Reputation in science and prominence in the media: the Goldhagen debate

This paper argues that in media reporting on science, media prominence comp etes with scientific reputation. That is, in certain cases the media compet e with science, both in terms of knowledge claims and in terms of the inter nal mechanisms of self-direction. This implies that in cases where scientif ic and media evaluations diverge, the media's control over public attention opens the possibility that priority-setting and evaluation within science are no longer the exclusive orientation criteria for the public's willingne ss to grant financial support. Taking Luhmann's theory of functional differ entiation as a starting point in conjunction with "news-value-theory," the argument assumes that the media have different criteria than the sciences f or selecting scientists and their topics as worthy of reporting (and attrib uting prominence), an area where the sciences have internal processes of at tributing reputation on the basis of excellence in research. The case inves tigated is the reception of Daniel Goldhagen's book Hitler's Willing Execut ioners in the German print media over a period of about ten months in 1996- 1997. The case demonstrates how media evaluation differed markedly from the judgment by the historical community and provided Goldhagen with a tremend ous public prominence.