Due to its anticipatory character, issues management comes close to risk communication, 
while crisis communication is about acute measures. The boundaries are blurred, however. 
Even within the context of a crisis, issues may crystallize that may additionally heat up the 
crisis or trigger crises. In any event, a crisis 1s a welcome occasion to talk about conflicts and 
controversies that can be followed up. This connection is not absolutely necessary, however, 
since issues management is actually supposed to prevent a potential crisis, e.g. an unexpected 
threat. What is important is that the organization concerned still has leeway during the issues 
management phase to react to the anticipated crisis situation. (Schulz 2001, 219) 
As Max Frisch's quote at the beginning of the chapter points out, a crisis always also harbors 
an opportunity for advancement. In light of the considerations below, we should remember 
that "[...] the duality of opportunities and dangers must always be expected. Practice shows 
again and again, however, how close together opportunities and dangers are. Often, it is solely 
a question of perspective. ..." (Rolke 2001, cited 1n: Róttger 2001, 237). 
For these reasons, this paper refrains from using crisis communication as a scientific 
framework, even though the situation examined here by all appearances was a crisis. 
The focus here 1s very clearly on transnational agenda setting and issue management. 
2.4 The "process of social framing of issues" model developed by Eichhorn (2005) 
2.4.1 Basic idea and goal of the model 
This model describes the model in which 
1. interest groups formulate their demands and get them into the media, 
2. the resulting media contents contribute to the structuring of public opinion, and 
3. the arising public opinion impacts political decision-makers (see Eichhorn 2005, 115f). 
The details of the model will be discussed in more detail below. 
With the help of Eichhorn's model, this master's thesis aims to analyze specifically: 
- how the social framing of issues took place in the tax affair, 
- which publics or actors presented their interests effectively in the media, and 
- how the actual core issue of "taxes" or "tax evasion" developed in the examined media 
and which facets were prioritized in the media. 
The overarching goal is to examine whether and which opportunities for influence an actor 
especially of a small country has on the transnational agenda setting of the media or whether 
itis simply a pawn in the hands of the media, as often assumed by the Liechtenstein side. 
According to Eichhorn (2005, 116), of particular importance to the theory of social framing of 
issues 1s the classification of society into interest groups (collectives), whose members have 
largely identical interests, but which are distinguished from each other by more or less clear 
differences of interests. For the purposes of this paper and in light of the fact that the 
investigated case study of "Liechtenstein and the German tax affair" is an example of 
transnational communication, Eichhorn's model must be adjusted. His work serves as a basis 
and starting point for this investigation. 
10