3 Mediatization and politics coverage in media Our considerations should be opened by an explanation of the two key categories shaping the importance of the media in the political process – mediatization of politics and media coverage. They form the broad context for the issue of political bias defined and analyzed in the previous chapter. The process of mediatization of politics leads to media coverage which is constructed in a certain way, and it reflects the degree of political bias of the medium – high, medium, low, or a lack thereof. Therefore, it can be said that the coverage of politics is a practical expres- sion of the political entrenchment of the media. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of media content allows for the empirical verification of the presence of bias, as well as the determination of its scale (see: Fig. 3.1). Thus, these three concepts: the mediatization of politics, the coverage of pol- itics, and the bias of the media or its lack thereof, are inextricably linked in the context of the participation of the media in politics. • Mediatization of politics process • Coverage of politics decisions • Media bias content Fig. 3.1: Consequences of mediatization of politics Source: Author. 3.1 Mediatization and its consequences for news media coverage 3.1.1 The concept and dimensions of mediatization of politics Mediation and mediatization have become useful concepts in media research in the last fifty years. However, as Strömbäck (2008:228) points out, they are more often used than defined. Michalczyk (2009:19–23) is one of the first Polish authors, to devote more attention to this issue. The author attempted to solve Bogusawa Dobek-Ostrowska - 9783631779507 Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/26/2021 08:38:54PM via free access 144 Mediatization and politics coverage in media a terminological disagreement. From the notion of mediation, he derives the category of medialization, assuming the arguments of theorists from the crit- ical current of mass communication science, the critical, socio-cultural and semiological traditions (Dobek-Ostrowska: 2007:50–58). Michalczyk considers it more appropriate for the media mediation process (Schulz, 2004:90–94). In the same research stream, mediatization is interpreted as a social metaprocess and treated as a development of medialization. On the ground of the critical paradigm in the mass communication theory, medialization and mediatization are synonyms describing the process of mediation of reality which has social consequences (Michalczyk: 2009:32; Piontek, 2009a:167). However, the notion of mediatization of politics has emerged also in polit- ical communication studies (Mazzoleni and Schulz, 1999). It is the result of the development of the media (Piontek, 2011:47), and has gained a deeper signifi- cance (Couldry, 2008:376–380). It needs to be precisely distinguished from the mediatization of society understood as medialization because mediatization of politics constitutes only a fraction of this broad process (Lilleker, 2006:119). Politicians, regardless of the degree of the maturity of democracy, are interested in the way the media write and speak about them and their political opponents. Depending on the legal norms, tradition, political culture, and journalistic pro- fessionalism, with the help of available instruments, political actors attempt to influence media content, in order to manage their own image and disparage their adversaries. Here, two aspects of political influence need to be clearly identified and separated. Firstly, it is about the subject of influence, i.e., who influences and how they influence the media and its content. Secondly, it is about the object of media influence and their content, i.e., who is affected and how (Asp, 1986). One of the crucial concepts explaining the influence of the media on politics is mediatization, introduced by Asp (1986) and defined by Mazzoleni (2008) as the expansion of the media influences all spheres of social life. In contrast to the mediation of politics, mediatization of politics can be understood twofold. Firstly, through the creation and control of news concerning politics, which is reflected in journalistic visibility. Secondly, through the influence, this content has an influence on the opinions and attitudes of the audience, which, in conse- quence, can lead to certain electoral behaviors, compatible with political sympa- thies or dislikes of these media (Strömbäck and Esser, 2009). According to Mazzoleni and Schulz (1999:249), the mediatization of poli- tics occurs where politics loses its autonomy; it becomes the central function of the media and is the result of constant interactions with it. It is expressed in the high selectivity of events and a certain setting of the issues agenda, as well as in a particular construction of the public sphere, in which opinions and Bogusawa Dobek-Ostrowska - 9783631779507 Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/26/2021 08:38:54PM via free access Mediatization and its consequences for news media coverage 145 information selected and imposed by the media circulate. The political discourse is governed by the logic of commercial media based on the spectacularization of political communication. It adapts the language of the commercial media, which describes the views of political actors and communication techniques used by them. Mediatization of politics utilizes public opinion polls, marketing strategies, proactive information management, spin doctoring, etc. Within it, journalists do not restrict themselves to traditional watchdog functions, but by forwarding their biased opinions and views to the audience, they actively create and stimulate the political process. Strömbäck (2008b) distinguishes four stages in the development of mediatization of politics in Western democratic countries after the Second World War. In the first phase, the media become a channel of communication between political institutions, such as parties, state apparatus, and interest groups. This period clearly corresponds to mediation or - as others prefer - medialization, i.e., mediation of politics through the media. Politicians are not yet aware of the pos- sibilities offered by the media in political communication, and they are only now discovering them. In the second stage, the media become semi-independent from political actors and government institutions. More and more often, they construct news in different formats, apply various practices and are guided by their own norms and values. They begin to be governed by their own logic, and not the logic of the party. In the third phase, the media become the main channel of political communication and their independence is growing signifi- cantly. Media logic moves to the foreground and political and social actors begin to adopt it in their actions. The politicians learn media mechanisms and adapt their appearance and behavior to fit them. In the fourth phase, political actors already understand how important media logic is for them; they not only adopt it but also internalize its values, which results in the colonization of politics by the media. In this concept, introduced and developed by Meyer (2002:56–58), the colonization by the media system clearly strengthens the agenda of political institutions responsible for public relations activities and stimulates the develop- ment of political consulting and media relations personnel. Strömbäck’s concept was created a decade ago, and it should be complemented by another, fifth phase of the development of mediatization of politics, which is connected with the arrival of social media in the field, particularly Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube. They have revolutionized political communication and have lead it into a new era. This process first took place during Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008 and continued in the subsequent American elec- tion campaigns in 2012 and 2016. This makes one consider the extent of the traditional forms of communication between political actors, journalists, voters, Bogusawa Dobek-Ostrowska - 9783631779507 Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/26/2021 08:38:54PM via free access 146 Mediatization and politics coverage in media and their significance. It also makes one wonder whether Twitter has not made journalists following the candidates in buses throughout the country obsolete (ʽTwitter Kills the Boys in the Busʼ) (Hamby, 2017:24). As the first analyses based on empirical research show (Davis, Holtz-Bacha and Just, 2017), the process by which social media gain significance in the mediatization of politics is very dynamic. The same phenomenon is visible also in Poland. Going back to our reflections on terminology, in the context of Asp’s (1986) conception the levels of influence, we can assume that mediatization will refer to the first level, i.e., the subject of influence on the media and their content, which means who performs the action and how. Thus, the concept of mediatization refers to the enormous and ever-growing influence of the media on the shaping of information on politics (Asp, 1986; Hjarvard, 2004; Mazzoleni and Schulz, 1999; Strömbäck et al., 2011; Strömbäck and Esser, 2009). In this case, it is not only about the perception of the media as a technology, organizations, or formats, but, first of all, as institutions actively participating in the process of political communication (Cook, 2005). Mediatization of politics is a multifaceted concept, which Strömbäck (2008b:235) illustrates with four vectors showing the directions in which the process develops: