Media Logic(s) Revisited: Modelling the

Interplay between Media Institutions,

Media Technology and Societal Change
1st Edition Caja Thimm
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/media-logics-revisited-modelling-the-interplay-betwee
n-media-institutions-media-technology-and-societal-change-1st-edition-caja-thimm/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Media Now: Understanding Media, Culture, and Technology

10th Edition Joseph Straubhaar

https://ebookmass.com/product/media-now-understanding-media-
culture-and-technology-10th-edition-joseph-straubhaar/

Media Now: Understanding Media, Culture, and Technology

10th Edition Joseph Straubhaar

https://ebookmass.com/product/media-now-understanding-media-
culture-and-technology-10th-edition-joseph-straubhaar-2/

Hong Kong Media. Interaction Between Media, State and

Civil Society Chi Kit Chan

https://ebookmass.com/product/hong-kong-media-interaction-
between-media-state-and-civil-society-chi-kit-chan/

Media and Conflict in the Social Media Era in China 1st

Edition Shixin Ivy Zhang

https://ebookmass.com/product/media-and-conflict-in-the-social-
media-era-in-china-1st-edition-shixin-ivy-zhang/
Modelling of Flow and Transport in Fractal Porous Media
1st Edition Jianchao Cai (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/modelling-of-flow-and-transport-in-
fractal-porous-media-1st-edition-jianchao-cai-editor/

Media and the Government of Populations: Communication,

Technology, Power 1st ed. Edition Philip Dearman

https://ebookmass.com/product/media-and-the-government-of-
populations-communication-technology-power-1st-ed-edition-philip-
dearman/

Documentary Resistance: Social Change and Participatory

Media Angela J. Aguayo

https://ebookmass.com/product/documentary-resistance-social-
change-and-participatory-media-angela-j-aguayo/

The Independence of the News Media: Francophone

Research on Media, Economics and Politics 1st ed.
Edition Loïc Ballarini

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-independence-of-the-news-media-
francophone-research-on-media-economics-and-politics-1st-ed-
edition-loic-ballarini/

Media/Impact, An Introduction To Mass Media 12th

Edition Shirley Biagi

https://ebookmass.com/product/media-impact-an-introduction-to-
mass-media-12th-edition-shirley-biagi/
TRANSFORMING COMMUNICATIONS – STUDIES IN CROSS-MEDIA RESEARCH

editors
Caja Thimm
Mario Anastasiadis
Jessica Einspänner-Pflock

MEDIA
LOGIC(S)
REVISITED
Modelling the
Interplay between
Media Institutions,
Media Technology
and Societal Change
Transforming Communications – Studies
in Cross-Media Research

Series Editors
Uwe Hasebrink
Hans Bredow Institute for Media Research
University of Hamburg
Germany

Andreas Hepp
ZeMKI, University of Bremen
Germany
We live in times that are characterised by a multiplicity of media:
Traditional media like television, radio and newspapers remain
­important, but have all undergone fundamental change in the wake of
digitalization.
New media have been emerging with an increasing speed: Internet
platforms, mobile media and the many different software-based com-
munication media we are recently confronted with as ‘apps’. This pro-
cess is experiencing yet another boost from the ongoing and increasingly
fast sequence of technological media innovations. In our modern social
world, communication processes take place across a variety of media.
As a consequence, we can no longer explain the influences of media by
focusing on any one single medium, its content and possible effects. In
order to explain how media changes are related to transformations in
culture and society we have to take into account the cross-media charac-
ter of communications.
In view of this, the book series ‘Transforming Communications’
is dedicated to cross-media communication research. It aims to sup-
port all kinds of research that are interested in processes of communica-
tion taking place across different kinds of media and that subsequently
make media’s transformative potential accessible. With this profile, the
series addresses a wide range of different areas of study: media produc-
tion, representation and appropriation as well as media technologies
and their use, all from a current as well as a a historical perspective. The
series ‘Transforming Communications’ lends itself to different kinds
of publication within a wide range of theoretical and methodological
backgrounds. The idea is to stimulate academic engagement in cross-
media issues by supporting the publication of rigorous scholarly work,
text books, and thematically-focused volumes, whether theoretically or
empirically oriented.

More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/15351
Caja Thimm · Mario Anastasiadis
Jessica Einspänner-Pflock
Editors

Media Logic(s)
Revisited
Modelling the Interplay between Media
Institutions, Media Technology
and Societal Change
Editors
Caja Thimm Jessica Einspänner-Pflock
Department of Media Studies Department of Media Studies
University of Bonn University of Bonn
Bonn, Germany Bonn, Germany

Mario Anastasiadis
Department of Media Studies
University of Bonn
Bonn, Germany

Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research

ISBN 978-3-319-65755-4 ISBN 978-3-319-65756-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65756-1

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017951533

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover design by Fatima Jamadar

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Contents

1 Media Logic or Media Logics? An Introduction

to the Field 1
Caja Thimm, Mario Anastasiadis
and Jessica Einspänner-Pflock

Part I Theorizing Media Logics

2 The Media Syndrome and Reflexive Mediation 11

David L. Altheide

3 Media Logic and the Mediatization Approach:

A Good Partnership, a Mésalliance,
or a Misunderstanding? 41
Friedrich Krotz

4 The Logics of the Media and the Mediatized

Conditions of Social Interaction 63
Stig Hjarvard

5 Mediatization as Structural Couplings:

Adapting to Media Logic(s) 85
Mikkel Fugl Eskjær

v
vi Contents

6 Media Technology and Media Logic(s): The Media

Grammar Approach 111
Caja Thimm

7 Media Logic as (Inter)Action Logic—Interaction

Interdependency as an Integrative Meta-Perspective 133
Katrin Döveling and Charlotte Knorr

Part II Media Logic in Context: Politics, Journalism,

Institutions

8 On the Media Logic of the State 159

Jens Schröter

9 Media Logic Revisited. The Concept of Social Media

Logic as Alternative Framework to Study Politicians’
Usage of Social Media During Election Times 173
Evelien D’heer

10 Perceived Media Logic: A Point of Reference

for Mediatization 195
Daniel Nölleke and Andreas M. Scheu

11 News Media Logic 2.0—Assessing Commercial News

Media Logic in Cross-Temporal and Cross-Channel
Analysis 217
Maria Karidi

12 New(s) Challenges!—Old Patterns? Structural

Transformation and TV News in a Mediatized World 239
Mirco Liefke

13 Algorithms and Digital Media: Measurement

and Control in the Mathematical Projection of the Real 265
Tales Tomaz

Index 287
 Editors and Contributors

About the Editors

Caja Thimm, Ph.D. is Professor for Media Studies and Intermediality

at the University of Bonn, Germany and Head of the project
“Deliberation on the Net” which is part of the DFG priority program
“Mediatized Worlds” (funded by the German Science Foundation). Her
main research interests are online communication theory, social media,
organizational, and political communication online.

Mario Anastasiadis, Ph.D. is scientific coordinator of the Graduate

School “Digital Society” at the University of Bonn, Department of
Media Studies, and research associate in the project “Deliberation on the
Net,” which is part of the DFG priority program “Mediatized Worlds”
(funded by the German Science Foundation). His main research interests
are online communication theory, social media, political communication,
and popular culture online.

Jessica Einspänner-Pflock, Ph.D. is a researcher and lecturer in the

field of digital communication, i.e. political communication in social
media and online privacy. She has published on the subject of Twitter in
election campaigns, online PR, and adolescents’ sense of privacy in the
digital world. Jessica received her Ph.D. from the University of Bonn,
Germany, in 2015 in the area of Media Studies.

vii
viii Editors and Contributors

Contributors

David L. Altheide, Ph.D. is Emeritus Regents’ Professor on the fac-

ulty of Justice and Social Inquiry in the School of Social Transformation
at Arizona State University, where he taught for 37 years. His work has
focused on the role of mass media and information technology in social
control. His most recent books are The Media Syndrome (Routledge
2016), Media Edge: Media Logic and Social Reality (Lang, 2014),
Qualitative Media Analysis (2nd edition, Sage, 2012), and Terror Post
9/11 and the Media (Lang, 2009). Dr. Altheide received the Cooley
Award three times, given to the outstanding book in symbolic interac-
tion, from the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction: In 2007
for Terrorism and the Politics of Fear (2006); in 2004 for Creating Fear:
News and the Construction of Crisis (2002); and in 1986 for Media Power
(1985). Dr. Altheide received the 2005 George Herbert Mead Award
for lifetime contributions from the Society for the Study of Symbolic
Interaction, and the society’s Mentor Achievement Award in 2007. He
was selected as a Fulbright Specialist in 2011.
Evelien D’heer is a researcher working at the department of
Communication Sciences at Ghent University in Belgium (iMinds –
MICT). Her research focuses on the impact of social media on the rela-
tion between politicians, mass media, and citizens. In addition, she is
interested in the conceptual understanding of social media and the usage
of social media as a method for social-scientific research.
Katrin Döveling, Prof., Dr. Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt,
Institut für Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Research inter-
ests include online communication, media reception and effects, media
theories, media sociology, media psychology, and international research.
Mikkel Fugl Eskjær Associate Professor at the Department of
Communication, Aalborg University, Copenhagen Campus. Research
areas include environmental communication, international communica-
tion, and mediatization theory. He has published empirical and theoreti-
cal articles on mediatization (MedieKultur, Nordicom Information) and is
co-editor (with Stig Hjarvard and Mette Mortensen) of The Dynamics of
Mediatized Conflicts, (NY, Peter Lang, 2015).
Stig Hjarvard, Ph.D. is Professor of Media Studies at the Department
of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen.
 Editors and Contributors ix

His research interests include mediatization theory, news and journal-

ism, media history, media and globalization, media and religion, and
digital book publishing. He is chief editor of the journal Northern Lights
(Intellect Press) and chair of the ECREA Section on Mediatization. Stig
Hjarvard is a prominent proponent of the institutional perspective on
mediatization and he has written and edited numerous books, includ-
ing The Mediatization of Culture and Society (Routledge, 2013) and The
Dynamics of Mediatized Conflicts (co-edited with Mette Mortensen and
Mikkel Eskjær; Peter Lang, 2015).
Maria Karidi is a post-doctoral research associate at the Department
of Communication Studies and Media Research at the University of
Munich. Her research focuses on media reality constructions (including
both media logic research and discourse theory), as well as comparative
perspectives on media systems and media freedom around the world.
Charlotte Knorr, M.A. is a research assistant at the Institute for
Communication and Media Research, Department for Empirical
Research on Communication and Media, University of Leipzig,
Germany. In her research she focusses on the theory of online commu-
nication processes, especially in the context of Issue Attention Cycles and
Media Framing in the face of (socio-semantic) network and linguistic dis-
course analysis.
Friedrich Krotz, Dr., phil., habil. is Emeritus Professor in
Communication and Media at the University of Bremen in Germany.
He currently works as a Senior Fellow at the newly founded Centre for
Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS) at Bochum, also in Germany. He
works on the fields of Mediatization research, media sociology, method-
ology, and theories of communication and the media. In recent years, he
was the founder and coordinator of the priority programme “Mediatized
worlds”, financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (cf. www.
mediatizedworlds.net). Currently, he is writing books about the results
of this work and about communication in the upcoming mediatized
world.
Mirco Liefke is a researcher at the Institute of Sociology at Goethe
University Frankfurt, Germany and assistant to Thomas Scheffer, full
Professor for Sociology with an emphasis on Interpretative Social
Research. He studied sociology, theatre-, film- and media studies and
law and is currently working on a Ph.D. project about ethnography of
x Editors and Contributors

a major German TV channel’s newsroom. Other fields of interest are

influences of social media on the coverage of international conflicts,
the mediatized fabrication of political positions, and journalism facing
another structural change of the public sphere.
Daniel Nölleke, Dr., phil. studied communication science, politics,
and history at the University of Münster. He completed his studies in
2005 (MA) with a final thesis “Former athletes as experts in sports cov-
erage on television”. After that, he started working as a teaching and
research assistant at the department of communication at the University
of Münster. From 2009 to 2011, he carried out a research project on
“Dealing with scientific evidences in media coverage,” which was funded
by the German Research Foundation (DFG). In 2012, he finished his
dissertation entitled “Experts in Journalism”. Research interests include:
Mediatization of Social Fields, Perceptions of the -Logic and Influences
of Journalism, Science Communication, Sports Communication.
Andreas M. Scheu, Dr., phil., Ph.D. in communication studies at
the University of Munich (2010). He coordinated a research pro-
ject on the mediatization of science policy (funding: German Ministry
of Education and Research, 2010–2013). He was a research assistant
at the Department of Communication of the University of Münster
(2013–2016); managing editor of the ICA affiliate journal Studies in
Communication | Media (since 2014); and head of a comparative research
project on the mediatization of organizations in health, law, politics, and
science (funding: German Research Foundation, since 2016). Research
interests include: Mediatization, science communication, history and the-
ories of communication studies, and qualitative methodology.
Jens Schröter, Prof., Dr., phil., habil. has been chair for media stud-
ies at the University of Bonn since 2015. From 2008 to 2015, he was
professor for multimedial systems at the University of Siegen. He
was director of the graduate school “Locating Media” in Siegen from
2008 to 2012 and has been a member of the DFG-graduate research
center “Locating Media” at the University of Siegen since 2012. He
was (together with Prof. Dr. Lorenz Engell, Weimar) director of the
research project “TV Series as Reflection and Projection of Change”
from 2010 to 2014. He is a speaker of the research project (VW founda-
tion; together with Dr. Stefan Meretz, Hanno Pahl, and Manuel Scholz-
Wäckerle) “Society after Money” that started in 2016.
 Editors and Contributors xi

His main research topics are: Theory and history of digital media,
theory and history of photography, theory and history of three-dimen-
sional images, intermediality, copy protection, media theory in discussion
with the critique of value, and TV series. April/May 2014: “John von
Neumann”-fellowship at the University of Szeged, Hungary. September
2014: Guest Professor, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies,
Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China. Winter semester 2014/15:
Senior-fellowship at the research group “Media Cultures of Computer
Simulation”, Leuphana-University Lüneburg. Recent publications
include: 3D. History, Theory and Aesthetics of the Transplane Image, New
York/London/New Delhi/Sydney: Bloomsbury 2014; (Ed.) Handbuch
Medienwissenschaft, Stuttgart: Metzler 2014.
Tales Tomaz is an assistant professor on Media and Communications
at the São Paulo Adventist University. He has a Ph.D. in Media and
Communication Studies from the University of São Paulo. His research
deals with technology, alterity, and communication in Martin Heidegger.
In 2015 he was granted a scholarship from CAPES (Coordination for
the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, from Brazil) and
DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) for a year as visitor
researcher in the Martin-Heidegger-Institut at the Bergische University
of Wuppertal (Germany). His latest work is the text “Alterity and
Technology: Implications of Heidegger’s Phenomenology,” in the book
The Changing Faces of Alterity (edited by David Gunkel, Ciro Marcondes
Filho and Dieter Mersch, London, Rowman & Littlefield, 2016).
 List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 The reciprocal relationship between mediatization

and mediation 66
Fig. 4.2 Media as part of an inter-institutional system:
Broadcasting as an institutionalized practice influenced
by the logics of other institutions, the family, the market,
the nation-state, and politics 73
Fig. 4.3 Mediatization as interaction between media logics
and the logics of other social and cultural domains 74
Fig. 5.1 Structural coupling between media system
and social system 94
Fig. 6.1 Functional operator model of twitter 128
Fig. 7.1 Interaction interdependency 139
Fig. 7.2 Interaction interdependency as key in media logics 145
Fig. 8.1 The CIE 1931, 2˚ observer chromaticity diagram
showing the color gamut of a color copier,
standard RGB and the gamut of the combination
of a HeNe laser (633 nm), an Argon laser (514 nm),
and a HeCd laser (442 nm) 166
Fig. 8.2 Example of Photoshop refusing to carry out the command 170
Fig. 9.1 A continuum from mass news media logic
to social media logic 175
Fig. 11.1 Comparing commercial News media logic characteristics
over time and between offline and online channels 228
Fig. 11.2 Comparing News topic over time and between offline
and online channels 230

xiii
xiv List of Figures

Fig. 11.3 Comparing journalistic style over time and between

offline and online channels 231
Fig. 12.1 News Program. Scan of the original schedule,
collected during fieldwork in the news room 248
Fig. 12.2 First news report concerning OSCE incident in. Scan
of the original AFP news feed, collected during
fieldwork in the news room 248
Fig. 12.3 Organization of category devices in partly
overlapping word fields 254
Fig. 12.4 Russia Today 259
Fig. 12.5 Financial Times 260
 List of Tables

Table 4.1 The logics of the media expressed in a general

sociological vocabulary and understood as the totality
of institutional rules and resources, including
both cultural and societal aspects of rules and resources 71
Table 4.2 Mediatized conditions of interaction: Media dynamics
following three dimensions or metaphors of media:
Amplification, framing and performative agency,
and co-structuring 78
Table 7.1 Media logics. Perspectives, issues, and focal points 142
Table 10.1 Analytical categories and the systematization
of media logic for secondary data analysis 204
Table 10.2 Sample of organizations and interviewees 205
Table 12.1 Categorization of group A 250
Table 12.2 Categorization of group B 251

xv
 CHAPTER 1

Media Logic or Media Logics?

An Introduction to the Field

Caja Thimm, Mario Anastasiadis

and Jessica Einspänner-Pflock

In 1979, David Altheide and Robert Snow developed the concept of

media logic. Originally following the idea of creating a theoretical frame-
work to better understand mass media formats and the media’s impact
on institutions and social behavior, the focus was on the mass media sys-
tem of television, radio, and newspapers and its power to influence and
even transform society. Although the authors primarily concentrated on
the functionalities and implications of media logic in the political sphere,
their overall objective was an analysis on how “social institutions are
infused with media considerations” (Altheide, 2011, 122). From a critical
perspective on mass media, their main argument was about an “underly-
ing media logic that dominates our increasingly mediated (or mediatized)

C. Thimm (*) · M. Anastasiadis · J. Einspänner-Pflock

Department of Media Studies, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
e-mail: thimm@uni-bonn.de
M. Anastasiadis
e-mail: anastasiadis@uni-bonn.de
J. Einspänner-Pflock
e-mail: jep@uni-bonn.de

© The Author(s) 2018 1

C. Thimm et al. (eds.), Media Logic(s) Revisited,
Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65756-1_1
2 C. Thimm et al.

social order” (ibid., 119). In this sense the original media logic concept
can be understood as a term for media-infused formal and informal rules
entailing multiple transformations in the social world. On that basis, the
interrelation of technology, institutions, actors, and formats of media was
at the core of media logic and its formative impact on society.
As the media landscape as such has changed dramatically since the
early days of research on media logic, the concept has become an impor-
tant approach in communication and media studies and has just recently
evoked new research activities. Its strength lies in the combined assess-
ment of theorizing and empirically analyzing the features of media and
media formats in their consequences for both individual and institutional
contexts. For this reason, a large part of research resting on the media
logic framework addresses the core question if, and how far, different
societal fields change due to the formal and informal rules of a media
logic, which also can set the direction of social behavior and perceptions.
While the more traditional perspective focuses on the influence of
media institutions and the respective media logic on other systems and
societal fields, a socio-constructivist approach discusses the role media
logic plays for social interaction, media appropriation, and media usage.
On both levels, extensive theoretical and empirical research deals with
the interplay between media and other social domains, such as politics
(Esser & Strömbäck, 2014; Klinger & Svensson, 2015; Landerer, 2013;
Meyen, Thieroff, & Strenger, 2014), culture (Siapera, 2010), journalism
(Dahlgren, 1996; Korthagen, 2016), or sports (Duncan & Brummett,
1987). In European communication science, the media logics approach
is also being discussed within the framework of mediatization (Krotz
& Hepp, 2011; Hepp, 2012; Couldry & Hepp, 2013). In this respect,
media are regarded as ‘modifiers of communication’ (Krotz & Hepp,
2011, 137), while the model of media logics is seen as a concept which
helps to understand how mediatization processes come into place.

1.1   Media Logics in a Digitized World:

A New Plurality of Logics
The advent of new technologies, the rise of the networked media, and
a constant emergence of new media applications and platforms call for
a reconsideration of the media logic concept. Nowadays, in an increas-
ingly digitized, globalized, and networked world, powerful media struc-
tures and technologies influence people’s daily routines in many respects.
Digital media have become embedded into many human activities.
 1 MEDIA LOGIC OR MEDIA LOGICS? AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FIELD 3

This multifaceted media environment calls for a new and critical reflec-
tion on the media logic approach in order to include the paradigm shift
from curated media to user-generated media content, just to name one
of the most decisive parameters of technology change. In an era of
technology as “disruption,” we need to ask more precisely where these
disruptions occur and how the subsequent changes can be described.
Regarding the present media landscape, we can see the integration of
media in various social contexts and an increasing complexity of the
resulting consequences. So more than ever, this development calls for
critical reflections on the idea of a single mass media logic. One major
challenge, both for theoretical and empirical perspectives on the con-
cept, is to reflect on the diversity of several media logics at play instead
of focusing on one single, mass media–related logic. Overall, a variety of
(partly overlapping) media logics seem to be in effect—especially against
the backdrop of digitalization and the “power of the internet.”
The ubiquity of the internet and networked media does not only influ-
ence people’s communicative practices in their private and professional
lives, but media environments themselves are changed, transformed, and
further developed by their appropriation in various social and cultural
contexts: Human actions redefine and reconfigure the media themselves,
another unprecedented technological development. Particularly, social
media pose questions as to what the formal and informal rules of digital
media formats will develop into (Van Dijck & Poell, 2013). While the
internet can empower users to connect with peers and engage as critical
consumers or politically active citizens, they also, to some extent, change
the media environment by means of their individual actions and interests.
At the same time digital media can have critical implications for the for-
mation of a public sphere, as discussed in the course of the filter bubble
(Pariser, 2011) or echo chamber effects (Sunstein, 2001; Vaccari, 2012).
Furthermore, the internet brings the logics of algorithms and filters into
play (Klinger & Svensson, 2015), which are mainly programmed and
controlled by commercial organizations and institutions.
Not only the growing importance of platform and networked media,
but also the partial loss of relevance of curated mass media content in
favor of personalized content, calls for a reflection. The challenge is to
describe more precisely what and how the media logic concept can con-
tribute to the understanding of mediatization processes with numer-
ous media technologies, formats and actors blending into one another.
Remodeling, adapting, and maybe deepening the concept media logic
for the digital age consequently poses an important challenge, in order
4 C. Thimm et al.

to better understand the interplay between media and media related

institutions. Hence, one of the aims must be a better understanding of
mediated social control means in a digital environment of ubiquitous
connectivity, all-embracing digital networks and more and more frag-
mented forms of media usage.
This challenge was taken up by the contributors of this book, who
all reflect on the concept of media logics from their specific perspective.
Some employ a very critical position; others regard in more detail how
the concept should be developed and changed in order to grasp the new
role that digital networked media play in people’s lives all over the globe.

1.2   Content of the Book

The volume presents findings from the conference “Media Logic(s)
Revisited: Modeling the Interplay between Media Institutions, Media
Technology and Societal Change,” which took place at the University
of Bonn (Germany, Department of Media Studies) in September 2015.
Researchers from various disciplines, such as media and communication
studies, sociology, political science, and philosophy provide insights into
their theoretical and empirical perspectives on the media logic approach.
Consequently, the aim of the book is to contribute to the ongoing
debate about media logic in the light of current developments at the
intersection of traditional media, digital media, and its different forms of
appropriation.
The first part of the book focuses on theoretical perspectives on media
logic. After having conceptually refined his original approach of media
logic, David L. Altheide opens the discussion in part one of the book by
presenting the concept of the Media Syndrome. He emphasizes the preva-
lence of media logic in our social life and argues that global political events
today become mediated and are shaped by media formats. By that, they
are a resource for another level of mediated experience, through which our
sense of reality is altered as we become oriented to the mediated.
The strong influence of the media logic concept especially applies to
the context of mediatization related research because it draws attention
to the actual modalities by which a certain social domain becomes medi-
atized. In Chap. 3, Friedrich Krotz draws a theoretical line between
media logic and mediatization by discussing and systematically analyz-
ing the relation between both approaches. In this course, he argues that
 1 MEDIA LOGIC OR MEDIA LOGICS? AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FIELD 5

both approaches share some similarities, but are very different regard-
ing their conceptual starting points and facets of media. The media logic
approach originally focused on the influence of TV on the mediation of
political communication, which is one of communication studies’ most
central concerns, while the mediatization approach focuses on media
change and its consequences for everyday life, culture, and society in a
much broader sense. Even though Krotz emphasizes how helpful the
media logic approach can be to analyze how TV and mass media trans-
form political communication, he also raises the question whether and
how far the term logic might be misleading.
From an institutionalist perspective on mediatization, Stig Hjarvard
discusses in Chap. 4 how various forms of media logics contribute to
social interaction and how the logics of social network media can be
conceptualized as a part of mediatization allowing a further integra-
tion of system world and life world. He underscores his position by an
empirical analysis of social network media and their role in face-to-face
interactions.
In Chap. 5, Mikkel Fugl Eskjær proposes a re-interpretation of
the concepts of media logic and mediatization based on systems the-
ory. His focus in particularly is on the notion of structural coupling. It
is argued that mediatization as structural coupling allows for a plurality
of media logics. This is also being applied to a case study of the media-
tization of six Scandinavian NGOs. On the basis of six in-depth inter-
views with communication directors of Danish NGOs it is discussed in
what ways organizations adjust to media demands or rather strategically
integrate media logics into their communication plans.
Caja Thimm discusses in Chap. 6 the interconnectedness of technol-
ogy, user behavior, and culture based on a critical assessment of the con-
cept of “technological determinism.” She redefines the concept of media
logic within the context of interactive media and offers a systematic
approach for the analysis of media logic and media usage. Thimm’s con-
cept of “media grammar” is based on the idea that media form their own
grammar in a specific environment with their own affordances that relate
to certain usage patterns. By drawing on the example of Twitter, it is
shown that an approach to new media logics needs to take into consider-
ation users’ creative appropriations of technology. Thimm thus concludes
that the pragmatics of technology can be seen as a baseline in order to
understand the character of the digital society.
6 C. Thimm et al.

In Chap. 7, Katrin Döveling and Charlotte Knorr focus on a meta-

analysis perspective on media logic. They discuss how the interdependencies
between different systems and corresponding structures, logics, and actors,
can be conceptualized and which theoretical and empirical consequences
result. Further developing the concept of media logic, a systematic approach
is conceptualized which outlines the interdependencies of producers,
users, and consumers as networked transactions in a network society. The
chapter elaborates different concepts of media logics focusing on interactiv-
ity as a central category to integrate various media logics perspectives.
The second part of the book deals with theoretical as well as empiri-
cal approaches to media logics in different societal contexts such as insti-
tutions, politics, and news media. Firstly, Jens Schröter emphasizes in
Chap. 8 the importance of the concept of mediality for analyzing media
logics. According to Schröter, one should not conceptualize media as a
system of its own, as proposed by a systems theoretical perspective, in
which mass media form a subsystem of society. Rather, it has to be taken
into account that all institutions are fundamentally based on media infra-
structures. The chapter draws on the example of nations, their medial
infrastructure of identity documents, and the historical development of
defense policy as the media monopoly of the state.
In Chap. 9, Evelien D’heer conceptualizes social media logics as net-
work media logic by empirically analyzing politicians’ presentations on
social media platforms in the run-up to the 2014 federal elections in
Belgium. Drawing on an analysis of 19 electoral candidates’ Facebook
and Twitter accounts, as well as on in-depth interviews with them, she
finds that politicians not only adapt their messages to appeal to journal-
ists but also try to negotiate between online popularity and the presenta-
tion of their political views. This means that the presentation of a more
“human” self and dialogue with citizens is balanced with the instrumen-
tal usage of social media in favor of politicians’ candidacy.
In Chap. 10, Daniel Nölleke and Andreas M. Scheu introduce and
discuss the concept of perceived media logic against the background of
mediatization theory. The authors argue that, in order to analyze media-
tization as a facet of social change, it is necessary to focus on peoples’
perceptions of what constitutes media logic. After developing their theo-
retical perspective of mediatization as a pull process, the chapter dem-
onstrates, based on qualitative data gathered in 36 in-depth interviews
with experts from politics, science, and health, how various perceptions
of media logic are in effect.
 1 MEDIA LOGIC OR MEDIA LOGICS? AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FIELD 7

Chapter 11 deals with the question of news media logic and its dif-
ferent characteristics. Maria Karidi examines the development of media
reality constructions as they appear over time, as well as between online
and offline channels. Based on theoretical concepts of actor–structure
dynamics and drawing from a quantitative content analysis of German
newspapers and TV programs, as well as online news websites, Karidi
finds that German news media tend to be more commercially oriented
in 2014 compared to 1984–1989 as they integrate more aspects of con-
flicts, celebrities, scandals, negativity, and personalization within their
reportage. The author concludes that the altered (media) structures
and constellations might have significant consequences for the opinion-
forming process in Germany.
Based on the theoretical background of the structural change of the
public media sphere, Mirco Liefke in Chap. 12 analyzes German TV
news coverage during the Ukraine conflict in 2013–2014 arguing that
mass media’s monopoly of coverage has begun to sway and its inherent
logic has changed and adopts to new circumstances. He demonstrates
how established mass media face new challenges caused by an ongoing
structural change of the public sphere by applying Harvey Sack’s appara-
tus of Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) to the analysis of TV
news coverage.
In Chap. 13, Tales Tomaz uses a techno-philosophical approach to
discuss digital media logics. It is argued that not only our comprehen-
sion of human life nowadays has been simplified to algorithmic processes
due to the emergence of big data but that algorithms are becoming “the
real”. The discussion draws on a review of Heidegger’s and other phi-
losophers’ work on the logic of the being and the logic of the real, both
based on the mathematical. Main argument of the author is the idea that
the mathematical is at the core of Western thought.
In the course of these thirteen chapters various theoretical and empiri-
cal perspectives on media logic are being discussed, showing that the
concept is a vital part of media and communication research.

References
Altheide, D. L. (2011). Media logic and social power. Empedocles: European
Journal for the Philosophy of Communication, 3(2), 119–136.
Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2013). Conceptualizing mediatization: Context, tradi-
tions. Arguments. Communication Theory, 23, 191–202.
8 C. Thimm et al.

Dahlgren, P. (1996). Media logic in cyberspace: Repositioning journalism

and its publics. Javnost – The Public, Journal of the European Institute for
Communication and Culture, 3(3), 59–71.
Duncan, M. C., & Brummet, B. (1987). The mediation of spectator sport.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 58(2), 168–177.
Esser, F., & Strömbäck, J. (2014). Mediatization of politics: Understanding the
transformation of Western democracies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hepp, A. (2012). Mediatization and the ‘molding force’ of the media.
Communications, 37, 1–28.
Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2015). The emergence of network media logic in
political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17(8),
1241–1257.
Korthagen, I. (2016). Science, Journalism and Media Logic. Rathenau Institute.
Krotz, F., & Hepp, A. (2011). A concretization of mediatization: How media-
tization works and why ‘mediatized worlds’ are a helpful concept for empiri-
cal mediatization research. Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of
Communication, 3(2), 137–152.
Landerer, N. (2013). Rethinking the logics: A conceptual framework for the
mediatization of politics. Communication Theory, 23(3), 239–258.
Meyen, M., Thieroff, M., & Strenger, S. (2014). Mass media logic and the medi-
atization of politics. Journalism Studies, 15(3), 271–288.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. What the internet is hiding from you. New
York: Penguin Press.
Siapera, E. (2010). Cultural diversity and global media. The mediation of differ-
ence. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sunstein, C. (2001). Echo chambers. Bush v. Gore. Impeachment and beyond.
Princeton University Press.
Vaccari, C. (2012). From echo chamber to persuasive device? Rethinking the role
of the Internet in campaigns. New Media & Society, 15(1), 109–127.
Van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and
Communication, 1(1), 2–14.
 PART I

Theorizing Media Logics

 CHAPTER 2

The Media Syndrome and Reflexive

Mediation

David L. Altheide

2.1  Introduction
Contemporary life has been transformed by the media and its embedded
logic, rhythms, and content. We are caught in a perpetual and rapidly
evolving media wave breaking toward the edge, a vortex that is guiding
and defining our experiences and changing how we think of ourselves
and others. It is a crisis of order and meaning fueled by media logic,
expansive information visual technology, and fear that has taken us to the
edge of what is familiar and is eroding trust and social order. During an
appearance on a US “fake news show,” The Daily Show (July 21, 2015),
President Obama got serious about the role of the media in our time:

I think that what is understated is the balkanization, the splintering of the

media generally, so it is hard for us to get one conversation, you’ve got
folks who are constantly looking for facts to enforce their existing point of
view as opposed to having a common conversation, and I think that one of
the things we have to think about is how do we join in a common conver-
sation about something other than the Super Bowl. (cc.com)

D.L. Altheide (*)

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
e-mail: David.Altheide@asu.edu

© The Author(s) 2018 11

C. Thimm et al. (eds.), Media Logic(s) Revisited,
Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65756-1_2
12 D.L. Altheide

Increasingly, we are not just programmed, but are a program—or at

least parts of one or more—and guide and evaluate our social perfor-
mances in popular culture terms and criteria, most of which, reflect the
mass media as well as social media. I call this the “media syndrome”: The
media syndrome (MS) refers to the prevalence of media logic, communica-
tion formats, and media content in social life. The media syndrome might
include individual personas and identities, social issues, and political
actions that are modeled on media personalities and characters that are sit-
uated in entertainment oriented public and popular culture scenarios that
are depicted and constituted through media logic, including information
technology and communication formats (Altheide, 2016). The cumula-
tive impact of more than fifty years of massive communicative changes is
that our media have become more instant, visual, and personal. This is a
change in our world, and it has fundamentally changed the global order.
Modern living is situated in mediated contexts of communicated expe-
rience that conveys emotionally-charged meanings of relationships, con-
tested desirability, personal and social crises, and conventional narratives.
Consider individual identities: A Twitter app, “Live On,” promises that
“When your heart stops beating, you’ll keep tweeting” (liveson.org).
The app operates by mining one’s tweets and then applying an algo-
rithm. It is not only individuals who can gain immortality through the
media syndrome, but entire countries, like Kosovo, can gain legiti-
macy, if not official existence, through digital communication formats.
Despite Kosovo’s five-year struggle for independence, neither the United
Nations nor the European Union would recognize its sovereignty. But
Facebook did when its software permitted users to identify themselves as
citizens of Kosovo. Deputy Prime Minister, Petrit Selimi, stated, “Being
recognized on the soccer pitch and online has far greater resonance than
some back room in Brussels.” And Kosovo is not alone: other regions
seeking independence and recognition, such as Catalonia and the Basque
region in Spain, and Palestine, have their own Facebook domain names:

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, lauded the move, through

a spokesman, telling Wafa, the Palestinian news agency, that Google ‘put
Palestine on the Internet map, making it a geographical reality.’ (Bilefsky,
2013)

Social realities are bound up with the communication order operating

at the time. Events are defined culturally through a process of symbolic
 2 THE MEDIA SYNDROME AND REFLEXIVE MEDIATION 13

construction, including putting parameters or brackets around various

actions, decisions, policies, that constitute an “event.” But more impor-
tantly for our purposes, events are given meaning through symbolic
communication to audiences, who, in turn, interpret and selectively
edit certain features, aspects, and nuances of the event. Consider a few
examples.
In November 2014, the Sony Corporation was hacked by an organ-
ization “Guardians of Peace,” a North Korean pseudonym, which
revealed internal emails, released trailers of movies in production, and
threatened more damage and even violence if a comedic movie, “The
Interview,” about a plot by the CIA and a journalism team to assassinate
the President of North Korea, was shown. One character stated, “It’s the
first rule of journalism: give the people what they want.” Sony pulled the
movie from theaters, despite President Obama’s caution against giving
into international censorship and blackmail. The movie was shown a few
days later to large audiences, including a substantial Video On Demand
audience.
Popular culture entertainment logic has sustained the Discovery
Investigation Network as it slides into low-budget reenactments of hor-
rific crimes slathered in sexual goo, a kind of “murder porn,” being
shown in 100 million homes in 157 countries. Such programming builds
on the popularity of a host of crime shows in the USA, such as NCIS,
CSI, Law and Order, etc., but at a fraction of the cost. So weird is the
audience receptivity to murder porn, that a Southpark episode had its
miscreants concerned about parental viewing: “the vile and despicable
trash that our parents are watching on cable television.” The network
president claimed that this brand is well on its way: “if we can be a place
where viewers can consistently know that regardless of the hours, regard-
less of the day, that they will always be able to flip to this network and
know that they are going to get a story of the mystery, crime, suspense
genre.” (Emily Steel, January. 4, 2015).
Horrific diseases in other countries are seldom seen on American
news reports, but Ebola was different. Devastatingly lethal in several
west African countries (e.g., Liberia, Sierra Leone), Ebola had claimed
only one US citizen, whose symptoms were misdiagnosed during a visit
to an emergency room, and who was sent home. But this got a lot of
media play. Despite clear statements that it could only be transmitted
through exchange of bodily fluids, hundreds of images of dead Africans
led some politicians to quarantine US medical workers, who returned
14 D.L. Altheide

from treating patients abroad. Ebola virtually disappeared from US

news reports by the end of November 2014, despite its expansion in
West Africa.
Analysis of the coverage of Ebola and other problems suggests that
more information has produced little understanding. While the empha-
sis is on American culture, the arguments about entertainment and the
implosion of our information order seem to be globally appropriate. We
have a lot of news, but little understanding of the world and each other.
Indeed, I suggest that our social condition reflects our media condi-
tion. I argue that this is because of the organization, structure, and use
of the mass media and media logic. Information technology has greatly
changed, but so has the culture that embraces and reflects it. The foun-
dation of media logic, mediation, and mediatization has taken center
stage. As communication scholar Marian Adolf stated:

Society, then, exists mainly as a mediatized representation or itself (if

it ever was something else)…it is the media that offer us new ways and
means and new spaces and temporalities of communicating. We cannot
theorize mediatization without the media, and a notion of what is they are
doing to communication action. (Adolf, 2013, 160–161)

The mass media and the information technologies and formats that
transport and emphasize images, sounds, narratives, and meanings are
crucial components of this meaning-making process. The mediation pro-
cess involves the construction and use of media logic to provide order
and meaning in the mass communication process that will be anticipated,
understood, and shared by various audiences. As many scholars have
noted, “effective communication” is a bit circular, where the messen-
gers—such as journalists or policy makers—take into account the audi-
ence members’ awareness, familiarity, sophistication, and preferences for
certain kinds of messages over certain media. The trick, then, is essen-
tially to give the audience a wholesome batch of what they expect, along
with sprinklings of something new—the “newsworthy” event in ques-
tion. And once the new combinations are set forth, widely accepted, and
even institutionalized in future practices for journalists, on the one hand,
and audiences, on the other hand, they basically become a kind of a gate-
way for how later events and issues will be set forth. Increasingly, certain
events funneled through media logic (new technologies and formats)
become gateways to other mediated events. Thus, communication and
meanings become reflexive.
 2 THE MEDIA SYNDROME AND REFLEXIVE MEDIATION 15

Experience is located in a cultural ecology of communication

(Altheide, 1994). I stress cultural, because different communication
cultures—which may differ from even national contexts—are organized
according to patterned principles of engaging in meaningful interactions
shaped by the time, place, and manner of social activities. These, in turn,
increasingly are reflexive or the information technologies and formats
that have been incorporated into activities, if not shaping the activities
themselves. The guiding rules of thumb typically involve formats for the
recognition, anticipation, presentation, and use of information.
A reflexive mediated culture refers to a second-order experience and
familiarity with media and information technology. A first-order or pri-
mary involvement occurs when we anticipate and approach events as
though they are governed and produced by media logic that is appro-
priate for the time, place, and manner in a particular cultural context.
Familiarity with the interaction of media principles in everyday matters
provides a baseline of a mediated “natural attitude” experience (Schutz,
1967). Now the content reflects the process or the production of the
new experience and expectations.
The media edge has emerged from the way in which the media logic,
formats and “entertaining grab” have evolved on a platform of fear, dan-
ger, excitement, and risk. Visual experience and expectations are key,
especially of events and activities associated with fear. This also makes us
more vulnerable to propaganda and manipulations. Our sense of reality
is altered as we become more oriented to the visual, which, in the case
of crime and crisis reporting, becomes all too familiar, anticipated, and
quickly merged with hundreds of other images intertwined from mov-
ies, news reports, and documentaries, as well as numerous urban legends
stressing mayhem, conflict, and danger. And fear. Fear about the poten-
tial risks that engulf our personal and social horizons. But it is entertain-
ing, fun, adventuresome, and, if the TV and movie producers are correct,
audiences crave it.
The visual has been altered to fit the parameters and format of the
screen:

As a consequence of the screen’s influence, we internalize a new experi-

ence of space and time. The screen alters the communication matrix, not
by changing the structure of or reinventing the physiology of the ear but
by providing a different sensory experience. The screen links visual, audi-
tory, and kinesthetic elements, altering one’s experience of time, space, and
16 D.L. Altheide

duration in the process. One is both physically grounded with a particu-

lar horizon and yet not grounded. The consequence is a deep contradic-
tion. With the advent of the screen, it is possible to experience a duration
that is nothing like one’s ordinary experience. To the extent that such an
altered duration is internalized, the world is in us–is influencing us–in a
very different way. (Waite, 2003, 159)

Profound changes in technology, regulations, formats, and the ecology

of communication have taken media to the edge of our expectations,
standards of journalism, impact on events, issues, and social reality, as
well personal media use. The fundamental media and information tech-
nology changes are responsible for the craziness that now defines much
of global politics, including American politics, our major institutions, and
everyday life as it has been essentially organized since WWII. The frag-
ile communications–audience relationship that had existed since WWII
has changed. New technologies smashed the window that has long pre-
sented information and constructed social reality for American audiences.
For starters, the nature of the relationship between media, messages and
audiences have changed. Digital media, especially the widespread use of
social media, has essentially cancelled the audience; rather, the whole def-
inition and character of audiences has changed: Major networks scramble
for any programming content to attract audiences, and they are failing
miserably, especially among the hotly contested demographic of young
people 18–49. Established TV networks in the USA are losing viewers.
In 2013 one of the most popular TV shows was AMC’s “The Walking
Dead”: that’s right, a show about zombies. Ironically, the TV format
that changed audience expectations is being challenged to be more
reflexive of audiences attuned to social media. One industry observer
opined:

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration at all to say this season was a tipping
point…If I were a network executive right now, I’d be very nervous,
because we have finally reached a point where everyone is questioning the
efficacy of television as a medium for reaching audiences, which is really
what this is all about. (Collins & Blake, 2013)

Social media enabled everyone to be their own media performer, pro-

ducer, and audience. We are experiencing a seismic shift in the social
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Turks, see “Orthodox Sects,” and also under “Muhammadan,” and
226, 227, etc.
Turkistán, 278

Ula, 246
Unitarians, 25, 26
Usury, 45

Vaghas, Sád, 24
Valley of Mina, see “Mina”
Viands, forbidden, 32, 33
Victims, 56, 57, 58
Vitr, 36

Wady Fatima, 283, 284

Wagner, 107
Wahabis, 236
Wusta, 246
Wuzú’h, 33, 35

Yazid, 71
Yemen, 71, 123, 165
Youm-ul-Arafat, Chapters IX., X., XI., Part II.
Youm-ul-Nahre, Chapter XII., Part II.
Youm-ul-Tarvih, Chapter VII., Part II.

Zaideh Gate, 114

Zakani, 88
Zanzibar, 145
Zem-Zem well, 116, 142, 145, 165, 257, 259
 Zikat, 54, 304
Zobeir, 70
Zú-’l-hijjah, 26, 27, 28, 48, 55, 56, 60, 62, 173, 174, 175
Zú-’l-ka’dah, 26, 27, 48, 55

Transcriber’s Note
Clear printer’s errors have been corrected by the transcriber; as far as possible, however,
original spelling, punctuation, and accented characters have been retained. All changes
listed in the errata have also been made.
In the printed book, images occupied whole pages. In this file, some images have been
moved from their original positions to avoid breaking paragraphs.
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WITH THE
PILGRIMS TO MECCA: THE GREAT PILGRIMAGE OF A.H. 1319;
A.D. 1902 ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.