Page 99 - The Professionalisation of Political Communication Chaning Media, Changing Europe Volume 3

Political Communication.qxd 5/1/07 15:05 Page 98
Political Communication.qxd 12/7/06 7:30 pm Page 96

96 | THE PROFESSIONALISM OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION

definition, assumed cause and dramatised effect, forces them to act at a time and in
ways which are not of their own choosing. Secondly, that there is a substantial mistrust
between political and media actors. From a more symbiotic relationship of mutual
dependency and understanding, politicians now blame the media for hyping and
sensationalising complex social issues while the media can barely hide their irritation
over the ways governments try to control the news output in order to reduce
uncertainty about media publications and control possible image damage. Thirdly,
providing information and managing news has become an art in itself, and more than
that, a profession with many practitioners. Information officers, media strategists and
political advisors now surround the minister, the party leader, the political elite,
watching over what they say, how they say it and where. Fourthly, next to the
institutionalisation of political news management, the means of reducing uncertainty
and managing the news also take different forms. Apart from overt formats of
interaction, like press conferences, releases and briefings, there is a more or less covert
form in which off-the-record briefing, spin doctoring and leaking are used to get a story
across, to frame an occurrence or a person in specific ways and to influence journalists
as to their choice of news selection,news values and news angle.

All this seems to indicate a trend towards stricter control of political communication, in
the Netherlands as elsewhere, from a traditional relationship of mutual understanding
and respect to one of professionalisation and mistrust. The question is, however, to
what extent such claims are actually corroborated by empirical evidence – a question
this chapter tries to answer by sketching the recent changes in and between media,
and in political news management. And if there is a trend, how one would evaluate the
characteristics and effects of this new political communication culture.

The Professionalisation of Political Communication
CHANGES IN THE POLITICAL COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT
The Netherlands has always been renowned for its specific form of consociational
democracy. ‘Pillarisation’, accommodation and pacification were the labels for an
arrangement of peaceful co-existence between disparate groups within a vertically
segmented society, living apart together in potentially conflictual ‘pillars’ based on
2
religion or ideology. Though each of these ‘pillars’ had their own separate associations
(ranging from trade unions to the school system), as well as media and political parties,
the elites of the different pillars pacified and accommodated potential conflict through
often secret and usually invisible negotiation and compromise. The result was
consensus and paternalism at the top, and tolerance, or rather, acceptance of each
other’s culture at the bottom (cf. Lijphart, 1975). For a long time, the media were
contained in, and reinforced, this pillarised structure through a system of interlocking
directorships. They performed within a partisan logic, whereby government and
political parties set the agenda and the media, as lapdogs, functioned as a platform for
the political elite, merely communicating their opinions and decisions to the rank and
file of the pillars. Through this symbiotic, though somewhat one-sided partisan
relationship,they created an almost closed political communication system.
98