Mass media and bureaucracy-bashing: Does the media influence public attitudes towards public administration?
| Date | 01 July 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0952076716658798 |
| Published date | 01 July 2017 |
| Author | Daniel Rölle |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Public Policy and Administration
2017, Vol. 32(3) 232–258
! The Author(s) 2016
Mass media and
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
bureaucracy-bashing:
DOI: 10.1177/0952076716658798
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppa
Does the media influence
public attitudes towards
public administration?
Daniel Ro
¨ lle
German University of Administrative Sciences, Speyer, Germany
Abstract
At least part of the academic literature on public administration asserts that the mass
media is responsible for the somewhat negative popular image of administrative
agencies. Through negative reporting about the (mis-)behaviour of civil servants or
about public administration as a whole, the media shape stereotypes in the collective
mind of the citizens. However, while the ascribed role of mass media reporting is
plausible, these effects have not yet been empirically verified. This article summarises
the scientific discussion about the relationship between public administration and
the mass media. Furthermore, it adds to this discussion by simultaneously examining
both media usage and attitudes towards administrative agencies in Germany through a
secondary analysis of data spanning nearly 30 years.
Keywords
Attitudes, mass media, media usage, public administration, stereotypes, trust
Introduction
Public administration is often criticised for its work. Despite all attempts to per-
form its tasks more effectively, the image of public administration and civil servants
remain mostly unfavourable in many countries. This general observation holds true
also in Germany, where the work of the public administration and civil servants
has been routinely criticised. Nevertheless, the evaluation of public administration
in Germany is quite ambivalent. On the one hand, the majority of people criticise
Corresponding author:
Daniel Ro¨lle, German University of Administrative Sciences, Freiherr-vom-Stein-Str. 2, 67346 Speyer,
Germany.
Email: roelle@uni-speyer.de
Ro¨lle
233
public administration for being clumsy; on the other hand, civil servants are recog-
nised as dutiful, trustworthy and capable (see the annual survey from the German
Civil Servants Federation Deutscher Beamtenbund (DBB), 2007–2015). These out-
comes indicate, somewhat ironically, that negative attitudes towards the public
administration as a whole are correlated with positive personal experiences with
the members of the civil service (Grunow, 2003).
What are the reasons for these ambivalent findings? As Grunow and
Stru¨ngmann (2008) point out, criticism of bureaucracy is based on stereotypes
that filterout information and experiences that are inconsistent with our image of
bureaucracy. However, this hypothesis simply gives rise to further questions about
the sources of our perceptions of bureaucracy. In addition, to personal contacts
with the administrative agencies and discussions about these contacts in our social
interactions, it is possible that the mass media and their reports about public
administration and civil servants influence our perception of the civil service as a
whole (Van de Walle et al., 2008). Unfortunately, there are almost no empirical
studies that have examined, much less confirmed, this proposition.
That negative media reporting can influence our attitudes towards political insti-
tutions is an established empirical fact (see e.g. Brettschneider, 2005; Cappella and
Hall Jamieson, 1997 or the broad variety of research on agenda setting, see Chapter
‘Attitudes towards Public Administration’). There is a long history of research on the
effects of media on society and politics (see Curran, 2002). The media’s relationship
to public opinion and citizen behaviour is also well studied (Noelle-Neumann, 1993;
Norris, 1996; Uslaner, 1998). However, none of these studies have considered the
relationship between media coverage and attitudes towards government bureau-
cracy. Yet following from existing research it is very plausible that the media has
influence also on citizens’ attitudes towards public administration. In addition to the
direct influence bureaucratic outputs have on our attitudes towards bureaucracy, it is
possible that the mass media indirectly influence our perception of administrative
outputs such as decisions, approvals, etc. (see Figure 1).
Some outputs of public administration are selected by the media, which then
interprets and presents them in format consistent with the media’s constraints (e.g.
time available) and mission (e.g. increasing their audience). If the media really
influence (negatively) our attitudes towards public administration, it could be
harmful for both public administration and the political system as a whole. This
phenomenon has been usefully examined through the Receive-Accept-Sample-
Model (RAS) by Zaller (1992). For Zaller, the greater a person’s level of political
awareness, the more likely he or she is to receive these messages. Also, the greater a
person’s level of awareness, the more likely he or she will be able, under certain
circumstances, to resist (or accept) information that is inconsistent with their basic
values.
Based on the results of early political culture research (see the “Civic Culture-
Study” by Almond and Verba, 1965), a good relationship between the citizens
and a bureaucracy is important if the overall political system is to secure accept-
ance and legitimation from the people (Gabriel, 1993, 2005; Grunow and
234
Public Policy and Administration 32(3)
Figure 1. Research model.
Stru¨ngmann, 2008). However, there are no empirical studies examining whether
sceptical attitudes towards bureaucracy could also be a healthy thing for democ-
racy, such as the ‘critical citizen’ of Norris (2011). Nevertheless, because of their
relatively frequent contact with administrative agencies – in comparison to other
institutions of the political system – to a considerable extent people come to know
democratic governance mostly through public administration (Derlien and
Lo¨wenhaupt, 1997).
This also has practical relevance for, for example, public-oriented measures of
administrative modernisation, such as those in New Public Management. These
concepts, which concentrate upon the customers’ satisfaction with public admin-
istration, can only be successful if the citizens’ attitudes toward public administra-
tion develop positively and if these positive attitudes are reinforced by positive
contact with bureaucrats. However, it is possible that mass media coverage could
undermine this if it ascribes negative roles/traits to the bureaucracy and this in turn
has a negative impact on the peoples’ perception of public administration.
Empirically, however, these effects are not yet verified.
In the present article, I analyse the relationship between public administration,
mass media and the population on the basis of representative survey data collected
between 1980 and 2010. First, we look at the civil service’s present evaluation by the
German people. Afterwards, I consider several studies dealing with the relationship
between public administration and the mass media and their specific shortcomings.
Subsequently, the survey data and the operationalisation of the items selected for
inclusion in the analysis are presented. Lastly the results are presented followed by a
discussion of the limitations and implications of my findings.
Media effects and the construction of reality
‘Influence [. . .] in all senses of the word is understood as all modes of changes
in individuals and in society which are – mostly in interaction with other
Ro¨lle
235
factors – caused by media messages’ (Pu¨rer, 2014: 367). It is not possible to find
single sources for media effects because many factors are always involved. There
are indirect interactions between media reception, interpersonal communication,
personal experiences and individual attitudes. These complex interactions between
these factors can be best accounted for by using the concept of the construction of
reality. ‘The world outside’ and ‘the pictures in our head’ (Lippmann, 1922, rep-
rinted 1947) do not match. An objective reality is always determined by a subjective
bias. People who are not able to form their own impressions of an objective reality
have to inform themselves through mass media or interpersonal communication. In
addition, many people use mass media to verify their personal impressions.
Subjective perceptions often precede media portrayals. Mass media have to select
from a wide range of possible presentations, meaning they can only show an extract
of reality. Therefore, they construct their own media reality (Reinhardt, 2005: 39).
This media reality influences public reality (see Figure 1). It is therefore appropriate
to consider ‘mass media as instances of interpretation, which are actively involved
in the construction of reality’ (Keppler, 2005: 95).
Media affect the public understanding of reality. Mass media tell us what is real
or unreal, what is relevant or irrelevant. Different studies have indicated that reality
perception corresponds more strongly with the media reality than with the object-
ive reality (Brettschneider, 2005). As Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1973: 32) has
shown, this effect is enhanced especially by uniformity (consonance) in media
reporting. Consonance is an important factor in the perception of media reporting.
This factor influences our selective perception of media reality. If media reporting is
perceived as consonantly negative, the opinion towards the object reported on, here
public administration, could...
To continue reading
Request your trial