Quality of Media Depictions of Mobility in Transition—An Experts’ Assessment of News Coverage in Germany

Abstract

This contribution investigates the quality of news media coverage on the transition of mobility and transport in Germany as judged by experts in journalism and mobility. Mass media serves a crucial function in reaching an informed political consensus about paths towards sustainable mobility. Political actors, experts, and the general public need to be correctly and comprehensively informed about relevant demands and options for transitioning mobility and transport systems. However, media are often accused of failing to serve their functions in the public interest. Coverage on scientific issues is frequently criticized, e.g., for being incomplete, inaccurate, or skewed negatively or towards elite and standard sources. No research, however, has been undertaken to analyze how well coverage of mobility in transition conforms to professional quality standards. We aim at this research gap using semi-structured interviews with experts in transport/mobility from academia and journalism. Experts’ quality expectations are unveiled, and insights are derived on how well mobility journalism meets them. We find that media are accused of several blind spots, seeming to downplay, ignore, or inaccurately report several relevant issues. Findings further show that reporting is slowly shifting from a focus on automobility towards a more diverse presentation of the transport system, while relevance and complexity of the transformation processes are not yet presented sufficiently comprehensibly to a heterogeneous public.

1. Introduction

Managing change towards more sustainable mobility and transport systems is one of contemporary society’s most important issues. It is documented on a global scale by the rise of a paramount demand for sustainability and climate protest movements, as well as by national and international climate protection targets and a massive striving for the development of technological and social innovations to foster sustainable transport [1,2,3]. In Germany, a specific term has been coined to address this issue: “Verkehrswende” (less frequent: “Mobilitätswende”), which literally means “mobility turn” [4,5] (The term “mobility turn” is used in a different but related manner in social sciences and humanities, where it refers to focusing on various forms of spatial mobility as an increasingly dominating feature of modern societies). Whereas mobility is a basic human need to relocate, transport pertains to the means of doing so [6]. Within the broad field of transport, our study focuses on ground-based passenger transport.

Fostering “socio-technical transformation processes in the transport sector to greatly reduce the environmental and health impacts caused by traffic to enable the sustainable development of this sector” [7] (p. 110) is a complex socio-technical transition [8]. A well-informed public can be seen as a crucial prerequisite for achieving the Verkehrswende by understanding the necessity and knowing about possible challenges and solutions. Public opinion plays a crucial role in socio-technical transitions in open and democratic societies, where they mainly depend not on top-down determination, but on multilateral, complex, often incalculable processes [9]. Gaining this knowledge, the scope of a transition towards sustainable mobility and transport can be translated beyond a local to a global perspective [10].

Accordingly, Verkehrs/Mobilitätswende (transitions of transport and mobility) has received increasing attention not just in scientific [11] but also from the public and media discourse in recent years (see Figure 1). In the following, we will refer to these German terms by “mobility transition” or synonyms.

1.1. Mass Media Reporting Mobility in Transition, the Public Interest, and Our Research Question

The rising importance of transitioning the transport system in media coverage is not surprising, given that journalism in democracies is (even legally) obliged to professionally observe various social spheres, e.g., politics, culture, and economy, to provide new and relevant topics for public communication based on facts [11]. This constitutes a part of the media’s duty to serve the public interest, which is claimed not only by normative communication theory [12] but is also formulated in media law in many democratic countries. In Germany, the so-called public task of the media (“Öffentliche Aufgabe”) is defined by the Press Laws of the German Federal States (“Landespressegesetze”). Thus, the question of how well the media lived up to their duty to cover transitioning mobility in a functional way is obviously of utmost importance. However, media and communication research has not yet supplied any answers to this question—this goes globally and for Germany in particular.

Some scarce media and communication studies have examined social acceptance or media coverage concerning single technical innovations such as e-mobility or automated driving [13,14,15,16]. Extant research focuses on mass media and political discourses about the dominant automobility system [17]. It is also shown to constitute the center of public narratives on the future of mobility—merely modified by technical innovations, hardly acknowledging the necessity of more fundamental transitions of transport and mobility [18,19,20]. Based on these scarce findings, one may conclude that mass media does not fulfill its articulation and information function and might foster disorientation among the public. At the same time, industry, policy, and science primarily advocate the importance of such a fundamental transition in their public statements [21]. Public opinion in Germany also entertains little doubt: 81 percent of the population support a Verkehrswende towards sustainable mobility [22].

Since media studies so far have hardly addressed Verkehrs/Mobilitätswende in German media coverage, our study aims at exploring this gap by answering the following research question:

RQ: 

How do experts rate the quality of journalistic media coverage on the topic Verkehrs/Mobilitätswende in Germany?

1.2. Assessment of News Coverage and Our Approach to Journalistic Quality

Several strands of normative theory have developed a variety of criteria by which news quality may be assessed [23]. Basic quality criteria are derived from the intention to serve journalistic mass media consumers’ individual orientation needs best. Another important approach derives criteria from the notion of public interest that the media should serve, which mainly aims at enabling democracy to function [12]. Both types of criteria coincide to a greater or lesser degree [23,24]. In light of the representative liberal strand of normative political theory, journalistic mass media, e.g., digital or analogue newspapers, television/video, radio broadcasters, or online outlets with respective editorial infrastructures, constitute a marketplace for human ideas and opinions to prove themselves only in the process of mutual challenge and adjustment [25]. This leads to a set of quality criteria roughly identical to quality demands from the individual perspective of news users [26]. Furthermore, criteria deduced from a liberal political norm largely match quality according to normative professional theory and the practice of journalism as it is documented and outlined in detail for ongoing journalists in pertinent textbooks [27]. Both normative strands tend to manifest themselves in roughly the same core set of criteria.

In this tradition, practically all quality criteria may be subsumed under one of four general quality dimensions: relevance, objectivity, diversity, and comprehensibility, all of which may be derived from the orienting purpose of the news [27] (pp. 32–34):

• If news were not relevant, by definition, it would not relate to anything worthwhile to be oriented about.
• Since standards of what constitutes relevance differ according to diverse values and viewpoints present in society, news has to be diverse to guarantee a marketplace of the broadest possible range of ideas.
• News must be reported objectively, in the sense of trying to identify what is true and to accurately and neutrally reproduce the factual components of many claims and opinions that society holds.
• Without being comprehensible, the news would not be able to disclose any knowledge for orientation.

Based on these dimensions, detailed frameworks have been developed to measure journalistic quality [28]. A vast number of studies have assessed the quality of the news according to the aforementioned quality dimensions and their respective sub-criteria [12,27,29]. Ultimately, most news content analyses implicitly aim to unveil some aspect of media performance. Thus, it is all the more astonishing that, to date, no analyses seem to have been conducted that systematically analyze the professional quality of news about the issue of transport and mobility in transition.

Our study aims to determine whether news coverage seems sufficient to inform the public adequately to rationally shape opinions on transitioning transport and mobility and thus empower them to obtain a foundation for social and political action. Knowledge about transformation processes comprises system knowledge and orientation knowledge [30,31]. Whereas system knowledge refers to information about the history and the status quo of the transport and mobility sector with corresponding developments, path dependencies, and cultural meanings, as illustrated in Geels’ framework of Multi-Level Perspective [32,33], orientation knowledge implies information about normative settings, e.g., targets for emissions, and scenarios [34] that can be understood as “possible future states” and visions of a “desirable state in the future” [35] (p. 497).

Whether the media did contribute to generating and transmitting knowledge in the above sense will be analyzed in an explorative way by conducting expert interviews. Choosing this methodological approach is due to the lack of extant research pertaining to our subject.

2. Materials and Methods

We chose a qualitative research design with semi-structured expert interviews. This seems appropriate because of the explorative nature of this study and its complex subject matter [36]. Experts’ judgements may of course be biased, e.g., by political stance or limited insight. However, they are less prone to such biases as compared to lay people or low-involved publics, which make up the majority of the population. Experts are defined by holding specialized, i.e., deeper and broader knowledge on the subjects of their expertise. What is more, both journalists and scientist are obliged by professional norms of self-reflection and objectivity. Thus, it is not surprising that expert samples have been widely used in research on defining and measuring quality in journalism (cp. an overview given by Lacy and Rosenstiel [37]). Furthermore, experts often serve as sources that journalists would cite in their coverage of issues or even whose actions or utterances journalists would take as a cause to report news. Accordingly, interviewing sources about the news they have been causing also forms a common method for the scientific assessment of journalistic quality from the beginning of this tradition, which dates back to the era of so called accuracy research [38].

The individual selection of experts and the size of the sample interviewed resulted from the distribution of expertise among the respondents and the requirements of empirical validation [39]. The selection of experts was based on theoretical sampling [40], i.e., to be able to answer the research question, we defined criteria in advance as to which group of people could be considered as experts: those who hold professional expertise in transport/mobility and its transformation and knowledge about the representation of this topic in media discourse in Germany. These criteria mainly led to journalists and editors working for public and private non-tabloid traditional news outlets focusing on transitioning transport and mobility. However, it became apparent that due to the rather narrow thematic focus, only a few actors were qualified to the extent required [41]. Therefore, we also included scientists as representatives of the expert group in the sample selection [42]. The criteria for selecting scientists were the specialization in socio-technical transformation processes of transport and mobility and regularly receiving interview requests from journalists. Finally, all experts had to have a high, i.e., national visibility in their area of expertise.

Due to privacy obligations and also for the sake of enabling experts to speak openly, they are not identified here by name or exact affiliation. However, experts’ professional spheres and specialization are shown in

Table 1. Overview of the interviewees.

#	Sphere	Professional Specialization
1	Academia	Transport Ecology
2	Journalism	Auto(mobility)
3	Academia	Transport Research; Research and Technology Policies; Innovation Research
4	Journalism	(Auto)mobility
5	Academia	Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis
6	Academia	Integrated Transport Planning
7	Journalism	Economy and Society
8	Journalism	Science; Technology; Development of policies; Interplay of ecology and economy
9	Academia	Mobility and Traffic; Social-Science-based Mobility Research, Energy Policies, Innovation Research, Research and Technology Policies
10	Journalism	Science and Education
11	Journalism	Mobility and Transport
12	Academia & Journalism	Transport and Traffic Planning
13	Academia	Sustainable Mobility and Transdisciplinary Research Methods
14	Academia	Transportation and Energy Technologies, focus on E-mobility and Synthetic Fuels

. As is typical for qualitative research, we do not strive for representativeness of our sample in the sense of exactly reflecting distributions of attributes in a population, but for identifying typical patterns and generating well-grounded hypotheses. Still, due to the overall small number of experts meeting our selection criteria, we tried to achieve pertinence and completeness of our sample within the boundaries of the criteria outlined above. For this purpose, firstly, extensive desktop research was carried out in the beginning so as not to miss out on any experts meeting the selection criteria. Secondly, we applied the snowball principle by asking experts who had already been contacted for their recommendations of further possible experts. Thus, the expansion of the expert group also allowed for better triangulation, enabling a more precise assessment of the influence of the personal perspective of the experts on the information obtained [39]. Thirdly, while conducting the interviews, redundancies and saturation of relevant information were continuously and carefully checked until convergence was reached and no significant additional views would be expected from further interviews [43]. This so called “principle of saturation” is widely accepted and applied in qualitative research; the researcher stops recruiting new respondents as the marginal gain from extant interviews approaches zero [44].

Applying these procedures finally resulted in 14 interviews that were carried out. The overall sample aimed for diverse perspectives on aspects relating to the representation of the mobility transition within the mass media in Germany. All experts have been dealing with issues of mobility, transport, and their transitions from a professional perspective for between 3 and 35 years and following the news on the topic regularly and intensely.

The semi-structured interviews were conducted in November 2021 and were based on a structured guideline. Each individual interview took between 10 and 50 min. To gather an overview of the experts’ understanding of transitioning mobility, we first asked for the interviewee’s definition of the term “transitioning mobility”. For a common understanding of the experts, we further defined journalistic news media as mass media, with the general goal of informing society through digital or analogue forms of news outlets, e.g., newspapers, television/video, radio broadcasters, or online outlets with respective editorial infrastructures. No materials were provided to respondents, all of whom are intense users of the news and could draw upon knowledge accumulated through continuous attention to media coverage on mobility issues.

The theory of subjective quality assessments (TSQA) [45] holds that decisions on using media and selecting media content are driven by quality expectations and assessments of media features in terms of quality by recipients. Thus, we can expect experts from academia to be competent in their areas of expertise on mobility and transport and to have developed profound appraisals of media quality concerning these areas. We mainly based the guideline for interviews on two questions. (1) To obtain an impression of the experts’ quality expectations, we asked them about their conception of the ideal media coverage on the topic of mobility in transition. (2) To acquire insights into the experts’ quality perception of the actual reporting, we asked them how they perceive the current news reporting they follow on transitioning mobility compared to the aforementioned ideal.

Depending on the detail and depth of the experts’ answers, the guideline contained a set of follow-up questions that went into more detail on specific quality criteria outlined above. Therefore, a diverse set of quality dimensions from the perspective of normative research on media quality [34,37,38,39,40] was included in the guidelines and related to system and orientation knowledge aspects, as outlined in Section 1.2. The questions about the quality of media coverage according to dominant norms of the journalistic profession were derived from the main quality dimensions: relevance, objectivity, diversity, and comprehensibility:

• Relevance pertains to the importance of topics as derived from commonly accepted societal interests. It may be attributed to the probability, intensity, and irreversibility of events’ impacts on individuals’ health, wealth, and well-being or on collectively valued social conditions [28]. As concerns relevance, the specific viewpoints of experts were assessed using the following questions:
• Do you think news coverage in Germany should report on the mobility transition? Would you please give reasons for your statement?
• Which topics pertaining to mobility transition should news media focus on?
• Which topics are actually focused on in news media?
• What are the main challenges that should be reported?
• Which challenges are actually reported?
• Which solutions should be reported?
• Which solutions are actually reported?
• How should the status quo be reported?
• How is the status quo presented?
• How should news media report about the future?
• How is the future presented in the reporting?

Diversity comes into play, as an objective or at least consensual standard for relevance may not be at hand in many cases. As preferences frequently rest on values and opinions, relevance measures are often contentious. Therefore, diversity is seen by many as the most important quality dimension [12]. It demands a plurality of information and opinion, enabling orientation and participation [28,46]. Diversity pertains to catering to diverse interests and viewpoints to be found in society. Thus, the same questions of our interviewing guideline about relevance also serve to assess the diversity of media coverage.

Objectivity in the pertinent literature on media quality is mainly understood as the avoidance of journalists’ subjective viewpoints exerting influence on news content. Journalistic objectivity, in this sense, may be better understood as a toolkit for journalism rather than as an abstract epistemological criterion. According to professional standards, this toolkit mainly refers to abiding by the norms of truth, balance, completeness, and transparency [27].

In the sense of giving correct facts, truth is an indispensable prerequisite for informing in a way that enables rational decisions. Therefore, it is considered the most crucial feature of journalistic quality [28]. We addressed it by the following questions in the guideline:

• Are topics presented incorrectly?
• Have you ever noticed any mistakes in the news coverage on transitioning mobility or its subtopics?

Balance is considered a further vital dimension. It refers to an appropriate ratio of presenting opposing viewpoints, opinions, or sources. Balance can be seen either as a feature of single news items or larger reporting units [12]. It may pertain to ratings, arguments, groups, sources, and issues [27]. It reflects the basic idea that the journalistic profession should be free from particular interests [37] and attribute equal or adequate space to different points of view [47]. We included the following pertaining questions:

• Are certain issues, arguments, or groups and their interests over- or underrepresented in media coverage?
• Are topics presented in a biased way?
• Are there any groups you feel are missing so far in the media coverage regarding transitioning mobility?

The completeness criterion refers to relevance not concerning topics, but facts constituting a news report [48]. Thus, the rule of always answering the five W-questions is a basic form of demanding completeness. As a staple among professional practices, it demands journalists to always address the fundamental questions of “What has happened?” and to give answers to the questions of “What?”, “Who?”, “Where?”, “When?”, and “Why?” [49]. The following questions of our guideline address aspects of completeness:

• How do you rate the level of detail of the topics in the news coverage?
• Are there any subtopics or aspects you feel are so far missing in the media coverage regarding transitioning mobility?

Transparency refers to unveiling sources and ways of obtaining information. This implies explaining changes within the editorial viewpoint over time, the reasons for picking up a topic, dividing between information and opinion, and reflecting reality as far as possible [46]. To ensure credibility and verifiability, naming the sources of information is essential [50].

• How do you rate the level of transparency of the news coverage on the topic?

Finally, the usefulness of news for orientation purposes is also determined by comprehensibility. This pertains to clarity, ease, and structure of the expression. Journalists should prepare content so that it may be understood by a heterogeneous audience with diverse backgrounds and education in terms of language skills and prior knowledge [49]. The pertaining question in the guideline was:

• Are transitioning mobility and its (sub)topics presented in such a way that a broad audience may comprehend?

These quality dimensions allowed for a structured evaluation of the data acquired from the interviews by applying qualitative content analysis comprising a deductive–inductive formation of categories [51]. The coding unit was defined as content-related semantic statements, i.e., all statements assessing the quality of the news coverage of transitioning mobility or referring to it. Firstly, the quality dimensions were set as deductive categories, and passages answering directly to the guideline questions or related to the individual quality dimensions were assigned accordingly. Secondly, we went through those statements again, applying comprehensive content analysis to expand categories inductively by generalizing, paraphrasing, and clustering, following thematic criteria on mobility transition to further reduce the abstraction level [52]. For transcription and analysis of the interviews, we used the computer-assisted qualitative data and text analysis software MAXQDA, which allows for developing overarching semantic categories (e.g., recurring issues or evaluations) from transcribed interviews and then coding these categories as features of the interviews. Intra-coder reliability was tested by re-coding one of the interviews a second time after one week. The match of the codings in relation to the total range of the segments was 94.63 percent.

It should be noted that the statements and insights gained from the interviews were not fact-checked and do not reflect the opinions or views of the authors. Where experts would voice unanimous stances, these were taken as benchmarks for judgments on relevance and truth. As experts disagreed, this was taken as an indicator of the range of diversity of viewpoints on mobility transition.

3. Results

First, the results of the qualitative content analysis of the expert interviews show that all interviewees have profound views of transitioning mobility while aiming at sustainable solutions. All interviewees partly distinguish between transport and mobility. They emphasize that technical innovations are not the sole driver of transformation processes. Instead, the demand for behavioral changes and rethinking concepts on a broad societal basis should also occur. Second, news coverage on transitioning mobility should be based on the “usual journalistic standards” (Interviewee 5). Furthermore, in detail, interviewees’ views on what constitutes journalistic quality are explicit and broadly consistent with criteria from normative theory, which constitute the frame for our research (cp. Section 1.2 and Section 2). In particular, among all interviews, we gathered that news coverage (1) should be relevant to society and generate interest, (2) should inform about a variety of topics and opinions, (3) should be based on facts, (4) should be transparent about journalistic proceedings, working conditions, and journalists’ own views, (4) should be balanced, (5) should place its content in the social and political context, and (6) should ideally be diverse in the range of media and formats.

In the following, we present results ordered according to the earlier outlined quality dimensions of relevance, diversity, objectivity, and comprehensibility and the corresponding perceptions and expectations regarding the news coverage on transitioning mobility at the time the interviews were conducted.

3.1. Relevance

Building on their understanding of transitioning mobility, the interviewees justify the relevance of the news coverage on transitioning mobility in general: All people require mobility and are, therefore, directly confronted with the topic on an individual and daily basis. Nevertheless, for a behavioral shift and a rethinking to occur, most interviewees see the need for citizens to be made aware of the problems and consequences of the current transport system. Here, too, some of the problems, which experts see as crucial reasons for a need to transform the existing transport system, affect society and should therefore be reported about: the consequences of traffic noise, emissions of nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, which are not only harmful to the climate, but also to people’s health.

3.1.1. Shifting Focus and Blind Spots

In general, the interviewees note an increasing media focus on the issue of mobility transition within the last few years. This is seen as justified by the topics’ increasing relevance within scientific discourse. Additionally, the so-called “diesel emissions scandal” (starting in 2015) is seen as subsequently attracting more attention to climate change in general and particulate matter emissions in particular. Experts also noticed that transitioning mobility is also increasingly shifting into the focus of news coverage, triggered by reporting on the discussion of the turn of the energy system towards sustainability (“Energiewende”). At the same time, reporting shifts its focus from mainly reporting on cars. As one respondent points out, this can be seen in newspaper sections changing their titles, e.g., from car-related to environmental. Some interviewees relate these changes to the evolving patterns of mobility, seeing more and more people (especially young ones) foregoing a private car. Other options, such as rental bikes or e-scooters, are also picked up by reporting, sometimes triggered by protest movements such as Fridays for Future or various Verkehrswende initiatives in German cities and states, and new legal regulations such as the Berlin Mobility Act and the Bicycle and Mobility Act in North Rhine–Westphalia.

However, the respondents note that the topic of transitioning mobility is mainly brought up in the news coverage regarding industrial–technical events, e.g., the market launch of a new electric vehicle, the commissioning of autonomous vehicle test tracks, or automotive trade fairs. Most interviewees emphasize that reporting is still mainly related to cars as a means of transport. They attribute this to the fact that individual motorized transport powered by fossil fuels still accounts for Germany’s largest share of the modal split.

Correspondingly, respondents also perceive some topics as underrepresented. They want to see more attention given to: questioning the infrastructure, presenting a more systemic view, especially in terms of behavior and behavioral change, social justice in economic topics, best-practice examples of car-free/poor cities, disadvantages of cars, (the expansion of) charging infrastructure of electric vehicles, hydrogen as a possible long-term solution, environmental topics, walking and cycling as well as public transport, and urban sprawl.

Furthermore, several respondents have the impression that the following topics are hardly or not at all taken into account in the reporting on transitioning mobility: the fact that the current transport system is based on exhaustive natural resources in a non-sustainable way, positive social effects to expect from a reduction in car traffic and ownership, the social imbalance of the current transport system, the cost-saving potential of car-independent life, land consumption of vehicles in general, and parking in public spaces. Respondents see fuel flat rates as an absent but desirable topic for media discourse. The same goes for other topics: night trains, safety in urban traffic, challenges for cycling, the future as a separate topic, and aspects of spatial planning such as the connection between infrastructure and mobility as well as the costs for and the reconstruction of infrastructure in general. In addition, some interviewees suggested missing reports on behavioral changes, the questioning of transport mode choice, for example, through MaaS apps or the influence of COVID-19 on transport mode choice, mobility in rural areas, and e-mobility as an opportunity for rural areas.

3.1.2. Perception of Challenges and Solutions

Interviewees perceive the news coverage as too negative, presenting discussions in a “black or white, very thesis-driven” manner (Interviewee 11), primarily characterized by problems of the status quo but hardly by possible solutions. They perceive traffic jams, crowded roads, and traffic chaos as the most-reported challenges. However, the resulting consequences and causes of those problems (too many cars) are hardly explained or discussed as problems. In contrast, the most-reported solutions seem to be cars with alternative energy sources, such as battery electric vehicles or synthetically produced fuels, even though the respondents described the news coverage on e-mobility also as very negative and dominated by challenges, like the short ranges of vehicles. Some interviewees even see an unwanted stabilizing tendency of news coverage towards the status quo: The conveyed solutions are seen to still rest on maintaining the currently dominating feature of the transport system. Reporting from this point of view seems to hinder transformation processes in transport and mobility.

Experts broadly agree that a mere change in the power train alone cannot solve current problems in the transport system. Simultaneously, the majority perceive this aspect as being weakly present in the news coverage, although, according to some interviewees, the reporting seems to be shifting in this direction.

In addition, some interviewees noticed the following issues occasionally portrayed as problems of the existing transport and mobility system: (1) road safety, especially for cyclists, and (2) public transport in connection with high costs and difficulties of use. Along that line, some interviewees noted that problems and possible solutions are only reported on from a short-term perspective. They hardly recognize follow-up communication in the form of retrospectives on how innovations have become established or what challenges or solutions have emerged as results. Some interviewees reflected on their perception by referring to the media logic, according to which problems are more often in the news focus than solutions.

3.1.3. Desiderata for Journalistic Coverage

Some interviewees expressed concerns that alternatives and perspectives in this form of news coverage might not be tangible for citizens. In their eyes, media reporting should clarify that mobility transition is a very complex topic. Therefore, it should first be clarified that the status quo is not self-evident but that it was “politically and socially wanted for decades”, and accordingly, “everything was done to create […] an automobile-centered traffic” (Interviewee 9). Several interviewees name urban and infrastructural development as fundamental within the mobility and transport system and expect that the challenges that arise with these developments should be addressed more directly, such as the geographical separation of work and home and the role of teleworking. Furthermore, most interviewees point out that challenges posed by the current dominance of automobility, e.g., land use or traffic accidents, could be reported more critically. When reporting focuses on cars, they also see the need to report more in-depth on alternative drives, for example, economic perspectives in the context of electric vehicles.

In general, however, experts state that the dominance of automobility should be questioned more within the news coverage. This could succeed, for example, by reporting on the effects of transport on the climate in a more tangible way: by informing about the consumption of Co2 emissions per person and for different means of transport and routes, thus also conveying more individual concern. In addition, some interviewees point out that media coverage should draw attention to the fact that access to mobility is lacking for particular social groups due to a lack of accessibility, age-related or health-related limitations, or high costs for a driver’s license or public transport. They hardly perceive this so-called mobility poverty in the news, or that injustice is being reported as a problem of the status quo. Not addressing these problems in the present—experts fear—will not lead to them being overcome in the future. However, most respondents point out that a mobility transition must be based on social justice, guaranteeing mobility to everyone fairly. At the same time, according to them, the topic should not be presented in media coverage as if transformation processes were easy and cheap; attention should be drawn to the challenges within such processes, and reporting should emphasize that from an economic perspective, “there will not only be winners but also losers” (Interviewee 9).

In summary, interviewees stress that the transformation processes could be made more tangible for society through media coverage by presenting what solutions (could) look like, what has already changed, and what positive consequences society could gain in terms of quality of life. As examples, they mention the demonstration of alternatives to private and fossil-fuel-powered cars and the consequences of modal shift and improvement processes in the transport system, whereby journalistic reporting could contribute to education and knowledge transfer and thus to behavioral changes of individuals. Specifically, some experts describe the positive consequences that could be achieved, for example, through speed reductions or an increased switch to bicycles: fewer and less serious traffic accidents, a reduction in air pollutants, noise, and Co2 emissions, and positive consequences for health. However, some interviewees also note that it is not necessarily the task of journalists to offer solutions; instead, scientists or scientific findings could be increasingly incorporated into the reporting.

3.2. Diversity

The interviewees perceive the current reporting as quite diverse regarding facets of mobility in transition. News coverage includes the status quo and the future of traffic and mobility. Still, according to most experts, media coverage is focused on technology and technological measures improving the efficiency of the powertrain of cars. This goes for reporting on Antriebswende, a powertrain transition towards e-mobility and hydrogen, and occasionally about synthetically produced fuels as an alternative. Furthermore, we collected the following topics perceived as dominant in the reporting in this context by the interviewees: the debate about fuel prices, urban development concerning a lack of parking spaces or road construction, traffic jams and crowded roads, the presentation of launched SUVs or sports cars, and a partially critical discussion in this regard about road safety, since car drivers mainly cause accidents. Some respondents notice a debate about policy measures, such as speed limits and tolls, and the criticism of the former Federal Minister of Transport in this context. They also note that parts of news coverage are devoted to the transformation of car manufacturers into mobility service providers and the rise of car-sharing models.

A number of experts perceive news coverage as becoming increasingly critical, questioning the need for private and fossil-fuel-powered cars. Instead, they notice more and more reporting on how to avoid this mode of transport and an increased focus on alternatives such as the bicycle. Furthermore, according to some interviewees’ perceptions, environmental and health topics increasingly receive focus in media coverage. Public transport is also partly present, mainly with transport projects and local conflicts, challenging conditions of its use, high costs, and a weakening due to the pandemic. In addition, according to some interviewees, the focus of news coverage on transitioning mobility is primarily on economic issues, for example, tax burdens and commuter allowance, long-distance traffic, and the role of the automotive industry in the German economy, here especially in terms of (losing) jobs. By just some experts, the following topics were recognized in the news coverage: positive examples from other countries and temporary effects of the pandemic on transport and mobility. Furthermore, they perceive a lot of local news coverage on transport and mobility, focusing on different topics such as the construction or closure of roads or presenting innovations at the local level, such as bike-sharing systems.

In contrast to their perceptions of coverage as it is, respondents demand that news coverage be less oriented toward the automotive industry and instead focus on the need for a transformation beyond Antriebswende and mere “technology-optimism” (Interviewee 12). In their eyes, news coverage that includes all modes of transportation and also offers a spatial diversity of perspectives (urban to rural) would be ideal since, according to some of the experts, different geographic locations also entail different mobility needs.

Some interviewees think there is a window of opportunity for socio-technical transformation processes. It is opened, for one thing, by social movements and an emerging desire for change and rethinking transport among citizens. For another thing, technical innovations are sufficiently developed to contribute to such transformation processes. According to one expert, media coverage should help clarify the mechanisms and variety of policy measures to “avoid, shift and improve” (Interviewee 5). Therefore, it would be necessary to present the dynamics within the development: digitization and automatization as drivers of technological development, the impact of social components such as rebound effects, and the influence and effects on the choice of routes and means of transport.

In general, interviewees emphasize several expectations about increasing diversity of media coverage, pertaining to the following topics: covering and explaining the complexity of transformation processes; discussing advantages and disadvantages of technologies concerning various mobility needs; intensifying discussion of scientific findings and explicating relations between traffic, energy issues, and climate change. Furthermore, the news coverage could gain diversity by reporting more on alternatives in walking and cycling, best-practice examples, e.g., from other countries, and more background on transport modes and models such as Mobility as a Service (MaaS) apps or sharing systems. In addition, various interviewees emphasize the importance of urban space and development. Therefore, road safety, urban greening, and social justice of transport modes should be represented in the news coverage on transitioning mobility.

For the coverage of transport and mobility futures, three frames are perceived to be dominant by the respondents: (1) the marginal technology model, which shows high tech leading to change, (2) future images of cities, promoted by industrial actors presenting their products, and (3) socio-ecological transformation. Until now, media coverage on the future has been mainly perceived as being dominated by the automotive industry, entailing topics such as fears for jobs in the future, hydrogen as a promising alternative, and e-mobility and automated driving. Furthermore, technical innovations such as air cabs, car-sharing fleets, the idea of capsules in which people will be transported, delivery drones, hover trains, and an image of a “city planet like in Starwars” (Interviewee 14) are viewed to currently dominate within this technology- and industry-driven frame. In contrast, green streets, plenty of space, recreational areas, and good cycle paths are presented in the news as a vision of the future. Occasionally, a future of a car-free/poor city is outlined. However, reporting does not paint a consistent image of the future. According to some interviewees, this is also because the future will differ between urban and rural areas, and people do not yet have a concrete idea of a future (also because different actors have different visions of the future). Often, interviewees see the future portrayed by journalists as a continuation of what currently exists.

Most respondents would also appreciate positive examples from other countries through a visual presentation to learn more about new concepts, such as building urban quarters in Utrecht. A development from the status quo to a future worth living in should also be presented. The media should question how people would like to live in the future. Some interviewees emphasize that it is essential to distinguish between a desirable and a possible future. On the one hand, media coverage should show what would happen if scenarios came true. On the other hand, visions should be presented more in terms of their feasibility with scientific findings.

3.3. Objectivity

The findings on the perceived and expected objectivity of the news coverage on transitioning mobility are subdivided according to the quality dimensions of truth, diversity, balance, completeness, and transparency.

3.3.1. Perception and Expectation of Truth

All experts expect news to be based on facts and presented correctly. However, they noticed that disinformation and mistakes occur from time to time. For example, false statements in interviews, e.g., about emissions of combustion engines or the weight of cars and the damage they can cause, are left unaddressed. Methodologically questionable studies are cited instead of checking them, e.g., by consulting a second source. Furthermore, due to a lack of on-site reporting, reliance is placed on one source instead of researching topics like cobalt mining or the (dis)advantages of 30 km/h speed limits in cities such as Paris. In addition, the life cycles and carbon footprint of electric vehicles or batteries are often misrepresented or stinted. According to several experts, doubtful propositions are not sufficiently questioned critically. This pertains to the fear of loss of jobs in the automotive industry, which some interviewees call “a myth”. Furthermore, experts criticize that the media uncritically spread other possibly false claims, namely, that a loss of retail sales will follow from eliminating parking spaces, that train traffic is suffering from too little demand, and that commuter allowance is an unsocial regulatory measure. Furthermore, one expert criticizes media framing in allocating responsibility to those involved in accidents. Following the respondent, the journalistic coverage, in this case, can have psychological effects on media consumers if, e.g., cars instead of drivers are reported as the cause of accidents. According to the assessment, this can affect the perception of accident causes and corresponding solution strategies.

3.3.2. Perception and Expectation of Impartiality

The above-mentioned critique concerning the neglect of certain topics corresponds with the critique concerning partiality.

Interviewees particularly criticize that shifting from the car to other modes of transport is presented in a scandalized, emotionalized, and sometimes ideological manner instead of fact-based coverage. Sensationalist coverage of these issues is seen as pushing other relevant topics into the background. For example, interviewee seven names debates on banning cars or discussions about prices presented as personal concerns that trigger emotions instead of background information and explanations, e.g., of pricing mechanisms or on advantages/disadvantages of bans, like speed limits. Some experts blame media logic and economic constraints within journalistic institutions, since this presentation may sell better.

Discussing the interviewees’ diversity expectations above showed that some topics, which they consider relevant in connection with transitioning mobility, are neglected or missing in the reporting. According to most respondents’ perceptions, technical topics, particularly car issues, are overrepresented in media coverage. Automation and e-mobility play a major role; some experts perceive the subject of hydrogen as presented in an exaggeratingly positive way. On the other hand, they note that there is a great deal of reporting on the disadvantages and challenges of electric vehicles. Some interviewees conclude that reservations towards electric vehicles arise in society.

Respondents diverge on how they perceive news coverage on public transport as an alternative transport mode. Some see coverage as too optimistic, others as too negative. Actors who stood out to respondents as having a high presence in the coverage are Andreas Scheuer (former Minister of Transport), car-sharing industry providers, the car industry in general, and in this context, pertinent scientists, the ADAC (German Automobile Club), and Tesla. In contrast, local actors, social movements, civil society, bicycle lobbies, and environmental associations are underrepresented in the news on transitioning mobility.

Among all the interviews, we collected the following answers for underrepresented groups and their interests: users of transport services in general, women, rail passengers, families, older people, people in rural areas, people with disabilities, and pedestrians and their lobby.

All interviewees tend to perceive the positions of political parties as balanced in the media coverage, at least on a rough scale. Furthermore, some recognize that the presentation of various interests, in general, is becoming more balanced.

Due to a lack of comparisons (cp. Section 3.3.3), some experts describe the news coverage on alternative modes of transport, e.g., e-mobility, as biased. They point out that the separation of opinion and news does not always occur. In addition, they consider the reporting partly biased because the content of position papers of associations is directly adopted, as well as advertisements of public transport companies or the car industry/lobby. Furthermore, a number of interviewees perceive a bias through the journalists’ interests regarding the selection of topics by the political line of the editorial department and by the fact that journalists and editorial staff mainly live in cities and, therefore, hardly know the challenges and opportunities for rural areas. Those interviewees emphasized that citizens must have extraordinary media literacy to gather an overview of different viewpoints and various perspectives on the topic. They fear that not everyone informs themselves through multiple media outlets to get “the big picture” (Interviewee 10).

3.3.3. Perception and Expectation of Completeness

Although many thematic aspects have already been perceived in connection with diversity (cp. Section 3.2), the respondents, nevertheless, do not perceive the reporting as complete, since they repeatedly mentioned lacking relevant details and background knowledge. For example, for whom and when are e-scooters useful, and (when) is their life cycle sustainable? What should future infrastructure look like, and which needs require which infrastructure? Compared to prices per square meter for housing, are parking fees really too high? What are the consequences an aging society causes for future mobility? How much does a private car cost its owner in total, not only in terms of fuel? Which implications does the raw material dependency of the current transport system cause, and how can Co2 neutrality be achieved? What are the effects of speed limits, like 30 km/h in cities and 130 km/h on highways? How does the pricing of fuels actually emerge? Where and under which circumstances is automated driving already possible, and how should the situation in Germany be classified in this respect? How sustainable are different drive technologies in comparison? Where do raw materials of battery technology come from, and how are they extracted? What exactly are greenhouse gas effects? Which impact can a person’s behavior have within major transformation processes, and why is it important to reflect and maybe change one’s own behavior? What are the laws for private car sharing, and when and with whom can people share their cars? What are the future challenges of hydrogen? Regarding German transport policy, how is the linkage to the policy of the European Union?

According to some respondents, topics, in general, are hardly taken up again, which they would find helpful to illustrate developments, practical benefits, and disadvantages. In addition, they wish for necessary details and comparisons in the news coverage so that recipients know the context and background of the content.

3.3.4. Perception and Expectation of Transparency

According to the interviewees, journalism should be transparent about the journalistic research procedure, the topic selection, and the editorial line. While respondents perceive that most sources are cited, in some cases, press releases are adopted one-to-one, without this being apparent to most recipients (Interviewee 12). Users are not informed about the journalistic working procedures, especially during the pandemic, since journalists do not travel and research on site, leading to “duplication instead of publication” (Interviewee 11). According to some respondents, editorial lines are not openly communicated within the reporting, which leads to the selection of topics, and recipients cannot easily grasp the presentation of viewpoints.

3.4. Comprehensibility

Concerning the comprehensibility of presentations on mobility transition, interviewees critically address the competence of journalists. They emphasize that, on the one hand, a few well-educated journalists are familiar with the topic and are competent enough to explain complex issues in a transparent and easily understandable manner. On the other hand, many journalists are not familiar with the topic, which is reflected in the quality of reporting. According to the respondents, most of the coverage is understandable. However, occasionally interviewees perceive the following topics as hard to understand for citizens: the presentation of the future, the complexity and interrelationships, spatial planning issues, economic interrelationships, greenhouse gas effects of car traffic, and the need for behavioral change. Above all, comprehensibility was criticized concerning technological topics; here, aspects of automated driving, e-mobility, and hydrogen, in particular, are not seen as being presented in ways sufficiently understandable for a broad audience. Most experts wish for the complexity of transformation processes to be explained so everyone can understand their dynamics. They suggest visual representations, e.g., future images and allocating topics in the social and political context for better comprehensibility. Technical issues could be easier to understand using simpler language and links or extra explanation boxes for background information.

4. Discussion

Overall, the interviews show that the respondents have a distinct understanding of journalistic quality from a system and democratic theory perspective, since the quality criteria mentioned by the interviewees coincide with the quality dimensions derived from the literature [12,27,28,53,54]. Accordingly, their quality expectations seem rather high, especially since they deal with mobility transition more intensively than most citizens and other journalists and therefore command a deeper and broader knowledge. Consequently, their subjective quality assessment can be regarded as demanding because, as experts, they may follow the news coverage on this topic particularly attentively. Therefore, overall, when considering the quality assessments of the experts (see

Table 2. Rating of the subjective quality assessment of news coverage of mobility transition in Germany.

Quality Dimension		Quality Expectation	Quality Perception	Quality Assessment
Relevance		Presenting and discussing problems of status quo that are harmful to climate and health; raising awareness for sustainability.	Mainly focusing on industrial–technological events; partial scandalization and emotionalization of debates.	low
Diversity		Presenting and discussing transport modes; complexity of socio-technical transformation processes; variety of policy measures (ASI framework [55] 1); desirable and possible future.	Main focus on automobility and technological measures to improve efficiency (Antriebswende); technology- and industry-driven future.	medium
Objectivity	Truth	Presenting facts and checking sources twice.	Occasional mistakes (e.g., in technical reporting), false or condensed statements (e.g., combustion engine emissions).	medium
	Balance	Dealing with all participants in traffic from all segments of the modal split and their advocates and interests.	Overrepresentation of technical developments, automobility, and corresponding advocacy (e.g., industry players); underrepresentation of groups (e.g., pedestrians) and their interests; balance of positions of political parties. Bias towards editorial line and socialization of journalists.	low
	Completeness	Giving details, comparisons, and resumptions.	Missing details (e.g., effects of speed limits), comparisons (e.g., sustainability of drives), and resumptions (e.g., consequences of aging society).	low
	Transparency	Disclosure of sources; traceability of editorial viewpoints, topic selection, and opinions.	Citation of most sources; traceability of topic selection and presentation of viewpoints not easy.	low
Comprehensibility		Visual representation; allocation in social and political background; simple language; explanation boxes/links with background information.	Most content is comprehensible; some technological topics hard to understand; lack of journalistic expertise on transitioning mobility.	high

¹ Interviewee 5 referred to this analytical framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by avoiding, shifting, improving.

), they must be assumed to be extremely critical.

After exploring the results of experts’ quality perceptions and expectations, a quality assessment can be drawn by ranking the difference between expectation and perception according to the TSQA. The quality assessment is high if there is hardly any difference between expectation and perception or if the quality perception exceeds the expectation. The quality assessment is medium if the perceived quality corresponds partially to the expected quality; accordingly, the difference is not very distinct. The quality assessment is low if there is a big difference between expectation and perception or if the quality expectation exceeds the quality perception.

Table 2 shows the subjective quality assessment resulting from the interviews. It should be taken into account that the perceptions and expectations of the experts also depend on the news coverage they receive. On the other hand, the experts partly work in journalism and thus have a good insight into journalistic practice. Still, whether they can reflect critically on their work or colleagues’ work remains questionable. However, the interviewed journalists, as well as the researchers, repeatedly mentioned their subjectivity. Due to the diversity of the interviewees’ professional backgrounds (cp. Section 2) and their reception behavior, the results nevertheless allow conclusions to be drawn about the German media landscape. It should be noted that although diversity was considered in the sample of experts, other experts could contribute to different results. However, as some interviewees pointed out, the number of experts on mobility in transition is limited in academia and journalism.

Interviewees sometimes found it difficult to talk about their expectations of reporting without linking them to their perception of actual reporting. In some cases, they had to be reminded that the purpose was not to present their opinions but to talk about the news coverage on transitioning mobility.

The interviews show that news coverage on transitioning mobility is increasing and changing, from news coverage on the topic of traffic and mobility, which is focused on the car, to reporting that also takes other modes of transport into account and is not only driven by technical innovations but also raises social aspects and questions. However, as some experts pointed out, this change is taking place slowly. Still, coverage on transitioning mobility continues to focus more on a transition of power source by technological measures to improve efficiency instead of reporting on the topic holistically. Accordingly, the experts’ subjective quality assessment is also rather critical. Although it can be assumed that the news coverage on transitioning mobility in most cases is understandable, it is not yet clearly presented how important the topic is to society and to what degree the currently dominant transport system negatively affects the population. Even though the news coverage is already very diverse, there is no balanced reporting on the different means of transport; instead, it is partly one-sided concerning the presentation of topics and actors. Moreover, specific topics and groups in the transport and mobility system are entirely missing in the media coverage, which resonates well with previous research [19,20]. Furthermore, a non-occurrence of resumption of topics and a lack of background and contextual information in reporting are reasons for rather critical quality assessments.

Since the quality criteria under scrutiny here are essential to citizens [56], these results should be reason enough for further in-depth studies systematically assessing the quality of covering traffic and mobility issues. This particularly goes for systematic and objectively conducted content analyses of the media.

Both experts from academia and journalism argued that journalists are not appropriately qualified for the topic of transitioning mobility and do not deal sufficiently with remote challenges. To counteract this, interviewees with academic backgrounds referred to scientific frameworks, like the ASI framework [55]. Including this framework in journalism education could contribute to helping the wider public comprehend mechanisms of mobility transition. The two cohorts of interviewees emphasized that including current research findings in the news coverage and a clear and understandable presentation could also contribute.

In addition, most interviewees repeatedly pointed to challenges as well as structural problems within their own editorial offices or in journalism in general, e.g., economic constraints and an enormous variety of offerings resulting from the distribution of the internet and, according to them, negatively influencing the quality of news coverage. Studies in media and communication science also refer to these challenges [57,58] because it is apparent that this development has far-reaching implications for the quality of journalistic content, as it entails a more decisive influence of economic imperatives on the journalistic profession and the allocation of resources [59].

Most interviewees conclude that it might not be obvious to a heterogeneous society to inform itself in a detailed and broad way about transitioning mobility and form an opinion based on various views and information. In addition to research on education for sustainable development [60], they suspect that the population needs a high level of media competence and interest in the topic to inform themselves via various media offerings.

In summary, media coverage offers German society neither sufficient system knowledge nor sufficient orientation knowledge [30,31]. Consequently, society does not have the opportunity to acquire adequate transformation knowledge, develop contexts and backgrounds, recognize drivers and barriers, and reflect on the individual behavior and role in the socio-technical transformation processes of transport and mobility.

For more precise statements in this respect and to examine the linkage between the quality and intensity of news use [49,56,61] on mobility transition, future research from media and communication science should, on the one hand, determine the quality of the actual news coverage based on these findings utilizing content analysis. On the other hand, survey studies could gain more insights into German society’s information behavior, views, opinions, and the possible impact of news coverage on citizens’ social and political actions. Limitations arise since this study mainly considers national news coverage in Germany. Some experts occasionally referred to regional reporting and noted that this differs in some respects from national reporting, which has already been shown in previous research [19]. Nevertheless, due to the preservation of the anonymity of the interviewees, the local reference could not be sufficiently considered within this study. Therefore, future studies could comparatively examine both local reporting and international news coverage to highlight possible differences between the various developments and experiences within the socio-technical transformation processes of transport and mobility.

Further limitations of our study arose from the fact that we expected respondents to evaluate media content retrospectively. On the one hand, this requires remembering the content, whereby cognitive biases, e.g., confirmatory biases, cannot be controlled. On the other hand, although we defined “media” and thus the object of our study in advance, it is impossible to trace what specific media content the experts were talking about and where and when they received this media content. In addition, the timing of the study must be viewed critically regarding the influence of COVID-19. Although none of the respondents mentioned the pandemic as an exogenous factor in the reporting on transitioning mobility, the pandemic nevertheless influenced traffic and mobility behavior [62,63], which is why it cannot be ruled out that this is also reflected in the reporting on transitioning mobility. To our knowledge, however, there have been no studies on this topic yet.

5. Conclusions

We conclude that the numerous expectations expressed by the experts suggest that journalistic coverage on a transport/mobility transition is far from exhausted and still holds a lot of potential. In this sense, to provide sufficient transformation knowledge, our results can contribute to enhancing journalistic quality in two ways. On the one hand, journalists and editors can critically reflect on their knowledge and own reporting on mobility transition in the future and gain insights into how previous weaknesses and reporting on the topic, in general, can be improved. On the other hand, scientists can also reflect on their scientific communication and (together with journalists and editors) improve, if necessary, to ensure that scientific knowledge is available to the public and can thus contribute to forming opinions on transitioning mobility and the future of transport and mobility.