With attracting attention protest wants to affect the hegemonic discourse and evoke political activity. Political responsiveness is more likely if protest reaches public spheres via media resonance. Protest is therefore reflected as non-institutionalized democratic actor mirrored in the media that normatively ensure deliberative public sphere. Not only the participation instrument protest, but also so-called "astroturf protest" appears frequently: Protest is increasingly used by organizations with self-interests in a top down manner to stage broad public support for particular interests or to strategically pretend alleged grassroots civic engagement. Opposed in their organizational direction, grassroots (Bottom Up) and Astroturf protests (Top Down) are contrastively analyzed concerning (1) their linguistic framing, (2) the media reflection and (3) their ability to participate in the public sphere. Furthermore, both structural economic, political et al. and protest-event-linked factors affect the framing and the assertion of protest in the media agenda, implying participatory, power structures reproducing or ideological-critical consequences. Tendencies in protest coverage lead to specific forms of the coverage of protest, three of them (ignorance, differentiated and affirmative form) were identified in addition to the known. Similarly proceeding from the concrete to the abstract as well in the methodological approach, the analysis of newspaper articles and of several hundreds interviews provides new empirical data shown in three case studies: the London Riots, an Austrian Mayor Protest and the Greek Antigold protests. These and further discussed case studies deliver results on the participation of protesters in the public sphere that is ensured by media, and (4) help drawing conclusions on ideological tendencies in protest coverage.