Page 137 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-09.qxd 8/16/2005 12:00 PM Page 122

122 Communication Theory & Research
primary and general election races by about 40 percent compared with 1992.
And it was not just the amount of attention to politics that was affected. Also
favoured, according to David L. Swanson (1997: 1269), was ‘a style of coverage
driven by entertainment values and a desire not to be left behind by the tabloids
in attracting the mass audience’.
So what explains the greater resilience of European civic communication in the
face of increased competition? Two explanatory factors come to mind.
First, differences of political culture may have been involved. Traditionally at
least, what Semetko et al. (1991: 5) have termed ‘the valuation of politics as such’
was lower in the US than in most European societies. And although some of the
sources of this difference may be receding, e.g. Europe’s stronger and more
ideologically inspired party systems, European publics may still be more receptive
to news agendas led by serious politics than is the US electoral audience. But
cultures do change – which gives yet another reason to deplore the potentially
undermining cynicism that is spawned by the modern publicity process.
Second, differences of broadcasting structure and history may have also
played a part. From the onset of radio much of Europe was exposed to the crucial
system-straddling, standards-setting and expectations-forming role of public
service broadcasting, which the USA never experienced. Thus, the impact of
multi-channel competition in a fully privately owned and commercially run
media system may be different from its impact in a media system that was
shaped from an early stage by the establishment of large public service
organizations. But whether the ravages of competition can be withstood over the
longer term remains to be seen. Amid so much ongoing media change and social
change, the continuing ability of public service television to hold the line against
communication trivialization cannot be taken for granted. To do so, its news
providers will have to muster a formidable combination of qualities: principled
commitment, courage, imagination and an ability to adapt to the needs of new-
style audiences while retaining faith in their receptivity to a serious agenda.

Researching infotainment

Brants’ article has also reminded me of how tired I have become of attitudinally
charged disputes between ‘critical traditionalists’ on the one side, who apply
blanket terms of abuse like ‘dumbing down’ to many recent trends in political
journalism, and ‘popular culturalists’ on the other side, who seem disposed to
applaud almost any cultural form so long as it is popular, typically lauding the
populist thrust in broadcast programming for inviting people ‘to rethink and
possibly revalue’ their stands on moral, social and political issues (Hermes, 1997:
160). Although Brants aligns himself with neither of these extremes, a tinge of
popular culturalism does shine through such statements as, ‘The mixture of
entertainment and consciousness raising that is to be found in some talk shows
could ... re-establish the popular in politics’, and ‘Personalization may also be an
important strategy for understanding political information and placing social
issues in a personal perspective’ (p. 332).