In June 2025, I defended my dissertation "Biased by the Media? The Occurrence and Mitigation of Discrimination in German Welfare Offices" at the University of Konstanz (Yei :-)).
What motivated this research? Everyday interactions with public administrators—renewing an ID, registering as a jobseeker, applying for childcare—shape how we, as the residents, experience the state. These officials are often referred to as street-level bureaucrats, a term famously coined by Lipsky (1980, 2010), as they implement public services in direct interactions with residents and exercise discretion. But this discretion can be a double-edged sword: while it allows for flexibility, it also opens the door to bias and discriminatory treatment, especially when stereotypes shape decision-making.
One powerful source of those stereotypes? The media. News coverage often conveys a selective version of reality to the public, subtly activating stereotypes. This has profound societal implications: misperceptions of political and social problems, undermining objectivity in public services, and unequal treatment of marginalized groups. However, the media as a source of those stereotypes is quite unexplored in public administration research—and, also, what can be done against media influences in professional decision-making.
That is why I developed the media-driven discrimination cycle. The cycle examines how immigration-related news coverage influences caseworkers’ decisions in welfare offices and consists of three key stages, which I explore in the respective empirical chapters of the dissertation.
Activation stage: In Chapter 3, “Regional News, Regional Bias: Unequal Sanction Decisions in Welfare Offices”, I argue that immigration discourses in regional news outlets activate stereotypes and make them cognitively accessible, subconsciously feeding into decisions of street-level bureaucrats.
Reinforcement stage: Chapter 4 (co-authored with Gerald Schneider and Jan Vogler), “How Negative News About Immigration Activates Illiberal Norms: Bureaucratic Discrimination Across German States”, starts with the observation that recent research on the rise of radical right-wing parties highlights the normalization of deeply rooted illiberal norms in society. We posit that such norms in the regional social context, especially anti-immigrant sentiments, influence how strongly negative media reporting affects bureaucratic-decision-making due to selective information processing.
Disruption stage: Since the media and social context form a self-reinforcing cycle of biases, I argue in Chapter 5, “The Pursuit of Fairness: Can Media Literacy Interventions Mitigate Discrimination in Welfare Offices?”, that media literacy interventions can target the psychological mechanisms underlying media-driven biases.
The main takeaway? Media coverage fuels discrimination in public administration, depending on the dominant media narratives, regional context, and who the beneficiaries are. But it doesn’t have to: Media literacy training shows real potential in reducing bias by sharpening critical media skills among frontline officials. Thus, with thoughtfully designed anti-discrimination measures, we can foster fairness and help ensure equal access to vital social services.
If you're interested or have any questions, I would love to chat more about the topic! Just get in touch with me!