Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293 Rethinking the Logics: A Conceptual Framework for the...

Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Rethinking the Logics: A ConceptualFramework for the Mediatization of Politics

Nino Landerer

University of Geneva, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Geneva, Switzerland

This article suggests a conceptual framework for the mediatization of politics. It criticallydiscusses the concepts of ‘‘media logic’’ and ‘‘political logic’’ emanating from the politicalcommunication literature and argues that ‘‘normative logic’’ and ‘‘market logic’’ are moreappropriate concepts for the theoretical understanding and empirical analysis of the behaviorof mass media and political actors. These two logics guide media and political actors’ issueselection and presentation to different degrees. The mediatization of politics in this accounttakes place when both media and political actors adapt their behavior to the audience-oriented market logic. This process works in parallel with the economic integration andtechnological progress comprised by the term globalization, thereby challenging establishedinstitutional mechanisms in advanced democracies.

doi:10.1111/comt.12013

Mediatization has become a key concept in research on the influence of media on othersocial, cultural, and political actors, institutions, and processes (Hepp, 2013; Hjarvard,2013; Lundby, 2009c). In its broadest sense, mediatization has been conceived ofas a metaprocess, similar to globalization, individualization, and commercialization(Krotz, 2009). Ongoing changes such as progress in information technology areadding additional dimensions to the media’s complex role in transformation processesthat affect the entire universe of social, cultural, and political life in late modernity(Couldry, 2012; Hepp, 2013; Lundby, 2009a).

This broad conceptualization of mediatization is necessary to do justice to thecomplexity of the concept and its interdependencies with other social processes;yet such a broad understanding also bears the risk of inflating mediatization into acatch-all label that remains difficult to grasp as a concept. But conceptual boundariesare crucial for the theoretical understanding of key mechanisms as well as to guideempirical research (Goertz, 2006). Therefore, a conceptual framework with coherentsubdimensions may contribute to the clarification of the concept of mediatization.

This article suggests a conceptual framework for the mediatization of politicsand discusses possible consequences of economic integration and technological

Corresponding author: Nino Landerer; e-mail: [email protected]

Communication Theory 23 (2013) 239–258 © 2013 International Communication Association 239

Rethinking the Logics N. Landerer

progress in this framework. Three main goals are set out: First, the article aimsto further the theoretical debate on the mediatization of politics by adopting andadapting the concepts of media logic and political logic, which are more oftenreferred to than actually defined and operationalized. This is particularly true for theconcept of political logic, which lacks a thorough conceptualization in the contextof mediatization. By linking concepts emanating from the political communicationliterature to concepts used in the political science literature it is shown that scholarsfrom both fields of research have analyzed similar behavioral phenomena.

Second, the article takes inspiration from Stromback’s (2008) four-dimensionalmodel, explicitly combining the third (media content) and fourth (political actors)dimensions, and provides a conceptualization of mediatization that allows forthe analysis of these within an internally coherent conceptual framework. At thesame time it provides an original interpretation of the existing concepts by sug-gesting a normative and a market logic. The goal is to develop a model that issimple in its assumptions, but nevertheless accounts for the highly complex inter-actions between political and mass media actors. On the basis of this conceptualframework, the mediatization of politics is redefined as the predominance of audience-oriented market logic in political actors’ behavior in day-to-day decision-makingprocesses.

Third, it is argued that the mediatization of politics, although conceived ofas a media-related process, cannot be understood without considering the largercontext of a world in the process of being integrated technologically, economically,and culturally. In such a context, economic pressures and technological changesmay gradually transform the mass media landscape, with consequences for therelation between political and mass media actors. The article concludes with a briefnormative stance that if audience-oriented market logic starts to dominate politicalactors’ behavior on a permanent basis, this might challenge established institutionalmechanisms in advanced democracies.

The article is structured as follows: In the first part, the literature on themediatization of politics is reviewed and the concepts of media logic and politicallogic are critically discussed. On the basis of this discussion, a normative and a marketlogic are suggested to conceptualize the mediatization of politics. In the second part,and based on this conceptual reinterpretation, a framework for the mediatizationof politics is presented. Finally, consequences of this modified framework for theconceptual understanding of the mediatization of politics are discussed.

The mediatization of politics in the literature

A growing body of literature has conceptualized the mediatization of politics (Hjar-vard, 2013; Kunelius & Reunanen, 2012; Lundby, 2009c; Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999;Stromback, 2008, 2011a, 2011b); yet substantial differences persist with respect toterminology, definition, and the understanding of the concept. In the literature, boththe terms mediation (Altheide & Snow, 1988; Bennett & Entman, 2001; Couldry,

240 Communication Theory 23 (2013) 239–258 © 2013 International Communication Association

N. Landerer Rethinking the Logics

2008; Nimmo & Combs, 1990) and mediatization (Kepplinger, 2002; Schulz, 2004;Stromback, 2008) are used to conceptualize mass media influence in its differentvarieties, with a (continental) European preference for the latter.

Several scholars, however, have suggested that the two terms should not beconsidered synonymous (Couldry, 2008; Hjarvard, 2008; Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999;Stromback, 2008, 2011b). Mediatization as a concept is more intrusive than mediationinsofar as it denotes the process through which other, not necessarily media-relatedareas of social activity assume media form (Hjarvard, 2004, p. 48), media culture(Jansson, 2002, pp. 14–15), or media logic (Altheide & Snow, 1979). Mediatizationis not limited to politics, and has been analyzed in different areas (Altheide & Snow,1988; Cottle, 2005; Hepp, 2013; Hjarvard, 2004, 2013; Jansson, 2002; Lundby, 2009c);but since this article limits itself to the interactions between the mass media and thepolitical sphere, mediatization is here conceptualized from a political perspective.

Stromback (2008) has conceptualized this ‘‘mediatization of politics’’ hypothe-sis by postulating four different dimensions of mediatization. The first dimensionaddresses the degree to which politics is mediated. Hence, it asks whether andto what degree mass media represent the most important source of informationlinking the political and the public sphere. The second dimension refers to thedegree of the mass media’s independence from political institutions. Stromback(2008) highlights ‘‘journalistic professionalization, a more pragmatic and less sacer-dotal style, and increasing commercialization’’ (p. 237) as indicators of the degreeof independence of the media. This article focuses on the third and the fourthdimensions of mediatization, namely whether and to what degree media content(third dimension) and political actors (fourth dimension) are mainly governed bypolitical logic or by media logic. In Stromback’s account, the mediatization of pol-itics takes place when political actors are governed by media logic rather than bypolitical logic.

This conceptualization of the mediatization of politics, however, bears with it theproblem that the question of what is actually meant by the process of mediatization(i.e., the adoption of media logic by political actors) is simply transferred tothe underlying concepts of political logic and media logic. The reference to aparticular form or logic of the media, inherent to many recent conceptualizationsof mediatization, has been criticized as reductionist (Couldry, 2008, 2012; Hepp,2009; Lundby, 2009b), but is nevertheless continuously referred to in theoreticaldiscussions on mediatization in the political realm (Kunelius & Reunanen, 2012;Lundby, 2009c; Stromback, 2011b; Stromback & Esser, 2009). Schrott (2009), forexample, argues that the ‘‘core of mediatization consists in the mechanism of theinstitutionalization of media logic in other societal subsystems” (p. 42). In the case ofthe mediatization of politics, this process leads to a gradual ‘‘displacement of politicallogic through media logic’’ (Schrott, p. 44). Given the continuous references to thesetwo concepts in the discussion of the mediatization of politics and because of existingambiguities, it is necessary to clarify their content and meaning in order to provide aconceptual framework for the mediatization of politics.



Logics of the media

In the mediatization literature, media logic has been defined, conceptualized, andoperationalized in different ways over the years. But the term was originally coinedby David Altheide and Robert Snow (cf. Altheide in this special issue). In theirdefinition, namely the detailed definition of format stands out. As both Hjarvard(2008) and Lundby (2009b) observe, when Altheide & Snow (1979, 1991) refer tomedia logic what they actually mean is format. According to Hjarvard (2008), medialogic for Altheide and Snow thus seems to consist primarily of a ‘‘formatting logic thatdetermines how material is categorized, the choice of mode of presentation, and theselection and portrayal of social experience in the media’’ (p. 107). But by what logicsthis formatting logic is driven—and why, if at all, it is so particular to the media—hasled to much debate in the subsequent interpretation and operationalization of theconcept. Hence, due to this rather vague definition, media logic lacks conceptualprecision from the start.

Furthermore, the concept of media logic seems to ‘‘travel’’ in time, as technologicalprogress and the deeper integration of economic and social relations might conferupon the term a different meaning at different moments and in different socialcontexts (Couldry, 2012). As Krotz (2009) argues, the ‘‘ ‘media logic’ of TV todayis not the same as of a decade ago’’ (p. 26). Probably, precisely due to its initialvagueness, Altheide & Snow’s (1979) definition has been continuously repeated andinterpreted in many different accounts of mediatization (Lundby, 2009c; Mazzoleni,1987; Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999; Stromback, 2008). This continuous reinterpretationhas inflated the concept to such an extent that its very usefulness as a singular,coherent logic is indeed questionable.

Lundby (2009b), for example, argues that it is not viable to speak of one overallmedia logic as a guiding principle inherent to all the varieties of news production. Itis necessary to specify how various media capabilities are applied in various patternsof social interactions:

It does not make sense to subsume this media variety under a more or lesscoherent ‘media logic’. That’s the thinking of the past, the age of masscommunication when gatekeepers or editors did indeed control, frame, andformat almost all media communication. (Lundby, 2009b, p. 117)

Similarly, Couldry’s (2008) critique of mediatization is that it focuses on ‘‘a single‘media logic’ that is simultaneously transforming the whole social space at once’’ (p.375) and therefore does not account sufficiently for the complexity of the media-related processes at work. Hepp (2009) agrees with this insofar as he argues thatone cannot assume a single media logic, and that the concept of mediatization itselfremains useful only if it is broadened beyond the linearity inherent to the originalmedia logic. Hence, media practices and forms of social interaction depend on theparticular historical, social, and institutional context and should not be consideredas homogenous in space and time (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Couldry, 2012).



But despite these scholars’ critiques, media logic as an analytical concept persists.Although agreeing that the term ‘‘media logic’’ overly simplifies the multitude ofdifferent media organizations and formats and the logics inherent to each of them,Stromback and Dimitrova (2011) nevertheless argue that for the mass media the‘‘norms that govern the media overall are often more important than what distin-guishes one form of media from another’’ (p. 33). Most (political) communicationscholars analyzing the concept of mediatization at least refer to media logic, providingtheir own interpretation of the definition outlined above (e.g., Hjarvard, 2004, 2007,May; Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999; Schulz, 2004; Stromback, 2008, 2011b). Hence,although criticized as overly linear, media logic remains an important concept inthe mediatization literature, especially when applied to the political realm. It is true,however, that the existing concept of media logic is, due to its broadness, more con-fusing than helpful as an analytical concept. Therefore, this article suggests a differentapproach.

Inherent to the majority, though not to all, of the definitions of media logicis the selection, organization, and production of issues according to criteria ofcompetitiveness. Underlying these strategies is the fundamentally commercial logicof private media companies that are driven by cost pressures and hence by concernwith circulation figures. In line with this argument, Stromback and Esser (2009) arguethat since today ‘‘most media are run as commercial businesses, media logic bothfollows from, and is adapted to, commercial logic’’ (p. 213). In this logic, media actorsare mainly market-driven and economic considerations are the dominant principlesthat guide news selection, organization, and production (Hamilton, 2004; McManus,1994). Although this conceptual overlap between media logic and commercial logicis explicitly recognized by scholars like Mazzoleni (2008) or Stromback and Esser(2009) in their respective discussions of media logic, they treat the commercialdimension of the concept of media logic as one among others.

This commercial dimension, however, is the hidden guiding principle inherentin most recent interpretations and operationalizations of media logic, and should berecognized as such. It is the dominant logic behind the logics encompassed by theterm ‘‘media logic.’’ In line with this argument, Mazzoleni (2008) states that mediaorganizations:

maintain a set of specifications, which may be economic, technological, andcultural, to assure that content produced and distributed responds to efficiency[emphasis added] criteria. The term ‘media logic’ captures the whole of suchprocesses that eventually shape and frame media content. (Mazzoleni, 2008)

Similarly, in their discussion of media logic Stromback and Esser (2009) arguethat ‘‘the media have certain formats, processes, and routines, and they need tobe competitive [emphasis added] in the struggle to capture people’s attention’’ (p.212). They go on to say that this concern with competitiveness shapes both issueselection (what) and the way in which (how) media cover these issues, therebyproviding a list of format indicators for this interpretation of media logic. They



highlight that in order to capture the public’s scarce attention, the media applyepisodic and concrete frames more often than thematic and abstract ones (Iyengar,1991), and frame the political process as a strategic game or horse race ratherthan elucidating substantial policy issues (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997; Patterson,1993). Storytelling techniques such as ‘‘simplification, polarization, intensification,personalization, visualization, stereotyping, and particular ways of framing the news’’(Stromback & Esser, 2009, p. 213) are used to turn raw information into compellingnews stories. They conclude that format considerations ‘‘guide both selection andproduction of news events and are important for understanding the media’s newsvalues and standards of newsworthiness’’ (p. 213). However, to subsume the media’snews values and standards of news-worthiness under the same media logic blurs boththe conceptual understanding and the analytical usefulness of this concept becauseit misses the crucial point: the distinction between the logic of normative values andthe logic of commercial newsworthiness, both of which are inherent in any individualand collective media actor to different degrees.

As an economically inspired theoretical model, commercial logic has the concep-tual precision and linear rationale that media logic lacks. In this account, both issueselection and presentation formats are subordinated to a single overarching goal:the maximization of audience—readers, viewers, listeners—in order to generateprofit. This commercially oriented rationale inherent in (private) media companieshas been discussed in the past (Hamilton, 2004; McAllister, 1996; McChesney, 2008;McManus, 1994; Schiller, 1989). But it is not sufficiently recognized as the dominantlogic behind the concept of media logic and its operationalizations: Wherever medialogic refers to newsworthiness and to particular characteristics of media formats, theidea of competitiveness and hence the commercial logic is the dominant underlyingrationale (Altheide & Snow, 1988; Mazzoleni, 2008; Meyer, 2002; Stromback &Esser, 2009).

Media companies are, of course, not exclusively profit-oriented, and commerciallogic is therefore not the only rationale that guides issue selection, organization, andpresentation. Normative considerations also influence the traditions and routinesof news production, inspired by the media’s ideals of social responsibility (Siebert,Peterson, & Schramm, 1956). At the individual level, journalists act according tonorms and values that are not driven by efficiency considerations, but by theirindividual and collective ideals as professionals. At the aggregated level, publicbroadcasting organizations have written (constitutional or legal) guidelines thatinclude goals that do not reflect profit orientation, but educational and social ideals.These normative considerations are laid out exemplarily in the 1947 Hutchinsreport and integrate aspects such as ‘‘factual accuracy, promotion of open debate,representation of diverse views, and protection of individual rights by serving as awatchdog that guards against government abuse’’ (Benson, 2008), thereby promotingthe media’s ideal role in a well-functioning democratic society.

In this normative logic, social or public responsibility takes precedence overmarket considerations: what is important is not how much a media company sells,



but what it produces, and what it should contribute to a democratic society’s publicdebate (Bourdieu, 1999). Similarly, Habermas’ (1989) public sphere theory alsoemphasizes the importance of quality rather than quantity and basically argues thatthe public sphere should be free from state or market considerations (Benson, 2008).This public-oriented rationale, or public logic, is laid out convincingly by Brants andVan Praag (2006), who argue that it is:

based on a sense of co-responsibility for the well-being of the political systemand the democratic process. The style of political reporting is descriptive,journalists inform about facts, issues and contexts. [ . . . ] The public is no longerinformed about what the political elite allows them to know, but what as citizensthey should [emphasis added] know in order to rationally participate in ademocracy. (Brants & Van Praag, 2006, p. 29)

In this definition, the normative dimension of the media’s role—what theyshould do in order to contribute to the democratic process—is central and hencehighlights a competing logic to the commercial logic outlined above.

These normative aspects of news production sometimes, though not always,clash with the efficiency considerations summarized under commercial logic. Owingto economic constraints, it is likely that commercial logic is stronger in privatelyorganized than in public news companies, which have more scope to implementthe normative standards developed under the concept of public logic. But in aglobalized world—whereby globalization refers to economic integration and tech-nological progress—profit-oriented media companies act as large transnational firmsthat compete with public news organizations for airtime (Herman & McChesney,1997). In this process, commercial and public logics enter into direct competitionwith each other, not only among different companies, but also within one com-pany’s limited temporal and financial resources (Bourdieu, 1999; Hamilton, 2004;McManus, 1994).

Hence, to summarize the argument outlined above: Media companies are mainlydriven by two competing logics—audience-oriented commercial logic and norma-tively oriented public logic. Furthermore, it is argued that these concepts, at leastin part, underlie the concepts of media logic and political logic as laid out in theliterature (Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999; Stromback, 2008, 2011b). The next sectiondiscusses the concept of political logic, which is often disregarded but is equallyimportant to a conceptual framework of the mediatization of politics.

Logics of politics

Scholars in the political communication literature have conceptualized the mediati-zation of politics as a process during which political logic in politics is increasinglyreplaced by media logic (Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999; Meyer, 2002; Stromback, 2008).However, media logic being at the heart of most of these studies, political logicremains under conceptualized.



A priori, political logic is conceptualized as the opposite extreme, the negativepole, to the concept of media logic in the literature (Mazzoleni, 1987; Stromback,2008; Stromback & Esser, 2009). But defining political logic as nonmedia logic inthe political realm is unsatisfying both theoretically and empirically. Stromback(2008), accounting for this gap, argues that ‘‘at the heart of any conceptualization ofpolitical logic lies the fact that politics ultimately is about collective and authoritativedecision making as well as the implementation of political decisions’’ (p. 233). Inan attempt to conceptualize political logic, Stromback and Esser (2009) suggestthat any future definition should take into account at least six dimensions: powerallocation, partisanship, policy, deliberation, implementation, and accountability(pp. 213–214). However, they do not discuss the relationship between these differentdimensions of political logic and their definition of media logic. Although the twoconcepts are designed as opposite extremes at the first level (media logic vs. politicallogic), they do not interact substantially at the level of the secondary dimensions(Goertz, 2006). Media logic is about format, the way of presenting issues. Politicallogic is about collective decision making and substantial implementation. How thesesubdimensions could be conceptualized and operationalized in a coherent frameworkcovering Stromback’s third and fourth dimensions remains unclear.

The lack of a coherent conceptualization of political logic seems to stem in partfrom the fact that the ‘‘mediatization of politics’’ hypothesis (in terms of medialogic and political logic) has mainly been analyzed in Stromback’s third dimension(whether media content is mainly governed by political or by media logic), but not inthe fourth dimension (whether political actors are governed by political or by medialogic). Signs of media logic, which is conceptualized and operationalized extensivelyin political news coverage, are then interpreted as a replacement of a preexisting,somehow neutral political logic.

Only recently have scholars actually operationalized the mediatization of politicsexplicitly within the framework of media logic and political logic (Kunelius &Reunanen, 2012). But instead of considering the conceptual inconsistencies in thedichotomy of media logic and political logic, Kunelius and Reunanen (2012) abandonthe discussion in favor of the appealing, though no less complex and controversial,concept of power. Their theoretical discussion is nevertheless valuable for the presentdebate, because they introduce the concept of political decision making in theiranalysis, thereby differentiating the overly general concept of politics.

In a similar manner, this article distinguishes between politics—which refersto the entire universe of polity, policy, and political process (Meyer, 2002)—andpolitical decision making—which emphasizes the day-to-day deliberations of thepolitical process. Political decision making hence refers to the part of the politicalprocess in which particular policies are negotiated by political actors, mainly amongthemselves and not necessarily with the involvement of actors outside the politicalsystem, as narrowly conceived. In difference to the electoral period, in this phase ofthe political process a certain level of privacy is required in order to shelter politicalactors from immediate electoral pressures and enable negotiated compromises that



lead to substantial policy outcomes. Therefore, a further theoretical distinction ismade between the policy dimension and the electoral dimension that are both equallyinherent in the political process.

This distinction between electoral and policy dimensions is not new. Focusingon party behavior, Strøm and Muller (1999) distinguish between office-seeking,policy-seeking, and vote-seeking models. They argue that a tradeoff exists betweenthese three goals, as they cannot easily be combined. For example, the more a partyseeks votes, the more it defers other benefits (office, policies) in the hope of futureelectoral success. All three objectives, Strøm and Muller (1999) suggest, ‘‘can bepursued instrumentally (as a means toward some other end), and two of them,office and policy, may be ends in themselves (intrinsic pursuits)’’ (p. 280). Hence,political parties and individual actors can engage in vote-seeking activities both forthe ultimate goal of policy pursuit or just to attain, or remain in, office.

This leads to a conception of two ultimate goals (or intrinsic pursuits, in Strømand Muller’s terms) for any individual or collective political actor that are not easyto combine: policy pursuit, on the one hand, refers to the achievement of substantial(legal, economic, social) policy changes, possibly at the cost of electoral success andhence the loss of office. Office pursuit, on the other hand, refers to the primacyof electoral considerations over substance: It is not so much actual societal needsthat are important, but rather the self-interested question of how to maximize one’sown electoral base in order to remain in office. Hence, in this manner, individuals’goals and parties’ programs are not adapted to long-term considerations, but to theshort-term issues which dominate public debate during electoral periods.

Similar to individual actors, parties can either engage in actions oriented towardtheir members’ particular interests at the cost of actually delivering substantial policychange, or work toward a substantial but compromised outcome, at the risk of losingvotes from their own electoral base. Party organization seems to determine if, andto what extent, a party engages in policy-seeking or office-seeking activities. Inspiredby Panebianco’s (1988) distinction between believers and careerists, Schumacher, DeVries, and Vis (2013) distinguish between leadership- and activist-dominated parties.They argue that the more activists (and hence believers) dominate a party, the morethis party is likely to engage in policy-seeking activities. As for leadership-dominatedparties, because of their leaders’ (careerists’) preferences, they are more likely toengage in office-seeking activities.

This brief discussion highlights two fundamentally different ‘‘logics of politics.’’It is agreed that politics ultimately should be about collective and authoritativedecision making as well as the implementation of political decisions, as Stromback(2008, 2011b) stipulates. But this conceptualization refers primarily to the normativepolicy dimension and to how the political decision-making process should work ina democratic society. The office-seeking logic adds a more egoistic and audience-oriented perspective that is indispensable to a complete and realistic conceptualizationof the political process. How these logics, the logics of the media and the logics ofpolitics mutually interact is discussed in the next section.



A conceptual framework for the mediatization of politics

Should one simply abandon the concepts of media logic and political logic? Theprevious discussion showed that these two concepts are problematic for at least tworeasons. First, media logic, although intuitively appealing as a term, is problematicbecause the mass media are neither a unitary actor nor are they governed by asingle, overarching logic. This has led to conceptual imprecision and differencesin interpretation and operationalization. Second, political logic as a concept, and itsrelation to media logic, has remained underdeveloped. However, the underlying ideasshould not be abandoned entirely, as they are crucial components for a conceptualframework for the mediatization of politics.

On the basis of the discussion above, it is argued that normative logic and marketlogic are more appropriate concepts for the theoretical understanding and empiricalanalysis of media and political actors’ issue selection, organization, and presentation.The term logic is adequate for the present conceptualization for at least two reasons:first, because it is rooted in the philosophical and mathematical branches of logic andhence refers to the formalization of language in order to enable ‘‘correct’’ reasoning(Shapiro, 2009). Although a thorough discussion of the philosophical branch (andmathematical formalization) of logic is beyond the scope of this article, a logic hererefers to a logical system and ultimately to an ideal–typical model of reality inwhich formal rules of inference apply, both theoretically and empirically. Despitethe criticism of being too linear and rigid in the context of media logic (Hepp,2009; Lundby, 2009b), it is argued that the concept of logic as a mindset (German:Denkmodell) for reality is useful to structure theory and guide later empirical research.Against the constructivist objection that any logic is socially constructed and cannotbe generalized beyond a given social context it is argued that the conceptualizationin logical mindsets helps to theoretically structure and disentangle a complex anddynamic social reality.

Second, it is argued that normative and market logics indeed refer to two different‘‘languages’’, both of which are inherently present in individual or collective politicaland media actors to different degrees. The two different logics are, on the one hand,the market-oriented primacy of newsworthiness according to which certain issuesare selected, organized, and presented, using particular formats. This is the languageof self-interested maximization. On the other hand, normative ideals enabling ademocratic society to take informed decisions represent a different model accordingto which issues are selected and formats structured. This is the language of societalproblem-solving. The objective is to point out the fundamentally different goals of thetwo logics. This difference in goals leads to two different, but internally coherent andlinear logical systems (or logics) that guide individual or collective actors’ behaviorto different degrees.

The core interest or ultimate goal in normative logic is to find viable solutionsto substantial societal problems. Viable in this context means to gain the supportof a majority in parliament. Substantial societal problems are policy issues that are



publicly (politically and in the mass media) identified as social concerns that need tobe addressed by a particular political entity through actual policy changes. Certainly,the understanding of what is best for society—that is, the preferred concrete policymeasures necessary to address the identified problem—can clearly vary betweendifferent individual or collective actors (e.g., parties). But it is this predominantconcern with substance and policy issues that distinguishes normative logic frommarket logic. In market logic, the core interest or ultimate goal is to maximizenews circulation (for mass media actors) or office (for political actors). This logic isself-interested in a more classical sense, as it derives its utility from its own, privatepay-off, and not from solving substantial societal problems. Whereas, in normativelogic, content is more important than presentation, in market logic content is adapted(selected, organized, and presented) to the expected preferences of the audience in acost–benefit calculation. Or, put differently again: normative logic is supply-driven,market logic is demand-driven.

Operationalized, these two logical systems should result in certain observablebehavioral patterns. In reality, one will never observe a particular actor showing allthe different characteristics attributed to one of the two ideal–typical extremes. It ishard to imagine an exclusively idealistic actor, as individual actions are almost alwaysegoistically motivated. The same is true of the other extreme, as every actor is at leastexpected to justify egoistic behavior, thereby referring to normative reasons. Thusevery actor is expected to show signs of normative and market motivation to differentdegrees. Tendencies toward either this normative or market orientation then mayhave implications for the correct functioning of and the quality of democracy.

Crucially, it is argued that these two different logics result in comparablebehavioral consequences for elected politicians as well as for media actors. Thisholds true both for individuals and the aggregation of actors (i.e., elected politiciansand parties, as well as journalists and media companies). Both actors can be drivenby their normative ideals and by their egoistic preference for either monetary orelectoral gains to different degrees. The nature of the market might be different for

Table 1 Core Interests in Normative and Market Logics

Normative Logic Market Logic

Dimensions of individual orcollective actors’ ultimategoals or core interests.

Idealized view of what shouldbe for the well-being of ademocratic society

Maximization ofself-interested goals(circulation, profit, votes,office)

Imperative ofproblem-solving

Imperative ofnewsworthiness

Value-oriented Audience-orientedElitist PopulistSupply-driven Demand-driven



profit-maximizing media companies and office-maximizing political parties. But theself-interested logic of maximization is similar in both markets, and it is certainlyuseful for a simplified conceptualization of the interactions between the media andpolitical systems. Hence, although based on a different conceptual background, thesuggested framework is inspired by Stromback’s (2008) model and designed to linkthe third and fourth dimensions together.

The common link for each of the two columns in Table 2 is the core interestoutlined in Table 1: On the left side (normative logic), media actors are engaged inexplaining substantial problems and different perspectives to the citizens, and politicalactors are interested in finding viable solutions to these problems. In the column onthe right (market logic), both media and political actors are more interested in thepursuit of their self-interested goals, at the cost of sacrificing their normative ideals.For media actors, this means to increase their circulation in order to generate profit.For political actors this means to increase their electoral strength by subordinatingsubstantial political problems to symbolic issues that are more likely to result inincreased public attention and hence electoral gains.

Electoral logic is therefore considered a functional equivalent in political decisionmaking to commercial logic in media coverage. Commercial logic refers to theformatting techniques and selection modes chosen by commercial media companiesin order to present and frame issues in as newsworthy a way as possible and hence sellnews to the largest possible audience. Electoral logic refers to the politician’s formatof choice to appeal to the widest possible electorate. These logics are similar insofaras both media and political actors try to increase their audience in order to maximizetheir pay-off, either in terms of circulation and profit (media), or as votes and officesin the next election (political actors). In Downs’ (1957) account, ‘‘politicians [ . . . ] aremotivated by the desire for power, prestige, and income [ . . . ] their primary objectiveis to be elected’’ (p. 30). They are only interested in substantial problems and thecorrect functioning of the political system insofar as it helps them to increase theirelectoral base. They are not wedded to a particular program, but are solely interested inpleasing dominant public opinion in order to maximize their office-winning chances.

In this electoral logic, political actors begin to create and select their own issuesand frame them in such a way as to remain at the forefront of public debate. Theyplace issues on the political agenda and use political and media instruments that

Table 2 Normative and Market Logics, Media Actors and Political Actors

Normative Logic Market Logic

Media actors Public Logice.g., Public-service broadcast

companies

Commercial Logice.g., Commercial media companies

Political actors Policy Logic, Policy-seeking actorse.g., Technocratic parties

Electoral Logic, Office-seeking actorse.g., Populist parties



are easily accessible for their audience. Purely office-seeking actors are interested inconflict, as this draws the public spotlight away from other issues and toward thosethey consider the most conducive to winning elections. Hence, rather than havingan interest in substantial negotiations, actors acting along the lines of electoral logichave similar interests to those of the circulation-seeking media: They need conflictand polarization in order to keep their constituency mobilized.

On the basis of the discussion of media logic and political logic in the first, andon the conceptual framework presented in this second part, the mediatization ofpolitics is redefined as when commercial logic dominates in media coverage andelectoral logic dominates the day-to-day decision-making process. Common to thesetwo logics is the predominance of audience-oriented market logic over normativeconcerns. How this framework integrates other metaprocesses such as globalizationand how economic pressures might challenge the quality of political decision makingin advanced democracies is presented and discussed in the next part.

Discussing the conceptual framework for the mediatization of politics

An important question to be discussed in light of the theoretical framework suggestedabove is whether this conceptualization is still within the scope of the mediatization ofpolitics. Does this framework still refer to the mass media-related process of changethat mediatization is usually related to in the literature? Or does it ultimately refer toother processes that are not necessarily related to the mass media?

Outside the literature on media logic and political logic, mediatization is oftenreferred to as a metaprocess (Krotz, 2003, 2009), comparable and working inparallel with other metaprocesses such as globalization (Giddens, 2000; Hepp,2004), individualization (Krotz, 1998), personalization (I. McAllister, 2005), andcommercialization (Hamilton, 2004; McAllister, 1996; McManus, 1994; Schiller,1989). It mutually reinforces and is reinforced by other economic, social, andcultural processes. Krotz (2009) for instance, referring to Castells (1996), Castells andCardoso (2005), argues that media are a presupposition for globalization, and thatglobalization is a reason for the increase in the use of media. Mediatization shouldtherefore not be conceived of as a unitary, isolated phenomenon.

In consequence, the influence of ‘‘the media’’ (or mass media actors) is difficultif not impossible to pin-down in terms of a causal relationship at this abstract macrolevel. Therefore, a measurement of a direct effect of media coverage on politicaldecision making would be elusive. Elmelund-Præstekær, Hopmann, and Nørgaard(2011) argue that the:

‘mediatization of politics’ thesis is not a parsimonious theory that sets forth anumber of testable causal propositions about the behavioral and attitudinalconsequences for politicians. Rather, it gives a broad description of thebehavioral and attitudinal correlates that allegedly accompany the structural andinstitutional changes that constitute mediatization [ . . . ]. (Elmelund-Præstekæret al., 2011, pp. 385–386)



In their account, mediatization refers to a more complex relation between mediaand political actors, rather than a simple causal relationship. This interpretation ofmediatization describes a process in which political and media actors find themselvesin a mutually beneficial situation in the daily struggle for newsworthy stories andpublic attention. Since they are at least in part dependent on each other, relationshipsbetween mass media and political actors become institutionalized, with changingroles in supply and demand: One day, it is the political actors who strive forpublic attention for a particular topic; another it is the journalists who try to coverpolitical business, thereby depending on sound-bites, prominent faces, and exclusiveinformation.

But in this relationship, the question of who is leading the tango (Stromback& Nord, 2006) remains crucial for a conceptual framework designed to, at a laterstage, provide testable hypotheses. Scholars from both political and media scienceshave found empirical evidence for either political actors or media actors playingthe dominant role in this relationship (Edwards & Wood, 1999; Green-Pedersen &Stubager, 2010; Walgrave, Soroka, & Nuytemans, 2008). Because of these ambiguousempirical results, this article takes the position that the direction of a causal linkbetween the mass media and the political systems at the macro level should also betheorized more thoroughly. It is argued that, because of the complexity of the process,it is crucial to have a theoretical explanation for how the mediatization of politicscould actually work.

The argument for why this process is at least in part driven by the commercial-ization of media companies is that political actors may start to adapt both the issues(what) they raise in the political arena, and the way (how) they present those issuesto the needs of more market-oriented media companies. In a (hypothetical) worldwhere media companies operate exclusively as commercial firms and news selectionis not based on a normative (party) agenda, political actors are not automaticallyguaranteed their presence in daily news coverage if they merely state complex factsand problems. Rather, they are in competition with more entertaining content andmay find it more difficult to reach even their own constituency. Therefore, politicalactors are not sheltered from the general trend toward a more market-oriented gen-eration of media companies. Owing to their immediate electoral constraints and theirlimited inherent newsworthiness when compared to members of the government,this is particularly true for parliamentary actors (Galtung & Ruge, 1965; Kamber &Imhof, 2005; Kepplinger, 2002). Brants, De Vreese, Moller, and Van Praag (2010)explain how audience-oriented market logic could start to creep into the normalpolitical decision-making process:

As a consequence [of the commercialization of the media], the selection of news,of what is politically relevant and who is politically important, could well bebased more on market considerations, of what sells, than on what is relevant inthe public interest. Under such circumstances, incidents, and the latest pollsbecome more important than substantive coverage of political issues. It



strengthens the need for politicians to ‘perform’ in an audience democracy, to beauthentic and empathic, populist and entertaining, preferably all together.(Brants et al., 2010, pp. 30–31)

In this account, the commercialization of the mass media enables electoral logicto dominate political decision-making processes.

If the goal of political news coverage is normatively motivated, the focus on whatsells is less important. Therefore, the instrumentalization by political actors of massmedia with a reach beyond a political party’s core constituency is more difficult.The commercialization of media companies facilitates this process insofar as mediacompanies are less ideologically oriented and therefore select issues (and actors)based on their newsworthiness, not on normative grounds. This commercializationon the demand side of political news coverage explains why it is rational for politicalactors to behave more in ways that facilitate presentation. Relying increasingly onpublic-relations managers, they know when to say what, and they also know how tosay things in order to appear in the media formats which they consider to be important(Jarren & Donges, 2006). Hence, commercialization and economic considerationsmay have left private media companies more vulnerable to the instrumentalizationby political actors. This process of strategic adaptation of political actors’ behavior intheir daily business to the commercialized media’s goals and requirements is what thisconceptual framework for the mediatization of politics ultimately describes. In thepolitical field, audience-oriented market logic therefore refers to the predominanceof electoral logic (populist behavior) in day-to-day decision-making processes.

Certainly, in reality the direction of the causal link between political and mediaactors is far from clear-cut. And the larger process works in parallel with othermetaprocesses described in the literature, such as the technological, economic,and cultural integration encompassed by the term ‘‘globalization.’’ The increasein thematic complexity due to the speeding-up of transnational communication,financial transactions, and trade relations leads to a more direct need to simplifypolitical issues, to generalize certain statements, and to do everything immediately.Only this broader, multicausal explanatory framework accounts sufficiently for thecomplex interactions between different societal subsystems.

Concluding remarks on mediatization and democracy

As it is so closely linked to other processes, mediatization remains a concept that isdifficult to grasp and requires careful definition. Mediatization of politics is closelylinked, but not equal to commercialization: Mediatization of politics refers to thepredominance of audience-oriented market logic over normative logic in politicalactors’ behavior. It is argued that this audience-oriented market logic in politics isfacilitated by the commercialized mass media: The more commercial news companiesare concerned with their sales volume, viewing figures, and shareholder values, theeasier it becomes for political actors to anticipate and to produce exactly whatthese companies are looking for. Different to the partisan press in earlier periods,



the commercialized news companies today reach well beyond partisan and evenstate boundaries, and their instrumentalization has thus a different quality. Hence,mediatization as a concept confers upon the mass media a pivotal role in thelong-term processes of technological, economic, and societal integration that is notaccounted for in commercialization.

In theory, this process of audience orientation that relates to the commercializedmass media is also applicable to other societal subfields beyond politics. Although alogic may have different meanings in different social fields and should be conceptual-ized carefully (Couldry, 2012), it can certainly be envisaged that the commercial massmedia’s concern with circulation figures and profit maximization impacts societybeyond the political system. Cultural and linguistic diversity, for instance, mightbe affected by the technological and financial supremacy of certain commercializedtransnational networks. Similarly, the projection of particular worldviews and socialideals via satellite television and the Internet is likely to erode grown social structures,creating both new opportunities and risks. But a detailed discussion of such conse-quences is beyond the scope of this article, which limits itself to the political sphere.

Does the mediatization of politics challenge democracy (Couldry, 2012; Mazzoleni& Schulz, 1999)? In an attempt to take a position with regards to this question, it isnecessary to distinguish between ‘‘the media’’ and ‘‘politicians’’ as actors, and the moregeneral process of mediatization described above. One should avoid the dichotomy of‘‘bad media’’ and ‘‘good politics,’’ which is somehow implicit in many accounts of themediatization of politics and epitomized in the distinction between media logic andpolitical logic. The distinction is not one between actors, as both media and politicalactors act according to normatively and market-inspired logics to different degrees.Furthermore, audience orientation is not problematic per se, as the legitimacy ofdemocratic systems is built upon political actors’ accountability to the public.

But if the mediatization of politics refers to the process whereby market logic andoffice-seeking behavior start to dominate political agenda-setting and formatting ona permanent basis, then this general audience orientation of politics indeed challengesthe established institutional mechanisms of advanced democracies. Political decisionmaking in a democratic society should remain within the normative dimension andhence within the ideal of a public sphere, plurality of information, and the protectionand promotion of fundamental individual rights. Therefore, it is crucial to furtherexplore the mechanisms at work between the political and the media systems. Ina world where boundaries become increasingly blurred, the conceptualization ofthe mediatization of politics in a rather rigid and coherent framework helps totheoretically disentangle different logics that in reality may work in parallel, overlap,and reinforce each other mutually.

Acknowledgments

This article is part of a research project supported by the Swiss National ScienceFoundation (PDFMP1-127373). The author is grateful to Edda Humprecht, Pascal



Sciarini, and Jesper Stromback as well as the editors and three anonymous reviewersfor their valuable criticisms and helpful suggestions on earlier versions of the article.

References

Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1988). Toward a theory of mediation. Communication

Yearbook, 11, 194–223. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1991). Media worlds in the era of postjournalism. New York,

NY: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Bennett, W. L., & Entman, R. M. (2001). Mediated politics: Communication in the future of

democracy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Benson, R. (2008). Journalism: Normative theories. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international

encyclopedia of communication (pp. 2591–2597). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the

sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Randhom House.Bourdieu, P. (1999). On television. New York, NY: The New Press.Brants, K., & Van Praag, P. (2006). Signs of media logic: Half a century of political

communication in the Netherlands. Javnost—The Public, 13(1), 25–40.Brants, K., De Vreese, C., Moller, J., & Van Praag, P. (2010). The real spiral of cynicism?

Symbiosis and mistrust between politicians and journalists. The International Journal ofPress/Politics, 15(1), 25–40. doi: 10.1177/1940161209351005.

Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. The information age (Vol. 1). Oxford,England: Blackwell.

Castells, M., & Cardoso, G. (Eds.) (2005). The network society. Washington, DC: Center forTransatlantic Relations.

Cottle, S. (2005). Mediatized public crisis and civil society renewal: The racist murder ofStephen Lawrence. Crime, Media, Culture, 1(1), 49–71. doi: 10.1177/1741659005050243.

Couldry, N. (2008). Mediatization or mediation? Alternative understandings of the emergentspace of digital storytelling. New Media & Society, 10(3), 373–391. doi: 10.1177/1461444808089414.

Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge,England: Polity Press.

Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.Edwards, G. C., III, & Wood, B. D. (1999). Who influences whom? The president, congress,

and the media. The American Political Science Review, 93(2), 327–344. doi: 10.2307/2585399.

Elmelund-Præstekær, C., Hopmann, D. N., & Nørgaard, A. S. (2011). Does mediatizationchange MP–media interaction and MP attitudes toward the media? Evidence from alongitudinal study of Danish MPs. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(3),382–403. doi: 10.1177/1940161211400735.

Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research,2(1), 64–90. doi: 10.1177/002234336500200104.

Giddens, A. (2000). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lifes. New York, NY:Routledge.



Goertz, G. (2006). Social science concepts: A user’s guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Green-Pedersen, C., & Stubager, R. (2010). The political conditionality of mass mediainfluence: When do parties follow mass media attention? British Journal of PoliticalScience, 40(3), 663–677. doi: 10.1017/S0007123410000037.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the social sphere. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Hamilton, J. T. (2004). All the news that’s fit to sell: How the market transforms informationinto news. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hepp, A. (2004). Netzwerke der Medien. Medienkulturen und Globalisierung. Wiesbaden,Germany: VS.

Hepp, A. (2009). Differentiation: Mediatization and cultural change. In K. Lundby (Ed.),Mediatization: Concepts, changes, consequences (pp. 139–159). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Hepp, A. (2013). Cultures of mediatization. Cambridge,England: Polity Press.Herman, E. S., & McChesney, R. W. (Eds.) (1997). The global media: The new missionaries of

corporate capitalism. London, England: Cassell.Hjarvard, S. (2004). From bricks to bytes: The mediatization of a global toy industry. In I.

Bondebjerg, & P. Golding (Eds.), European culture and the media (Intellect ed., pp.43–63). Bristol, England: Intellect Books.

Hjarvard, S. (2007, May). Changing media—Changing language: The mediatization of societyand spread of English and medialects. Paper presented at the InternationalCommunication Association, 57th Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of society: A theory of the media as agents of socialand cultural change. Nordicom Review, 29(2), 105–134.

Hjarvard, S. (2013). The mediatization of culture and society. London, England: Routledge.Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.Jansson, A. (2002). The mediatization of consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 2(1),

5–31. doi: 10.1177/146954050200200101.Jarren, O., & Donges, P. (2006). Politische Kommunikation in der Mediengesellschaft.

Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.Kamber, E., & Imhof, K. (2005). Der neue Kampf um Aufmerksamkeit. In P. Donges (Ed.),

Politische Kommunikation in der Schweiz (pp. 133–156). Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.Kepplinger, H. M. (2002). Mediatization of politics: Theory and data. Journal of

Communication, 52(4), 972–986. doi: 10.1093/joc/52.4.972.Krotz, F. (1998). Media, individualization, and the social construction of reality. In H. W.

Giessen (Ed.), Long-term consequences on social structures through mass media impact (pp.67–82). Saarbrucken, Germany: Vistas (Reihe der LAR).

Krotz, F. (2003). Metaprozesse sozialen und kulturellen Wandels und die Medien. MedienJournal, 27(1), 7–19.

Krotz, F. (2009). Mediatization: A concept with which to grasp media and societal change. InK. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concepts, changes, consequences (pp. 21–40). New York,NY: Peter Lang.

Kunelius, R., & Reunanen, E. (2012). Media in political power: A parsonian view on thedifferentiated mediatization of Finnish decision makers. The International Journal ofPress/Politics, 17(1), 56–75. doi: 10.1177/1940161211424207.



Lundby, K. (2009a). Introduction: ‘Mediatization’ as key. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization:Concepts, changes, consequences. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Lundby, K. (2009b). Media logic: Looking for social interaction. In K. Lundby (Ed.),Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences (pp. 101–119). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Lundby, K. (2009c). Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences. New York, NY: PeterLang.

Mazzoleni, G. (1987). Media logic and party logic in campaign coverage: The Italian GeneralElection of 1983. European Journal of Communication, 2(1), 81–103. doi:10.1177/0267323187002001005.

Mazzoleni, G. (2008). Media logic. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia ofcommunication (pp. 2930–2932). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). Mediatization of politics: A challenge for democracy?Political Communication, 16(3), 247–261. doi: 10.1080/105846099198613.

McAllister, M. P. (1996). The commercialization of American culture. New advertising, controland democracy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McAllister, I. (2005). The personalization of politics. In R. J. Dalton, & H.-D. Klingemann(Eds.), Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 571–588). Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.

McChesney, R. W. (2008). The political economy of the media: Enduring issues, emergingdilemmas. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

McManus, J. H. (1994). Market-driven journalism: Let the citizen beware? Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Meyer, T. (2002). Media democracy: How the media colonize politics. Cambridge, England:Polity.

Nimmo, D. D., & Combs, J. E. (1990). Mediated political realities. New York, NY: Longman.Panebianco, A. (1988). Political parties: Organization and power. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of order. New York, NY: Vintage.Schiller, H. I. (1989). Culture, Inc.: The corporate takeover of public expression. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.Schrott, A. (2009). Dimensions: Catch-all label or technical term. In K. Lundby (Ed.),

Mediatization: Concepts, changes, consequences (pp. 41–61). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. European Journal

of Communication, 19(1), 87–101. doi: 10.1177/0267323104040696.Schumacher, G., De Vries, C., & Vis, B. (2013). Why political parties change their positions:

Environmental incentives and party organization. Journal of Politics, 75(2), 464–477. doi:10.1017/S0022381613000145.

Shapiro, S. (2009). Classical logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy(Winter 2009 Edition). URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/logic-classical.

Siebert, F. S., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press. Urbana, IL:University of Illinois Press.

Strøm, K., & Muller, W. C. (1999). Policy, office, or votes? How political parties in WesternEurope Make hard decisions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Stromback, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization ofpolitics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228–246. doi:10.1177/1940161208319097.



Stromback, J. (2011a). Mediatization and perceptions of the media’s political influence.Journalism Studies, 12(4), 423–439. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2010.523583.

Stromback, J. (2011b). Mediatization of politics. Toward a conceptual framework forcomparative research. In E. P. H. Bucy, & R. Lance (Eds.), The sourcebook for politicalcommunication research. methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 367–382). NewYork, NY: Routledge.

Stromback, J., & Dimitrova, D. V. (2011). Mediatization and media interventionism: Acomparative analysis of Sweden and the United States. The International Journal ofPress/Politics, 16(1), 30–49. doi: 10.1177/1940161210379504.

Stromback, J., & Esser, F. (2009). Shaping politics: Mediatization and media interventionism.In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concepts, changes, consequences (pp. 205–223). NewYork, NY: Peter Lang.

Stromback, J., & Nord, L. W. (2006). Do politicians lead the tango? A study of therelationship between Swedish journalists and their political sources in the context ofelection campaigns. European Journal of Communication, 21(2), 147–164. doi: 10.1177/0267323105064043.

Walgrave, S., Soroka, S. N., & Nuytemans, M. (2008). The mass media’s politicalagenda-setting power: A longitudinal analysis of media, parliament, and government inBelgium (1993 to 2000). Comparative Political Studies, 41(6), 814–836. doi: 10.1177/0010414006299098.


Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293 Rethinking the Logics: A Conceptual Framework for the...

Documents

Transcript of Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293 Rethinking the Logics: A Conceptual Framework for the...