This article was downloaded by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ]

On: 12 May 2013, At: 01:02

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
Political Communication
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upcp20
Origins of the Crisis
of Communication for
Citizenship
JAY G. BLUMLER
Published online: 29 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: JAY G. BLUMLER (1997): Origins of the Crisis of Communication
for Citizenship, Political Communication, 14:4, 395-404
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105846097199191
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not
be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or
damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
395
Pol i ti cal Communi cati on, 14:395404, 1997
Copyright 1997 Taylor & Francis
1058-4609/97 $12.00 + .00
Origins of the Crisis
of Communication for Citizenship
JAY G. BLUMLER
University of Leeds, Universi ty of Maryland
Is Political Communication on the Slide?
Once upon a ti me, there seemed to be a much cl oser relationship between pol iti-
cal rhetoric and what ordi nary people were prepared to thi nk about and what they
cared about in their li ves. Whether I date the change from my boyhood in the
United States of the 1930s, from my fi rst work on voters reacti ons to a Bri ti sh
election in 1964 (Bluml er & McQuai l, 1968), or from my fi rst col laborati on with
Mi chael Gurevitch analyzi ng media-pol itics relationships i n the earl y 1970s (Gure-
vitch & Bl umler, 1977), pol itical communication has become more artifici al, l ess
nourishing, less trustworthy, more negati ve, and someti mes less relevant to the cen-
tral tasks of government.
Thi s is not to all ege that the occasions when peopl e, poli ti cians, and the press
engage i n open, cri tical publ ic debates about the uses of power are entirely lack-
ing (Bennett, 1993). Our democraci es sti ll have their better moments and better
days. Nevertheless, the poli ti cal communication process now strai ns against, rather
than wi th, the grain of ci ti zenship. Throughout the democrati c world, an i mpover-
ishing way of addressing voters about pol itical probl ems has been gaining an ever
more i nstitutional ly rooted hold that i s inherently di fficul t to resist or shake off.
Of course, i ndivi dual countries di ffer in thei r subjection to these forces. The
United States has al ways been excepti onal ly hospi table to them. Bri tai n, i n con-
trastbecause of its stronger party system, its system of parli amentary government,
the central role of publ ic service tel evi sion i n its medi a system, and its tradi ti onal ly
more respectful poli ti cal culturehas hitherto been more resistant to the ways and
values of real publ i zi sti k (Bl umler, Kavanagh, & Nossi ter, 1996). Neverthel ess, com-
pared with how things appeared in the late 1980s to Holl i Semetko, Mi chael Gure-
vi tch, others, and myself when wri ting The Formati on of Campai gn Agendas (1991),
the gap between the poli tical communication systems i n Britain and the United
States has been steadil y narrowi ng. In Britain, the peri od of al l-out campaigni ng
is l engthening, calcul ated attack campai gning is more frequent, journali sti c di sdai n
for poli ti cal publ ici ty i s more common (Bluml er, Gurevitch, & Nossi ter, 1995), a
media-led personal ization of pol itical confl ict is increasi ng, the medi a have played
a more central part in internal party leadership elections (Alderman & Carter, 1995),
and national pol itical i nstituti ons are bei ng cri ti cized more fiercely in the press.
Is Political Communication Facing a Crisis?
Does thi s amount to a crisis of communi cati on for citizenshi p? However probl em-
ati c, the question i s useful , making us face up to what we have and how we
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

1
9
9
7
.
1
4
:
3
9
5
-
4
0
4
.
396 Jay G. Bl uml er
should respond to it. As ever, the answer depends partly on what we mean by a
crisi s though, also, on how badly off we think we are!
Presumably we are not embroi led in anything li ke a grand crisi s of the Marx-
ist brand, faci ng an i mmi nent systemic breakdown that must be foll owed by ei ther
a new utopi a or a descent to barbari sm (Hont, 1994). If necessary, we can carry on
and l ive with most of our old ways of poli ti cal communication. To be fair, two
gains at l east can be credi ted to todays media-saturated politics: a more open
scrutiny of more corners of poli ti cal li fe, bri nging abuses of power to l ight that
might otherwi se have been kept under wraps (Birt, 1995), and the exposure of
more people, i ncluding those with l ittl e i nterest i n current affairs, to i nformation
about poli ti cal events and statements (Swanson & Manci ni, 1996).
More appropriate could be defi ni ti on of a crisi s as a di ffuse awareness that
practi ces may have to change and change sharply i f thei r core purposes are to be
sustained (Dunn, 1994). Viewed i n that li ght, the key questions are, Has there
been a clear deteri orati on i n the capacity of poli ti cal communication arrangements
to:
serve citizens more than poli ti cians and j ournali sts?
offer meaningful choices between governing teams and agendas?
promote a broad sense of partici pati on in government?
satisfy our symbol ic commitment to the noti on of democracy?
By these yardsti cks, we are surel y in cri sis!
What Are the Origins of This Crisis?
So how di d we get i nto this pl ight? The trends, probl ems, and discontents are too
uni versal for blame to fal l on the fai li ngs of thi s indi vidual or group here or that
individual or group there. The sources of our hardeni ng ci vi c communi cati on arter-
ies are i nstead structural ly systemic, accounted for by the dispositions of the three
main sets of pol itical communi cati on actorspol itici ans, journal ists, and audience
membersto respond adapti vely to continual ly evolving perceptions and behavi ors
of each other wi thi n a conti nual ly changi ng envi ronment, the dynamics of whi ch
are technologi cal, soci ologi cal, and poli ti cal.
Thus transformations productive of our present political communication arrange-
ments have occurred at four interwoven l evel s: broadl y societal, specifical ly pol iti-
cal , in the dynamics of inter-communi cator relationships, and at the level of voter
response.
Soci etal Transformati on. Most significant among the societal trends has been a rela-
tive but apparently irreversibl e di ssol ution of tradi ti onal ties. Instituti ons that previ-
ousl y organi zed meaning, i denti ty, and authoritati ve informati on for many peopl e,
that structured thei r pol itical preferences and si mpl ified the process of democrati c
power-seekingnotabl y, poli ti cal parti es, the nucl ear fami ly, mainstream reli gion,
the workplace, and neighborhood and soci al-class groupi ngsall have waned i n
sal ience and i nfl uence. In thei r pl ace, a more compl ex and fragmented soci ety has
developed, ful l of interest groups and contending value orientati ons. People have
thus been acquiring an ever more di sparate set of personal i dentiti es, as evidenced
by their ethnic affil iations, their rel igious al legi ances, thei r views of personal moral-
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

1
9
9
7
.
1
4
:
3
9
5
-
4
0
4
.
O ri gi ns of Cri si s o f Communi c ati on for Ci ti zenshi p 397
ity, their ideas about what is valuabl e i n l ife, thei r tastes i n art, music, and so forth
(Mil ler, 1995). In these conditions, moral consensus has decl ined, whil e the bases
of soci al confl ict have mul tipli ed. Mass media have also emerged as an auto-
nomous power center i n reci procal i nteracti on and competi ti on wi th other power
centers (Manci ni & Swanson, 1996), and citizens have become more dependent on
the media to navigate across a more compl ex l andscape of competing structures
and symboli c real ities.
Pol i ti cal Transformati on. In pol itics speci fi call y, the relationships of poli ti cal parti es
to their constituents have been transformed. Allegiances to and membership in major
parties have decl ined as has the voti ng l oyalty of those retai ning party identifica-
ti on; demographic correlates of party preferences are no l onger so predictive; and
pol itical sociali zation i s less effecti ve. Internal ly, parties are bei ng de-energi zed,
wi th fewer members taking part i n thei r activities (Seyd & Whitel ey, 1995). In the
electorate at large, voti ng has become l ess an act of soli darity and more an expres-
si on of personal opi ni on. All this has accel erated el ectoral vol ati lity and i ncreased
the importance of media-based campai gni ng through whi ch more votes may be
won or l ost. Consequentl y, pol itici ans and others seeki ng to influence publ ic opin-
ion have felt impell ed continually to cul ti vate and sharpen up thei r publ ici ty efforts
via the mass media.
Moreover, such vol ati li ty has coi nci ded with the onset of relativel y intractable
pol itical problems such as those of economic management, safeguardi ng the envi-
ronment, escalating demands and costs of social provision, and rising rates of crime,
drug abuse, and other i ndicators of social breakdown. Yet wi th soci etal consensus
fragmenting, there are more di sparate constituenci es for pol itici ans to try to sati sfy.
Overal l, the pol itical arena has become more turbul ent, less predi ctabl e, l ess struc-
tured, more di fficult to control. In such conditi ons, an ever-ready abil ity to handle
the medi a and the rapidl y changing flow of front-page news has become i ndispens-
abl e for pol iticians of al l stripes.
Two rel ated devel opments for medi a i n poli ti cs have ensued. Fi rst, their role
has become more pi votal . Individuals rely on them more often for social connect-
edness and pol iti cal awareness. Woul d-be opini on formers and pol iti cal parties and
their leaders rely on them more heavi ly to reach indi vi dual ci tizens and culti vate or
restore publ ic support. As McLeod, Kosi cki , and McLeod (1994) have concluded,
The center of the new pol itical system appears to be the media. The l ines of
access to news whi ch they afford, thei r ways of framing issues, their ways of con-
structing publ ic opi nion preferences and demands, and their occasi onal support for
particul ar poli ciesal l have become si gnificant if vari ably infl uenti al cards in the
poli tical game. The mediarather like a sul tan choosi ng his sleeping partner for the
ni ght by lotare sources of arbi trary favors!
Second, the mass media have been encouraged to adopt (or to aspi re to as-
sume) a more independent role i n pol iti cs, though I beli eve that they have not yet
found a fully sati sfactory and externall y defensi ble pl atform for performi ng that rol e.
But in a less party-minded soci ety, i t is correspondi ngly less viable for them to be
either a mere conduit for the poli ti cal messages of others or an unswerving backer
of one si de against others.
The Dy nami cs of Inter-Communi cator Rel ati onshi ps. Now we come to sources within
the organization of poli ti cal communicati on i tsel f. The key thought here is that i n
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

1
9
9
7
.
1
4
:
3
9
5
-
4
0
4
.
398 Jay G. Bl uml er
large, complex, industri ali zed societies, poli ti cal messages emanate from fi rmly
formed politi cal communication sy stems (Gurevi tch & Bluml er, 1990), i nvol vi ng
both the mutual adaptations and the opposed interests of poli ti cal advocates (in-
cl uding thei r advi sers), professi onal mediators, and electoral audi ences. Moreover,
in such systems political communi cation is essenti ally rel ati onal , with the key com-
muni cators continual ly studyi ng, interacti ng with, and respondi ng to each other.
Pol iti cians, for exampl e, do not develop in isol ation propaganda strategies that they
hope wi ll prove persuasi ve. Much of thei r publ ici ty i s based on careful readi ngs of
journali sts and voters predi lections. Si mil arly, as news medi a develop new for-
mats, pol itici ans adj ust thei r rhetoric; as pol itici ans develop tactics for placing their
messages in the media, j ournali sts erect new defenses of thei r autonomy; as publi c
senti ments toward poli tics shi ft, both poli tici ans and medi a personnel brood on the
impl ications and adapt (Bluml er, 1995).
In recent decades these systemi c relationships have been swept by four forma-
ti ve trends, as discussed by Blumler and Gurevitch, in The Cri si s of Publ i c Commu-
ni cati on (1995).
1) A thorough-goi ng professi onal i zati on of pol i ti cal adv ocacy . Arguably the most
signi fi cant development i n the pol i ti cal communi cati on process of contempo-
rary democracies, the professi onal izati on of poli ti cal communication is the near-
uni versal response of poli ti cal parti es (as well as many other would-be shapers of
publ ic opi nion) to the dissolution of previousl y more fi rm anchorages of pol itical
atti tudes, the increasi ng centrali ty of tel evi si on, and the prol iferati ng demands of
multiple news outl ets for instant comment and appearances.
Professionali zations contri buti on to political communi cati on has included sev-
eral i mpul ses. Fi rst, i t i s the antithesis of amateuri sm. Wagi ng publ ici ty competi ti on
through the media, massag ing journali sts news val ues, putti ng the best spin possible
on si gnificant stori es, fashioning pol itical advertising, desi gning opi ni on pol ls, and
interpreti ng thei r resul tsall requi re the skil ls of experts, who are si ngle-mindedly
dedi cated to the goal of victory i n such competi ti on, and for whom all other goals,
including poli cy and pol itical ly educati ve ones, are subordinate i f not i rrelevant. It i s
as i f nowadays all i s fai r in love and war and pol itical publi c rel ati ons!
Thus, a new rol e, that of the special ist poli ti cal consul tant, has been i njected
into modern democratic poli ti cs. These consul tants enjoy much i nfl uence and sta-
tus, appeari ng in some cases like latter-day equi val ents of the mi nence gri se. Their
emergence has enormously i ncreased the vi sibil ity of the machinery of mani pula-
ti ve publi city. The many news stories and feature arti cles about consultants activi-
ti es are often given the ful l journali sti c treatment, spiced wi th sensationali sm, exag-
gerati on, and hi nts of sinister effectiveness!
Other handmaidens of publi city professionalization have included the transfor-
mation of electioneeri ng into pol itical marketing, treating voters more as consumers
to be wooed with a product or an i mage than as ci tizens to be enli ghtened or
engaged in debate (Kavanagh, 1995; Scammell , 1995). Campai gning has become
data-driven, based on survey and focus-group research into voters perceptions, moods,
and desi res. There is more hard-bal l campaigning, based on the premi se that the
qui ckest and most effecti ve way to act on the balance of publi c opini on is to
mount strongl y negative attacks on ones opponents. There i s al so cl ose adaptati on
of pol itical rhetori c and leaders images to presumed medi a requi rementsas i n
ever shorter sound bi tes and stagi ng poli ti cal events wi th hi gh visual or symboli c
appeal.
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

1
9
9
7
.
1
4
:
3
9
5
-
4
0
4
.
O ri gi ns of Cri si s o f Communi c ati on for Ci ti zenshi p 399
However, merely adapti ve reactivi ty to the media is not qui te suffici ent for the
consummate professi onal . As Davi d Gergen advi sed President Reagan early i n hi s
fi rst term, To govern successfull y the government has to set the agenda; it cannot
al low the press to set the agenda for i t (Hertzgaard, 1988). Proactive strategi es of
media control are therefore needed, i ncl uding such devices as li miting journali sts
access to candi dates onl y to favorable moments and si tuati ons; taking part i n sol ip-
si sti c intervi ews, answering not the reporters questions but one s own; and, espe-
ci all y, concentrati ng al l ones publ ici ty on a preferred message, offering opponents
no hostages to fortune and j ournali sts no choice of any other theme to take to
media town!
2) The j ournal i sti c fi ght-back. Journali sts have not taken the professi onal ized
bombardment lying down, however, for they do not relish having their news choices
severel y narrowed by those whose acti vi ti es they are supposed to cover. Although
they may often report what has been served up to them on a plate, fashi oned to
satisfy their news values, they recogni ze and resent the fact that they are bei ng
used to pass on what the news massagers have dreamed up. Thus, in a system
domi nated by media savvy poli ti cians and consultants, j ournali sts feel in danger of
losing their autonomous rol e.
Certain characteristic features of poli ti cal coverage may therefore be regarded
as attempts by journali sts to re-establi sh control over their own product. One is a
fi xati on on process rather than substance, treating poli ti cs more as a gamewith
effecti ve and fail ed strategi es, dramatic ups and downs, victories and losses, and
wi th personali ti es large and small , heroic and vi llai nousthan as a sphere of pol icy
choi ces. Related to thi s is the frequent commissioning and reporting of opi ni on
pol ls. Yet another reacti on i s i nordinately heavy coverage of any bl unders that the
professionalized poli ti cians may happen to commi t, indulging i n feedi ng frenzies
over them (Sabato, 1991).
Most tel li ng, however, may be j ournal ists practi ces of di sdai ning pol itical
and campai gn news, coveri ng events in a manner designed to demonstrate the
reporters distance from propagandisti c purposes, indi cating that the event has been
contrived, descri bi ng how i t has been crafted, and presenting i t as a publ ic rela-
ti ons effort to be taken wi th a grai n of salt (Levy, 1981).
3) Normati v e uncertai nty about the ethi cal rul es of the new publ i ci ty game.
Such uncertai nty has ari sen from shi fting roles, i ncreased confli ct, and i ntensi fi ed
competi ti on among politici ans for electoral support and among medi a outl ets for
audi ence patronage. When does the journal ist cross the l ine between healthy skep-
ti cism and corrosive cynici sm? What is fair game or not in the exposure of l eaders
lapses from pol itical or personal grace? How intensely should hard ball negative
campai gni ng be waged? What disti nguishes acceptable attempts by poli ti cians to
puff up a favorabl e publ icity wi nd from manipul ation that i s beyond the pal e? How
much of the truth shoul d politicians tell , and how far shoul d journalists be moved
by the assumpti on that poli ti cians are congenital li ars? What should the more seri-
ous news media do about the gossi p, rumors, and scandal ous stori es that emanate
from the tabloi d press?
It is as if many j ournali sts face two opposing prescriptions these days:
(i) Pol itici ans shoul d be held accountable onl y for those acts that have a de-
monstrable publi c significance.
(i i) Pol itici ans are fai r game for al most anything that can be thrown at them.
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

1
9
9
7
.
1
4
:
3
9
5
-
4
0
4
.
400 Jay G. Bl uml er
The trouble is that i n the more competitive and hard-boil ed cl imate of both medi a
and poli ti cs today, the balance i s more often til ted to the l atter.
4) A reshaped sy stem. So, how, i n l ight of al l these devel opments, does the
modern pol itical communication system appear overall ? Two quali ti es seem to be
pl ayi ng a bigger part in shapi ng i t.
One is playful ness. Full of competiti ve spinni ng, adaptations, artful ness, moves,
and counter-moves, the modern publicity process has become more l ike an elabo-
rate game that all who want to get anywhere are obl iged to play. Its flavor i s neatly
captured by a British edi tor who decl ared:
There i s seldom a story comes at you that somebody hasnt an angl e to
it, most often a poli ti cian but frequentl y a celebrity, a show-biz star or
even a potential convict. The i dea of reporti ng these days i s as much
about why peopl e want a story to appear as about fi ndi ng the story
(BBC, 1995).
In addi tion, so far as the key players are concerned, thi s game seems to have
become more adversari al. Poli ti cal reporti ng i s more imbued with quali ti es of chal-
lenge, vigil ance, cri ti cism, and exposure at the expense of giving credi t where it
may be due, fai rl y recogni zing the di fficulties invol ved i n shouldering pol itical re-
sponsibi li ty, and a rounded pol itical coverage overall. As medi a framing of poli ti cs
has become increasingly negative (Patterson, 1993), leaders, bereft of strong parti es,
have l acked a sounding board to counter the press di scordant orchestrati on. All
this has inj ected an extra element of confli ct and mutual recriminati on into the
relationship of medi a personnel with pol iti cians, as i f they were engaged i n what
might be termed a chroni c state of parti al war.
Lev el of v oter response. So where does the would-be democratic citizen stand
in thi s new-fangled publi city system?
Not exactly at its centersince the preoccupati on of pol itici ans and j ournal ists
wi th their patterns of collusive confl ict tends to create what Jay Rosen (1993) has
termed a publ ic sphere commandeered by i nsiders, where voters needs to make
sense of ci vic probl ems get pushed to the margins (Graber, 1994).
Not exactl y wel l -nouri shedsi nce the system s fast-food offeri ngs tend to
shortchange pol icy substance, narrow the debate, bl acken the parti cipants through
negati ve campaigni ng, and omit some of the essenti al i ngredients of attracti ve and
meaningful communication, l ike spontanei ty, a bi t of unpredictabi lity, a sense of
adventure that coul d l ead to discovery, and a sense of wrestling with reali ty i nstead
of al ways tradi ng smoothl y i n appearances and percepti ons.
Not exactl y encouraged to get involvedsi nce the system is disseminati ng an
over-supply of oxygen for cyni cism. As McQuai l (1995) has put i t:
By concentrati ng on scandal , venali ty, and wrong-doi ng, the medi a do
li ttl e to enrich the public discourse. They work agai nst a mature pol iti cal
cul ture, which requi res i nformation, engagement, and some measure of
trust and altruism.
Arguably, such a bombardment also proj ects distorted views of the pol itical
process i tsel f. That process has certai nly been demysti fi edwi th poli ti cs as power-
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

1
9
9
7
.
1
4
:
3
9
5
-
4
0
4
.
O ri gi ns of Cri si s o f Communi c ati on for Ci ti zenshi p 401
seeking regularl y up front, whi le pol itics as a vocation, served by leaders with a
degree of pri ncipl e, sincere commitment, and visi on, i s l argel y relegated to the
obi tuary col umns! This must make fol lowing poli ti cs, for those who woul d li ke to
si ft the wheat from the chaff, immensely diffi cult. How, for exampl e, can Bri tons
today figure out whether Labor Leader Tony Bl air s proclamati on of New Labor
refl ects a princi pled commitment or just a marketi ng strategy?
I am uncertain, however, whether we have enough empi ri cal i nsight into vot-
ers responses to the main features of poli ti cal communi cati on these days. Much of
what we know about thi s comes from insistent medi a references to the publ ic s
di senchantment wi th i ts l eaders and instituti ons. Indeed, the media could be sai d
almost to be constructing for audi ence members how they are, and therefore shoul d
be, regarding thei r pol itici ans and i nstituti ons.
But perhaps that perception shoul d be treated more as a starti ng point for re-
search than as a defini ti vel y establi shed account of the publi c mood. Is the dis-
enchantment i n fact so pervasi ve, deep-seated, and strai ghtforwardly one-sided as
al leged, or i s i t tempered by other more positive ori entations to poli ti cs that the
prevaili ng construction i gnores? What part i s the communicati on of pol itics pl ayi ng
in any perceptions of thi s ki nd that peopl e may be forming? What ways of report-
ing and talking about poli ti cal i ssues mi ght help them to feel more constructi vely
involved i n the ci vic sphere?
Perhaps the ol d system wil l be bypassed by appl ication of the new informati on
technologi es. Fi restone and Clark (1995) have argued, for exampl e, that the new
interactive media, especial ly computing and networking, all ow people to fi nd ways
to hel p themselves rediscover the behavioral val ues of face-to-face partici pati on. It
is true that i n technologi call y advanced soci eties more peopl e are obtai ning word
processors and can look forward to the prospect of downloading stores of pol itical
informati on and of engaging i n interacti ve exchanges wi th poli ti cal l eaders and
each other. In the United States especi all y, several interesti ng proj ects are under
way, desi gned to provide hi gh-qual ity poli ti cal informati on to members of the
publ ic, foster meaningful exchanges between citi zens and candidates, and provi de
models of public deli beration and decision taking. But worthwhileand worth per-
severing withas they are, in the end such approaches are unli kely to displ ace and
wi ll probably onl y suppl ement the mai nstream medi a of poli ti cal communication.
Most peopl e wi ll continue to foll ow poli ti cs mainl y through tel evi sion, radi o, and
the press, and competi ng pol itici ans wi ll continue to invest most of their publ ici ty
effort i n material s for those media.
Can Civic Communication Be Revitalized?
Are we all , thencitizens, pol iti cians, j ournali stsfated to li ve unhappi ly ever af-
terwards i n our frustrati ng pol itical communi cati on system? Can t we stop playi ng
these demeani ng games? Can the cri sis of communication for citizenshi p be over-
comeor at least signi fi cantly eased? In concl usi on, I shall bri efl y consider three
possibl e avenues of systemic rel ief.
New Technology to the Rescue?
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

1
9
9
7
.
1
4
:
3
9
5
-
4
0
4
.
402 Jay G. Bl uml er
The People to the Rescue?
For a deeper system-changi ng impact, a better bet might be a second develop-
mentthe i ncreasing incursion of a populi st current into poli ti cal communica-
ti on. In both the Uni ted States and Britain, at least, the status of the publi c voice i s
being upgraded. Instead of being positi oned onl y to attend to and overhear the
vi ews and arguments of others, the experi ences, probl ems, and pri ori ti es of
ordi nary people are being el ici ted more often, and they are bei ng encouraged to
discuss social and pol itical probl ems in a number of new communication vehicles
li ke cal l-in programs, electronic town meetings, extended i nterviews with call -i n
segments, tel evi sed ci ti zen juri es, and, especial ly, broadcast talk shows.
Many serious commentators are impressed wi th these developments. They see
tal k show democracy as having at last released communi cati on about civi c i ssues
from i ts constri cting straitjacket. Communicati on for citizenshi p is being rescued (it
is clai med) by the l ikes of Larry King, Phi l Donahue, Oprah Wi nfrey, Arseni o Hal l,
and the producers of MTV! Tom Patterson (1993) considers that in the United
States their i nterventi ons helped to energi ze the 1992 campaign and gi ve people a
sense of partici pati on in i t. Soni a Livingstone and Peter Lunt (1994) mai ntai n that
on the whol e these vehicl es are extendi ng and refreshing the publi c sphere. Appre-
ci ati ng their enhanced potenti al for unstructured expressi on, Susan Herbst (1995)
regards pol itical di scussi on on the tel ephone as a healthy reacti on agai nst the in-
creasing systematization and routinization of the public sphere that Habermas (1989)
charted and depl ored.
Most welcome in this development i s restorati on of the ordi nary ci ti zen as a
si gnificant point of departure for pol itical communicators and, properly, as an ac-
ti ve parti cipant i n publ ic discussion. This redresses one of the most striki ng fai li ngs
of conventi onal arrangements as they evolved under the infl uence of systemic pres-
sures. On the other hand, these new forms often tend to purvey pol itics as a form
of popular cul ture. Although this may draw more people i nto the poli ti cal process
and serve as a coin of exchange for li vely debate throughout soci ety (Fiske, 1995;
Gurevi tch & Kavoori , 1992), i t also tends to stage politics as spectacl e and theater
and can suffer from gl itzi ness and shall owness. The upgrading of popul ar views
often entai ls a downgrading of experti se, and all too often populi st programs de-
generate into bear pi ts. The rol e of the studio audience becomes l ittle more than
that of providing a range of confli cti ng vi ews wi th mini mal exchange, a process of
argument-hoppi ng with some i deas cut off abruptly in midstream, a plethora of
poi nts without structure. In short, communication-for-citizenshi p requi res deli bera-
tive not si mpli sti c popul ism.
Publ ic communi cati on wi ll not be si gnifi cantly revi tal ized unless a third path can
be devel oped: Pol itical j ournali sts must strive somehow to transcend stale and
steri le notions of thei r ci vi c role. None of the pl atforms from whi ch they usual ly
derive their pol itical coverage is democratically vi abl e:
1) Reactive reporting of party/candidate ini ti ati ves?fail s to j oi n the debate.
2) Conventi onal news val ues?di stort poli ti cal pri orities for the sake of more
immediate exci tement and gratification.
Public Journalism to the Rescue?
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

1
9
9
7
.
1
4
:
3
9
5
-
4
0
4
.
O ri gi ns of Cri si s o f Communi c ati on for Ci ti zenshi p 403
3) Independent criti ques of party/candi date stands?are essentiall y destructive.
4) Publ ic opinion poll reporti ng?can only register where peopl e are pres-
entl y, not advance the debate.
But given the inescapably central position of the media in present-day democ-
racy, a fifth platform awai ts constructi on. As Rosen (1993), Hal li n (1992), Asard
and Bennett (1997), and others have suggested i n di fferent ways, l eading news
organi zati ons shoul d ai m to create and recreate a nati onal agendabased on
a synthesi s of publ ic opi nion, party perspectives, and expert viewson the maj or
concerns of the day. Used as a basis for deci ding whether pol itici ans news i nitia-
ti ves and statements deserve attenti on and for organizi ng further publi c di scussion,
this could hel p to break the many vici ous cycl es of impoverishi ng communi cati on
in which press-poli ti cian relationships are so thoroughl y ensnared at present.
References
Alderman, Keith, & Carter, Neil . (1995). The l abour party l eadership and deputy l eadership
elections of 1994. Parl i amentary Affai rs, 48(3), 439456.
Asard, Erik, & Bennett, W. Lance. (1997). Democracy and the marketpl ac e of i deas: Com-
muni cati on and gov ernment i n Sweden and the Uni ted States. New York: Cambridge
Uni versity Press.
BBC, The Spi n, broadcast on BBC-2, September 20, 1995.
Bennett, W. Lance. (1993). A pol icy research paradigm for the news media and democracy.
Journal of Communi cati on, 43(3), 180189.
Birt, John. For good or ill? The Role of the Modern Media. Independent Newspapers Annual
Lecture, Tri nity College, Dublin, February 3, 1995.
Blumler, Jay G. (1995). Introducti on to pol itical communication. Unit for M. A. in Mass
Communications by Distance Learning, Lei cester Uni versi ty, Leicester, Engl and.
Blumler, Jay G. & Gurevitch, Mi chael . (1995). The cri si s of publ i c communi cati on. London
and New York: Routledge.
Blumler, Jay G., Gurevi tch, Mi chael, & Nossi ter, T. J. (1995). Struggles for meaningful elec-
ti on communication: Television journal ism at the BBC, 1992. In Ivor Crewe & Bri an
Gosschalk (Eds.), Pol i ti cal communi cati ons: The general el ecti on campai gn of 1992.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blumler, Jay G. , Kavanagh, Dennis, & Nossiter, T. J. (1996). Modern communications vs.
traditional pol itics in Bri tain: Unstabl e marri age of convenience. In David L. Swanson
and Paolo Mancini (Eds.), Pol i ti cs, medi a and modern democracy. New York, Praeger.
Blumler, Jay G. , & McQuail, Denis. (1968). Tel ev i si on i n pol i ti cs: Its uses and i nfl uence.
London: Faber & Faber.
Dunn, John. (1994). Preface to Contemporary Cri si s of the Nation State? [Special i ssue]
Pol i ti cal Studi es, 42, 315.
Firestone, Charl es M., & Clark, Catherine H. (1995). Democrati c values in the new media
age. Intermedi a, 23(5).
Fiske, John. (1995). Medi a matters: Ev ery day cul ture and pol i ti cal change. Minneapolis:
Uni versi ty of Minnesota Press.
Graber, Doris A. (1994). Why voters fail i nformati on tests: Can the hurdles be overcome?
Pol i ti cal Communi cati on, 11(4), 331346.
Gurevi tch, Mi chael, & Blumler, Jay G. (1977). Linkages between the mass media and poli-
ti cs: A model for the analysi s of politi cal communi cati on systems. In James Curran,
Mi chael Gurevitch, & Janet Wool lacott (Eds.), Mass communi cati on and soci ety . Lon-
don: Edward Arnol d.
Gurevi tch, Michael, & Blumler, Jay G. (1990). Political communi cati on systems and demo-
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

1
9
9
7
.
1
4
:
3
9
5
-
4
0
4
.
404 Jay G. Bl uml er
cratic val ues. In Judith Lichtenberg (Ed.), Democracy and the mass medi a. New York
and Cambridge: Cambri dge Uni versity Press.
Gurevi tch, Mi chael, & Kavoori, A. P. (1992). Tel evi si on spectacles as politics. Communi ca-
ti on Monographs, 59(4), 415420.
Habermas, Jurgen. (1989). The structural transformati on of the publ i c sphere: An enqui ry
i nto a category of bourgeoi s soci ety . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hal lin, Dani el C. (1992). The passi ng of the high modernism of American journal ism. Jour-
nal of Communi cati on, 42(3), 1425.
Herbst, Susan. (1995). On electronic public space: Talk shows i n theoreti cal perspecti ve.
Pol i ti cal Communi cati on, 12(3), 263274.
Hertsgaard, M. (1988). On bended knee: The press and the Reagan presi dency . New York:
Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Hont, Istvan. (1994). The permanent crisis of a divi ded mankind: Contemporary crisis of the
nati on state in historical perspecti ve. Pol i ti cal Studi es [speci al i ssue], 42, 166231.
Kavanagh, Dennis. (1995). El ecti on Campai gni ng: The new marketi ng of pol i ti cs. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Levy, Mark R. (1981). Disdaining the news. Journal of Communi cati on, 31(3), 2431.
Livingstone, Sonia, & Lunt, Peter. (1994). Tal k on tel ev i si on: Audi ence parti ci pati on and
publ i c debate. London and New York: Routledge.
McLeod, Jack M., Kosicki, Gerald M., & McLeod, Douglas M. (1994). The expanding bound-
aries of political communication effects. In Jenni ngs K. Bryant & Dolf Zi llmann (Eds.),
Perspec ti v es on medi a effects. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McQuail, Denis. (1995). New roles for new times?. Medi a Studi es Journal (speci al i ssue on
Media and Democracy), 9(3).
Mancini, Paolo, & Swanson, David L. (1996). Politi cs, media and modern democracy: Intro-
duction. In David L. Swanson & Paolo Mancini (Eds.), Pol i ti cs, medi a and modern
democracy : An i nternati onal study of i nnovati ons i n el ec toral campai gni ng and thei r
consequences. New York: Praeger.
Mi ller, David. (1995). Citizenship and pl uralism. Pol i ti cal Studi es, 43(3), 432450.
Patterson, Thomas E. (1993). Out of order. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Rosen, Jay. (1993). Politics, vi si on and the press: Toward a public agenda for journalism. In
Jay Rosen & Peter Tayl or (Eds.), The new news v . the ol d news: The press and pol i ti cs
i n the 1990s. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
Sabato, Larry J. (1991). Feedi ng frenzy : How attac k j ournal i sm has transformed Ameri can
pol i ti cs. New York: The Free Press.
Scammell, Margaret. (1995). Desi gner pol i ti cs: How el ecti ons are won. Basingstoke and
London: Macmillan.
Semetko, Hol li A., Blumler, Jay G., Gurevi tch, Michael, & Weaver, David H. (1991). The
formati on of campai gn agendas: A comparati v e anal y si s of party and medi a rol es i n
recent Ameri can and Bri ti sh el ec ti ons. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Seyd, Patrick, & Whiteley, Paul F. (1995). Labour and conservative party members: Change
over time. Parl i amentary Affai rs, 48(3), 457471.
Swanson, David L. , & Manci ni, Paolo. (1996). Patterns of modern electoral campaigning
and their consequences. In David L. Swanson & Paolo Manci ni (Eds.), Pol i ti cs, medi a
and modern democracy : An i nternati onal study of i nnov ati ons i n el ectoral campai gni ng
and thei r consequences. New York: Praeger.
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

1
9
9
7
.
1
4
:
3
9
5
-
4
0
4
.