Chapter 2 Media and politics in Denmark Nete Nørgaard Kristensen & Mark Blach-Ørsten Abstract In this chapter, we point to some of the changes and continuities that have char- acterised the interplay between news media and politics in Denmark during the last two decades. The chapter has three main focus areas: first, we present key institutions and players within the Danish political and media systems; second, we point to some of the theoretical approaches that have dominated political com- munication research in Denmark since the early 2000s, among them institutional and sociological perspectives; and third, we conclude by suggesting some of the differences between political communication in Denmark, as both practice and research field, compared to the other Nordic countries. We aim to balance the chapter between a media studies approach and a political science approach to political communication, but, contrary to much other Danish political communi- cation research, the chapter especially takes its point of departure in the former. Keywords: Denmark, corporatism, media subsidies, mediatisation, welfare state Introduction This chapter introduces political communication in Denmark, focusing especially on changes and continuities in the interplay between news media and politics from the early 2000s until today. First, we outline the main institutions and players within the Danish political system and media system. In regards to the political system, the chapter points to the weakened link between political parties and interest organisations, challenging the Danish corporatist structure, and to the increased splitting of the Danish political system into centre-left and centre- right blocs, challenging the tradition for broad consensus in Danish politics. In regards to the media system, a main focus is the mix of publicly and privately funded news media, including the most recent changes in Danish media policy and public news use, which suggest weakened political support for key public service institutions but increased attention to private news media. Kristensen, N. N., & Blach-Ørsten, M. (2021). Media and politics in Denmark. In E. Skogerbø, Ø. Ihlen, N. N. Kristensen, & L. Nord (Eds.), Power, communication, and politics in the Nordic countries (pp. 29–49). Gothenburg: Nordicom, Univer- sity of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855299-2 29 NETE NØRGAARD KRISTENSEN & MARK BLACH-ØRSTEN Second, we introduce some of the theoretical perspectives that have informed Danish research about political communication since the early 2000s, especially institutional and sociological perspectives to news and politics. One key ap- proach is mediatisation theory, which has especially influenced the intersection of media studies and political communication. Part of this research concerns the interconnected professionalisation of political communication (including public relations, spin, and lobbyism) and of political journalism (including journalism as an increasingly professionalised type of media labour). Audience studies is another approach that has played an increasingly significant role in Danish political communication research since the early 2000s. A common denomina- tor across these perspectives is that Danish political communication research has long been, and still is, informed by two relatively separate approaches – a media studies approach and a political science approach with little collabora- tion and interplay. Though we aim to balance the two, this chapter especially takes its point of departure in the first approach. Third, we conclude by pointing to some of the aspects that set political communication in Denmark, as both practice and a research field, apart from Sweden, Norway, and Finland. In terms of practice, a key difference is that politicians and political journalists in Denmark are in a state of “permanent campaign” due to the organisation of the national election terms. In terms of research, the continuous silos between media and journalism and political science perspectives make political communication a much more fragmented endeavour in Denmark compared to the other Nordic countries. The political system Denmark is a parliamentary democracy, and since 1953, Folketinget [the Danish Parliament] has consisted of only one chamber. Elections to the Danish Parlia- ment are based on proportional representation and held at least every four years, but it is within the power of the prime minister to call elections sooner, if they wish to do so (Esmark & Ørsten, 2008). The parliament has 179 members, including 4 elected from Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which belong to the commonwealth. Denmark is divided into three electoral regions (Metropolitan Copenhagen, Sealand-Southern Denmark, and Northern and Central Jutland) and ten multi-member constituencies subdivided into 92 nomination districts. The distribution of seats takes place at two levels, a multi-member constituency level and a national level. The first 135 seats of the parliament are allocated among the ten multi-member constituencies, while the 40 remaining seats are distributed in a compensatory fashion at the higher tier of the national level (Esmark & Ørsten, 2008; Blach-Ørsten et al., 2017a). 30 2. MEDIA AND POLITICS IN DENMARK Key characteristics of the Danish political system Denmark practices what is known as negative parliamentarianism, in which the government does not need to have a majority in the parliament, but it must not have a majority against it either. If there is a majority against the government, it must resign. The system of negative parliamentarianism allows Denmark to be run by a minority government. In fact, many Danish governments have been minority governments holding less than 90 of the 179 seats in the parliament. Another central characteristic of the Danish political system is its corporat- ist structure and tradition for consensus politics (Campbell & Pedersen, 2014; Christiansen & Rommetvedt, 1999; Esmark & Ørsten, 2008). Denmark has, just as Finland, Sweden, and Norway, a long tradition of corporatism, un- derstood as the organised negotiations and deliberations between the state, employer associations, and unions (Campbell & Pedersen, 2014; Vesa et al., 2018). Traditionally, the Nordic countries have been regarded as some of the most corporatist liberal democracies in the world. At the heart of the corpo- ratist structure is the so-called committee system. From the 1950s to about the mid-1980s, the system consisted of several hundred permanent tripartite committees – committees with members from the state, unions, and employee organisations – and focused on both policy development and policy implemen- tation (Blom-Hansen, 2000; Campbell & Pedersen, 2014). Turning to the party system, Denmark also fits the image of a multi-party system of consensus politics, as opposed to the dominance of two-party sys- tems in majoritarian politics. The oldest Danish parties are the Conservatives (historically called Højre [right]) and the Liberals (now called Venstre [left]), which were formed among members of parliament in the decades following the ratification of the Danish constitution. The Danish Social Democratic Party was founded in 1871 and obtained its first seats in parliament in 1884. In 1905, the Social-Liberals broke away from the Liberals, completing the list of four parties usually considered the “grand old parties” in Denmark (Esmark & Ørsten, 2008). Since then, several political parties have come and gone, for instance, the Danish Communist Party that was founded in 1919 and gained representation in parliament from 1945–1960 and again from 1973–1979, but not since (Campbell & Pedersen, 2014). Traditionally, parties were linked closely to the labour market associations, with the Social Democrats closely linked to unions, and the Liberal Party and Conservatives closely linked to business and agricultural interest organisations. Recent developments in Danish politics Today there are ten parties in the Danish Parliament making up two political blocs; the red and blue blocs. On the left, the red bloc includes the Social Demo- 31 NETE NØRGAARD KRISTENSEN & MARK BLACH-ØRSTEN crats, the Social Liberals, the Socialist People’s Party, the Red–Green Alliance, and the Alternative Party. On the right, the blue bloc includes the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Danish People’s Party, the Liberal Alliance, and the New Liberal Party. In a Nordic context, an important aspect of Danish politics is that the Social Democrats have not been as dominant as in Sweden and to some extent in Norway. Thus, power has shifted back and forth between the red bloc and the blue bloc in post-war Denmark (Esmark & Ørsten, 2008). Even though the Danish political system is basically very stable, there have been several changes in recent years. Esmark and Ørsten (2008) point to Europeanisation as one of the important changes to the Danish political and administrative system from 1973 (when Denmark entered the Common Market) and onwards. Another trend points towards a slow process of de-corporatisation starting from the mid-1980s and leading to fewer committees and a lesser focus on tripartite negotiations (Blach-Ørsten et al., 2017b; Blom-Hansen, 2000; Rommetvedt et al., 2013). According to studies by Blom-Hansen (2000) and Öberg and colleagues (2011), corporatism in Scandinavia peaked in the 1970s and 1980s and has declined, or weakened, in most sectors ever since. A study on corporatism in Finland by Vesa and colleagues (2018) suggests that corpo- ratism