Week 1:
What is political communication? —— the interactions between politics, media and the
public
• It deals with the relationship between political actors, media/journalists and the citizens
• Research is given by the question who ‘shapes’ these relationships, and ultimately who
controls whom? ——> focus on power relations
What do we expect from the media? ——> media as forth estate — in a democratic society,
as citizens we want to know what is happening, the media’s job is to inform us.
Functions of media in a democratic society
1. Information — monitoring, inform the citizens
2. Education — explaining what events and facts mean
3. Watchdog function — control over politics, publicity for what politics does (wrong)
4. Platform function — exchange of ideas —> public sphere
5. Channel function — political, ideological opinions needs to nd their way to the people
Threats to performing these functions?
1. The audience not being able/willing to process the information provided, or distinguish
news from misinformation
2. Journalists getting stuck into safe routines, instead of providing the information the public
needs
3. Commercialisation, leading to decreased news quality, media logic
4. Political actors (re)gain control over media content (lack of pluralism and independence)
① First problem —— information processing by the public
• Videomalaise (media malaise theory)— watching (information on) televisions has
negative e ects on the public.
• It is of inferior quality, when people rely on TV instead of newspapers, leads to inferior
knowledge or negative perception of politics.
• e.g: cynicism, low trust in political institutions, low sense of “political e cacy” = the
feeling that you can understand politics and also do something yourself
• Dumbing down
- People cannot (and don’t want to) process political information (anymore)
- Later: criticism to mediamalasie theory
- Positive e ects of media content are possible
ffff fi ffi
, - Some, rather sensational elements can be good to some extent, to reach more
people
- Journalists should focus on the audience as citizens, and can try to address them
all
• Fake news
• Which function are threatened?
- First of all the platform function — because we are in an echo chamber, not
pluralistic point of views but only people who already agree with us —> pluralities
ignorance
- Also the education function (because you don’t get certain information) and channel
function
- Information functions not so much
- Watchdog function not so much either
• Solution —— rebuilding trust in media, avoiding lter bubbles and echo chambers,
political satire, regulations for social media —— e.g: people creating hate speeches
and disseminating fake news should be held accountable for their actions
② Second problem — Journalists getting stuck into safe routines, instead of providing the
information the public needs
• Bennet (indexing)
• Journalists often focus on elite opinions, if all the elites agree, then no other opinions
are presented
• Because routines o er ease, e cient, safety and risk-avoidance —> playing it safe
means that you keep to the parliament (indexing )
• Which functions are threatened?
- First of all the platform function —> lack of pluralism
- watchdog function —> if the politicians are part of the routine, and if they have
something to hide then you are not confessing the whole story
- Also the other functions to the extent that some information and interpretations will
not make it into the news
• Solution — di erent approach to journalism, journalists being more critical and going
the extra mile to nd more voices to create a more complete, well-rounded story. (e.g:
journalist with an adversarial role connection)
③ Third problem — decreased news media quality due to commercialisation
• Shift from the normative to the commercial pole in the journalistic perspective
• Commercialisation —> maximising the audience (maximum pro t) with sensational
news (e.g: news coverage that provokes the senses and emotions of audience
members, thus attracting the attention of a larger audience )
- Leads to the inclusion of sensational elements in the news (topics, format,
vividness) —> media logic
- Elements of entertainment enter the news
- This leads to several negative consequences:
ff fi ff ffi fi fi
, • Low quality, how does it work? —— news = commodity. Since people can get the news
for free (there are countless online news sources that o er access to news with not
additional costs or fees), the business model of traditional journalism (in which
journalists are paid) is failing
- Consequence — budget cuts, decreasing investments in quality journalism, media
concentration, market logic takes over, increased competition for attention of the
audience and advertisement revenues
- Sensationalism and lower news quality
• And quantity? — information abundance?
- There’s a conception that we are now experiencing the information abundance
that is party misleading
- The truth is, what can be (wrongly) interpreted as an abundance of a big variety
of information, in reality, is repeated content, because most of the news and
information shared on social media is a copy of what was already published on
traditional media outlets.
- This is a threat to pluralism: e.g —— with 20 di erent sources, we have 20
di erent voices. But now that there are only 3-4 sources that are being
relocated billions of times, we only have 3-4 perspective, leading to a
substantial decrease in pluralism
• Which functions are threatened?
- Information function — less information
- Education — less, costs money
- Platform function under pressure due to decreased pluralism
- Watchdog function — expensive, so less
- Channel function — no problem (= cheap)
• For politics — media logic is becoming more prevalent and a part of a bigger story
- This is an evolutions go together with larger societal trends — the process of
mediatization (individualisation, depolarisation, the crisis of parties, increased voter
volatility, commercialisation etc.)
ff ff ff
, ① First phase of mediatization — mediation
- When the media become the main communication channel between politics and
the public
② Second phase of mediatization
• Media become more independent
• Higher journalistic professionalism
• The political system still has the upper hand
• But Media does not mediate messages unconditionally anymore
③ Third phase of mediatization
• Media become so independent that other actors have to adapt to them
• Media have the upper hand, but are still external to the political system
• Politicians have to further increase skills to do this adaptation of the media logic
(= following the formate, content, grammar and rhythm of the media ) —>
especially in campaigns
④ Forth phase of mediatization
• Politics does not only adapt, they adopt the media logic
• Standards of media logic/news worthiness become part of governing processes
(evaluation of issues and policies)
• Media are no longer external
• Politicians who need to answer to people are most a ected
• Some nuances — mediatization yes, but no universal forth phase:
- It is not a global or unidirectional trend
- Media do not, and will not take over political functions
- Although, however, there are politicians following this commercial media logic
- Furthermore, there are other elements that matter: e.g: ideologies, and political
cleavages that the media cannot bridge.
- Additionally, the initiative of what seems to be media in uence may originate from
politics or NGOs (so not everything is about the media, or From the media)
- Maybe political actors are just being smart
- Moderation of mediatization, depending on political system, media system, strength of
parties etc.
④ Fourth problem — government control over media content
• Lack of independence of media
• Lack of internal and external pluralism
- Internal pluralism — within a media outlet, you hear di erent voices
- External pluralism — each political ideology has their own outlet, so society can
hear it all
• e.g:
- Censorship
- State broadcasters
- Political decisions over the newsroom
- Selective government advertisements
ff fffl
What is political communication? —— the interactions between politics, media and the
public
• It deals with the relationship between political actors, media/journalists and the citizens
• Research is given by the question who ‘shapes’ these relationships, and ultimately who
controls whom? ——> focus on power relations
What do we expect from the media? ——> media as forth estate — in a democratic society,
as citizens we want to know what is happening, the media’s job is to inform us.
Functions of media in a democratic society
1. Information — monitoring, inform the citizens
2. Education — explaining what events and facts mean
3. Watchdog function — control over politics, publicity for what politics does (wrong)
4. Platform function — exchange of ideas —> public sphere
5. Channel function — political, ideological opinions needs to nd their way to the people
Threats to performing these functions?
1. The audience not being able/willing to process the information provided, or distinguish
news from misinformation
2. Journalists getting stuck into safe routines, instead of providing the information the public
needs
3. Commercialisation, leading to decreased news quality, media logic
4. Political actors (re)gain control over media content (lack of pluralism and independence)
① First problem —— information processing by the public
• Videomalaise (media malaise theory)— watching (information on) televisions has
negative e ects on the public.
• It is of inferior quality, when people rely on TV instead of newspapers, leads to inferior
knowledge or negative perception of politics.
• e.g: cynicism, low trust in political institutions, low sense of “political e cacy” = the
feeling that you can understand politics and also do something yourself
• Dumbing down
- People cannot (and don’t want to) process political information (anymore)
- Later: criticism to mediamalasie theory
- Positive e ects of media content are possible
ffff fi ffi
, - Some, rather sensational elements can be good to some extent, to reach more
people
- Journalists should focus on the audience as citizens, and can try to address them
all
• Fake news
• Which function are threatened?
- First of all the platform function — because we are in an echo chamber, not
pluralistic point of views but only people who already agree with us —> pluralities
ignorance
- Also the education function (because you don’t get certain information) and channel
function
- Information functions not so much
- Watchdog function not so much either
• Solution —— rebuilding trust in media, avoiding lter bubbles and echo chambers,
political satire, regulations for social media —— e.g: people creating hate speeches
and disseminating fake news should be held accountable for their actions
② Second problem — Journalists getting stuck into safe routines, instead of providing the
information the public needs
• Bennet (indexing)
• Journalists often focus on elite opinions, if all the elites agree, then no other opinions
are presented
• Because routines o er ease, e cient, safety and risk-avoidance —> playing it safe
means that you keep to the parliament (indexing )
• Which functions are threatened?
- First of all the platform function —> lack of pluralism
- watchdog function —> if the politicians are part of the routine, and if they have
something to hide then you are not confessing the whole story
- Also the other functions to the extent that some information and interpretations will
not make it into the news
• Solution — di erent approach to journalism, journalists being more critical and going
the extra mile to nd more voices to create a more complete, well-rounded story. (e.g:
journalist with an adversarial role connection)
③ Third problem — decreased news media quality due to commercialisation
• Shift from the normative to the commercial pole in the journalistic perspective
• Commercialisation —> maximising the audience (maximum pro t) with sensational
news (e.g: news coverage that provokes the senses and emotions of audience
members, thus attracting the attention of a larger audience )
- Leads to the inclusion of sensational elements in the news (topics, format,
vividness) —> media logic
- Elements of entertainment enter the news
- This leads to several negative consequences:
ff fi ff ffi fi fi
, • Low quality, how does it work? —— news = commodity. Since people can get the news
for free (there are countless online news sources that o er access to news with not
additional costs or fees), the business model of traditional journalism (in which
journalists are paid) is failing
- Consequence — budget cuts, decreasing investments in quality journalism, media
concentration, market logic takes over, increased competition for attention of the
audience and advertisement revenues
- Sensationalism and lower news quality
• And quantity? — information abundance?
- There’s a conception that we are now experiencing the information abundance
that is party misleading
- The truth is, what can be (wrongly) interpreted as an abundance of a big variety
of information, in reality, is repeated content, because most of the news and
information shared on social media is a copy of what was already published on
traditional media outlets.
- This is a threat to pluralism: e.g —— with 20 di erent sources, we have 20
di erent voices. But now that there are only 3-4 sources that are being
relocated billions of times, we only have 3-4 perspective, leading to a
substantial decrease in pluralism
• Which functions are threatened?
- Information function — less information
- Education — less, costs money
- Platform function under pressure due to decreased pluralism
- Watchdog function — expensive, so less
- Channel function — no problem (= cheap)
• For politics — media logic is becoming more prevalent and a part of a bigger story
- This is an evolutions go together with larger societal trends — the process of
mediatization (individualisation, depolarisation, the crisis of parties, increased voter
volatility, commercialisation etc.)
ff ff ff
, ① First phase of mediatization — mediation
- When the media become the main communication channel between politics and
the public
② Second phase of mediatization
• Media become more independent
• Higher journalistic professionalism
• The political system still has the upper hand
• But Media does not mediate messages unconditionally anymore
③ Third phase of mediatization
• Media become so independent that other actors have to adapt to them
• Media have the upper hand, but are still external to the political system
• Politicians have to further increase skills to do this adaptation of the media logic
(= following the formate, content, grammar and rhythm of the media ) —>
especially in campaigns
④ Forth phase of mediatization
• Politics does not only adapt, they adopt the media logic
• Standards of media logic/news worthiness become part of governing processes
(evaluation of issues and policies)
• Media are no longer external
• Politicians who need to answer to people are most a ected
• Some nuances — mediatization yes, but no universal forth phase:
- It is not a global or unidirectional trend
- Media do not, and will not take over political functions
- Although, however, there are politicians following this commercial media logic
- Furthermore, there are other elements that matter: e.g: ideologies, and political
cleavages that the media cannot bridge.
- Additionally, the initiative of what seems to be media in uence may originate from
politics or NGOs (so not everything is about the media, or From the media)
- Maybe political actors are just being smart
- Moderation of mediatization, depending on political system, media system, strength of
parties etc.
④ Fourth problem — government control over media content
• Lack of independence of media
• Lack of internal and external pluralism
- Internal pluralism — within a media outlet, you hear di erent voices
- External pluralism — each political ideology has their own outlet, so society can
hear it all
• e.g:
- Censorship
- State broadcasters
- Political decisions over the newsroom
- Selective government advertisements
ff fffl
