y 2 20 l/alumno-día 100 alumnos 2000 litros/día 0.0231l/seg

Attention to public policies and political actors in the news media is important for the political process (Walgrave and van Aelst 2006).162 _{First, news coverage is related to}

public opinion, which indirectly affects public policy (Erikson, MacKuen and Stimson 2002; McCombs 2004). News media affect or follow the preferences of the electorate and consequently matter for the election or re-election of political parties. They affect or reflect which issues have the attention of the public (Dearing and Rogers 1996). Second, news coverage is related to policy makers in a more direct way (Baumgartner et al. 1997; Paletz 1998). That is, since politicians evaluate media coverage as an indicator of (future) public preferences, policy makers adapt policies in light of media coverage (Walgrave et al. 2008), especially when the news media identify social problems that policy makers do not prioritize. In addition, the dynamics of the news media allow political actors to present certain constructions of policy problems, consequently affecting the policy frames used in the policy sector (Cobb and Elder 1971; Cobb, Ross and Ross 1976). In this case, news coverage affects the policy response of policy makers regardless of its possible relation to public opinion (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; 2005).

Research remains inconclusive about the circumstances under which news coverage affects policies indirectly (via public opinion) or directly (via signalling, framing, or ‘shadow of the future’) (Cobb and Elder 1983; Kleinnijenhuis 2003; McCombs 2004; Walgrave and Aelst 2006). However, regardless of the direction of causality and of the precise role of journalists in this, we have theoretical and empirical reasons to assume that news media coverage affects the activities of the government. And following the ‘displacement’ of politics to the media, this is now perhaps even more so than in the past (e.g. Manin 1997 218-236, Mazzoleni and Schulz 1999, Kepplinger 2002). This matters for the working of the political system and the related normative issues associated with the quality of the news media, for instance, the quality of the function of the media as facilitating intermediation between citizens and government.

Apart from important system-level effects, news media attention is a potential pathway to political influence (Beyers 2004; Kriesi, Tresch and Jochum 2007). Because important aspects of policy decisions are affected by media dynamics, political actors are interested in getting news media coverage. But whereas constitutional or institutional powers are relatively constant, the ‘power’ that actors derive from statements in the news media changes day by day and results from subtle exchanges between interacting systems. Apart from their actions being covered in the news media, political actors also seem to adapt their broader activities in light of media attention for specific issues. That is, political leaders seem to use media attention in inter-institutional politics (Kernell 1993), and interest groups may change their lobby in light of public opinion (Kollman 1998). Media attention seems related to changes in the power balance within policy communities (Schattschneider 1960; Gamson 2004). The focus of this chapter is on the types of political actors that seem to benefit from the spotlight of the news media.

162 _{Please note that I do not examine the influence of journalists in shaping politics. I refer to media attention} or coverage, independent of the exact mechanisms that explain why that coverage is as it is.

154

5.3. research framework

In this chapter I examine the stability and punctuation of media attention to policy sectors (when?), distinguish the various exchange relationships between political and media actors (who?), and relate these to expectations on variation across countries (where?). I will elaborate these points here.

First, political claims in newspapers or statements on television are not modern equivalents of the fireside chats of Enlightened deliberators. The exchange of arguments and the explication of positions in the media are part of the political conflict among the diverse manifestations of group interests that challenge or defend existing policies. I assume that media attention to political actors produces power, if not directly in terms of influencing policy then in terms of influencing the structure of debates on that policy. This implies that we can understand the relative attention given to political actors in the media as some sort of indication of the potential power actors derive from media attention. It further implies that we should view the interaction between journalists and political actors as a power relation, or rather a relationship about power. Thus, I can extend my exchange theory beyond interest organizations and use it to better specify the relationship between state and news media actors (Blau 1964, Gamson and Wolfsfeld 1993). On the basis of these exchange relations I can construct expectations about the media presence of both state-related actors and other political actors.

Second, the configuration of political actors voicing preferences on policy issues in the media is in constant flux, with issues and actors changing simultaneously. Researchers of both political conflict and the substantive character of policies both find similar patterns of change. In terms of political conflict, increases in attention to issues are usually related to expanded conflicts that involve more actors. As Schattschneider (1960, 37) put it: ‘Private conflicts are taken into the public arena precisely because someone wants to make certain that the power ratio among the private interests shall not prevail’. Political conflicts that are fought out in the news media are likely to be broader conflicts that consist of a greater variety of political actors than the more limited set of actors in the policy circles of ‘daily’ politics. In terms of policy change, at moments of policy punctuation a greater variety of actors take positions on issues than in periods of stability (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). I combine these conflict and change perspectives. This implies that it is especially important for political actors to have media presence at moments when an issue is ‘hot´, contested, and at a moment of policy punctuation. I specifically examine variation in the types of actors present in the news media at different levels of attention. Political researchers have divergent expectations about whether either state-actors or other political actors are likely to be present in the media at these critical and influential moments. I outline these below.

Third, in order to understand the politics-media interaction as a power relationship consisting of varying dependencies and exchanges, we require a conceptualisation of the resources and regularities of that relation. That is, we already have ideas about which resources are attractive to certain political actors, we also need, associated to that, to understand the news media as political institutions, in need of certain political resources (e.g. Cook 1998; 2006; Donges 2007; Schudson 2002). We know that the ‘rules of the game’ of the news media, as an arena of political struggle, are different from other political arenas, such as parliament, the government institutions, and the propaganda media of electoral campaigns (Bennett and Entman 2001; Schudson 2005).

155

As a first step I here differentiate three types of political products that are constructed via exchange relationships between the news media and political actors. That is, such exchanges (1) produce input for policies, (2) facilitate the communication of government plans, or (3) provide an additional arena to resolve social conflicts. These different types of political products are built upon different relationships of the news media with a variety of political actors. For instance, when a journalist produces a newspaper article presenting the position of various representatives from society, he or she ‘constructs’ a political arena, independent or complementary to other arenas such as parliament. However, journalists could also be interested in reporting on new government plans and, therefore, seek exchange relationships with important government leaders. In that case journalists facilitate the communication of policy plans. Thus, these are two different political products that news media deliver to political systems, and that determine the opportunities and constraints ofinterest group activities in getting media presence. Comparative studies of the news media suggest that country differences matter especially in the types of products that news media tend to deliver, i.e. their political function (Hallin and Mancini 2004). Hence, I use the country typology put forward by Hallin and Mancini in order to construct hypotheses on the relative importance journalists attach to exchange relationships with state versus non-state actors. These hypotheses are examined in a cross-country comparative research design.

5.4. the exchange theory of political behaviour extended

The way in which the news media cover policies, represent alternatives, and frame actor positions depends on the regularities in the behaviour of at least three main categories of actors: the state, the media themselves, and society-based actors. I understand the interaction between these actors as exchanges that result in policy-specific news.163

Focussing on policy-specific news coverage means concentrating on two exchanges: between state actors and news media, and between non-state actors and the news media.164

First, the exchange relations are discussed. The character of these exchanges is expected to be different in different media systems, which leads to three hypotheses on the relative presence of non-state actors in the news media in different countries.

163 _{As discussed in the theory chapter, such an understanding is similar to but less restrictive than a} resource- or power-dependency approach (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978), such as recently applied to interest organizations by, for example, Beyers and Kerremans (2007) and Poppelaars (2009). Exchange approaches in the context of interest representation have dealt with the relation of interest groups and their members (Salisbury 1969; Ware 1992), of groups and policy makers (e.g. Bouwen 2004; Molina 2006; Pizzorno 1978; Woll 2007) and a combination of those relations (Schmitter and Streeck 1999; Streeck and Kenworthy 2004). Exchange relations with media actors are notably absent in this literature on the organization and strategies of interest groups (but not so in the literature on social movement organizations: starting with Lipsky (1968), and more recently Gamson (2004)).

164 _{For now I will adopt a high level of abstraction and do not differentiate between various actors within} the state or within society or within the news media. These actors are understood to relate to three different domains. Remember that I focus on exchange relationships that cross domains (section 2.4.2). This justifies the collapse of all actors per domain as these should exhibit typical exchange relationships with actors in other domains.

156

As discussed in the theory chapter, I draw on exchange theory as developed by Emerson (1962; 1976) and Blau (1964) in order to conceptualise the relationship of political actors with the news media.165 _{Blau and Emerson are interested in exchanges between actors in}

order to evaluate the power relations between actors. Power is defined as ‘the ability of persons or groups to impose their will on others despite resistance through deterrence either in the form of withholding regularly supplied rewards or in the form of punishment’ (Blau 1964, 117). Thus, in this definition power is seen as an aspect of a relationship and not of an actor. Similarly, ‘a resource is an ability, possession, or other attribute of an actor giving him the capacity to reward (or punish) another specified actor’ (Emerson 1976, 347). Exchange relations involve the reciprocal flow of valued behavior, or, formulated differently, the exchange of resources between two actors.

First, the exchange relations between the state institutions and the news media have several distinguishing characteristics. Most importantly, in this type of exchange the news media tend to be in a dependent position. State-related actors have the institutional power of the state to control information and act on behalf of the collective. Their position as a focus of attention is further strengthened by the symbolic attraction of the (national) leader- ship that figures so nicely in media narratives (Discussed in: Helms 2008). State authorities can thus offer news media ‘exclusive’ information and the symbolic attraction securing involvement in the game of politics (Bennett 1990; Bennett, Lawrence and Livingston 2007). In exchange, state-related actors benefit from media attention. Such attention may bring latent compliance with policies when interest groups and the broader public become convinced of certain policy views. The attention also helps in ‘internal’ negotiations. Kernell (1993), for instance, found that presidents increasingly use their public speeches to ‘win’ Congress for supporting policy programs (also see: Groseclose and McCarty 2001). For officials that seek re-election attention could have future electoral benefits as it allows for credit claiming and the demonstration of statesmanship. However, such mutually beneficial exchange may be constrained by the strategic behaviour of state actors. That is, they want to avoid the responsibility to publicly account for their activities because this would allow other, opposing actors to scrutinise their policies and promote alternatives. Thus, the likelihood of exchange seems to depend on political circumstances and the interests of those in the structurally stronger positions of government.

Second, advocates from society, such as experts, company spokespersons, or interest organisations, exchange quite different resources with the news media. These more dependent actors also provide information. In contrast to state-media exchanges, the information provided by these advocates is not exclusive held but is offered as publicly as possible, and made available to a broad range of actors. From the perspective of the journalist the information is unlikely to have as much value as that provided by state actors because various sources can be chosen to rely upon. The information thus needs something more to attract media attention: expertise or event value. That is, claims of advocates from society could either be valued by journalists because of their professional policy-related knowledge, or because of the news value of symbolic political events such as demonstrations or campaigns.

165 _{Exchange theory or power-dependency theory has been applied to news media before: for example} in order to evaluate the relation between media and their consumers/readers (Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur 1976) and news media and social movements (Gamson and Wolfsfeld 1993, 115n.)

157

Taking the other side of the exchange, interest organizations or other actors seek specific resources in the exchange with news media. That is, coverage by news media offers latent or potential public support for advocacy groups. This could be beneficial in both policy lobbying and the recruitment of new members (mobilization) (Jordan and Maloney 2007; Rucht 2004). Further, news media attention has reputational benefits as well. As pointed out by Gamson and Wolfsfeld (1993, 116), news media offer validation or standing for political actors. When actors are ‘validated’ by journalists they are likely be recognized by the state as a valid voice as well. Considering these arguments one would expect that large proportions of interest organizations would attempt to construct lasting exchange relationships with the news media. Recent research, however, has been inconclusive about such aspirations or the opportunities to realise them (e.g. Kollman 1998; Kriesi, Tresch and Jochum 2007; Thrall 2006). The aspiration is evident for some proportion of political organizations, such as political parties or campaign groups, who may benefit from any attention they get, whether negative or positive (Gamson 2004). However, it seems likely that large proportions of organizations are more likely to keep media contacts to the minimum. That is, some political actors lose influence as the scope of a conflict is broadened via media attention. As argued by Lowery (2007, 37): ‘the influence of organized interests seems to be negatively associated with the scope of lobbying battles as measured by the number of organizations involved, the intensity of their lobbying, and how attentive the public is.’166 _{This is certainly the case for those interests advantaged by more closed or}

narrow debates over policy (Jones and Baumgartner 1991).

Table 22 summarises the two types of political exchange involving the news media discussed above. The upper rows show exchange relationships between state-related actors and journalists. Exclusive information and the symbolism of government (personalities,

166 _{At the same time, there is increasing evidence of ‘cumulative inequality’ mechanisms encouraged by} mediated politics (Gamson and Wolfsfeld 1993, 117). Thrall (2006), for example, observes for the US case: ‘Rather than the pluralist marketplace of ideas envisioned by theory, the American news system more closely resembles an oligopoly, with a few market leaders in each policy niche doing most of the TABLE 22 Two types of political exchange of the news media

exclusive information, leadership symbolism

expertise information, events and action state related actors

society-based actors

news media

news media latent compliance, future electoral support

158

‘official’ positions) is needed by journalists and supplied by state actors. In return, the latent compliance with policies and potential electoral support that may come with media attention and is needed by state actors is provided by the news media. The two lower rows represent the exchange relationships between actors in society, such as interest organizations, and journalists. As said earlier, interest organizations may offer expertise or events needed by journalists to create news stories. In return, interest organizations could benefit from attention, as the public support for their cause (and their membership dues) may increase and they (and the issues they promote) may be recognized or validated politically.

5.5. expectations on society-based claims

In order to understand the variations in the relationships between state- and society-based political actors and the news media, I need firmer expectations about (1) this variation in relation to strategic considerations about media attention per se (character of exchange relations), (2) the relation between media attention and issue expansion or containment more generally (number of exchanges / political claims in media), and (3) the effect of the media-systemic context (country differences). In the formulation of the hypotheses, I view a political claim in a newspaper as the product of a power-producing exchange between a journalist and a political actor. I assume that the value of such an exchange is higher at moments of political conflict, as these situations may lead to policy change. I also assume that political actors who are successful at these moments derive more power from mediated political debate than do other actors. In terms of research design, I use variation in the levels of media attention to differentiate between the different hypotheses and to distinguish the differences arising from ‘media effects’ from those due to other factors.

The likelihood and character of these actor-specific exchange relationships depend on the country-specific, structural, systemic relation between the news media and the political system. That is, the media themselves have a special role in shaping structure and content of political conflict (Bennett and Entman 2001; Graber 2006; Pfetsch 2004; Scammell and Semetko 2000; Schudson and Waisbord 2005). Structurally, media systems differ across countries, most importantly in the extent to which the media system parallels the conflict lines of the political system (Hallin and Mancini 2004). This, in turn, is reflected in reporting norms; do newspapers, for example, aspire to be ‘internally pluralistic’ in their reporting? Or do they develop a specific profile related to politically inspired target groups? Consequently, across different systems media actors exhibit varying behaviour in the politically important selection of framing and commenting on news. Similarly, depending on these contexts, national political actors have developed specific patterns of mediated interaction. In the research presented here media primarily matter because of their structuring role (and not as ‘independent’ agenda setters), varying across countries.

The media system determines the relative value that actors attach to resources and thus the likelihood of journalists choosing state actors or non-state actors as their sources. I use