namely in Die Welt. All suggestions for solutions are part of the left-wing oriented newspapers. Two out of four ND articles are classified as rather subjective and judgmental, which is 50% of all the articles that are coded as rather subjective and judgmental. One is published in

SZ and one in FAZ. Most articles containing a negative tenor in relation to the AfD or

their election result are out of a left-wing oriented paper. Hence, nine out of 13 articles rated to have a rather negative overall tendency are either a SZ, taz or ND article.

All the articles grouped as calling the AfD election result and its implications somewhat negative are part of the SZ or taz, and only four articles out of the more conservative newspaper are considered slightly negative compared to nine articles out of the left-wing oriented papers.

The second research question seeks to compare the frame elements per frame between the papers. This chapter shows that there are few differences in the frame elements, the fewest differences are within the administration critical frame, followed by the conflict frame. This speaks for a consistent composition of the frames. The papers do not fundamentally contradict each other within a frame. It is especially hard to spot any systematic differences between the papers, for example along the editorial line.

Within the conflict frame, the FAZ shows the most irregularities compared to the other papers. Within the consequences and reactions frame, the reaction i mostly the focus points of taz articles, which is also the only paper calling the AfD racist within this frame. The attributes between the papers also vary within the conflict and inequality frame, however there is no systematic differences between the attributes overreaching the frames. Whereas most articles naming disadvantages within the consequences and reactions frames are published in left-wing oriented papers, it is mostly right-wing oriented papers within the right-wing populistic election campaign frame and only right-wing oriented papers within the administration critical frame. How the

variables of negativity differ among the papers is looked at in detail in chapter 5.4.

The differences in frame elements among papers is further discussed in chapter 6.

5.3. Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1: Frames of the AfD’s election result differ among German news-

papers.

Now that the identified frames are compared concerning their frame elements, this hypothesis more generally tests the papers’ utilization of the frames. A Chi-

Square-Test is used to compare newspaper and frame. 25 expected cell frequencies are below five, thus the test is also run with a Monte Carlo Simulation. Results show a non-significant correlation between newspaper and frame, ꭓ2(25) = 34.56, 푝 = .096.

Cramer’s V suggests a weak effect of this correlation (퐶퐼 = .22). The Chi-Square-In- dependence-Test yields a nonsignificant result (푝 > .05). Hence, there is no significant dependence between newspaper and frame. The following paragraph presents the results for this sample, that contains a slight dependence between the variables.

Comparing the values of the observed and expected counts per paper and frame, there is a few residuals that are especially obvious. There are 1.3 articles less using the inequality frame and 1.9 articles less using the consequences and reactions frame in the newspaper BILD than expected in the case of complete independence.

Die Welt frames 2.8 articles less with conflict, 2.7 articles less with inequality, 2.8 articles more as administration critical, 2 articles more with right-wing populistic election campaign and 1.4 articles more with consequences and reactions than expected.

For FAZ, the biggest residuals between the actual article count and the expected arti-

cle count are -1.5 (no identifiable frame), 1.9 (conflict frame), 1.4 (administration critical frame) and -1.9 (consequences and reactions frame). The SZ has 2.3 articles more without an identifiable frame than expected, 4.3 articles more with an inequality frame than expected, 3 articles less with a right-wing populistic election campaign frame than expected and 2.6 articles less with a consequences and reaction frame than expected. In the taz, there is one article less with a conflict frame than expected, as well as 2.5 articles less with an inequality frame than expected, 3.2 articles less with an administration critical frame than expected and 5.3 articles more with a consequences and reactions frame than expected. ND has 1.3 articles less without an identifiable frame than expected, as well as 1.6 articles more with a conflict fame, 2.4 articles more with an inequality frame, one article less with an administration critical frame, and 1.3 articles less with a right-wing populistic election campaign frame.

Even though the dependence between paper and frame is not transferrable onto the general reporting, this outline explores what differences there are between the observed number of articles and the number of articles that would have been framed that way if newspaper and frame were completely independent from each other in this sample.

Table 1 displays the number and percentage of observed articles with a certain frame per paper. Of the ten articles without an identifiable frame, 40% appear in the

SZ, 30% in the taz, 20% in the BILD and 10% in Die Welt. 33 articles contain the conflict frame, 21.2% of them in the taz, another 21.2% in the FAZ, and 18.2% in ND. SZ holds 33.3% of the articles with an inequality frame and ND 22.2%. Out of 30 articles that frame administration critical, 26.7% are Die Welt articles and 20% FAZ articles.

29.4% of all articles with a right-wing populistic election campaign frame appear in

Die Welt and another 29.4% in taz. The consequences and reactions frame is used in

32 articles, 40.6% of which are taz articles.

Splitting the newspapers in two groups, the right-wing oriented and the left- wing oriented papers, one can observe the distribution of frames along the editorial line. 70% of articles without an identifiable frame are from left-wing oriented papers, as are 54.6% of articles with the conflict frame. Out of all articles with an inequality frame, 70.3% are published in a left-wing oriented paper. The articles from right-wing oriented newspapers account for 60% of the articles with an administration critical frame and 64.6% of the articles with a right-wing populistic election campaign frame.

62.5% of the articles using a consequences and reactions frames are from left-wing oriented papers.

Table 1 further demonstrates that within the 18 BILD articles, the conflict frame is used the most (27.8%). Die Welt articles mostly use the consequences and reactions frame (7 articles, 26.9%). Among the 23 FAZ articles, the conflict frame is used most frequently (30.4%) and among the 26 SZ articles, the inequality frame is used by 34.6% of the cases. 36.1% of the 36 taz articles employ the consequences and reactions frame. Out of the 20 ND articles, six articles each use the conflict frame

(30%) and the inequality frame (30%). Overall, most articles frame the AfD and their election result conflictual (22.1%), followed by 21.5% of the cases with a consequences and reactions frame and 20.1% with an administration critical frame.

Table 1 Cross table newspaper and frame

Frame/ no frame conflict inequality ad. cri- elect. cons. & Total Paper tic. camp. reactions BILD 2 5 2 4 3 2 18 % Frame 20.0% 15.2% 7.4% 13.3% 17.6% 6.3% 12.1% % Paper 11.1% 27.8% 11.1% 22.2% 16.7% 11.1% 100% Die Welt 1 3 2 8 5 7 26 % Frame 10.0% 9.1% 7.4% 26.7% 29.4% 21.9% 17.4% % Paper 3.8% 11.5% 7.7% 30.8% 19.2% 26.9% 100% FAZ 0 7 4 6 3 3 23 % Frame 0.0% 21.2% 14.8% 20.0% 17.6% 9.4% 15.4% % Paper 0.0% 30.4% 17.4% 26.1% 13.0% 13.0% 100% SZ 4 5 9 5 0 3 26 % Frame 40.0% 15.2% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 9.4% 17.4% % Paper 15.4% 19.2% 34.6% 19.2% 0.0% 11.5% 100% taz 3 7 4 4 5 13 36 % Frame 30.0% 21.2% 14.8% 13.3% 29.4% 40.6% 24.2% % Paper 8.3% 19.4% 11.1% 11.1% 13.9% 36.1% 100% ND 0 6 6 3 1 4 20 % Frame 0.0% 18.2% 22.2% 10.0% 5.9% 12.5% 13.4% % Paper 0.0% 30.0% 30.0% 15.0% 5.0% 20.0% 100% Total 10 33 27 30 17 32 149 % Frame 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% % Paper 6.7% 22.1% 18.1% 20.1% 11.4% 21.5% 100%

This clarifies that the ratio of the frames among the papers is almost the same, but the right-wing populistic election campaign frame is used considerably less. This means that the first hypothesis cannot be confirmed because there is no significant difference between the papers and the distribution of frame. Grouping the papers in more right-wing oriented papers and more left-wing oriented papers, slight differences can be spotted. The SZ and taz diverge the most from the expected count within this sample. It is now further explored how the narrative between the papers differs.

5.4. Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2: The degree of negativity in the framing of the AfD election re-

sult in the German federal election 2017 differs among German newspapers.

This hypothesis does not compare the frames, but only the variables focusing on the negativity of the framing. To analyze this hypothesis, the variables degree of 95

negativity [NEG], tenor of the article concerning the AfD [TEN_AfD], tenor of the article concerning the election result of the AfD [TEN_AfD_EL] and overall tendency of the article [BIAS] are used. The latter three variables are recoded and joined in a scale that describes the tenor of the article. The scale has the values very negative (-

2), negative (-1), balanced (0), positive (1) and very positive (2). The higher the value of the scale [SCANEG], the more positive the tenor of the AfD is in the article. This represents the implicit negativity of the article. The scale achieves a good Cronbach’s alpha of α = .88. The discriminatory power of all three variables is acceptable, too.

To compare the overall tenor (dependent variable from -2 to 2) among the newspapers

(independent variable with 6 factor levels), the scale is interpreted as metric and an

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is conducted.

Table 2 gives an overview of the descriptive parameters. The ANOVA tests a significant impact of the newspaper onto the tenor of the AfD (F(5;143) = 3.98, p<.005) with a medium effect, 푓 = .35. The Tukey post-hoc-analysis exposes that the tenor of the AfD diverges significantly between the BILD and all other papers, except for Die Welt. The biggest difference is between BILD and SZ: The SZ reports about the AfD with a tenor that is on average 0.64 scale points more negative than the tenor of the BILD. ND shows an average 0.45 scale points higher negativity in the tenor compared to the BILD, the FAZ 0.44 scale points more negative and the taz 0.41 scale points more negative.

Table 2 Tenor of AfD depending on newspaper

n M SD BILD 18 0.04 0.547 Die Welt 26 -0.33 0.411 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 23 -0.41 0.522 Süddeutsche Zeitung 26 -0.60 0.422 de tageszeitung 36 -0.37 0.490 Neues Deutschland 20 -0.42 0.470 Total 147 -0.37 0.499

An additional variable used to describe the degree of negativity in the article is the explicit evaluation of the negativity [NEG]. This variable cannot be included in the scale due to its different coding scheme that cannot be matched with the other three variables. Moreover, it is not treated as part of the implicit negativity because it represents the explicit negativity. Therefore, the variation among the German newspapers (independent variable with 6 factor levels) regarding the degree of negativity

[NEG] (dependent variable from 0 to 4) is analyzed by a second Analysis of Variance

(ANOVA), which demonstrates no significant effect (F(5;143) = 1.85; p > .05).

This outlines that the implicit negativity used by papers about the AfD differs significantly between the BILD and the other papers (except for Die Welt). The explicit negativity does not differ among the papers. Therefore, the second hypothesis can only be confirmed partly, which is further discussed in chapter 6.

5.5. Hypothesis 3

H3: The frames used to present the AfD’s election result change in the course

of the first week after the election from game and strategic frames to issue

frames.

This hypothesis is examined by creating a timeline of the five identified frames (RQ1) and a timeline based on the concept of game and strategic frames. Out 97

of the variables opinion polls [POLL], outcomes [OUT], winning or losing [LOS], and language [LANG] a scale for the game frame [GAM] is created. It consists of the values 0 (no game frame), 0.25 (slight game frame), 0.5 (medium game frame), 0.75

(mostly game frame) and 1 (game frame). Accordingly, the scale for the strategic frame is calculated out of the variables strategies and tactics [STRAT], motives

[MOT], campaign style or performance [CAMP], and media’s role [ROLE]. As claimed by Aalberg et al. (2012), multiple indicators make it possible to measure the

‘strength’ of the game and strategic frame (p. 173). Moreover, these two frames are seen “as two equal but separate dimensions of an overall macro frame” (Aalberg et al., 2012, p. 174). This macro frame coded on a dominant frame basis [DOM], which represents the “presence of an overall strategic game frame with a single item” (Aal- berg et al., 2012, p. 174).

None of the articles incorporates a complete game frame and only 3.4% of all articles (5 articles) use mostly a game frame. 14 articles (9.4%) exhibit no sign of a game frame at all. 43% of all articles (64 articles) contain a slight game frame and

44.3% (66 articles) contain a medium game frame.

The average strength of the game frame is the highest (0.399) on the second day of the sample (09/26/2017) and only slightly weaker (0.369) on the first day

(09/25/2017). The average game frame strength drops from 0.31 (09/27/2017.) to

0.267 (09/28/2017) and then raises again to 0.346 (09/29/2017) and 0.339

(09/30/2017).

The cross table for the strategic frame (Appendix E: SPSS Outputs) describes that only 1.3%, so a total of two articles, include a strategic frame, whereas 55% (82

articles) contain no strategic frame. 22.1% of all articles have a slight strategic frame,

14.1% a medium strategic frame and 7.4% almost a strategic frame.

The average strength of the strategic frame has its peak on the first day with

0.298. It then decreases to 0.154 (09/26/2017) and 0.103 (09/27/2017). After that it goes back up to 0.25 (09/28/2017) and 0.269 (09/29/2017), then 0.268 (09/30/2017).

The average strength of the game frame over the course of all six days is 0.338 and therefore around 0.1 scale points higher than the average strength of the strategic frame over the course of all six days (0.224).

The variable of dominant framing grasps the overall macro frame as either a strategic game frame or an issue frame (Aalberg et al., 2012, p. 174). In total, 126 articles (84.6%) use an issue frame and 23 articles (15.4%) a strategic game frame. Of all articles using an issue frame, 15.9% appear on day one, 33.3% on day two, 19.0% on day three, 11.1% on day four, 10.3% on day five, and 10.3% on day six. The distribution of the strategic game frame goes from 4.3% on day one, to 65.2% on day two, to

21.7% on day three, to 4.3% on day four, to 0.0% on day 5 and to 4.3% on day 6.

Overall, these numbers display that the framing is indeed dynamic, as explained in chapter 2.4., and that it is mostly issue centered. To understand this dynamic better, it is also important to look at the distribution of the subjects over the week, not only the distribution of strategic game framing and issue framing. The distribution of subjects is identified by the utilization of the five frames over the course of the week. Therefore, a timeline is created to shed light on when which frame is published. Logically, most of the frames have their peak on the 26th of September,

which is the day most articles are published. The right-wing populistic election campaign frame is mostly used on the 25th of September, which can be seen in detail in

Figure 1. The bar chart represents the timeline which shows the used frames per day.

However, there is no systematic development in the utilization of the frames, which speaks for a frame parity throughout the investigation period.

100

Time line of frames 18 16 16

14 12 12 12 11

10 8 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 170925 170926 170927 170928 170929 170930

no identifiable frame conflict frame inequality frame administration critical frame right-wing populistic election campaign frame consequences and reactions frame

Figure 1 Bar chart timeline of frames

101

After the frames are identified and characterized in the first subchapter (5.1.), the frame elements are compared in the second subchapter (5.2.) and the utilization of the frames is compared between the newspapers (5.3.). Furthermore, the negativity in the newspaper coverage is analyzed in detail (5.4.). This last subchapter (5.5.) concludes the section of analysis and results by outlining that there is no systematic development in the usage of frame over the course of the week, but that the framing is indeed dynamic and not all frames appear equally on the same days.

102

Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion

The previous chapters explore the framing approach, its use in the context of politics and elections, the research design and, finally, the analysis of the research questions and hypotheses. The last chapter now discusses the previously presented results and concludes this thesis.

The descriptive analysis and interpretation of the data matrix to answer the first research question produces five frames: Conflict frame, inequality frame, administration critical frame, right-wing populistic election campaign frame, and consequences and results frame.

The most commonly used frame in the sample is the conflict frame with 33 articles (22.1%). As outlined in chapter 3.4., the AfD has gone through several conflicts concerning the party’s focus which eventually led to its clear classification as right- wing populistic. Frauke Petry’s announcement to leave the AfD and found her own party is yet another conflict the AfD faces. Thus, this is framed with a conflict frame.

In chapter 3.2., where politics in the media is reviewed, findings by Schuck et al.

(2014), that concern the framing before the election, establish that conflict framing in campaign news mobilizes voters. This proposes that not only the conflict within the party years before the federal election 2017 build up the AfD’s reputation in a voter mobilizing way, but also that the conflict framing after the election influences future campaigns and elections. This means that the state elections that follow the federal election 2017 may still be portrayed with a conflict frame, possibly the election campaigns leading up to these elections are too. However, this needs to be investigated by future research. As already noted in chapter 3.3., the controversies of one election will

103

be reconsidered in the next election (Missika & Bregman, 1987, p. 307). Since the conflict frame circles around controversy, it can be the frame that is reconsidered in the next election. The fact that the conflict frame is the most commonly used frame in this sample goes hand in hand with another result by Missika and Bregman (1987)

(see chapter 3.3.). They find that post-election coverage focuses not on the issues of the election, but on the controversies (1987, p. 306). The conflict frame does exactly that: It picks the newsworthy event of Petry leaving the party as a focus point. This further splitting of the party manifests a controversy and the ongoing conflict within the party.

The second most frequently used frame (32 articles, 21.5%) in this study is the consequences and reactions frame. As the name of the frame says, the distinguishing characteristic of it is the focus on consequences and reactions. Therefore, it is appropriate to pick this frame to make a comparison to a much earlier study on post-election coverage. One finding by Scherer et al. (1996) discussed in chapter 3.3. is, that most of the coverage focuses on speculations about the consequences for the entire political system, a little on the facts about the results and personal reactions (Scherer et al., 1996, pp. 173–174). These observations can only partly be found in this study.

Five out of the 32 articles (15.6%) with this frame focus on facts about the result, like how many seats the AfD gets in the Bundestag or how much money they receive as member of the federal parliament. Ten articles (31.3%) speculate about the consequences of the election result and twelve articles (37.5%) focus on reactions to the

AfD election result. Thus, the observed trend in 1996 is almost reverse in this study.

104

30 articles (20.1%) employ the administration critical frame to present the

AfD and their election result after the federal election 2017. As already discussed in chapter 3.4., a clear anti-elite position in the press releases by the AfD can be detected

(Merkle, 2016, p. 149). Merkle (2016) concludes that the AfD positions itself against the other (p. 150). This is according to the portrayal the AfD wants to paint of itself.

In its own program, the AfD clearly distances itself from the establishment and sees its task in the criticism against the current government (Alternative für Deutschland,

2017a). They see themselves as the only alternative for the free German citizens (Al- ternative für Deutschland, 2017a). Therefore, the identification of an administration critical frame means that the media picked up on this topic. The utilization of such a frame manifests that criticizing the administration is to a certain degree a success for the AfD. This is reflected in what this frame incorporates. The articles see it as a warning for other parties and an impulse to rethink their strategies. The administration, or more generally other parties, are portrayed as responsible for the AfD’s success. For example, the topics of other parties are seen as less relevant than the AfD’s topics or as approached better by the AfD. This frame also identifies protest voting as a reason. Other parties are generally seen as responsible for the AfD’s result. This becomes manifest in 60% of the articles suggesting a political action recommendation, which means that the administration needs to address its mistakes and win back voters from the AfD. As discussed in chapter 3.4., the refugee crisis can be seen as the

“wedge issue” for this election, which is reflected in this frame. A lot of the AfD’s criticism before the election was about the migration issue, that the administration could not agree on.

105

In 27 articles (18.1%) the inequality frame is found. As discussed in chapter

3.4.1., the AfD specifically plays with the idea of inequality to mobilize voters. Their five defined target groups include people that feel left behind in various ways. Con- sidering that inequality is one manner articles frame the result, the AfD seems to have been successful in approaching that target group and in establishing that theme in the news coverage. The newspapers identify inequality as one reason why the AfD wins so many voters in the federal election 2017.

This frame is characterized by the received inequality that leads to rage, anger and frustration among the voters (40.7%). The social and/or cultural suspension is another important inequality that motivates people to vote for the AfD (37%). Five articles (18.5%) specifically focus on the inequality between Eastern and Western Ger- many as a reason for the election result. Many articles mention rural depopulation as a factor of feeling suspended, which is specifically common in Eastern Germany, too.

This reflects that there is still inequality between Eastern and Western Germany that is now manifested as the AfD as member of the federal parliament. One could argue that the media play a role in the perceived inequality. If issues at hand are not repre- sented enough in news coverage, this may even strengthen the feeling of being socially or culturally suspended.

The positioning of the AfD as right-wing populistic is analyzed and explained in chapter 3.4. and can be found as the right-wing populistic election campaign frame in 17 articles (11.4%). This represents that the media identify the AfD’s populism as a reason for the election result. Specifically, framing the election result with the right- wing populistic election campaign frame means, that the article identifies things like

106

negative campaigning, calculated provocation, verbal radicalization, fear and the instrumentalization thereof or other characteristics of right-wing populism as the reason for the party’s success.

The analysis of the second research question found out that frame elements among newspapers vary only slightly. Within the articles featuring a conflict frame,

FAZ is the paper that differs from the other news outlets the most. The inequality frame marks the strongest discrepancy between right-wing oriented papers and left- wing oriented papers. This difference manifests itself in the use of the attribute right- wing populistic, the mentioning of an action recommendation and the disadvantage of a divided society. The latter is mostly part of the left-wing oriented newspaper coverage. However, when it comes to the administration critical frame, all articles mentioning any disadvantages are published in the more conservative papers. No systematic differences are visible between the papers when reporting with the right-wing populistic election campaign frame, besides the fact that no SZ article contains it. Within the consequences and reactions frame, Die Welt diverges a bit from the other papers.

This speaks for a great consistency in the creation of frames overreaching the newspapers and the editorial line to a big part.

As B. Scheufele and Engelmann (2013) find in their study, the quality press covers the values of the parties and their candidates mostly independently of their editorial line (chapter 3.2.). The discussion about the results of research question two shows that there are almost no differences between the papers when it comes to the frame elements. The influence of the editorial line onto the frame elements is limited in this case. When it comes to the inequality frame, left-wing oriented newspapers

107

seem to have a stronger stand on the issue than the right-wing oriented newspapers.

Since this study does not focus on the election campaign, the representation of the candidates is not included in detail, therefore no statements about the evaluation of the parties and their candidates in correspondence with an editorial bias can be made.

However, further research can explore how Alexander Gauland and Alice Weidel are portrayed in the newspapers.

This previous discussion sheds light on the frames one by one, but there is also a general grouping of the frames possible. The five frames can be grouped into the frames that have their timely focus on the future and the frames that have their timely focus on the past. The frames inequality, administration critical and right-wing populistic election campaign are more oriented on the past. These three frames try to make sense out of the fact that a right-wing populistic party has made it into the Bundestag.

The approach to this varies between the frames, as described in detail in chapter 5.1.

The other two frames are future-oriented. The conflict frame concentrates more on the disputes within the party after the election and the consequences and reactions frame, of course, looks forward starting from the election.

Apart from grouping the frames according to their timely focus, the frames can also be grouped in offering an explanation (past-oriented) and giving an outlook

(future-oriented). The concept of explanation and outlook, as presented in chapter

3.3., is now discussed further.

Just as Stiehler and Marr’s (1996) and Zeh’s (1992) studies, this thesis finds that not all articles offer an explanation since some only give an outlook. Articles us-

108

ing the consequences and reactions frame focus on an outlook. The right-wing populistic election campaign frame, administration critical frame and inequality frame focus on an explanation. The conflict frame incorporates both elements.

The more recent study by Schärdel and König (2017) outlines that their three investigated right-wing populist parties, including the AfD, are depicted as dangerous and irresponsible populist protest parties. The frequencies of the two attribute variables [ATT_1; ATT_2] display that the finding by Schärdel and König (2017) cannot be confirmed for this sample. “Dangerous” and “irresponsible” are not prominent attributes in this study. “Dangerous” is not used at all to describe the AfD, and “dubious/untrustworthy” (as equivalent for irresponsible) is only used in one article (0.7%).

Overall, the most common attributes in all 149 articles are right-wing populist (48 articles, 32.2%), right/nationalist (41 articles, 27.5%), divided/fragmented (28 articles,

18.8%), and right-wing extremist (25 articles, 16.8%). According to these frequencies, the newspaper coverage mostly circles around communicating the political position of the party and the conflict within the party.

Schärdel (2017) argues that the AfD as a populist party is to a certain degree dependent on a negative representation in the media (p.84). Therefore, the code

“above average representation in the media” as a reason for the election result

[REAS], and the code “handling/dealing of the media with the AfD” as a main or secondary subject [SUB; SEC_SUB] are given a closer look to find out whether newspapers hold themselves responsible for the success of the AfD. However, only five articles (3.4%) identify the named reason, only two articles (1.3%) focus on the dealing

109

of the media with the AfD as a main subject and one article (0.7%) as a secondary subject.

Generally, descriptive analysis for this sample reveals that most frames are used almost equally (around 20% of articles), except for the right-wing populistic election campaign frame (11.4%). The fact that all frames are presented almost equally speaks for a frame parity (chapter 2.6.). Ideally, this means that the media take a responsible role of an independent and free opinion formation (Neumann, 2016, p. 27). This is conform with Neumann (2016) also not finding a dominant frame in the

TV news reportage in her study.

A possible explanation for the right-wing populist election campaign frame being not as prominent is, that the election campaign of the AfD is more dominant before the election. It seems that the election campaign itself is not a big part of the narrative after the election to explain why the result is so good.

Moreover, the first hypothesis on differences between the newspapers using the frames cannot be confirmed. The ratio among the papers is almost the same. Most articles focus on the conflict within the AfD without a big contrast between the right- wing oriented newspapers and the left-wing oriented newspapers. While the number of articles using an inequality frame is considerably bigger within the left-wing oriented papers and slightly bigger concerning the consequences and reactions frame, the administration-critical frame and right-wing populistic election campaign frame is more common in right-wing oriented papers. Even though the numbers do not speak for a strong focus on a frame along the editorial line, they demonstrate a trend of differences between the papers. A hypothetical reason for this is that the editorial line

110

becomes more and more blurry and the newspaper coverage becomes slightly more uniform. Or, in other words, newspapers report with a smaller editorial bias than often assumed. However, the influence of the editorial line seems to depend on the subject.

For example, Tort et al. (2016) do find differences in the negativity of the frames portraying refugees depending on the editorial line of the paper.

Schärdel (2017) proves that newspapers in Eastern Germany give less attention to the AfD than newspapers in Western Germany do (p.89). In this sample,

13.4% of the articles are published in the ND. If all newspapers reported about the

AfD election result as a main focus equally, the ND would have to make up for 16.6% of the articles in this sample. However, around 3% less of the articles are assigned to

ND. Considering the high regional significance of the AfD in Eastern Germany, this is not a high attention by the Eastern German newspaper. Schärdel (2017) explains this with journalists in Eastern Germany more often choosing to ignore statements by the

AfD because the regional associations of the AfD in Eastern Germany are more radical than the ones in the Western part (p. 84). Another possible reason for this can be the paper’s socialist focus.

The second hypothesis suspects a difference in the degree of negativity in the framing of the AfD election result in the German federal election 2017 among Ger- man newspapers. The testing of that assumption is split into the implicit and explicit negativity. The implicit negativity refers to the tenor and overall tendency of the article regarding the AfD and the election result. The implicit negativity differs significantly between the BILD and the other papers (except for Die Welt), but there are no significant differences in the explicit negativity. A possible explanation for the

111

BILD’s implicit negativity differing significantly from all but one other paper is its tabloid character, which equals a higher level of sensationalism. The impact of the editorial line on how negatively the AfD is presented may play a bigger role than in the choice of frames, but the newspapers do not diverge from each other when it comes to explicitly portraying the AfD or the result negatively. Again, the influence of the editorial orientation is limited, but papers differ in their choices about the tenor they use to report about the AfD’s election result. It is part of the AfD’s strategy to criticize the amount and form of coverage they receive from mainstream media, but this hypothesis cannot confirm that the party is explicitly depicted in a bad light. A possible explanation for the implicit negativity differing significantly is that journalists stick to their journalistic values to not explicitly portray the party negatively. However, the tenor concerning the AfD or their result may be considered as a less obvious portrayal of respective journalistic values.

The third hypothesis assuming a change of the frames over time overall displays that the framing is indeed dynamic, but there is no certain trend from hysteria or shock to a more issue-centered narrative. Especially the dominant framing variable illustrates that a majority of all articles use an issue frame. This means the coverage of the AfD election result focuses on political substance and issues, rather than “winning and losing, the performances of politicians and parties, and on campaign strategies and tactics.” (Aalberg et al., 2012, p. 163). This can be the case because post-election coverage is investigated, not election campaign coverage. On the other hand, it also speaks for a reporting of higher quality and may have led to five subject frames. With the narrative being issue-centered, more attention is given to subjects, which enables a

112

great variety of frames, since all treated subjects can be presented from different an- gles. The overall average strength of the game frame is 0.338 and therefore around 0.1 scale points higher than the average strength of the strategic frame (0.224). Both these numbers indicate that neither the game frame, nor the strategic frame is noticeably present in reporting. Conforming with that trend is, that the overall detected macro frame is not the strategic game frame, but the issue frame.

Characteristic for the game frame are opinion polls, election outcomes, and winners and losers language of sports and war (Aalberg et al., 2012, p. 163). A strategy frame is defined over subjects like campaign strategies and tactics, motives and instrumental actions, personality and style, as well as metacoverage (Aalberg et al.,

2012, p. 163). On average, the latter characteristics are not as visible in the coverage as the ones forming a game frame. Considering that election outcomes are central to the game frame, it makes sense that the game frame is more pronounced in this study, since it examines post-election coverage. Moreover, this suggests that strategic game framing seems to be less important to post-election coverage than to election campaign coverage.

Referring back to the research by Rinke et al. (2013) (chapter 3.2.) examining strategic game framing in the television news coverage of the German federal election campaign in 2009, it can be interpreted as positive that the issue frame is more evident in this sampling material. The scholars state that strategic game framing harms mediated democratic deliberation. Therefore, a more issue-centered coverage suggests that the media coverage is of higher quality.

113

There are more results discussed in chapter 3 that are worth being compared to this study concerning game frames, strategic frames and issue frames.

Even though Missika and Bregman’s (1987) finding of post-election coverage focusing more on controversies, not issues, may be true for the conflict frame in this study, it is not true for the overall result of the dominant issue frame.

Moreover, Pedersen (2014) finds that election campaign coverage is more often framed with a strategic game frame in case of negative campaigning than in case of positive campaigning. The AfD has used negative campaigning in their election campaign. However, the use of strategic game frame is not as present as the issue frame. One of many possible explanations can be that Pedersen (2014) analyzes the coverage before an election and this study analyzes the post-election coverage. A possible extension of this research can be a comparison of strategic game framing of the

AfD and their election campaign before and after the federal election 2017 in relation to negative campaigning. Another possible explanation is that the campaigning of the

AfD for the federal election 2017 was not as negative as assumed.

This goes hand in hand with a finding by Schärdel and König (2017), who outline that the coverage of the AfD is slightly more issue-centered than the coverage of two other European populist parties. In this study, the coverage about the AfD is also issue-centered, even though there is no reference point to compare with since no cross-country comparison is conducted.

After the discussion of the results per research question or hypothesis, a more general observation can be made. When selecting the sampling material, it is striking

114

that even the articles focusing on other parties or politicians reference the election result of that other party back to the AfD. Especially the loss of voters by the CSU is reported with the background of the success of the AfD. Thus, many more articles than the ones included in this sample look at reasons for the AfD’s success, or in other words, the failure of the other parties. Further analyses may examine all articles, not only the ones that put the AfD in the focus, to find out to what extend each party is made responsible for losing voters or enabling the AfD.

Neumann’s (2016) investigation is almost three years old and was conducted when the AfD was not yet in the federal parliament yet (see chapter 3), but some frames and characteristics are the same. For example, both studies identify a conflict frame and an administration critical frame. Neumann (2016) discovers an AfD-critical frame, which is not the case in this thesis. However, all five frames identified in this research contain AfD-critical elements. A possible explanation for this is that the AfD is more established in the media already when this study is conducted. The right- wing, populist orientation of the AfD seems to have moved beyond a point of discussion in newspapers, and the consensus is that the question of whether the party needs to be taken seriously has been rendered moot by its entry into the Bundestag.

Thus, all frames incorporate critic against the AfD, some in the problem definition, some in the causal interpretation, some in the treatment recommendation, and some in the moral evaluation. The other frame that is found by Neumann (2016), but not in this study, is the Islam-critical frame. This is possibly the case because this thesis falls in the specific, short timeframe after the election and therefore has another subject focus, whereas Neumann (2016) analyzes the AfD in a TV news show over a

115

longer period of time with several state elections during that timeframe and the refugee crisis still being more present. Moreover, this inspection does not identify a solution frame. Most of the articles do not offer any solution, the ones that do are often very general. The coverage circles around on how the AfD has made it into the Bun- destag and why it is a problem, but mostly not how to solve it. One other similarity is that both studies do not detect a dominant frame, as already mentioned earlier in this study. The comparison of these two studies examining the AfD demonstrates that the narrative is still changing and dependent on factors that have yet to be explored. The frames found in this thesis are of course very specific to the federal election.

This can likewise be named as one of the weaknesses of this study. A relatively small sample and investigation timeframe is chosen due to research economical reasons. However, it still is a first contribution to post-election coverage and a base to explore how the AfD is framed in newspapers. An interesting avenue for further research would therefore be to use a bigger sample, the identification of frames could then be conducted by a cluster analysis to reduce the impact of the researcher onto the process. Moreover, the quality of the coding can be improved further by having more than one rater for the articles. This would insure even greater intercoder reliability. On the plus side, this study is able to identify the frames closer to the text than a cluster analysis.

Similar investigations can be conducted concerning the election results of the

AfD in the state elections, e.g. Lower Saxony on 15th October 2017, Bavaria on 14th

October 2018, or in the Hesse state on 28th October 2018. The next state parliament election is in Thuringia on 27th October 2019. A comparison of the coverage over this

116

timeframe can be of interest. The AfD is now a member of all state parliaments in

Germany and won most of its seats in Saxony on 1st September 2019, followed by the

Brandenburg parliament elections on the same day. Even though the elections in Bre- men (26th May 2019) and other state parliament elections in Western Germany have led the AfD to enter more state parliaments, the party is still more successful in East- ern Germany. How is this fact presented in the media and received by the readers and voters in Western and Eastern Germany? To which extent is the coverage of this contrast enabling the AfD to gain stronger support in Eastern Germany? A purposeful extension of this thesis could be an analysis of regional newspapers to compare differences between Western and Eastern Germany, similar to, or also extending, Schär- del’s (2017) research. These are research questions that would not only require content analyses, but also surveys, or at least a connection to already existing survey data.

The lack of such survey data in this study also limits its scope. The results could be put in a much broader context by comparing the reasons the papers name to the reasons voters name. This would reveal the differences between the representation of reasons in the media and the reasons found in surveys. Considering the administration critical frame and inequality frame, an exploration of these reasons may be of interest from a policy and activist standpoint, since they can reveal which causes need to be addressed.

Further research could investigate how the frames about the AfD after the election compare to the frames about the AfD before the election, specifically with re- gards to the right-wing populistic election campaign frame. Yet, this study raises more

117

questions. Why is the coverage not including many concrete solutions? Has the quality of debates in the Bundestag decreased, as some articles feared? How is the AfD’s behavior in the Bundestag framed two years after the election? Many articles give suggestions how other parties can approach the AfD in the Bundestag. Which of these ideas became reality?

These questions partly do not belong to the research field of media frames and frame-building, like this study, but to the research field of recipients frames, which can also explore the framing effects.

Taking Scherer et al.’s (1996) study into account (see chapter 3.3.), further research could explore how much coverage the AfD received after the election compared to the biggest party, smaller coalition partners, and smaller opposition parties.

Scherer et al. (1996) also find differences in the number of quotes per candidate, which could be subject of further research as well. If candidates are quoted more frequently in the media, they get a bigger platform to spread their interpretation for the result than other candidates.

Broader implications of this study for the field of communication and media science are the rethinking of the editorial line and its impact on politics in the media.

To what extend is the editorial line still contemporary? How has it changed over the past decades and what does it mean for the field of media and communication science?

These and more questions demonstrate that this study is only a small contribution on post-election coverage of the AfD after the federal election 2017, but it does

118

show with which frames six leading German newspapers choose to present the election result to its readership, how much alike these frames are, and that the narrative mostly focuses on issues.

Moreover, this study displays how the newspapers condensate, simplify and summarize the main controversies concerning the AfD after the federal election 2017.

This is one of the tasks Missika and Bregman (1987) assign to the media after an election, because this process gives the vote a meaning (p. 306). On top of that, the narrative identified in this study is possibly also the main narrative about the AfD until the next election, as Mendelsohn (1998) suggests accordingly in his post-election coverage study. This study investigates the media as an arena for politics which is the most dominant form voters can experience politics in (Augenstein, 2005, p. 44; Scherer et al., 1996, p. 156).

This study helps painting the picture of the arena the voters experience the election result of the federal election 2017 in – the first time the AfD makes it into the federal parliament and the first time a right-wing populistic party makes it into the

Bundestag since Nazi Germany. Therefore, it is a first contribution to filling the research gap on post-election coverage.

119

References

Aalberg, T., Strömbäck, J., & Vreese, C. H. de (2012). The framing of politics as strategy and game: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 13(2), 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427799 Albrecht, S., Lübcke, M., & Hartig-Perschke, R. (2007). Weblog Campaigning in the German Bundestag Election 2005. Social science computer review, 25(4), 504– 520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439307305628 Alternative für Deutschland (2017a). Mut zu Deutschland. Freie Bürger, keine Unter- tanen. Retrieved from https://www.afd.de/partei/ Alternative für Deutschland. (2017b). Programm für Deutschland: Wahlprogramm der Alternative für Deutschland für die Wahl zum Deutschen Bundestag am 24. September 2017. Retrieved from https://www.afd.de/wp-content/up- loads/sites/111/2017/06/2017-06-01_AfD-Bundestagswahlprogramm_Onlinefas- sung.pdf Alternative für Deutschland (2018, May 30). Alternative für Deutschland hat mehr als 30.000 Mitglieder. Retrieved from https://afdkompakt.de/2018/05/30/alternative- fuer-deutschland-hat-mehr-als-30-000-mitglieder/ Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (2005). Losers' consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Comparative politics. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199276382.001.0001 Andsager, J. L. (2000). How interest groups attempt to shape public opinion with competing news frames. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 577–592. Augenstein, D. (2005). In der Kürze der Zeit: Der Bundestagswahlkampf 2005 unter den Bedingungen der vorgezogenen Neuwahl am Beispiel der SPD-Kampagne (Magisterarbeit). Universität Potsdam, Potsdam. Retrieved from https://www.uni- potsdam.de/u/PolWi_Dittb/tips/arbeiten/augenstein.pdf Bachl, M., & Vögele, C. (2013). Guttenbergs Zeugen? Eine Replikation und Erweite- rung von Hagens (1992) „Die opportunen Zeugen“ anhand der Berichterstattung über Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg im Kontext der Plagiatsaffäre. Medien & Kom- munikationswissenschaft. (3), 345–367. Bebnowski, D. (2015). Die Alternative für Deutschland. Wiesbaden: Springer Fach- medien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-08286-4 Bergmann, K., Diermeier, M., & Niehues, J. (2017). Die AfD: Eine Partei der sich ausgeliefert fühlenden Durchschnittsverdiener? Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, 48(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.5771/0340-1758-2017-1-57 Boese, M.‑K. (2017, October 4). AfD-Aufsteiger an der Abbruchkante. Retrieved from https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/btw17/afd-403.html 120

Brettschneider, F. (2002). Spitzenkandidaten und Wahlerfolg. Personalisierung – Kompetenz– Parteien; ein internationaler Vergleich. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Caiani, M., & Kröll, P. (2017). Nationalism and Populism in Radical Right Discour- ses in Italy and Germany. Javnost - The Public, 24(4), 336–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2017.1330084 Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1996). News Frames, Political Cynicism, and Me- dia Cynicism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Sci- ence, 546(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716296546001007 Cenite, M., Yee, C. S., Juan, H. T., Qin, L. L., & Lin, T. X. (2008). Perpetual development journalism? Balance and framing in the 2006 Singapore election coverage. Asian Journal of Communication, 18(3), 280–295. Retrieved from http://www.cios.org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/getab- sopn/IAG3BGI.ASN@[email protected]@shadow@1@COMP!!FRAM- ING+AND+ELECTION+AND+RESULT Dahinden, U. (2006). Framing. Eine integrative Theorie der Massenkommunikation. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. D'Angelo, P. (2002, December). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 870-888. Der Bundeswahlleiter (2018, June 4). Ergebnisse - Der Bundeswahlleiter. Retrieved from https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/bundestagswahlen/2017/ergebnisse.html Doles, A. (2009). “The Name of the Game”: A Framing Analysis of Media Reporting on the 2007 Kenyan Post-Election Violence (Master Thesis). Ohio University, Ath- ens. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ Donsbach, W. (1987). Journalismusforschung in der Bundesrepublik: Offene Fragen trotz „Forschungsboom“. In J. Wilke (Ed.), Zwischenbilanz der Journalistenausbil- dung (Vol. 1987, pp. 105–142). München: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Dostal, J. M. (2017). The German Federal Election of 2017: How the Wedge Issue of Refugees and Migration Took the Shine off Chancellor Merkel and Transformed the Party System. The Political Quarterly, 88(4), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12445 Eilders, C. (2008). Massenmedien als Produzenten öffentlicher Meinungen – Presse- kommentare als Manifestation der politischen Akteursrolle. In B. Pfetsch & S. Adam (Eds.), Massenmedien als politische Akteure: Konzepte und Analysen (pp. 27–51). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Eilders, C., Neidhardt, F., & Pfetsch, B. (2004). Die Stimme der Medien. Pressekom- mentare und politische Öffentlichkeit in der Bundesrepublik. Wiesbaden: VS Ver- lag für Sozialwissenschaften. Entman, R. M. (1993, December). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

121

Entman, R. M. (2003). Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House's Frame After 9/11. Political Communication, 20(4), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600390244176 Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution of Power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2006.00336.x Entman, R. M., & Herbst, S. (2001). Reframing Public Opinion as We Have Known It. In W. L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated Politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 203–255). New York: Cambridge University Press. Esser, F., & D’Angelo, P. (2016). Framing the Press and Publicity Process in U.S., British, and German General Election Campaigns. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(3), 44–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X06289188 Försterling, F. (2000). Wahlen aus der Perspektive der Attributionstheorie: For- schungsergebnisse, Versuchspläne und Analyseperspektiven. In H. Bohrmann, O. Jarren, G. Melischek, & J. Seethaler (Eds.), Wahlen und Politikvermittlung durch Massenmedien (pp. 91–104). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Försterling, F., & Groeneveld, A. (1983). Ursachenzuschreibungen für ein Wahler- gebnis: Eine Überprüfung von Hypothesen der Attributionstheorie in einer Feldstu- die anhand der niedersächsischen Kommunalwahlen 1981. Zeitschrift für Sozial- psychologie. Fröhlich, R., & Rüdiger, B. (2004). Determinierungsforschung zwischen PR-"Erfolg" und PR-"Einfluss": Zum Potential des Framing-Ansatzes für die Untersuchung der Weiterverarbeitung von Polit-PR durch den Joumalismus. In J. Raupp & J. Klewes (Eds.), Quo vadis Public Relations?: Auf dem Weg zum Kommunikationsmanage- ment: Bestandsaufnahmen und Entwicklungen (pp. 125–141). Wiesbaden: VS Ver- lag für Sozialwissenschaften. Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The Structure of Foreign News: The Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norwegian Newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336500200104 Gamson, W. A. (1989, November). News as framing: Comments on Graber. Ameri- can Behavioral Scientist, 33(2), 157–161. Gensing, P. (2017, November 21). Petry: Blaues Wunder statt "Blaue Wende"? Re- trieved from http://faktenfinder.tagesschau.de/inland/petry-neuwahlen-101.html Gerbner, G. (1985). Mass media discourse: Message system analysis as a component of cultural indicators. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication (pp. 13– 25). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Gerhards, J., Offerhaus, A., & Roose, J. (2005). Die Europäische Union und die massenmediale Attribution von Verantwortung: Projektskizze einer länder-, zeit- und medienvergleichenden Untersuchung, 3. Retrieved from

122

https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/document/11770/1/ssoar-2005-ger- hards_et_al-die_europaische_union_und_die.pdf Gerhards, J., Offerhaus, A., & Roose, J. (2009). Wer ist verantwortlich? Die Europäi- sche Union, ihre Nationalstaaten und die massenmediale Attribution von Verant- wortung für Erfolge und Misserfolge. In F. Marcinkowski & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Po- litische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderheft: 42/2009. Politik in der Mediendemokratie (1st ed., pp. 529–558). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften / GWV Fachverlage GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91728-3_22 Gerrits, L., & Scheller, H. (2016). Die Steuerpläne von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen zur Bundestagswahl 2013 im Spiegel der Printmedien – Framing entlang »redaktionel- ler Linien«? Zeitschrift für Politik, 63(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.5771/0044- 3360-2016-2-135 Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay of the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row. Graber, D. (1980). Mass Media and American Politics. Washington, D.C.: Congres- sional Quarterly Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/2150629 Hagen, L. M. (1992). Die opportunen Zeugen. Konstruktionsmechanismen von Bias in der Zeitungsberichterstattung über die Volkszählungsdiskussion. Publizistik. (37), 444-460. Harden, L. (2002). Rahmen der Orientierung: Eine Längsschnittanalyse von Frames in der Philosophieberichterstattung deutscher Qualitätsmedien. Wiesbaden: Sprin- ger Fachmedien. Häusler, A., & Roeser, R. (2016). Die »Alternative für Deutschland« – eine Antwort auf die rechtspopulistische Lücke? In S. Braun, A. Geisler, & M. Gerster (Eds.), Strategien der extremen Rechten: Hintergründe - Analysen - Antworten (pp. 101– 128). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01984- 6_5 Holtz-Bacha, C. (1996). Massenmedien und Wahlen. In C. Holtz-Bacha & L. L. Kaid (Eds.), Wahlen und Wahlkampf in den Medien: Untersuchungen aus dem Wahljahr 1994 (pp. 9–44). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-87282-1_1 Hopmann, D. N., Vliegenthart, R., Vreese, C. de, & Albæk, E. (2010). Effects of Election News Coverage: How Visibility and Tone Influence Party Choice. Politi- cal Communication, 27(4), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.516798 Im Winkel, N. (2015). Rechts? Links? Liberal? Egal? Gründe für die Entstehung ver- zerrter Medieninhalte und Methoden zur Messung des Bias. Diskussionspapier, Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Fächergruppe Volkswirtschaftslehre (No. 157). Ham- burg. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/114993 Informationsgemeinschaft zur Feststellung der Verbreitung von Werbeträgern e.V. (2019). Quartalsauflagen. Retrieved from http://www.ivw.eu/print/ausweisung

123

Jamieson, K. H. (1992). Dirty politics: deception, distraction, and democracy. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Joffe, J. (2017, September 29). The right is rising and social democracy is dying across Europe – but why? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguard- ian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/29/right-social-democracy-dying-europe-afd-far- right-germany Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225 Kepplinger, H.‑M. (1998). Die Demontage der Politik in der Informationsgesell- schaft. Freiburg: Verlag Karl Alber. Kim, H. (2014). The Role of Emotions and Culture in the Third-Person Effect Process of News Coverage of Election Poll Results. Communication Research, 43(1), 109– 130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214558252 Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2002). The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 143–154. Kohring, M., & Potthoff, M. (2014). Die Berücksichtigung von Kohärenz in der empi- rischen Analyse textueller Frames. In F. Marcinkowski (Ed.), Schriftenreihe politische Kommunikation und demokratische Öffentlichkeit: Vol. 6. Framing als politischer Prozess: Beiträge zum Deutungskampf in der politischen Kommunikation (1st ed., pp. 29–45). Baden-Baden: Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845246024-29 König, M., & König, W. (2013). Politische Partizipation und Integration im Parteien- staat: Viables Parteiframing durch deliberative Governancearenen? In O. Nieder- mayer, B. Höhne, & U. Jun (Eds.), Abkehr von den Parteien? Parteiendemokratie und Bürgerprotest (pp. 205–229). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. König, M., & König, W. (2016). #MythosTwitter: Chancen und Grenzen eines sozialen Mediums. Retrieved from http://www.otto-brenner-shop.de/up- loads/tx_mplightshop/AP24_Twitter_web.pdf Kreutzmann, T. (2017, December 3). AfD-Parteitag: Warum der rechtsnationale Flü- gel so stark ist. Retrieved from http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/afd-parteitag- 195.html Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in Content Analysis. Human Communication Re- search, 30(3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x Lehmann, P., & Matthieß, T. (2017, June). Nation und Tradition. Wie die Alternative für Deutschland nach rechts rückt. WZB Mitteilungen, 156, 21–24. Lengfeld, H. (2017). Die „Alternative für Deutschland“: Eine Partei für Modernisie- rungsverlierer? Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0446-1

124

Lewandowsky, M., Giebler, H., & Wagner, A. (2016). Rechtspopulismus in Deutsch- land. Eine empirische Einordnung der Parteien zur Bundestagswahl 2013 unter be- sonderer Berücksichtigung der AfD. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 57(2), 247– 275. https://doi.org/10.5771/0032-3470-2016-2-247 Matthes, J. (2007). Framing-Effekte: Zum Einfluss der Politikberichterstattung auf die Einstellungen der Rezipienten (1st ed.). Reihe Rezeptionsforschung: Vol. 13. Ba- den-Baden: Verlag Reinhard Fischer. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845214344 Matthes, J. (2009). What's in a Frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the world's leading communication journals, 1990-2005. Journalism & Mass Com- munication Quarterly, 86(2), 349–367. Matthes, J. (2011). Framing Politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426324 Matthes, J. (2014). Framing. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2006). Medieninhalte. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Melischek, G., & Seethaler, J. (2000a). Sieger und Verlierer in der Nachwahlbericht- erstattung der Berliner Tagespresse 1928–1932. In H. Bohrmann, O. Jarren, G. Melischek, & J. Seethaler (Eds.), Wahlen und Politikvermittlung durch Massenme- dien (pp. 121–156). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-89002-3_8 Melischek, G., & Seethaler, J. (2000b). Zerfall der Öffentlichkeit versus Re-Integra- tion: Zu möglichen Folgen des Ausdifferenzierungsprozesses des Mediensystems in der Weimarer Republik. In O. Jarren, K. Imhof, & R. Blum (Eds.), Zerfall der Öffentlichkeit? (pp. 112–134). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-07953-8_8 Mendelsohn, M. (1998). The Construction of Electoral Mandates: Media Coverage of Election Results in Canada. Political Communication, 15(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846098199055 Merkle, S. (2016). Populistische Elemente in der Kommunikation der Alternative für Deutschland. In C. Holtz-Bacha (Ed.), Europawahlkampf 2014 : Internationale Studien zur Rolle der Medien (pp. 129–152). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11020-8_7 Missika, J.‑L., & Bregman, D. (1987). On Framing the Campaign: Mass Media Roles in Negotiating the Meaning of the Vote. European Journal of Communication, 2(3), 289–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323187002003003 Molodikova, I. N., & Lyalina, A. V. (2017). Territorial differences in the attitudes to the migration crisis in Germany: The political aspect. Baltic Region, 9(2), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2017-2-5

125

Neumann, L. (2016). AfD-Frames in der Tagesschau: Identifizierung von Medien- Frames in der Berichterstattung der Tagesschau (Bachelorarbeit). Ostfalia Hoch- schule für angewandte Wissenschaften, Wolfenbüttel. Retrieved from https://opus.ostfalia.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/635 Niedermayer, O. (2014). Der Aufstieg der Alternative für Deutschland. Revue d'Al- lemagne et des Pays de Langue Allemande, 46(1), 231-241. Niedermayer, O. (2015). Eine neue Konkurrentin im Parteiensystem? Die Alternative für Deutschland. In O. Niedermayer (Ed.), Die Parteien nach der Bundestagswahl 2013 (pp. 175–207). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02852-7_8 Pedersen, R. T. (2014). News Media Framing of Negative Campaigning. Mass Com- munication and Society, 17(6), 898–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.858749 Pieper, M., Haußner, S., & Kaeding, M. (2015). Die Vermessung des Euroskeptizis- mus der Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) im Frühjahr 2014. In M. Kaeding & N. Switek (Eds.), Die Europawahl 2014: Spitzenkandidaten, Protestparteien, Nicht- wähler (pp. 149–160). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-05738-1_13 Plehwe, D., & Schlögl, M. (2014). Europäische und zivilgesellschaftliche Hinter- gründe der euro(pa)skeptischen Partei Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). WZB Discussion Paper (No. SP III 2014-501r). Berlin. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/104064 Potterf, J. E. (2014). Framing Fracking: Media Coverage of Unconventional Oil and Gas Development in South Texas (Master Thesis). Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/4263/ Potthoff, M. (2012). Medien-Frames und ihre Entstehung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Rinke, E. M., Wessler, H., Löb, C., & Weinmann, C. (2013). Deliberative Qualities of Generic News Frames: Assessing the Democratic Value of Strategic Game and Contestation Framing in Election Campaign Coverage. Political Communication, 30(3), 474–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737432 Schärdel, J. (2016). „Ein Schelm, wer Böses dabei denkt“. Zeitschrift für Verglei- chende Politikwissenschaft, 10(2), 131–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-016- 0301-1 Schärdel, J. (2017). Vom euroskeptischen Herausforderer zur rechtsextremen Ge- fahr?: Eine Untersuchung der regionalen Berichterstattung über die AfD in neun deutschen Landtagswahlkämpfen. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, 48(1), 76–101. https://doi.org/10.5771/0340-1758-2017-1-76 Schärdel, J., & König, P. (2017). Professors, comedians and billionaires: An empirical analysis of newspaper coverage of new Eurosceptic parties in three 2013 national elections. Comparative European Politics, 15(2), 310–335. https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2015.19

126

Scherer, H., Fröhlich, R., Scheufele, B., Dammert, S., & Thomas, N. (2005). Bundes- wehr, Bündnispolitik und Auslandseinsätze. Die Berichterstattung deutscher Quali- tätszeitungen zur Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik 1989 bis 2000. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft. (2-3), 277–297. Scherer, H., Hagen, L. M., Rieß, M., & Zipfel, T. A. (1996). The Day After. In C. Holtz-Bacha & L. L. Kaid (Eds.), Wahlen und Wahlkampf in den Medien: Untersu- chungen aus dem Wahljahr 1994 (pp. 150–176). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozial- wissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-87282-1_6 Scheufele, B. (2003). Frames – Framing – Framing-Effekte: Theoretische und metho- dische Grundlegung des Framing-Ansatzes sowie empirische Befunde zur Nach- richtenproduktion. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Scheufele, B. (2004). Framing-Effekte auf dem Prüfstand: Eine theoretische, methodi- sche und empirische Auseinandersetzung mit der Wirkungsperspektive des Fra- ming-Ansatzes. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft. (52), 30–55. Scheufele, B. (2011). Effekte von Medien-Framing und Medien-Priming bei Haupt- und Nebenwahlen: Theoretische Ansätze, empirische Befunde und konzeptionelle Überlegungen. In J. Tenscher (Ed.), Superwahljahr 2009 (pp. 269–288). Wiesba- den: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Scheufele, B., & Engelmann, I. (2013). Die publizistische Vermittlung von Werteho- rizonten der Parteien. Normatives Modell und empirische Befunde zum Value-Fra- ming und News Bias der Qualitäts- und Boulevardpresse bei vier Bundestagswah- len. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 61(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2013-4-532 Scheufele, B., & Engelmann, I. (2016). Journalismus und Framing. In M. Löffelholz & L. Rothenberger (Eds.), Handbuch Journalismustheorien (pp. 443–456). Wies- baden: Springer Fachmedien. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communi- cation, 49(1), 103–122. Schmid-Petri, H. (2012). Das Framing von Issues in Medien und Politik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18760-0 Schmitt-Beck, R. (2014). Euro-Kritik, Wirtschaftspessimismus und Einwanderungs- skepsis: Hintergründe des Beinah-Wahlerfolges der Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) bei der Bundestagswahl 2013. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, 45(1), 94– 112. https://doi.org/10.5771/0340-1758-2014-1-94 Schmitt-Beck, R., van Deth, J. W., & Staudt, A. (2017). Die AfD nach der rechtspo- pulistischen Wende. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 27(3), 273–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-017-0104-1 Schmuck, D. (2017). Wahrnehmung und Wirkung fremdenfeindlicher, rechtspopulis- tischer Wahlkampagnen unter Berücksichtigung des Migrationshintergrundes: Eine qualitative Untersuchung. Studies in Communication and Media, 6(1), 6–38. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2017-1-6

127

Schuck, A. R.T., Vliegenthart, R., & Vreese, C. H. de (2014). Who's Afraid of Con- flict?: The Mobilizing Effect of Conflict Framing in Campaign News. British Jour- nal of Political Science, 46(1), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123413000525 Schulz, W. (1997). Politische Kommunikation: Theoretische Ansätze und Ergebnisse empirischer Forschung zur Rolle der Massenmedien in der Politik. Opladen: West- deutscher Verlag. Schulz, W. (2009). Nachricht. In E. Noelle-Neumann & W. Schulz (Eds.), Fischer Le- xikon Publizistik Massenkommunikation (pp. 359–396). Frankfurt am Main: Fi- scher Taschenbuch Verlag. Schulz, W. (2015). Medieneinfluss auf die Wahl. In W. Schulz (Ed.), Medien und Wahlen (pp. 87–120). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00857-4_5 Schulz, W., & Zeh, R. (2005). The changing election coverage of German television: A content analysis: 1990–2002. Communications, 30(4), 71. https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2005.30.4.385 Schulz, W., Zeh, R., & Quiring, O. (2005). Voters in a Changing Media Environment: A Data-Based Retrospective on Consequences of Media Change in Germany. Eu- ropean Journal of Communication, 20(1), 55–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323105047670 Semetko, H. A., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2007). Reporting Germany's 2005 Bundes- tag Election Campaign: Was Gender an Issue? Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(4), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X07307383 Shikano, S. (2002). Die soziale Konstruktion politischer Wirklichkeit: Zur kollektiven Deutung der Bundestagswahl 1998 durch Medien und Bürger. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag. Retrieved from https://books.google.de/books?id=IpSPKe_5tVAC Singh, S. P. (2014). Not all election winners are equal: Satisfaction with democracy and the nature of the vote. European Journal of Political Research, 53(2), 308– 327. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12028 Sisco, T., & Lucas, J. (2014). “Flawed Vessels”. Feminist Media Studies, 15(3), 492– 507. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2014.947521 Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research. (1), 197–217. Söllner, F. (2017). »It’s the Economy, Stupid!«: Bemerkungen zum Abschneiden der AfD bei der Bundestagswahl 2017. ifo Schnelldienst, 70(22), 21–24. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/175127/1/ifosd-v70-2017-i22-p21- 24.pdf Spier, T. (2017). Die Wahl von Rechtsaußenparteien in Deutschland. In F. Virchow, M. Langebach, & A. Häusler (Eds.), Handbuch Rechtsextremismus (pp. 257–284). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19085-3_10

128

Staab, J. F. (1990). Nachrichtenwert-Theorie: Formale Struktur und empirischer Ge- halt. Alber-Broschur Kommunikation: Vol. 17. Freiburg/München: Karl Alber. Stiehler, H.‑J. (2000). „Nach der Wahl ist vor der Wahl“: Interpretationen als Gegen- stand der Medienforschung. In H. Bohrmann, O. Jarren, G. Melischek, & J. See- thaler (Eds.), Wahlen und Politikvermittlung durch Massenmedien (pp. 105–120). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 322-89002-3_7 Stiehler, H.‑J., & Marr, M. (1996). “Totgesagte leben länger”. In C. Holtz-Bacha & L. L. Kaid (Eds.), Wahlen und Wahlkampf in den Medien: Untersuchungen aus dem Wahljahr 1994 (pp. 119–149). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-87282-1_5 Strömbäck, J., & Dimitrova, D. V. (2016). Political and Media Systems Matter. Har- vard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(4), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X06293549 Strömbäck, J., Negrine, R., Hopmann, D. N., Maier, M., Jalali, C., Berganza, R., . . . Dobek-Ostrowska, B. (2011). The mediatization and framing of European parliamentary election campaigns. Political communication in European parliamentary elections, 161–174. Strömbäck, J., & Shehata, A. (2007). Structural biases in British and Swedish election news coverage. Journalism Studies, 8(5), 798–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700701504773 Tartar, A. (2017). How the Populist Right Is Redrawing the Map of Europe. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-europe-populist-right/ Tennert, F. (2006). Die Stunde der Verlierer: Attributionsprozesse zum Ergebnis der Bundestagswahl 2002 in den Medien und beim Publikum (Dissertation zur Erlan- gung des akademischen Grades doctor philosophiae). Hochschule für Film und Fernsehen „Konrad Wolf“, Potsdam-Babelsberg. Retrieved from https://d- nb.info/981105130/34 Tennert, F., & Stiehler, H.‑J. (2001). Interpretationsgefechte: Ursachenzuschreibun- gen an Wahlabenden im Fernsehen. Media-Studien: Leipziger Univ.-Verl. Tort, M. N. G., Guenther, L., & Ruhrmann, G. (2016). Von kriminell bis willkom- men: Wie die Herkunft über das mediale Framing von Einwanderern entscheidet. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 64(4), 497–517. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2016-4-497 Virchow, F. (2017). Entgrenzung und Ordnung. Entstehung und Artikulation einer völkisch-nationalistischen Massenbewegung in Deutschland. Neue Kriminalpolitik, 29(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.5771/0934-9200-2017-1-36 Vreese, C. H. de, Banducci, S. A., Semetko, H. A., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2016). The News Coverage of the 2004 European Parliamentary Election Campaign in 25 Countries. European Union Politics, 7(4), 477–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116506069440

129

Weber, H. (2015). Mehr Zuwanderer, mehr Fremdenangst?: Ein Überblick über den Forschungsstand und ein Erklärungsversuch aktueller Entwicklungen in Deutsch- land. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 25(4), 397–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11609-016-0300-8 Wen, W.‑C. (2014). Facebook political communication in Taiwan: 1.0/2.0 messages and election/post-election messages. Chinese Journal of Communication, 7(1), 19– 39. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2013.816754 Wied, K. (2007). Der Wahlabend im deutschen Fernsehen: Wandel und Stabilität der Wahlberichterstattung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften / GWV Fachverlage GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90514-3 Wilke, J., & Reinemann, C. (2000). Kanzlerkandidaten in der Wahlkampfberichter- stattung: Eine vergleichende Studie zu den Bundestagswahlen 1949-1998. Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau-Verlag GmbH. Zeh, J. (1992). Parteien und Politiker in der Wahlberichterstattung europäischer Ta- geszeitungen. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern u.a.: Peter Lang. Retrieved from http://d-nb.info/920996736/04

130

Appendix A: List of Abbreviations

Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists AECR

Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany) AfD

Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschland CDU

Christlich Soziale Union Deutschland CSU die tageszeitung taz

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung FAZ

Freie Demokratische Partei (Free Democratic Party) FDP

Frankfurter Rundschau FR German Democratic Republic GDR sample size n

Neues Deutschland ND average M

Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (Party of Democratic PDS

Socialism)

Standard Deviation SD

Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland SPD

Süddeutsche Zeitung SZ

131

Appendix B: List of Sample Material with Numbering

Con- Article secutive number [NUM] 001 Der Rechts-Rumms! (2017, September 25). Bild Leipzig, p. 1 002 Kain, F. (2017, September 25). „WIR WERDEN MERKEL JA- GEN!“ Bild Leipzig, p. 3. 003 Blome, N. (2017, September 25). So geht BILD mit der AfD um. Bild Leipzig, p. 3. 004 Kain, F. (2017, September 25). Diese AfD-Leute sitzen jetzt im Bundestag. Bild Leipzig, p. 3. 005 Maschinen machen Stimmung für die AfD. (2017, September 25). Bild Leipzig, p. 3. 006 Blome, N. (2017, September 26). Wie viel Merkel steckt im Er- folg der AfD? Bild Leipzig, p. 2. 007 Kain, F. (2017, September 26). Spaltet Petry jetzt die AfD? Bild Leipzig, p. 3. 008 Schuler, R. (2017, September 26). Wie es die etablierten Par- teien der AfD leicht machen. Bild Leipzig, p. 3. 009 Trümper, E. (2017, September 26). „In ihrem Wahlkreis hätte auch ein blau angestrichener Besen gewonnen”. Bild Leipzig, p. 3. 010 Kain, F. (2017, September 26). Der Petry-Putsch. Bild Leipzig, p. 1. 011 Piatov, F., & Biskup, D. (2017, September 26). 47,4 Prozent. Bild Leipzig, p. 5. 012 Reichelt, J. (2017, September 26). Hört den Menschen zu! Bild Leipzig, p. 4. 013 Darum sind Ost-Männer so wütend. (2017, September 27). Bild Leipzig, p. 1. 014 Wais, J. (2017, September 27). Wie die AfD Facebook und Google im Wahlkampf nutzte. Bild Leipzig, p. 2. 015 Kain, F. (2017, September 27). Kommt jetzt die PPPP*? Bild Leipzig, p. 3. 016 Krüger, L., & Schuler, R. (2017, September 27). Warum sind die Ost-Männer so wütend? Bild Leipzig, p. 3. 017 Bandowski, P., Walther T., & Inan-Serttas, P. (2017, September 27). Der AfD-Graben vor der Tür. Bild Leipzig, p. 3. 018 AfD-Petry sichert sich Internet-Domain „Die Blauen”. (2017, September 28). Bild Leipzig, p. 2. 019 Müller, R. (2017, September 25). Tabubrecher AfD. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 1. 020 Wehner, M. (2017, September 25). Die Jagd ist eröffnet. Frank- furter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 3.

132

021 Bender, J., & Wehner, M. (2017, September 26). Träume von der Macht. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 2. 022 Locke, S. (2017, September 26). Das macht uns Angst. Frank- furter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 2. 023 Bender, J. (2017, September 26). „Ich würde Petry empfehlen, die Partei zu verlassen”. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 2. 024 Deckers, D. (2017, September 26). In einem tief gespaltenen Land. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 10. 025 Kleie, S. (2017, September 26). Wir, die Abgehängten? Frank- furter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 19. 026 Hanfeld, M. (2017, September 26). Deutschland ist schwarz. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 21. 027 Roßbach, H., & Creutzberg, D. (2017, September 26). Wirt- schaft fürchtet Abschottungstendenzen. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 23. 028 Steltzner, H. (2017, September 26). Union auf Schrumpfkurs. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 23. 029 Müller, R. (2017, September 26). Die gespaltene Rechte. Frank- furter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 1. 030 Von Altenbockum, J. (2017, September 27). Die Aussätzigen. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 1. 031 Steinmeier fordert Respekt für politische Gegner. (2017, Sep- tember 27). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 1. 032 Burger, R. (2017, September 27). Die Achse des Rücktritts. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 2. 033 Wehner, M. (2017, September 27). Die Geister, die Gauland rief. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 2. 034 Locke, S. (2017, September 27). Adieu, Heimat-Partei. Frank- furter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 3. 035 Deutsche Normalität und größtmögliche Distanz. (2017, Sep- tember 27). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 4. 036 Brankovic, M. (2017, September 27). AfD-Wähler sorgen sich nicht nur vor Zuwanderung. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 17. 037 Bender, J., & Wehner, M. (2017, September 28). Heiter bis glücklich. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 2. 038 Von Altenbockum, J. (2017, September 29). Lackmustest Ein- wanderung. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 1. 039 Locke, S. (2017, September 29). Ratlos in Pirna. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 2. 040 Wehner, M. (2017, September 29). AfD will Glaser als Vizeprä- sidenten des Bundestags. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 2. 041 Lübberding, F. (2017, September 28). Journalisten sind schuld! Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 13. 042 Lasch, H. (2017, September 26). CDU in Sachsen Zweiter. Neues Deutschland, p. 3.

133

043 Meyer, R. (2017, September 26). Petry macht den Abgang. Neues Deutschland, p. 3. 044 Proteste. (2017, September 26). Neues Deutschland, p. 3. 045 Strohschneider, T. (2017, September 26). Die sich vernachläs- sigt fühlen. Neues Deutschland, p. 4. 046 Oertel, G. (2017, September 26). >>Ohne Wenn und Aber<<. Neues Deutschland, p. 4. 047 Bähr, S. (2017, September 26). Proteste gegen AfD-Wahlparty. Neues Deutschland, p. 11. 048 Blum, T. (2017, September 26). Wir sind ein blödes Volk. Neues Deutschland, p. 15. 049 Amendt, J. (2017, September 26). Wir sind empathielos. Neues Deutschland, p. 15. 050 Evangelischer Pressedienst & Neues Deutschland. (2017, Sep- tember 26). Kritik an Medienschelte. Neues Deutschland, p. 17. 051 Evangelischer Pressedienst & Neues Deutschland. (2017, Sep- tember 27). Petry und Pretzell verlassen die AfD. Neues Deutsch- land, p. 1. 052 Meyer, R. (2017, September 27). Einig auch in der Spaltung. Neues Deutschland, p. 5. 053 Agence France-Presse & Neues Deutschland. (2017, September 28). AfD-Abtrünnige sondieren Neuanfang. Neues Deutschland, p. 7. 054 >>Verfehlte Flüchtlingspolitik<< der LINKEN. (2017, Septem- ber 27). Neues Deutschland, p. 7. 055 Deutsche Presse-Agentur & Neues Deutschland. (2017, Septem- ber 28). Kultur und >>rechtes Gift<<. Neues Deutschland, p. 13. 056 Deutsche Presse-Agentur & Neues Deutschland. (2017, Septem- ber 28). Simons: Auf AfD-Wähler zugehen. Neues Deutschland, p. 15. 057 Deutsche Presse-Agentur & Neues Deutschland. (2017, Septem- ber 29). Sprecher der Nordost-AfD kündigt Parteiaustritt an. Neues Deutschland, p. 12. 058 Lasch, H. (2017, September 30). Ohne Zug und Zeitung. Neues Deutschland, p. 4. 059 Amendt, J. (2017, September 30). Wo Oskar Lafontaine irrt. Neues Deutschland, p. 10. 060 Meyer, R. (2017, September 30). Strategisch verkalkuliert. Neues Deutschland, p. 20. 061 Risse im Land. (2017, September 30). Neues Deutschland, p. 1. 062 Schneider, J. (2017, September 25). Lohn der Wut. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 2. 063 Pittelkow, S., Riedel, K., & Schneider, J. (2017, September 26). Und ab. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 5.

134

064 Von Bullion, C. (2017, September 26). Rassismus bekämpfen, Wähler umwerben. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 5. 065 Beck, S. (2017, September 26). Wenn sich Ärger entlädt. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 11. 066 Beck, S. (2017, September 26). 100 Prozent unzufrieden. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 13. 067 Beck, S. (2017, September 26). Neu im Bundestag. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 13. 068 Steinke, R. (2017, September 26). Die Lehre aus 2016. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 13. 069 Riedel, K., & Pittelkow, S. (2017, September 26). Unsteuerbar und unberechenbar. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 13. 070 Beisel, K. M., Denk, D., & Föderl-Schmid, A. (2017, September 26). Die kritische Masse. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 27. 071 Piper, N. (2017, September 26). Verlässlichkeit zählt. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 29. 072 Burghardt, P., & Schneider, J. (2017, September 26). Frauke Petry spaltet die AfD. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 1. 073 Peters, B., & Jannasch, S. (2017, September 26). Neue Macht. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 5. 074 Agence France- Press & Süddeutsche Zeitung. (2017, Septem- ber 26). Dreifarbige Republik. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 5. 075 Häntzschel, J. (2017, September 27). Kurswechsel nicht in Sicht. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 9. 076 Nur das nicht. (2017, September 27). Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 9. 077 Bisky, J. (2017, September 27). Schweigen und Gebrüll sind Geschwister. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 9. 078 Schneider, J. (2017, September 27). Petry und Pretzell verlassen die AfD. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 1. 079 Rietzschel, A., & Schneider, J. (2017, September 28). „Die hat uns allen was vorgemacht“. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 6. 080 Osel, J. (2017, September 28). Katerstimmung. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 32. 081 Ash, T. G. (2017, September 29). Aus Mangel an Respekt. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 2. 082 Münch, P., & Theile, C. (2017, September 29). Vorsicht, Vor- bild. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 7. 083 Richter, P. (2017, September 30). Wahlverwandtschaften. Süd- deutsche Zeitung, p. 3. 084 Pittelkow, S., Riedel, K., & Schneider, J. (2017, September 30). Ins Leere. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 7. 085 Preuss, R. (2017, September 30). Integriert und vergessen. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 7. 086 Neukam, A. (2017, September 30). AfD und Medien in Zahlen. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 42.

135

087 Käppner, J. (2017, September 30). Der kühle Blick. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 45. 088 Kamann, M. (2017, September 25). Lohn der Angstkampagne. Die Welt, p. 4. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 089 Kamann, M. (2017, September 25). Der Zug der AfD in die Par- lamente. Die Welt, p. 4. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 090 Vitzthurn, T., & Issig, P. (2017, September 25). Die CSU blickt nach rechts - und scheitert dramatisch. Die Welt, p. 2. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 091 Gaertner, C., & Sturm, D. F. (2017, September 25). Union ver- liert stark, SPD auf Rekordtief, AfD dritte Kraft. Die Welt, p. 1. Re- trieved from www.nexis.com. 092 Zschäpitz, H. (2017, September 26). Börse reagiert ruhig auf die Ideen der Neuen. Die Welt, p. 15. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 093 Gersemann, O. (2017, September 26). Sind AfD-Wähler gar nicht wirtschaftlich abgehängt? Die Welt, p. 11. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 094 Yaron, G. (2017, September 26). Israel ist beunruhigt. Die Welt, p. 8. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 095 Kálnoky, B., & Schmidt, H. (2017, September 26). Ein Wahler- gebnis, das nur für die Osteuropäer ideal ist. Die Welt, p. 8. Re- trieved from www.nexis.com. 096 Sieger und Verlierer in den Wahlkreisen. (2017, September 26). Die Welt, p. 4. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 097 Kamann, M. (2017, September 26). Frauke Petrys spektakulärer Coup. Die Welt, p. 2. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 098 Krauel, T. (2017, September 26). Die Republik sortiert sich. Die Welt, p. 1. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 099 Baur, D. (2017, September 25). Rechts der CSU gibt’s doch was. die tageszeitung, p. 7. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 100 Heimbach, T. (2017, September 26). So radikal wird die Frak- tion der AfD im Bundestag. Die Welt, p. 2. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 101 Böhmer, D. (2017, September 27). Israels Botschafter beunruhigt wegen Wahlerfolg der AfD. Die Welt, p. 6. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 102 Kamann, M. (2017, September 27). Die Zahl der freiwilligen Ausreisen steigt - bei der AfD. Die Welt, p. 1. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 103 Andre, F., & Eckert, D. (2017, September 27). Die Zahl der freiwilligen Ausreisen steigt - bei der AfD. Die Welt, p. 4. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 104 Spoerr, K. (2017, September 27). Immer auf den Osten. Die Welt, p. 3. Retrieved from www.nexis.com.

136

105 Gauland und Weidel führen Fraktion. (2017, September 27). Die Welt, p. 1. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 106 Geiger, K. (2017, September 28). Die weibliche Seite der Rechtsnationalisten. Die Welt, p. 8. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 107 Heimbach, T. (2017, September 28). Abgeordnete genießen politische Immunität - bis zu einem gewissen Punkt. Die Welt, p. 4. Re- trieved from www.nexis.com. 108 Herzinger, R. (2017, September 28). Was soll das Merkel- Bashing? Die Welt, p. 3. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 109 Heimbach, T. (2017, September 29). Wohin mit den Neuen? Die Welt, p. 4. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 110 Hinrichs, P. (2017, September 29). Die Wut im Westen. Die Welt, p. 2. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 111 Graw, A. (2017, September 29). "Meine Politik ist das beste Re- zept gegen die AfD". Die Welt, p. 4. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 112 Ehrenstein, C. (2017, September 30). "Die Angst, wieder alles zu verlieren". Die Welt, p. 6. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 113 Kamann, M. (2017, September 30). Petrys Fans werden umsorgt - und gejagt. Die Welt, p. 6. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 114 Krauel, T. (2017, September 30). Seehofers Grenzen. Die Welt, p. 3. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 115 Beucker, P. (2017, September 25). Die AfD ist die große Wahl- gewinnerin. die tageszeitung, p. 2. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 116 Brumlik, M. (2017, September 25). Die Erben des Rassismus. die tageszeitung, p. 6. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 117 Garaev, P. (2017, September 25). Im AfD-Dilemma. die tageszeitung, p. 6. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 118 Am Orde, S. (2017, September 25). Chefin ohne Macht. die tageszeitung, p. 4. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 119 Deutsche Presse-Agentur & die tageszeitung. (2017, September 25). Pfiffe vor AfD-Wahlparty. die tageszeitung, p. 7. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 120 Deutsche Presse-Agentur. (2017, September 25). Neonazis im Bundestag. die tageszeitung, p. 7. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 121 Am Orde, S. (2017, September 25). Die Fraktion rechts außen. die tageszeitung, p. 4. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 122 Schulz, B., Klöpper, A., Wierth, A., Rada, U., Peter, E., & Adam, T. (2017, September 25). Die AfD mobilisiert. die tageszeitung, p. 21. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 123 Lehmann, A. (2017, September 26). Sehnsucht nach dem Osten. die tageszeitung, p. 7. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 124 Schulte, U., & Stieber, B. (2017, September 26). Sehnsucht nach dem Osten. die tageszeitung, p. 4. Retrieved from www.nexis.com.

137

125 Am Orde, S., Litschko, K. (2017, September 26). Der gärige Haufen. die tageszeitung, p. 8. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 126 Lang-Lendorff, A. (2017, September 26). Politische Kleinstaate- rei. die tageszeitung, p. 23. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 127 Unterm Strich. (2017, September 26). die tageszeitung, p. 16. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 128 Demo gegen rechts. (2017, September 26). die tageszeitung, p. 29. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 129 Zier, J., Joswig, G., Hemesath, P., & Schirrmeister, B. (2017, September 26). Von Bremen nach Berlin. die tageszeitung, p. 29. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 130 Veit, S.-M. (2017, September 26). Gutes von Rechtsaußen. die tageszeitung, p. 25. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 131 Joffrin, L. (2017, September 26). Die Welle des Nationalismus bricht sich immer weiter. die tageszeitung, p. 5. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 132 Kein Platz für Rassisten. (2017, September 30). die tageszeitung, p. 38 Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 133 Rivuzumwami, M. (2017, September 26). Die sächsische Union wird abgestraft. die tageszeitung, p. 8. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 134 Klöpper, A. (2017, September 26). Zwischenfall mit AfD-Auto. die tageszeitung, p. 23. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 135 Gerlach, T. (2017, September 26). Herr Gewiese und das Volk. die tageszeitung, p. 3. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 136 Morasch, V., & Daum, P. (2017, September 30). A Woahnsinn. die tageszeitung, p. 20. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 137 Veit, S.-M. (2017, September 27). Enttäuschte ins Parlament. die tageszeitung, p. 29. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 138 Plarre, P. (2017, September 27). Aber man muss da ergebnisof- fen rangehen. die tageszeitung, p. 22. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 139 Bonse, E. (2017, September 27). Sorge um flügellahmen deutschen Bundesadler. die tageszeitung, p. 2. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 140 Am Orde, S. (2017, September 27). Petry und Pretzell wollen die AfD verlassen. die tageszeitung, p. 3. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 141 Speit, A. (2017, September 27). AfD im Krieg gegen das Sys- tem. die tageszeitung, p. 26. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 142 Das Kind beim Namen nennen. (2017, September 27). die tageszeitung, p. 30. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 143 Mitzkat, N. (2017, September 29). Wider die Schwellenangst. die tageszeitung, p. 25. Retrieved from www.nexis.com.

138

144 Speit, A. (2017, September 28). Getäuschte Wähler. die tageszeitung, p. 42. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 145 Joswig, G. (2017, September 28). Rechter Ballast. die tageszeitung, p. 45. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 146 Am Orde, S. (2017, September 28). Erste Klatsche in der Frak- tion für Gauland und Weidel. die tageszeitung, p. 6. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 147 Bartsch, M. (2017, September 29). Verliebt in die Angst. die tageszeitung, p. 5. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 148 Messmer, S. (2017, September 29). Krach, oben und unten. die tageszeitung, p. 21. Retrieved from www.nexis.com. 149 Deutsche Presse-Agentur. (2017, September 29). AfD-Mann at- tackiert. die tageszeitung, p. 29. Retrieved from www.nexis.com.

139

Appendix C: Overview of Variables and Labels

Name of Variable Label of Variable NUM Number of article COD Number of coder PAP Newspaper DAT Date PLACE Placement RES Resort/Section DIM Length STYL Style ILLU Illustration ILLU_SUB Subject of illustratin SUB Main subject of the article SEC_SUB Secondary subject of article PROT Protest ATT_1 Attribute 1 ATT_2 Attribute 2 ACT_ACTOR_1 Active Actor 1 ACT_ACTOR_2 Active Actor 2 PAS_ACTOR_1 Passive Actor 1 PAS_ACTOR_2 Passive Actor 2 WIN Winner or Loser evaluation BEN Benefits of the election result DIS Disadvantages of the election result REAS Reason for the election result ACT Recommendation for action SOL Solutions CALL Call to action BAL Neutrality TEN_AfD Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD TEN_EL Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD BIAS Overall tendency of the article NEG Negativity POLL Opinions polls OUT Outcomes LOS Winning or losing LANG Language STRAT Strategies and tactics MOT Motives CAMP Campaign style for performance ROLE Media’s role DOM Dominant framing KPAP Conservative/right-wing newspapers 140

TENAfDum TEN AfD umcodiert TENELum TEN EL umcodiert BIAS_um BIAS umcodiert SCANEG Negativität TENAfD, TEN EL, BIAS GAM Game frame STRT Strategic frame FRAME Frame

141

Appendix D: Codebook

1. Introduction

This study investigates the presentation of the AfD in German daily newspapers after the federal election in Germany in 2017. This content analysis includes articles that report about the AfD after the election. It includes six national German daily newspapers. Relevant is only the journalistic content that is not opinionated. There- fore, forms like commentaries are excluded. Also excluded are letters to the editors, quizzes, horoscopes, counterstatements, lotteries, tests, jokes, cartoons and carica- tures. The articles are already selected. In this step the coder investigates the following aspects of the chosen articles: headline, sub headline, introduction, and the article itself. All categories in the codebook will be coded. Moreover, the illustration of the whole text will be coded. Terms relevant to the categories are explained in the description of the categories.

2. Sampling units

Six national German daily newspapers are coded:

BILD Die Welt Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) tageszeitung (taz) Neues Deutschland (ND)

The units that must be coded are provided. The investigation timeframe is 25.09.2017-30.09.2017.

142

3. Units of analysis

All articles of a newspapers that show relevant characteristics for the content analysis will be coded. Relevant are the AfD and its election result as a subject.

The coding includes the following elements: headline, sub headline, introduction, and the article itself. The coding is digital.

An article is: - at least three lines long - all sequels on the following page Articles that include page references and the referenced article itself will be coded separately. The encoding unit is the article.

4. Coding information

All relevant articles in one of the newspapers mentioned above will receive a chronological number. This consecutive number (category [NUM]) also must be noted in the provided document “List of sample material with numbering”. This is done as follows:

[NUM] Author(s) (Year, Day, Month). Title of the article. Title of the newspaper, pages.

The coding is done in three steps: 1. Reading of the entire article. 2. Coding of the formal categories. The categories refer to the whole article. 3. Coding of the content categories. The categories refer to the whole article.

Generally, it is important that the coding is text immanent. That means the coding decision is made only with the information that is available in the analysis unit. Some

143

categories also include German information to make it easier to code text-immanent because the articles are in German. Some categories have broader categories that have the code 100, 200, 300 and so on. If this is the case, you should first look for the fitting broader category. Then check the sub-categories to specify your finding. If none of the sub-categories fit, code the general category (100, 200, 300…). If none of the broader categories fit either, choose 999. If you are not sure which category to choose because the text cannot clearly be attributed to a code, code 888. If the relevant category does not apply or exist in the text, code 000. The order of the categories is not expressing any priority of events or actors. The coding is noted in the provided SPSS coding sheet.

For a better overview, all formal and content categories, as well as included lists and tables, can be found in the automated navigation window of word.

5. System of categories

5.1 Formal categories

Number of article [NUM] Each article receives an ongoing three-digit number. The first article is number 001, the hundredth article number 100.

NNN Number of article

Number of Coder [COD] Each coder receives a two-digit number:

01 Lara

Newspaper [PAP] This variable codes the newspaper that is analyzed: 144

01 BILD 02 Die Welt 03 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 04 Süddeutsche Zeitung 05 tageszeitung 06 Neues Deutschland

Date [DAT] The date of the newspaper is coded, following the scheme Year – Month – Day: YYMMDD. For example, 25.09.2017 → 170925

YYMMDD Date

Placement [PLACE] This category codes the page the article was placed on within the newspapers. This is coded in two digits, hence page 2 will be code das 02, page 16 as 16. If the article continues on the following page or another page, then the page the article starts on is coded. If the page cannot be identified, 88 is coded.

N page 88 page unknown

Ressort/section [RES] This category is also coded in two digits. The section/rubric the article is published in can be identified by the columns that are mentioned in the big headline of each page. The table shows the different sections. The sections include the columns. This way it is easy to identify the right section and its code. Since German newspapers are coded and the sections and columns are titled in German, the table is in German, too. If no section can be identified, 88 is coded. The codes can be found in table 1. 145

Table 1 Co Bild Wel FAZ SZ taz ND de t 01 Politik/Aktuelles/Gesellschaft Titelsei Foru Politik, Politik, Seite 1, Titel- te, Macht m, Die Gegen- Nachrichten, Politik, seite, Politik, und Politik, wart, Zeit- Thema des Schwer- Gesellschaft, Meinung, Titel, geschehen, Tages, Die punkt, Aktu- Die Woche Zippert Politische Seite Drei, elles, Inland, Zappt, Bücher Dokumenta- Gesellschaft, tion Hintergrund, Ausland 02 Sonderseiten zur Wahl Bun- Wahl Bundes- Nach destags- 2017 tagswahl der Wahl wahl 2017 2017 03 Wirtschaft Wirt Wirt- Wirtsch Wirtsc schaft, schaft, Un- aft, Börse haft und Menschen ternehmen, und Finan- Umwelt und Betrieb und zen Märkte, Praxis im Finanzen, Überblick, Börse, In- Finanz- vestment- markt, fonds, Recht und Manage- Steuern, ment und Börse, Karriere Branchen und Märkte, Netzwirt- schaft, Men- schen und Wirtschaft, Europraxis, Wirtschafts- bücher 04 Kultur/Feuilleton Kult Feuil- Feuille- Kultur Feuillet ur, leton, Kino, ton, Litera- und Unter- on, Feuilleton Jugend tur, Kinder- haltung, schreibt, und Jugend- Gesell- Neue sachbuch, schaft, Kul- Sachbücher, Münchner tur, Gesell- Kunstmarkt, Kultur, Zei- schaft und Literaturbei- tung in der Kultur, lage, Schall- Schule Flimmern platten/ und Rau- Phono, Bil- schen der und Zei- ten 05 Lokales/Regionales

146

Leip- - Ber- Bayern, Berlin, Aus zig und liner Seiten München, Berlin Aktu- den Sachsen Münchner ell, Ham- Ländern, Szenario burg Aktu- Berlin ell, Bremen Aktuell, Nord Aktu- ell, Berliner Thema, Neuland 06 Buntes/Lifestyle Aus Deutsc Pano- - aller Welt hland und rama, Ser- die Welt vice, Letzte Seite 07 Spezielles Wis- Natur Wissen, Wissen sen und Wissen- Immobilien, und Bil- schaft/ Geis- Mietmarkt, dung, Öko, teswissen- Reise, Beruf Die Wahr- schaften, und Karriere, heit Technik und Jugend und Motor, Mo- Umwelt, tormarkt, Beilage Reiseblatt, Immobilien- markt, Be- ruf und Chance, Ju- gend und Umwelt, Sonderbei- lagen 08 Medien - Me- Me- Medien dien, Me- dien, Das dien und Programm Marketing, Internet und Telekom- munikation im Über- blick 09 Meinung - Mein- Mein- Mein- ung, Forum, ung und ung Leserbriefe Diskussion 10 Sport Sport Sport 99 Sonstiges

88 nicht eindeutig zuzuordnen (not clearly attributable)

147

Length [DIM] This category codes the length of the article. All words of the entire article are counted, including headline, subheadline, location, author and illustration titles.

Names of persons and titles of organizations etc. are counted with all words seperately

(e.g. “Beatrix von Storch“ = 3 words). To count words of an article that is available digitally, this tool (“words”) can be used: http://www.zeichenzähler.de/.

If the article is only available as a print version, the number of words is estimated: Please calculate the average of words per row by counting the words in 5 rows and dividing that number by five. Then count the total number of rows and multiply this with the calculated average number of words per row.

Example: If the article includes 153 words, the number 153 is noted.

N number of words

Style [STYL] Considering the headline, subheadline, introduction and the text itself, this category describes the style of the article. This differentiates informing pieces from opinated pieces. Characteristics of each style can be seen in the description of the codes.

Informing 01 short report/news – information pieces, one column, very short, max. 5 lines. 02 report/lead story – several columns, can be interpreting, longer newsreport 03 background report - considerably interpreting 148

04 documentation – statements, opinions, expert report, press reviews/commentaries 05 interview – conversation with or statements by a dialogue partner 06 reportage – personal experience report 07 portrait – presentation of a person/institution/location 08 guidebook article - e.g. „Aktuelles Lexikon“, answers to concrete question selections

88 not clearly attributable 99 other style

Illustration [ILLU] Coded is the form of illustration of the entire text. This means that not all illustrations on the page are relevant, but the illustrations that are printed in combination with the investigated article. In case of a general illustration for the entire page that does not specifically refer to the investigated article, e.g. by referencing it with a caption, this illustration is not coded. Only the illustration that is used specifically for the examined article is relevant. If several illustrations of the same type are used for the article, the code 08 applies. If several illustrations of different types (a combination) are used, the code 09 applies. If no clear attribution is possible (e.g. if an original copy of the article is not available, but only a transcript), the transcript is treated as the original and is coded according to the illustrations or description of illustrations in the transcript.

00 no illustration 01 photo 02 drawing/sketch 03 caricature/cartoon 04 diagram/statistic/graphics 05 map 06 logo/emblem 149

07 print of documents (e.g. expert reports) 08 several illustrations of the same type 09 combination of different illustrations

88 not clearly attributable 99 other illustration

5.2. Content categories

Subject of the illustration [ILLU_SUB]

This category describes the subject of the illustration, if an illustration is used. This will show whether the illustration shows campaign billboards, certain politicians, the election party, protests or other things to support the article. If there are several different subjects, please choose the subject of the most prominent illustration, e.g. the biggest, most colorful or most central illustration.

00 No illustration 01 Celebrating AfD: The illustration portraits happy members of the AfD (e.g. Alexander Gauland, Alice Weidel, Breatrix von Storch, Frauke Petry, Matthias Manthei, Björn Höcke), for example how they celebrate on the election party. The overall atmosphere on the illustration is positive and happy. This can include gestures like smiles, laughs, lifted hands… 02 AfD: The illustration portraits members of the AfD but the atmosphere of the illustration is neutral. Neither very positive nor negative emotions are in the focus of the illustration. 03 Defeated AfD: The illustration portraits members of the AfD that do not seem pleased, or even sad, angry, disappointed. The overall atmosphere of the illustration is negative and unhappy.

150

04 Celebrating Public: The illustration portraits members of the public, citizens, voters that celebrate and are happy, e.g. on a party. The overall atmosphere on the illustration is positive and happy. 05 Public: The illustration portraits members of the public but the atmosphere of the illustration is neutral. Neither very positive nor negative emotions are in the focus of the illustration. 06 Disappointed/sad/angry public: The illustration portraits members of the public, citizens, voters that are not happy, or seem disappointed, sad or angry, for example on a protest or a demonstration. The overall atmosphere of the illustration is negative and unhappy. 07 Celebrating members of other parties: The illustration portraits members of other parties (CDU/CSU, FDP, Die Linke, SPD, Bündnis90/Die Grünen) that celebrate and are happy, e.g. on an election party. The overall atmosphere on the illustration is positive and happy. 08 Member of other parties: The illustration portraits members of other parties but the atmosphere of the illustration is neutral. Neither very positive nor negative emotions are in the focus of the illustration. 09 Disappointed/sad/angry members of other parties: The illustration portraits members of other parties (CDU/CSU, FDP, Die Linke, SPD, Bündnis90/Die Grünen) that do not seem pleased, or even sad, angry, disappointed. The overall atmosphere on the illustration is negative, e.g. sad, angry or disappointed looks on the faces. 10 Election campaign of the AfD/billboard 11 Visualization of facts, e.g. diagrams of the numbers of the election or a timeline

88 not clearly attributable 99 Other subject

151

Main subject of the article [SUB]

The main subject is often already mentioned in the headline and usually accounts for the most space in the article. Without the main subject the article would exist out of unconnected secondary themes. Please choose the code for the main subject from List 1.

Secondary subject of the article [SEC_SUB]

If there is another subject that is described in the context of the main subject, please code that subject here. If there are several other subject, please choose the one that is the secondary subject, so the most important one next to the main subject. Indi- cators for prominence of a subject is the degree of linkage to the main subject and the quantity of the subject in the article. Please choose the code for the secondary subject from List 1.

List 1

000 no (secondary) subject

100 content of the AfD election campaign, viewpoints and topics of AfD 101 European politics 102 Migration policies 103 Political failure 104 Islamization 105 Media 106 Gender-Mainstreaming

200 the result of the AfD in the election 201 the election party of the AfD 202 reactions to the election result of the AfD 203 reasons for the election result of the AfD 204 voters of the AfD

300 consequences of the election result 301 factual outlook 302 amount of seats AfD gets in the parliament 303 AfD members likely to be chairmen on committees 304 AfD member of the presidium of the Bundestag 305 amount of money AfD will receive as a member of the Bundestag 152

306 several hundred jobs for emerging right forces 307 Petry splits from AfD 308 general division of AfD

400 AfD in general/characterization of the AfD 401 Conflicts within the party 402 Right-wing populism 403 Hostility towards foreigners 404 Anti-Semitism 405 Islamophobia 406 Loss of voter support 407 rhetoric of the AfD 408 racism 409 Holocaust denial 410 underrepresentation of women 411 historic reference, comparison of the AfD and NSDAP 412 sexism 413 radicalization to the right

500 handling/dealing of the media with the AfD

888 not clearly attributable 999 other second subject

Protest [PROT]

Does the article mention protests against the AfD or the AfD election result?

00 no 01 yes

Attributes for the AfD

Which attributes are used to describe the AfD? (vgl. Schärdel, 2017) Please choose the two most present attributes of the article, e.g. because they are so prominent by being mentioned so often. The attributes are listed in English and German to make it easier to identify the correct attribute in the German article. Please choose the code from List 2.

Attribute 1 [ATT_1]

Please choose the code from List 2.

153

Attribute 2 [ATT_2]

Please choose the code from List 2.

List 2

00 No (other) attributes

01 people-oriented/in touch with people/grassroot democracy (bürgernah) 02 remote/distant from the people (bürgerfern) 03 liberal (liberal) 04 moderate (moderat) 05 conservative (konservativ) 06 right-wing conservative (rechtskonservativ) 07 Eurosceptic (euroskeptisch) 08 right/nationalist (rechts/nationalistisch) 09 right-wing extremism (rechtsextrem/rechtsradikal) 10 racist (rassistisch) 11 inhuman (menschenverachtend) 12 conflictual (konfliktreich) 13 fatal/disastrous (fatal) 14 quarreled/estranged (zerstritten) 15 divided/fragmented (gespalten) 16 inflammatory (hetzerisch) 17 populist (populistisch) 18 right-wing populist (rechtspopulisitisch) 19 serious/reliable (seriös) 20 dubious/untrustworthy (unseriös) 21 coalition-compliant/fitting for a coalition (koalitionsfähig) 22 not coalition-compliant/unfitting for a coalition (nicht koalitionsfähig) 23 incompetent (inkompetent) 24 competent (kompetent) 25 suppressed (unterdrückt) 26 powerful (mächtig) 27 harmless (harmlos) 28 dangerous (gefährlich)

88 not clearly attributable (nicht eindeutig zuzuordnen) 99 other (anderes Attribut)

154

Actors

Now the actors of the article are coded. In total, a maximum of four actors can be coded. Actors can be persons, groups of people, organizations, or societal subsystems (politics, the economy). Actors are acting, should act, are (potentially) affected by the reported subject or the source of information, but never the author of the article. There is a difference between active/acting actors and passive actors. Active actors are in fact doing something or should be doing something according to the article or are giving information in the article. Passive actors are affected or influenced by the actions of the active actors or could potentially be affected, regardless of whether these consequences are positive or negative. You can code two active actors and two passive actors. If there are more than four actors, please code the most prominent actors. The main actor should be coded first. The main actor is often mentioned as first and takes up most space of the article. If in doubt the actor mentioned at first is coded as the main actor. Please choose the codes from list 3. If there are less than four actors, please code 000.

Active Actor 1 [ACT_ACTOR_1]

See list 3

Active Actor 2 [ACT_ACTOR_2]

See list 3

Passive Actor 1 [PAS_ACTOR_1]

See list 3

Passive Actor 2 [PAS_ACTOR_2]

See list 3

155

List 3

000 no (other) actor (kein (weiterer) Akteur) 100 AfD as actor (AfD als Akteur) 101 Alexander Gauland 102 Alice Weidel 103 Marcus Pretzell 104 Frauke Petry 105 Matthias Manthei 106 Björn Höcke 107 Jörg Meuthen 108 Georg Pazderski 109 Other AfD member as actor 110 Bernd Baumann 111 Armin-Paul Hampel 112 Frank Magnitz 113 Bernhardt Wildt 200 Other parties in general as an actor (Andere Parteien als Akteur) 210 CDU/CSU 211 Angela Merkel 212 Michael Kretschmer 213 Horst Seehofer 214 Stanislaw Tillich 215 Monika Grütters 216 Christian Lösel 217 Reiner Haseloff 218 Volker Kauder 219 other CDU/CSU politician as an actor (anderer CDU/CSU Politiker als Akteur) 220 Bündnis 90/Die Grünen 221 Wolfgang Wieland 222 Boris Palmer 223 Cem Özdemir 224 Katrin Göring-Eckhardt 225 Anton Hofreiter 226 Jürgen Trittin 227 Claudia Roth 228 Winfried Kretschmann 229 other Bündnis 90/Die Grünen politician as an actor (anderer Bündnis 90/Die Grünen Politiker als Akteur) 230 Die Linke 231 Katja Kipping 232 Bernd Riexinger 233 Sahra Wagenknecht 234 Gregor Gysi 156

235 Oskar Lafontaine 236 Birke Bull-Bischoff 237 Jörg Cezanne 238 Jutta Krellmann 239 other Die Linke politician as an actor 240 FDP 241 Christian Lindner 242 Nicola Beer 243 Christoph Meyer 244 Michael Theurer 245 Katja Suding 246 Otto Fricke 247 Dr. Stephan Ruppert 248 Alexander Graf Lambsdorff 249 other FDP politician as an actor 250 SPD 251 Frank-Walter Steinmeier 252 Martin Schulz 253 Andrea Nahles 254 Sigmar Gabriel 255 Dagmar Freitag 256 Iris Gleicke 257 Lars Klingbeil 258 Katarina Barley 259 other SPD politician as an actor 260 international politicians 261 EU politicians/EU 262 Israeli politician 263 French politician 264 UK politician 265 Hungarian politician 266 Turkish politician 267 Austrian politician 268 Swiss politician 269 USA politician 270 Luxembourg politician 271 Belgium politician 272 politician from Visegrad group 300 Germany as an actor (Deutschland als Akteur) 310 Government (Regierung) 311 parliament (Bundestag) 312 senate (Bundesrat) 313 parliamentary group (Bundestagsfraktion) 314 opposition on national level (Opposition auf nationaler Ebene) 315 regional Entity (Bundesland) 316 regional Government (Landesregierung) 157

320 Prime Minister (Regierungschef eines Bundesstaates oder – lands, Mi- nisterpräsident) 321 Other Regional Minister (Andere Landesminister) 322 Member of regional Government Parties (Mitglieder der Regierungs- parteien auf Landesebene) 323 Regional Opposition (Landtagsopposition) 330 Local Entity (Instanz auf Ebene der Regierungsbezirke, Land- kreise/Kreisfreien Städte oder Gemeinden/Kommunen) 331 Local Government (Regierung auf Ebene der Regierungsbezirke, Land- kreise/Kreisfreien Städte oder Gemeinden/Kommunen) 332 Local Opposition (Opposition auf Ebene der Regierungsbezirke, Land- kreise/Kreisfreien Städte oder Gemeinden/Kommunen) 333 other political actors at the regional level (sonst. Politische Akteure auf Ebene der Regierungsbezirke, Landkreise/Kreisfreien Städte oder Ge- meinden/Kommunen) 400 Public (Öffentlichkeit) 401 Single citizen, no degree of organization (Einzelne Bürger, kein Organisationsgrad) 402 citizen groups, some degree of organization (Bürgerinitative, Mitglie- der einer Bürgerinitiative, mindestens geringer Organisationsgrad) 403 Activists (Aktivisten) 404 participants of protests and demonstrations (Protest- und Demonstrationsteilnehmer) 405 citizen(s) as voter(s) 500 Media and Culture (Medien und Kultur) 510 National Media (Nationale Medien) 511 Newspapers (Zeitungen) 512 Magazines (Magazine) 513 TV‐Stations (TV‐Sender) 514 Radio (Radio) 515 Internet Outlets (Internet‐Angebote) 516 Regional Media (Regionale Medien) 517 Regional Newspapers (reg. Zeitungen) 518 Regional Magazines (reg. Magazine) 519 Regional TV‐Stations (reg. TV‐Sender) 520 Regional Radio Stations (reg. Radio) 521 Regional Internet Outlets (reg. Internet‐Angebote) 522 Other cultural actors (andere kulturelle Akteure) 523 Singers, Choirs (Sänger/innen, Gesangsgruppen, Chor) 524 Artists (Künstler) 600 Science & Education (Wissenschaft und Bildung) 610 Universities (Universitäten) 611 Archeology (Archäologie) 612 Natural Science (Naturwissenschaft) 613 Social Science (Sozialwissenschaften) 614 Economics (Wirtschaftswissenschaft) 158

615 Climate Science (Klimawissenschaft) 616 Technical Science, Engineering Science (Technikwissenschaft, Ingenieurswissenschaft) 617 Earth Science, Geology, Seismology (Geowissenschaften, Geologie, Seismologie) 618 Interdisciplinary University Research Groups (interdisziplinäre univer- sitäre Forscherteams bzw. gruppen) 619 Other Academic disciplines (Andere akademische Disziplinen) 620 Research Agencies, not from universities; e.g. Max‐Plank, Helmholtz (nicht universitäre Forschungsagenturen (z.B. Max‐Plank, Helmholtz)) 630 Other Academic Experts (Andere akademische Experten) 700 NGO 710 International NGOs (Internationale NGO) 720 National NGOs (Nationale Verbände) 721 Environment NGOs, e.g. NABU Deutschland (Umweltverbände) 722 Health NGOs (Gesundheitsverbände) 723 Consumer Rights NGOs (Verbraucherschutzverbände) 730 Regional NGOs (Regionale Verbände) 731 Regional Health NGOs (regionale Gesundheitsverbände) 732 Regional Consumer Rights NGOs (regionale Verbraucherschutzver- bände) Executive and Judicative Authorities (Behörden der Exekutive und Judikative) 800 National Authorities (Nationale Behörden) 810 Energy Authorities (Energiebehörden) 820 Environment Authorities (Umweltbehörden) 830 National Security 831 National Police (Polizei, evtl. Bundespolizei, entspricht dem früherem Bundesgrenzschutz) 832 National Secret Services (Geheimdienste) 833 Disaster Recovery (Katastrophenschutz) 834 Health (Gesundheitsbehörden) 835 Finance (Finanzbehörden) 836 Security (Sicherheitsbehörden) 837 Other Actors of the Executive/Judicative (sonst. Akteure der Exekutive/Judikative) 840 Regional Authorities (Regionale Behörden) 841 Energy (Energiebehörden) 842 Environment (Umweltbehörden) 843 Security (Sicherheitsbehörden) 844 Police (Polizei) 845 Fire brigade (Feuerwehr) 846 Health (Gesundheitsbehörden) 850 Judicative Actors (Judikative Akteure) 851 National Court/Constitutional Court (Bundesgerichtshof/Verfassungs- gericht) 852 Regional Court (Landesgericht) 159

853 Minor Court (Untergeordnetes Gericht) 854 Other Judges (andere Anwälte) 855 Other judicative actors (Andere Akteure der Judikative) 900 Industry (Industrie) 910 Primary Sector (Primärer Sektor) 920 Secondary Sector (Sekundärer Sektor) 930 Tertiary Sector (Tertiärer Sektor) 940 Lobby Groups (Lobbygruppen) 950 Industrial Organizations (Industrielle Organisationen) 960 Trade Unions (Gewerkschaften)

888 not clearly attributable (nicht eindeutig zuzuordnen) 999 Other Actor (andere Akteure)

Winner or Loser evaluation [WIN]

To which degree is the AfD election result seen as a win or a loss? There are seven degrees to the evaluation of a winner or loser:

01 triumph, sweeping victory (Triumph/Erdrutschsieg) 02 victory, high win (Sieg/hoher Gewinn) 03 win (Gewinn) 04 stagnation (Stagnation) 05 loss (Verlust) 06 high loss, defeat (hoher Verlust/Niederlage) 07 catastrophe, total/disastrous/crushing defeat (vernichtende Nieder lage/Katastrophe)

88 not clearly attributable

Benefits of the election result [BEN]

Which benefits of the AfD election result are named?

00 no benefits mentioned

01 lesson/warning for other parties (Denkzettel für andere Parteien) 02 Rethinking of strategies by other parties to reach potential voters (Um denken anderer Parteien für möglicher Strategien, um potenzielle Wäh ler zu erreichen) 03 Livelier discussions in Bundestag (lebendigere Diskussionen im Bun destag)

160

04 Increasing motivation for citizen participation (steigende Motivation zur Bürgerbeteiligung) 88 not clearly attributable

99 other benefits

Disadvantages of the election result [DIS]

Which disadvantages of the election result are named?

00 no disadvantages 01 Division of society (Spaltung der Gesellschaft) 02 intimidation of other parties (Einschüchtern anderer Parteien) 03 decreasing quality of debates in the Bundestag/rough tone (Sinkendes Niveau von Debatten im Bundestag/rauer Ton) 04 increasing crime rates against refugees or citizens with migration back ground (zunehmende Zahl an Verbrechen gegen Geflüchtete und Bür ger mit Migrationshintergrund) 05 increasing fear in society (zunehmende Angst in der Bevölkerung) 06 increasing instrumentalization of subjects like fear, crimes, terror etc./disinhibition (zunehmende Instrumentalisierung von Themen wie Geflüchtete, Angst, Kriminalität, Terroranschlägen/Enthemmung) 07 negative effects on economy

88 not clearly attributable 99 other disadvantages

Reason for the election result [REAS]

Which reason is named for the election result of the AfD? If several reasons are named, please choose the most prominent one.

000 no reason named 100 fear in general, e.g. of current developments 101 fear of refugees/refugee crisis 102 fear of terror attacks or terror attacks 103 Islam as a threat for Germany 104 instrumentalization of fear 105 German identity is threatened 200 AfD’s fight against Political Correctness 201 campaigning against marriage equality 161

202 promoting national pride 203 opposing gender sensible language/gender equality, “Gender Wahn” 204 dominance of men 205 underrepresentation of women 206 sexism 300 Online election campaign of the AfD 301 negative campaigning 302 skewed representation of reality, e.g. crimes committed by refugees and terror attacks 303 direct attacks against other politicians, e.g. “Merkel muss weg” 400 AfD presenting itself as a victim 401 Weidel leaving a talk show with Marietta Slomka 500 calculated provocation by the AfD to spark attention 501 rhetoric/radical statements/verbal radicalization, e.g. hunting down the government, reclaim the country and the people, dispose Aydan Özguz, necessary turnaround of German history, pride for the achievements of German WWII soldiers, Germans don’t want Jerome Boateng as a neighbor 600 topics of the AfD were especially relevant 601 better approach to current subjects by the AfD 602 admissions/concessions 603 opposing the Euro 604 AfD’s way to handle the refugee crisis 605 radicalization/shift to the right of the AfD 700 other actors/parties responsible for the result 701 shift to the left of other parties 702 failure to approach voters by other parties 703 ignorance by other parties 704 other parties did not oppose the AfD enough 705 above average representation in the media 706 other parties gave into the AfD 707 shift of political climate 800 external, societal or personal factors responsible for the result 801 higher crime rates 802 welcome culture 803 misunderstandings 804 incomprehension/lack of understanding 805 protest voters 806 heterogeneity 807 ignorance 808 influence/impact 809 infiltration 810 Islamism 811 Anti-Semitism 812 rage/anger/frustration of the voters 813 general change of social climate 162

814 blind following of catch phrases by the AfD 815 poverty 816 rural depopulation 817 socially and/or culturally suspended 818 inequality Eastern/Western Germany 900 historic explanation 901 Eastern Germany only had 14 years of democracy (1919-1933) since the foundation of Deutsches Reich in 1871 before the unification 902 the AfD is the heritage of racism that dominated Nazi Deutschland

888 not clearly attributable 999 other reasons

Recommendation for action [ACT]

This variable codes which recommendations are made to act and cope with the election result of the AfD. Whichever recommendation is given should be assorted into one of the categories. If the recommendation for action is for example that political actors need to behave in a certain manner or change rules and laws, the 03 is coded because it is a political action recommendation.

00 No action recommendation (keine Handlungsempfehlung) 01 Social action recommendation (Soziale Handlungsempfehlung) 02 Financial action recommendation (Finanzielle Handlungsempfehlung) 03 Political action recommendation (Politische Handlungsempfehlung) 04 Technological action recommendation (Technologische Handlungs- empfehlung) 05 Organizational action recommendation (organisationale Handlungs- empfehlung)

88 not clearly attributable 99 other action recommendation (andere Handlungsempfehlung)

163

Solutions [SOL]

The coded subjects and attributes for the AfD describe a problem. Now it is time to code which solutions are offered for the problem. This category describes what is necessary to overcome the problem or to approach the subject. 000 no solutions 100 Solutions the AfD suggests 101 Abandoning the Euro 102 Leave the EU 103 stop Islamization 104 support families 105 protect boarders 106 migration stop 107 alternatives 108 new politics/policies 109 information sources 110 protection of the constitution 111 confrontation 112 information/clarification 113 agreement 114 grassroots democracy/people-oriented 200 solutions to approach/cope with the AfD in parliament 201 information 202 talking/dialogue between the parties 203 talking/dialogue with the voters 204 protest 205 adjust media coverage 206 not allowing questions by the AfD in the parliament 207 other parties refusing to talk to the AfD 208 other voters refusing to talk to AfD voters 209 ban AfD from parliament 210 no opening speech from Gauland 211 talking/dialogue among the voters

300 win voters back 301 change migration policies 302 societal problems have to addressed better by the parliament 303 analysis of reasons 304 new orientation/formation of politics

888 not clearly attributable 999 other solutions

164

Call to action [CALL]

Here it is coded whether the articles include a call to action. This means a direct exclamation or sentence to do something, e.g. an imperative. The reader is directly asked to do something. The readers are called to action. This category does not include a general recommendation on how to behave, but clearly addresses the readers to do something specific. For this coding, first look for the fitting broader category (100, 200, 300…) and then choose whether one of the sub-categories fit. If not, code the general category (100, 200, 300…). If none of the broader categories fit either, choose 999. If there is no call to action, code 000.

000 no call to action (keine Handlungsaufforderung) 100 Protest 101 protest march, demonstration (Protestmarsch, Demonstration) 102 occupation of land (Landbesetzung) 103 sit-down strikes (Sitzstreiks) 104 work strikes (Arbeitsstreik) 105 hunger strikes (Hungerstreik) 106 consumer strikes (Konsumstreik) 107 other strikes (andere Streiks) 108 distribution of pamphlets or other objects (Verteilen von Flyern oder anderen Objekten) 109 burning or destruction of objects (Verbrennen oder Zerstörung von Objekten) 110 support crowdfundings to help actions (Crowdfunding unter stützen, um Aktionen zu fördern) 111 start crowdfunding (Crowdfunding starten) 200 change own behaviors or habits 201 strengthen enviormental awareness (generelles Umweltbe wusstsein stärken) 202 strengthen social behavior (Sozialverhalten stärken) 203 open and respectful contact/social interaction with others (of fener und respektvoller Umgang mit Mitmenschen) 204 become a member of a citizens’ group/action group (Mitglied einer Bürgerinitiative werden) 205 form a citizens’ group/action group (Bürgerinitiative gründen) 206 do not give into the tactic plays by the AfD (den taktischen Spielen der AfD nicht nachgeben) 207 show that AfD is not a normal party (zeigen, dass die AfD keine normale Partei ist) 208 unify against the AfD and the radical opposition (sich gegen die AfD und die radikale Opposition verbünden) 165

209 defend democratic values (demokratische Werte verteidigen) 300 express opinion publicly (Meinung öffentlich äußern) 301 write letter to the editor (Leserbrief schreiben) 302 write open letter (offenen Brief schreiben) 303 write a letter to a member of parliament (Brief an Parla mentsmitglied schreiben) 304 sign online petition (Online-Petition unterschreiben) 305 start online petition (Online-Petition starten) 306 call radioshows that talk about the subject (In Radioshows zum Thema anrufen) 307 inform and convince social surroundings/peer group (soziales Umfeld informieren/überzeugen) 308 spread online awareness/education campaign (Online-Aufklä rungskampagne verbreiten) 309 start online awareness/education campaign (Online-Aufklä rungskampagne starten) 310 post on social media (e.g. Facebook) about the subject (auf sozialen Netzwerken (z.B. Facebook) zum Thema posten) 311 dialogue with AfD voters (Dialog mit AfD Wählern suchen) 400 take legal action (rechtliche Schritte einleiten) 401 ban AfD from parliament

888 not clearly attributable 999 other call to action

Neutrality [BAL] Please code whether the article includes any subjective opinion of the author or whether the article is neutral and objective. Opinions are subjective assessments, interpretations and judgements, as well as prognoses and assumptions resulting from these subjective statements. An opinion can be expressed through judgmental/valuing words, irony or additional expressions like “in my opinion”, “luckily”, “unfortu- nately”, “happily”, or “presumably”. A selection of illustrations can also express subjective opinions.

Attention: This category is about the neutrality of the author. If direct or indirect quotes include judgements (“This is unacceptable,” said Mr. Lebert/Mr. Lebert said, that this situation is unacceptable.”), this does not affect the overall objectivity of the

166

article. In interviews this category is assessed by the questions of the interviewer only. The answers are not part of this category.

01 article is objective and neutral – fact oriented/factual, no subjective judgements 02 article is rather objective and neutral – mainly fact oriented/factual and only rare subjective judgement 03 article is rather subjective/judgmental – the subjective opinion of the author is noticeable, the article includes several subjective judgements 04 article is subjective/judgmental – subjective opinion of the author is clearly noticeable, the article includes a lot of subjective judgements

Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD [TEN_AfD] This category includes how the AfD is evaluated in the article. The tenor and the context the AfD is put in is coded. An example for a positive tenor is that advantages, progress, advances, improvements, successes and positive aspects are presented. A negative tenor could for example be identified by mentioned disadvantages and harms that the AfD presents. It is also possible that the tenor cannot be decided, for example because both sides are presented equally or the article only mentions facts, like „The AfD received 12.6% of the votes. /Die AfD hat 12.6% der Stimmen erzielt. “. If the tenor changes throughout the article, please code the tenor that is predominant.

01 positive tenor 02 negative tenor 03 ambivalent, not decidable

Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD [TEN_EL] This category describes the tenor concerning the election result of the AfD. The coder must evaluate, if the tenor is positive, negative or ambivalent. A positive tenor is for example that the result is praised and described as a reason to celebrate and be

167

happy about, or an overall positive context. A negative tenor could be, e.g. a description of the result as fatal or a generally negative context the result is presented in. If the tenor changes throughout the article, please code the tenor that is predominant.

01 positive tenor 02 negative tenor 03 ambivalent, not decidable

Overall tendency of the article [BIAS]

Using the coding of [TEN_AfD] and [TEN_AfD_EL] as help, this category codes the overall tendency of the article. This category shows how positive or negative the tendency of the article is in general, considering the tendency concerning the AfD and concerning the election result of the AfD. It is coded how the AfD is evaluated. An article is balanced/even if positive and negative aspects are assessed and weighed out.

01 very positive 02 rather positive 03 balanced 04 rather negative 05 very negative

Negativity [NEG]

How negative is the election result of the AfD and its implication seen?

00 not at all negative 01 slightly negative 02 somewhat negative 03 moderately negative 04 extremely negative

168

Opinion polls [POLL]

Does the story deal with opinion polls and politicians’ or parties’ standing in the polls? This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once mentions opinion polls and the standing of political parties or individual candidates in these. Coders should also type 1 if the news story includes references to generic ‘polls’ or ‘the opinion’ and the standing of political parties or candidates according to ‘polls’ or ‘the opinion’. Otherwise coders should type 0. 00 no 01 Yes

Outcomes [OUT]

Does the story deal with politicians, parties or other actors in relation to potential election outcomes and/ or coalitions/government formation? This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Coders should type 1 if the news story reports or speculates about election results or government/coalition formations or changes and actions within the party due to the election result. Otherwise coders should type 0. 00 no 01 yes

Winning or losing [LOS] Does the story deal with politicians, parties or other actors winning or losing (elections, debates or in general)? This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once refers to whether politicians, parties or other actors are winning or losing with respect to elections, debates or in general. Otherwise coders should type 0.

00 no 01 yes

Language [LANG] Does the story make use of a language of sports or war? This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once makes use of a language of sports and war, such as battle, competition, winning, or fight. Only exempted expression is ‘campaign’. Otherwise coders should type 0.

00 no 01 yes

169

Strategies and tactics [STRAT]

Does the story deal with politicians’ or parties’ strategies or tactics for winning elections, legislative debates, governing negotiations, favorable news coverage, or for achieving other forms of political success? This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once refers to politicians’ or parties’ strategies or tactics for winning elections, legislative debates, governing negotiations, favorable news coverage, or for achieving other forms of political success. Otherwise coders should type 0. 00 no 01 yes

Motives [MOT]

Does the story deal with politicians’ or parties’ motives for actions, positions, or behaviors? This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once refers to politicians’ or parties’ motives for actions, positions, or behaviors with reference to other aspects than their sincere belief in the policies. Oth- erwise coders should type 0. 00 no 01 yes

Campaign style or performance [CAMP]

Does the story deal with party, candidate or campaign style or performance? This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once refers to party, candidate or campaign style or performance, or how they campaign. Otherwise coders should type 0. 00 no 01 yes

Media’s role [ROLE]

Does the story deal with the media’s role in politics or campaigning and/or the relationship between political actors and the media?

170

This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once refers to the media’s role in politics or campaigning and/or the relationship between political actors and the media. Otherwise coders should type 0. 00 no 01 yes

Dominant framing [DOM]

What is the dominant framing of politics? Coders should type 1 for ‘Strategic game frame’ and 2 for ‘Issue frame’. ‘Strategic game frame’ includes news stories that frame politics as a game, personality contest, as strategy, and as personal relationships between political actors not related to issue positions. News stories that focus on the tactics or strategy of political campaigning, how they campaign, on the images of politicians, on political power as a goal in itself, and on politicians as individuals rather than as spokespersons for certain policies, should count as ‘Strategic game frame’. The same applies for horse race coverage. ‘Issue frame’ includes news stories that focus on issues and issue positions, on real-life conditions with relevance for issue positions, and on what has happened or what someone has said and done to the extent that it deals with or is depicted as relevant for the political issues. Coders should select the frame that dominates in the news story. Usually, dominance is decided by space in which the respective frames are applied, but the headline and lead should be given extra weight in the judgment of what frame dominates the news story.

01 strategic game frame 02 issue frame

171

Appendix E: SPSS Outputs

The complete data set is attached as a separate SPSS file.

1. Research Question 1

Anova to detect differences in Winner and loser evaluation

Oneway

Descriptives Winner or Loser evaluation 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lo- Std. Std. wer Up- Mi- Ma- N Mean Deviation Error Bound per Bound nimum ximum no identifie- 7 2,43 1,134 ,429 1,38 3,48 0 3 able frame Conflict 18 2,83 ,618 ,146 2,53 3,14 1 4 Frame Inequality 21 2,67 ,577 ,126 2,40 2,93 1 3 Frame Administra- 28 2,39 ,737 ,139 2,11 2,68 1 3 tion Critical Frame Right-wing populistic election 16 2,31 ,793 ,198 1,89 2,74 1 3 campaign Frame consequences and reactions 21 2,67 ,577 ,126 2,40 2,93 1 3 Frame Total 111 2,56 ,709 ,067 2,43 2,69 0 4

ANOVA Winner or Loser evaluation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 3,706 5 ,741 1,506 ,194 Within Groups 51,664 105 ,492 Total 55,369 110

Robust Tests of Equality of Means Winner or Loser evaluation Statis- tica df1 df2 Sig. Welc 1,411 5 35,014 ,244 h a. Asymptotically F distributed. Frequency analysis to identify prominent attributes (compared to dangerous and irresponsible)

172

Frequency Table

Attribute 1 Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Va- no (other) attributes 29 19,5 19,5 19,5 lid people oriented/in touch with people/grassroot democ- 5 3,4 3,4 22,8 racy right-wing conservative 1 ,7 ,7 23,5 right/nationalist 29 19,5 19,5 43,0 right-wing extremism 20 13,4 13,4 56,4 racist 4 2,7 2,7 59,1 conflictual 1 ,7 ,7 59,7 quarrelled/estranged 2 1,3 1,3 61,1 divided/fragmented 13 8,7 8,7 69,8 inflammatory 1 ,7 ,7 70,5 right-wing populist 42 28,2 28,2 98,7 powerful 2 1,3 1,3 100,0 Total 149 100,0 100,0

Attribute 2 Fre- Valid Per- Cumulative quency Percent cent Percent Va- no (other) attributes 80 53,7 53,7 53,7 lid eurosceptic 3 2,0 2,0 55,7 right/nationalist 12 8,1 8,1 63,8 right-wing extremism 5 3,4 3,4 67,1 racist 9 6,0 6,0 73,2 conflictual 2 1,3 1,3 74,5 quarrelled/estranged 8 5,4 5,4 79,9 divided/fragmented 15 10,1 10,1 89,9 inflammatory 3 2,0 2,0 91,9 right-wing populist 6 4,0 4,0 96,0 serious/reliable 1 ,7 ,7 96,6 dubious/untrust- 1 ,7 ,7 97,3 worthy competent 1 ,7 ,7 98,0 powerful 2 1,3 1,3 99,3 harmless 1 ,7 ,7 100,0 Total 149 100,0 100,0

173

Frequencies on media holding themselves responsible Reason for the election result Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Va- no reason named 69 46,3 46,3 46,3 lid fear in general 4 2,7 2,7 49,0 fear of refugee/refugee 3 2,0 2,0 51,0 crisis negative campaigning 2 1,3 1,3 52,3 Weidel leaving a talk 1 ,7 ,7 53,0 show with Marietta Slomka calculated provocation 3 2,0 2,0 55,0 by the AfD to spark attention rhetoric/radical state- 1 ,7 ,7 55,7 ments/verbal radicalization topics of the AfD were 7 4,7 4,7 60,4 especially relevant better approach to cur- 1 ,7 ,7 61,1 rent subjects by the AfD AfD's way to handle the 4 2,7 2,7 63,8 refugee crisis radicalization/shift to the 1 ,7 ,7 64,4 right of the AfD other actors/parties re- 1 ,7 ,7 65,1 sponsible for the result shift to the left of other 1 ,7 ,7 65,8 parties failure to approach vot- 5 3,4 3,4 69,1 ers by other parties other parties did not op- 1 ,7 ,7 69,8 pose the AfD enough above average represen- 5 3,4 3,4 73,2 tation in the media external, societal or personal factors responsible for 2 1,3 1,3 74,5 the result higher crime rates 1 ,7 ,7 75,2 protest voters 6 4,0 4,0 79,2 anti-semitism 1 ,7 ,7 79,9 rage/anger/frustration of 11 7,4 7,4 87,2 voters rural depopulation 1 ,7 ,7 87,9 socially and/or culturally 10 6,7 6,7 94,6 suspended inequality east /west 5 3,4 3,4 98,0 Germany AfD heritage of racism 1 ,7 ,7 98,7 other reasons 2 1,3 1,3 100,0 Total 149 100,0 100,0

174

Frequencies

Main subject of the article Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Va- content of the AfD elec- lid tion campaign, viewpoints 1 ,7 ,7 ,7 and topics of the AfD AfD election result 25 16,8 16,8 17,4 election party AfD 1 ,7 ,7 18,1 reactions to AfD election 20 13,4 13,4 31,5 result reasons for AfD election 23 15,4 15,4 47,0 result voter(s) of AfD 6 4,0 4,0 51,0 consequences of election 19 12,8 12,8 63,8 result AfD chairmen 2 1,3 1,3 65,1 AfD money 1 ,7 ,7 65,8 Petry splits from AfD 20 13,4 13,4 79,2 general division of AfD 8 5,4 5,4 84,6 AfD in general/charac- 12 8,1 8,1 92,6 terization of the AfD handling/dealing of the 2 1,3 1,3 94,0 media with the AfD other subject 9 6,0 6,0 100,0 Total 149 100,0 100,0

175

Secondary subject of the article Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Va- no (secondary) subject 18 12,1 12,1 12,1 lid content of the AfD election campaign, viewpoints 1 ,7 ,7 12,8 and topics of the AfD political failure 1 ,7 ,7 13,4 AfD election result 7 4,7 4,7 18,1 election party AfD 1 ,7 ,7 18,8 reactions to AfD election 8 5,4 5,4 24,2 result reasons for AfD election 20 13,4 13,4 37,6 result voter(s) of AfD 6 4,0 4,0 41,6 consequences of election 20 13,4 13,4 55,0 result factual outlook 2 1,3 1,3 56,4 AfD chairmen 2 1,3 1,3 57,7 AfD money 1 ,7 ,7 58,4 Petry splits from AfD 8 5,4 5,4 63,8 general division of AfD 16 10,7 10,7 74,5 AfD in general/charac- 13 8,7 8,7 83,2 terization of the AfD right-wing populism 1 ,7 ,7 83,9 anti-semitism 1 ,7 ,7 84,6 islamophobia 1 ,7 ,7 85,2 handling/dealing of the 1 ,7 ,7 85,9 media with the AfD other subject 21 14,1 14,1 100,0 Total 149 100,0 100,0

176

1.1. Conflict frame

Filter: SUB OR SEC_SUB = 307 OR 308 OR 401

Frequency Table

Subject of the illustration Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no illustration 16 48,5 50,0 50,0 celebrating AfD 2 6,1 6,3 56,3 neutral AfD 9 27,3 28,1 84,4 defeated AfD 1 3,0 3,1 87,5 celebrating members 1 3,0 3,1 90,6 of other parties election campaign of 1 3,0 3,1 93,8 AfD several subjects 1 3,0 3,1 96,9 other subject 1 3,0 3,1 100,0 Total 32 97,0 100,0 Miss- 88 1 3,0 ing Total 33 100,0

Main subject of the article Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V AfD election result 1 3,0 3,0 3,0 alid reasons for AfD elec- 1 3,0 3,0 6,1 tion result consequences of elec- 2 6,1 6,1 12,1 tion result Petry splits from AfD 20 60,6 60,6 72,7 general division of 8 24,2 24,2 97,0 AfD AfD in general/charac- 1 3,0 3,0 100,0 terization of the AfD Total 100, 33 100,0 0

177

Secondary subject of the article Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no (secondary) subject 1 3,0 3,0 3,0 reasons for AfD elec- 1 3,0 3,0 6,1 tion result consequences of elec- 3 9,1 9,1 15,2 tion result Petry splits from AfD 8 24,2 24,2 39,4 general division of 16 48,5 48,5 87,9 AfD AfD in general/char- 3 9,1 9,1 97,0 acterization of the AfD other subject 1 3,0 3,0 100,0 Total 33 100,0 100,0

Protest Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumula- quency cent cent tive Percent V n 100, 33 100,0 100,0 alid o 0

Attribute 1 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (other) attributes 4 12,1 12,1 12,1 alid right-wing con- 1 3,0 3,0 15,2 servative right/nationalist 6 18,2 18,2 33,3 right-wing extrem- 5 15,2 15,2 48,5 ism racist 1 3,0 3,0 51,5 quarreled/estranged 1 3,0 3,0 54,5 divided/fragmented 13 39,4 39,4 93,9 right-wing populist 2 6,1 6,1 100,0 Total 100, 33 100,0 0

178

Attribute 2 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (other) attrib- 12 36,4 36,4 36,4 alid utes right/nationalist 2 6,1 6,1 42,4 right-wing extrem- 2 6,1 6,1 48,5 ism quarreled/es- 7 21,2 21,2 69,7 tranged divided/fragmented 8 24,2 24,2 93,9 right-wing populist 1 3,0 3,0 97,0 dubious/untrust- 1 3,0 3,0 100,0 worthy Total 100, 33 100,0 0

Active Actor 1 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid AfD as actor 1 3,0 3,0 3,0 Alexander Gauland 1 3,0 3,0 6,1 Marcus Pretzell 1 3,0 3,0 9,1 Frauke Petry 20 60,6 60,6 69,7 Matthias Manthei 1 3,0 3,0 72,7 Björn Höcke 1 3,0 3,0 75,8 Jörg Meuthen 1 3,0 3,0 78,8 Markus Frohnmaier 1 3,0 3,0 81,8 Other AfD member as 1 3,0 3,0 84,8 actor Bernd Baumann 1 3,0 3,0 87,9 Frank Magnitz 1 3,0 3,0 90,9 Bernhard Wildt 1 3,0 3,0 93,9 Frank-Walter 1 3,0 3,0 97,0 Steinmeier citizen(s) as voter(s) 1 3,0 3,0 100,0 Total 33 100,0 100,0

179

Active Actor 2 Fre- Per- Valid Cumulative quency cent Percent Percent Valid AfD as actor 3 9,1 9,1 9,1 Alexander Gau- 5 15,2 15,2 24,2 land Alice Weidel 1 3,0 3,0 27,3 Marcus Pretzell 8 24,2 24,2 51,5 Frauke Petry 7 21,2 21,2 72,7 Björn Höcke 1 3,0 3,0 75,8 Other AfD mem- 4 12,1 12,1 87,9 ber as actor Armin-Paul 1 3,0 3,0 90,9 Hampel Bernhard Wildt 1 3,0 3,0 93,9 Volker Kauder 1 3,0 3,0 97,0 citizen(s) as 1 3,0 3,0 100,0 voter(s) Total 33 100,0 100,0

Passive Actor 1 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (other) 28 84,8 84,8 84,8 alid actor Frauke 1 3,0 3,0 87,9 Petry Björn 3 9,1 9,1 97,0 Höcke Jörg Meu- 1 3,0 3,0 100,0 then Total 100, 33 100,0 0

Passive Actor 2 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (other) 31 93,9 93,9 93,9 alid actor AfD as ac- 1 3,0 3,0 97,0 tor Alice Wei- 1 3,0 3,0 100,0 del Total 100, 33 100,0 0

180

Winner or Loser evaluation Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Vali tri- 1 3,0 5,6 5,6 d umph victory 2 6,1 11,1 16,7 win 14 42,4 77,8 94,4 stagna- 1 3,0 5,6 100,0 tion Total 18 54,5 100,0 Mis 88 15 45,5 sing Total 100, 33 0

Benefits of the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no benefits men- 33 100,0 100,0 100,0 tioned

Disadvantages of the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no disad- 32 97,0 97,0 97,0 alid vantages division of so- 1 3,0 3,0 100,0 ciety Total 100, 33 100,0 0

Reason for the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no reason named 27 81,8 81,8 81,8 alid fear in general 1 3,0 3,0 84,8 fear of refugee/refugee 1 3,0 3,0 87,9 crisis calculated provocation by the AfD to spark atten- 1 3,0 3,0 90,9 tion topics of the AfD were 1 3,0 3,0 93,9 especially relevant protest voters 1 3,0 3,0 97,0 other reasons 1 3,0 3,0 100,0 Total 100, 33 100,0 0

181

Recommendation for action Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no action recommen- 30 90,9 90,9 90,9 alid dation social action recom- 1 3,0 3,0 93,9 mendation political action recom- 2 6,1 6,1 100,0 mendation Total 100, 33 100,0 0

solutions Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no solutions 31 93,9 93,9 93,9 alid win voters back 1 3,0 3,0 97,0 Analyse der 1 3,0 3,0 100,0 Gründe Total 100, 33 100,0 0

Call to action Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no call to 100, 33 100,0 100,0 alid action 0

Neutrality Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V 0 1 3,0 3,0 3,0 alid article is objective and 23 69,7 69,7 72,7 neutral rather objective and 5 15,2 15,2 87,9 neutral rather subjective/judg- 3 9,1 9,1 97,0 mental subjective/judgmental 1 3,0 3,0 100,0 Total 100, 33 100,0 0

182

Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V positive tenor 1 3,0 3,0 3,0 alid negative tenor 7 21,2 21,2 24,2 ambivalent, not decid- 25 75,8 75,8 100,0 able Total 100, 33 100,0 0

Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V negative tenor 2 6,1 6,1 6,1 alid ambivalent, not decid- 31 93,9 93,9 100,0 able Total 100, 33 100,0 0

Overall tendency of the article Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V balanced 31 93,9 93,9 93,9 alid rather nega- 1 3,0 3,0 97,0 tive very nega- 1 3,0 3,0 100,0 tive Total 100, 33 100,0 0

Negativity Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V not at all nega- 29 87,9 87,9 87,9 alid tive slightly negative 1 3,0 3,0 90,9 somewhat nega- 1 3,0 3,0 93,9 tive moderately nega- 2 6,1 6,1 100,0 tive Total 100, 33 100,0 0

183

1.2. Inequality frame

Filter: [MISSING(FRAME) & REAS >= 812 & REAS <=818].

Frequency Table

Subject of the illustration Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no illustration 9 33,3 36,0 36,0 disappointed/sad/an- 1 3,7 4,0 40,0 gry public member of other par- 1 3,7 4,0 44,0 ties visualization of facts 3 11,1 12,0 56,0 several subjects 3 11,1 12,0 68,0 other subject 8 29,6 32,0 100,0 Total 25 92,6 100,0 Miss- 88 2 7,4 ing Total 27 100,0

Main subject of the article Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V AfD election result 6 22,2 22,2 22,2 alid reactions to AfD elec- 2 7,4 7,4 29,6 tion result reasons for AfD elec- 11 40,7 40,7 70,4 tion result voter(s) of AfD 3 11,1 11,1 81,5 consequences of elec- 2 7,4 7,4 88,9 tion result AfD in general/charac- 1 3,7 3,7 92,6 terization of the AfD other subject 2 7,4 7,4 100,0 Total 100, 27 100,0 0

184

Secondary subject of the article Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no (secondary) subject 2 7,4 7,4 7,4 AfD election result 4 14,8 14,8 22,2 reactions to AfD elec- 1 3,7 3,7 25,9 tion result reasons for AfD elec- 6 22,2 22,2 48,1 tion result voter(s) of AfD 5 18,5 18,5 66,7 consequences of elec- 1 3,7 3,7 70,4 tion result AfD in general/charac- 2 7,4 7,4 77,8 terization of the AfD other subject 6 22,2 22,2 100,0 Total 27 100,0 100,0 Protest Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no 27 100,0 100,0 100,0

Attribute 1 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (other) attributes 6 22,2 22,2 22,2 alid people oriented/in touch with people/grassroot 2 7,4 7,4 29,6 democracy right/nationalist 3 11,1 11,1 40,7 right-wing extremism 2 7,4 7,4 48,1 racist 1 3,7 3,7 51,9 right-wing populist 13 48,1 48,1 100,0 Total 100, 27 100,0 0

Attribute 2 Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumula- quency cent cent tive Percent Valid no (other) attrib- 18 66,7 66,7 66,7 utes right/nationalist 2 7,4 7,4 74,1 right-wing extrem- 1 3,7 3,7 77,8 ism racist 3 11,1 11,1 88,9 divided/frag- 1 3,7 3,7 92,6 mented right-wing populist 1 3,7 3,7 96,3 serious/reliable 1 3,7 3,7 100,0 Total 27 100,0 100,0

185

Active Actor 1 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid AfD as actor 5 18,5 18,5 18,5 Alexander Gauland 1 3,7 3,7 22,2 Other AfD member as 1 3,7 3,7 25,9 actor Other parties in gen- 1 3,7 3,7 29,6 eral as member CDU/CSU 1 3,7 3,7 33,3 Monika Grütters 1 3,7 3,7 37,0 Die Linke 1 3,7 3,7 40,7 Sahra Wagenknecht 1 3,7 3,7 44,4 Oskar Lafontaine 1 3,7 3,7 48,1 Frank-Walter 1 3,7 3,7 51,9 Steinmeier public 3 11,1 11,1 63,0 single citizen 2 7,4 7,4 70,4 citizen(s) as voter(s) 6 22,2 22,2 92,6 other cultural actors 1 3,7 3,7 96,3 Science and Education 1 3,7 3,7 100,0 Total 27 100,0 100,0 Active Actor 2 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid AfD as actor 7 25,9 25,9 25,9 Frauke Petry 1 3,7 3,7 29,6 Bernd Baumann 1 3,7 3,7 33,3 Other parties in gen- 1 3,7 3,7 37,0 eral as member CDU/CSU 1 3,7 3,7 40,7 Michael Kretschmer 1 3,7 3,7 44,4 Oskar Lafontaine 1 3,7 3,7 48,1 Iris Gleicke 1 3,7 3,7 51,9 French politician 1 3,7 3,7 55,6 Government 1 3,7 3,7 59,3 public 1 3,7 3,7 63,0 single citizen 2 7,4 7,4 70,4 citizen(s) as voter(s) 5 18,5 18,5 88,9 other cultural actors 1 3,7 3,7 92,6 Science and Education 2 7,4 7,4 100,0 Total 27 100,0 100,0

186

Passive Actor 1 Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Valid no (other) actor 14 51,9 51,9 51,9 AfD as actor 10 37,0 37,0 88,9 CDU/CSU 1 3,7 3,7 92,6 citizen(s) as 2 7,4 7,4 100,0 voter(s) Total 27 100,0 100,0

Passive Actor 2 Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Valid no (other) actor 23 85,2 85,2 85,2 AfD as actor 1 3,7 3,7 88,9 Cem Özdemir 1 3,7 3,7 92,6 SPD 1 3,7 3,7 96,3 citizen(s) as 1 3,7 3,7 100,0 voter(s) Total 27 100,0 100,0

Winner or Loser evaluation Fre- Cumulative quency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid tri- 1 3,7 4,8 4,8 umph vic- 5 18,5 23,8 28,6 tory win 15 55,6 71,4 100,0 Total 21 77,8 100,0 Miss- 88 6 22,2 ing Total 27 100,0

Benefits of the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no benefits mentioned 26 96,3 96,3 96,3 alid lesson/warning for 1 3,7 3,7 100,0 other parties Total 100, 27 100,0 0

187

Disadvantages of the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no disad- 14 51,9 51,9 51,9 vantages division of so- 12 44,4 44,4 96,3 ciety other disad- 1 3,7 3,7 100,0 vantages Total 27 100,0 100,0 Reason for the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid rage/anger/frustration 11 40,7 40,7 40,7 of voters rural depopulation 1 3,7 3,7 44,4 socially and/or cultur- 10 37,0 37,0 81,5 ally suspended inequality east /west 5 18,5 18,5 100,0 Germany Total 27 100,0 100,0 Recommendation for action Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no action recommen- 12 44,4 44,4 44,4 dation social action recom- 4 14,8 14,8 59,3 mendation political action rec- 11 40,7 40,7 100,0 ommendation Total 27 100,0 100,0

188

solutions Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no solutions 12 44,4 44,4 44,4 alid solutions to approach/cope with the AfD in 1 3,7 3,7 48,1 parliament information 2 7,4 7,4 55,6 talking/dialogue with 1 3,7 3,7 59,3 the voters adjust media coverage 1 3,7 3,7 63,0 societal problems must be addressed by the parlia- 4 14,8 14,8 77,8 ment Analyse der Gründe 5 18,5 18,5 96,3 other solutions 1 3,7 3,7 100,0 Total 100, 27 100,0 0 Call to action Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Valid no call to ac- 27 100,0 100,0 100,0 tion Neutrality Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V article is objective and 14 51,9 51,9 51,9 alid neutral rather objective and 9 33,3 33,3 85,2 neutral rather subjective/judg- 4 14,8 14,8 100,0 mental Total 100, 27 100,0 0 Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V positive tenor 1 3,7 3,7 3,7 alid negative tenor 15 55,6 55,6 59,3 ambivalent, not decid- 11 40,7 40,7 100,0 able Total 100, 27 100,0 0

189

Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V negative tenor 15 55,6 55,6 55,6 alid ambivalent, not decid- 12 44,4 44,4 100,0 able Total 100, 27 100,0 0 Overall tendency of the article Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V balanced 14 51,9 51,9 51,9 alid rather nega- 13 48,1 48,1 100,0 tive Total 100, 27 100,0 0 Negativity Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V not at all nega- 11 40,7 40,7 40,7 alid tive slightly negative 11 40,7 40,7 81,5 somewhat nega- 5 18,5 18,5 100,0 tive Total 100, 27 100,0 0

190

1.3.Administration critical frame

Filter: MISSING(FRAME) & REAS = 600-707 OR 805 OR 303

Frequency Table Subject of the illustration Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no illustration 11 36,7 36,7 36,7 alid celebrating AfD 2 6,7 6,7 43,3 member of other par- 6 20,0 20,0 63,3 ties disappointed/sad/angry 1 3,3 3,3 66,7 members of other parties election campaign of 1 3,3 3,3 70,0 AfD visualization of facts 1 3,3 3,3 73,3 several subjects 2 6,7 6,7 80,0 other subject 6 20,0 20,0 100,0 Total 100, 30 100,0 0 Main subject of the article Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V AfD election result 9 30,0 30,0 30,0 alid election party AfD 1 3,3 3,3 33,3 reactions to AfD elec- 4 13,3 13,3 46,7 tion result reasons for AfD elec- 8 26,7 26,7 73,3 tion result voter(s) of AfD 1 3,3 3,3 76,7 consequences of elec- 4 13,3 13,3 90,0 tion result AfD in general/charac- 1 3,3 3,3 93,3 terization of the AfD handling/dealing of the 1 3,3 3,3 96,7 media with the AfD other subject 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 Total 100, 30 100,0 0

191

Secondary subject of the article Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (secondary) subject 2 6,7 6,7 6,7 alid content of the AfD election campaign, view- 1 3,3 3,3 10,0 points and topics of the AfD political failure 1 3,3 3,3 13,3 AfD election result 2 6,7 6,7 20,0 reactions to AfD elec- 5 16,7 16,7 36,7 tion result reasons for AfD elec- 8 26,7 26,7 63,3 tion result voter(s) of AfD 1 3,3 3,3 66,7 consequences of elec- 4 13,3 13,3 80,0 tion result AfD in general/charac- 4 13,3 13,3 93,3 terization of the AfD handling/dealing of the 1 3,3 3,3 96,7 media with the AfD other subject 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 Total 100, 30 100,0 0 Protest Valid Per- Cumulative Frequency Percent cent Percent Vali no 29 96,7 96,7 96,7 d yes 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 To- 30 100,0 100,0 tal

192

Attribute 1 Fre- Per- Vali Cumula- quency cent d Percent tive Percent Vali no (other) attributes 6 20,0 20,0 20,0 d people oriented/in touch with people/grass- 2 6,7 6,7 26,7 root democracy right/nationalist 7 23,3 23,3 50,0 right-wing extrem- 2 6,7 6,7 56,7 ism racist 1 3,3 3,3 60,0 conflictual 1 3,3 3,3 63,3 quarreled/estranged 1 3,3 3,3 66,7 inflammatory 1 3,3 3,3 70,0 right-wing populist 8 26,7 26,7 96,7 powerful 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 Total 100, 30 100,0 0

Attribute 2 Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Valid no (other) attrib- 19 63,3 63,3 63,3 utes Eurosceptic 1 3,3 3,3 66,7 right/nationalist 3 10,0 10,0 76,7 racist 1 3,3 3,3 80,0 divided/frag- 3 10,0 10,0 90,0 mented right-wing popu- 1 3,3 3,3 93,3 list powerful 1 3,3 3,3 96,7 harmless 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 Total 30 100,0 100,0

193

Active Actor 1 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V AfD as actor 9 30,0 30,0 30,0 alid Alice Weidel 1 3,3 3,3 33,3 Other AfD member as 2 6,7 6,7 40,0 actor Other parties in gen- 1 3,3 3,3 43,3 eral as member Angela Merkel 1 3,3 3,3 46,7 Horst Seehofer 1 3,3 3,3 50,0 Stanislaw Tillich 1 3,3 3,3 53,3 Reiner Haseloff 1 3,3 3,3 56,7 Boris Palmer 1 3,3 3,3 60,0 Die Linke 1 3,3 3,3 63,3 Katja Kipping 1 3,3 3,3 66,7 EU politicians/EU 1 3,3 3,3 70,0 single citizen 1 3,3 3,3 73,3 citizen(s) as voter(s) 2 6,7 6,7 80,0 national media 2 6,7 6,7 86,7 regional TV stations 1 3,3 3,3 90,0 social science 1 3,3 3,3 93,3 other academic disci- 1 3,3 3,3 96,7 plines Industry 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 Total 100, 30 100,0 0

194

Active Actor 2 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (other) actor 1 3,3 3,3 3,3 alid AfD as actor 3 10,0 10,0 13,3 Frauke Petry 2 6,7 6,7 20,0 Björn Höcke 1 3,3 3,3 23,3 Other parties in gen- 3 10,0 10,0 33,3 eral as member CDU/CSU 3 10,0 10,0 43,3 Angela Merkel 2 6,7 6,7 50,0 Michael Kretschmer 1 3,3 3,3 53,3 Christian Lösel 1 3,3 3,3 56,7 Bündnis 90/Die Grü- 1 3,3 3,3 60,0 nen Sahra Wagenknecht 2 6,7 6,7 66,7 French politician 1 3,3 3,3 70,0 single citizen 1 3,3 3,3 73,3 citizen(s) as voter(s) 3 10,0 10,0 83,3 TV-stations 3 10,0 10,0 93,3 social science 1 3,3 3,3 96,7 Industry 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 Total 100, 30 100,0 0 Passive Actor 1 Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Valid no (other) ac- 16 53,3 53,3 53,3 tor AfD as actor 10 33,3 33,3 86,7 Björn Höcke 1 3,3 3,3 90,0 CDU/CSU 1 3,3 3,3 93,3 Horst Seeho- 1 3,3 3,3 96,7 fer public 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 Total 30 100,0 100,0

Passive Actor 2 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (other) actor 25 83,3 83,3 83,3 alid AfD as actor 1 3,3 3,3 86,7 Other parties in gen- 1 3,3 3,3 90,0 eral as member CDU/CSU 1 3,3 3,3 93,3 Angela Merkel 1 3,3 3,3 96,7 citizen(s) as voter(s) 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 Total 100, 30 100,0 0 195

Winner or Loser evaluation Fre- Cumulative quency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid tri- 4 13,3 14,3 14,3 umph vic- 9 30,0 32,1 46,4 tory win 15 50,0 53,6 100,0 Total 28 93,3 100,0 Miss- 88 2 6,7 ing Total 30 100,0

Benefits of the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no benefits mentioned 23 76,7 76,7 76,7 alid lesson/warning for 3 10,0 10,0 86,7 other parties rethinking of strategies 2 6,7 6,7 93,3 by other parties livelier discussions in 1 3,3 3,3 96,7 Bundestag other benefits 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 Total 100, 30 100,0 0

Disadvantages of the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no disadvantages 21 70,0 70,0 70,0 alid division of society 1 3,3 3,3 73,3 decreasing quality of debates in the Bundes- 4 13,3 13,3 86,7 tag/rough tone negative effects on 1 3,3 3,3 90,0 economy other disadvantages 3 10,0 10,0 100,0 Total 100, 30 100,0 0

196

Reason for the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid topics of the AfD were 6 20,0 20,0 20,0 especially relevant better approach to cur- 1 3,3 3,3 23,3 rent subjects by the AfD AfD's way to handle 4 13,3 13,3 36,7 the refugee crisis radicalization/shift to 1 3,3 3,3 40,0 the right of the AfD other actors/parties re- 1 3,3 3,3 43,3 sponsible for the result shift to the left of 1 3,3 3,3 46,7 other parties failure to approach 5 16,7 16,7 63,3 voters by other parties other parties did not 1 3,3 3,3 66,7 oppose the AfD enough above average repre- 5 16,7 16,7 83,3 sentation in the media protest voters 5 16,7 16,7 100,0 Total 30 100,0 100,0

Recommendation for action Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no action recommen- 7 23,3 23,3 23,3 alid dation social action recom- 1 3,3 3,3 26,7 mendation political action recom- 18 60,0 60,0 86,7 mendation organizational action 3 10,0 10,0 96,7 recommendation other action recom- 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 mendation Total 100, 30 100,0 0

197

solutions Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no solutions 8 26,7 26,7 26,7 alid solutions to approach/cope with the AfD in 6 20,0 20,0 46,7 parliament talking/dialogue with 1 3,3 3,3 50,0 the voters adjust media coverage 2 6,7 6,7 56,7 win voters back 5 16,7 16,7 73,3 change migration poli- 1 3,3 3,3 76,7 cies societal problems must be addressed by the parlia- 2 6,7 6,7 83,3 ment new orientation/formation of other parties' poli- 4 13,3 13,3 96,7 tics other solutions 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 Total 100, 30 100,0 0

Call to action Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no call to action 27 90,0 90,0 90,0 alid change own behav- 2 6,7 6,7 96,7 iors/habits dialogue with AfD vot- 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 ers Total 100, 30 100,0 0

Neutrality Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V article is objective and 14 46,7 46,7 46,7 alid neutral rather objective and 10 33,3 33,3 80,0 neutral rather subjective/judg- 4 13,3 13,3 93,3 mental subjective/judgmental 2 6,7 6,7 100,0 Total 100, 30 100,0 0

198

Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V positive tenor 4 13,3 13,3 13,3 alid negative tenor 15 50,0 50,0 63,3 ambivalent, not decid- 11 36,7 36,7 100,0 able Total 100, 30 100,0 0

Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V positive tenor 3 10,0 10,0 10,0 alid negative tenor 15 50,0 50,0 60,0 ambivalent, not decid- 12 40,0 40,0 100,0 able Total 100, 30 100,0 0

Overall tendency of the article Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Valid rather posi- 3 10,0 10,0 10,0 tive balanced 15 50,0 50,0 60,0 rather nega- 11 36,7 36,7 96,7 tive very nega- 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 tive Total 30 100,0 100,0

Negativity Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Valid not at all negative 9 30,0 30,0 30,0 slightly negative 17 56,7 56,7 86,7 somewhat nega- 3 10,0 10,0 96,7 tive moderately nega- 1 3,3 3,3 100,0 tive Total 30 100,0 100,0

199

1.4. Right-wing populistic election campaign frame

Filter: MISSING(FRAME) & REAS > 0 Referenced against all 149 cases that have a REAS which is not characteristic for frame 2 or 3, four cases 29, 31, 37, 39 focus on conflict and are therefore Frame 1

Frequency Table Subject of the illustration Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no illustration 4 23,5 23,5 23,5 alid celebrating AfD 2 11,8 11,8 35,3 neutral AfD 1 5,9 5,9 41,2 disappointed/sad/angry 1 5,9 5,9 47,1 members of other parties election campaign of 1 5,9 5,9 52,9 AfD visualization of facts 2 11,8 11,8 64,7 other subject 6 35,3 35,3 100,0 Total 100, 17 100,0 0 Main subject of the article Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V content of the AfD alid election campaign, view- 1 5,9 5,9 5,9 points and topics of the AfD AfD election result 5 29,4 29,4 35,3 reactions to AfD elec- 2 11,8 11,8 47,1 tion result reasons for AfD elec- 3 17,6 17,6 64,7 tion result voter(s) of AfD 1 5,9 5,9 70,6 consequences of elec- 1 5,9 5,9 76,5 tion result AfD in general/charac- 2 11,8 11,8 88,2 terization of the AfD other subject 2 11,8 11,8 100,0 Total 100, 17 100,0 0

200

Secondary subject of the article Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (secondary) subject 2 11,8 11,8 11,8 alid reasons for AfD elec- 4 23,5 23,5 35,3 tion result consequences of elec- 5 29,4 29,4 64,7 tion result AfD in general/charac- 2 11,8 11,8 76,5 terization of the AfD anti-Semitism 1 5,9 5,9 82,4 islamophobia 1 5,9 5,9 88,2 other subject 2 11,8 11,8 100,0 Total 100, 17 100,0 0 Protest Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid no 16 94,1 94,1 94,1 yes 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 To- 17 100,0 100,0 tal Attribute 1 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (other) attributes 1 5,9 5,9 5,9 alid people oriented/in touch with people/grassroot 1 5,9 5,9 11,8 democracy right/nationalist 4 23,5 23,5 35,3 right-wing extremism 3 17,6 17,6 52,9 right-wing populist 7 41,2 41,2 94,1 powerful 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 Total 100, 17 100,0 0

201

Attribute 2 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (other) attrib- 6 35,3 35,3 35,3 alid utes right/nationalist 1 5,9 5,9 41,2 right-wing ex- 1 5,9 5,9 47,1 tremism racist 2 11,8 11,8 58,8 conflictual 1 5,9 5,9 64,7 divided/frag- 2 11,8 11,8 76,5 mented inflammatory 2 11,8 11,8 88,2 right-wing popu- 1 5,9 5,9 94,1 list competent 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 Total 100, 17 100,0 0

Active Actor 1 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V AfD as actor 3 17,6 17,6 17,6 alid Alexander Gauland 3 17,6 17,6 35,3 Other AfD member as 1 5,9 5,9 41,2 actor Other parties in gen- 1 5,9 5,9 47,1 eral as member CDU/CSU 1 5,9 5,9 52,9 Angela Merkel 1 5,9 5,9 58,8 Horst Seehofer 1 5,9 5,9 64,7 Oskar Lafontaine 1 5,9 5,9 70,6 Israeli politician 1 5,9 5,9 76,5 citizen(s) as voter(s) 3 17,6 17,6 94,1 social science 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 Total 100, 17 100,0 0

202

Active Actor 2 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V AfD as actor 4 23,5 23,5 23,5 alid Alice Weidel 1 5,9 5,9 29,4 Frauke Petry 1 5,9 5,9 35,3 Other AfD member as 1 5,9 5,9 41,2 actor Other parties in gen- 2 11,8 11,8 52,9 eral as member Angela Merkel 1 5,9 5,9 58,8 Die Linke 1 5,9 5,9 64,7 Israeli politician 1 5,9 5,9 70,6 citizen(s) as voter(s) 2 11,8 11,8 82,4 media and culture 1 5,9 5,9 88,2 social science 1 5,9 5,9 94,1 economics 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 Total 100, 17 100,0 0

Passive Actor 1 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (other) actor 7 41,2 41,2 41,2 alid AfD as actor 7 41,2 41,2 82,4 Other parties in gen- 1 5,9 5,9 88,2 eral as member Angela Merkel 1 5,9 5,9 94,1 public 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 Total 100, 17 100,0 0

Passive Actor 2 Fre- Valid Cumulative quency Percent Percent Percent Valid no (other) actor 12 70,6 70,6 70,6 Jörg Meuthen 1 5,9 5,9 76,5 Angela Merkel 2 11,8 11,8 88,2 French politi- 1 5,9 5,9 94,1 cian citizen(s) as 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 voter(s) Total 17 100,0 100,0

203

Winner or Loser evaluation Fre- Valid Per- Cumulative quency Percent cent Percent Valid tri- 3 17,6 18,8 18,8 umph victory 5 29,4 31,3 50,0 win 8 47,1 50,0 100,0 Total 16 94,1 100,0 Missing 88 1 5,9 Total 17 100,0

Benefits of the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no benefits mentioned 16 94,1 94,1 94,1 alid lesson/warning for 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 other parties Total 100, 17 100,0 0

Disadvantages of the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no disadvantages 11 64,7 64,7 64,7 alid division of society 3 17,6 17,6 82,4 decreasing quality of debates in the Bundes- 1 5,9 5,9 88,2 tag/rough tone increasing instrumentalization of subjects like 1 5,9 5,9 94,1 fear, crimes, terror other disadvantages 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 Total 100, 17 100,0 0

204

Reason for the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V fear in general 3 17,6 17,6 17,6 alid fear of refugee/refugee 2 11,8 11,8 29,4 crisis negative campaigning 2 11,8 11,8 41,2 Weidel leaving a talk 1 5,9 5,9 47,1 show with Marietta Slomka calculated provocation by the AfD to spark atten- 2 11,8 11,8 58,8 tion rhetoric/radical state- 1 5,9 5,9 64,7 ments/verbal radicalization external, societal or personal factors responsible 2 11,8 11,8 76,5 for the result higher crime rates 1 5,9 5,9 82,4 anti-Semitism 1 5,9 5,9 88,2 AfD heritage of racism 1 5,9 5,9 94,1 other reasons 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 Total 100, 17 100,0 0

Recommendation for action Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no action recommen- 11 64,7 64,7 64,7 alid dation political action recom- 6 35,3 35,3 100,0 mendation Total 100, 17 100,0 0

solutions Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no solutions 13 76,5 76,5 76,5 alid solutions to approach/cope with the AfD in 3 17,6 17,6 94,1 parliament new orientation/formation of other parties' poli- 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 tics Total 100, 17 100,0 0

205

Call to action Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Valid no call to 17 100,0 100,0 100,0 action Neutrality Fre- Per- Valid Cumulative quency cent Percent Percent Valid article is objective 11 64,7 64,7 64,7 and neutral rather objective and 3 17,6 17,6 82,4 neutral rather subjec- 2 11,8 11,8 94,1 tive/judgmental subjective/judgmen- 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 tal Total 17 100,0 100,0

Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V positive tenor 2 11,8 11,8 11,8 alid negative tenor 5 29,4 29,4 41,2 ambivalent, not decid- 10 58,8 58,8 100,0 able Total 100, 17 100,0 0

Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V negative tenor 7 41,2 41,2 41,2 alid ambivalent, not decid- 10 58,8 58,8 100,0 able Total 100, 17 100,0 0

Overall tendency of the article Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Valid balanced 10 58,8 58,8 58,8 rather nega- 6 35,3 35,3 94,1 tive very negative 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 Total 17 100,0 100,0

206

Negativity Fre- Valid Cumula- quency Percent Percent tive Percent Valid not at all nega- 6 35,3 35,3 35,3 tive slightly nega- 7 41,2 41,2 76,5 tive somewhat nega- 3 17,6 17,6 94,1 tive extremely nega- 1 5,9 5,9 100,0 tive Total 17 100,0 100,0

207

1.5.Consequences and reactions frame

Filter: MISSING FRAME & SUB >= 300 & SUB <= 306 OR SEC_SUB >= 300 & SEC_SUB <= 306 OR SUB = 202 OR SEC_SUB = 202

Frequency Table

Subject of the illustration Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Vali no illustration 16 50,0 53,3 53,3 d neutral AfD 3 9,4 10,0 63,3 member of other par- 4 12,5 13,3 76,7 ties visualization of facts 1 3,1 3,3 80,0 several subjects 2 6,3 6,7 86,7 other subject 4 12,5 13,3 100,0 Total 30 93,8 100,0 Mis 88 2 6,3 sing Total 100, 32 0

Main subject of the article Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V AfD election result 2 6,3 6,3 6,3 alid reactions to AfD elec- 12 37,5 37,5 43,8 tion result consequences of elec- 10 31,3 31,3 75,0 tion result AfD chairmen 2 6,3 6,3 81,3 AfD money 1 3,1 3,1 84,4 AfD in general/charac- 4 12,5 12,5 96,9 terization of the AfD other subject 1 3,1 3,1 100,0 Total 100, 32 100,0 0

208

Secondary subject of the article Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (secondary) subject 8 25,0 25,0 25,0 alid AfD election result 1 3,1 3,1 28,1 election party AfD 1 3,1 3,1 31,3 reactions to AfD elec- 2 6,3 6,3 37,5 tion result consequences of elec- 7 21,9 21,9 59,4 tion result factual outlook 2 6,3 6,3 65,6 AfD chairmen 2 6,3 6,3 71,9 AfD money 1 3,1 3,1 75,0 AfD in general/charac- 1 3,1 3,1 78,1 terization of the AfD right-wing populism 1 3,1 3,1 81,3 other subject 6 18,8 18,8 100,0 Total 100, 32 100,0 0

Protest Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid no 25 78,1 78,1 78,1 yes 7 21,9 21,9 100,0 To- 32 100,0 100,0 tal

Attribute 1 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (other) attrib- 8 25,0 25,0 25,0 alid utes right/nationalist 6 18,8 18,8 43,8 right-wing ex- 7 21,9 21,9 65,6 tremism racist 1 3,1 3,1 68,8 right-wing popu- 10 31,3 31,3 100,0 list Total 100, 32 100,0 0

209

Attribute 2 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no (other) attrib- 18 56,3 56,3 56,3 alid utes Eurosceptic 2 6,3 6,3 62,5 right/nationalist 4 12,5 12,5 75,0 right-wing ex- 1 3,1 3,1 78,1 tremism racist 1 3,1 3,1 81,3 quarreled/es- 1 3,1 3,1 84,4 tranged divided/frag- 1 3,1 3,1 87,5 mented inflammatory 1 3,1 3,1 90,6 right-wing popu- 2 6,3 6,3 96,9 list powerful 1 3,1 3,1 100,0 Total 100, 32 100,0 0

Active Actor 1 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid AfD as actor 7 21,9 21,9 21,9 Alexander Gauland 1 3,1 3,1 25,0 Frauke Petry 1 3,1 3,1 28,1 Other AfD member as 2 6,3 6,3 34,4 actor Armin-Paul Hampel 1 3,1 3,1 37,5 Other parties in gen- 3 9,4 9,4 46,9 eral as member Bündnis 90/Die Grü- 1 3,1 3,1 50,0 nen Dagmar Freitag 1 3,1 3,1 53,1 EU politicians/EU 1 3,1 3,1 56,3 Israeli politician 2 6,3 6,3 62,5 UK politician 1 3,1 3,1 65,6 Luxembourg politi- 1 3,1 3,1 68,8 cian citizen group 1 3,1 3,1 71,9 participants of protests 7 21,9 21,9 93,8 and demonstrations other cultural actors 2 6,3 6,3 100,0 Total 32 100,0 100,0

210

Active Actor 2 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no (other) actor 5 15,6 15,6 15,6 AfD as actor 2 6,3 6,3 21,9 Alexander Gauland 2 6,3 6,3 28,1 Alice Weidel 1 3,1 3,1 31,3 Frauke Petry 1 3,1 3,1 34,4 Markus Frohnmaier 1 3,1 3,1 37,5 Other AfD member as 2 6,3 6,3 43,8 actor Armin-Paul Hampel 1 3,1 3,1 46,9 Frank Magnitz 1 3,1 3,1 50,0 Other parties in gen- 4 12,5 12,5 62,5 eral as member Cem Özdemir 1 3,1 3,1 65,6 FDP 1 3,1 3,1 68,8 Andrea Nahles 1 3,1 3,1 71,9 Hungarian politician 1 3,1 3,1 75,0 Belgium politician 1 3,1 3,1 78,1 parliament 1 3,1 3,1 81,3 activists 1 3,1 3,1 84,4 artists 1 3,1 3,1 87,5 other academic ex- 1 3,1 3,1 90,6 perts international NGOs 1 3,1 3,1 93,8 National Police 2 6,3 6,3 100,0 Total 32 100,0 100,0 Passive Actor 1 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no (other) 15 46,9 46,9 46,9 actor AfD as ac- 14 43,8 43,8 90,6 tor Björn 2 6,3 6,3 96,9 Höcke Angela 1 3,1 3,1 100,0 Merkel Total 32 100,0 100,0

211

Passive Actor 2 Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no (other) actor 27 84,4 84,4 84,4 Other parties in gen- 1 3,1 3,1 87,5 eral as member CDU/CSU 1 3,1 3,1 90,6 Angela Merkel 1 3,1 3,1 93,8 TV-stations 1 3,1 3,1 96,9 National Police 1 3,1 3,1 100,0 Total 32 100,0 100,0 Winner or Loser evaluation Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumula- quency cent cent tive Percent Valid tri- 1 3,1 4,8 4,8 umph vic- 5 15,6 23,8 28,6 tory win 15 46,9 71,4 100,0 To- 21 65,6 100,0 tal Miss- 88 11 34,4 ing Total 32 100,0

Benefits of the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no benefits men- 32 100,0 100,0 100,0 tioned

Disadvantages of the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no disadvantages 21 65,6 65,6 65,6 alid division of society 2 6,3 6,3 71,9 negative effects on 2 6,3 6,3 78,1 economy other disadvantages 7 21,9 21,9 100,0 Total 100, 32 100,0 0

Reason for the election result Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no reason 100, 32 100,0 100,0 alid named 0

212

Recommendation for action Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V no action recommen- 19 59,4 59,4 59,4 alid dation social action recom- 1 3,1 3,1 62,5 mendation political action recom- 12 37,5 37,5 100,0 mendation Total 100, 32 100,0 0

solutions Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no solutions 24 75,0 75,0 75,0 solutions to approach/cope with the AfD 7 21,9 21,9 96,9 in parliament talking/dialogue 1 3,1 3,1 100,0 among the voters Total 32 100,0 100,0

Call to action Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent Valid no call to 32 100,0 100,0 100,0 action

Neutrality Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V article is objective and 27 84,4 84,4 84,4 alid neutral rather objective and 1 3,1 3,1 87,5 neutral rather subjective/judg- 4 12,5 12,5 100,0 mental Total 100, 32 100,0 0

Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V negative tenor 19 59,4 59,4 59,4 alid ambivalent, not decid- 13 40,6 40,6 100,0 able Total 100, 32 100,0 0 213

Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V negative tenor 14 43,8 43,8 43,8 alid ambivalent, not decid- 18 56,3 56,3 100,0 able Total 100, 32 100,0 0

Overall tendency of the article Fre- Per- Valid Per- Cumulative quency cent cent Percent Valid balanced 19 59,4 59,4 59,4 rather nega- 13 40,6 40,6 100,0 tive Total 32 100,0 100,0

Negativity Fre- Per- Valid Cumula- quency cent Percent tive Percent V not at all nega- 15 46,9 46,9 46,9 alid tive slightly negative 13 40,6 40,6 87,5 somewhat nega- 3 9,4 9,4 96,9 tive moderately nega- 1 3,1 3,1 100,0 tive Total 100, 32 100,0 0

214

2. Research Question 2

2.1.Conflict frame

Newspaper * Main subject of the article Crosstabulation Count Main subject of the article Af D in rea gen- Af sons for conse ge eral/char D elec- AfD quences of Petr neral acterization re- election election y splits division tion of To sult result result from AfD of AfD the AfD tal News BILD 0 0 0 4 1 0 5 paper Die 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 Welt Frank furter All- 0 0 2 3 2 0 7 gemeine Zeitung Süd- deutsche 0 1 0 2 2 0 5 Zeitung tages- 1 0 0 3 2 1 7 zeitung Neue s Deutsch- 0 0 0 5 1 0 6 land Total 1 1 2 20 8 1 33

215

Newspaper * Secondary subject of the article Crosstabulation Count Secondary subject of the article Af re D in asons gen- n for cons g eral/cha o (se- AfD equences Pet eneral racteri- condar elec- of elec- ry splits divi- zation oth y) sub- tion re- tion re- from sion of of the er sub- T ject sult sult AfD AfD AfD ject otal Ne BIL 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 5 wspaper D Die 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 Welt Fran kfurter Allge- 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 7 meine Zeitung Süd- deutsche 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 5 Zeitung tageszei- 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 7 tung Neu es 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 6 Deutsch- land Total 1 3 1 1 3 8 3 1 6 3 Newspaper * Protest Crosstabulation Count Protest no Total Newspa- BILD 5 5 per Die Welt 3 3 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 7 7 Süddeutsche Zeitung 5 5 tageszeitung 7 7 Neues Deutschland 6 6 Total 33 33

216

Newspaper * Attribute 1 Crosstabulation Count To- Attribute 1 tal no (other) right- right- right- attribu- wing con- right/nationa- wing extra- quarreled/estran- divided/frag- wing po- tes servative list remism cist ged mented pulist Newspa- BILD 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 5 per Die Welt 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 Frankfur- ter Allgemeine 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 7 Zeitung Süddeut- 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 5 sche Zeitung tageszei- 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 7 tung Neues 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 6 Deutschland Total 4 1 6 5 1 1 13 2 33

217

Newspaper * Attribute 2 Crosstabulation Count To- Attribute 2 tal no (other) right- right- attribu- right/natio- wing ext- quarreled/est- divided/frag- wing po- dubious/untrust- tes nalist remism ranged mented pulist worthy Newspa- BILD 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 5 per Die Welt 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 Frankfur- ter Allgemeine 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 Zeitung Süddeut- 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 sche Zeitung tageszei- 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 7 tung Neues 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 Deutschland Total 12 2 2 7 8 1 1 33

218

Newspaper * Active Actor 1 Crosstabulation Count Active Actor 1 Total

Mar- Other Frank- AfD Alexan- cus Markus AfD Frank Bern- Walter citizen(s) as der Pret- Frauke Matthias Björn Jörg Frohn- member Bernd Mag- hard Stein- as actor Gauland zell Petry Manthei Höcke Meuthen maier as actor Baumann nitz Wildt meier voter(s) News- BILD 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 paper Die Welt 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Frankfurter Allgemeine 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 Zeitung Süddeut- sche Zei- 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 tung tageszei- 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 7 tung Neues Deutsch- 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 land Total 1 1 1 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33

219

Newspaper * Active Actor 2 Crosstabulation Count Active Actor 2 AfD as Alexander Alice Marcus Frauke Björn Other AfD mem- Armin-Paul Bernhard Volker citizen(s) as To- actor Gauland Weidel Pretzell Petry Höcke ber as actor Hampel Wildt Kauder voter(s) tal Newspa- BILD 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 per Die Welt 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Frankfurter Allge- 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 meine Zeitung Süddeutsche Zei- 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 tung tageszeitung 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 7 Neues Deutschland 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Total 3 5 1 8 7 1 4 1 1 1 1 33

Newspaper * Passive Actor 1 Crosstabulation Count Passive Actor 1 no (other) actor Frauke Petry Björn Höcke Jörg Meuthen Total Newspaper BILD 3 1 0 1 5 Die Welt 3 0 0 0 3 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei- 7 0 0 0 7 tung Süddeutsche Zeitung 5 0 0 0 5 tageszeitung 4 0 3 0 7 Neues Deutschland 6 0 0 0 6 Total 28 1 3 1 33

220

Newspaper * Passive Actor 2 Crosstabulation Count Passive Actor 2 no AfD Alice To- (other) actor as actor Weidel tal Newspaper BILD 3 1 1 5 Die Welt 3 0 0 3 Frankfurter Allge- 7 0 0 7 meine Zeitung Süddeutsche Zei- 5 0 0 5 tung tageszeitung 7 0 0 7 Neues Deutschland 6 0 0 6 Total 31 1 1 33

Newspaper * Winner or Loser evaluation Crosstabulation Count Winner or Loser evaluation tri- vic- stag- To- umph tory win nation tal News- BILD 0 0 2 0 2 paper Die Welt 0 0 3 0 3 Frankfurter Allge- 0 2 4 0 6 meine Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 1 0 2 0 3 tageszeitung 0 0 2 1 3 Neues Deutschland 0 0 1 0 1 Total 1 2 14 1 18

221

Newspaper * Benefits of the election result Crosstabulation Count Benefits of the election result no benefits mentioned Total Newspaper BILD 5 5 Die Welt 3 3 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 7 7 Süddeutsche Zeitung 5 5 tageszeitung 7 7 Neues Deutschland 6 6 Total 33 33

Newspaper * Disadvantages of the election result Crosstabulation Count Disadvantages of the election result no disad- division of vantages society Total Newspa- BILD 5 0 5 per Die Welt 3 0 3 Frankfurter Allgemeine 6 1 7 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 5 0 5 tageszeitung 7 0 7 Neues Deutschland 6 0 6 Total 32 1 33

222

Newspaper * Reason for the election result Crosstabulation Count Reason for the election result ca lculated provo- to fe cation pics of ar of by the the AfD n refu- AfD to were o fe gee/ref- spark espe- pr oth reason ar in ugee atten- cially otest er T named general crisis tion relevant voters reasons otal New BIL 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 spaper D Die 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Welt Fran kfurter Allge- 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 7 meine Zeitung Süd- deutsche 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 Zeitung tageszei- 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 tung Neu es 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Deutsch- land Total 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 33 7

223

Newspaper * Recommendation for action Crosstabulation Count Recommendation for action no action social ac- political recommendation recom- action recom- To- tion mendation mendation tal News- BILD 5 0 0 5 paper Die Welt 3 0 0 3 Frankfurter Allge- 5 0 2 7 meine Zeitung Süddeutsche Zei- 5 0 0 5 tung tageszeitung 6 1 0 7 Neues Deutschland 6 0 0 6 Total 30 1 2 33

Newspaper * solutions Crosstabulation Count solutions no solu- win vo- Analyse To- tions ters back der Gründe tal News- BILD 5 0 0 5 paper Die Welt 3 0 0 3 Frankfurter Allge- 5 1 1 7 meine Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 5 0 0 5 tageszeitung 7 0 0 7 Neues Deutschland 6 0 0 6 Total 31 1 1 33

224

Newspaper * Call to action Crosstabulation Count Call to action no call to action Total Newspaper BILD 5 5 Die Welt 3 3 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 7 7 Süddeutsche Zeitung 5 5 tageszeitung 7 7 Neues Deutschland 6 6 Total 33 33 Newspaper * Neutrality Crosstabulation Count Neutrality rather sub- article rather subjec- jec- is objective objective tive/judg- tive/judg- To- and neutral and neutral mental mental tal News- BILD 4 1 0 0 5 paper Die Welt 2 1 0 0 3 Frankfurter All- 4 1 2 0 7 gemeine Zeitung Süddeutsche 4 1 0 0 5 Zeitung tageszeitung 5 1 0 1 7 Neues Deutsch- 5 0 1 0 6 land Total 24 5 3 1 33

225

Newspaper * Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD Crosstabulation Count Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD ambiva- positive negative lent, not deci- To- tenor tenor dable tal News- BILD 0 0 5 5 paper Die Welt 0 2 1 3 Frankfurter Allge- 1 2 4 7 meine Zeitung Süddeutsche Zei- 0 2 3 5 tung tageszeitung 0 1 6 7 Neues Deutschland 0 0 6 6 Total 1 7 25 33

Newspaper * Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD Crosstabula- tion Count Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD negative te- ambivalent, nor not decidable Total Newspa- BILD 0 5 5 per Die Welt 0 3 3 Frankfurter Allgemeine 1 6 7 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 0 5 5 tageszeitung 1 6 7 Neues Deutschland 0 6 6 Total 2 31 33

Newspaper * Overall tendency of the article Crosstabulation Count Overall tendency of the article rather very To- balanced negative negative tal Newspaper BILD 5 0 0 5 Die Welt 3 0 0 3 Frankfurter Allgemeine 6 1 0 7 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 5 0 0 5 tageszeitung 6 0 1 7 Neues Deutschland 6 0 0 6 Total 31 1 1 33

226

Newspaper * Negativity Crosstabulation Count Negativity so- mode- not at slightly mewhat ne- rately nega- To- all negative negative gative tive tal News- BILD 5 0 0 0 5 paper Die Welt 3 0 0 0 3 Frankfurter All- 5 1 1 0 7 gemeine Zeitung Süddeutsche 5 0 0 0 5 Zeitung tageszeitung 6 0 0 1 7 Neues Deutsch- 5 0 0 1 6 land Total 29 1 1 2 33

227

2.2. Inequality frame

Newspaper * Subject of the illustration Crosstabulation Count Subject of the illustration n mem vi se o il- disap- ber of suali- veral lustra- pointed/sad/a other par- zation sub- othe To tion ngry public ties of facts jects r subject tal News BIL 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 paper D Die 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 Welt Fran kfurter Allge- 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 meine Zei- tung Süd- deutsche 1 0 1 2 2 3 9 Zeitung ta- 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 geszeitung Neue s Deutsch- 3 1 0 0 0 2 6 land Total 9 1 1 3 3 8 25

228

Newspaper * Main subject of the article Crosstabulation Count Main subject of the article Af r re D in eactio asons gen- ns to for eral/cha Af AfD AfD cons racteri- D elec- elec- elec- v equences zation oth tion re- tion tion re- oter(s) of elec- of the er sub- T sult result sult of AfD tion result AfD ject otal New BIL 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 spaper D Die 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 Welt Fran kfurter Allge- 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 meine Zeitung Süd- deutsche 3 1 3 0 1 1 0 9 Zeitung tageszei- 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 tung Neu es 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 6 Deutsch- land Total 1 2 6 2 3 2 1 2 1 7

229

Newspaper * Secondary subject of the article Crosstabulation Count Secondary subject of the article A fD in r r gen- n eactio easons con eral/ch o (se- A ns to for se- arac- conda fD AfD AfD v quences teriza- ry) elec- elec- elec- oter(s) of election of ot sub- tion re- tion tion of tion re- the her T ject sult result result AfD sult AfD subject otal Ne BI 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 wspaper LD Die 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Welt Fra nkfurter Allge- 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 meine Zeitung Süd deutsche 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 9 Zeitung tageszei- 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 tung Ne ues 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 6 Deutsch- land Total 2 2 4 1 6 5 1 2 6 7

Newspaper * Protest Crosstabulation Count Protest no Total Newspaper BILD 2 2 Die Welt 2 2 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 4 4 Süddeutsche Zeitung 9 9 tageszeitung 4 4 Neues Deutschland 6 6 Total 27 27

230

Newspaper * Attribute 1 Crosstabulation Count Attribute 1 peo ple oriented/in touch n with o peo- right (other) ple/grass -wing right attri- root de- right/n extre- ra -wing po- To butes mocracy ationalist mism cist pulist tal New BIL 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 spaper D Die 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 Welt Fran kfurter Allge- 2 1 0 0 0 1 4 meine Zei- tung Süd- deutsche 1 0 2 1 1 4 9 Zeitung ta- 1 0 0 0 0 3 4 geszeitung Neue s Deutsch- 1 0 1 1 0 3 6 land Total 6 2 3 2 1 13 27

231

Newspaper * Attribute 2 Crosstabulation Count Attribute 2 no (other) right/natio- right-wing ra- divi- right-wing seri- To- attributes nalist extremism cist ded/fragmented populist ous/reliable tal News- BILD 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 paper Die Welt 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Frankfurter All- gemeine Zeitung 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Süddeutsche Zei- tung 6 0 0 2 1 0 0 9 tageszeitung 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 Neues Deutsch- land 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 Total 18 2 1 3 1 1 1 27

232

Newspaper * Active Actor 1 Crosstabulation Count Active Actor 1 Ot Ot her par- A her ties in Fr c S lexan- AfD general M Sa O ank- itizen ot cience A der mem- as onika D hra Wa- skar Walter s (s) as her cul- and fD as Gaula ber as mem- CDU/ Grüt- ie gen- Lafon- Stein- pu ingle voter( tural Edu- T actor nd actor ber CSU ters Linke knecht taine meier blic citizen s) actors cation otal Ne BI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 wspaper LD Di 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 e Welt Fra nkfurter Allge- 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 meine Zeitung Sü ddeut- 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 9 sche Zeitung tageszei- 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 tung Ne ues 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 6 Deutschl and Total 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 6 1 1 7 233

Newspaper * Active Actor 2 Crosstabulation

Count Active Actor 2 O ther parties M c ot S B in gen- ichael I s itizen her cience A ernd eral as Kret- Os ris Fre ingle (s) as cultu- and fD as Fra Bauma mem- CDU/ schm kar La- Glei- nch poli- Gov pu citi- voter( ral ac- Edu- T actor uke Petry nn ber CSU er fontaine cke tician ernment blic zen s) tors cation otal Ne BI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 wspaper LD Di 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 e Welt Fr ankfur- ter All- 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 gemeine Zeitung Sü ddeut- 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 sche Zeitung tageszei- 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 tung Ne ues 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 6 Deutsch land

234

Total 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 2 7 Newspaper * Passive Actor 1 Crosstabulation Count Passive Actor 1 no (other) citizen(s) actor AfD as actor CDU/CSU as voter(s) Total Newspaper BILD 1 1 0 0 2 Die Welt 0 2 0 0 2 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei- 3 0 0 1 4 tung Süddeutsche Zeitung 6 2 1 0 9 tageszeitung 2 2 0 0 4 Neues Deutschland 2 3 0 1 6 Total 14 10 1 2 27

235

Newspaper * Passive Actor 2 Crosstabulation Count Passive Actor 2 no (other) ac- AfD as ac- citizen(s) as tor tor Cem Özdemir SPD voter(s) Total Newspaper BILD 2 0 0 0 0 2 Die Welt 2 0 0 0 0 2 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei- tung 4 0 0 0 0 4 Süddeutsche Zeitung 7 0 0 1 1 9 tageszeitung 3 0 1 0 0 4 Neues Deutschland 5 1 0 0 0 6 Total 23 1 1 1 1 27

236

Newspaper * Winner or Loser evaluation Crosstabulation Count Winner or Loser evaluation tri- To- umph victory win tal Newspaper BILD 0 0 2 2 Die Welt 0 0 1 1 Frankfurter Allgemeine 0 1 3 4 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 0 2 7 9 tageszeitung 0 1 2 3 Neues Deutschland 1 1 0 2 Total 1 5 15 21

Newspaper * Benefits of the election result Crosstabulation Count Benefits of the election result lesson/warn- no benefits ing for other par- mentioned ties Total Newspa- BILD 2 0 2 per Die Welt 2 0 2 Frankfurter Allgemeine 3 1 4 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 9 0 9 tageszeitung 4 0 4 Neues Deutschland 6 0 6 Total 26 1 27

Newspaper * Disadvantages of the elction result Crosstabulation Count Disadvantages of the election result no disa- division other disa- To- dvantages of society dvantages tal News- BILD 0 2 0 2 paper Die Welt 1 1 0 2 Frankfurter All- 4 0 0 4 gemeine Zeitung Süddeutsche Zei- 4 4 1 9 tung tageszeitung 2 2 0 4 Neues Deutsch- 3 3 0 6 land Total 14 12 1 27

237

Newspaper * Reason for the election result Crosstabulation Count Reason for the election result socially ine- rage/an- rural and/or cul- quality east ger/frustra- depopula- turally sus- /west Ger- To- tion of voters tion pended many tal News- BILD 2 0 0 0 2 paper Die Welt 0 0 1 1 2 Frankfurter 1 0 1 2 4 Allgemeine Zeitung Süddeutsche 6 0 3 0 9 Zeitung tageszeitung 2 0 2 0 4 Neues Deutsch- 0 1 3 2 6 land Total 11 1 10 5 27

Newspaper * Recommendation for action Crosstabulation Count Recommendation for action no action social ac- political recommendation recom- action recom- To- tion mendation mendation tal News- BILD 2 0 0 2 paper Die Welt 0 1 1 2 Frankfurter Allge- 2 2 0 4 meine Zeitung Süddeutsche Zei- 4 0 5 9 tung tageszeitung 1 0 3 4 Neues Deutschland 3 1 2 6 Total 12 4 11 27

238

Newspaper * solutions Crosstabulation Count solutions societal solutions to ap- in- talk- adjust problems must be Ana- no proach/cope with the forma- ing/dialogue media addressed by the lyse der other To- solutions AfD in parliament tion with the voters coverage parliament Gründe solutions tal News- BILD 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 paper Die Welt 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei- 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 tung Süddeut- sche Zeitung 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 tageszeitung 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 Neues Deutschland 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 6 Total 12 1 2 1 1 4 5 1 27

239

Newspaper * Call to action Crosstabulation Count Call to action no call to ac- To- tion tal Newspa- BILD 2 2 per Die Welt 2 2 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei- 4 4 tung Süddeut- 9 9 sche Zeitung tageszei- 4 4 tung Neues 6 6 Deutschland Total 27 27

Newspaper * Neutrality Crosstabulation Count Neutrality article is ob- rather jective and objective and rather subjec- To- neutral neutral tive/judgmental tal Newspa- BILD 0 2 0 2 per Die Welt 1 1 0 2 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei- 2 0 2 4 tung Süddeut- 4 3 2 9 sche Zeitung tageszei- 3 1 0 4 tung Neues 4 2 0 6 Deutschland Total 14 9 4 27

240

Newspaper * Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD Crosstabulation Count Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD ambiva- positive negative lent, not deci- To- tenor tenor dable tal News- BILD 0 1 1 2 paper Die Welt 0 1 1 2 Frankfurter Allge- 1 1 2 4 meine Zeitung Süddeutsche Zei- 0 8 1 9 tung tageszeitung 0 2 2 4 Neues Deutschland 0 2 4 6 Total 1 15 11 27

Newspaper * Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD Crosstabula- tion Count Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD negative te- ambivalent, nor not decidable Total Newspa- BILD 0 2 2 per Die Welt 2 0 2 Frankfurter Allgemeine 1 3 4 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 6 3 9 tageszeitung 2 2 4 Neues Deutschland 4 2 6 Total 15 12 27

Newspaper * Overall tendency of the article Crosstabulation Count Overall tendency of the article rather nega- balanced tive Total Newspaper BILD 1 1 2 Die Welt 1 1 2 Frankfurter Allgemeine 3 1 4 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 3 6 9 tageszeitung 2 2 4 Neues Deutschland 4 2 6 Total 14 13 27

241

Newspaper * Negativity Crosstabulation Count Negativity not at slightly somewhat To- all negative negative negative tal Newspaper BILD 2 0 0 2 Die Welt 1 1 0 2 Frankfurter Allge- 3 1 0 4 meine Zeitung Süddeutsche Zei- 2 3 4 9 tung tageszeitung 2 1 1 4 Neues Deutsch- 1 5 0 6 land Total 11 11 5 27

242

2.3.Administration critical frame

Crosstabs Newspaper * Subject of the illustration Crosstabulation Count Subject of the illustration

disap- no cele- pointed/sad/angry election visuali- sev- illustra- brating member members of other par- campaign of zation of eral sub- other To- tion AfD of other parties ties AfD facts jects subject tal News- BILD 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 paper Die Welt 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 2 8

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei- tung 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Süddeut- sche Zeitung 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 5

tageszeitung 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 4

243

Neues Deutschland 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

Total 11 2 6 1 1 1 2 6 30

244

Newspaper * Main subject of the article Crosstabulation Count Main subject of the article AfD in han- reac- rea- conse- gen- dling/deal- AfD elections to AfD sons for quences of eral/charac- ing of the election re- tion party election re- AfD elec- voter(s) election re- terization of media with other sub- To- sult AfD sult tion result of AfD sult the AfD the AfD ject tal News- BILD 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 paper Die Welt 5 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 Frank- furter Allge- meine Zei- 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 6 tung Süd- deutsche Zei- 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 5 tung tageszeitung 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 Neues Deutschland 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total 9 1 4 8 1 4 1 1 1 30

245

Newspaper * Secondary subject of the article Crosstabulation Count Secondary subject of the article conse- deal- no AfD quences gen- ing of the (sec- election po- AfD of elec- eral/char- media ondary) cam- litical election re- rea- voter(s) tion re- acteriza- with the other To- subject paign, failure result actions sons of AfD sult tion AfD subject tal News- BILD 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 paper Die Welt 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 1 0 1 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 6 Zeitung Süddeutsche 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 Zeitung tageszeitung 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 Neues 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 Deutschland Total 2 1 1 2 5 8 1 4 4 1 1 30

246

Newspaper * Protest Crosstabulation Count Protest no yes Total Newspaper BILD 4 0 4 Die Welt 8 0 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 6 0 6 Süddeutsche Zeitung 4 1 5 tageszeitung 4 0 4 Neues Deutschland 3 0 3 Total 29 1 30

247

Newspaper * Attribute 1 Crosstabulation Count Attribute 1 people oriented/in touch no with peo- (other) ple/grass- right- quar- in- right- attrib- root de- right/na- wing ex- rac- con- reled/es- flamma- wing popu- pow- To- utes mocracy tionalist tremism ist flictual tranged tory list erful tal News- BILD 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 paper Die Welt 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 6 Zeitung Süddeutsche 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 5 Zeitung tageszeitung 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Neues 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 Deutschland Total 6 2 7 2 1 1 1 1 8 1 30

248

Newspaper * Attribute 2 Crosstabulation Count Attribute 2 no di- (other) at- Euro- right/na- vided/frag- right- power- tributes sceptic tionalist racist mented wing populist ful harmless Total Newspa- BILD 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 per Die Welt 4 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 8 Frankfurter 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 Allgemeine Zeitung Süddeutsche 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 Zeitung tageszeitung 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Neues Deutsch- 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 land Total 19 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 30

249

Newspaper * Active Actor 1 Crosstabulation Count T Active Actor 1 otal n s A Ot Ot S D ationa rocial ot I fD as Wher AfD her par- M eeho- Til- Ha Pal ie K Eciti- vote l me- egion sci- her ac- ndus- actor eidel member ties erkel fer lich seloff mer Linke ipping U zen r(s) dia al TV ence ademic try Ne BILD 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 wspaper Die 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Welt Frank- furter Allge- 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 meine Zeitung Süddeut 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 sche Zeitung tageszei 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 tung Neues 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 Deutschland Total 3 9 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0

250

Newspaper * Active Actor 2 Crosstabulation Cou nt D F s no O C K ie rench T ocial T (other) A ther DU/C Mer- retsch L Grü- Wagen politi- c voter(s V-sta- sci- In- ot actor fD Petry Höcke parties SU kel mer ösel nen knecht cian itizen ) tions ence dustry al N BIL 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 ewspa- D per Die 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 Welt Fra nkfurter Allge- 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 meine Zeitung Süd deutsche 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 5 Zeitung tage 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 szeitung Neu es 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 Deutsch- land Total 3 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 0

251

Newspaper * Passive Actor 1 Crosstabulation Count Passive Actor 1 no (other) AfD as Björn Horst See- actor actor Höcke CDU/CSU hofer public Total Newspa- BILD 2 0 0 1 0 1 4 per Die Welt 4 3 1 0 0 0 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 tageszeitung 2 1 0 0 1 0 4 Neues Deutschland 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 Total 16 10 1 1 1 1 30

Newspaper * Passive Actor 2 Crosstabulation Count Passive Actor 2 Other par- no (other) AfD as ties in general as Angela citizen(s) as actor actor member CDU/CSU Merkel voter(s) Total Newspa- BILD 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 per Die Welt 6 0 1 0 1 0 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 3 0 0 1 0 1 5 tageszeitung 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 Neues Deutschland 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total 25 1 1 1 1 1 30

252

Newspaper * Winner or Loser evaluation Crosstabulation Count Winner or Loser evaluation tri- To- umph victory win tal Newspaper BILD 0 2 2 4 Die Welt 2 0 6 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine 0 3 3 6 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 1 2 2 5 tageszeitung 0 2 2 4 Neues Deutschland 1 0 0 1 Total 4 9 15 28

Newspaper * Benefits of the election result Crosstabulation Count Benefits of the election result re- les- thinking live- no son/warn- of strate- lier dis- benefits ing for gies by cussions men- other par- other par- in Bun- other To- tioned ties ties destag benefits tal News- BILD 2 1 1 0 0 4 paper Die Welt 7 0 0 0 1 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine 4 1 0 1 0 6 Zeitung Süddeutsche 4 0 1 0 0 5 Zeitung tageszeitung 3 1 0 0 0 4 Neues 3 0 0 0 0 3 Deutschland Total 23 3 2 1 1 30

253

Newspaper * Disadvantages of the elction result Crosstabulation Count Disadvantages of the elction result decreasing quality of debates in the Bun- neg- no di- des- ative ef- other disad- vision of tag/rough fects on disad- To- vantages society tone economy vantages tal News- BILD 3 0 1 0 0 4 paper Die Welt 5 0 2 0 1 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine 1 1 1 1 2 6 Zeitung Süddeutsche 5 0 0 0 0 5 Zeitung tageszeitung 4 0 0 0 0 4 Neues 3 0 0 0 0 3 Deutschland Total 21 1 4 1 3 30

254

Newspaper * Reason for the election result Crosstabulation Count Reason for the election result bet- other top- ter ap- ac- fail- other ics of the proach AfD's tors/par- ure to parties did above AfD to cur- way to ties re- shift approach not op- average were es- rent sub- handle the radicaliza- sponsible to the left voters by pose the representa- pro- pecially jects by refugee tion/shift to the for the re- of other other AfD tion in the test vot- To- relevant the AfD crisis right of the AfD sult parties parties enough media ers tal News- BILD 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 4 paper Die Welt 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 6 Zeitung Süddeutsche 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 5 Zeitung tageszeitung 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 Neues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 Deutschland Total 6 1 4 1 1 1 5 1 5 5 30

255

Newspaper * Recommendation for action Crosstabulation Count Recommendation for action or- no so- po- ganiza- other action cial ac- litical ac- tional ac- action recom- tion rec- tion rec- tion rec- recom- menda- ommen- ommen- ommen- menda- To- tion dation dation dation tion tal News- BILD 1 0 3 0 0 4 paper Die Welt 3 0 5 0 0 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine 0 0 5 0 1 6 Zeitung Süddeutsche 2 1 1 1 0 5 Zeitung tageszeitung 1 0 3 0 0 4 Neues 0 0 1 2 0 3 Deutschland Total 7 1 18 3 1 30

256

Newspaper * solutions Crosstabulation Count solutions soci- solu- etal prob- tions to ap- lems must proach/cope ad- be ad- new orienta- no with the talking/dia- just me- win change dressed by tion/formation of solu- AfD in par- logue with the vot- dia cov- voters migration the parlia- other parties' poli- other To- tions liament ers erage back policies ment tics solutions tal Newspa- BILD 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 per Die Welt 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 6 Zeitung Süddeutsche 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 5 Zeitung tageszeitung 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 Neues 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 Deutschland Total 8 6 1 2 5 1 2 4 1 30

257

Newspaper * Call to action Crosstabulation Count Call to action change own behav- dialogue with AfD no call to action iors/habits voters Total Newspaper BILD 3 0 1 4 Die Welt 8 0 0 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 6 0 0 6 Süddeutsche Zeitung 4 1 0 5 tageszeitung 3 1 0 4 Neues Deutschland 3 0 0 3 Total 27 2 1 30

Newspaper * Neutrality Crosstabulation Count Neutrality article is objec- rather objective rather subjec- subjective/judg- tive and neutral and neutral tive/judgmental mental Total Newspaper BILD 0 2 1 1 4 Die Welt 4 4 0 0 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2 1 3 0 6 Süddeutsche Zeitung 4 1 0 0 5 tageszeitung 3 1 0 0 4 Neues Deutschland 1 1 0 1 3 Total 14 10 4 2 30

258

Newspaper * Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD Crosstabulation Count Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD ambivalent, not de- positive tenor negative tenor cidable Total Newspaper BILD 3 1 0 4 Die Welt 0 2 6 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 0 5 1 6 Süddeutsche Zeitung 0 4 1 5 tageszeitung 1 1 2 4 Neues Deutschland 0 2 1 3 Total 4 15 11 30

Newspaper * Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD Crosstabulation Count Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD ambivalent, not de- positive tenor negative tenor cidable Total Newspaper BILD 3 1 0 4 Die Welt 0 3 5 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 0 5 1 6 Süddeutsche Zeitung 0 3 2 5 tageszeitung 0 1 3 4 Neues Deutschland 0 2 1 3 Total 3 15 12 30

259

Newspaper * Overall tendency of the article Crosstabulation Count Overall tendency of the article rather positive balanced rather negative very negative Total Newspaper BILD 3 0 1 0 4 Die Welt 0 7 1 0 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 0 2 3 1 6 Süddeutsche Zeitung 0 2 3 0 5 tageszeitung 0 3 1 0 4 Neues Deutschland 0 1 2 0 3 Total 3 15 11 1 30

Newspaper * Negativity Crosstabulation Count Negativity not at all nega- somewhat nega- moderately neg- tive slightly negative tive ative Total Newspaper BILD 3 1 0 0 4 Die Welt 2 6 0 0 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 0 2 3 1 6 Süddeutsche Zeitung 1 4 0 0 5 tageszeitung 2 2 0 0 4 Neues Deutschland 1 2 0 0 3 Total 9 17 3 1 30

260

2.4.Right-wing populistic election campaign frame

Crosstabs

Newspaper * Subject of the illustration Crosstabulation Count Subject of the illustration disappointed/sad/an- election no illus- celebrat- neutral gry members campaign of visualiza- other To- tration ing AfD AfD of other parties AfD tion of facts subject tal News- BILD 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 paper Die Welt 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 5 Frankfurter Allge- 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 meine Zeitung tageszeitung 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 5 Neues Deutschland 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 4 2 1 1 1 2 6 17

261

Newspaper * Main subject of the article Crosstabulation Count Main subject of the article content of the AfD election campaign, view- reac- conse- AfD in points and AfD tions to AfD reasons quences of general/char- topics of the election re- election re- for AfD elec- voter(s) election re- acterization other To- AfD sult sult tion result of AfD sult of the AfD subject tal News- BILD 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 paper Die Welt 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 Frankfurter Allge- 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 meine Zeitung tageszeitung 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 Neues Deutsch- 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 land Total 1 5 2 3 1 1 2 2 17

262

Newspaper * Secondary subject of the article Crosstabulation Count Secondary subject of the article AfD in reasons conse- general/char- no (sec- for AfD elec- quences of acterization of anti- islam- other To- ondary) subject tion result election result the AfD Semitism ophobia subject tal News- BILD 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 paper Die Welt 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 5 Frankfurter Allge- 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 meine Zeitung tageszeitung 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 5 Neues Deutschland 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 2 4 5 2 1 1 2 17

Newspaper * Protest Crosstabulation Count Protest no yes Total Newspa- BILD 2 1 3 per Die Welt 5 0 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine 3 0 3 Zeitung tageszeitung 5 0 5 Neues Deutschland 1 0 1 Total 16 1 17

263

Newspaper * Attribute 1 Crosstabulation Count Attribute 1 people oriented/in touch with peo- no (other) ple/grassroot right/national- right-wing right-wing attributes democracy ist extremism populist powerful Total Newspa- BILD 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 per Die Welt 0 0 2 0 3 0 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 Zeitung tageszeitung 1 0 2 1 1 0 5 Neues Deutschland 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 1 1 4 3 7 1 17

264

Newspaper * Attribute 2 Crosstabulation Count Attribute 2 no right- di- right- (other) at- right/na- wing ex- rac- con- vided/frag- inflam- wing popu- com- To- tributes tionalist tremism ist flictual mented matory list petent tal News- BILD 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 paper Die Welt 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 Frankfurter 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 Allgemeine Zeitung tageszeitung 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 Neues Deutsch- 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 land Total 6 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 17

265

Newspaper * Active Actor 1 Crosstabulation Count Active Actor 1 Othe Othe Os Is citi Af Al r AfD r parties in An kar raeli zen(s) so D as ac- exander member as general as CDU/CS gela Hors Lafon- politi- as cial sci- Tot tor Gauland actor member U Merkel t Seehofer taine cian voter(s) ence al News BILD 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 paper Die Welt 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 Zeitung tageszeitun 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 g Neues 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Deutschland Total 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 17

266

Newspaper * Active Actor 2 Crosstabulation Count Active Actor 2 Othe Othe r parties Is cit Af Al r AfD in general An raeli izen(s) me so D as ac- ice Frauk member as mem- gela Di politi- as dia and cial sci- eco To tor Weidel e Petry as actor ber Merkel e Linke cian voter(s) culture ence nomics tal News BILD 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 paper Die Welt 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 Zeitung tageszeitun 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 g Neues 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Deutschland Total 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 17

267

Newspaper * Passive Actor 1 Crosstabulation Count Passive Actor 1 Other parties no (other) ac- AfD as ac- in general as mem- tor tor ber Angela Merkel public Total Newspaper BILD 1 0 1 1 0 3 Die Welt 2 3 0 0 0 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine 1 2 0 0 0 3 Zeitung tageszeitung 3 2 0 0 0 5 Neues Deutschland 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 7 7 1 1 1 17

268

Newspaper * Passive Actor 2 Crosstabulation Count Passive Actor 2 no (other) ac- Jörg Meu- Angela Mer- French politi- citizen(s) as tor then kel cian voter(s) Total Newspaper BILD 2 1 0 0 0 3 Die Welt 2 0 1 1 1 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine 3 0 0 0 0 3 Zeitung tageszeitung 4 0 1 0 0 5 Neues Deutschland 1 0 0 0 0 1 Total 12 1 2 1 1 17

Newspaper * Winner or Loser evaluation Crosstabulation Count Winner or Loser evaluation triumph victory win Total Newspaper BILD 0 1 1 2 Die Welt 2 0 3 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 1 1 1 3 tageszeitung 0 3 2 5 Neues Deutschland 0 0 1 1 Total 3 5 8 16

269

Newspaper * Benefits of the election result Crosstabulation Count Benefits of the election result lesson/warning for other no benefits mentioned parties Total Newspaper BILD 3 0 3 Die Welt 5 0 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 3 0 3 tageszeitung 4 1 5 Neues Deutschland 1 0 1 Total 16 1 17

270

Newspaper * Disadvantages of the election result Crosstabulation Count Disadvantages of the election result decreasing increasing in- quality of debates strumentalization no disad- division of in the Bundes- of subjects like other disadvantages society tag/rough tone fear, crimes, terror vantages Total Newspa- BILD 3 0 0 0 0 3 per Die Welt 3 0 0 1 1 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine 1 1 1 0 0 3 Zeitung tageszeitung 4 1 0 0 0 5 Neues Deutschland 0 1 0 0 0 1 Total 11 3 1 1 1 17

271

Newspaper * Reason for the election result Crosstabulation Count Reason for the election result external, societal cal- or per- Wei- culated rhet- sonal del leav- provoca- oric/radi- factors fear neg- ing a talk tion by cal state- respon- fear of refu- ative show with the AfD ments/ver- sible for AfD in gen- gee/refu- cam- Marietta to spark bal radi- the re- higher anti- heritage other To- eral gee crisis paigning Slomka attention calization sult crime rates Semitism of racism reasons tal News- BILD 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 paper Die Welt 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zeitung tageszeitung 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 Neues 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Deutschland Total 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 17

272

Newspaper * Recommendation for action Crosstabulation Count Recommendation for action no action recom- political action recommenda- mendation tion Total Newspaper BILD 3 0 3 Die Welt 3 2 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2 1 3 tageszeitung 2 3 5 Neues Deutschland 1 0 1 Total 11 6 17

Newspaper * solutions Crosstabulation Count solutions solutions to ap- new orientation/for- proach/cope with the AfD mation of other parties' no solutions in parliament politics Total Newspaper BILD 3 0 0 3 Die Welt 4 1 0 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2 0 1 3 tageszeitung 3 2 0 5 Neues Deutschland 1 0 0 1 Total 13 3 1 17

273

Newspaper * Call to action Crosstabulation Count Call to action no call to action Total Newspaper BILD 3 3 Die Welt 5 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 3 3 tageszeitung 5 5 Neues Deutschland 1 1 Total 17 17

Newspaper * Neutrality Crosstabulation Count Neutrality article is objec- rather objective rather subjec- subjective/judg- tive and neutral and neutral tive/judgmental mental Total Newspaper BILD 2 1 0 0 3 Die Welt 4 1 0 0 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 1 1 1 0 3 tageszeitung 4 0 1 0 5 Neues Deutschland 0 0 0 1 1 Total 11 3 2 1 17

274

Newspaper * Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD Crosstabulation Count Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD ambivalent, not de- positive tenor negative tenor cidable Total Newspaper BILD 1 0 2 3 Die Welt 0 2 3 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 0 1 2 3 tageszeitung 1 1 3 5 Neues Deutschland 0 1 0 1 Total 2 5 10 17

Newspaper * Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD Crosstabulation Count Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD negative tenor ambivalent, not decidable Total Newspaper BILD 0 3 3 Die Welt 2 3 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2 1 3 tageszeitung 2 3 5 Neues Deutschland 1 0 1 Total 7 10 17

275

Newspaper * Overall tendency of the article Crosstabulation Count Overall tendency of the article balanced rather negative very negative Total Newspaper BILD 3 0 0 3 Die Welt 3 2 0 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 1 2 0 3 tageszeitung 3 2 0 5 Neues Deutschland 0 0 1 1 Total 10 6 1 17

Newspaper * Negativity Crosstabulation Count Negativity not at all nega- somewhat nega- extremely negative slightly negative tive tive Total Newspaper BILD 2 1 0 0 3 Die Welt 1 3 1 0 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 0 2 1 0 3 tageszeitung 3 1 1 0 5 Neues Deutschland 0 0 0 1 1 Total 6 7 3 1 17

276

2.5. Consequences and reactions frame

Crosstabs

Newspaper * Subject of the illustration Crosstabulation Count Subject of the illustration no illustra- neutral member of visualiza- several sub- other sub- tion AfD other parties tion of facts jects ject Total Newspa- BILD 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 per Die Welt 2 0 1 1 1 2 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 tageszeitung 5 1 3 0 0 2 11 Neues Deutschland 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Total 16 3 4 1 2 4 30

277

Newspaper * Main subject of the article Crosstabulation Count Main subject of the article AfD in reactions conse- general/charac- AfD elec- to AfD election quences of AfD AfD terization of other To- tion result result election result chairmen money the AfD subject tal News- BILD 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 paper Die Welt 1 1 4 0 0 1 0 7 Frankfurter Allge- 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 meine Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 tageszeitung 0 8 1 1 0 2 1 13 Neues Deutschland 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 Total 2 12 10 2 1 4 1 32

278

Newspaper * Secondary subject of the article Crosstabulation Count Secondary subject of the article con- AfD re- se- in gen- actions quences eral/char- no AfD elec- to AfD of elec- fac- acteriza- right- (secondary) election tion party election tion re- tual out- AfD AfD tion of wing pop- other To- subject result AfD result sult look chairmen money the AfD ulism subject tal News- BILD 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 paper Die Welt 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zeitung Süddeutsche 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 Zeitung tageszeitung 4 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 13 Neues 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Deutschland Total 8 1 1 2 7 2 2 1 1 1 6 32

279

Newspaper * Protest Crosstabulation Count Protest no yes Total Newspaper BILD 2 0 2 Die Welt 7 0 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 3 0 3 Süddeutsche Zeitung 3 0 3 tageszeitung 8 5 13 Neues Deutschland 2 2 4 Total 25 7 32

Newspaper * Attribute 1 Crosstabulation Count Attribute 1 no (other) attrib- right/national- right-wing extrem- rac- right-wing pop- To- utes ist ism ist ulist tal Newspa- BILD 0 1 1 0 0 2 per Die Welt 3 0 0 0 4 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine 1 1 1 0 0 3 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 0 0 2 0 1 3 tageszeitung 2 3 2 1 5 13 Neues Deutschland 2 1 1 0 0 4 Total 8 6 7 1 10 32

280

Newspaper * Attribute 2 Crosstabulation Count Attribute 2 no right- quar- di- in- right- (other) at- Eu- right/na- wing ex- rac- reled/es- vided/frag- flamma- wing pop- pow- To- tributes rosceptic tionalist tremism ist tranged mented tory ulist erful tal News- BILD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 paper Die Welt 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Frankfurter 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 Allgemeine Zeitung Süddeutsche 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 Zeitung tageszeitung 8 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 13 Neues 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Deutschland Total 18 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 32

281

Newspaper * Active Actor 1 Crosstabulation Count Active Actor 1 O ther O par- par- ther A ties in ticipants o Al AfD rmin- gen- B E I of pro- ther A exander F mem- Paul eral as ündnis D U politi- sraeli U Lux c tests and cul- fD as Gau- rauke ber as Ham- mem- 90/Die agmar cians/E politi- K pol- embourg itizen demon- tural T actor land Petry actor pel ber Grünen Freitag U cian itician politician group strations actors otal New BIL 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 spaper D Die 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 Welt Fran kfurter Allge- 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 meine Zeitung Südd eutsche 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zeitung tages 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 5 0 zeitung 3 Neue s Deutsch- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 land Total 3 7 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 2 2

282

283

Newspaper * Passive Actor 2 Crosstabulation Count Passive Actor 2 Other par- no (other) ties in general as Angela TV-sta- National actor member CDU/CSU Merkel tions Police Total Newspa- BILD 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 per Die Welt 6 0 0 1 0 0 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zeitung Süddeutsche Zeitung 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 tageszeitung 9 1 1 0 1 1 13 Neues Deutschland 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Total 27 1 1 1 1 1 32

Newspaper * Winner or Loser evaluation Crosstabulation Count Winner or Loser evaluation triumph victory win Total Newspaper BILD 0 1 0 1 Die Welt 1 2 2 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 0 0 2 2 Süddeutsche Zeitung 0 0 2 2 tageszeitung 0 2 8 10 Neues Deutschland 0 0 1 1 Total 1 5 15 21

284

Newspaper * Benefits of the election result Crosstabulation Count Benefits of the election result no benefits mentioned Total Newspaper BILD 2 2 Die Welt 7 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 3 3 Süddeutsche Zeitung 3 3 tageszeitung 13 13 Neues Deutschland 4 4 Total 32 32

Newspaper * Disadvantages of the election result Crosstabulation Count Disadvantages of the election result no disad- division of soci- negative effects other disadvantages ety on economy vantages Total Newspaper BILD 2 0 0 0 2 Die Welt 5 0 1 1 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 3 0 0 0 3 Süddeutsche Zeitung 0 0 1 2 3 tageszeitung 8 2 0 3 13 Neues Deutschland 3 0 0 1 4 Total 21 2 2 7 32

285

Newspaper * Reason for the election result Crosstabulation Count Reason for the election result no reason named Total Newspaper BILD 2 2 Die Welt 7 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 3 3 Süddeutsche Zeitung 3 3 tageszeitung 13 13 Neues Deutschland 4 4 Total 32 32

Newspaper * Recommendation for action Crosstabulation Count Recommendation for action no action recom- social action recom- political action rec- mendation mendation ommendation Total Newspaper BILD 2 0 0 2 Die Welt 5 0 2 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 3 0 0 3 Süddeutsche Zeitung 0 0 3 3 tageszeitung 7 0 6 13 Neues Deutschland 2 1 1 4 Total 19 1 12 32

286

Newspaper * solutions Crosstabulation Count solutions solutions to approach/cope with the AfD talking/dialogue no solutions in parliament among the voters Total Newspaper BILD 2 0 0 2 Die Welt 7 0 0 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 3 0 0 3 Süddeutsche Zeitung 1 2 0 3 tageszeitung 9 4 0 13 Neues Deutschland 2 1 1 4 Total 24 7 1 32

Newspaper * Call to action Crosstabulation Count Call to action no call to action Total Newspaper BILD 2 2 Die Welt 7 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 3 3 Süddeutsche Zeitung 3 3 tageszeitung 13 13 Neues Deutschland 4 4 Total 32 32

287

Newspaper * Neutrality Crosstabulation Count Neutrality article is objective rather objective and rather subjec- and neutral neutral tive/judgmental Total Newspaper BILD 2 0 0 2 Die Welt 7 0 0 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2 0 1 3 Süddeutsche Zeitung 2 0 1 3 tageszeitung 12 1 0 13 Neues Deutschland 2 0 2 4 Total 27 1 4 32

Newspaper * Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD Crosstabulation Count Tenor of the article in relation to the AfD negative tenor ambivalent, not decidable Total Newspaper BILD 1 1 2 Die Welt 2 5 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 1 2 3 Süddeutsche Zeitung 3 0 3 tageszeitung 9 4 13 Neues Deutschland 3 1 4 Total 19 13 32

288

Newspaper * Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD Crosstabulation Count Tenor of the article in relation to the election result of the AfD negative tenor ambivalent, not decidable Total Newspaper BILD 0 2 2 Die Welt 2 5 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 1 2 3 Süddeutsche Zeitung 2 1 3 tageszeitung 6 7 13 Neues Deutschland 3 1 4 Total 14 18 32

Newspaper * Overall tendency of the article Crosstabulation Count Overall tendency of the article balanced rather negative Total Newspaper BILD 1 1 2 Die Welt 5 2 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2 1 3 Süddeutsche Zeitung 1 2 3 tageszeitung 7 6 13 Neues Deutschland 3 1 4 Total 19 13 32

289

Newspaper * Negativity Crosstabulation Count Negativity not at all nega- somewhat nega- moderately neg- tive slightly negative tive ative Total Newspaper BILD 1 1 0 0 2 Die Welt 4 2 0 1 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2 1 0 0 3 Süddeutsche Zeitung 1 0 2 0 3 tageszeitung 6 6 1 0 13 Neues Deutschland 1 3 0 0 4 Total 15 13 3 1 32

290

3. Hypothesis 1

Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total Per- N Percent N cent N Percent Newspaper * 149 100,0% 0 0,0% 149 100,0% Frame

Newspaper * Frame Crosstabulation Count Frame Righ co A t-wing nse- n In dmin- populistic quences o iden- Co equal- istration election and re- tifiable nflict ity Critical campaign actions To frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame tal New BILD 2 5 2 4 3 2 18 spaper Die Welt 1 3 2 8 5 7 26 Frankfur- ter Allgemeine 0 7 4 6 3 3 23 Zeitung Süddeutsc 4 5 9 5 0 3 26 he Zeitung tageszeitu 3 7 4 4 5 13 36 ng Neues 0 6 6 3 1 4 20 Deutschland Total 1 2 14 33 30 17 32 0 7 9

291

Chi-Square Tests A Monte Carlo Sig. (2- Monte Carlo Sig. (1- symp- sided) sided) totic 99% Confi- 99% Confi- Signifi- dence Interval dence Interval cance Si Lo U Si Lo U Valu d (2- gnifi- wer pper gnifi- wer pper e f sided) cance Bound Bound cance Bound Bound Pe arson 34,5 2 ,0 ,09 ,08 ,0

Chi- 63a 5 96 1b 3 98 Square Li 39,1 2 ,0 ,07 ,06 ,0 kelihood 88 5 35 2b 5 79 Ratio Fis her's 32,7 ,08 ,08 ,0

Exact 76 7b 0 94 Test Li near-by- ,9 ,93 ,92 ,9 ,46 ,44 ,4 Linear ,009c 1 26 4b 7 40 2b 9 75 Associa- tion N of Valid 149 Cases a. 25 cells (69,4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1,21. b. Based on 10000 sampled tables with starting seed 2000000. c. The standardized statistic is -,093.

Symmetric Measures Monte Carlo Significance 99% Confidence Ap- Interval proximate Sig- Lower Upper Value Significance nificance Bound Bound Nominal by Phi ,482 ,096 ,091c ,083 ,098 Nominal Cramer's ,215 ,096 ,091c ,083 ,098 V N of Valid Cases 149 c. Based on 10000 sampled tables with starting seed 2000000.

292

Crosstabs Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total Per- N Percent N cent N Percent Newspaper * 149 100,0% 0 0,0% 149 100,0% Frame

293

Newspaper * Frame Crosstabulation Frame Ri ght- wing popu- co Ad listic nse- no min- election quences identifi- Co In- istration cam- and re- able nflict equality Critical paign actions To frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame tal N BILD C 2 5 2 4 3 2 18 ewspa- ount per E xpecte 1, 4, 3, 3, 2, 3, 18 d 2 0 3 6 1 9 ,0 Count % within 11 27 11 22 16 11 10 News- ,1% ,8% ,1% ,2% ,7% ,1% 0,0% paper % 20 15 7, 13 17 6, 12 within ,0% ,2% 4% ,3% ,6% 3% ,1% Frame Die C 1 3 2 8 5 7 26 Welt ount E xpecte 1, 5, 4, 5, 3, 5, 26 d 7 8 7 2 0 6 ,0 Count % within 3, 11 7, 30 19 26 10 News- 8% ,5% 7% ,8% ,2% ,9% 0,0% paper % 10 9, 7, 26 29 21 17 within ,0% 1% 4% ,7% ,4% ,9% ,4% Frame Frank C 0 7 4 6 3 3 23 furter ount Allgemeine E Zeitung xpecte 1, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 23 d 5 1 2 6 6 9 ,0 Count % within 0, 30 17 26 13 13 10 News- 0% ,4% ,4% ,1% ,0% ,0% 0,0% paper % 0, 21 14 20 17 9, 15 within 0% ,2% ,8% ,0% ,6% 4% ,4% Frame C 4 5 9 5 0 3 26 ount

294

Südde E utsche xpecte 1, 5, 4, 5, 3, 5, 26 Zeitung d 7 8 7 2 0 6 ,0 Count % within 15 19 34 19 0, 11 10 News- ,4% ,2% ,6% ,2% 0% ,5% 0,0% paper % 40 15 33 16 0, 9, 17 within ,0% ,2% ,3% ,7% 0% 4% ,4% Frame tagesz C 3 7 4 4 5 13 36 eitung ount E xpecte 2, 8, 6, 7, 4, 7, 36 d 4 0 5 2 1 7 ,0 Count % within 8, 19 11 11 13 36 10 News- 3% ,4% ,1% ,1% ,9% ,1% 0,0% paper % 30 21 14 13 29 40 24 within ,0% ,2% ,8% ,3% ,4% ,6% ,2% Frame Neues C 0 6 6 3 1 4 20 Deutsch- ount land E xpecte 1, 4, 3, 4, 2, 4, 20 d 3 4 6 0 3 3 ,0 Count % within 0, 30 30 15 5, 20 10 News- 0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 0% ,0% 0,0% paper % 0, 18 22 10 5, 12 13 within 0% ,2% ,2% ,0% 9% ,5% ,4% Frame Total C 14 10 33 27 30 17 32 ount 9 E xpecte 10 33 27 30 17 32 14 d ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 9,0 Count % within 6, 22 18 20 11 21 10 News- 7% ,1% ,1% ,1% ,4% ,5% 0,0% paper % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 within 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% Frame

295

4. Hypothesis 2

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Zusammenfassung der Fallverarbeitung N % Fä Gültig 147 98,7 lle Ausgeschlossena 2 1,3 Gesamt 149 100,0 a. Listenweise Löschung auf der Grundlage aller Vari- ablen in der Prozedur.

Reliabilitätsstatistiken Cronbachs Anzahl der Alpha Items ,877 3

Itemstatistiken Mittel- Standardabw wert eichung N TEN AfD umcod- -,41 ,594 147 iert TEN EL umcod- -,36 ,523 147 iert BIAS umcodiert -,35 ,557 147

Item-Skala-Statistiken Skalenmit- telwert, wenn Skalenvari- Korrigierte Cronbachs Item weggelas- anz, wenn Item Item-Skala-Kor- Alpha, wenn I- sen weggelassen relation tem weggelassen TEN AfD -,71 1,071 ,675 ,911 umcodiert TEN EL umcod- -,76 1,118 ,781 ,813 iert BIAS umcodiert -,77 1,001 ,845 ,749

Skala-Statistiken Mittel- Vari- Standardabw Anzahl der wert anz eichung Items -1,12 2,254 1,501 3

296

Explorative Datenanalyse

Newspaper

Verarbeitete Fälle Fälle Gültig Fehlend Gesamt Pro- Newspaper N Prozent N zent N Prozent Ne- BILD 18 100,0% 0 0,0% 18 100,0% gativität Die Welt 26 100,0% 0 0,0% 26 100,0% TEN- Frankfurter AfD, Allgemeine 23 100,0% 0 0,0% 23 100,0% TEN Zeitung EL, Süddeutsche BIAS 26 100,0% 0 0,0% 26 100,0% Zeitung tageszeitung 36 100,0% 0 0,0% 36 100,0% Neues 20 100,0% 0 0,0% 20 100,0% Deutschland Deskriptive Statistik Sta- Standard- Newspaper tistik fehler Ne- BILD Mittelwert ,04 ,129 gativität 95% Konfidenzin- Un- -,23 TEN- tervall des Mittelwerts tergrenze AfD, Ober- ,31 TEN grenze EL, 5% getrimmtes Mittel ,04 BIAS Median ,00 Varianz ,299 Standardabweichung ,547 Minimum -1 Maximum 1 Spannweite 2 Interquartilbereich 0 Schiefe ,340 ,536 Kurtosis ,370 1,038 Die Welt Mittelwert -,33 ,081 95% Konfidenzin- Un- -,50 tervall des Mittelwerts tergrenze Ober- -,17 grenze 5% getrimmtes Mittel -,31 Median -,17 Varianz ,169 Standardabweichung ,411 Minimum -1 Maximum 0 Spannweite 1

297

Interquartilbereich 1 Schiefe - ,456 ,832 Kurtosis - ,887 ,975 Frankfurter Mittelwert -,41 ,109 Allgemeine Zei- 95% Konfidenzin- Un- -,63 tung tervall des Mittelwerts tergrenze Ober- -,18 grenze 5% getrimmtes Mittel -,40 Median -,33 Varianz ,272 Standardabweichung ,522 Minimum -1 Maximum 0 Spannweite 2 Interquartilbereich 1 Schiefe - ,481 ,306 Kurtosis - ,935 1,476 Süddeut- Mittelwert -,60 ,083 sche Zeitung 95% Konfidenzin- Un- -,77 tervall des Mittelwerts tergrenze Ober- -,43 grenze 5% getrimmtes Mittel -,61 Median -,67 Varianz ,178 Standardabweichung ,422 Minimum -1 Maximum 0 Spannweite 1 Interquartilbereich 1 Schiefe ,250 ,456 Kurtosis - ,887 1,749 tageszeitung Mittelwert -,37 ,082 95% Konfidenzin- Un- -,54 tervall des Mittelwerts tergrenze Ober- -,20 grenze 5% getrimmtes Mittel -,36 Median ,00 Varianz ,240 Standardabweichung ,490 Minimum -1 Maximum 0 298

Spannweite 2 Interquartilbereich 1 Schiefe - ,393 ,599 Kurtosis - ,768 1,394 Neues Mittelwert -,42 ,105 Deutschland 95% Konfidenzin- Un- -,64 tervall des Mittelwerts tergrenze Ober- -,20 grenze 5% getrimmtes Mittel -,39 Median -,33 Varianz ,221 Standardabweichung ,470 Minimum -1 Maximum 0 Spannweite 1 Interquartilbereich 1 Schiefe - ,512 ,634 Kurtosis - ,992 1,226

Tests auf Normalverteilung Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Sta- Sig- Sta- Sig- Newspaper tistik df nifikanz tistik df nifikanz Negativität BILD ,305 18 ,000 ,850 18 ,008 TENAfD, TEN Die Welt ,291 26 ,000 ,734 26 ,000 EL, BIAS Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei- ,260 23 ,000 ,848 23 ,002 tung Süddeut- ,327 26 ,000 ,749 26 ,000 sche Zeitung tageszei- ,331 36 ,000 ,749 36 ,000 tung Neues ,262 20 ,001 ,794 20 ,001 Deutschland a. Signifikanzkorrektur nach Lilliefors

299

Negativität TENAfD, TEN EL, BIAS

Histogramme

300

301

302

Normalverteilte Q-Q-Diagramme

303

304

305

Trendbereinigte normalverteilte Q-Q-Diagramme

306

307

308

Univariat

ONEWAY deskriptive Statistiken Negativität TENAfD, TEN EL, BIAS 95%-Konfi- denzintervall für den Mittelwert M Sta U ittel- Standardab ndard- nter- Ob M M N wert weichung fehler grenze ergrenze inimum aximum BILD 1 ,0 ,12 - ,547 ,31 -1 1 8 4 9 ,23 Die 2 - ,08 - - ,411 -1 0 Welt 6 ,33 1 ,50 ,17 Frank- furter Allge- 2 - ,10 - - ,522 -1 0 meine 3 ,41 9 ,63 ,18 Zeitung Süddeut 2 - ,08 - - ,422 -1 0 sche Zeitung 6 ,60 3 ,77 ,43 tageszeit 3 - ,08 - - ,490 -1 0 ung 6 ,37 2 ,54 ,20 Neues 2 - ,10 - - ,470 -1 0 Deutschland 0 ,42 5 ,64 ,20 Gesamt 1 - ,04 - - ,499 -1 1 49 ,37 1 ,45 ,29

309

Test der Homogenität der Varianzen Negativität TENAfD, TEN EL, BIAS Levene-Statistik df1 df2 Signifikanz 1,106 5 143 ,360

Einfaktorielle ANOVA Negativität TENAfD, TEN EL, BIAS Quad- Mittel der Signif- ratsumme df Quadrate F ikanz Zwischen den 4,495 5 ,899 3,976 ,002 Gruppen Innerhalb der Grup- 32,337 143 ,226 pen Gesamt 36,832 148

Robuste Testverfahren zur Prüfung auf Gleichheit der Mittelwerte Negativität TENAfD, TEN EL, BIAS Statistika df1 df2 Sig. Welch-Test 3,489 5 61,479 ,008 a. Asymptotisch F-verteilt

Post-Hoc-Tests

Mehrfachvergleiche Abhängige Variable: Negativität TENAfD, TEN EL, BIAS Tukey-HSD Mit- 95%-Konfiden- tlere Dif- zintervall (I) Newspa- (J) Newspa- ferenz (I- Stand- Sig- Un- Ober- per per J) ardfehler nifikanz tergrenze grenze BILD Die Welt - ,370 ,146 ,120 ,79 ,05 Frankfurter Allgemeine ,443* ,150 ,041 ,01 ,88 Zeitung Süddeutsche ,640* ,146 ,000 ,22 1,06 Zeitung tageszeitung ,407* ,137 ,040 ,01 ,80 Neues ,454* ,154 ,044 ,01 ,90 Deutschland Die Welt BILD - - ,146 ,120 ,05 ,370 ,79 Frankfurter - Allgemeine ,072 ,136 ,995 ,47 ,32 Zeitung Süddeutsche - ,269 ,132 ,324 ,65 Zeitung ,11

310

tageszeitung - ,037 ,122 1,000 ,39 ,32 Neues - ,083 ,141 ,992 ,49 Deutschland ,33 Frankfurter BILD - - ,150 ,041 -,01 Allgemeine ,443* ,88 Zeitung Die Welt - - ,136 ,995 ,32 ,072 ,47 Süddeutsche - ,197 ,136 ,699 ,59 Zeitung ,20 tageszeitung - - ,127 1,000 ,33 ,035 ,40 Neues - ,011 ,145 1,000 ,43 Deutschland ,41 Süddeutsche BILD - - ,146 ,000 -,22 Zeitung ,640* 1,06 Die Welt - - ,132 ,324 ,11 ,269 ,65 Frankfurter - - Allgemeine ,136 ,699 ,20 ,197 ,59 Zeitung tageszeitung - - ,122 ,408 ,12 ,232 ,59 Neues - - ,141 ,777 ,22 Deutschland ,186 ,59 tageszeitung BILD - - ,137 ,040 -,01 ,407* ,80 Die Welt - - ,122 1,000 ,32 ,037 ,39 Frankfurter - Allgemeine ,035 ,127 1,000 ,40 ,33 Zeitung Süddeutsche - ,232 ,122 ,408 ,59 Zeitung ,12 Neues - ,046 ,133 ,999 ,43 Deutschland ,34 Neues BILD - - ,154 ,044 -,01 Deutschland ,454* ,90 Die Welt - - ,141 ,992 ,33 ,083 ,49 Frankfurter - - Allgemeine ,145 1,000 ,41 ,011 ,43 Zeitung Süddeutsche - ,186 ,141 ,777 ,59 Zeitung ,22 tageszeitung - - ,133 ,999 ,34 ,046 ,43 *. Die Differenz der Mittelwerte ist auf dem Niveau 0.05 signifikant.

311

Nomogene Untergruppen

Negativität TENAfD, TEN EL, BIAS Tukey-HSDa,b Untergruppe für Alpha = 0.05. Newspaper N 1 2 Süddeutsche Zeitung 26 -,60 Neues Deutschland 20 -,42 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 23 -,41 tageszeitung 36 -,37 Die Welt 26 -,33 -,33 BILD 18 ,04 Signifikanz ,378 ,086 Die Mittelwerte für die in homogenen Untergruppen befindlichen Gruppen werden angezeigt. a. Verwendet ein harmonisches Mittel für Stichprobengröße = 23,647. b. Die Gruppengrößen sind nicht identisch. Es wird das harmonische Mittel der Gruppengrößen verwendet. Fehlerniveaus des Typs I sind nicht garantiert.

Univariat

ONEWAY deskriptive Statistiken Negativity 95%-Konfi- denzintervall für den Mittelwert M Sta U ittel- Standardab ndard- nter- Ob M M N wert weichung fehler grenze ergrenze inimum aximum BILD 1 ,2 ,10 , ,428 ,43 0 1 8 2 1 01 Die 2 ,6 ,14 , ,745 ,95 0 3 Welt 6 5 6 35 Frank- furter Allge- 2 ,8 ,19 , 1,2 ,920 0 3 meine 3 7 2 47 7 Zeitung Süddeut 2 ,8 ,16 , 1,1 ,849 0 2 sche Zeitung 6 1 7 46 5 tageszeit 3 ,5 ,12 , ,773 ,82 0 3 ung 6 6 9 29 Neues 2 ,8 ,23 , 1,3 1,040 0 4 Deutschland 0 5 3 36 4 Gesamt 1 ,6 ,06 , ,827 ,80 0 4 49 6 8 53

312

Einfaktorielle ANOVA Negativity Quad- Mittel der Signif- ratsumme df Quadrate F ikanz Zwischen den 6,140 5 1,228 1,847 ,107 Gruppen Innerhalb der Grup- 95,082 143 ,665 pen Gesamt 101,221 148

Robuste Testverfahren zur Prüfung auf Gleichheit der Mittelwerte Negativity Statistika df1 df2 Sig. Welch-Test 3,428 5 62,993 ,008 a. Asymptotisch F-verteilt

Post-Hoc-Tests

Mehrfachvergleiche Abhängige Variable: Negativity Tukey-HSD Mit- 95%-Konfiden- tlere Dif- zintervall (I) Newspa- (J) Newspa- ferenz (I- Stand- Sig- Un- Ober- per per J) ardfehler nifikanz tergrenze grenze BILD Die Welt - - ,250 ,517 ,29 ,432 1,15 Frankfurter - - Allgemeine ,257 ,124 ,09 ,647 1,39 Zeitung Süddeutsche - - ,250 ,185 ,14 Zeitung ,585 1,31 tageszeitung - - ,235 ,717 ,35 ,333 1,01 Neues - - ,265 ,174 ,14 Deutschland ,628 1,39 Die Welt BILD - ,432 ,250 ,517 1,15 ,29 Frankfurter - - Allgemeine ,233 ,940 ,46 ,216 ,89 Zeitung Süddeutsche - - ,226 ,984 ,50 Zeitung ,154 ,81 tageszeitung - ,098 ,210 ,997 ,70 ,51 Neues - - ,243 ,966 ,50 Deutschland ,196 ,90 BILD - ,647 ,257 ,124 1,39 ,09

313

Frankfurter Die Welt - ,216 ,233 ,940 ,89 Allgemeine ,46 Zeitung Süddeutsche - ,062 ,233 1,000 ,74 Zeitung ,61 tageszeitung - ,314 ,218 ,701 ,94 ,31 Neues - ,020 ,249 1,000 ,74 Deutschland ,70 Süddeutsche BILD - ,585 ,250 ,185 1,31 Zeitung ,14 Die Welt - ,154 ,226 ,984 ,81 ,50 Frankfurter - - Allgemeine ,233 1,000 ,61 ,062 ,74 Zeitung tageszeitung - ,252 ,210 ,836 ,86 ,35 Neues - - ,243 1,000 ,66 Deutschland ,042 ,74 tageszeitung BILD - ,333 ,235 ,717 1,01 ,35 Die Welt - - ,210 ,997 ,51 ,098 ,70 Frankfurter - - Allgemeine ,218 ,701 ,31 ,314 ,94 Zeitung Süddeutsche - - ,210 ,836 ,35 Zeitung ,252 ,86 Neues - - ,227 ,787 ,36 Deutschland ,294 ,95 Neues BILD - ,628 ,265 ,174 1,39 Deutschland ,14 Die Welt - ,196 ,243 ,966 ,90 ,50 Frankfurter - - Allgemeine ,249 1,000 ,70 ,020 ,74 Zeitung Süddeutsche - ,042 ,243 1,000 ,74 Zeitung ,66 tageszeitung - ,294 ,227 ,787 ,95 ,36

314

Homogene Untergruppen Negativity Tukey-HSDa,b Untergruppe für Alpha = 0.05. Newspaper N 1 BILD 18 ,22 tageszeitung 36 ,56 Die Welt 26 ,65 Süddeutsche Zeitung 26 ,81 Neues Deutschland 20 ,85 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 23 ,87 Signifikanz ,076 Die Mittelwerte für die in homogenen Untergruppen befindlichen Gruppen werden angezeigt. a. Verwendet ein harmonisches Mittel für Stichprobengröße = 23,647. b. Die Gruppengrößen sind nicht identisch. Es wird das harmonische Mittel der Gruppengrößen verwendet. Fehlerniveaus des Typs I sind nicht garantiert.

Nicht parametrische Tests

Nicht parametrische Test

315

5. Hypothesis 3

Crosstabs Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total Per- N Percent N cent N Percent Date * 149 100,0% 0 0,0% 149 100,0% Frame

Date * Frame Crosstabulation Frame Ri ght- wing popu- co Ad listic nse- no min- election quences identifi- Co In- istration cam- and re- able nflict equality Critical paign actions Tot frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame al D 17 C 1 1 1 4 6 8 21 ate 0925 ount % 4,8 4,8 4,8 19, 28, 38, 10 within % % % 0% 6% 1% 0,0% Date % 10, 3,0 3,7 13, 35, 25, 14, within 0% % % 3% 3% 0% 1% Frame 17 C 4 12 12 16 2 11 57 0926 ount % 7,0 21, 21, 28, 3,5 19, 10 within % 1% 1% 1% % 3% 0,0% Date % 40, 36, 44, 53, 11, 34, 38, within 0% 4% 4% 3% 8% 4% 3% Frame 17 C 3 8 6 2 3 7 29 0927 ount % 10, 27, 20, 6,9 10, 24, 10 within 3% 6% 7% % 3% 1% 0,0% Date % 30, 24, 22, 6,7 17, 21, 19, within 0% 2% 2% % 6% 9% 5% Frame 17 C 0 7 1 2 2 3 15 0928 ount % 0,0 46, 6,7 13, 13, 20, 10 within % 7% % 3% 3% 0% 0,0% Date

316

% 0,0 21, 3,7 6,7 11, 9,4 10, within % 2% % % 8% % 1% Frame 17 C 2 2 2 2 3 2 13 0929 ount % 15, 15, 15, 15, 23, 15, 10 within 4% 4% 4% 4% 1% 4% 0,0% Date % 20, 6,1 7,4 6,7 17, 6,3 8,7 within 0% % % % 6% % % Frame 17 C 0 3 5 4 1 1 14 0930 ount % 0,0 21, 35, 28, 7,1 7,1 10 within % 4% 7% 6% % % 0,0% Date % 0,0 9,1 18, 13, 5,9 3,1 9,4 within % % 5% 3% % % % Frame Total C 14 10 33 27 30 17 32 ount 9 % 6,7 22, 18, 20, 11, 21, 10 within % 1% 1% 1% 4% 5% 0,0% Date % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 within 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% Frame

317

Crosstabs Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total Per- N Percent N cent N Percent Date * Game 149 100,0% 0 0,0% 149 100,0% frame Date * strategic 149 100,0% 0 0,0% 149 100,0% frame

Date * Game frame Crosstabulation Game frame no slight me- mostl game game dium game y game frame frame frame frame Total Dat 1709 Cou 1 9 11 0 21 e 25 nt % 42,9 52,4 100,0 within 4,8% 0,0% % % % Date % within 14,1 16,7 14,1 7,1% 0,0% Game % % % frame 1709 Cou 6 16 30 5 57 26 nt % 10,5 28,1 52,6 100,0 within 8,8% % % % % Date % within 42,9 25,0 45,5 100,0 38,3 Game % % % % % frame 1709 Cou 3 16 10 0 29 27 nt % 10,3 55,2 34,5 100,0 within 0,0% % % % % Date % within 21,4 25,0 15,2 19,5 0,0% Game % % % % frame 1709 Cou 2 10 3 0 15 28 nt % 13,3 66,7 20,0 100,0 within 0,0% % % % % Date % within 14,3 15,6 10,1 4,5% 0,0% Game % % % frame 318

1709 Cou 1 6 6 0 13 29 nt % 46,2 46,2 100,0 within 7,7% 0,0% % % % Date % within 7,1% 9,4% 9,1% 0,0% 8,7% Game frame 1709 Cou 1 7 6 0 14 30 nt % 50,0 42,9 100,0 within 7,1% 0,0% % % % Date % within 10,9 7,1% 9,1% 0,0% 9,4% Game % frame Total Cou 14 64 66 5 149 nt % 43,0 44,3 100,0 within 9,4% 3,4% % % % Date % within 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 Game % % % % % frame

319

Date * strategic frame Crosstabulation strategic frame me- no slig dium stra- mos stra- strategic ht strate- tegic tly strate- tegic To- frame gic frame frame gic frame frame tal D 170 Co 9 3 6 2 1 21 ate 925 unt % 42,9 14,3 28,6 9,5 4,8 100, within % % % % % 0% Date % within 11,0 9,1 28,6 18,2 50,0 14,1 strategic % % % % % % frame 170 Co 33 16 5 3 0 57 926 unt % 57,9 28,1 8,8 5,3 0,0 100, within % % % % % 0% Date % within 40,2 48,5 23,8 27,3 0,0 38,3 strategic % % % % % % frame 170 Co 21 5 2 1 0 29 927 unt % 72,4 17,2 6,9 3,4 0,0 100, within % % % % % 0% Date % within 25,6 15,2 9,5 9,1 0,0 19,5 strategic % % % % % % frame 170 Co 7 3 3 2 0 15 928 unt % 46,7 20,0 20,0 13,3 0,0 100, within % % % % % 0% Date % within 8,5 9,1 14,3 18,2 0,0 10,1 strategic % % % % % % frame 170 Co 6 3 2 1 1 13 929 unt % 46,2 23,1 15,4 7,7 7,7 100, within % % % % % 0% Date % within 7,3 9,1 9,5 9,1 50,0 8,7 strategic % % % % % % frame

320

170 Co 6 3 3 2 0 14 930 unt % 42,9 21,4 21,4 14,3 0,0 100, within % % % % % 0% Date % within 7,3 9,1 14,3 18,2 0,0 9,4 strategic % % % % % % frame Total Co 82 33 21 11 2 149 unt % 55,0 22,1 14,1 7,4 1,3 100, within % % % % % 0% Date % within 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, strategic 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% frame

Crosstabs Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total Per- N Percent N cent N Percent Date * Dominant 149 100,0% 0 0,0% 149 100,0% framing

321

Date * Dominant framing Crosstabulation Dominant framing strategic issue game frame frame Total Date 170925 Count 1 20 21 % within Date 4,8% 95,2% 100,0% % within Dominant 4,3% 15,9% 14,1% framing 170926 Count 15 42 57 % within Date 26,3% 73,7% 100,0% % within Dominant 65,2% 33,3% 38,3% framing 170927 Count 5 24 29 % within Date 17,2% 82,8% 100,0% % within Dominant 21,7% 19,0% 19,5% framing 170928 Count 1 14 15 % within Date 6,7% 93,3% 100,0% % within Dominant 4,3% 11,1% 10,1% framing 170929 Count 0 13 13 % within Date 0,0% 100,0% 100,0% % within Dominant 0,0% 10,3% 8,7% framing 170930 Count 1 13 14 % within Date 7,1% 92,9% 100,0% % within Dominant 4,3% 10,3% 9,4% framing Total Count 23 126 149 % within Date 15,4% 84,6% 100,0% % within Dominant 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% framing

322

323 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !