Populist Political Communication in Europe

Toril Aalberg, Frank Esser, Carsten Reinemann, Jesper Stromback, Claes De Vreese, Toril Aalberg, Frank Esser, Carsten Reinemann, Jesper Stromback, Claes De Vreese

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317224730
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

In an increasing number of countries around the world, populist leaders, political parties and movements have gained prominence and influence, either by electoral successes on their own or by influencing other political parties and the national political discourse. While it is widely acknowledged that the media and the role of communication more broadly are key to understanding the rise and success of populist leaders, parties and movements, there is however very little research on populist political communication, at least in the English-speaking research literature.

Originating from a research project funded by the European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research (COST), this book seeks to advance this research. It includes examinations 24 European countries, and focuses on three areas within the context of populism and populist political communication: populist actors as communicators, the media and populism and citizens and populism.

Part I Introduction and Conceptual Challenges

1 Introduction Comprehending Populist Political Communication

Toril Aalberg and Claes H. de Vrese

DOI: 10.4324/9781315623016-1

Introduction

Although populist politics is a well-known phenomenon in many European democracies, its communicative aspects have been underexplored or often ignored. Yet—in light of the current large-scale social, political, and economic turmoil of recent populist backlashes against governments, and of the changing media environment—the study of populist political communication has never been more important. The purpose of this book is to provide information and knowledge about the conditions that give rise to the presence (or absence) of populist political communication and about its impact in different European democracies.

Over the years, as populist parties have gained electoral success, an increasing number of researchers have started to study populist parties and their supporters. To understand populism as an increasingly pervasive phenomenon in European politics, it is crucial to understand the characteristics and organization of populist parties as well as their electoral foundation. However, as we will show throughout this book, communication—a key element of this phenomenon—has mostly been overlooked. Systematic knowledge is sparse on questions related to populist actors as communicators, to the role of the media, and to the impact of populist communication strategies on citizens. This sparsity is surprising since the populist zeitgeist, as signaled by Mudde (2004) more than a decade ago, was in part seen to be caused by the media’s preference for, and receptivity toward, populist actors.

We believe that it is more important now than ever to map, dissect, and explicate the phenomenon of populist political communication. As populism increases over time and space, we need to understand how communication may be related to populism’s growth. Given that previously marginalized populist actors have become a significant and powerful part of the political scene in many European countries, an important question is whether their position is related to the way populists communicate and interact with the media.

Although specific, systematic, comparative research is lacking, several arguments have been put forward suggesting that communication plays a significant role in the rise of populism. Populist parties are said to be more dependent on the media for communication because they have weaker party organization compared to the old, traditional parties. Another argument is that the news media tend to welcome the dramatic headlines that are created by populist actors; some scholars therefore claim that the more commercial media—such as tabloid newspapers and private broadcasters—give increasing attention to populist actors, because the accompanying headlines attract larger audiences (Mazzoleni, Stewart, & Horsfield, 2003). If this association is true, populism will increase as media systems across Europe become more commercialized. Thus, we have a striking paradox: Although it is widely acknowledged that the media and, more broadly, the role of communication are key to understanding the rise and success of populist leaders, parties, and movements, research on populist political communication is scant. The few exceptions that exist are typically scattered across various country-specific case studies in a variety of languages. We therefore have yet to fully understand this phenomenon and the challenges that it poses.

This book offers the first systematic, large-scale, comparative review of extant research on populist political communication in Europe. The review covers research published not only in English but also in the native language of each participating country. Native-language research is a resource of particular value, since most of what we know about populism and communication is based either on the international literature or on only one or two specific cases. In this first chapter, we will provide an introduction to the central debates related to the phenomenon of populist political communication and offer an outline of the book’s organization and the method behind the country reviews.

Central Debates

The few studies that have empirically explored populist political communication highlight the role that communication and the media play in populist politics. These studies have broken important ground and point to potentially important problems. But they also have significant shortcomings: they tend to be single-country studies, to offer very small comparisons, and to focus on single elections, organizations, or individuals. They do not capture many of the latest developments or look at populism in an integrated way. Most research also treats populism as a danger to democracy. Yet a more neutral and comprehensive understanding that takes populism seriously as an expression of democratic malaise may be more productive. It might open our eyes to the conditions that are responsible for making this political communicative style currently so popular.

In the study of political communication, the focus typically centers around three key actors: (a) the political parties, candidates, or movements, (b) the media, and (c) citizens as voters and audience. One central insight is the importance of the mass media in widening the appeal of populist political actors. Many scholars maintain that populist actors need the “oxygen of publicity”, which is often supplied by the mass media. For instance, in his examination of European far-right parties, Ellinas (2010) found that the media control the gateway to the electoral marketplace and that they enable smaller, newer groups to reach larger audiences than their resources would ordinarily allow (see also Bos, van der Brug, & de Vreese, 2010; Mazzoleni et al., 2003). No guarantee is given, however, that all publicity is good publicity. For example, some researchers observe that the media can act as a foe in relation to the appeal of populist actors. As Bos, van der Brug, and de Vreese (2011) found in the Netherlands, how populist actors are portrayed is important. Populist actors often receive critical coverage in the “elite” media and favorable coverage in the popular press (Mazzoleni et al., 2003). That said, other studies suggest that the picture may be more complex with no simple binary divide between elite and tabloid newspapers (Akkerman, 2011).

Some scholars have argued that context is important. For instance, Mazzoleni et al. (2003) note that the media might be more likely to give coverage to populist actors when certain salient issues dominate the news. Similarly, Walgrave and De Swert (2004) found that by focusing on certain issues, such as crime and immigration, the media aided the rise of the populist Vlaams Blok in Belgium (see also Ellinas, 2010). Other studies suggest that populist actors can help their cause through the adoption of particular communication strategies and the use of the Internet, thereby bypassing several obstacles posed by more traditional media (see Atton, 2006; Bartlett, Birdwell, & Littler, 2011; Mazzoleni et al., 2003). Context also seems to influence how populist parties are perceived and how they communicate; for example, successful populist parties seem to lose their protest appeal or even tone down their populism entirely (Schumacher & Rooduijn, 2013; Rooduijn, de Lange, & van der Brug, 2014).

It is important to stress, however, that the study of populist political communication must not be confined to the analysis of populist actors only. Indeed, Jagers and Walgrave (2007) note that populism can also be seen as a political communication style, one that contains a central binary between an “us” and a “them” (see Chapter 2 in this volume for a further discussion). In this respect, populist communication is not a question of either/or, but rather one of strength, degree, and type. Others have identified what they call common populist frames (see Caiani & della Porta, 2011; Rydgren, 2005). Studies of populism in the popular media have found that some tabloid media outlets in the United Kingdom readily appropriate populist binaries in relation to immigration and the European Union (Stanyer, 2007). Other studies demonstrate that mainstream political parties and their leaders are not averse to using populist political rhetoric (Cranmer, 2011).

A handful of studies have examined the media’s impact on support for populist actors. These studies have generally found a link (in some countries) between the prominence of anti-immigration issues in the news and the share of support for anti-immigration parties, even when controlling for other factors (see Boomgaarden & Vliegenthart, 2006, 2009; Gerstlé, 2003). Other studies have found that watching commercial television correlates with opposition to immigration, whereas the opposite is true for public service news (Karlsen & Aalberg, 2015; Strabac, Thorbjørnsrud, & Jenssen, 2012). There is no consensus on the effect of different communication channels, and it might be, for instance, that the Web reinforces the views of those who already identify with extreme political ideas (see Bartlett et al., 2011).

The studies mentioned above have broken important ground and started a timely debate, but in many regards, they have failed to look at populism in an integrated way, since none of them has explored the relationship between populist actors, the media, and citizens cohesively. Without a concerted and co-ordinated effort, we believe that the impact of populist political communication on democratic life cannot be fully understood.

Many of the key shortcomings in the previous literature can be grouped according to three main challenges. The first challenge is to define populist political actors and communication and to determine communication success. While studies have tended to focus on right-wing (neo-populist) political actors and their antagonism toward conventional political elites, the potential diversity of populist communicators must be recognized. The existing understanding of what constitutes populism and populist actors must be rethought, taking account of the diversity of actors and discourses that permeate the mediated public spheres of European democracies. Many, but by no means all, of these actors could be described as right-wing neo-populists. Moreover, a range of left-wing groups have been actively involved in protests (e.g., SYRIZA in Greece, the Socialist Party in the Netherlands, The Left in Germany, and the Left Front and the Communist Party in France). In addition, transient-issue entrepreneurs fighting for single causes are on the rise, including the Pirate Party in Sweden and Germany and the 5 Star Movement in Italy. These examples of populist actors cannot be classified neatly as right-wing neo-populists, although they may share similar populist communication strategies.

The extent to which the use of public relations strategies empowers populist political communicators must be understood. Research in political science and communication science shows that the use of such strategies can enable advocacy groups to set the media agenda, but is this success replicated elsewhere? Similarly, at a micro level, the personal communicative qualities of individual actors require more exploration. To what extent do rhetorical skills, for example, enhance or retard actors’ ability to get their message across? Moreover, the spread of the Web and the proliferation of social media have provided new spaces for political actors to exercise their voices and to interact with a new generation of citizens. Is the Web enhancing the communicative potential of populist actors? And if so, in what way? To what extent is the Web being used by populist political actors to engage citizens and mobilize supporters? Of course, it is also important to build on existing piecemeal insights into the populist political communication styles and frames that have been adopted by mainstream political parties in order to further investigate the extent to which this process has taken place. Finally, comprehensive assessments of populist political actors and their communicative activities outside election campaign periods must be made. Understanding the extent to which populist discourse enters the mainstream requires a more inclusive and longer term perspective than mere election campaigns.

The second challenge is to establish the media’s role in the promotion of populist politics. We believe that the current view of the media’s role in enabling or retarding the growth of populist politics is likely too simplistic. Conclusions on this topic become even more pressing given the widely documented commercialization and growing competition in the media environment and the rise of the Web. In some countries, the competitive online networked environment may provide populist actors with news opportunities that allow them to “crash” the established media gates. With online news being increasingly driven by readers, potential exists for grassroots campaigns to shape news agendas. Drawing on research from the United States, it is possible to imagine situations where extreme views shape the editorial policies of certain media. As the power of traditional, established media outlets wanes in many polities, we need to move away from traditional gatekeeper models and recognize the increasing complexity of the environments in which media organizations now operate. It may well be that commercialization, growing competition, and the Web weaken the traditional publicizing function of established media outlets, but these forces may also encourage some ratings-driven outlets to pander to populist reactionary political agendas and to adopt populist frames on a range of prescient political issues.

The third challenge is to understand the effects that populist messages have on citizens and how citizens engage with populist political communication. Current approaches have focused almost exclusively on election campaigns and the media’s impact on support for populist actors. In this context, well-documented trends in n...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Frontmatter Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• PART I Introduction and Conceptual Challenges
• PART II Populist Political Communication in Northern Europe
• PART III Populist Political Communication in Western Europe
• PART IV Populist Political Communication in Southern Europe
• PART V Populist Political Communication in Eastern Europe
• PART VI Conclusions
• List of Contributors
• Index