Page 95 - Comparing Political Communication Theories, Cases, and Challenge

P1: Irk-Kic-JzL
0521828317c04.xml CY425/Esser 0521828317 May 22, 2004 11:26

Comparing Mass Communication Systems

political parties, which appeared sufficiently similar for their verbal and
nonverbal messages to be evaluated and their contents analyzed. The
result reads as follows: Although the political systems researched (the
United States, France, Italy, and Germany) appear to be relatively differ-
ent (party system, election rights), an amazing similarity was recogniz-
able in the political party broadcasts. The comparison “of the content,
style, and effects of exposure to televised political advertising show some
striking similarities across cultures.” The corresponding results showed,
among others, that the spots concentrated on issues, that messages are
usually positively formulated and emotional arguments are put before
logical ones (Kaid and Holtz-Bacha 1995, 221–2).
Another comparative analysis concentrates on the formulation of
campaign agendas. It compares the roles of parties and the media (tele-
vision and press) in the United Kingdom and the United States. As a
common feature, the release “of an implacably competitive struggle to
control the mass media agenda” is described. The media replies with
their own defense strategy of not permitting the politicians to have a
“freeride.” On the other hand, it notes that differences should be ob-
served, some of which are the strength of party systems, public service
versus commerce in the television networks, the method of courting me-
diaconsumers,varyingdegreesofelectioncampaignprofessionalization,
and cultural differences, for instance, the public’s esteem of politicians
(Semetko et al. 1991, 175–8). Along with the more obvious compara-
tive content analysis of the campaign media and reporting, primarily
participant observations at newsrooms and at competing parties’ press
conferences were carried out and evaluated. Yet another approach was
used in a cross-country study that compared the influence of interper-
sonal and mass communication on voting decisions in the United States,
theUnitedKingdom,Spain,andEastandWestGermany(seeChapter13,
this volume).
Some of the above-mentioned studies have also addressed the ques-
tion of whether a kind of Americanization might have taken place in the
procedure of election campaigns in western countries. In this context
Americanization means strategies that are successful in the United States
are carefully observed and consequently copied in other countries. While
the studies previously cited emphasize the visible closeness of campaign
strategies, other analyses, which concentrate on political structures and
institutions, come to somewhat different conclusions. Here it is empha-
sized that the context is very different, for example election campaigns
in Germany, as opposed to in the United States, are above all organized

75