This section gives a description of the online survey conducted to gather the expert input for the selection of media outlets.
In each country, experts rated a list of media outlets for each media type provided by the MedCon researcher team in regard to their reach and relevance within the national political discourse. Experts could also suggest further outlets that were not listed but were relevant in their opinion. Based on the rankings of media outlets provided by the experts we included at least two daily newspapers, five news websites, and five political blogs for each country. The consolidated list of sources is provided in the next section.
Note: We did not include televised media outlets in this study. Their audiovisual character complicates comparisons with text-based media content. Furthermore, the broadcasting systems in the different countries vary more than the text-based media systems for example in regard to their journalistic orientation (opinionated vs. non-opinionated) and their economic conditions of production (public service broadcasting vs. private broadcasting). Such variance is, through the focus on text-based media, kept as constant as possible in this study. In cases of external pluralism we made sure to consider this in final media outlet selection.
| Title of Study | Media Outlet Selection – Expert Survey I |
|---|---|
| Field Period | 7 January 2015 – 15 March 2015 |
| Principal Investigators | Rinke, Eike Mark; Löb, Charlotte; Wessler, Hartmut |
| Funding Agency | Deutsche Forschungs Gesellschaft |
| Sampling Frame | Purposive sample of highly expert individuals identified through extensive review of (a) the academic literature on religion, politics, and media systems and (b) the faculty directories of the major media and communication departments of research universities in each of the studied countries. |
| Data Collection Software | SoSci Survey (Leiner, 2018) |
Leiner, D. J. (2018): SoSci survey (Version 2.5.00-i1142). Retrieved from http://www.soscisurvey.com
This section gives an overview of the response rates for the expert survey and the demographic characteristics of respondents.
| Australia | Germany | Lebanon | Switzerland | Turkey | USA | All Countries | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expert sampling frame | 31 | 21 | 27 | 26 | 139 | 223 | 467 |
| Complete Interviews (I) | 18 | 16 | 12 | 17 | 44 | 29 | 136 |
| Partial Interviews (P) | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 9 |
| Refusal or Break Off (no data) (R) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Non-Interview Contact without explicit Refusal (NC) | 12 | 5 | 13 | 8 | 91 | 192 | 321 |
| Other (no partial or complete interview despite contact attempt) (O) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Response rate | 61.29 % | 76.19 % | 51.85 % | 69.23 % | 34.53 % | 13.45 % | 31.05 % |
Note: Response rate calculation based on AAPOR Response Rate 6 (AAPOR, 2016) using the formula (I+P)/((I+P) + (R+NC+O)).
Roughly three quarters of the experts were male and one quarter was female. 95% of the respondents were employed primarily at an institution of higher education and/or research while 5% were employed in the private sector, including private research enterprises.
AAPOR. (2016): Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (No. 9). American Association for Public Opinion Research.