Page 136 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-09.qxd 8/16/2005 12:00 PM Page 121

Political Communication Systems All Change: A Response to Kees Brants 121

(Blumler, 1997: 397). They included such interconnected developments as: (1) the
thorough-going professionalization of political advocacy (initially by parties and
candidates but subsequently spreading to interest group and social cause
campaigns of all kinds); (2) the fight back by journalists against politicians’
attempts to narrow their news choices (e.g. fixation on ‘the game’ rather than
policy substance; inordinately heavy coverage of politicians’ gaffes, however
trivial); (3) frequent coverage of spin-doctoring as an inherent part of the
political story; (4) the collapse of norms about the ethical rules of the publicity
game; (5) widespread projection of an image of the ‘turned-off’ citizen; and
(6) signs that politician–journalist relations have entered a new phase, one we
termed ‘a chronic state of partial war’ (Blumler and Gurevitch, 1995: 215).
Two huge problems follow inexorably from this whirlpool of developments.
One is the suppression of substance. If it is the case, as John Zaller (1998) has
convincingly argued, that voters mainly hold governments to account for their
delivery of such fundamentals as prosperity, peace and moderation, then much
of what passes for political communication among the fevered frenzies of the
modern publicity process will simply appear irrelevant to their civic interests.
That is surely a recipe for yet more scepticism, disregard and disrespect.
The enormous power of the media in the new dispensation is the other main
problem of concern. A whiff of this is conveyed by the reason for giving up his
Cabinet post that was given by Peter Mandelson in his December 1998 letter of
resignation after remarkably hyped media coverage of the relatively trifling
‘offence’ of having concealed his acceptance of a large loan from another
government minister some years earlier:

I do not believe that I have done anything wrong or improper. ... But we
came to power promising to uphold the highest possible standards in public
life. We have not just to do so, but we must be seen to do so. (emphasis in
original)

But who determines whether one is seen to behave properly nowadays? This
is predominantly media controlled – and at a time when the news media are
becoming increasingly competitive, aggressive and uninhibited in chasing
scandalous stories.
About none of this should we be so complacent as Kees Brants seems to be.

Now for the good news

Brants’ reassuring impression that in Europe broadcast news and current affairs
have not been overwhelmed by depoliticization, personalization and sensation-
alism in the wake of commercially driven multi-channel competition also merits
further consideration. The contrast with experience in the USA, where some of
the consequences of increased competition have been pretty drastic, is
intriguing. For example, the US networks almost closed up civic shop altogether
during the 1996 presidential campaign – reducing their coverage of both the