Information and Arena: The Dual Function of the News Media for Political Elites

  • Peter Van Aelst
  • Stefaan Walgrave
Chapter

Abstract

How do individual politicians use the news media to reach their political goals? The authors argue that this question can be best addressed by using an actor-centered, functional approach. The chapter develops the “Information & Arena” model to distinguish two essential functions the mass media have for political elites. The media are a source of information and politicians can profit from the momentum generated by media information. The media also are an arena elites need access to in order to promote themselves and their issues. These two functions offer certain politicians a structural advantage over others and are relevant for the power struggle among political elites. A systematic functional account allows comparison of the role of the media across politicians and political systems.

References

  1. Altheide, D., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (2014). The politics of information. Problem definition and the course of public policy in America. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, L. (1996). News. The politics of illusion (3rd ed.). New York: Longman Publishers USA.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, L., & Entman, R. (2001). Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1981). Politicians and the press: An essay on role relationships. In D. D. Nimmo & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 467–493). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Bonafont, L. C., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). Newspaper attention and policy activities in Spain. Journal of Public Policy, 33(1), 65–88. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X12000219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, R. (2010). The media and the policy process. A policy centric approach. In K. Voltmer & S. Koch-Baumgarten (Eds.), Public policy and mass media: The interplay of mass communication and political decision making (pp. 127–142). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Budge, I., & Farlie, D. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections. London: Allen & Urwin.Google Scholar
  9. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2013). Counterframing effects. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1981). Communication and public policy. In D. S. Nimmo & K. R. (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 391–416). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, T. E. (1989). Making laws & making news. Media strategies in the US house of representatives. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  12. Cook, T. E. (2005). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, A. (2007). Investigating journalist influences on political issue agendas at Westminster. Political Communication, 24(2), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Druckman, J. N., & Parkin, M. (2005). The impact of media bias: How editorial slant affects voters. Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1030–1049. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00349.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edwards, G. C., & Wood, D. (1999). Who influences whom? The president, congress and the media. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eissler, R., Russell, A., & Jones, B. D. (2014). New avenues for the study of agenda setting. Policy Studies Journal, 42, S71–S86. doi: 10.1111/psj.12048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elmelund-Præstekær, C., & Wien, C. (2008). What’s the fuss about? The interplay of media hypes and politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 247–266. doi: 10.1177/1940161208319292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Entman, R. M. (2003). Cascading activation: Contesting the White House’s frame after 9/11. Political Communication, 20, 415–432. doi: 10.1080/10584600390244176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Esser, F., & Strömbäck, J. (2014). A paradigm in the making: Lessons for the future of mediatization research. In J. Strömbäck & F. Esser (Eds.), Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies (pp. 223–242). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. (1965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 64–91.Google Scholar
  21. Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what’s news: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  22. Graber, D. A. (2009). Mass media and American politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press (Sage). Google Scholar
  23. Green-Pedersen, C., & Mortensen, P. (2009). Who sets the agenda and who responds to it in the Danish parliament? A new model of issue competition and agenda-setting. European Journal of Political Research, 49(2), 257–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01897.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green-Pedersen, C., & Stubager, R. (2010). The political conditionality of mass media influence. When do parties follow mass media attention? British Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 663–677. doi: 10.1017/S0007123410000037.
  25. Hänggli, R., & Kriesi, H. (2010). Political framing strategies and their impact on media framing in a Swiss direct-democratic campaign. Political Communication, 27(2), 141–157. doi: 10.1080/10584600903501484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hänggli, R., & Kriesi, H. (2012). Frame construction and frame promotion (strategic framing choices). American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 260–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herbst, S. (1998). Reading public opinion: How political actors view the democratic process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hess, S. (1984). The government/press connection. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  29. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Katz, E., Haas, H., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38(2), 164–181.Google Scholar
  31. Kernell, S. (2007). Going public. New strategies of presidential leadership (4th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  33. Kunelius, R., & Reunanen, E. (2012). Media in political power: A Parsonian view on the differentiated mediatization of Finnish decision makers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17, 68–76. doi: 10.1177/1940161211424207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Landerer, N. (2013). Rethinking the logics: A conceptual framework for the mediatization of politics. Communication Theory, 23(3), 239–258. doi: 10.1111/comt.12013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. The communication of ideas, 37, 215–228.Google Scholar
  36. Lengauer, G., Donges, P., & Plasser, F. (2014). Media power in politics. In B. Pfetsch (Ed.), Political communication cultures in Europe. Attitudes of political actors and journalists in nine countries (pp. 171–195). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  37. Linsky, M. (1986). Impact: How the press affects federal policymaking. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  38. Manheim, J. (1998). The news shapers: Strategic communication as a third force in News making. In D. Graber, D. McQuali, & Norris (Eds.), The politics of news and the news of politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  39. Marcinkowski, F., & Steiner, A. (2014). Mediatization and political autonomy: A systems approach. In J. Strömbäck & F. Esser (Eds.), Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies (pp. 74–89). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nimmo, D. (1964). Newsgathering in Washington. A study in political communication. New York: Atherton Press.Google Scholar
  41. O’Neill, D., & Harcup, T. (2009). News values and selectivity. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The Handbook of Journalism Studies, (pp. 161–174). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pritchard, D. (1992). The news media and public policy agendas. In D. Kennamer (Ed.), Public opinion, the press and public policy (pp. 103–112). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  44. Protess, D., Cook, F. L., Doppelt, J. C., Ettema, J. S., Gordon, M. T., Leff, D. R., et al. (1991). The journalism of outrage: Investigate reporting and agenda building in America. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  45. Reich, Z. (2008). The anatomy of leaks. Tracing the path of unauthorized disclosure in the Israeli press. Journalism, 9, 555–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schudson, M. (2002). The news media as political institutions. Annual Review of Political Science, 5(1), 249–269. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.5.111201.115816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sellers, P. J. (2000). Manipulating the message in the US congress. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 5(1), 22–31.Google Scholar
  48. Sellers, P. (2010). Cycles of Spin. Strategic communication in the US congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sellers, P. J., & Schaffner, B. N. (2007). Winning coverage in the US Senate. Political Communication, 24, 377–391. doi: 10.1080/10584600701641516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shehata, A., & Strömbäck, J. (2014). Mediation of political realities: Media as crucial sources of information. In J. Strömbäck & F. Esser (Eds.), Mediatization of Politics: Understanding the Transformation of Western democracies, (pp. 93–113). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials: The organization and politics of newsmaking. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
  52. Soroka, S. N. (2002). Issue attributes and agenda-setting by media, the public, and policymakers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(3), 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sparrow, B. H. (2006). A research agenda for an institutional media. Political Communication, 23(2), 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. International Journal of Press Politics, 13(3), 228–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thesen, G. (2013). When good news is scarce and bad news is good: Government responsibilities and opposition possibilities in political agenda-setting. European Journal of Political Research, 52(3), 364–389. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02075.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thesen, G. (2014). Political agenda setting as mediatized politics? Media-politics interactions from a party and issue competition perspective. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(2), 181–201. doi: 10.1177/1940161213515756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tresch, A. (2009). Politicians in the media: Determinants of legislators’ presence and prominence in Swiss newspapers. International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(1), 67–90. doi: 10.1177/1940161208323266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Aelst, P., Brants, K., Van Praag, P., De Vreese, C., Nuytemans, M., & Van Dalen, A. (2008). The fourth estate as superpower? An empirical study on perceptions of media power in Belgium and the Netherlands. Journalism Studies, 9(4), 494–511. doi: 10.1080/14616700802114134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Aelst, P., Sheafer, T., Hubé, N., & Papathanassopoulos, S. (2017). Personalization. In C. H. De Vreese, F. Esser, & D. Hopmann (Eds.), Comparing Political Journalism (pp. 112–130). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Van Aelst, P., & Walgrave, S. (2011). Minimal or massive? The political agenda setting power of the mass media according to different methods. International Journal of Press Politics, 16(3), 295–313. doi: 10.1177/1940161211406727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van der Pas, D. (2014). Making hay while the sun shines. Do parties only respond to media attention when the framing is right? The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(1), 42–65. doi: 10.1177/1940161213508207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Noije, L., Oegema, D., & Kleinnijenhuis, J. (2008). Loss of parliamentary control due to mediatization and Europeanization: A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of agenda building in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. British Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 455–478.Google Scholar
  63. Vliegenthart, R., & Walgrave, S. (2011a). Content matters. The dynamics of parliamentary questioning in Belgium and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies, 44(8), 1031–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vliegenthart, R., & Walgrave, S. (2011b). When the media matter for politics: Partisan moderators of mass media influence on parliament in Belgium, 1993–2000. Party Politics, 17(3), 321–342. doi: 10.1177/1354068810366016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vos, D. (2014). Which politicians pass the news gates and why? Explaining inconsistencies in research on news coverage of individual politicians. International Journal of Communication, 8, 2438–2461.Google Scholar
  66. Walgrave, S., Soroka, S., & Nuytemans, M. (2008). The mass media’s political agenda-setting power. A longitudinal analysis of media, parliament and government in Belgium (1993–2000). Comparative Political Studies, 41(6), 814–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Walgrave, S., & Van Aelst, P. (2006). The contingency of the mass media’s political agenda-setting power. Towards a preliminary theory. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 88–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00005.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wolfe, M., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). A failure to communicate: Agenda setting in media and policy studies. Political Communication, 30(2), 175–192. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.737419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wolfsfeld, G. (2011). Making sense of media & politics. Five principles of political communication. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Van Aelst
    • 1
  • Stefaan Walgrave
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations