Mediatization of Politics

Understanding the Transformation of Western Democracies

F. Esser,J. Strömbäck

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137275844
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Politica culturale

The first book-long analysis of the 'mediatization of politics', this volume aims to understand the transformations of the relationship between media and politics in recent decades, and explores how growing media autonomy, journalistic framing, media populism and new media technologies affect democratic processes.

Part I

Introduction

1

Mediatization of Politics: Towards a Theoretical Framework

Jesper Strömbäck and Frank Esser

During the last few decades, the world has witnessed a dual democratic transformation. On the one hand and beginning with the fall of communism, the number of electoral democracies worldwide almost doubled between 1989 and 2011 (Freedom House, 2012). The victory of democracy and capitalism may not have marked the “end of history” (Fukuyama, 1992), but today there is no alternative political system that enjoys the same worldwide support and legitimacy as democracy (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005; Inglehart, 2003). On the other hand, many established democracies have witnessed a transformation towards increasing complexity, less deferential and increasingly critical and dissatisfied citizens (Norris, 2011), lower electoral turnout and trust in politicians and political institutions (Franklin, 2004; Norris, 1999), and increasingly autonomous, market-driven and critical media (Hallin & Mancini, 2004; Hamilton, 2004; Patterson, 1993). National political institutions and actors thus find themselves under increasing pressure from both citizens and the media, while the need to find solutions to major challenges such as global warming, rising inequalities, weak growth and increasing deficits appears both more urgent and more difficult to tackle.

The paradox is that the global trend towards an expanding number of electoral democracies has occurred at roughly the same time as the trend within many established democracies towards an increasing gap between expectations and demands and what political institutions are able to deliver. The demand for political action to solve pressing problems may be stronger than ever, but the preconditions for political decision-making, public deliberation and political legitimacy have at the same time weakened.

In this context, and together with other large-scale processes such as individualization and globalization, the role of the media is key to understanding the transformation of established democracies (Kriesi et al., 2013). Due to the importance of the media as a source of information for citizens as well as a channel of communication between policymakers and the citizenry and between different parts of the political system, and due to the fact that the media hold the key to the public sphere and can have a major influence on public opinion formation, no political actor or institution can afford not to take the media into consideration. The media can thus have a major influence not only on public opinion, but also on the structure and processes of political decision-making and political communication (Koch-Baumgarten & Voltmer, 2010).

One key concept in understanding the role of the media in the transformation of established democracies is mediatization, which has also been described as a meta-process on a par with other transformative social change processes such as globalization and individualization (Hjarvard, 2013; Kriesi et al., 2013; Krotz, 2007, 2009). During the last decade, mediatization has also become an increasingly popular concept, applied not only in the context of politics and democracy (Asp, 1986; Kepplinger, 2002; Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999; Esser, 2013; Meyer, 2002; Schillemans, 2012; Strömbäck, 2008, 2011a, 2011b; Strömbäck & Esser, 2009), but also in other areas ranging from the toy industry (Hjarvard, 2004) to consumption (Jansson, 2002) and culture and society in a wider sense (Hjarvard, 2013; Lundby, 2009a).

At heart, the term “mediatization” refers to a social change process in which media have become increasingly influential in and deeply integrated into different spheres of society (Asp, 1986; Strömbäck, 2008). Mazzoleni (2008a) thus defines the mediatization of society as indicating “the extension of the influence of the media (considered as both a cultural technology and as an organization) into all spheres of society and social life”, while Hjarvard (2008, p. 113) defines mediatization as “the process whereby society to an increasing degree is submitted to, or becomes dependent on, the media and their logic”. Asp and Esaiasson (1996, pp. 80–81) similarly define mediatization as a “development towards increasing media influence”.

Mediatization is thus distinct from the related concept of mediation, which refers to the more neutral act of transmitting messages and communicating through different media (Mazzoleni, 2008b; Strömbäck, 2008). The fact that more messages and experiences than ever are transmitted and experienced through media – that is, mediated – is an important part of mediatization, but mediatization is a broader process, and these concepts should not be understood as synonymous. While mediation is a rather static and descriptive concept, mediatization is an inherently dynamic and process-oriented concept that cannot be reduced to the transmission of messages or communication through media (Esser, 2013; Hjarvard, 2013; Mazzoleni, 2008b; Schulz, 2004; Strömbäck & Esser, 2009).

Despite the increasing scholarly interest in mediatization, and broad consensus that mediatization refers to a process of increasing media influence, many unresolved issues and ambiguities remain. Thus far mediatization has the character of a theoretical perspective more than of a proper theory, and it remains more of a “sensitizing” than a “definitive” concept. Although the distinction between these types of concepts represents a continuum rather than a dichotomy, “sensitizing” concepts are more loosely defined than “definitive” ones, and more used as exploratory tools than as carefully defined concepts that lend themselves to precise operationalizations that can be used in empirical research (Hjarvard, 2013, pp. 4–5).

Partly this can be explained by the multifaceted and complex nature of mediatization. Other multidimensional meta-processes such as globalization also lack precise definitions, and the processes may manifest themselves differently in various spheres of society and at different levels of analysis. This may call for partly different and situational definitions and conceptualizations, depending on the subject under scrutiny and the level of analysis. Partly it can be explained by the multidisciplinary study of mediatization: communication scholars, political scientists, sociologists and others often tend to approach the field from somewhat different perspectives. The very ambiguity of the concept may also be part of why it has attracted increasing interest, as it has allowed scholars greater freedom to fill it with their own interpretations. In addition, there are some who seem to reject more precise definitions and operationalizations of mediatization, fearing that they would reduce the complexity of the concept and the phenomena it refers to.

The downside is that loosely defined concepts are difficult to operationalize and investigate empirically. To understand reality, we need theory and theoretical concepts, but we also need theories that can be assessed empirically and thereby help us understand the world around us. Otherwise a conceptual idea may too easily become a matter of belief rather than a proper theory that can be tested, refined and perhaps even refuted.

Against this background, the purpose of this book is twofold: first, to bring together state-of-the-art chapters on the mediatization of politics, and thereby to assess what we know and provide a framework for further research; second, to move theory and research on the mediatization of politics forward towards a more fully developed theory. Ultimately, we believe mediatization is key to understanding the transformation of Western democracies, but also that the mediatization of politics should be considered a theory under development that needs empirical analysis and verification, and not as a taken-for-granted fact or a loosely defined catch-all concept. This book thus aims at both assessing and furthering our theoretical as well as empirical understanding of the mediatization of politics.

As part of this aim, the purpose of this particular chapter is to move towards a theory on the mediatization of politics. We will do this by first explicating our conceptualization of the mediatization of politics as a four-dimensional concept and process, and then by addressing some key ambiguities in mediatization research related to the component concepts of media influence, media, political logic and media logic. At the outset, it should however be stressed that we do not think of mediatization as a replacement of other theories that deal with media influence or the politics–media relationship. The promise of mediatization is rather that it holds the potential to integrate different theoretical strands within one framework, linking micro-level with meso- and macro-level processes and phenomena, and thus contributing to a broader understanding of the role of the media in the transformation of established democracies.

Mediatization of politics as a four-dimensional concept

The essence of mediatization theory is that mediatization is a long-term process of increasing media importance and direct and indirect media influence in various spheres in society (Hjarvard, 2013; Lundby, 2009a; Mazzoleni, 2008a). Consequently and in the context of politics, the mediatization of politics may be defined as a long-term process through which the importance of the media and their spill-over effects on political processes, institutions, organizations and actors have increased (Asp, 1986; Mazzoleni, 2008b; Meyer, 2002; Strömbäck, 2008, 2011a, 2011b; Strömbäck & Esser, 2009). Mazzoleni and Schulz (1999) go one step further to argue that mediatization of politics describes a process in which politics has increasingly “lost its autonomy, has become dependent in its central functions on mass media, and is continuously shaped by interactions with mass media” (p. 250).

Following Strömbäck (2008, 2011a; Strömbäck & Esser, 2009), the mediatization of politics is a process where four distinct but highly related dimensions can be identified. The first dimension refers to the degree to which the media constitute the most important source of information about politics and society. This dimension thus refers to the extent to which politics has become mediated. The second dimension refers to the degree to which the media have become independent from other political and social institutions. Although all institutions should be perceived as interdependent, for the media to have an independent influence on politics they have to form an institution in their own right. The third dimension refers to the degree to which media content and the coverage of politics and current affairs is guided by media logic or political logic. In essence, this dimension deals with the extent to which the media’s own needs and standards of newsworthiness, rather than those of political actors or institutions, are decisive for what the media cover and how they cover it. Finally, the fourth dimension refers to the extent to which political institutions, organizations and actors are guided by media logic or political logic. This dimension deals with the very essence of the mediatization of politics, that is, the ripple effects of media in political processes and on political actors and institutions (Figure 1.1).

What this framework highlights is not only that the mediatization of politics is a complex and multidimensional process but also that it is possible to break it down into discrete dimensions which can facilitate a greater understanding of the process of mediatization and empirical studies along different dimensions. For example, Strömbäck and Dimitrova (2011) and Esser (2008) investigated the extent to which the media in different countries intervene and shape their election news coverage to meet the media’s own needs and standards of newsworthiness, that is, these studies focused on the third dimension of mediatization. As another example, Elmelund-Praestekaer et al. (2011) and Schillemans (2012) investigated the effects of mediatization on members of parliament and governmental organizations respectively, that is, they focused on the fourth dimension of mediatization.

Figure 1.1 A four-dimensional conceptualization of the mediatization of politics

It is important to note that mediatization along each of the dimensions is a matter of degree. The media can be more or less important as a source of information, and more or less independent from political institutions, and media content as well as political institutions and actors can be more or less guided by media logic as opposed to political logic. There might also be variations across different media and, not least importantly, different political actors, organizations and institutions, both within and across countries. The degree of mediatization along different dimensions is ultimately an empirical question and most often contextual.

The four dimensions of mediatization should at the same time be understood as strongly linked together. More precisely, the first phase of mediatization of politics takes place when the media have become the most important source of information and channel of communication (first dimension). As politics becomes increasingly mediated, it becomes more important for political actors and institutions to use the media to reach out to larger groups in society. It is however as media institutions become increasingly autonomous from political institutions that the process of mediatization gathers pace (second dimension). The more independent from political institutions the media become, the more important the media’s needs and standards of newsworthiness – in short, media logic – will become for what the media cover and how they cover it (third dimension). When this happens, political institutions and actors will successively realize that in order to influence the media, and through the media the public, they will have to adapt to the media and the media’s logic (fourth dimension). Adapting to the media thus becomes a prime means of political actors and institutions trying to win the desired – or avoid undesirable – media coverage, and to use the media to their own advantage (Strömbäck & van Aelst, 2013).

Figure 1.2 Relationship between the four dimensions of the mediatization of politics

What this suggests is that the degree of mediation forms the basis of the mediatization of politics, while mediatization along the second dimension functions as a prerequisite for the third and fourth dimensions. The degree of mediatization along the first, second and third dimensions furthermore contributes to the degree of mediatization along the fourth dimension (see Figure 1.2).

This is not to say that the mediatization of politics is a linear or unidirectional process or that political or other institutions and actors have all become media slaves. The extent to which politics has become mediatized is – as are all other aspects of the media–politics relationship – contingent on a host of factors at different levels of analysis that may vary both within and across countries (Blumler & Gurevitch, 1995; Esser & Hanitzsch, 2012; Hallin & Mancini, 2004; Strömbäck & Kaid, 2008), and the relationship between media and politics should always be understood as interactive (Wolfsfeld, 2011). If one important part of future research is to further operationalize the mediatization of politics to allow systematic empirical studies, another important part is hence to both theorize and empirically investigate the factors at different levels of analysis that shape the extent to which politics – along the different dimensions – has become mediatized.

For that to become possible, there is however a need to first define some of the key concepts within mediatization theory that are too often left vaguely defined or undefined. The most important of those concepts are media influence, media, political logic and media logic.

Mediatization of politics and media influence

The essence of mediatization is that it is a long-term process of increasing media importance and influence in various spheres in society. As the importance of the media has increased, and the media have become more embedded and integrated in all aspects of social and political life, so has the influence of media. One key question though is how the influence of the media should be conceptualized. What does it mean to state that ...