Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/37608
Appears in Collections:Communications, Media and Culture Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: How different models of media regulation address social inequality: A Qualitative textual analysis of key media regulation texts from Germany and the UK
Author(s): Fiedler, Anke
Morrison, James
Contact Email: james.morrison@stir.ac.uk
Keywords: mass media regulation
social inequality
Germany
United Kingdom
textual analysis
Issue Date: 24-Nov-2025
Date Deposited: 28-Oct-2025
Citation: Fiedler A & Morrison J (2025) How different models of media regulation address social inequality: A Qualitative textual analysis of key media regulation texts from Germany and the UK. <i>Javnost -The Public</i>, 32 (4). https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2025.2579387
Abstract: The article employs a comparative textual analysis of key legal texts within German (democratic–corporatist) and UK (liberal) media regulation models to examine the relationship between mass media regulation and social inequality. The research addresses three key questions: firstly, how each model approaches different markers of inequality (such as gender, age, race, ethnicity, or religion); secondly, how regulation has evolved alongside changing identity politics; and thirdly, what this reveals about underlying power structures – conceptualised as “symbolic violence” with Bourdieu – within each system. The analysis demonstrates a broadly similar acknowledgement of inequality markers in both countries, though the normative justifications for addressing them diverge. Notably, both regulatory frameworks pay limited attention to socio-economic inequality, reflecting a global trend of prioritising cultural identity over economic disparities. The study provides insights into how mass media regulation both reflects and reinforces existing power dynamics within media regulation systems, and offers avenues for further research at the intersection of mass media and social inequality.
DOI Link: 10.1080/13183222.2025.2579387
Rights: © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
Licence URL(s): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/



This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.