Introduction
In the chapter “Informational Politics and the Crisis of Democracy” in the book The Power of Identity, Manuel Castells sheds a light on the transformation of politics and democratic processes in the network and information society, using America, Europe and Bolivia as a focus of analysis. He talks about how all political parties, actors and institutions today are forced to play the same game, using new information technology and the media space in order to win or exercise power. This transformation he calls informational politics. Informational politics can be described by the dominant role of the media framing and constructing politics. Electronic media, including television, radio, newspapers and the internet, are becoming the main and privileged space of politics (Volkner, 1999, 2003). That is, all political parties, right, left or center, must mediate and process their messages through the same technological sphere. Without the use of technological media there is no change of winning over or exercising power.
There are two simplifications Castells finds important to avoid when talking about media and politics. Firstly he states that even though media is a very powerful tool and plays an important role in politics it does not impose political choice on public opinion. The main reason he says is because of medias diversity and complex relations it has to different political and ideological groups and people. Secondly he states that public opinion is not passive recipient of messages nor easily manipulated as is often thought to be the case. Castells says that this myth can not hold true because of the two way process of interaction between the media and their audience. Medias interaction with the political process in every country is undetermined and depends highly on the context as well as specific social, cultural and political interactions.
Castells nevertheless argues that political communication and information are essentially captured and structured within the space of the media. Outside the media he believes there is only political marginality. This framing of politics he says, impacts political elections, organizations, decision-making and governance which results ultimately in changing the nature of the relationship between state and society. Castells uses examples of political process from countries such as USA, UK, Russia, Spain, Italy, Japan and Bolivia in order to demonstrate his analysis. He tries to link the processes of social, institutional and technological transformations at the root of the crisis of democracy in the network society.
Media as the space of politics in the information Age
People receive their information and form their political opinion through the media. The television is the most used and most credible source of news and information. As long as the media is relatively autonomous from the political power, political actors have to abide by the rules of the media, that is the media frames and constructs politics in order to mobilize a majority of votes from citizens. Governance in most countries depends on elections and re-elections and therefore have to take into account and relay on publics opinion and assessment on government decisions, visible for example by opinion polls or focus groups.
Political actors then contribute to and close the field of media politics by making it the battleground for politics where political forces, personalities and pressure groups try to undermine each other with information leaks and counter-leaks. Nevertheless as is evident in many countries, grassroots groups are still strong and vital and candidates must still go among people and be seen in the real world, not only in the media. Yet the person-to-person politics' main target is to stage and underline the political persona and the political message that is ultimately being portrayed in the media.
Who are the media?
The media today are to a large extent business groups that are globally interconnected but at the same time highly diversified and serve different markets and ideologies. Government owned television and radio have moved closer to behavior of private media groups and relay just as much on audience rating. In order to retain audience rating media must be both appealing and credible. Media today must be close enough to politics and government to access information, benefit from regulations and in some countries receive subsidies. But they must also be distant enough to keep their credibility and be able to be the intermediaries between citizens and the parties in the production and consumption of flows and images that root peoples political opinion and decision-making.
Castells emphasizes that despite the fact that media constructs and frames politics it does not dictate what people decide or opt for in politics. International examples of presidents and political actors being elected without support from the media or not being elected despite full media support and good performance, according to Castells proves that neither television nor other media determines political outcomes by themselves. Media politics is not all politics but nevertheless all politics must go through the media in order to affect decision-making. “Politics is fundamentally framed, in its substance, organization, process, and leadership, by the inherent logic of the media system, particularly by the new electronic media” (p. 375).
The American model
Transformation of American politics during the last decades resulted from three interconnected processes 1) the decline of political parties and of their role in selecting candidates, 2) the emergence of a complex media system, anchored in television but with an increased diversity of flexible media, 3) the development of political marketing with constant opinion polling, feedback systems between polling and politicking, media spinning, direct mailing and phone banks, real time adjustments of candidates and issues to the format most likely to win.
A turning point in the relationship between American media, polls and politics was in John Kennedy's campaign in 1960 where his victory was largely credited to his televised debate with Nixon, where he dominated. The radio audience of the same debate nevertheless selected Nixon as the winner. The central political role television has taken has induced two major features; Firstly political spending on television has increased immensely and secondly political spinning by advisers to political candidates has become an essential factor in political campaigning. Victory over particular event is what matters, not explanations or clarifications.
Technology has transformed the political role of the media especially by linking up the media system in real time with political marketing (D. West, 1993). Where communication strategists in high political offices monitor the pulse of the nation, change messages and schedules in short time depending on the main sources of information such as the television news and newspapers. Within this line of change pollsters and image makers became decisive political actors that were able to make or brake presidents, senators, congressmen and other political candidates by mixing together information, technology, mediology and political savvy.
As the media diversified and decentralized their scope in the 1990's their grasp on political attitude and behavior became more comprehensive (Garber, 1996M Hacker, 1996). Narrowcasting of messages to certain areas of social groups through local stations is according to Castells fragmenting national politics but at the same time embracing a greater share of political expression in the universe of electronic media. Additionally the internet has become a vehicle for campaign propaganda and controlled debate, linking up with supporters. By incorporating politics in their electronic space, the media frames process, message and outcomes, regardless of their initial purpose or the effectiveness of specific messages.
In order to understand this framing of politics by the media it is necessary to refer to the principals that govern news media. That is, the competition for audience rating, competing with entertainment and the necessary distance and detachment from politics in order to keep and induce credibility. This reflects in news that only cover events not the underlaying conditions, the person not the group and the conflicts not the consensus. Therefore news require and are increasingly based on drama, conflict and greed, winners and losers where the focus is less on what politicians have to say and more on strategic games and “horse race politics”. Media statements about politics become a political event by themselves.
When the media frame politics they are personalizing events. Politicians not political matters become the main actors of the drama. Personal motivation and personal images is what remains in most peoples minds, where the messenger becomes the message. Thus, because only bad news are news, the framing of political news is aimed at destroying the opponent's proposals and indeed experiments show that negative messages are more likely to influence political opinion than positive message. Thus this kind of strategy and construction of politics via the media has become a fundamental part of political life.
This leads to politics becoming over simplified where few, selected issues are brought to the surface where the public can choice to be either with or against. Pro life or pro choice, gay rights or gay bashing and so forth. Coded messages and images, a competition and a race between heroes and villains is such as the American politics are framed by the media according to Castells. He then wonders if this process is to be the forebear of a broader and transnational political trend, characterized by the information age?
European politics – are they being “Americanized”?
The answer to this question is both no and yes according to Castells. He thinks no because European political system still has strong cultural, historical and societal ties and relies much more on various and different political parties. Castells pinpoints that culture matters a lot when it comes to cultural norms and ethics and personal matters of political candidates. Europe also has a long history of government controlled media so that political access to television has always been limited and paid advertising have been and are still forbidden or restricted in most European countries.
Despite this fact the media in Europe has the same important role as the media in America in deciding the outcome and framing of politics. What characterizes informational politics in Europe just as in America is simplification of messages, polling as a political tool, leaking of damaging information as a political weapon, image-making, spin control and so forth. In short, same rules apply when playing the political game in both Europe and America in spite of cultural and historical differences.
To name few examples of how media and politics work in European countries:
UK
Paid TV advertisements illegal, parties are given free broadcast time.
Political reporting more important for audience than formal political advertising or formal political discussions.
Commentaries on politics more important than the real subject of the debate.
A strong focus on image and slick professional advertisements rather than on policy.
Personalization that leads to character assassination as political strategy.
Russia
American style TV campaigns from around 1993.
In 1996 Yeltsin combined old and new strategies of media use, focusing on television. His campaign was carefully designed by a political consulting company where the slogan words were “I believe, I love, I hope”.
Informational politics in Russia even before it became an information society.
In exchange for paying their share in Yeltsin's expensive campaign, Russian oligarchs received a controlling share in Russia's most valuable assets being privatized by the Russian state.
Spain
Felipe Gonzalez led the Socialists to a victory in 1986, got re-elected twice and won a national referendum to join NATO in difficult times. The overwhelming political dominations Socialists had in the 1980's, according to Castells, was based on three factors. 1) Personalization of the charismatic Felipe Gonzalez. 2) Media use, especially television and the use of focus groups, constant polling and targeting of issues in time and space. 3) Continuous use of these strategies.
Nevertheless it was the losing of battle in the media that first eroded the Socialists in 1993 and later brought a center-right government into power in 1996.
In most other European democracies similar processes can be found within politics, in France there was a debate about “télécratie” while others embraced the virtual democracy and the sudden rice of Berlusconi in Italy can be linked to the new political role of the mass media. While, institutions, culture, and history make European politics highly specific, technology, globalization and the network society incite political actors and institutions to engage in technology-driven, informational politics (p. 386).
