intimidating at the very least — whether deliberately or not — and may have contributed to the 
behavior of at least some taxpayers: "It is only a question of time until the first prominent 
names come out. [...] The issue has been circulated in the media to an extent that nobody can 
claim ignorance." (Handelsblatt, 19.2.2008, 2). Also: "At that time', we relied on the 
participation of the accused. We don't need that this time, since we have everything." (SZ, 
21.2.2008, 6). With respect to the latent dissemination in those days of the suspicion that tax 
investigators had alleged perpetrators on their lists who had evaded many times the sum of 
Zumwinkel, the Handelsblatt cited "tax investigators" on page 1 on 22.2.2008: "Zumwinkel is 
small-fry in comparison." The Bochum senior public prosecutor's office ultimately also 
addressed its statements to the German taxpayer: "When a person must expect that he has 
been objectively found out, then the law no longer provides for exemption from punishment." 
(dpa-AFX, 19.2.2008). 
6.7.2.3 Unfocused influence processes 
If we assume that unfocused influence processes are directed at a mass audience or sub- 
audiences (see Eichhorn 2005, p. 155), then all publications of the mass media must be 
counted as unfocused influence processes. In the period from 14 February to 31 March 2008 
alone, the media clipping service Argus shows that there were approximately 1,100 articles 
and commentaries in German print media (see Appendix II). Not even all articles are 
included. 
6.7.2.4 Latent influences 
The audience here is considered to be the general population which does not actively engage 
in the debate on events in a media-relevant form. The latent influence on the framing-of- 
issues process emanating from the audience — in the current case, the Liechtenstein and 
German population — was in part reflected in the media reporting. Through surveys and 
interviews of randomly selected citizens on the street, their opinions found entry into the issue 
structure, so that the weak interactive processes between passive audience and mass media as 
well as between passive audience and elite audience, as included in Eichhorn's model, appear 
justified, proving that the level of publicity — of "random" or at least one-off encounters — are 
not without effect (see Eichhorn 2005, p. 156). Other encounters can also be seen, at least in 
the first few days, in the numerous e-mails to Liechtenstein institutions and organizations. 
Between extreme statements such as "[...] we think it is disgusting how you live as parasites 
in the middle of Europe [...]" and "[...] I can only express my congratulations for the reaction 
to the attacks from Berlin [...]" and "Please do not let yourself be blackmailed by German 
authorities" (e-mails to the Liechtenstein Government in February 2008), there was an entire 
spectrum of nuances of support and approval or criticism and concrete accusations. These 
were not without effect on the Liechtenstein addressees, who recalled these e-mails when 
speaking to the media. In Germany, the broad audience — the population — also expressed 
itself in surveys and media articles, especially concerning manager salaries and the poor-rich 
debate in the broadest sense — an issue that was not new, but that received new momentum 
through the events surrounding 14 February. 
  
! in the Batliner case in 1999 (note by the author). 
69