Comparing Political Communication

Barbara Pfetsch

Hallin and Mancini's Comparing Media Systems has provided Mass Communication research with valuable tools to compare media settings from a transnational viewpoint. However, most recent contributions around media systems theory focus on suggesting new dimensions or variables to update the three models presented in the authors' book, leaving behind the discussion concerning the factors galvanizing the transformation processes. We then ask: What factors explain the transformation of media systems? Through a literature review and the discussion of an extensive array of examples from different countries, our essay formulates new insights to refine a crucial concept in media studies. We examine material, institutional, and cultural logics of change to point out how the described transformations might unfold at different paces in particular social systems. By resorting to the idea of "critical junctures," our essay illustrates how supposedly isolated shifts in the media systems can have unexpected impacts.

For the fifth edition of Caramani’s textbook Comparative Politics (OUP, 2020), we have fundamentally revised our chapter from the previous edition and updated it in the light of the latest literature. We describe the emergence of hybrid ecosystems of political communication in model form and propose them as macro-units for comparative research. On the basis of this model, we provide a systematic overview of the scholarly literature on comparative political communication research.

The relationship between the media and the political process is a dialectical, involving action and reaction. Media reports and analysis of political activity, is a resource for political actors and their counselors. Media, or those who work in it, should be seen as an important political actor in themselves. They not only send messages to the public political organization, but they change the message through a variety of news-making process and interpretation. What politicians say is not necessarily what the media reported as politicians desire. In addition, the media made a statement about their own politics, whether in the form of comments, editorials, and interview questions. Media reports may have a significant impact on the wider political environment.

Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2012 Comparing Political Communication Pfetsch, Barbara ; Esser, Frank Abstract: This chapter describes the maturation of comparative political communications as a subdiscipline and defines its conceptual core. It then lays out the concept of “political communication system”. At the macro-level, this model captures the patterns of interaction between media and politics as social systems; at the micro-level it captures the interactions between media and political actors as individuals or organizations. Comparative research in this tradition focuses on the structure of political communication systems, its culture, the construction and dissemination of messages, and the effects of those messages. A wealth of empirical studies is systematized according to the dimensions of this heuristic and evaluated in terms of their contribution to a better overall understanding of comparative political communication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203149102-36 Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-76143 Book Section Published Version Originally published at: Pfetsch, Barbara; Esser, Frank (2012). Comparing Political Communication. In: Esser, Frank; Hanitzsch, Thomas. Handbook of Comparative Communication Research. London: Routledge, 25-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203149102-36 INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION (ICA) HANDBOOK SERIES HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE Robert T. Craig, Series Editor COMMUNICATION RESEARCH Selected titles include: Cheney/May/Munshi-The Handbook of Communication Ethics Wahl-Jorgensen/Hanitzsch-The Handbook ofJournalism Studies Stromback!Kaid-The Handbook of Election News Coverage Around the World Esser/Hanitzsch-The Handbook of Comparative Communication Research Edited by Frank Esser Thomas Hanitzsch �� o�J!;��up NBNYORKANDLONDON Contents First published 20 I 2 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY lOO 17 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OXI4 4RN Row/edge is all impri11t of the 'f(1ylor & Fra11cis Group. 011 i11jorma busi11ess © 2012 Taylor & Francis S eries Editor's Foreword RoBERT T. CRAtG ix Foreword xi JAY G. BLUMLER The right of Frank Esser and Thomas Hanitzsch to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Contributors XV All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any elec tronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1i"culemark 11otice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for On the Why and How of Comparative Inquiry in Communication Studies identification and explanation without intent to infringe. 3 FRANK EsSER AND THOMAS HANlTZSCH Libra1y of Co11gress Catalogi11g i11 Publicatio11 Data Handbook of comparative communication research I edited by Frank Esser and Thomas Hanitzsch. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. PART II: DISCIPLINARY DEVELOPMENTS I. Communication, lntemational. 2. Communication-Research. I. Esser, Frank, 1966--11. Hanitzsch, Thomas, 1969- 2 P96.15.H368 2012 302.2-dc23 25 BARBARA PFETSCH AND FRANK EsSER 2011034392 3 ISBN: 978-0-415-80271-0 (hb) ISBN: 978-0-415-80275-8 (pb) 4 Typeset in Times and Helvetica by EvS Communication Networx, Inc. 48 Printed and bound in the United States of America by Edwards Brothers, Inc. Comparing Development Communication 64 ]AN SERVAES ( 5 Comparing Computer-Mediated Communication KEVIN B. WRtGHT AND JOSHUA AVERBECK 81 6 Comparing Visual Communication MARION G. MOLLER AND MICHAEL 94 Certified Sourcing www.sliprogram.org SFI-00453 Comparing Organizational and Business Communication BERNARD McKENNA, VICTOR J. CALLAN, AND ClNDY GALLOIS ISBN: 978-0-203-14910-2 (eb) �SF I' Comparing Political Communication 7 GRJFFIN Comparing Intercultural Communication 119 YOUNG YUN KIM 8 Comparing Language and Social Interaction L34 DAVID BOROMISZA-HABASHI AND SUSANA MARTINEZ-GUtLLEM 9 Comparing Gender and Communication GERTRUDE J. ROBINSON AND PATRICE M. BUZZANELL 148 V 2 Comparing Political Communication Barbara Pfetsch and Frank Esser ( It is hard to underestimate the role of communication in politics as "political life in any mass soci ety is impossible without established methods of political communkation" (Pye, 1937, p. 443). It is also self-evident that varying settings of political communication systems affect mass political behavior and the working of democracy differently. However, political communication systems are highly differentiated in themselves and conditional on contextual influences. Thus, the more we compare the various aspects of political communication, the more complex our view on politi cal life becomes. Findings from comparative political communication research often reflect this compleJtity, and they can rarely be reduced to a simple denominator. At the same time comparisons often unveil contrad ictions and dilemmas of the communication of politics, which makes it hard to produce a smooth synthesis of comparative political communication research. In this chapter we aim to do three things. First, we discuss the implications of political communication and its relevance for democratic governance. This reflection is designed to demonstrate the usefulness of the comparative approach in this field. Second, we introduce a heuristic model of the political communication system that allows us to identify and contextualize the relevant dimensions, actors, and message flows. This model shall help us to lay out some of the important trajectories of com parative research and lines of scholarly debate. In particular, we scrutinize (a) structures, (b) cul tures, (c) messages, and (d) effects in the comparative study of political communication research. Third, we close the chapter with a reflection of current challenges and future perspectives. S ome of them are rooted i n the general limits of comparative social research; others stem from changes in the wake of globalization and digitalization of political communication. They threaten not only the boundaries of the nation-state and the way the media interfere with democratic governance but also our search for meaningful concepts for understanding political communication. DEFINING POLITICAL COMMUNICATION Before we can systematize the comparative literature we need to clarify the term "political com munication." Pye (1993) defi nes political communication as "the flow of messages and informa tion that gives structure and meaning to the political process" (p. 442). It refers to "processes of communkation t hroughout society which affect politics in any manner," such as shaping public opinion, the political socializing of citizens, and the mobilizing of interests. WinfTied S chulz (2008, p. 367) links the exchange of political messages to the actors, namely "all groups, organizations, and individuals who are participating in the process of collectively binding 25 26 ·-·, -. BARBARA PFETSCH AND FRANK ESSER decision making on the distribution of scarce resources in society." They all use communication to further their political goals. Yet, of central importance is also the public to whom the messages are directed. The public includes citizens, voters, and audiences which may act as consumers but also senders of political messages. In this vein, citizens joining a political rally, discussing politics with friends and family, or using political online platforms to inquire about party posi tions in electoral campaigns, are involved in political communication. At the same time, watching television news or reading blogs must also be regarded as political communication. In fact there is an even more passive function of the public that is important to recognize: For politicians, the anticipated public will is an action-guiding projection that influences t heir framing of messages and their interactions with the media. Citizens, journalists, and political decision-makers-be it actively or passively-are equally dependent upon the communication function in order to be able to relate to each other. In its most general meaning, political communication involves interactive processes of in formation as well as formal and informal modes of message flow. While the informal processes of political communication refer to arcane politics, backstage decision-making, or diplomatic negotiations, communication research is primarily interested in the public mode of political com munication that is inevitably tied to the mass media. Front-stage messages in political life are exchanged via the media (either "old" or "new") particularly in the form of news content. In fact, political communication cannot be separated from the function and the logic of mass media as well as their outcome and effects (Pye, 1993, p. 443). Therefore, Norris (200la, p. 11631), in her definition of political communication, refers particularly to the news media. She stresses that political communication should be seen as "an interactive process concerning the transmission of information among politicians, the news media, and the public." Of course, more recently other forms of content than just news have been recognized as relevant for political communication (infotainment, political comedy, daily talk) but will not be a focal point of this chapter. The strong linkage to the media has an important implication. I t emphasizes that political communication is directly affected by the t ransformational changes currently observable in the media landscape due to the advent of new information and communication technologies. The interne! has created new cyber-geographies t hat are no longer tied to the n at ion-state and are much harder to regulate-also with respect to journalistic norms for on line political communica tion like fairness, accuracy, completeness, pluralism, and so on. On the upside, the rnternet has opened up opportunities for new voices, new modes of interaction and engagement and for new definitions of what constitutes politics. On the downside, critics point to a further fragmentation of the public sphere, a cacophony that further undercuts political effectiveness and democratic governance, and a further erosion of the distinction between journalistic news and non-news ( Dahlgren, 2005). This sea-change has triggered a new era for comparative political communica tion research (Norris, 2011a) where questions that were seemingly answered already need revisit ing and where answers that were valid in the past deserve reviewing. The fact that the evolution of political communication in modern societies proceeded in distinct stages (see Blumler & Ka vanagh, 1999) underscores also the necessity of combining spatial with temporal comparisons to capture longitudinal processes of change across and within political communication systems (Biumler, McLeod, & Rosengren, 1992). NORMATIVE FOUNDATIONS The study of political communication has always been strongly entangled with the reasoning about governance and democracy. Issues of political communication are held against the norma- COMPARING POLITICAL COMMUNJCATION 27 tive standards and the goals of political regimes and their consequences on people's thinking and behavior. Already the early studies on the political effects of the mass media in the 1930s (see Schmitt-Beck, Chapter 25, in this volume) were driven by the desire to learn about the im pact of political propaganda on the citizens. And even more in the postwar period, the study of political communication has been closely tied to the development of modern mass democracy. Democratic standards have always been the undercurrents as regards normative roots of political communication theories. Issues of political culture and democratic orientations as well as issues of deliberation, discourse, and public debate have inherently been issues of political communica tion. The normative bias may also account for the fact that the body or political communication research in non-democratic contexts and in phases of system transformation is rather scarce. The normative proposition in this reseru·ch is the implication that political information is an indispensable resource for politicians and citizens alike and that a viable democracy can only survive if the people have the chance to get an enlightened understanding of political processes (Dahl, 1989). This perspective is emphasized in the "mobilization perspective" that highlights the media's positive impact on civic participation and engagement (Non·is, 200 I b). However, the normative implications are also working in tl1e other direction, as there are also critical and pes simistic accounts of the relationship between communication and democratic citizenship. I n the debate about "media malaise," eroding trust in political institutions, political cynicism, decline of social capital, and decreasing levels of political efficacy have been traced back to the portrayal of politics in the media (Putnam, 1995; Robinson, 1976). This has led, particularly in the 1990s, to an intensified discussion about the quality of "mediated" democracies which had come under stress by the growing intrusion of the media in many pru·ts of the political process (for details see Bennett & Entman, 2001; Blumler & Gurevitch, 1995, 2000; Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999). Political communication research has always been strongly connected with theories of pub lic space and public sphere. This introduces a stmng n ormative aspect t o the consideration of the communication aspects of politics, sirlc e concepts of public sphere do have an underlying con notation of considered reasoning in publics as opposed to symbolic or strategic politics. Require ments to the quality of political communication and public d iscourse, however, vary depending on which normative models of democracy are being applied. Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards, and Rucht ( 2002) argue that the requirements of political communication in the media vary accord ing t o the liberal representative, the liberal participatory, the deliberative, or the constructivist model of democracy.' Strombiick ( 2005) and Benson ( 2008) make the same point: countries around the globe employ more than one model of democracy, and the expectations in the media and per formances of the media with regard to democratic news standru·ds differ considerably (see also Christians, Glasser, M cQuail, Nordenstreng, & White, 2009). Traditional news media analysis implicitly carries on the normative criteria of liberal representative or liberal pruticipatory ideas of democracy. However, a strong strand of recent political communication research relates to normative discourse theories. These rest on the deliberative model of democracy and focus on the formation of considered opinions through ru·gumentative exchange (Habermas, 2006; Wessler, 2008; Coleman & Blumler, 2009). Since there has always been a strong normative conjunction with democratic standards, countries that did not fit into the model of full-fledged Wes tern democracy were long neglected in comparative political communication research. During the time of the Cold Wru·, these countries were categorized as authoritarian or totalitarian states and either excluded from further investi gation or considered sub-par (Siebert, Peterson, & Schramm, 1956). Emphasis on standards of Western democracy also contributed to a neglect of the communication arrangements in Third World countries whose political regimes fell outside established categories. At best, the com munication structures and processes in developing countries were looked at under the auspices 28 BARBARA PFETSCH AND FRANK ESSER of the Anglo-American reading of modernization theory (Thussu, 2006). Perhaps it is no coinci dence that the maturation of comparative political communication research dates after the end of the Cold War when fundamental processes of system transformation and communication were set into motion. This development also provoked more differentiated approaches to democratic media roles (Hallin & Mancini 2004) and stimulated new comparative angles of political com munication research (Dobek-Ostrowska, Glowacki, Jakubowicz, & Stikosd, 2010; Hallin & Man cini, 20 12). In the meantime, scholars have become sensitive not only to the path dependency of democratic development but also the role of the media in political development. Eventually it was well understood that the comparative approach is indispensable to analyzing political com munication in different types of democracy and processes of democratization.2 Realization of the variations in democratic systems and cultures around the world was a major driving force for the comparative approach being applied earlier in political communication than some other areas within tl1e communication discipline. THE RATIONALE OF COMPA RATIVE POLITICAL COMMUNICATION Whjle political communication is closely tied to democratic governance, within this framework its manifestation depends on the contextual envimnment in which jt takes place (McLeod, Kosicki, & McLeod, 2002). Democratic political communication arrangements evolve differently under the influence of divergence contextual factors. This has led Mancini and Hallin (20 12) to claim that "theorizing tlle role of context is precisely what comparative analysis is about." Comparatjve analysis can take a spatial (cross-national) or temporal (longitudinal) perspective, and ideally both are combined to study over-time processes like convergence of medja systems. For reasons of space thjs chapter concentrates on spatial comparisons. In this understanding, comparative political communication research is occupied with con trasting geographically defined units, usually comparing nation-states, but also local areas or world regions, at one or more points in time (Blumler et al., 1992). In our earJjer work (Esser & Pfetsch, 2004, p. 385; Pfetsch & Esser, 2004, p. 9) we have defined comparative political com munication research as comparisons between a minimum of two political systems or cultures (or their sub-elements) with respect to at least one object of investigation relevant to communication research. The approach differs from non-comparative studies in tlu·ee points. It allows us to gain insight, which (a) is essentially of an international nature, (b) allows for conclusions about more than one system and more tl1an one culture, and (c) explains differences and similarities between objects of analysis with the contextual conditions of the surrounding systems or cultures. Comparative research guides our attention to the explanatory relevance of the macro-con textual environment for communication processes and outcomes. lt aims to understand how the systemic context shapes communication phenomena differently in different settings (BlumJer et al., 1992). The research is based on the assumption that different parameters of political and media systems differentially promote or constrain communication roles and behaviors of organi zations or actors within those systems (Gurevitch & Blumler, l990a). Thus, comparativists use factors at the macro-societal level as explanatory variables for differences found in lower-level communication phenomena embedded within the societies (Blumler et al., 1992). This explana tory approach aims to overcome more pedestrian comparisons of convenjence that "use other countries merely as places to situate the same investigation that one would have conducted at home" (Gurevitch & Blumler, 2004, p. 327). Instead, the goal is to test hypotheses about the effects of system-level variables on actor-level processes of political communication and to use methodological sophistication to detect cross-level causal linkages. COMPARING POLiTICAL COMMUNICATION 29 While comparative communication research has clear aspirations beyond mere description, explanation is not the only goal. Another goal is tlle clarification of validation of concepts that can be used to build typologies for classifying cases (Hallin & Mancini, 2004, p. 2). Classifications seek to reduce the complexity of the world by grouping cases into distinct categories with identi fiable and shared characteristics. The concepts used to differentiate the cases need to be identified or constructed by the scholar. In sum, we see-in ascending importance-four scientific goals for the comparative study of poJjtical communication: (a) contextual description of similarities and djfferences; (b) formation and validation of concepts that can be used to systematically differenti ate cases; (c) construction of complex typologies that use these concepts as multiple dimensions to classify a broader range of cases; (d) isolate variables in the dimensions and cases of these ty pologies, treat them as independent and dependent variables, posit relationships to exist between them, and illustrate these relationships comparatively in an effort to generate and build theories. independent (explanatory) variables are usually at a hjgher analytical level than the dependent (outcome) variables. It is in this last step where causal inference, quasi-experimental logic, as well as most different or most similar systems designs, enter the picture (Przeworski & Teune, 1970; Landman, 2008). The general logic of comparative inquiry applies not only to political communication as a whole but also to specific fields such as campaign communication, political journalism, or politi cal effects. In fact, comparative research in these subfields is so rich and multifaceted that they are dealt with in separate chapters of this Handbook (see Chapter 16 by Hanitzsch & Donsbach, Chapters 18 and 19 by Esser & Stromback, and Chapter 25 by Schmitt-Beck, in this volume). This explains, for example, why readers will find only a few references to election communica tion in this chapter. ln all these subfields of political communication we are confronted with tlle micro/macro problem of social analysis. On the macro-level we postulate the existence of two societal sys tems-media and politics-and examine their patterns of interaction across national settings. At tlle same time, there are manifold interactions within the media and political system that involve the micro-level of individual behaviors as well as organizations and groups. The fact that political communjcation takes place at the interface between media and politics and encompasses features from both sides (to eventually constitute a "composite unity"; Blumler & Gurevitch, 1995, p. 26), and the fact that within both realms the micro-level and macro-level aspects interact, makes the comparative study of political communication fairly complicated. The complexity becomes man ageable by concentrating on clearly stated, problem-oriented research questions that are derived from a broader theoretical framework developed explicitly for the comparative study of political communication processes. A framework model that fulfills these requirements is that of a "po litical communication system" (Pfetsch, 2008). It lends itself to testing hypotheses on selected aspects of political communication that also include macro/micro linkages and their contextual conditions. A MODEL OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM In order to apply the logic of comparative research to political communication within and across nations we are proposing a heuristic that builds on earlier work by Blumler and Gurevitch ( 1995). It conceives processes of political communication as an ordered system, and this system is com posed of actors and structures which can be related to each other and its environment in sys tematic terms (Pfetsch, 2008). It stipulates relationships between varying macro-level contexts and lower-level communication phenomena embedded within them. The nature of the political ( 30 _..... BARBARA PFETSCH AND FRANK ESSER COMPAR1NG POLITICAL COMMUNICATION communication system is conceived as a two-dimensional structure of producing, processing, and communicating political messages. First, it implies a horizontal dimension which depicts the interaction between media and political actors to produce messages for a mass audience. This interaction involves individual-level interactions between political actors and journalists and is directly influenced by the institutional conditions of the media and political system of a country. Second, the political communication system includes a vertical dimension which refers to the message flow that is produced at the interface between media and politics, on the one hand, and the public, on the other. This vertical dimension involves processes and consequences of the use and effects of mediated political messages on the citizen's level. As Figure 2.1 illustrates, the Long-term formal and informal interactions, creating "patterned" types of relationships over time MEDIA -·· POLITICAL actors, actors, organizations, organizations, institutions institutions MESSAGE FLOW -- (various channels, varying degrees of message control) PUBLIC participating citizens or consuming audiences; individual or organized civil society actors Figure 2.1 Political communication system. 31 flow of messages operates top-down from political and media actors to the public, horizontally through linkages among political actors through the media, and also bollom-up from public opin ion toward government authorities and legacy media organizations (Norris, 200I a, p. 11631). Eventually the model implements the idea of a triangle-relationship between political actors, the media, and the audience (Blumler & Gurevitch, 1995; see also Brants & Yoltmer, 20l l ) . On the horizontal level, representatives of the media and political system act together at times collaboratively (by mutually benefiting from the exchange of publicity against authoritative information) and at times competitively (by trying to keep the upper hand in the joint production of political messages and frames). The competitive, conflictual relationship between media and political actors has been studied extensively in comparative studies on election communication (and is addressed in Chapters 18 and 19 by Esser & Strombiick, in this volume). The common reference point of media and political actors is the public to which their message flow is direct ed. The public includes citizens (in their political role) and consumers (in their audience role); citizens can act individually or collectively; collective civic society actors include associations, interest groups, and movements. The wishes of the public relate to information needs, but also political preferences and demands. These needs and demands converge into "public opinion" that is monitored closely by media and political actors alike. There is high anticipatory pressure on both camps to be responsive to public sentiments and "market" their messages accordingly. In this sense, the social construction of public opinion can be understood as an input variable to the political communication system. The output variable includes the composition of political mes sages and their effect on the public. Here we can discern persuasive effects on attitudes, affective responses to emotional appeals, and cognitive effects on awareness, perceptions, and knowledge. The essential value of this theoretical framework lies in its potential to inform the compara tive study of political communication. Lf the political communication system is conceptualized as interplay between communication actor roles and outcome, the comparative approach is most valuable to study the conditions under whicb these processes and outcomes of interaction operate and vary (Pfetsch & Esser, 2004). Within the framework of political communication systems like in all social science inquiry-different levels of analysis must be discerned, and social inter action must be thought as a constellation of micro and macro links (McLeod et al., 2002; McLeod & Lee, Chapter 27, in this volume). Moreover, political communication systems can emerge at sub-national, national, and transnationallevels. Lf we review the state of the art of political communication research in the light of our model, comparative research has been done about (a) the structure of the political communication sys tem, namely how political communication is organized across countries, and (b) the culture of political communication, namely how political communication is engraved in the aggregate ori entations and behaviors of the actors like politicians and journalists. Moreover, we find compara tive research (c) on the construction and dissemination of political messages under the influence of specific structural and cultural conditions and (d) on the consequences of these messages on individuals and pub1ics, namely effects on political orientations, knowledge, and behaviors. In all four areas, the differentiation between macro- or micro-analytical perspectives of so cial inquiry is of eminent importance. In a macro-analytical perspective, we usually compare structures or cultures of communication on the country or group level. Here we usually work with aggregate data or system level data and compare the units of analysis on this level. In micro-an alytical studies, the country or group variable is usually tackled as a context variable of political communication. It is assumed that the national environment impacts on individual level linkages. This research usually works with nested designs within which correlations or causal relations are established. However, contextual effects are relevant for both micro- and macro-level relation ships in political communication. 32 -- BARBARA PFETSCH AND FRANK ESSER Our model of the political communication system is useful because it highlights the most important dimensions and actors which would have to be included in a comparative study of the overall system. Thus, its value lies in its contribution to the theoretical understanding of political communication. However, as a concept for empirical research, it is rather abstract and needs further substantiation. It includes many dimensions that must be accounted for if a theory or hypothesis is to be translated into an empirical design. It comes without surprise that to date hardly any study brings together all areas and aU levels of analysis. Usually macro-analytical or micro-analytical empirical studies address only selected aspects, remain unconnected, and their findings are seldom viewed in one picture. Thus the state of the art in comparative political communication research is that multil evel stu dies which systematicaUy include data on political and media institutions, the interaction of political and media elites and their messages, as well as reactions of the public to these outcomes, remain a theoretical vision that is rarely translated into comprehensive empirical designs. Besides uncertainty about multilevel theorizing an important limitation often lies in the unavailability of reliable data. Where the data can be collected in a large-scale study and can be organized in a multilevel data set, the methodological and statistical challenge of analyzing the data adequately must be met. We will return to these points in our conclusion. Any attempt to synthesize the wealth of isolated studies that each turn to individual aspects is not an easy task. We will use our model as a guiding structure and concentrate on those studies that contribute to the four areas of emphasis as outlined above: (a) the structure of political com munication systems, (b) its culture, (c) its message flows, and (d) its message effects. Comparing Structures of Political Communication Investigating the structures of the political communication system requires looking at the macro level relationships between media institutions and political institutions and how this relationship is organized within a specific country. A first influential yet imperfect attempt came from S iebert et al. ( 1956). Much more relevant in our context is an early conceptualization by B lumler and Gurevitch ( 1975) which argues that political communication systems can be compared along four dimensions: ( I ) degree of state control over mass media organization, (2) degree of mass media partisanship, (3) degree of media-political elite integration, and (4) the nature of the legi timating creed of media institutions. This framework served as the foundation for Hallin and Mancini's (2004) typology of media-politics relationships which has become a central reference point for comparative politi cal communication research. It distinguishes three models-a North Atlantic "liberal" model, a northern European "democratic corporatist" model, and a southern European "polarized plural ist" model. These types differ along four crucial dimensions. Hallin and Mancini left Blum ler and Gurevitch's first dimension largely intact which captures the degree and form of state intervention in the media, mainly with regard to regulation, ownership, finance, and subsidies, as well as formal controls and informal influence. B lumler and Gurevitch's second and third dimensions are treated by Hallin and Mancini as related components of political parallelism. This category refers to the extent to which media content reflects distinct political orientations or allegiances; the extent to which role perceptions and professional practices of journalists reflect neutrality or partisanship; the extent to which media have organizational connections to political parties, churches, trade unions, or civil society associations; the extent to whkh career advance ment of media personnel is conditional on political affiliations; and the extent of partis anship in the audience of a media organization. B lumler and Gurevitch's fourth dimension essentiall y coincides with Hall in and Mancini's professionalization dimension. Professionalization captures, COMPARJNG POLITICAL COMMUNlCATION 33 for example, the degree to which journalists can enjoy autonomy in exercising their functions; the degree to which jou rnalism has developed as a differentiated social field; the degree to which journal ists see themsel ves and are seen by society as serving the public as a whole rather than particular sectors or actors; and finally the kind of shared norms and standards of journalistic practice. To this, Hallin and Mancini added commercialization as a furt her dimension (specifi cally the historical development of mass-oriented press), and-equ ally important-they added five dimensions related directly to political system factors.3 The framework by Hallin and Mancini has triggered a lively debate on how to further im prove it. B esides its confinement to the West as a result of its most similar systems approach, the framework was mainly criticized for not being comprehensive enough. According to critics (Hardy, 2008; Humphreys, 201 1; Non·is, 2011 a), systems of media-politics relationships should be compared along additional dimensions that have direct implications for the st ate's regulato ry style toward the media, for the public's preferences and demands vis-a-vis the media, and for the quality of the communication output. These dimensions include the diffusion and use of new information and communication technologies; the geographical size, economic weight, and transnational penetration of media markets; the ethnic and l inguistic heterogeneity of media audiences; and the extent to which media policy jurisdiction and market competition are centra lized. It has further been argued that the influence of legal provisions and media policy styles on aspects like press freedom and journalistic independence deserve greater attention; the same was said for media concentration and its impact on diversity of editorial content. Systems of media-politics relationships may also be categorized according to the degree to which the news media are capable of fulfiUing democratic functions such as enhancing a free flow of information, providing a diverse forum for public debate, mobilizing participation, and acting as a watchdog against the abuse of power. Humplu·eys (2011) and Non·is (2011a) provide ample evidence of cross-national findings that speak to these additional dimensions and would potentially enrich fu ture comparisons of political communication systems. A dimension that certainly deserves more explicit allention is the integration of the Internet into the structures of political communication systems-and in how far it contributes to their destabilization, refiguration, or enhancement. Of the many sectors where tl1e Internet has become integrated in political communication systems already (for details see DahJgren, 2005), only few have become the object of cross-national comparisons-for instance on how national audiences (Non·is, 2011 a), parliamentarians (Zittel, 2004), or election campaigners (Kluver, Jankowski, Foot, & Schneider, 2007; Ward, Taras, & Owen, 2008; Lilleker & Jackson, 2011) make use of the Internet. The last point is essential since great attention is currently devoted to comparing e-campaigns (see also Esser & Stromback, Chapter 18, in this volume). Non·is (20 I la) further argues that the comparative study of political communication may follow the "Hallin and Mancini approach" as a starting point but must go seriously beyond it and combine it with alternative approaches. For this, she argues, the specific processes within political communication systems must be studied with easy-to-measure, clearly operationalized criteria. This, in her view, is even more important than getting caught up in refining categorical typologies of national communication systems that run the risk of reproducing outdated understandings of "mass" communication, media "systems," and "nation-state"-bound communication fl ows which no longer fit the realities of today's globalized, multimedia world. Non·is (20 11 a) proposes a procedural instead of a systemic approach and suggests that comparativists should focus on six components of the political communication process: (a) the communications infrastructure, (b) the regulatory environment, (c) the structure of media ownership, (d) the skills and capacities of the journalism profession, (e) the contents of political communications, and (f) the effects of communications. Even though we do not share the critique of structure-based categorizations 34 BARBARA PFETSCH AND FRANK ESSER of media-politics systems in the tradition of Hallin and Mancini (for details of her criticism see N orris, 201la), we do agree that structural dimensions m ust be supplemented with dimensions that represent the inner workings of the political communication system and dimensions that cover the actors, professional cultures, messages, and effects of political communication across all levels of analysis. This fully concurs with our understanding of the political communication system as developed above and depicted in Figure 2.1. Comparing Cultures of Political Communication ...-· Comparisons of political communication systems m ust be complemented by studying the at titudinal underpinnings of the media-politics relationship. For a fuller picture of the working of political communication, one has to understand the milieu of the interaction between political and media actors and its cultural foundation. This refers to the orientations that guide the roles of actors and their practices. In particular, it relates to the degree of media-political elite integr!l tion in Blumler and Gurevitch's (1975) initial comparative framework. These orientations are at the core of concepts that use the term "culture." In the social-scientific perspective, culture in the m ost general sense captures "a set of ideas (values, attitudes, and beliefs), practices (of cultural product ion), and artifacts (cultural products, texts)" (Hanitzsch, 2007, p. 369). In political com munication research, it refers basically to two large strands of comparative research on values and attitudes: Studies on joumalism culture examine the professional orientations of media per sonnel and explore whether these attitudes converge across cultures and countries; second, stud ies on political communication culture focus on orientations of both politicians and journalists and investigate the interaction norms underlying their mutual exchange. Both lines of research complement studies on political elites orientations which have been an established branch of comparative empirical research in political science since the 1970s (Engelstad & Gulbrandsen, 2006; Masamichi, 2008; Putnam, 1 976). The comparative study of political elites, which is nevertheless a longstanding field, has not been updated recent ly by systematic new data. rt mainly relies on overviews of country studies (Engelstad & Gulbrandsen, 2006; Masamichi, 2008). In the area of journalism culture, despite a vast array of approaches and empirical st udies, unt il recently convincing theoretical concepts were 1nissing and the debate was heavily biased towards the Anglo-American ideal which did not work as a proper measure across diverse cultural contexts (Hanitzsch, 2009). However, the com parative study of journalism cultures has gathered pace recently. There is not only a lively theo retical debate about global journaLism and its attitudinal correlates (Reese, 2008), but also the endeavor to capture role perceptions and occupational ideologies empirically (Donsbach & Pat terson, 2004; Weaver & Willnat, 20 12). Hanitzsch developed a framework for investigating the principal differences in journalists' professional roles and identities around the world. Since he aims at a universal theory of journalism culture he strives at abstract and functionally equivalent general categories that allow the identifying of commonalities of journalism in various national and cultural settings. Hanitzsch's (2007) concept of journalism culture denotes three dimensions: orientations towards (a) institutional roles, (b) epistemologies, and (c) ethical ideologies. All of them are relevant to political communication, since they determine how journalists approach po litical actors and treat their information. Particularly the dimension of institutional roles, which includes (i) beliefs about an active, advocate vs. passive role definition of a journalist, (ii) the at titude towards political and economic power, and (iii) whether the audience is treated as citizens or as consumers, is highly valuable for the comparative study of political communication. The dimension of epistemologies denotes orientations about the search for truth like (iv) objectiv ism and (v) empiricism. Finally the concept also includes ethical dimensions referring to moral COMPARING POLITICAL COMMUNICATION 35 values like (vi) relativism and (vii) idealism. The empirical results show that truth, factuality, and reliability of inform ation are shared values that reach beyond national idiosyncrasies whereas in terventionism, power distance, and objectivity are culturally driven orientations that set Western societies apart from developmental and transformation countries (Hanitzsch et al., 2011; see also Hanitzsch & Donsbach, Chapter 16, in this volume). While research on journalism culture focuses on the orientations of media actors , the con cept of political communication culture captures orientations, attitudes, and norms of both media actors and political actors. lt assumes that under differing structural conditions specific cultures of i nteraction between political actors and journalists will develop. The essential value of politi cal communication culture lies in its capacity to provide an analytical framework for assessing norms and values of political communication actors in a comparative design. It allows for ap plying research designs in which the attitudinal patterns of political communication actors (or subgroups) can be related to national contexts (or context below the nation-state) . There are basically two varieties of the concept. First, Gurevitch and Blumler (2004) em brace the im pact of political culture on forms and ex pressions of political communication. Their main concern is t o identify key dimensions along which political cultures differ and translate into specific forms of political communication. This concept helps entangle the cultural roots of various forms of political expression, which come to the fore in the construction and appre hension of political messages, the vocabulary of politics, the culture of journalism, the inter relationships between media and politics, and the relations between political comm unication elites and citizens. These forms of political expression are influenced by the political system, media system, and citizenry. Gurevitch and Blumler (2004, pp. 467-468) propose to measure the relationship between the media and political systems on a continuum of autonomy vs. sub ordination. The media system comes into play by the norms that define the roles and functions of media for society. Here the measures range between an essentially critical watchdog function vs. a nation-building or state-supporting role for the media. The expressions of political culture may vary with respect to the relationship between citizens and their political system which is expressed in the notion of citizenship. Here the poles are alienation or apathy, on the one end, and political engagement, on the other. The framework of Gurevitch and Blum ler (2004) is instructive because it captures how political norms are translated into political communication norms. However, it does not help us understand the milieu of interaction between political actors and journalists empirically. Here the second approach by Pfetsch (2004) enters the picture. Her aim is to provide a tool for the empirical measurement and comparison of actor's orientations in political communication across countries. In this approach political communication culture is defined as attitudes towards specific objects of political comm unication, which determine the manner in which political ac tors and the media communicate vis-a-vis the general public. Following this definition, the attitu dinal objects refer to (a) the institutions of exchange relations between politics and the media; (b) the input side of political communication such as public opinion; (c) the output side of political comm unication such as the agenda-setting processes ; and (d) the role allocations and norms of professional behavior. The normative basis of national political communication systems can be described and compared along these orientation patterns . It is important to note that the self image of politicians and their spokespersons, on the one hand, and jomnalists, on the other, are characterized by tens ions resulting from conflicting interests of their institutions of origin. Thus, politicians view communication as an instrument to gain or retain political power while journal ists see communication as a duty (and a business) to inform the public about what is at stake. This is clearly demonstrated by a first empirical assessment of orientations that guide the relationship between politicians and journalists (Pfetsch, Mayerhoeffer, & Maurer, 2009). 36 - BARBARA PFETSCH AND FRANK ESSER Current research into political communication culture focuses on Western democracies. One trajectory is to classify the interface between media and politics according to four types. ln this typology (see Pfetsch, 2 004) a media-oriented political communication culture is to be distinguished from a party-oriented political communication culture. Whereas in the former the milieu between media and politics is domi nated by the media logic, political power-calculations determine communication relationships in the latter. The third type, a public-relations-oriented poli tical communication culture depends primarily on the close relationship between journalism and political public relations. Finally the type of a strategic political communication culture is defined by the dominance of the political logic which is deployed by the strategic use of political public relations to anticipate the media logic (Manheim, 1998). [n the future, the link between the structural conditions of political communication and the given dominant constellations of actor attitudes needs to be explored further with more rigorous designs. It would also be intriguing to connect the types of political communication culture to Hallin and Mancini's (2 004) types of media-systems relations (for a first attempt see Pfetsch & Maurer, 2 008). Finally, the methodological challenges of aggregating individual-level orienta tions of actors to macro-level manifestations of cultures need to be solved. Comparing Messages of P olitical Communication A central feature of political communication systems is the exchange of messages. Within our systemic model as depicted in Figure 2.1, we can distinguish an inputflow (into the media-poli tics system) and an output flow (back to the public) of political messages. The input flow starts with representatives of the public and their expectations and demands. These aspects are often captured in the representation of public opinion expressed in survey data or polls. A core function of the mass media in any democratic system is to "transform" these ex pectations and demands i nto "issues." Most research thus focuses on "news" which serves impor tant political functions for democratic political communication systems. In addition to recording the events of the day, political news is expected to reflect public opinion, act as a watchdog to disclose political misbehavior, facilitate public discourse, and foster citizens' political pmticipa tion (Schulz, 2 008). Of interest are thus those factors that can explain cross-national differences in the selection, evaluation and framing of news issues. The "selection" of issues is often skewed to those who have social status or poli tical power, who have professional public relations exper tise at their disposal, or who resort to radical public relations tactics such as spectacular protests or violent pseudo-events. However, Kriesi (2004) demonstrates i n his analysis that civil society actors also employ strategic communication to generate media attention and winning public sup port. The "evaluation and framing" of political iss ues is i nfluenced by criteria of newsworthi ness-like negativity, intensity, unexpectedness, elite nations, cultural proximity-as identified by Galtung and Ruge's (1965) yearly news value theory and Shoemaker and Cohen's (2 006) deviance theory. With respect to international news the media also tend to "domesticate" global events by evaluating and framing them according to national i deologies and national reception prisms (Ciausen, 2 003; Lee, Chan, Pan, & So, 2 002; see also Shoemaker, Cohen, Seo, & Johnson, Chap ter 2 1 , in this volume). The same domestication process was found to take place in the construc tion of news about the European Union where "evaluation and framing" follows the adaptation process at the national level within each EU member state (de Vreese, Banducci, Semetko, & Boomgaarden 2 006; Pfetsch, Adam, & Eschner, 2 008). Further nation-specific framing mecha nisms were explored in studies that compared how the same global event or transnational issue COMPARING POLITICAL COMMUNICATION 37 (like the lraq war, genetic engineering, climate change, or introduction of the euro currency) is covered differently across political communication systems (Dardis, 2 006; B rossard, Shanahan, & McComas, 2 004; de Vreese, Peter, & Semetko, 2 001; Kohring & Goerke, 2 000). Political messages are also the key output of the political communication system. Here we distinguish three types of messages (see Paletz, 2 002, eh. I 0). First, messages that originate in the media without politicians having any control over content-like in endorsements, commentary, news analysis and interpretation; second, messages that originate in the political system and a.·e conveyed to the public directly without any journalistic involvement or alterations-as is the case with political advertising, mass emails, politicians' own blogs, parLy websites, or campaigning via social networking sites. Then there is a third track: messages that origi nate in the political sys tem but are picked up by journalists for constructing stories or programs . Here, communication control is either shared (as in interview programs or talk shows) or negotiated (as in news stories where reporting and news management efforts coalesce). Comparative political communication research has aimed to differentiate news cultures according to how interventionist journalists are and how forcefully politicians try to manage the message flow in an effort to regain control. Exemplary studi es that compared levels of media intrusion or journalis tic interference across political communication systems were conducted mainly in the context of election research (for a summary see Esser & Stromback, Chapter 19, in this volume). One result is a mapping of na tional news cultures along dimensions of interventionism (Esser, 2 008). An alternative approach is favored by Lance Ben nett, who calls for more comparative investigations into "indexing" pro cesses . He suggests producing a map of news systems with regard to their dependence of, and submission to, political power structures, elite consensus, and government viewpoints in their coverage of politics ( Bennetl, 2 009; also advocated by Curran, 2 011 ). Existing comparative studies that focus on news output i nvestigated, for example, how far news messages serve democratic news standards and requirements of public discourse (see Ferree et al., 2 002 ; B enson, 2 01 J ; Wessler, 2 008) or how they meet professional standards like objectivity (Donsbach & Klett, 1 993; Thomson, White, & Ki tley, 2 008), pluralism (Benson, 2 009; La Porte, Medina, & Sfidaba, 2 007), balance (Semetko, 1996), or bias (van Kempen, 2 007) across systems. Another important question in international and comparative agenda-setting research has been to i dentify those conditions that influence the power of the media to influence the public agenda (Pe ter, 2 003; McCombs, Ghanem, Lennon, Blood, & Chen, 2 011; Weaver, McCombs, & Shaw, 2 004) or the policy agenda (Walgrave & Van Aelst, 2 006; Van Aelst & Walgrave, 2 011). Comparative studies that focused on unmediated messages by politicians, on the other hand, compared styles of campaign communication (Plasser & Plasser, 2 002 ; Swanson & Mancini, 1996), e-campaign ing (Ward, Owen, Davis, & Taras, 2 008), government commullication (Pfetsch, 2 007), political marketing (Lees-Marshment, StrombHck, & Rudd, 2 0I 0), or political advertising (Kaid & Holtz Bacha, 2 006). One intention of comparative studies has been to rank election communication systems according to how "postmodern" or "marketing-oriented" their campaign communication styles are (for a detailed overview see Esser & Stromback, Chapter 18, in this volume). In light of the previous sections it is important to emphasize that the flow and shape of po litical messages is conditional on the structural di mensions of politi cal communication systems (like the degree and form of media regulation by the state, the degree of press/party parallelism, the degree of autonomy for the journalistic profession, the degree of commercialization and market competition and the penetration of multi-channel technology and trans-border communi cation) and cultural di mensions (like the role perceptions and professional norms of journalis ts, politicians, spokespeople, and their campaign managers), and that political communication sys tems can be differentiated and compared along these dimensions. ( 38 BARBARA PPETSCH AND FRANK ESSER Comparing Effects of Political Communication From the citizen perspective, the exposure to politicaJ messages impacts their capacity to perform their political roles, for instance keeping abreast of political issues and making informed voting decisions. Also, according to theories of public opinion (Zaller, 1992), political orientations of citizens are largely shaped by exposure to elite discourse via the mass media. The crucial link between the producers and the recipients of political messages is research that focuses on people's polltical cognitions and orientations. One central question here relates to whether the media con tribute to political learning and democratic orientations of the people. Even though there has been a long tradition of exploring persuasive and cognitive media effects, most studies were restricted to individual-level investigations within one country. Often the findings were interpreted with regard to larger political implications (such as emerging media malaise or political disintegra tion) although scholars did not account systematicaUy for macro-level contexts (such as the media environment, the media culture, or political institutional aspects). Comparative research pursues macro-level effects by investigating the implications of systemic factors for populations of recipi ents embedded in settings that differ with regard to the assumed macro-level causal factor. This allows not only for explanations of macro-level communication effects but also for differentiated conclusions about the context-dependency and generalizability of our effects theories. Contextual izing theories is important because often times the interpretation of the size and meaniog of media effects depends on the research paradigms currently popular or dominant in a given scientific community. An influential essay on the history of media effects research recently complained that "the growing disjuncture between the prevailing research strategies and the socio-technological context of political communication" has been a major obstacle to progress in adequate theory building (Bennett & lyengar, 2 008, p. 7 07). We would argue that comparative research, with its clear emphasis on context-sensitive explanations, offers a fruitful strategy that will help advance effects research. In recent years quite convincing comparative studies have been conducted that systemati cally link political attitudes or behaviors with structural variables of the political communication system. They all find consistent empirical evidence that citizens' orientations and actions are closely associated with the media and political environment. The media environment in these studies stands for the capacity of a political conununication system to produce and disseminate political information in hard or soft news formats. The theoretical classification of larger types of n ational communication systems (Hallin & M ancini, 2 004) is broken down to the function of the media being effective in contributing to citizens' knowledge and understan ding of politics as well as their participation. Regarding the power of media environment to contribute to political knowledge, Cun·an, lyengar, Lund, and S alovaara-Moring (2 009) find that European media systems and particularly those that give preference to public service functions of the media clearly foster awareness of public affairs. Thus media environments that devote more attention to public affairs and interna tional news encourage not only higher level of news consumption but also contribute to people's knowledge about public life. In contrast, the purely commercial media environment of the United S tates supplies less political information, particularly less hard news, and contributes ultimately to higher levels of public ignorance and cognitive disintegration of society (see also AaJberg, Van Aelst, & Cun·an, 2 0I 0). Political communication structures can not only be linked to levels of news supply and public knowledge but also to political participation. In a comparative study of 74 counh·ies Baek (2 009) finds convincing evidence that institutional factors of the broadcasting system (for instance, de gree of regulation of election communication) are related to voter turnout. Public broadcasting systems not only promote higher levels of turnout but also modify the effect of paid party adver- COMPARING POLITICAL COMMUNICATION 39 tising on mobilization. Again, the crucial variable that impacts political behavior is ownership and regulation of television. Comparing different systems of broadcasting demonstrates strong macro-analytical effects on democratic behavior. The conclusion that media systems essentially penetrate the social fabric of society is also corroborated with respect to social capital and democratic orien tations. Schmitt-Beck and Wols ing (2 0I 0) analyze media effects in 25 European countries and find-based on multilevel statisti cal analysis-that society-wide patterns of TV use have strong implications for levels of social trust in these countries. N orris (2 011 b, eh. 9) examines media effects on democratic orientations in 42 countries and finds-also by way of multilevel statistical analysis-that high levels of TV use can strengthen democratic satisfaction independently of other micro-level and other macro level influences. A final noteworthy study is "Cosmopolitan communications" by Non·is and lnglehart (2009; see also N orris, Chapter 22, in this volume), which sets out to see whether media use within certain political communication environments contributes to the spread of economic, moral, and social values. A comparison of over a hundred countries finds evidence that global news flows contribute to the spread of tolerance against foreigners, equality of gender roles, and liberal capi talist values. The most different systems design employed in this large-scale study allows for the conclusion that this relationship is stable across very diverse media environments. In sum, comparative research has established strong relationships between macro-structural variables of the political communication system and individual-level variables like orientations and values, political participation, or civic knowledge. In the near future more multilevel studies are n ecessary that make use of the quasi-experimental logic of comparative analysis. Efforts to advance media effects research should concentrate in particular on the explanatory mechanism between the broader media environment and individual effects. CHA LLENGES AND OU TLOOK In a series of essays spanning almost three decades, Jay Blumler and Michael Gurevitch have described the progress in the field of comparative political communication. lnitially, in 1975, they labeled it as one in its infancy (Biumler & Gurevitch, 1975). Twen ty years later they described the field as having progressed to adolescence (Gurevitch & Blumler, 1990b). Then in 2 004 they saw it on a potholed path to maturation (Gurevitch & Blumler, 2 004). Although the comparative study of political communication has become fairly fashionable lately, we agree with other observers (Man cini & Hallin, 2 012; Norris, 2 011 a) that it has not reached mature adulthood yet. It is a relatively young area where scholars still display some unce1tainty about its conceptual and methodological foundations and its level of achievements. Benson (2 01 0), for example, celebrates the recent flood of comparative studies for successfully challenging the "American-centric narrative" (p. 6 1 4) in much of the political communication literature. A more pessimistic outlook comes from Non·is (2009), who claims that "it still remains difficult, if not impossible, to compare political conununi cations systematically across national borders" (p. 323), because the field "has not yet developed an extensive body of literature establishing a range of theoretically sophisticated analytical frame works, buttressed by rigorously tested scientific generalizations, common concepts, standardized instruments, and shared archival datasets, with the capacity to identify common regularities which prove robust across widely varied contexts" (p. 322). While our own view is less bleak than Norris', we certainly acknowledge the many challenges that comparative political communication research still faces. We would tike to address the following five tasks for the future. ( 1 ) We need more data. We need more empirical studies that go beyond the Western hemi sphere that still dominates much of the comparative literature. For an expanded understanding 40 --· -- · BARBARA PFETSCH AND FRANK ESSER of political communication we need to embrace non-Western systems and perhaps switch more often from most similar to most different cases designs. Unfortunately, these larger, more global studies are ridden with problems. The reasons for these are the broad insider knowledge required to devise culture-sensitive instruments and to interpret findings appropriately; the large networks of collaborators and viable structures of coordination and funding required ; and the agreement required within these heterogeneous n etworks on concepts and frameworks that offer more than just a least-common denominator. Overcoming these challenges would help us build databases and resource centers comparable to those established in Comparative Politics (like Polity IV, Freedom House, World Value Survey, etc.). Problems in developing consistent methodologies and data gathering techniques across countries have hampered progress in our field for long enough. (2) We need to make better use of existing data. For those interested in secondary data there is a growing range of country-level indices available that allow for partial comparisons of politi cal communication systems and should be used more. For example, N on·is (201l a) shows that global data on access to television, to newspapers, mobile phones, and the Internet are obtainable from ITU , World Bank, and U NESCO and may be used fruitfully for measuring differences in the "communication infrastructure" of political communication systems around the world. Data on communication freedoms are available from Reporters without Borders, Freedom House, and the International Research and Exchanges Board (lREX) and may be used as a measure to gauge differences in the "regulatory environment" of political communication systems around the world. Nonis (201 1a), and also Engesser and Franzetti (201 1), provide several more ex amples of how disaggregated indices can enhance systemic comparisons. Yet both of them admit that more complex components of the political communication process evade comparative sta tistical analysis because of lack of quantifiable data. As a consequence, Norris (201 l a) calls for orchestrated efforts to field global surveys and content analyses to measure "professionalism of political journalism" and the "content of political messages." Some initiatives in our field show modest movement into this direction (see Hanitzsch et al., 2011; Weaver & Willnat, 20 12; Esser, de V reese, & Strombiick, 20 12). Irrespective of whether scholars prefer quantitative or qualitative data, scholars also may want to familiarize themselves with more elaborate techniques of data analysis-in particular methods that do justice to the multilevel structure of comparative designs (see M cLeod & Lee, Chapter 27; V liegenthart, Chapter 31, in this volume). (3) We need standardized measures. I mportant goals in comparative work are cumulativ ity and generalizability. Both are being achieved by replicating equivalent studies in different settings that use core concepts in consistent, standardized ways. However, many dimensions that have been introduced for differentiating political communication systems (see Siebert et al., 1956; Blumler & Gurevitch, 1975; Hallin & M ancini, 2004; Humphreys, 201 1 ) are complex and thus difficult to translate into easy-to-measme indices. Current studies often operationalize them differently, which hampers their generalizability and their contribution to coll aborative theory building. Also the use of categories in comparative content analyses and the use of questions in surveys often suffer from a lack of consistency. This has compromised our knowledge of the topic and framing architecture of political messages, of people's media use habits, and of the professional attitudes of communicators across diverse political communication systems (see Holtz-Bacha & Kaid, 2011; Kaid & Strombiick, 2008; N orris, 2011 a). Heightened sensitivity for the goals of comparative research should alleviate these problems over time. (4) We need better theories. Decisions on which data to gather and how to operationalize and ana� yze them appropriately requires specifically designed frameworks that can meaning fully gu1de a comparative project. In the absence of a standard theoretical model we took the liberty in this chapter of proposing a heuristic that seems capable of integrating relevant strands COMPARING POLITICAL COMMUNICATlON 41 of comparative political communication research (see Figure 2. 1). It is firmly rooted in the work of Blumler and Gurevitch ( 1975, 1995), who are rightfully considered the founding fathers of this area. Our decision to organize this chapter around the framework of political communication system was prompted by the insight that without viable theoretical models comparative political communication scholars are stranded in Babel (see Hol tz-Bacha & Kaid, 2011; M ancini & Hal lin, 2012; Norris 2009, 201la). Our model by no means claims exclusiveness but we are glad to see that it can be easily related to alternative heuristics suggested in this Handbook (see Chapter 16 by Hanitzsch & Donsbach; Chapter 19 by Esser & Stromback; Chapter 24 by Hasebrink). We would like to reiterate Gurevitch and Blumler's (2004) call for more theory-guided work in the field of comparative political communication research. (5) We need a better understanding ofthe effects ofglobalization and the lntemet on political conllnllnication systems. The logic of comparative research as outlined in this chapter obviously presumes the continuing importance of the nation-state. There are good reasons to include additi onal levels of analysis below and above the nation-state, but there is also strong evidence that IW tional political communication systems remain relevant units of analysis for comparative research (s ee Benson, 201 0; Hallin, 2008; Humplu·eys, 2011; Pfetsch & Esser, 2008). We certainly ack nowledge that there are powerful technological and economic forces pushing for a convergence of political communication systems, but the degree to which differences between nationally bound systems will reside is still a question of empirical study, not belief. And the available empirical evidence suggests little in the way of complete homogenization. In fact, despite-or rather be cause of-globalized inOuences we observe a return of the importance of national institutional and cultural settings. Several studies in the field of comparative political communication (discussed in Humphreys, 2011) recently highl ighted the striking resilience of national media policy styles, le gal traditions, and communication cultures to eroding influences by either the European U n ion or the globalization of media markets. Humphreys (2011) explains this by referencing Kleinsteuber's ( 1993) argument that while economic and technological developments point generally towards convergence of media systems, nation-specific political, social, and cultural factors will continue to explain much of the divergence. Within the framework of historical institutionalism the concept of path dependency posits that institutionalized political communication arrangements are fairly persistent and resistant to change. When change does occur under the influence of globalized or technological forces, these transformations usually show structurally and culturally distinct ive patterns which are determined by national contexts. Put differently, they follow characteristic national "paths" (Humphreys, 2011). This demands a more complex reconceptualization of the national context and its interplay with macro-processes of social change, not its abandonment (see Pfetsch & Esser, 2008). In addition to a more complex understanding of the "n ational" it is im portant to recognize new landscapes at the supranational level in which political communication systems are more and more integrated. Straubhaar (2007) has termed these new landscapes large scale "geo-cullural" and "cultural-linguistic" media markets, and Tunstall (2008) divided them up into four "major transnational media regions." These supranational entities constitute new units for comparative analysis which need to be incorporated in our designs. This adds a new layer of complexity but makes comparative research all the while more exciting. NOTES Ferree et al.'s (2002) fou r models are usefully summarized by Benson (2008) to whom we refer for the fol lowing descriptions: Representative liberal theory proposes that democracy works best with highly educated elites and specialized technicians in charge. The primary dutie� for the news media are to chronicle accurately the range of competing elite perspectives, to cxam1ne the character and 42 BARBARA PFETSCH AND FRANK ESSER COMPARING POLITICAL COMMUNICATION 43 behavior of elected officials, and to monitor closely their activities for co1ruption or incompetence. In Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., & McComas, K. (2004). Are issue cycles culturally constructed? A comparison democratic participatory theory, journalism is called upon to promote actively the political involve of French and American coverage of globaJ climate change. Mass Communication & Society, 7(3), ment of citizens. The theory emphasizes principles such as popular inclusion, empowerment, and full expression through a range of communicative styles. The deliberative or discursive ideal places the greatest emphasis on quality: the media should create a domination-free environment where the better argument can prevai l in a quest for social consensus; the public sphere should be free from the state as well as the market. Constructionist theory, like partici patory theories, is more tolerant of diverse styles and forms of discourse that journalists mediate, especially those emerging from the margins of society. 1t privi leges personal narratives and emotion over abstract reason, celebrating grassroots media that facilitate the playful search for identity or the articulation of counter-hegemonic interests. 2 With regard to the latter, Voltmer (2008, 2012) is able to identify different pathways to democracy in eastern Europe, Latin America and eastern Asia, with the mass media playing distinct yet dissimilar 359-377. Christians, C., Glasser, T., McQuail, D., Nordenstreng, K., & White, R. (2009). Normative theories of the media: Journalism in democratic societies. Urbana, lL: Hlinois University Press. Clausen, L. (2003). Global news production . Copenhagen: CBS Press. Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The lllfernet and democratic citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Curran, J. (20 1 1 ). Questioning a new orthodoxy. In J. Curran (Ed.), Media and democracy (pp. 28-46). London: Routledge. Curran, J., Jyengar, S., Lund, B. A., & Salovaara-Moring, I . (2009). Media system, public knowledge and democracy. Ewvpean Journal of Communication, 24( 1), 5-26. roles in the respective transformation processes. 3 The five political system variables refer to ( I ) an active versus restricted role of tJ1e state regards media policy and regulation; (2) majoritarian versus consensus systems; (3) individualized pluralism and Dahl, R. A. ( 1 989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. lobbyism versus organized pluralism and corporatism; (4) moderate vs. polarized pluralism; and (5) Dardis, F. E. (2006). Military accord, media accord: A cross-national comparison of UK versus US press rational-legal authority versus clientelism (for details see Hall in & Mancini, 2004). Political Communication, 22(2), 147-162. coverage of Iraq war protest. International Communication Gazette, 68(5-6), 409-426. de Vreese, C. H., Banducci, S., Semetko, H. A., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2006). The news coverage of REFERENCES Aalberg, T., Van Aelst, P., & Curran, J. (20 I 0). Media systems and tJ1e political i n formation environment: A cross-national comparison. International Journal of Press/Politics, 1 5(3), 255-27 1 . Baek, M. (2009). A comparative analysis of political communication systems and voter turnout. American Journal ofPolitical Science, 53(2), 84- 102). Wiesbaden: Germany: VS Verlag. Bennctt, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-73 1 . Benneu, W. L., & Entman, R . M . (Eds.) (200 I). Mediated politics: Communication and the fwure of demo cracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Benson, R. (2008). Normative theories ofjournalism. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia 2591-2597). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Biackwell. Benson, R. (2009). What makes news more multiperspectival? A field analysis. Poetics, 37(5-6), 402-418. Ben son, R. (20 I 0). Comparative news media systems: New directions in research. In S. Alien (Ed.), Rout ledge companion to news media andjournalism studies (pp. systems: European and global perspectives. Budapest: Central European University Press. Donsbach, W., & Klett, B. ( 1 993). Subjective objectivity. How journalists in four countries define a key term 376-393. Bennelt, W. L. (2009). Power and the news media: The press and democratic accountability. In F. Mar cinkowski & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Politik in der Mediendemokratie [Politics in media democracy1 (pp. of co1mmmication (pp. the 2004 European parliamentary election campaign in 25 countries. European Union Politics, 7(4), 477-504. de Vreese, C., Peter, J., & Semetko, H. (200 I). Framjng politics at the launch of the Euro: A cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Political Communication, 18(2), I 07-122. Dobek-Ostrowska, B., Glowacki, M., Jakubowicz, K., & SUkosd, M. (Eds.) (2010). Comparative media 6 14-626). London: Routledge. of their profession. Gazette, 5 1 ( I ), 53-86. Donsbach, W., & Patterson, T. E. (2004). Political news journalists: Partisanship, professionalism, and po litical roles in five countries. In F. Esser & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Comparing political comm1mication: Theories, cases, and challenges (pp. 25 1-270). New York: Cambridge Un iversity Press. Engelstad, F., & Gulbrandsen, T. (Eds.) (2006). Comparative studies of social and polirictll elires. Compa rative social research. Amsterdam/Oxford: Elsevier. Engesser, S., & Franzetti, A. (20 I I ). Media systems and political systems: Dimensions of comparison. In ternational Communication Gazette, 73(4), 273-301 . Esser, F. (2008). Dimensions of politicaJ news cultures: Sound bite and image bite news i n France, Ger many, Great Britain and the United States. lllfernational Journal of Press/Politics, 1 3(4), 401-428. Esser, F., & Pfetsch, B. (2004). Meet ing the challenges of global communication and political integration: The significance of comparative research in a changing world. In F. Esser & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Compa Benson, R. (20 1 1 ) Framing immigration: How the French and American media shape public debate. Cam ring political com1111111ication: Theories, cases, and challenges (pp. bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. ( 1 975). Towards a comparative framework of political communication University Press. . research. In S. Cbaffee (Ed.), Political commw1ication (pp. 165-193). Beverly Hills: SAGE. Blu mler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. ( 1 995). The crisis ofpublic co11ummication . London: Routledge. Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (2000). Rethinking the study of political communication. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (3 rd edition, pp. 155-1 74). London: Edward Arnold. Blu mler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. ( 1 999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features. 1 6(2), 209-230. Bl umler, J. G., McLeod, J. M., & Rosengren, K. E. ( 1 992). An introduction to comparative communication research. Jn J. G. Bl umler, J. M. McLeod, & K. E. Rosengren (Eds.), Comparatively :.peaking: Com munication and culture across space and time (pp. 3-1 8). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Brants, K , & Voltmer, K. (Eds.). (20 1 1 ) . Introduction: Mediatization and decentralization of political com : . mun•cat•on. In K. Brants & V. Voltmer (Eds.), Political com1111111ication in postmodern democracy: Challenging the primacy of politics (pp. 1 - 1 6). Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Political Communication, 384-41 0). New York: Cambridge Esser, F., de Vreese, C., & Stromback, J. (2012). Reviewing key concepts in research on political news journalism. Journalism, 1 2(2), 1-5. Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four models of the public sphere i n mod ern democracies. The01y & Society, 3 1 (3), 289-324. Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. ( 1 965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64-90. Gurevitch, M., & Blumler, J . G. ( 1 990a). Political communication systems and democratic values. In J. Lichtenberg (Ed.), Democracy a11d the mass media (pp. 269-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gurevitch, M., & Blumler, J. G. ( 1 990b). Comparative research: The extending frontier. In D. L. Swanson & D. Nimmo (Eds.), New directions in political communication (pp. 305-328). Newbury Park: SAGE. Gurevitch, M., & Blumler, J. G. (2004). State of the art of comparative political communication research: Poised for maturity? In F. Esser & B. P fetsch (Eds.), Comparing political co1mmmication: Theories, cases, and challenges (pp. 325-343). New York: Cambridge University Press. 44 BARBARA PPETSCH AND PRANK ESSER COMPARING POLITICAL COMMUNICATION Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democrac y still enjoy an episternic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication 111e01y, 1 6(4), 4 1 1 --426. �.,.,.. Hall in, D. (2008). The challenges of comparing media systems: Daniel Hall in interviewed by Hallvard Moe and Helle Sj0vaag. Journal of Global Mass Communication, I (3--4), 1 32-1 4 1 . Hall in, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press. Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (Eds.) (201 1 ). Comparing media systems beyond the Westem world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hanitzsch, T. (2007). Deconstructing journalis m culture: Toward a universal theory. Communication The ory, 1 7(4), 367-385. Hanitzsch, T. (2009). Comparative journalis m studies. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook ofjoumalism studies (pp. 4 1 3--427). New York: Routledge. Hanitzsch, T., Hanusch, P., Mellado, C., Anikina , M., Berganz a, R., Cangoz, I., Coman, M., Hamada, B., Hernandez, M. E., Karadjov, C. D., Moreira, S. V., Mwesige , P. G., Plaisance, P. L., Reich, z., Seethal er, J., Skewes, E. A., Noor, D. V., & Yuen, K. W. (201 1 ). Mapping journalism c ultures across nations: A comparative study of 1 8 countries. Joumalism Studies, 12(3), 273-293. Hardy, J. (2008). Westem media systems. London: Routledg e. Holtz-Bacha, C., & Kaid, L. L. (201 1 ). Political commun ication across the world: Methodological issues involved in international comparisons. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebookfor political ,..,.,.tF• • COIIIII11111ication research: Methods, meamres, and analytic al techniques (pp. 395--4 16). New York: Routledge. Humphreys, P. (20 1 1 ). A political scientist's contribution to the comparat ive study of media systems i n Europe: A response t o Hall in and Mancini. I n N . Just & M . Puppis (Eds.), Trends in collmlllnication policy research: New lheories, methods, subjects (pp. 1 4 1 - 1 58). Bristol: lntellect. Kaid, L. L., & Holtz-Bacha, C. (2006). The SAGE handboo k ofpolilica/ advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Kaid, L. L., & Stromback, J. (2008). Election news coverage around the world: A comparative perspective. In J. Strombiick & L. L. Kaid (Eds.), The handbook of election news coverage a1vund the world (pp. 421--43 1 ). New York: Rout ledge. Kleinsteuber, H. J. ( 1 993). Mediensysteme in vergleich ender Perspektive. Zur Anwendung komparativer Ansiitze in der Medienwissenschaft: Probleme und Beispiel e. Rundfimk und Femsehen, 4 1 (3), 3 1 7338. _..,. . . ' H· •"" Kluver, R., Jankowski, N., Pool, K., & Schneider, S. (Eds.) (2007). The flllemet and IWiional elections: A comparalive study of web campaigning. London: Routledg e. Kohring, M . , & Go�rke, A. (2000). Genetic engineering in the internati onal media: An analysis of opinion . leadmg magazmes. New Genetics and Society, 19(3), 345-363 . Kriesi, H. (2004). Strategic political communication: Mobilizi ng public opinion in audience democracies'. In F. Esser & B . Pfetsch (Eds.), Comparing political cotmnun icalion: Theories, cases, and challenges (pp. 1 84-2 12). New York: Cambridge University Press. La Porte, T., Medina, M. & Sadaba, T. (2007). Globaliz ation and pluralism: The function of public televi sion in the European audiovisual market. Intenulfional Communication Gazette, 69(4), 377-399. Landman, T. (2008). Issues and methods in comparative politics (3rd edition). London: Rout ledge. Lee, C. C., Chan, J. M . , Pan, Z., & So, C. Y. K. (2002). Global media spectacle: News war over Hong Kong. New York: University of New York Press. Lees-Marshment, J., Stromback, J., & Rudd, C. (Eds.) (2010). Global polilica/ marketing. London: Rout ledge. Lil leker, D., & Jackson, N. (20 1 1 ). Political campaig ning, elections and the Iwemet: Comparing the US, UK, Fmnce and Germany. London: Rout ledge. Mancini , P., & Hallin, D. C. (20 1 2). Some caveats about comparative research in media studies. In H . A. Semetko & M . Scammell (Eds.), SAGE handbook ofpolitical comllumication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, in press. 45 Manheim, J. B . ( 1998). The news shapers: Strategic communication as a third force in news making. In D. Graber, D. McQuail, & P. Norris (Eds.), The politics ofnews: The news ofpolilics (pp. 94- 109). Wash ington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Masamichi, S. (Ed.) (2008). Elites: New compamlive perspectives. Boston: Brill. Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. ( 1 999). Mediatization of politics: A challenge for democracy? Polilica/ Com numication, J 6(3), 247-26 1 . McCombs, M. E., Ghanem, S., Lennon, F. R., Blood, R. W., & Chen, Y. N. (201 1 ). l ntemational applica tions of agenda-setting theory's Acapulco typology. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebook for political commtmicalion research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 383-394). New York: Rout ledge. McLeod, D. M., Kosick i, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries of political com munications effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in lheOJ)' and research (2nd ed., pp. 2 1 5-267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Norris, P. (200 l a). Political communication. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), fnlemaliona/ encyclo pedia of Ihe social & belwvioral sciences (pp. 1 1 63 1 - 1 1 640). Oxford: Elsevier. Norris, P. (200 I b). A virtuous circle? The impact of political communications in post-industrial democ racies. l n K. Dowding, J. Hughes, & H. Margells (Eds.), Challenges to democracy (pp. 100- 1 1 7): Palgrave Publishers. Non·is, P. (2009). Comparing political communications: Common frameworks or Babelian confusion? Govemmenl and Opposition, 44(3), 32 1 -340. Norris, P. (20 1 1 a). Political communication. In D. Caramani (Ed.), Comparalive politics (2nd edition, pp. 353-370). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norris, P. (20 I I b). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisiled. New York: Cambridge University Press. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2009). Cosmopolilwt comnumications: Culftlral diversity in a globalized world. New York: Cambridge University Press. Paletz, D. L. (2002). The media iu American polilics: Contents mu/ consequences (2nd edition). New York: Longman. Peter, J. (2003). Country characteristics as contingent conditions of agenda setting: The moderating influ ence of polarized elite opinion. Communication Research, 30(6), 683-7 1 2. Pfetsch, B. (2004). From political culture to political communications culture: A theoretical approach to comparative analysis. Ln P. Esser & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Comparing political commw1ication: Theories, cases, and challenges (pp. 344-366). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pfetsch, B. (2007). Government news management: Institutional approaches and strategies in three Western democracies. Ln D. Graber & D. McQuail (Eds.), The polilics of news, Ihe news ofpolitics (2nd edition, pp. 7 1 -97). Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press. Pfetsch, B. (2008). Political Communication Systems. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The intemational encyclope dia of com1111111icalion (pp. 3687-3690). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Pfetsch, B., & Esser, P. (2004). Comparing political communication: Reorientations in a changing world. In P. Esser & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Comparing political commw1ication. Theories, cases, and challenges (pp. 3-22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pfetsch, B., & Esser, F. (2008). Conceptual challenges to the paradigms of comparative media systems in a globalized world. Joumal of G/obal Mass Comnumicalion, 1(3--4), 1 1 8- 1 3 1 . Pfetsch, B., & Maurer, P. (2008). Mediensysteme und politische Kommunikationsmilieus i m internation alen Vergleich: Theoretische O berlegungcn zur Untersuchung ihres Zusammenhangs. In G. Melischek, J. Seethaler, & J. Wilke (Eds.), Medien & Komtmmikaliomforsclumg im Vergleich. Gnmdlagen, Gegenstandsbereiche, Ve1jahrensweisen (pp. 99-1 19). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. . Pfetsch, B., Adam, S., & Eschner, B. (2008). The contribution of the press to Europeanizat.ion of public debates: A comparative study of issue salience and conflict lines of European integration. Jouma/ism, 9(4), 465--492. Pfctsch, B., Mayerhoeffer, E., & Maurer, P. (2009). A hedge in between keeps friendship green: Concur rence and conflict between politicians and journalists in western democracies. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association (ICA). Chicago, May 2 1 -25. 46 COMPARING POLITICAL COMMUNICATION BARBARA PFETSCH AND FRANK ESSER Plasser, F., & Plasser, G. (2002). Global political campaigning: A worldwide analysis of campaign professionals and their practices. Westport, CT: Praeger. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. ( 1 970). Tire logic of comparative social inquity. New York: Wiley. Putnam, R., D. ( 1 976). Tire comparative study ofpolitical elites. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Putnam, R. D. ( 1 995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78. Pye, L. W. ( 1993). Political communication. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Tire Blackwe/1 encyclopaedia ofpolitical science (2nd edition, pp. 442-445). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Reese, S. D. (2008). Theorizing a globalized journalism. In M. Loeffelholz & D. Weaver (Eds.), Global joumalism research: Theories, met/rods, jindings.future (pp. 240-252). London: Blackwell. Robinson, M. J. ( 1 976). Public affairs television and the growth ofpolitical malaise: The case of "The Sel ling of tire Pentagon." American Political Science Review, 70(2), 409-432. Schmitt-Beck, R., & Wolsing, A. (20 I 0). European TV environments and citizens' social trust: Evidence from multilevel analyses. Comm1mications, 35(4), 461-483. Schulz, W. (2008). PoHtical communication. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), 111e intemational encyclopedia of com tmmication (pp. 367 1 -3682). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Semetko, H. A. ( 1 996). Political balance on television: Campaigns in the US, Britain and Germany. Harvtml lntemational Joumal of Press/Politics, I ( I ), 5 1 -7 1 . Shoemaker, P. J., & Cohen, A. A. (2006). News around tire world: Content, practitioners, and tire public. New York: Routledge. -- Siebert, F. S., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. ( 1 956). Four theories of tire press: Tire authoritarian, libertari an, social responsibility and Soviet comm1mist concepts of what tire press should be and do. Chicago: University of IIH.nois Press. Straubhaar, J. (2007). World television: From global 10 local. Los Angeles: SAGE. Stri.imbiick, J. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their nom1ative implications for journalism. Journalism Swdies, 6(3), 3 3 1 -345. Swanson, D. L., & Mancini, P. ( 1 996) (Eds.). Politics, media, and democracy: An intemational study of innovations in electoral campaigning and their consequences. Westport, CT: Praeger. Thomson, E. A., White, P. R . R., & Kitley, P. (2008). "Objectivity" and "hard news." Reporting across cul tures: Comparing the news report in English, French, Japanese and Indonesian journalism. Joumalism Studies, 9(2), 2 1 2-228. Thussu, D. K. (2006). International communication: Continuity and change (2nd edition). London: Hodder Arnold Publications. Tunstall, J. (2008). The media were American. Oxford: Oxford University Press. -- .. Van Aelst, P. , & Walgrave, S. (20 1 1 ). Minimal or massive? The political agenda setting power of the mass media according to different methods. lntemationa/ Journal of Press/Politics, 1 6(3), 295-3 1 3. Van Kempen, H. (2007). Media-party parallelism and its effects: A cross-national comparative study. Poli tical Communication, 24(3), 303-320. Yerba, S. ( 1965). Conclusion: Comparative political culture. l n L. W. Pye & S. Yerba (Eds.), Political cul ture and political development (pp. 5 1 2-561). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Yerba, S. ( 1 980). On revisiting U1e civic culture: A personal postscript. In G. A. Almond & S. Verba (Eds.), Tire civic culture revisited (pp. 394-41 0). Boston: Little, Brown & Company. Voltmer, K. (2008). Democratization, role of the media. In C. Holtz-Bacha & L.L. Kaid (Eds.), Encyclope dia ofpolitical C01111nunication (pp. 175-179). London: SAGE. Yoltmer, K. (20 12). Tire media in transitional democracies. Cambridge: Polity. Walgrave, S., & Van Aelst, P. (2006). The contingency of the mass media's political agenda setting power: Toward a preliminary theory. Joumal of Commw1ication, 56( I), 88-109. Ward, S., Owen, D., Davis, R., & Taras, D. (Eds.) (2008). Making a diff erence: A comparative view of tire role oft/re lntemet in election politics. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Weaver, D., McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (2004). Agenda setting research: Issues, attributes and influences. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political comm1mication (pp. 257-282). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 47 Weaver, D. H., & Willnat, L. (Eds.) (20 12). Tire globa/joumalist in tire 21st centlll)'· London: Routledge. Wessler, H. (2008). Investigating deliberativeness comparatively. Political Communication, 25(1), 1-22. Zaller, J. ( 1 992). Tire nature and origins ofmass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. or global Zittel, M . (2004). Political communication and electronic democracy: American exceptional ism practices, and Theories, n: colmlllmicatio political Comparing (Eds.), Pfetsch B. & Esser F. In trend? challenges (pp. 23 1 -250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Comparing Political Communication

Comparing Political Communication

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS