Page 172 - Comparing Political Communication Theories, Cases, and Challenge

P1: JZZ
0521828317c07.xml CY425/Esser 0521828317 May 26, 2004 15:56

Sabine Lang

level, the majority of participatory and politically communicative activ-
ities of citizens take place on the local level (see for Great Britain, Parry
et al. 1992; for the United States, Berry et al. 1993; for Germany, Roth
1994). For many citizens localities provide the most accessible and orga-
nized political arena in which opinions can be transformed into political
action,suchasparticipationinpoliticalorganizations,issue-specificnet-
worksorneighborhood initiatives.
Yetdespite the evident relevance of the local, political communica-
tion studies have been hesitant to feature it prominently on the research
agenda – a reluctance that is underlined by two barriers that have tradi-
tionally defined the field. The first barrier marks the overall importance
granted to opinion formation through the national media. The second
obstacle is the dominant role in political communication research of
media variables. The focus on media obfuscates a perspective on inter-
personalpoliticalcommunicationasoneofthedistinguishingfeaturesof
local political publics. Several reasons come into play for this prohibitive
1
downsizing of analytic curiosity. Jarren (1994) cites the disillusionment
following the high expectations being placed on local counterpublics in
the 1970s and early 1980s that generated the idea of “grassroots politics”
or “politics from below.” Another factor contributing to the perception
of local publics as too parochial for theoretically useful research is the
visiblelackofautonomyoflocalmediaduetomergersandconcentration
processes. As much as the media industry has paid lip service to keeping
astrong independent profile of local media, the reality of mergers speaks
to the contrary. Local profile has been lost, cutbacks in staff result in less
capacity to focus on local affairs, and local audiences tend to identify less
with “their” local newspaper or television newscast. Yet there are also
numerous indicators that the local as a communicative arena is being re-
vitalizedinlatemodernsocieties.InthecountriesoftheEuropeanUnion
(EU), cities and communities have learned that funding from Brussels
often is attached to active improvement of communication between local
governments and citizens. Political institutions and organizations make

1 Public sector and urban politics analyses reach the same conclusion. For Germany,
Ruediger Voigt argues in favor of the necessity for a “cross country analysis of lo-
cal communication processes and their ramifications for the political identity and the
level of action of citizens in their local communities” and he suggests that “comparative
public policy science which already deals with comparative aspects of local political
structures and decision making processes should expand their focus to include com-
munication processes” (Voigt 1989, 4 [transl. S. L.]).

152