Compromise is a crucial strategy for conflict resolution and an essential part of social coexistence. Whenever people need to make decisions together, conflicts can arise. A prime example is politics, a system that is inherently designed for conflict. Compromise provides a way to achieve collective progress despite incompatible demands. In this process, all parties involved agree to an arrangement in which each demand is partially, but not fully, satisfied, meaning that everyone must give up some aspects of their demands.But how do the media report on compromise? Basically, a compromise is a response to a conflict. Conflicts attract a lot of attention in the media. They are a news factor, meaning that an event or issue is more likely to be covered if it involves a conflict. Additionally, situations are often framed as more conflictual to attract attention. However, it has been unclear to what extent this increased attention to conflict also applies to compromise. Our first question, therefore, asks how much attention is paid to compromise in reporting. It is also unknown, whether the media coverage on compromise depends on specific thematic contexts. Therefore, this paper also answers the question which topics are covered in compromise coverage. In addition, compromise can be constructed and evaluated differently in public discourse. While it is generally seen as a social norm and typically viewed positively as a sign of cooperation, it can also be perceived as a betrayal of one’s principles and thus viewed negatively. This double-edged nature is reflected in the compromise paradox, according to which principles have to be at least partially abandoned in order to be at least partially realized. The third research question therefore explores how the concept of compromise is discursively constructed and evaluated in media reporting and how this varies across different contexts.To answer these questions, a mixed-methods approach was employed. For the first two research questions, an automated content analysis was conducted. For the third research question, a qualitative analysis was performed. A sample of 3575 articles was gathered, including articles from 15 selected German news outlets that mentioned “kompromiss” (Engl. compromise) in their titles and were published between 2012 and 2021.To examine the attention given to compromises, an issue attention analysis was conducted, which revealed that 0.08% of the articles published during the specified period focused on compromises. It was found that quality media reported significantly more on compromises than tabloid media.The thematic contexts were analyzed using structural topic modeling. After interpreting and condensing 50 identified topics into eight dimensions, it was found that compromise reporting covered a wide range of topics. Compromises related to democratic processes were most frequently reported. This was followed by topics such as the economy, foreign policy, social issues, regional issues, art/culture/leisure, environment and climate, and others. There were few differences in themes between local and national media, as well as between quality and tabloid media. It is also noteworthy that the term “compromise” is used in different ways: sometimes it refers to a specific type of conflict resolution, while at other times it refers to more abstract characteristics such as a generally uncompromising attitude.The qualitative analysis revealed nuanced patterns in its usage and evaluation. The evaluation of compromises was found to be highly dependent on the negotiation phase: during ongoing negotiations, compromise was predominantly framed positively as a desirable goal, while more critical evaluations appeared primarily after negotiations concluded with concrete results. We also observed significant differences in how compromises were evaluated based on conflict type: In value conflicts involving fundamental moral or ideological positions, media discourse showed greater understanding for the difficulty of reaching compromise, as illustrated in reporting on international religious debates. In contrast, for interest conflicts concerning material or strategic issues, compromise was demanded with stronger urgency and the failure to reach agreement was criticized more sharply. Additionally, the analysis identified a contextual valence of compromise and uncompromising attitudes. In everyday contexts without specific conflict reference, an uncompromising stance was often positively connoted as representing freedom and self-determination, while in contexts with concrete conflicts, willingness to compromise was portrayed as a democratic virtue and necessary component of problem-solving.At this point, the main limitations of the study should be mentioned: First, the flexibility of interpretation must always be considered in topic modeling. Second, database access limits the completeness of our sample by not being available for a few months. Finally, a sampling method was used that is not based on the theoretically correct use of the term “compromise”, but on the actual use of the word. It is therefore a pragmalinguistic rather than a semantic sample.Focusing on the actual use of the term “compromise” in the sampling allowed us to observe a peculiarity in the reporting of compromise during the topic modeling. The term “compromise” is used according to different functions: First, it was used descriptively to denote specific conflict resolution processes. Second, it was used normatively, with discussions about compromises on a meta-level. Finally, it was used in an everyday language sense, when an uncompromising stance or the willingness to compromise were mentioned as character traits or attitudes. Future research could build on this complexity.

„Gipfel der faulen Kompromisse“

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2025年7月17日

查看全文

Lena Zils,
Theresa Feidicker,
Julia Metag

摘要

Compromise is a crucial strategy for conflict resolution and an essential part of social coexistence. Whenever people need to make decisions together, conflicts can arise. A prime example is politics, a system that is inherently designed for conflict. Compromise provides a way to achieve collective progress despite incompatible demands. In this process, all parties involved agree to an arrangement in which each demand is partially, but not fully, satisfied, meaning that everyone must give up some aspects of their demands.

But how do the media report on compromise? Basically, a compromise is a response to a conflict. Conflicts attract a lot of attention in the media. They are a news factor, meaning that an event or issue is more likely to be covered if it involves a conflict. Additionally, situations are often framed as more conflictual to attract attention. However, it has been unclear to what extent this increased attention to conflict also applies to compromise. Our first question, therefore, asks how much attention is paid to compromise in reporting. It is also unknown, whether the media coverage on compromise depends on specific thematic contexts. Therefore, this paper also answers the question which topics are covered in compromise coverage. In addition, compromise can be constructed and evaluated differently in public discourse. While it is generally seen as a social norm and typically viewed positively as a sign of cooperation, it can also be perceived as a betrayal of one’s principles and thus viewed negatively. This double-edged nature is reflected in the compromise paradox, according to which principles have to be at least partially abandoned in order to be at least partially realized. The third research question therefore explores how the concept of compromise is discursively constructed and evaluated in media reporting and how this varies across different contexts.

To answer these questions, a mixed-methods approach was employed. For the first two research questions, an automated content analysis was conducted. For the third research question, a qualitative analysis was performed. A sample of 3575 articles was gathered, including articles from 15 selected German news outlets that mentioned “kompromiss” (Engl. compromise) in their titles and were published between 2012 and 2021.

To examine the attention given to compromises, an issue attention analysis was conducted, which revealed that 0.08% of the articles published during the specified period focused on compromises. It was found that quality media reported significantly more on compromises than tabloid media.

The thematic contexts were analyzed using structural topic modeling. After interpreting and condensing 50 identified topics into eight dimensions, it was found that compromise reporting covered a wide range of topics. Compromises related to democratic processes were most frequently reported. This was followed by topics such as the economy, foreign policy, social issues, regional issues, art/culture/leisure, environment and climate, and others. There were few differences in themes between local and national media, as well as between quality and tabloid media. It is also noteworthy that the term “compromise” is used in different ways: sometimes it refers to a specific type of conflict resolution, while at other times it refers to more abstract characteristics such as a generally uncompromising attitude.

The qualitative analysis revealed nuanced patterns in its usage and evaluation. The evaluation of compromises was found to be highly dependent on the negotiation phase: during ongoing negotiations, compromise was predominantly framed positively as a desirable goal, while more critical evaluations appeared primarily after negotiations concluded with concrete results. We also observed significant differences in how compromises were evaluated based on conflict type: In value conflicts involving fundamental moral or ideological positions, media discourse showed greater understanding for the difficulty of reaching compromise, as illustrated in reporting on international religious debates. In contrast, for interest conflicts concerning material or strategic issues, compromise was demanded with stronger urgency and the failure to reach agreement was criticized more sharply. Additionally, the analysis identified a contextual valence of compromise and uncompromising attitudes. In everyday contexts without specific conflict reference, an uncompromising stance was often positively connoted as representing freedom and self-determination, while in contexts with concrete conflicts, willingness to compromise was portrayed as a democratic virtue and necessary component of problem-solving.

At this point, the main limitations of the study should be mentioned: First, the flexibility of interpretation must always be considered in topic modeling. Second, database access limits the completeness of our sample by not being available for a few months. Finally, a sampling method was used that is not based on the theoretically correct use of the term “compromise”, but on the actual use of the word. It is therefore a pragmalinguistic rather than a semantic sample.

Focusing on the actual use of the term “compromise” in the sampling allowed us to observe a peculiarity in the reporting of compromise during the topic modeling. The term “compromise” is used according to different functions: First, it was used descriptively to denote specific conflict resolution processes. Second, it was used normatively, with discussions about compromises on a meta-level. Finally, it was used in an everyday language sense, when an uncompromising stance or the willingness to compromise were mentioned as character traits or attitudes. Future research could build on this complexity.