Kees Brants

Signs of Media Logic Half a Century of Political Communication in the Netherlands

Abstract On the basis of three elections, covering a period of fifty years, the authors aim at testing the increasingly popular hypothesis that political communication is driven by media logic and by political and media system characteristics. In short: sooner or later, the modes and styles of American media will appear in Europe too.The complex and volatile relationship between media and politics in the Netherlands in the last half century does show some, although not uni-linear signs of media logic. The strength of a public service tradition and a political culture of non-adversariality, however, seem to have stopped the developments short of a political communication style which is characterised by performance driven campaigning, horse race and poll driven reporting, orientation on the public as consumers, journalistic dominance, agenda setting and cynicism.

Taking the public seriously: three models of responsiveness in media and journalism

Until recently, media and journalists have worked in a supply market, ideally providing the public with the kind of information the former thought the latter needed to participate as full citizens in a democracy. The shift to a demand market means that, increasingly, the media are providing what the public wants: what is in the public interest seems to be less important than what the public is interested in. Such a more marketdriven approach sits uncomfortably with professional values of independence and functions of information provision. The question, however, is whether this is the only way that journalists are becoming more responsive to their public. The article distinguishes three different ways of how they (are beginning to) take the public into account: civic, strategic and empathic responsiveness. Three separate case studies from the Netherlands also deal with the question of how media and journalists come to terms with, on the one hand, their professional values and, on the other, being more responsive to the public.

Guest Editor's Introduction: The Internet and the Public Sphere

The road to the political benefits of the Internet is lined with believers and critics. The believers—who are, depending on the source, either labeled e-optimists or cyber-utopians —hail this new medium of communication as offering not merely new ways of obtaining information, but as revolutionizing the character of democratic society by transcending limitations of time, space, and access and interactive and deliberative citizenship, not hindered by the elite character of traditional mass media. The enthusiasm is often accompanied by the anticipation of a major increase in public engagement in political communication. “The extraordinary opportunities provided by the Internet” can be used as “an instrument of citizenship . . . in which people continually enlarge their horizons, often testing their own views by learning about alternatives” (Sunstein, 2001, p. 194). The inherently nonhierarchical character of the Internet would enable bottom-up initiatives from individuals and groups that are traditionally not interested in or often ignored by politics and politicians. The Internet would make a thousand flowers bloom: Instant and ubiquitous access to government information, political proposals, and policy options would enable citizens to discuss their ins and outs, form opinions, and make fully informed choices that can be instantly and authoritatively communicated to legislators. The idea of “e-democracy,” with its implicit assumption of responsive decision making, has its e-pessimists or cyber-realists as well, as the Internet unleashes dreams as well as nightmares. They question the potential powers ascribed to the Internet in mobilizing the politically uninterested. At the same time, they point to the fact that most government sponsored initiatives are not aimed at citizen feedback, and those that are show a “tendency to seek aggregate ‘consumer/citizen’ views (via e.g. electronic opinion polling, referenda, etc.) on predetermined issues rather than to encourage discourse and deliberation amongst citizens and allow an input to agenda setting” (Hague & Loader, 1999, p. 13). On a global scale, the pessimists remind us that access is often only in the eyes of the beholder: The digital dream may well create new cleavages, between those who do and those who do not have access to and command of such communication resources. Central in most contributions to the debate is the concept of the “public sphere,” a realm of our social life—separate from political, religious, or economic interests—where

Populist rhetoric in politics and media: A longitudinal study of the Netherlands

Many claim that populism in the Netherlands has grown over the last 10 years; that it spreads among mainstream parties; that its success has to do with the media, who pay more and more attention to populist parties and immigration issues; but that it is difficult to distinguish between political populism intended for the media and populism by the media. In a longitudinal content analysis of newspapers, television news, talk shows and party political broadcasts, covering seven elections in nearly 20 years, these claims are put to the test. The picture that emerges is far more ambiguous than publicized opinion suggests, with no clear trend but a downward one in 2012.

Introduction: Mediatization and De-centralization of Political Communication

Over the past couple of decades, political communication has undergone dramatic changes, which are believed to have far-reaching consequences for the way in which democratic politics works. Never before have politicians put as much effort, resources and sophistication into communicating with citizens as today. But this seems to only further fuel public mistrust in the authority and honesty of political leaders.

Between partisanship and cynicism: Italian journalism in a state of flux

The performance of political reporters in liberal democracies is often criticized for its near anti-political stance, an observation shared by politicians, scholars and even journalists themselves. The notion of journalistic cynicism vis-a-vis politics, however, is ambiguous and the picture emerging from research is flawed by its often originating in the USA. Here, a multidimensional conceptualization is proposed — focusing on mistrust, negative tone, irony or sarcasm, and scandal orientation — and tested in a study of newspapers in Italy, a country characterized by a strong partisan tradition but demonstrating recent signs of commercial media logic. Contrary to much of the US findings, however, the media in Italy show a decrease of cynicism in three out of four of the dimensions.

BEYOND MEDIA LOGIC

Mediatization and media logic are concepts that enjoy a growing academic popularity. At the same time, the phenomena that they cover and the empirical proof of their existence and growing presence are at best ambiguous. This article firstly dissects and problematizes these concepts and, secondly, it discusses the likelihood of other logics, notably ones in which the vox populi has a more central, albeit contested, place. The conclusion is that, as audience and as voters, the public is increasingly powerful in relation to politics and media, but at the same time it is fragmented and volatile. This begs the question whether it is helpful to speak of a logic of the public in explaining the present changes in Europe of the character, composition and driving force of political communication or that we just would coin another misnomer.

A Question of Control: Journalists and Politicians in Political Broadcast Interviews

Famous, even notorious, also beyond British waters, is the 1997 television interview in which the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman hounded down then Home Secretary Michael Howard of the Conservative government like a hyena after its prey. Howard was questioned about a meeting between himself and the Director General of the Prison Service in which he was said to have forced the latter to sack the Governor of Parkhurst prison. ‘Did you threaten to overrule him?’, Paxman asked, and when the minister gave an evasive answer he repeated the question. Again Howard ducked the issue. Paxman, clearly determined that the minister should not get away with this, stood his ground and asked again, albeit in a slightly louder voice: ‘Did you threaten to overrule him?’ In total, Paxman asked the same question 14 times, and each time it was followed by a qualified or evasive answer.

A changing culture of political television journalism

Fifteen days before he left office, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking in London at the Reuters press agency, told his audience that ‘coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity’ was a ‘vast aspect’ of his job (Blair, 2007). For a purportedly reflective lecture, it was remarkably accusatory. After noting the ‘cynicism about politics in public life’, he concluded that ‘today’s media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits’.

Book Review: The Media and Neo-Populism: A Contemporary Comparative Analysis

alternative identities and meanings emerge. I think this collection manages these dilemmas very well. Notions of solidarity, populism, even indigenous culture are called upon as more than simply useful rhetorical tropes in political struggle and academic analysis. They are used instead as a means to uncover problematic questions involved in the contestation of media power. I liked this book – it lifts the spirits while retaining a sense of political realism and critical evaluation. May there be more like it.