Media Engagement Boundaries and Political Influence in Europe

Media Influence on Setting Both the Public Agenda and the Political Agenda

Media unfold an important influence when focusing the public attention. This is possible because media have become the main sources used by citizens to get informed about public issues. Media news coverage drives people’s attention to certain issues and supplies signs of the information that has a prior status (Dearing & Rogers, 1996). The standards used to cover the public issues in the news influence the public’s perception of what are the most important issues of the day. Thus, they activate the process of building public opinion. The practice of this influence corresponds with the agenda-setting role of the media (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).

The media are essential for the political life (mediatization) and exert influence on the public (agenda-setting). However, the ability of the media to define the political agenda and determine the decision-making process is a pending issue to be resolved (Walgrave & Van Aelst, 2006). The basic question is how political actors determine their priorities, pay attention to or ignore issues, and take or not take a decision or attitude on these issues.

The answer is complicated, and results show two main confronted positions (Van Aelst & Walgrave, 2011). The first one defends the power of media to influence the political agenda is limited and marginal (Pritchard & Berkowitz, 1993). The media do not have a real impact in political agenda setting, as part of their political initiatives are inspired by factors endogenous to the political system, and also by the established political actors’ preferences (political parties, parliaments, presidents). Media external pressures do not inspire them (Green-Pedersen & Stubager, 2010).

The second one states the existence of a strong influence of media in the political agenda setting (Strömbäck, 2011; Van Aelst et al., 2008; Walgrave, 2008). The media coverage plays an important role when discovering and rising issues to the political agenda. When placing an issue among their contents, media increase the possibilities of it to be considered by the political system (Cobb & Elder, 1971). Thus, the media’s attention normally precedes political attention (Walgrave, Soroka, & Nuytemans, 2008).

Although lacking a valid theory, the ability of the media to set the political agenda is contingent on different variables and circumstances (Walgrave & Van Aelst, 2006). The impact of the media in politics during the electoral campaign is minimal, as during this period of time the political parties and the candidates are who set the agenda (Hopmann, Elmelund-Præstekær, Albæk, Vliegenthart, & de Vreese, 2012). On the other hand, opposition political actors tend to let themselves be more influenced by the news media than the government actors do (Walgrave, 2008). Finally, media seem to affect the symbolic political agenda more than the substantial agenda (Pritchard & Berkowitz, 1993). The symbolic agendas are rhetoric and are connected to the political discussion deliberation, while the substantial agendas produce tangible effects and regulatory, legislative, and administrative consequences (Walgrave & Van Aelst, 2006).

The predominance of media in the symbolic political agenda-setting suggests the importance of perceived influence in this process (Gunther & Storey, 2003). Political actors adopt the media issues because they believe that television and newspapers determine the topics the public considers to be of first importance (Walgrave & Van Aelst, 2006). Even political actors attribute more influence to television and radio than to the prime minister when placing an issue on the top of the political agenda (Strömbäck, 2011). That is how the effect of presumed influence is created, determining the way that people, in this case politicians, have to act depending on their perception of the media influence (Gunther & Storey, 2003). To do so, the media influence in the political agenda is indirect, as it operates through perceptions, right or wrong, of its power (Cohen, Tsfati, & Sheafer, 2008).

The Consequences of Media Influence on Politics: Political Disaffection and Civic Engagement

Media coverage of political issues provokes effects on civic engagement. Some authors state that the influence of the media on politics is negative and generates, among other consequences, an increase in political disaffection. This is the base of the videomalaise hypothesis that claims that television is the main factor in the rise of negative attitudes and feelings towards politics by citizens (Robinson, 1976). The predominance of negative news (Kleinnijenhuis, van Hoof, & Oegema, 2006), the trend of news media to cover politics through a game frame (Aalberg, Strömbäck, & de Vreese, 2012), the incivility in political discourse on television (Mutz & Reeves, 2005), the mistrust and hyper-adversarialism in the relationship between journalists and politicians (Casero-Ripollés, 2008; van Dalen, Albaek, & de Vreese, 2011), and the apparition of self-referencing generate “spirals of cynicism” and reduce the political trust among citizens (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997; Patterson, 1994).

On the opposite side, we find political mobilization theories that maintain the opposite hypothesis. Media have a significant positive impact on public in terms of civic engagement. The consumption of news media generates a greater knowledge and understanding of politics, provoking mobilizing effects and encouraging political participation. Citizens exposed regularly to the news media, for long periods, are better educated on political terms; they have more trust in political institutions and are more involved in elections (Newton, 1999). Media activate political interest. News media consumption generates a “virtuous circle” (Norris, 2000) as, in the long term, it reinforces the activism of the active and the engagement of the engaged.

Method

To study the media influence on political agenda setting and political disaffection, we have applied a qualitative research technique based on in-depth interviews that analyzes the perceptions of journalists and politicians. The study of the perceptions is essential to investigate the interaction among media outlets and politics. The high complexity of this case study, provided with lots of variables and dimensions, motivate the election of this method as it adapts perfectly to theses situations.

The sample consists of a total of 45 interviewees: 22 journalists, 16 political actors and 7 spin doctors. The interviews have been carried out in Spain. Journalists belong to different media outlets: newspapers, radio, television, and the Internet. The political actors are government members of different levels (state, regional, and local) and also members of opposition political parties. Finally, the spin doctors work in press offices of the government institutions and also in the opposition political parties. The intensive interviews were conducted from January to May 2012 and were made face to face. Each interview lasted an average of 45 minutes.

The questionnaire include three types of questions: politicians’ and journalists’ perceptions about (a) news media influence on public opinion, (b) the power of media to set the political agenda and the decision-making process, and (c) the impact of media influence on political disaffection.

Results

Globally, results reaffirm the idea that politician and journalists attribute a great power to media influence on public and public opinion (Strömbäck, 2011; Van Aelst et al., 2008). In general terms, both groups share a classic view, considering journalism as the main entity of the communication system, and the mass media as a key strategic resource in building public opinion.

I think that it [political information] has a great influence. People breathe according to what media says. The main opinion leaders, radio talk-shows, television talk-shows, opinion articles in newspapers, all of this, in a way is contributing to build public opinion in the street. (Journalist 4)

It does have influence. It has such a great influence that many times, when you assist to internal acts of the party, you meet militants who give more credibility to news media than to an internal communication of the own party. (Journalist 14)

Results also suggest that politicians and journalists attribute to the media the role of being the main source for political information, and also of being the channel of communication among political actors and citizens. This conceptualization coincides with the first dimension of political mediatization (Strömbäck, 2008). In this frame, politicians reach the conclusion that they need the media in order to get wide access to the citizens. On the other hand, results suggest a high level of political mediatization.

It has a great influence as the work that has been done by a political party gets to the audience mostly through the media. . . . Classic media outlets still have a great weight in the creation of social alarm, politics participation, electoral campaigns. . . (Politician 10)

The Limited Role of the Media in Political Agenda Setting

Regarding the influence of the media in political agenda setting and in the decision-making process, results show a very different discourse between groups. While among journalists the idea prevails that they still exert a noticeable influence on political agenda setting, political actors limit or clearly clarify this influence, moving away from the power of media discourse.

Journalists consider that, in a more or less clear way, they still maintain a high level of influence on the political agenda and decision making. In this sense, the interviews show a majority discourse that remarks their power regarding to the political sector. It is mainly motivated by the importance they currently assign to their public image, and to the fear of its being affected by an adverse media coverage.

I believe that it is higher than it should be, they are always complaining about the media system because they have realized they make decision or statements depending on the kind of information that will be broadcast. Political information weighs too much in the public management. (Journalist 19)

Politicians are scared of the press and headlines. When you write two headlines against a politician he/she gets very nervous, he/she calls you . . . that is the reason why they try to be kind, in order to avoid this kind of headlines. . . . Politicians want to be on the press, but they want it to be positive. (Journalist 13)

Among political actors, great agreement exists when valuing the media influence on political agenda setting. Except for some cases of politicians in of the opposition, with no direct responsibilities in decision making, they refused to acknowledge relevant influence of the media and remarked their independence in public management.

For me, initially, media do not determine me what to do regarding to something that my party has already decided and has been included in our program. (Politician 6)

Politicians indicate rather clearly other, more determining factors that condition them when making decisions. Among these, they highlight the polls and the demoscopic surveys perceived as a mirror of the social claims.

I believe that nowadays the results of the surveys commissioned by official organisms about different issues have a greater influence on government when making decisions than the political information has. (Politician 14)

On the other hand, some politicians recognize a certain media influence, but it is limited to specific aspects of decision making: when it only affects minor and superficial issues inside the public management, or when it is related to issues that were unknown by the political actor until the moment the media reveal them.

If the media outlet, echoing a general discomfort of the citizens, inform about a particular important circumstance unknown until that moment. . . . In this case, this information could get to determine me once I have contrasted it to be truth and that I have confirmed that it is what citizens want to be done. (Politician 6)

Shared Responsibility Facing the Rise of Citizens’ Disaffection

Except for a pair of cases, the interviews confirm the existence of unanimity between journalists and politicians when recognizing the seriousness of political disaffection, and also assuming certain shared responsibility on that subject.

We all have a great responsibility. Politicians have a lot, they are who have it. . . . The thing is that journalists are constantly showing an image of politicians to the society that provokes that citizens moves away from politicians. (Journalist 4)

Politicians are the main responsible because it is their responsibility, so we are supposed to be doing things in a wrong way. It is also truth that we get to the citizens through the press, that means that the channel is also missing. (Politician 16)

The results of the analysis point out four main causes of the rise of political disaffection. In the first place, we find explicit references to politicians’ inability to solve the citizens’ requests and the primacy of partisan interests.

The problem is that the response given by politics to the citizens’ problems is incomplete and leaves them a worst taste. Media outlets only transmit the inability of government to answer to the population’s needs. (Journalist 21)

Journalists have a great responsibility in this deterioration of the image, but no as much responsibility as politicians have, as they give systematically preference to their electoral and partisan interests instead of the national interests. (Journalist 8)

On the other hand, mainly from the political actors, they make reference to a second cause of political disaffection: the negative image of politics that media transmit when focusing on negative news (corruption cases, judicial processes) or in the game frame news linked to the dispute among parties (fights for power, statements war, personal critics). Politicians harshly criticize the negative media coverage and consider it to be the direct result of the standard of newsworthiness of media (Cook, 2005) related to mediatization.

Journalists have also responsibility, as, in part, they show a negative image of politics. I mean, to respond to the axiom “Good news, no news.” It is in the inner essence of the journalistic work. (Politician 9)

Third, also from a self-critical point of view, journalists provide two causes of disaffection related to the media coverage: the lack of objectiveness and the subordination of news media to the political power’s interests.

I believe that journalist are the main responsible. Politicians try to preserve their image in a way, and maybe he/she could use bad methods, even (such as public money or press conferences) with the aim of forcing such a comfort in the news that provokes our apathy and their absolute dominance of the news and situation. Therefore, if it is part of the game rules, the one who is not following them is the journalist who is not doing his/her homework, he/she is settling in. We cannot called it journalism anymore, and it is normal that it does not interest to society. (Journalist 9)

The high level of self-referencing in the news media is the fourth cause of political disaffection identified in the interviews. Political news becomes a closed discourse destined to self-consumption inside the political and journalistic world, ignoring citizenship and favoring cynicism.

Neither journalists nor politics step on the street, we make the mistake to forget citizens. We, the journalists, have the bad habit of writing for politicians, when we are supposed to do it for citizens. This is a widespread bad practice. (Journalists 13)

Journalists agree, pointing out this problem as an alarming symptom of the disconnection of journalistic elites and the politics facing the social reality.

Basically, disaffection is produced in the political class, in the politicians who live in their world, in an unreal world disconnected to the major part of the citizens of a particular country. Media outlets with their work have achieved the rise of this disaffection. (Journalist 16)

Discussion and Conclusions

Journalists and politicians attribute great influence to the media when setting the public agenda. This result coincides with other studies carried out in north European countries (Sweden, Belgium, and Holland) (Strömbäck, 2011; Van Aelst et al., 2008; Walgrave, 2008). Both actors attribute to the media a power able to determine the dynamics and the public opinion building process. These perceptions can condition the way of acting and the behavior of politicians following the theory of the influence of presumed influence (Cohen, Tsfati, & Sheafer, 2008; Gunther & Storey, 2003).

On the contrary, this investigation detects that the role of the media in political agenda setting has boundaries, unlike other studies of north Europe that claim a strong influence (Strömbäck, 2011; Van Aelst et al., 2008; Walgrave, 2008). As in the British case (Davis, 2007), in Spain media influence does not respond to the simple stimulus-response model of agenda setting. Our results suggest the existence of a dual discourse. Journalists think that media has a high influence. Politicians, instead, restrict the reach of the power of media and reaffirm their independence from the news media in the decision-making process. These actors give more importance to polls and demoscopic surveys considered to be a mirror of the citizens’ claims than to the media when determining their political agenda. The media influence is limited to minor issues and to issues that were unknown by the politicians until they were broadcasted by the media.

Political disaffection has been recognized to be a problem, and both politicians and journalists assume a shared responsibility in a self-critical exercise. Results also give the four main causes that favor the political cynicism of the citizens: (a) the inability of politicians to respond to the citizens’ claims, (b) media coverage focused on negative news and game frame news, (c) lack of journalistic objectiveness and the assignment of partisan interests, and (d) the predominance of self-referencing. These factors shape the media engagement boundaries.

This investigation shows a high level of political mediatization. Media are perceived as a key element for democracy. This conclusion reaffirms the results achieved by other referent studies in European countries (Strömbäck, 2011; Van Aelst et al., 2008; Walgrave, 2008). However, despite the fact that media are considered to have a core and powerful position, our investigation detects limitations in their political influence. These boundaries in the media’s influence on politics affects political agenda setting and the ability to generate civic engagement.