Autonomy Losses or Heightened Control? On the Limits of the Idea of Media Autonomy in the Mediatization of Politics Narrative

Part of the Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research book series (TCSCMR)


This chapter explores day-to-day practices in the relationship between Chilean politicians, communication officers and journalists, which are interrogated as micro-foundations of a situated institutional logic. Findings show how rationales of expected utility permeate information exchanges inside this highly networked community, where relationships of trust are cultivated and business-like language is widely used. On the one hand, these findings question assumptions regarding the autonomy losses attached to political actors as an outcome of mediatization processes by rendering visible the differences between institutional media autonomy and journalistic autonomy. On the other hand, they highlight the value of practices and their justifications as an expression of situated institutional logics of action.


Institutional logicsInstitutional Logics newsNews Media practicePractice Political Communication Culture Professional autonomyAutonomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aninat, Cristóbal, John Landregan, and Patricio Navia. 2006. Political institutions, policymaking processes and policy outcomes in Chile. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  2. Blumler, Jay, and Michael Gurevitch. 1995. The crisis of public communication. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2005. The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In Bourdieu and the journalistic field, ed. Rodney Benson, and Erik Neveu, 29–47. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  4. Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Couso, Javier. 2012. El mercado como obstáculo a la libertad de expresión: La concentración de la prensa escrita en Chile en la era democrática. In Democracia y medios de comunicación. Más allá del estado y el mercado, ed. Bernardo Sorj, 109–142. Buenos Aires: Catálogos SRL.Google Scholar
  6. Creswell, John. 2007. Qualitative inquiry & research design choosing among five approaches. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, Aeron. 2007. The mediation of power: A critical introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, Aeron. 2009. Journalist-source relations, mediated reflexivity and the politics of politics. Journalism Studies 10 (2): 204–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Driessens, Olivier, Karin Raeymaeckers, Hans Verstraeten, and Sarah Vandenbussche. 2010. Personalization according to politicians: A practice theoretical analysis of mediatization. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research 35 (3): 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elmelund-Præstekær, Christian, David N. Hopmann, and Asbjørn S. Norgaard. 2011. Does mediatization change MP-Media interaction and MP attitudes toward the media? Evidence from a longitudinal study of Danish MPs. The International Journal of Press/Politics 16 (3): 382–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Esser, Frank. 2013. Mediatization as a challenge: Media logic versus political logic. In Democracy in the age of globalization and mediatization, ed. Hanspeter Kriesi, Sandra Lavenex, Frank Esser, Jörg Matthes, Marc Bühlmann, and Daniel Bochsler, 155–176. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Esser, Frank, and Jesper Strömbäck. 2014. A paradigm in the making: Lessons for the future of mediatization research. In Mediatization of politics. Understanding the transformations of Western democracies, ed. Frank Esser, and Jesper Strömbäck, 223–242. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Faure, Antoine, Claudio Salinas, and Hans Stange. 2011. El imperio del sentido común: Influencia del sistema mediático sobre las prácticas profesionales de los periodistas 1970–2000. Paper presented at I Congreso Mundial de Comunicación Iberoamericana, Sao Paulo, August 3–6.Google Scholar
  15. Friedland, Roger, and Robert Alford. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, ed. Walter W. Powell, and Paul J. DiMaggio, 232–263. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  16. Gans, Herbert J. 1979. Deciding what’s news. London: Constable.Google Scholar
  17. Godoy, Sergio. 2016. Chile. In Who owns the world’s media? Media concentration and ownership around the world, ed. Eli M. Noam, 641–673. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gronemeyer, María E. 2002. Periodistas chilenos: El reto de formar profesionales autónomos e independientes. Cuadernos de Información 15: 52–70.Google Scholar
  19. Guest, Greg, Kathleen M. MacQueen, and Emily E. Namey. 2012. Applied thematic analysis. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanitzsch, Thomas, and Claudia Mellado. 2011. What shapes the news around the world? How journalists in eighteen countries perceive influences on their work. The International Journal of Press/Politics 16 (3): 404–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hepp, Andreas. 2012. Mediatization and the “molding force” of the media. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research 37 (1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hjarvard, Stig. 2008. The mediatization of society: A theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review 29 (2): 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hjarvard, Stig. 2013. The mediatization of culture and society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. ICSO/Universidad Diego-Portales—UDP. 2004. Medios masivos y élites políticas. Un estudio de opinión a 100 líderes políticos. Santiago de Chile: ICSO/UDP.Google Scholar
  26. Jebril, Nael, Václav Stetka, and Matthew Loveless. 2013. Media and democratisation: What is known about the role of the mass media in transitions to democracy. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Lagos, Claudia, and Cristian Cabalin. 2013. Precarious and realistics: Chilean journalists’ perceptions of their professional practice and freedom of expression. Perspectivas de la Comunicación 6 (1): 7–21.Google Scholar
  28. Landerer, Nino. 2013. Rethinking the logics: A conceptual framework for the mediatization of politics. Communication Theory 23 (3): 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Landerer, Nino. 2014. Opposing the government but governing the audience? Journalism Studies 15 (3): 304–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leon-Dermota, Ken. 2003. And well tied-downChile’s press under democracy. London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  31. Lundby, Knut. 2009. Media logic: Looking for social interaction. In Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences, ed. Knut Lundby, 101–119. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  32. Manning, Paul. 2001. News and news sources: A critical introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering institutions. The organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 2006. Elaborating the “New Institutionalism. In The Oxford handbook of political institutions, ed. R.A.W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder, and Bert A. Rockman, 3–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Márquez-Ramírez, Mireya, and Manuel A. Guerrero. 2014. The “captured-liberal” model: Media systems, journalism and communication policies in Latin America. The International Journal of Hispanic Media 7: 1–12.Google Scholar
  36. Mason, Jennifer. 2002. Qualitative researching. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Mastrini, Guillermo, and Martín Becerra. 2006. Periodistas y magnates: Estructura y concentración de las industrias culturales en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Prometeo Libros.Google Scholar
  38. Maurer, Peter, and Barbara Pfetsch. 2014. News coverage of politics and conflict levels: A cross-national study of journalists’ and politicians’ perceptions of two elements of mediatization. Journalism Studies 15 (3): 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mazzoleni, Gianpietro, and Winfried Schulz. 1999. “Mediatization” of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication 16 (3): 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McManus, John H. 2009. The commercialization of news. In The handbook of journalism studies, ed. Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, and Thomas Hanitzsch, 218–223. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Mellado, Claudia, and María L. Humanes. 2012. Modeling perceived professional autonomy in Chilean journalism. Journalism 13 (8): 985–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mellado, Claudia, and María L. Humanes. 2014. The use of objective and analytical reporting as a method of professional work: A cross-longitudinal study of Chilean political coverage. The International Journal of Press/Politics 20 (1): 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mellado, Claudia, and Kevin Rafter. 2014. Understanding the influence of journalists and politicians on content: A cross-longitudinal analysis of Chilean political news coverage. International Communication Gazette 76 (7): 531–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meyer, Thomas. 2002. Media democracy: How the media colonize politics. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  45. Örnebring, Henrik. 2012. Elites, democracy and the media in Central and Eastern Europe. Oxford: Media and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, University of Oxford—The London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  46. Örnebring, Henrik. 2013. Journalistic autonomy and professionalisation. Oxford: Media and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, University of Oxford—The London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  47. Pfetsch, Barbara. 2004. From political culture to political communication culture. A theoretical approach to comparative analysis. In Comparing political communication: Theories, cases and challenges, ed. Frank Esser, and Barbara Pfetsch, 344–366. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pfetsch, Barbara, Peter Maurer, Eva Mayerhöffer, and Tom Moring. 2014. A hedge between keeps friendship green—Concurrence and conflict between politicians and journalists in nine European democracies. In Comparing political communication across time and space: New studies in an emerging field, ed. María J. Canel, and Katrin Voltmer, 172–191. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. PNUD. 2004. Desarrollo humano en Chile. El poder: ¿para qué y para quién? Santiago de Chile: Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo.Google Scholar
  50. PNUD. 2015. Desarrollo humano en Chile: Los tiempos de la politización. Santiago de Chile: Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo.Google Scholar
  51. Porath, William, José-Joaquín Suzuki, and Tania-Marie Ramdohr. 2015. Newspaper coverage of three presidential campaigns in Chile: Personalisation and political strategies. Bulletin of Latin American research 34 (4): 451–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Santander, Pedro. 2013. Influir sobre los medios: La tensa relación entre asesores comunicacionales de la élite y periodistas políticos. Comunicación y Sociedad 20: 95–112.Google Scholar
  53. Schulz, Winfried. 2004. Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. European Journal of Communication 19 (1): 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schudson, Michael. 2005. Autonomy from what? In Bourdieu and the journalistic field, ed. Rodney Benson, and Erik Neveu, 214–223. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  55. Schwab Cammarano, Stephanie, and Juan Díez Medrano. 2014. Distant north-conflictive south: Patterns of interaction and conflict. In Political communication cultures in Europe: Attitudes of political actors and journalists in nine countries, ed. Barbara Pfetsch, 271–286. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  56. Sigal, Leon V. 1973. Reporters and officials: The organization and politics of newsmaking. Lexington: Heath and Company.Google Scholar
  57. Sparrow, Bartholomew H. 1999. Uncertain guardians. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Strömbäck, Jesper. 2008. Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics 13 (3): 228–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Strömbäck, Jesper, and Daniela Dimitrova. 2011. Mediatization and media interventionism: A comparative analysis of Sweden and the United States. The International Journal of Press/Politics 16 (1): 30–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sunkel, Guillermo, and Esteban Geoffroy. 2002. Concentración económica de los medios de comunicación. Peculiaridades del caso chileno. Comunicación y Medios 13: 135–150.Google Scholar
  62. Thompson, John B. 1995. The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  63. Thornton, Patricia H., William Ocasio, and Michael Lounsbury. 2012. The institutional logics perspective. A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tironi, Eugenio, and Guillermo Sunkel. 1993. Modernización de las comunicaciones y democratización de la política: Los medios en la transición a la democracia en Chile. Estudios Públicos 52: 215–246.Google Scholar
  65. Voltmer, Katrin. 2013. The media in transitional democracies. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  66. Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin. 2014. The production of political coverage: The push and pull of power, routines and constraints. In The handbook of communication sciences—political communication, ed. Carsten Reinemann, 305–324. New York: DeGruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  67. Waisbord, Silvio. 2012. Political communication in Latin America. In The SAGE handbook of political communication, ed. Holli A. Semetko, and Margaret Scammel, 437–449. New York: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wolfsfeld, Gadi. 2003. The political contest model. In News, public relations and power, ed. Simon Cottle, 81–96. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Alberto HurtadoSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations