POLITICAL COMMUNICATION
The concept of political communication refers to both a set of
professional practices and a theoretical and scholarly discipline. As a
professional practice, the term “political communication” suggests a
series of communication processes that have been given labels as
varied as propaganda, electoral marketing, political marketing,
political campaigning, and political public relations. Political
communication has developed into an academic field of inquiry, with
foundations in theories and methods from communication, political
science, sociology, psychology, marketing, history, rhetoric, and
other fields. Its multidisciplinary nature explains the difficulty in
finding a straightforward definition. But it is agreed that political
communication focuses on interaction between political actors, the
media, and citizens, which is marked by its persuasive and strategic
character.
The question posed by Lasswell (1927) on the effects of propaganda
in the United States “who says what to whom via which channels
with what effects?”—is shared by a great deal of research in the
political communication field. This simple question imposes and
highlights the basic lines of analysis for the communication process
in general and political communication in particular. Talking about
who means analyzing the communicator, who controls the
information. Content analysis of the messages makes it possible to
find answers to what, and media analysis, which may involve a
direct medium, using political advertising (e.g., posters or leaflets),
or an indirect medium (e.g., editorials or opinion pieces in
newspapers or on TV), reveals the channels used in the
communication process. Effects analysis, a field that has been
widely explored, particularly in North American literature regarding
1
political campaigns, makes it possible to study the impacts of the
communication process on audiences (whom) and normally focuses
on voting behavior (using polls, for instance).
The Lasswell communication model assumes that the communicator
always intends to influence the receiver, that all messages have
effects, and that the process is unilateral in the downward direction.
For a long time in history, political communication was in fact seen
simply as a linear process of information transmission from political
actors, as parties or candidates to citizens, which could be direct but
also mediated by the media. As is shown in Figure 1, we see the
direction of communication being caught by the media and then
channeled out again, what is now known as the mediatization
process. However, from this traditional point of view little or no
communication takes place in the upward direction, that is from
social groups to the political sphere.
Nonetheless, thanks to the democratization of most political
systems, the nature of political communication has changed.
Political communication shifted to the public
2
POLITICAL
COMMUNICATION
The
The political public
sphere
The
Citizens
media
Political parties
Voters
Social
Candidates Newspapers groups
Radio, TV
Pressure groups
Internet
New social
movements
Figure 1 The political communication process.
Adapted from Jensen (2001).
sphere when people, mostly as a result of increased access to
information, became involved in political activity. The simple act of
voting is no longer enough and voters have become active citizens
who are able to organize and become involved in political causes,
thereby developing horizontal communication among political actors
3
and citizens and giving rise to actions and protests that are
increasingly covered by the media.
The growing struggle for media space, whether by official elective
political agents, such as political parties or candidates, or by non-
official organizations, such as new social movements or even
terrorist groups, demands more and more complex models and
theorizations to understand contemporary political communication
(Lilleker, 2006). Nowadays, as shown in Figure 1, the
communication process is also in the upward direction—from public
opinion to the political sphere.
The field of political communication therefore deals with the
construction and dissemination of messages that may potentially
have a direct or indirect impact on politics. Classically, political
parties are the most important political organization in political
communication and policy-making processes. But they are not the
only significant organizations in the political communication context.
Message communicators may be other organizations, such as think
tanks, nongovernmental organizations such as churches, unions,
environmental organizations, human rights organizations, or other
interest groups. Journalists are also very important agents in
political communication processes, as are new social movements.
4
POLITICAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
Political actors and the production process
A significant section of political communication literature focuses on
production processes, that is the way in which messages are
generated by political actors and spread either through traditional
media or “new” media, including but not limited to the con-text of
elections.
According to Norris (2000), we can consider three different
communication stages, namely regarding campaigns: pre-modern
(from the mid-nineteenth century to the end of the 1950s), modern
(from the end of the 1980s), and postmodern (since the beginning of
the 1990s). While in the modern period political communication was
dominated by television, the postmodern period has seen the
emergence of the Internet as an important new player, helping
5
transform the mass media campaign into a “hyper-media
campaign.” Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008 became known
as the first Internet election.
Several authors have devoted themselves to studying new
technologies, especially the use of the Internet not just by politicians
but also by new social movements and the media themselves, and
researching the way in which it has changed both political behavior
and production of political content. Accepting Habermas’s thesis
that the advent of the mass media brought about a “re-
feudalization” of the public sphere, some authors saw the birth of
the Internet as the rise of a “new public sphere” (Dahlgren & Sparks,
1997). On the other hand, other authors defended the
“normalization thesis”: the thesis that politics on the Internet is
nothing but “politics as usual,” dominated by the traditional, offline
players (Margolis & Resnick, 2000).
In the era of the “permanent campaign” (Blumenthal), political
communication is not limited to political marketing in the context of
elections. Political communication also considers the role of
communication in governing, incorporating communication activities
that influence the operation of executive, legislative, and judicial
bodies, political parties, interest groups, political action committees,
and other participants in political processes. Thus a vast body of
literature focuses on studying the “professionalization of politics,”
which can be seen in the establishment of a class of political
consultants, opinion poll professionals, and PR and media managers
(Lilleker & Negrine, 2002). Some are dubbed “spin doctors,” a term
that has a connotation of manipulation of public opinion. Several
authors debate the consequences of the professionalization process
for the strategic communication of political parties, governors,
interest groups, and even for democracy itself.
6
Within a media ecosystem that sees constant technological
evolution, recent work has also generated a growing body of
research on the changing structure of the news industry, notably the
economic basis of the newspaper industry and the legal structure
regulating press and broadcasting.
Media and the messages
Content analysis of the messages produced by different political
agents and conveyed by the media is a classic branch of political
communication research. The biggest sources of political
communication are public speeches, televised political advertising,
print advertising, political posters, televised debates, and websites,
especially during election periods. This branch of inquiry is based on
the disciplines of rhetoric or linguistics to study the themes,
metaphors, language, and political symbolism, and uses essentially
qualitative methods.
The study of political messages is more prolific in election periods.
The reason for this is certainly due to the importance associated
with selecting the official representatives of democracy and concern
about the quality of the messages offered to citizens, who choose
those representatives. Interest in the study of presidential elections
rather than local/regional elections derives from the strong presence
of North American researchers in the field. Some international
comparative studies also stand out, above all on topics linked to the
European Union, such as European elections.
Since electoral messages are broadcast in different formats in the
media, comparative studies of the news coverage of politics are also
a recurring theme. The most common form of comparative study on
news about politics focuses on the media sector of one country in
7
particular and deals with paid advertising, published press releases,
opinion columns in newspapers, or television reports themselves.
Studying the roles that the different media play in coverage of
candidates and their electoral manifestos is also a popular exercise.
As is the phenomenon of personalization of politics in the media, the
issues of personality and celebrity have now become a part of the
political landscape. The analysis of the tone and quantity of
messages carried in the information media, or, in other words, the
study of balance among parties in news coverage has always been
the focus of great attention.
The mediatization of political messages through media channels is a
strong research area and has many other approaches. One example
is the study of the relationship between politicians and journalists,
especially regarding access to government information and
governments’ control over the media. There are also various studies
on the coverage that the media dedicate to political institutions
belonging to different branches: executive (presidents,
governments), legislative (parliament), and judicial (courts). Another
recurring topic that can be the object of a comparative study, of ten
from a diachronic perspective, is the agenda-setting reporting of
policy issues and the representation of social minorities in the news
media in recent decades. The study of agenda-setting extends to
many other issues, such as the coverage given to political scandals.
The impact of negative publicity on election results is also a popular
research focus.
The effects and the people
The study of the potential effects of exposure to different types of
political messages has been one of the most fruitful fields of
research in political communication. Many authors devote
8
themselves to understanding how the members of an audience are
influenced in terms of perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors when
exposed to different types of mediated messages, whether
contained in an advert or a news story. Some researchers study the
impact on perception and opinion regarding political themes
(knowledge of the themes or recognition of a political leader), others
on political attitudes and political values (support given to a
particular party or cause) or on political behavior (i.e., voting
intention).
Mass communication theories have inspired a significant number of
political information processing studies. Agenda-setting theory has
proven to be one of the most robust theories (McCombs & Shaw,
1972). The core assumptions of this theory are that the media do
not tell us what attitudes or opinions we should have (what to think),
but they do tell us which issues we should be focusing on (what to
think about). This means that by seeing an issue covered in the
news media and seeing it covered repeatedly and with great
emphasis—we come to share with the media the view that the issue
has legitimacy and thus place it on our own mental agendas.
Agenda-setting is therefore the creation of public awareness and
concern with salient issues by the news media.
The assumption that the media agenda precedes the public agenda
is a view close to gatekeeping theory. This theory emphasizes the
role of editors in opening the “gates” to only certain stories or
themes, which are those that join the media agenda and therefore
reach the public. Several authors have also linked research on
agenda-setting to media framing studies. Research in the field of
framing assesses the way in which journalists organize the world
and condition members of the audience to understand news and
events. The basis of framing theory is that the media focuses
9
attention on certain events and then places them within a field of
meaning. The central idea behind framing is contextualization:
Framing puts information in a situational or cultural context that
delineates how people evaluate information, comprehend meanings,
and take action.
Initially applied to the study of news in the press and on TV, the
scope of research in the field of agenda-setting theory has
broadened to the effects of communication in “new” media,
especially the opportunities for interaction and political participation
that they provide. Some researchers have placed their hope in the
Internet to increase civic engagement, particularly among young
voters. Others see new technologies as just one more tool for the
elites in power to maintain their position of hegemony.
Among many other important theories for studying the effects of the
media, the spiral of silence theory (Noelle-Neumann, 1974) and the
media uses and gratifications theory (Blumler & Katz, 1974) stand
out. The spiral of silence theory suggests that people may be
silenced when media messages about public issues are at odds with
their own beliefs, even if they actually hold the majority opinion.
Media uses and gratifications theory looks into the psychological
rewards of media usage (i.e., entertainment, surveillance, and social
utility). It makes it possible to analyze the effects of a political
campaign from the perspective of the public rather than the
campaigner.
Methodological approaches
10
Examining an early twenty-first century review of specialized
literature research (Graber, 2005; Lin, 2004, pp. 70–71), five major
theory traditions in political communication research and the
corresponding choices of method could be identified: rhetorical
analysis of political discourse, propaganda studies, voting studies,
mass media effects, and the interplay of influence between
government, press, and public opinion (Lin, 2004, pp. 70–71). The
first is the tradition of rhetorical analysis in public political discourse.
This approach is generally qualitative in nature and historically and
critically examines the source of a political message (such as the
speaker’s motives and styles) and the message itself. The second is
the tradition of political propaganda study during the post–World
War I to post–World War II periods. Scholars focused on how
governments used propaganda/persuasive messages to influence
public opinion. Lasswell’s (1927) quantitative analyses (content
analysis) of messages generated by the government demonstrated
the power of mass political communication in forming public
opinion.
Within the third tradition of research—voting studies—specialists
combined a variety of quantitative and qualitative research methods
(e.g., survey research, in-depth interviews, observation with
participation, content analysis with biographies, and panel studies
with focused interviews). Lazarsfeld and his colleagues published
The People’s Choice (1944), which is a classic work in the field of
voting study. Lazarsfeld is considered the father of the survey
method but he was also well aware of the analytical power of
qualitative research. Two of the central theoretical insights
developed by Lazars-feld and his various collaborators—the two-
step flow of communication and opinion leadership emerged during
observational fieldwork and can be considered the basis for studies
11
on the effects of mass media, the fourth tradition in political
communication research. Some scholars (i.e., Klapper in The
Reinforcement Theory, 1960) later proposed a minimal effects
model of mass communication. They argue that the media do not
have a dominant effect on people’s beliefs and behaviors because
people filter life experiences selectively. The most common method
to study effects has been to draw upon panel representative surveys
and, more rarely, experimental methods.
As for the interplay between government, press, and public opinion,
the fifth tradition of research, Lippmann’s Public Opinion
(1922/1997) was the first to examine the agenda-setting function of
mass media. In the chapter “The World Outside and the Pictures in
Our Heads,” Lippmann made the important observation that
people’s behavior is a response not to the environment as it actually
exists but to the environment as they think it exists. Although he
never used the term, the idea he was presenting was essentially
what we now call agenda-setting. Content analysis of media and
interviews of audiences are common research methods within this
theoretical approach.
In conclusion, research in political communication is based on
multiple methods, common to the social sciences and humanities
field, ranging from quantitative to qualitative approaches. The most
widely used method is quantitative, namely content analysis. Public
opinion polls, surveys research, focus groups, and intensive
interviews are also common, as well as experimental study. The
latter have been used widely to show message impact within a
controlled environment. Over the years there has been some
fluctuation in preferences for quantitative or qualitative methods.
There have been more supporters of quantitative methods, but
qualitative methods have been making a come-back in recent years.
12
Political communication and related fields
Several indicators point toward the establishment of political
communication as an autonomous discipline. In particular, extensive
publishing activity, as seen in the proliferation of widely cited
handbooks and the well-regarded Journal of Political
Communication, is essential to the field’s theoretical and
methodological grounding. The creation of political communication
sections at great international academic associations, within both
the field of communication and the field of political science (ICA,
IAMCR), is another indicator.
Political communication is not only an area of academic research
but also an area of professional practice. And, just like any other
discipline focused on the actions and interactions that take place in
the political sphere, it is not always easy to distinguish between its
areas of practice or outline its identity. That difficulty is
compounded because the use of public relations and marketing
strategies and tactics permeates many areas of political
communication.
The “emergent paradigm” (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, Van Ruler,
Verciˇc,ˇ & Sriramesh, 2007) of strategic communication could bring
to light a new understanding of the political communication field. In
a seminal article by Hallahan et al. (2007), strategic communication
is defined as the purposeful use of communication by any
organization to fulfill its mission. The purposeful communication of
politics is already a prominent field of inquiry, with different
terminological and conceptual options: political advertising (Kaid &
Holtz-Bacha, 2006); political communication management (John-son,
2008); political marketing (Lees-Marshment, 2009, 2012; Newman,
13
1999); political public relations (Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011); and
political reputation management (Schnee, 2015).
Notwithstanding the fact that all these notions have both theoretical
and conceptual nuances, they all agree with the idea that political
communications are intentional and objective-driven in election
campaigning as well as in supporting government policymaking.
Moreover, whether focusing on controlled media, such as speeches,
ads, debates or social media strategies, or uncontrolled media, such
as news in print or on television, the media are considered the
cornerstone of any political communication strategy.
Political actors, such as in corporations or other organizations,
cannot afford to dis-regard the media, that is, how the media frame
issues and actors. That is the reason why both public relations and
political communication studies have been especially concerned
with the construction of political reputation and its impact on
stakeholder perceptions and actions, something that is also called
“image management.” It is in this sense that public relations is used
in political communication research to refer to purposeful activities
by political actors to influence the media agenda. This is also known,
in a more critical perspective, as the “packaging of politics” and
“spinning tac-tics” (Franklin, 2004).
Also, within the scope of political marketing discipline, public
relations have often been reduced to media relations management.
They are thus simply another marketing tool, alongside advertising,
to make it possible to reach the political goals set. In this context,
several authors see political marketing as part of the “postmodern”
or last stage of the professionalization of political campaigning
(Norris, 2000). However, if under-stood as communication
management, political public relations cannot be restricted to
14
merely a strategy of media relations. Public relations make it
possible to develop communication and relations between the
political organization and different audiences at internal level, as
regards intraparty communication, and at external level, through
the relationships established with journalists, naturally, but also with
party members, sympathizers, lobby groups, donors, and citizens in
general. In the political domain, as in the business domain, despite
the importance of relationships with the press, the contribution of
public relations to an organization’s mission goes far beyond this
essentially tactical function.
In a broader sense, the main similarity between political
communication and public relations is that both are about
relationships formed through communication. The difference is that
political communication research pays more attention to questions
and conflicts of power (or abuse of power) than public relations
research (Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011). Power and power struggles
are at the heart of politics, which is adversarial by nature, and,
contiguously, they are also central to political communication. In
public relations theory and research there is a strong tendency to
assume that all conflicts can be solved and that relationships
between organizations and publics should be mutually beneficial
(see, for instance, the symmetrical theory).
As an academic field of research and professionalized practice,
political communication would benefit from the inclusion of public
relations theories and research and vice versa. Cross-fertilization
with research in corelated fields of inquiry like political marketing is
also needed. Contrary to what one might imagine, few bridges have
been built between these different schools of thought (Strömbäck,
Mitrook, & Kiousis, 2010).
15
In fact, one main assumption of the discipline of strategic
communication is precisely that the communication activities of all
types of organizations can be best viewed from an integrative
perspective. There are three main reasons to subscribe to this
somewhat ambitious idea. First, in politics as in the business
context, it is increasingly difficult today to differentiate between
traditional communication activities. See, for example, the current
debate about publicity versus advertising; content marketing versus
brand journalism. Second, it is also challenging to define which
medium/media or method/methods have the greatest influence on
the behavior of the impacted audiences. Media hybridization, new
media ecology, and media convergence, to name just a few, are
central concepts in this debate. Third, an integrative perspective
that looks beyond disciplinary differences to search for common
points could open up new avenues to a more comprehensive
understanding of the communication phenomenon in politics.
16
