The Media, Political Participation and Empowerment

Richard Scullion, Roman Gerodimos, Daniel Jackson, Darren Lilleker

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780415633499
• eBook ISBN: 9781134621118
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Technological, cultural and economic forces are transforming political communication, posing challenges and opportunities for politicians and media organisations, while at the same time many governments and civil society express concerns about the extent and nature of political empowerment and civic engagement.

This book offers an international perspective on current thinking and practice about civic and audience empowerment, focusing on the ways and means through which media can empower or dis-empower citizens as audiences. It features theoretical and empirical chapters that draw specific attention to a reappraisal of the theories, methods and issues that inform our understanding of citizens and audiences in contemporary politics. The authors address the following questions:

• How much and what sorts of civic and audience empowerment are most desirable, and how does this differ cross-nationally?
• How do citizens relate to private and public spaces?
• How do citizens function in online, networked, liminal and alternative spaces?
• How do audiences of 'non-political' media spaces relate their experiences to politics?
• How are political parties and movements utilising audiences as co-creators of political communication and what are the consequences for democracy?

With examples from the UK, USA, Holland, France, Germany, The Middle East, South Africa and Mexico, this innovative volume will be of interest to students and scholars of political science, marketing, journalism, cultural studies, public relations, media and international relations.

1 Introduction to the media, political participation and empowerment

Roman Gerodimos, Richard Scullion, Darren G. Lilleker and Daniel Jackson

The aim of this book is to offer an international perspective on current thinking and practice about the important topic of civic and audience empowerment. We focus, in particular, on the ways and means through which (all and any) media can and do empower or disempower citizens as audiences; that is how they act as vehicles of, or obstacles to, a sense of civic agency.

The debate on the impact of the media on political participation and civic empowerment continues to be a salient one. The launch of new gadgets, applications and outlets is usually followed by heated exchanges about the world-changing or destructive effects of media. Technology has always been at the core of our hopes and fears; on the one hand expressing humanity’s instinctive drive for progress and evolution and, on the other hand, signifying our tendency to shift responsibility (and occasionally blame) for our actions or inactions and their consequences to a ‘higher force’ – whether that is spiritual, political or technological.

Power and empowerment

In order to further probe and establish the relationship between media, participation and empowerment we first need to unpack these terms and, in particular, to examine the concept of power as it lies at the very centre of the debate. The term ‘empowerment’ itself implies the acquisition of power – presumably from a prior state of inefficacy; power itself being the ability to act or take decisions in ways that affect self and/or others (Staples 1990). In the context of this book and of the discussion on political participation, civic empowerment refers to the acquisition of power by the citizen, with a view to restoring, strengthening or serving a model of democratic governance usually based upon normative conceptualisations of the relationship between the government and the citizens. The exact role and powers of the individual citizen vary amongst different models of democracy (e.g. representative vs. direct democracy), but the common starting point of those who advocate more civic empowerment is the need to ensure the legitimacy and sustainability of government, while maximising citizens’ welfare (Whitfield 2001).

One question that immediately emerges from this discussion is whether empowerment is zero-sum. This has profound implications for both the definition of the concept itself, and for its application to contemporary examples. If we accept that empowerment is, in fact, a zero-sum game then that would mean that the acquisition of power from one agent (e.g. the citizens) is the result of a transfer of power from a previous holder (e.g. an authoritarian regime); in that case one actor’s loss has to equal the other actor’s gain. An alternative interpretation might be to view empowerment not as a zero-sum game but as the facilitation or encouragement of civic voice which, while not necessarily reducing another actor’s or institution’s ability to take decisions, creates an environment of pluralism which has benefits for all actors. It is important to note the stance our authors take with regard to how power is conceived, to fully appreciate their intended contribution.

Another fundamental question is whether and how we can ‘measure’ power or at the very least establish who has it at any given time. What criteria can we use to evaluate the amount of power that an actor holds within a system? Is power a quality that is instantly recognisable – we know it when we see it? According to a classic quote from former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, ‘being in power is like being a lady; if you have to remind people that you are, you aren’t’. This suggests both a tangible and intangible dimension to the possession of power and leads us to ask ‘which are the pivotal factors that grant power to an actor’? (such factors could be legal, institutional, economic, socio-cultural, psychological or physical). Our book’s three sections suggest at least three subtly differing ways in which we might address power; as something possessed, as something co-constructed, and as something experienced.

It is widely accepted that, during the last three decades, globalisation has been reconfiguring power relations within and across nation-states (Hay 2007). Across liberal democracies, once all-powerful national governments have lost or voluntarily given away substantive elements of their decision-making and regulatory powers – to transnational entities such as the European Union, to international organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, to private and multi-national corporations, to Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and to domestic and global networks of stakeholders, experts and innovators. The diffusion of power away from the core executive to distributed, ad hoc and flexible networks is contesting the role of established institutions, such as parliament and political parties (Leach and Lowndes 2007). Emerging forms of participation encompassing a multitude of everyday actions, from consumption to online petitions to demonstrations, appear to be attracting considerable numbers of citizens (see Chapter 14) – including younger generations who are more likely to engage through alternative outlets of political participation. The book thus considers the relationship between participation and empowerment since the one does not seem to simply beget the other.

The central role of the media in today’s configuration of power relations is not only evident by the sheer amount of time spent accessing or using media by the public on a daily basis. The increasing importance of tools such as branding, market research, celebrity endorsement, news and issue management, press releases and crisis communications in the setting of the public agenda imply that while power may well be diffused or distributed, it still passes through filters and is culled and crafted by gatekeepers (Herman and Chomsky 1994; Shoemaker and Vos 2009). While emerging forms of voice expression through social media and citizen journalism challenge the power of traditional gatekeepers such as newspaper editors or authoritarian regimes, establishing the real outcome and long-term impact of the actions of newly or temporarily ‘empowered’ citizens is much more difficult. Many have questioned the value and actual impact of emerging forms of political participation (Hindman 2008; Morozov 2010), arguing that not only are such actions ineffective, but that they also give citizens a false sense of empowerment – hence, ending up disempowering them as they distract or remove them from issues, debates or actions that really matter. Hence we suggest empowerment is a nebulous concept, one which is often used but not always carefully defined. Empowerment is used to describe the outcomes of many technological, social and political developments; yet the nature of that empowerment – in terms of what power, to do what, is given to whom, and by what mechanisms – is difficult to determine. What is empowerment in practical terms, and how it may be offered through media is the theme we explore in this collection.

The book aims to address the following specific questions:

• How are political parties and movements utilising audiences as co-creators of political communication and what are the consequences for democracy?

• Does mediated politics offer the space and resource for empowering audience participation?

• How much and what sorts of civic and audience empowerment are most desirable, and how does this differ cross-nationally?

• Do citizens gain or achieve empowerment through online, networked and alternative spaces?

• How do audiences relate their media experiences to politics?

Empowerment might usefully be considered at an abstract level, however to overtly link it to politics we need to consider how citizen empowerment/disempowerment feeds engagement with this sphere of life.

Political engagement

Power within society can be diffuse; it may rest with many organisations and individuals as well as being formalised through social mechanisms for determining policy and governance. Yet, despite all multifarious mechanisms that permit anyone to exercise power, there may be a widespread sense of low self-efficacy regarding the political process. Empowerment is not only an abstract outcome of practical measures; it is a psychological state of mind. To exercise the right to have influence, to seek power, one must feel that any action will have the likelihood to determine the outcome of that action. And it is contextual, drawing on various notions of capital from wealth to cultural. The reason we posit that media is so important is that as our connection to others, and to public institutions, becomes increasingly mediated, so the terms of engagement between citizen and broader society are defined by media. Problems have already been identified with the way that mass media coverage is ‘biased against hope’ (Richards 2007: 12–13); if empowerment is contingent upon hope that one can exercise power and influence through democratic processes, then this bias will lead to lower feelings of self-efficacy, reduced participation and low levels of engagement. These are all evident trends in the way that citizens relate to formal politics (Hay 2007).

The blame for this can be levelled against a range of actors. Clearly the institutions of governance create frameworks for participation and set out the rules of engagement. As Bennett (2008: 4) argues, ‘we must not only prepare citizens for politics but also improve politics for citizens’, because telling people to participate in bad institutions is ‘mere propaganda’. Mass media report on, evaluate and critique the rules of engagement and the actions of both political and other relevant intuitions and their actors. But there is also the issue of public engagement, and the mechanisms afforded by new media for participating that sit within, alongside or even outside of the formal rules of engagement. Engagement is a necessary condition for assessing the degree of empowerment one possesses. Engagement is an equally nebulous concept given that it is difficult to measure beyond assessments based on the outcomes of engagement: knowledge and participation. Engagement, like empowerment, is cognitive; unlike empowerment it is not perceptual but involves wanting to consider a social issue using higher order thinking (Greene and Miller 1996). Being engaged in a topic is to consider the issues relating to the topic carefully, to actively seek information, have cognitive deliberations and discussions with other individuals, thus engagement can lead to a range of participatory activities which would include information seeking, deliberation and, possibly, some form of activism. While mass media may depress such forms of engagement, by fostering low self-efficacy (Richards 2007) and cynicism (Jackson 2011), it is argued that new pathways to engagement are facilitated through new technologies and new forms of communication.

The Internet has become a ubiquitous part of life; it has impacted upon all forms of social, political and commercial communication and is argued to be altering social relations. We should not consider that there has to always be a dichotomy between Internet-based, or online, engagement and real-world, offline engagement; online and offline participation can be mutually exclusive, complementary or antagonistic. However there are clearly differing forms of engagement offered online that would require greater effort if performed offline. This also raises the debate about clicktivism, a practice dismissed as ephemeral and unimportant by some (Morozov 2010) and heralded by others as potentiating higher levels of civic engagement if the conditions are right (Lilleker 2014).

Evidence suggests, particularly for young people who are most likely to be disengaged from traditional forms of civic and political engagement, that online forms of engagement can lead to patterns of participation that develop offline dimensions. Offline participatory activities would include engaging in campaigns and leading campaign activities, being involved in and starting debates as well as seeking involvement in local and national politics (Gil de Zuniga et al. 2010). While emerging patterns of online youth civic engagement highlight the salience of broader socio-cultural factors – such as civic consumerism and the Zeitgeist of choice – the Internet allows for the development of innovative forms of user experience and personalised, emotionally and visually literate storytelling that has the potential to engage and empower younger citizens (Gerodimos 2012).

If the argument is correct that these two spheres of political engagement are highly complementary and mutually supportive and that we are witnessing ‘the emergence of a hybrid participation that combines the virtual and real world realms of political engagement and action—a new digital democracy’ (Gil de Zuniga et al. 2010: 45) then new technologies must be potentially empowering. This is of course open to much debate and we return to those core questions posed earlier in this introduction. What are the conditions for empowerment, what levels of empowerment are and should be encouraged, what spaces are best for setting the conditions for empowerment and how do media contribute to empowerment? The works, which we introduce below, offer a range of insights and perspectives on empowerment conceptually and empirically, and explore the conditions for feeling and being empowered.

Overview of the chapters

The book is divided into three themed parts, which is our way of offering a ‘light editorial hand’ in shaping how it might be read. The book’s structure is derived from our attempts at making connections between the sixteen individual contributions and the core theme of the book: the role of media and media audiences in the process of political (dis)empowerment and engagement. Our sections broadly focus on elite communication, media spaces and finally citizens or audiences.

Hence Part I is about investigating perhaps the most traditional perspective which privileges the political actors as the agents with power, who use mediated communications to enact and gain influence. As we read each of the individual chapters in this first part, our central guiding question was asking whether this form of communication from the centre to the so-called ‘periphery’ where citizens reside, is politically disempowering/empowering, and if so how?

The first contributor asks some bold questions. Heather Savigny is provocative in challenging the idea that the media empower what she calls the ‘masses’ because she argues ‘empowerment is dependent on a set of pre-existing power relations’ that the media are part of. Thus she alerts us to consider the structural conditions that permit so-called empowerment and goes on to ask the reader to reflect on whose interests are served by the construction of the information and the way it is presented in the media. This chapter suggests it is simply not possible for the media to act in any meaningful way as ‘independent’ agents of power dissemination given they are embedded within the political and economic system they are commenting on.

In a similar vein, but at a more micro level, Darren Lilleker’s chapter explores whether power relations are changing due to the ways in which technologies are being utilised for political purposes by both elite and non-elite actors. His research across several Western democracies finds what he calls a blurring between these two groups’ contribution to political communication with ‘user generated content [UGC] starting to sit alongside official communication so shaping the experiences of audiences’. However, on closer reading of his data an important thrust of his argument is that despite this trend of UGC, the more traditional political actors are harnessing the citizen crowd’s efforts for their own purposes. His chapter offers a framework for understanding whether, why and how political communication is developing a participatory and expressive character.

Interrogating a large dataset carried out during the British General Election 2010, Janine Dermody et al. investigate whether political advertising is a tool of engagement or disengagement particularly for younger citizens. They highlight some of the tensions apparent in this form of persuasive communication that often uses attack style messages to what they call a ‘cynical, distrusting audience’. They are firm in their conclusions that such advertising means any building of trust is forsaken for winning the election. At best then, such communicative practices can only have short-term goals where any real sense of empowering audiences is simply not on the agenda because elections are all about selling.

Michael Higgins’ chapter looks at another form of persuasive political communications, rhetoric, by examining the dominant discourses used by contemporary political leaders. In looking at how politicians talk to (or at) citizens, and how they invoke images of the citizenry, he allows the reader to make judgements about their intentions vis-à-vis language as an empowering act. He notes that early in David Cameron’s leadership he ‘speaks along with people’. So if we are ‘all in this together’ does such rhetoric make citizens feel part of some greater project? And does this form of rhetoric increase our sense of effica...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Introduction to the media, political participation and empowerment
• Part I Political communication Empowering or disempowering?
• Part II Political participation in mediated spaces Merely ‘soft' empowerment?
• Part III Citizen (public) mediated acts of empowerment Challenging the status quo?
• Part IV Conclusion
• Index