ECREA16-Abstract

453

Thursday, November 10

0 9 : 0 0 – 1 0 : 3 0

MED01 Power: Changing Forms of Politics and Justice

PP 039

Is There a Future for Mediatization of Politics Research?

Ł. Wojtkowski

, B. Brodzińska-Mirowska

Nicolaus Copernicus University, Journalism and Social Communication, Toruń, Poland

In our opinion the research and the analyses of mediatization of politics have lost dynamics, despite the fact that the political sphere was precisely the area,

which was very appealing for researchers since it contained a particular context of media coverage impact on other areas of social life. The purpose

of the proposed paper is to find an answer to the question on the reason why is this happening.The previous analyses of mediatization were based primarily

on linear relations, focused on the functional dimension of the relationship between politics and the media. That perspective has some limitations. First

one indicates the filed itself, which is composed of politics and media. Due to well-established structures of political and media systems, strong indicators

of mediatization were relatively easy to be observed. It terminated in lack of multidimensionality of research, which results in reinforcing of functional or

structural studies of mediatization.Which, in fact, is second limitation. Due to its field’s in-between-ness mediatization of politics were operationalized from

two dominant perspectives: political sciences or media studies framework. Hence, first was unable to transgress narrow border of system approach, and

second wasn’t able to overrun what we perceive as influence studies and the media limitations. Eventually it resulted in what one could name as structural

and functional mediatization of politics case studies. Thirdly, in the face of multiple parallel changes happening in both social and cultural areas and also

being a part of technological development processes, such narrow view of the media-centric perspective is no longer sufficient. In other words, current

perspective on the process of mediatization of politics is becoming no longer sufficient for several reasons. Firstly, in the area of mediatization of politics

analyses hold sway over theoretical arrangement. Undoubtedly, it makes more difficult to organize studies of mediatization, which, in result, are fragment‑

ed and without linkage to broader conceptual framework. Secondly, political communication perspective narrows the field to singular case studies without

connection to mid-range research programmes. Thirdly, assuming that the mediatization is a long process of the broader social transformation, the me‑

dia-centric perspective must then get changed and also requires holistic analysis and taking a number of concomitant transformation processes into account

(e.g. acculturation, commodification, or marketization). We propose, firstly, that mediatization of politics has to be understood as a transformative process

of media and politics. It requires perceiving this phenomenon not as political change course itself, but, rather, as transformation in cultural and economical

terms with an effect on politics and media. That is why tools of political economy should be crucial to grasp its meaning and dynamics at meta-level.Which,

secondly, implies that mediatization of politics is an institutional process at the meso-level where games of powers and flows of logics take place between

political, media, social, and cultural institutions. Finally, all these should be reflected in every single case study that describes affairs of political-related

media practices, but with greater emphasis on symbolic processes.

PP 040

Mediatized Styles of Political Power: The Case of Modern Finland

A. Kantola

University of Helsinki, Department of Social Research, Helsinki, Finland

The paper contributes to the discussion on the mediatization of politics by showing how current affairs magazines developed in the 20

century as a stage

for political power, and how political authorities adjusted by developing public authority styles that fit the media. Many studies suggest that the self-pre‑

sentation of one’s personality and private self has been an important element in the mediatization of politics (Brants & Voltmer, 2011; Driessens et al.,

2010: 310; Hjarvard, 2008: 61–117, 2016; Schultz, 2004, 2011: 30–42; Stanyer, 2007; Strömbäck, 2008). A number of studies also suggest that the media

play a decisive role in the personalization of politics (Deacon, 2004; Holtz-Bacha, 2004; Karvonen, 2010: 85–99; McAllister, 2007: 578–582; Schultz, 2011:

239–264; Stanyer &Wring, 2004). The paper contributes to these studies by examining the interplay between political authority and media with a longi‑

tudinal study of the Finnish current affairs magazine Suomen Kuvalehti from 1920 to 2015. A quantitative and qualitative analysis examines stories, which

focus on a single politician and tracks their authority styles. The politicians use three styles of authority: paternalism, bureaucratic rationalism and enthu‑

siastic individualism. The media clearly conditioned and facilitated all three styles, yet at the same time, these styles reflected the societal transformations

of political elites. Patriotic paternalism was the style of the national Victorian bourgeois, who were the ruling elite for the first half of the 20

century. After

1950, politicians softened high paternalism by using their families as a public stage and gradually started to employ more convivial and intimate forms

of paternalism. Bureaucratic rationalism became the dominant style in the 1960s as strong class parties and state-led social engineering created a new elite

of professional politicians, which resulted in impersonal styles of authority. The third style, enthusiastic individualism, has been the dominant style since

1985, and it reflects the urbanized and individualized middle class culture. In this style, authority is built on a personalized approach suggesting self-actu‑

alization, enthusiasm and charisma. The media provides a stage for each style. Paternalism and bureaucratic styles fit well with the magazines, which, in

the first half of the 20

century, reported on politicians from a distance and modestly used photographs that focused on formal ceremonies. Since the 1970s,

the personal interview has become the main way of presenting the politicians’personalities. Also visual representations changed as formally posed black-

and-white photographs were replaced by livelier colour photographs, which revealed a politician’s “inner” personality and private self. Interviews and

photographs impacted all authority styles by revealing the“inner”self of interview subjects and presenting them in more informal images. The case study

shows how underlying societal dynamics conditioned the mediatization of political power. The solid, high, formal and restrictive authorities of industrial

modernity transformed into the agile, informal, intimate and charismatic authority styles of late modernity, and media, the current affairs magazine,

created a stage where politicians can present themselves and their personalities in new ways.

Mediatization

(MED01–MED08)