The Influence of Personalisation in Political Speeches on Cynicism
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Communicatiewetenschap Afstudeerproject Politieke Communicatie en Journalistiek Onderzoeksrapport: The influence of personalisation in political speeches on cynicism Britt Willemsen (10001841) Begeleider: Jasper van de Pol Aantal woorden: 5561 Key words: personalisation, political interest, speeches, cynicism Abstract There is a perception of personalisation in Dutch politics and although there is no hard evidence for this trend, it is still a hot topic in the public sphere. Personalisation in The Netherlands is often perceived as a negative trend and the general belief is that it increases cynicism. This study looks into the effects of personalised speeches on cynicism and if political interest increases this effect, using an online experiment with a convenience sample. The results showed no significant relationship between personalised speeches and cynicism, and no moderated effect from personal interest. The results are discussed in the light of the theories and research on personalisation and political cynicism. 2 1. Introduction ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’, ‘I have a dream’. Two of the most famous quotes in recent history. These speeches contributed to the careers of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King and are still very well known today. There has been a great deal of research into how to give a successful speech. The rhetoric theory of Aristotle is a theory that is used in studies all around the world. Speeches are given to convince and persuade an audience. Therefore, giving successful speeches is one of the most important skills for a politician (Huys, 2004). At election time giving speeches is one of the most important tasks a politician has, notably in the US Elections in 2016, where it was visible that the Dutch media were more focused on the personalities and private lives of the candidates. Apparently the Dutch media believe that these parts of politics capture the interest of the Dutch citizen. Although in the USA there is a one party system whereas in Holland we have a multiparty system, it can also be said that the Dutch politicians and media are influenced by the American way of politics and media logic (Van der Lecq, 2016). This results in politicians sharing more private information and adapting to said media logic (Rahat, & Sheafer, 2007). In addition to their commitments to the party, politicians appear in entertainment shows and talk shows and speak about their personal lives instead of their political ideas. Boukes & Boomgaarden (2015) argue that when politicians show their ‘human’ side in these entertainment shows they attract a different audience and this can lead to more people being interested in politics. In the last decade several studies have investigated the phenomenon of ‘personalisation’. Van Aelst, Sheafer & Stanyer (2012) noted: “the general belief is that the focus of news coverage has shifted from parties and organizations to candidates and leaders.” However, when looking at studies about personalisation there is no convincing evidence for this personalisation trend (De Swert, 2016). Vliegenthart (2012) researched why people in Holland believe there is a personalisation trend despite the lack of proof. He concludes that there are more opportunities for the audience to get to know the politician in a personal way, for example in debates or entertainment shows. Furthermore, the Internet gives the opportunity for individual political communication. Vliegenthart (2012) also mentions the rise of the one-person parties and the fact that there is more attention on individual 3 power battles within the politics. Garzia (2011) states in his literature review that this perceived personalisation is partly caused by the technological innovations in the media such as the development of television and Youtube. This gives the political leaders more visibility. Furthermore, Garzia suggests that the way followers evaluate their leaders has changed. Followers start to judge leaders as a ‘person’, which eventually leads to a shift from idealized leaders to leaders that have to be able to connect with the public and have positive character traits. The fact that there is a perception of personalisation in Dutch society makes it an important topic for political communication research. When people believe that the politics in the Netherlands start to personalise there might be a change in their behaviour. Although we cannot speak for an increase in personalisation, there is much research about the effects. On the one hand personalisation makes politics interesting for an audience that normally would not be interested in politics. But with this positive side there also appears to be a downside; cynicism is a common effect of personalisation of politics (Ariely, 2015; Boukes & Boomgaarden, 2015; De Vreese, 2005; Jebril, Albæk & De Vreese, 2013). When politicians involve their personal lives into politics or focus too much on the individual rather than the party, citizens might feel tricked or gain suspicion. After all, these elements have nothing to do with politics. If citizens realise that, personalisation in politics could feel like a marketing trick and could therefore lead to cynicism. Much research has been done about personalisation focussing on soft news (Boukes & Boomgaarden, 2015). Speeches are often researched in terms of persuasive argumentation and rhetoric. However, there is a clear gap in the literature when looking at the effects of personalisation in speeches. Studies done by Campus (2002) and Campus (2010) focused on communication strategies in which speeches and personalisation play an important role. The general conclusion was that the politics in Italy and France have Americanised: “candidates evoke symbolic visions stressing leadership and personal characteristics instead of referring to the ideological and party symbols that dominated the old campaigns” (Campus, 2010). In addition, the political campaigns of Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy are compared. Sarkozy using his whole family in the political campaign is another example of Americanisation and personalisation in the politics. 4 Moreover, these studies all focused on Italy or France and due to the different political systems the results cannot be generalized to The Netherlands. In addition, these studies assume that there is a personalisation trend, but as mentioned before there is no evidence for this trend in the Netherlands. This research is designed to fill in this gap between the effects of personalisation in speeches in The Netherlands. In this study the following research question has been designed, figure 1 gives a schematic overview of the variables and conceptual model: To what extent does personalisation in political speeches lead to cynicism and what is the influence of political interest on this effect? 2. Conceptual Model Personalisation can be divided into individualisation and privatisation (Van Aelst, Sheafer & Stanyer (2012). Individualisation is defined as individual politicians who are presented and considered more as main actors in politics, whereas privatisation means to shift the attention for politicians in a public role to their private role. It is interesting to see how both elements have an influence on cynicism, since both elements are used to strengthen a political speech (Campus, 2010). Therefore in this study the overall concept of personalisation will be studied. As mentioned in the introduction, a possible negative effect of personalisation in speeches is cynicism. A common definition of cynicism is: ‘an individual’s attitude, consisting of a conviction of the incompetence and immorality of politicians, political institutions and/or the political system as a whole’ (Boukes & Boomgaarden, 2015). Jebril et al. (2013) found that privatisation generates cynicism, regardless of country, education or political interest. However, personalisation in news increased cynicism only for those with a high political interest. De Vreese (2005) found an increase in cynicism due to the use of personalisation as well; his conclusions are in line with Jebril et al. (2013). However, he did not distinguish individualisation from privatisation. Ariely (2015) found evidence that soft news undermines political trust and thus increases cynicism. Like Jebril et al. (2013) and De Vreese (2005) the findings indicate no differences between the 33 researched countries, which make the conclusions of this study generalisable. In addition, Boukes & Boomgaarden (2015) researched soft news and cynicism in The Netherlands specifically. The research 5 concluded that people who watch relatively more soft news are more cynical than people who watch more hard news. In contrast, Jebril et al. (2013) argued that political interest and knowledge was not a dependent factor. When looking at theories that focus on personalisation in speeches, it is useful to consider the rhetoric theory of Aristotle, as this was the first theory about giving successful speeches. Even today, the research that focuses on speeches is based on this theory. In the rhetoric theory of Aristotle he argues that there are three key factors that make a persuasive speech (Schuurs & Breij, 2008). Furthermore, it is essential that these elements are in balance. The first one is ethos; the audience has to define the speaker as credible. Second is logos; the speech has to contain logical and rational arguments. And finally, pathos; the speech has to appeal to the emotions of the audience. Moreover, ethos has to do with the character of the speaker (Huys, 2004). Breat