Page 164 - The Professionalisation of Political Communication Chaning Media, Changing Europe Volume 3

Political Communication.qxd 12/7/06 7:30 pm Page 161
Political Communication.qxd 5/1/07 15:06 Page 163

POLITICAL TRANSITION AND THE PROFESSIONALISATION OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION | 161

to develop effective methods to win voters, they tried to copy or adopt the methods
which had proved to be successful in the most advanced democracies. This tendency
was reinforced by western parties’willingness to support Hungarian parties of the same
ideological bent, mainly with advice, campaigning know-how and communication
training. Nevertheless, the parties tried to keep secret the support and the lessons they
had learned because, for Hungarians voters who were unfamiliar with political plurality
had learned because, for Hungarian voters who were unfamiliar with political plurality
or competition, this would have indicated their desire to win, or suggest a forced
pursuit of popularity which would be seen to be equivalent to manipulation and would
have therefore had a very negative connotation. In addition there were fears (especially
on the nationalist side) that the political changes would be influenced or biased by
foreign power players (especially in favour of the liberals and socialists).

CHANGING POLITICS – CHANGING MEDIA
At the dawn of the political transition,the Hungarian parties in the process of formation
depended greatly on the printed and electronic media and were particularly sensitive
to the idiosyncrasies of the media system (Kováts & Whiting, 1995). There were at least
three reasons for this sensitivity. First, the new embryonic parties did not have a far-
reaching, nationwide infrastructure to spread their ideas and garner support for their
campaign for the elections. Second, it was assumed that there was a great difference in
the journalists’ attitude toward the various parties. Most of the parties (including the
former socialist party) assumed a bias by the journalists towards the liberals; others
assumed a bias towards the socialists.This was based on the fact that the change in the
political system had not resulted in any significant changes in the personnel of the
various media. Third, there were major inequalities in the communication competence
of the various parties’ leaders.The great majority were unfamiliar with the principles of
how the media operated,because previously they had no access to it.

The new political players – outsiders in the former political system – differed greatly in
their media competence, i.e. in the degree to which they were able to create news
events capable of capturing media attention. This ability, or lack thereof, resulted in
significant competitive differences amongst the new parties. On the one hand they Political Transition and the Professionalisation of Political Communication
were (reluctantly) open to new methods for reaching voters and to the employment of
new campaign tactics, while, on the other hand, they jealously watched each other and
wanted to control the media in order to reduce to the smallest degree possible the
competitive advantage vis-à-vis the media.

The journalists’ role and, consequently, the relationship of politicians to journalists
during the political transition were ambiguous and complicated.The politicians greatly
needed the help of journalists to disseminate their ideas but at the same time they
accused journalists of confusing their role, of playing active political roles. In truth, the
various new political players expected from journalists not objectivity but support.
Indeed, the majority of journalists played active (and facilitating) roles in the political
transition and symbolically prepared the peaceful transfer of political power. The 163