![Badura, Laura (2023): Riskante Rezeption. Der Vertrauens- und Risikoprozess bei Rezipierenden informationsjournalistischer Berichterstattung [Risky reception. The process of trust and risk in recipients of information journalism reporting]](https://journalistik.online/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cropped-journalistik-hintergrund-groß.png)
Reviewed by Beatrice Dernbach
If the reviewer leaves a 400-page specialist reference work for too long after reading it, she runs the risk of forgetting some of what she thought about it. If she writes the review immediately after reading, (too) many details will still be swirling around her head and blocking her view of what is important. It is best to allow a few days to cool off and order one’s thoughts. Then, the balance sheet becomes clear: Laura Badura has presented a monograph in which she has set herself and achieved a challenging goal. In addition, she has made a key contribution to the research field »trust and communication in the digitalized world,« supported predominantly by her doctorate supervisor Bernd Blöbaum at the University of Münster. Numerous publications appeared during and after the period of the project, including dissertations by Katherine M. Engelke (2018) and Bernadette Uth (2021).
What makes Laura Badura’s work special is the way she has theoretically coupled journalism with the constructs of risk and trust – not viewed from the position of media professionals, but analyzed from the viewpoint of those who use the service of information provided by journalism. Badura sees risks not as phenomena that are perceived, processed, and published by journalism as the result of natural or societal events, but as features »that are inherent to the journalistic content itself and bring with them the possibility that their consumption is detrimental to the objective of enlightened opinion-forming and formation of will« (19).
The author bases her work on a normative understanding of journalism: the idea that the information disseminated by journalism is relevant, credible, and supportive of democracy. Trusting it requires autonomy of action on the part of the recipient, which may be rational or reflexive. This is determined »by a set of individual influencing factors« (21). The relationship between journalism and trust has been described comparatively frequently; where Laura Badura rightly sees a deficit is in the analysis of the relationship between journalism and (intrinsic) risk. She goes on to add a second question to this first open question: »How is the perception of journalistic risk linked to an action of trust or risk?« (23; in more detail 201-202).
Having convincingly presented and critically evaluated the status of research and the context of her research, the author outlines her complex model of risky reception step-by-step (200). At its heart is the timeline of the use process: Badura examines causes for risky reception in the pre-phase, risks during the reception process, and the consequences of risky reception. The middle phase is the most important – it is here that risks are perceived and assessed, and the question of willingness to take risks controls the risk action. On the other hand, the expectation of trust, the decision to trust, and the act of trusting all play a key role. This is all underlaid by characteristics of journalism, above all quality and reputation, and individual characteristics of the recipient, such as the tendency to trust and take risks; experiences, expectations and needs; media use; and media competence.
How can this complexity be empirically traced and implemented? Laura Badura takes a two-pronged approach. She develops an online questionnaire and distributes it widely. After three months, she has 221 completed questionnaires to analyze. From all those who stated that they were also willing to take part in a qualitative survey, the researcher selected 16 subjects to participate in a qualitative survey conducted by her via Zoom using the think-aloud method.
The results do not lend themselves to brief summary. Let’s start with the limitations: Although links to questionnaires are very easy to send via the digital channels with their many branches and extensive reach, such questionnaires do not generate an ideal sample in either qualitative or quantitative terms. The 221 questionnaires unquestionably provide information in some aspects, in the sense that the results corroborate connections that have also been found in other studies. In this example, there is positive correlation between the need for cognition and the self-assessment of news competence; the lower the motivation for use and the interest in news, the lower the frequency with which information journalism is used. The main purpose of the quantitative survey was to find a suitable group for the qualitative part. This ultimately comprised nine people who tend to trust the media, and seven who are skeptical. The results of this sub-study are presented in Chapter 11 (286-336) using many tables and quotes, and reflected upon in the subsequent section (337-357).
Individual aspects can only be picked out here in very, very cursory form. Characteristics of journalism (quality and reputation) and of the recipients (political attitude, trust, involvement) steer the risk perception regarding the reception. During the reception process, the focus is on the risk of distorted information and the perceived partisan nature of reporting. In Laura Badura’s view – and that of so many academics before her – media professionals have a duty of transparency, and both educational institutions and media users themselves have a duty to take the process of media use more seriously once again, to reflect upon it, and ultimately to bolster media competence. She is unlikely to be heard – and large-scale measures for providing information and media education are not in sight.
About the reviewer
Dr. Beatrice Dernbach is Professor of Practical Journalism in the program Technical Journalism/Technical PR at TH Nuremberg. Her focus areas include specialized journalism, sustainability, and ecology in journalism, narration and trust in journalism, and science communication.
Translation: Sophie Costella
This review first appeared in rezensionen:kommunikation:medien, 29 November 2024, accessible at: https://www.rkm-journal.de/archives/25220
About this books
Badura, Laura (2023): Riskante Rezeption. Der Vertrauens- und Risikoprozess bei Rezipierenden informationsjournalistischer Berichterstattung [Risky reception. The process of trust and risk in recipients of information journalism reporting]. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 407 pages, EUR 89