1 TV channels as arenas and actors in election campaigns Sigurd Allern Media researcher, dr. polit The Norwegian Institute of Journalism Box 1432, 1602 Fredrikstad, Norway ([email protected]) This paper has been prepared for presentation at the 23 Conference and General Assembly of the International Association for Media and Communication Research in Barcelona 21-26 of July 2002, Political Communication Research Section. Please do not cite without the authors permission.
This paper has been prepared for presentation at the 23 Conference and General Assembly of the International Association for Media and Communication Research in Barcelona 21-26 of July 2002, Political Communication Research Section. Please do not cite without the authors permission.
2
TV channels as arenas and actors in
election campaigns
Today, news media is the main source of political information for voters. National television
media plays a particular pivotal role in election periods. It creates communication channels to
the voters and is an arena for the struggle between parties and candidates. Political parties and
leaders adjust their messages, slogans and other initiatives to the formats and requirements of
the news media, for instance as photo opportunities and ‘sound bites’ for television. This
represents a “medialisation” of politics, dominated by initiatives and debate techniques
adjusted to the need for simple, conflict oriented and personified messages in commercial
news media (Asp 1986: 359-363). Election campaigns and media election campaigns are, in
our time, more or less synonymous concepts.
Many still consider such media roles as positive for democracy. A much-used
argument is that popular, non-partisan media gives voters outside the elites important
information about political alternatives and stimulates them to use their vote correctly.
Televised political debates reach large audiences, have an educational impact and help to
equalise access to mass media (Coleman 2000: 9-10).
A more critical assumption is that media election campaigns, media logic and
commercial news orientation stimulate “horse race journalism” which pay too much attention
to media performance and opinion poll results and too little attention to information about
policy alternatives (Patterson 1980).
This paper analyses the role played by editors and journalists in two national television
channels in Norway’s last general election, which took place on 10th of September 2001.
Norway has a multi party system, based on proportional representation. In the period 1997-
2001 seven political parties were represented in the Parliament (Stortinget), and the same
parties won the seats in last years election. The voters choice was a particular catastrophe for
the ruling Labour Party, which got 10,7 per cent less share of the votes than in 1997. As a
consequence of the election the Labour government was replaced by a coalition government
between the Conservative Party, the Christian Peoples Party and the small Liberal Party. For
details about the election results, see appendix 1.
3
The findings are based on a media research project conducted by The Norwegian
Institute of Journalism1. Two central research questions were: How did the two national
television channels in Norway use their media power during the election campaign? Was
there any significant differences in program policy and journalistic choices between the public
service channel, Norsk Rikskringkasting (NRK), and the commercial channel, TV 2?
As an introduction I will highlight some theoretical perspectives concerning news
media as a political institution.
News media as an independent institution
Throughout the last half century the role of news media in Norway’s general and municipal
elections has changed dramatically. Tor Bjørklund (1991) and Helge Østbye (1997) have both
described this as a historical period where news organisations were firstly mere channels for
the political parties. They then became important arenas for the struggle between the parties
and gradually also became independent political actors. As Østbye (1997) puts it, the news
media began to compete on the former “home ground” of the political parties – interest
articulation and interest aggregation. In elections this period represents a change “from party-
controlled to media-driven campaigns” (Bjørklund 1991: 291).
Strengthened independence of the news media seems to be a phenomena in most
modern, capitalist countries. Newspapers or other news organisations that are affiliated to
political parties are today rare to find. This development does not mean that news
organisations have lost their significance for political communication, but rather, as Stig
Hjarvard (1999: 36-37) observes, that they through their increased independence have
become more important in the manufacturing of public consent for political decisions. In
several European countries there has been a weakening of the political parties, both as social
and ideological movements, a development that has increased the importance of media based
consent.
The importance of news management has increased both for governments, parties and
politicians. Timothy Cook (1998) characterises this as “governing with the news”. He remarks
that the political importance of the news media also gives journalists an important role as
political actors. This does not mean that journalists are partisans for one or the other party. 1 The author is the leader of the project, with media researcher, cand. polit Hanne Merete Hestvik, and journalist Gunnar Bodahl-Johansen as other members of the team. Hestvik is responsible for the quantitative analysis of the two debates in NRK Television and TV 2 which is referred to in the paragraph about the role of moderators and talk show hosts in the last part of the paper.
4
The legitimacy of modern news media presuppose that news organisations are free to choose
different news sources and that they can act independently of organised interest groups.
However, news is necessarily selective and always represents an interpretation of what
is going on and of what is important. Certain kinds of political actors, political stories,
political issues, necessarily become more reported and more favourably reported than other.
Institutional sources regularly make themselves available to news journalists, they produce
speech acts as news events and offer subsidised information to news media (Bartlett 1973,
The theory of agenda-setting is close to the theory of priming, which refers to the
standards that people use to make political evaluations: “By calling attention to some matters
while ignoring others, television news influences the standards by which governments,
presidents, policies and candidates for public office are judged” (Iyengar & Kinder 1987:63).
Such standards will change over time: sometimes the focus is on inflation, sometimes on
unemployment, other times on health politics and welfare questions or on educational policy.
Political parties normally will give such issues different priorities and come up with different
suggestions and political answers. Sometimes a political party “own” a special issue in the
public opinion because it has been an important part of the party’s profile and priorities.
Sometimes two parties share the “ownership”, but with different political answers (Petrocik
1996, Narud & Valen 2001, Bjørklund 2001). In either case some parties and politicians
directly or indirectly will be favoured when some issues get much more attention than others
in television and other news media. This means that news priorities and the selection of
particular topics for discussion in election debates, can effect public opinion. In most cases
these effects are unintended by newsmakers.
6
A last concept which must be mentioned in this connection, is that of frames or more
specifically, media frames. Such media frames can be defined as “persistent patterns of
cognition, interpretations, and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and exclusion, by which
symbol-handlers routinely organize discourse, whether verbal or visual” (Gitlin 1980:7).
Framing is selecting “some aspects of a perceived reality” to enhance their salience “in such a
way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation,
and/or treatment recommendation” (Entman 1993: 53). Frames of one or other type are
unavoidable in journalism, but they also influence what we see and what we don’t see and
how we interpret different events. If for example a general election is framed like a combat
sport between a few candidates, then opinion polls, personal confrontations and the power
play easily will dominate both the headlines and what is commented on in the editorials (Eide
1991).
Media frames can, according to Iyengar (1991), be characterised as “episodic”, which
concentrates on particular events, and “thematic”, which refers to more general, contextual, or
historical coverage. Framing turns particular news events and elements into a larger and well
known narratives, like “bureaucrats misuse of tax payers money”, “granny’s in queues for a
place in hospital” or, as in the Cold War, “the conflict between the free world and
communism”. Media frames are never constant, they are influenced by negotiations between
journalists and news sources, but often they represent a context that is more or less taken for
granted.
Television formats in election campaigns
Together with Sweden Norway was one of the first European countries to introduce television
debates before elections in 1961. The first years it was up to the parties themselves to agree
upon what kind of programs should be transmitted on radio and television (Østbye 1997:
222). The party leader debates had more or less a “press conference format”. It was a quasi-
discussion, typical also in other countries, with rigid constraints upon supplementary
questioning and obsessive clock watching of negotiated speaking time (Coleman 2000: 17).
The growing journalistic independence resulted in other types of programs. A
dominant format in NRK Television during election campaigns from 1973 to the 1990’s were
interview programs where leaders from each party were examined by senior political reporters
7
about their party program and confronted with their party’s deeds. The atmosphere in these
interviews was often so tense that the programs were nicknamed a “grill-party”.
In the general election in 1993 the public service channel, NRK, for the first time got a
competitor on the political media arena. A commercial channel, TV 2, was founded in the
autumn the year before, owned by public stock companies and financed by advertising. TV 2
is, however, dependent on a concession from the government and therefore has to accept
some guidelines for program composition.
Generally this development has resulted in a fierce media competition. Especially
important is the focus on ratings and market shares (Syvertsen 1997: 226). For TV 2 it is vital
to get the highest possible rating in the right segments of the population, because the attention
of the audience is a commodity that can be sold to advertisers. For NRK, which is financed by
a special broadcasting license fee, highest possible ratings (in all segments of the population)
are looked upon as necessary because they are vital to maintain political support in the
Norwegian parliament for the license fee system. However, both channels give high priority
to news and current interest programs, including election debates, and news is a important
instrument in the competition both for good ratings and for public legitimacy (Waldahl & al.
2002: 274).
NRK Television and TV 2 covered the 2001 election both in ordinary news programs
and special election programs. All election programs were transmitted in prime time, just after
the late afternoon or evening news. For an overview of the program types, see table 1.
In their national election programs2 NRK Television used three formats. One of them,
“the flag ship”, was called “Peoples Meeting” and was sent once a week. There was a defined
“main topic” for the panel debate, which had two moderators, one male and one female, both
were experienced journalists. Five to six representatives from different parties were invited to
participate in the discussion. The debates lasted about one hour and were arranged by NRK in
different towns around in the country, outside broadcasting studios, and with a audience of
several hundred people. Most of the audience were local members of the same parties as the
debating politicians. The audience were not invited to take the floor, but could applaud, laugh
or boo at the remarks of the politicians during the debate, which they definitely did. The
channels aim was to create interest for politics by showing that political discussions can
sometimes be funny, and high rating surely was an aim.3
2 Beside national television programs, NRK transmitted national election programs in one of their three radio channels, P2, and also transmitted several regional election programs both in television and radio. 3 Director of NRK’s News Department, Anne Aasheim, in interview 24th of April 2002.
8
The second format in NRK Television was a half hour long studio debate program
about currant political topics, sent three times a week. This “Election Studio” had two
program hosts, one male and one female, and each of them was moderator for a short debate.
In one of these discussions there were normally three participants, often two politicians and
one expert or journalist commentator. The other discussion was a classical duel between two
political leaders, lead by an active and intervening moderator. In every program there was an
election reportage, more or less connected with one of the topics that were discussed.
Table 1 Election program formats in NRK and TV 2, 2001 Program Number of Type Moderator
programs of debate “Party leader debate”, NRK 1 Panel debate, informative Active, neutral “Peoples Meeting”, NRK 4 Panel debate, informative, entertaining Active, neutral “Election Tabloid” TV 2 9 Talk show, informative, entertaining Active, neutral4 “Election Combat” TV 2 4 Talk show, entertaining Active, partisan “Election Studio” NRK 10 Talk show, informative Active, neutral “Election Duel” TV 2 4 Duel, entertaining Passive, Match- leader The third format was just one program; the concluding debate between party leaders a few
days before the election. In contrast to the party leaders “press conference”-debates of the old
type, this program was a real discussion about several central political questions, with
journalists as active and influential moderators.
TV 2, which as mentioned before is a private channel financed by advertising, used
three different types of programs during the election. One format was called “The election
duel”, and was a half hour long discussion, without audience in the studio, lead by a female
journalist moderator. The participants were standing face to face, and the moderators main
aim was to stimulate the verbal fighting. The Chief Editor of TV 2 was also present as an
official judge, and after “the match” he came with the verdict and told which politician was
the winner of the discussion. During the program the public could call a telephone number
and say which politician they thought was winning the debate. The voting result was regularly
shown on the screen, and the moderator sometimes told the debating politicians who seemed
to be winning or loosing.
The two other programs were both election variants of permanent talk show formats in
this channel. One of them, called “Tabloid”, is a traditional half hour long debate and question 4 In one of the programs, where the politics of the Socialist Left Party was set on the agenda, the “Tabloid”-moderator left his traditional neutral debate leadership and introduced a more partisan style, which made the program to a “grill-party”.
9
program without audience and with a senior, male political reporter as host and moderator.
Normally there are two or three guests in the studio. There is no audience, the atmosphere is
usually relaxed, and the host himself always has a central role as moderator. “Election
Tabloid” was sent twice a week.
The other program, called “Combat”, in this period christened “Election Combat”,
lasts about one hour and was sent once a week. It has a circular studio setting which includes
places for a small audience. Some selected participants in the debate are placed before the
audience, others who are invited to say something sit with the ordinary audience. The
moderator (male) is active, wandering around on the floor, normally posing as a
representative of “ordinary people”, questioning representatives from the authorities or other
leaders. The temperature in the debate and the entertainment factor of the program is meant to
be high. Politically “Combat” is known as a talk show with a neo-liberal, populist bias.
Beside these programs and formats TV 2 also, some days before the ordinary election
programs started, changed their ordinary evening program and transmitted an ordinary public
debate organised in Bergen, between the then Labour Party Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg,
and the leader of the Conservative Party, Jan Petersen.
This means that the “questioning hour”, where senior reporters interviewed and
examined representatives from the different parties, this year were abolished in both channels.
TV 2 gave up this format previously in the 1999 Municipal Election. One important factor
behind this decision seems to be that talk shows, duels and panel debates, at least for the time
being, are looked upon as more entertaining and interesting for most viewers.5
Table 2 Election programs in NRK Television and TV 2. Average numbers of viewers (rating in 1000), rating in per cent of the total Norwegian population (over 12 year old) and market share among those who saw television at the time of the program, for different program types Program type Viewers (1000) Rating per cent Market share “Party leader debate”, NRK 749 20 54 “Peoples Meeting”, NRK 620 17 46 “Election Tabloid” TV 2 489 13 46 “Election Combat” TV 2 478 13 48 “Election Studio” NRK 468 13 37 “The Election Duel” TV 2 359 10 31 Source: NRK Research Department/ Norsk Gallup
5 This view was expressed in interviews both by Anne Aasheim, Director for NYDI (News departments and district offices) in NRK (interview 24th of April, 2002) and Stein Kåre Kristiansen, editor-in-chief for Current Affairs in TV 2 (interview 14th of March 2002). Kristiansen thinks that questioning programs “are boring and less interesting from a commercial point of view” comp ared with talk shows and duels.
10
In terms of viewers the party leader debate on NRK was the most popular of the different
program types. This single debate got, as shown in table 2, 749.000 viewers, which
represented a market share of 54 per cent of those who saw television at that time of that
evening. One fifth of Norway’s total population over 12 years of age (the TV Universe)
watched the program. Of the regular formats “Peoples Meeting” (NRK) was the most popular
and “Election Duel” (TV2) the least popular. However, when one takes into account that the
first weeks of the election campaign period were light summer evenings with much outdoor
life, and less interest for television than in other parts of the year, the ratings for most
programs must be considered relatively high.
Television debates and news programs, who were invited on the scene?
In the childhood of Norwegian television the parties that belonged to the political opposition
long feared that the broadcasting monopoly of NRK should be exploited to favour the
government party. Their pressure resulted in a democratic decision: all parties with national
organisations should have the same access to election programs. Up to the last elections the
parties also decided who should represent them.
Today’s television channels have quite another policy. They independently decide the
program formats, decide the topics of debate and they also decide which politicians from the
parties will be invited. In news programs such an editorial policy has long been the routine; no
politicians or other person has any “right” to become a news source or demand an interview.
This does not mean that there were not contacts and discussions between the television
channels and the political parties in the 2001 election. Several months before the election
campaign period NRK Television arranged meetings both with the political parties and the
Prime Minister’s office. Here they presented and got comments on their program plans. TV 2,
on their side, used more informal methods in their contact with the parties. Both channels
communicated with the politicians, the latter could make proposals and suggestions, and
during the election campaign they regularly took initiatives both to influence the debates and
to get news headlines. Every day journalists were “invited to dance” with the political
sources, and the parties regularly produced “spin” about themselves and their political
competitors. However, the final word concerning who should be on the air was taken by the
news organisations. Says Stein Kåre Kristiansen, editor-in-chief of Current Affairs in TV2 :
11
“The selection is based on a journalistic judgement. We have no duties to give all parties a
certain amount of broadcasting time”6.
Who was then invited to participate? Let us first take a look on the debate programs,
and then turn to the news.
During the election period NRK Television transmitted 15 election programs,
including 25 different debates, because in some formats different politicians sometimes
discussed different topics 7. TV 2 transmitted 18 programs, including 19 different debates.
Together this means that parties and politicians were invited to as much as 44 different
television debates. Some of the debates were duels between two people, others were panel
debates with 5-8 participants.
All together there were 144 participants, 67 per cent of them were men and 33 per cent
women, in these programs. Most of them (83 per cent) were politicians, and some of the party
leaders were invited to a lot of these debates. The rest of the participants were academics and
other experts, journalists, representatives from interest organisations and a few “ordinary
voters”.
Table 3 Election debates in NRK Television and TV 2 in 2001. Political parties share (per cent) of all party participants Party NRK TV2 Both channels Labour Party 25 27 26 Conservative Party 17 25 21 Christian Peoples Party 14 15 14 Socialis t Left Party 12 13 13 Progress Party 11 13 12 Centre Party 11 4 8 Liberal Party 6 2 4 Coast Party 2 2 2 Red Election Alliance 3 0 2 All 100 100 100 (N) (65) (55) (120)
Among the 120 politicians who participated in these programs, about one fourth came from
the Labour Party (table 3). The parties’ shares and their ranking on this list are more or less
the same as their shares and their ranking in the opinion polls in the weeks of the election
campaign. The priorities of the two channels were generally the same, but with one important
difference. The commercial TV 2 favoured the biggest parties (especially the Conservative
6 Interview 14th of March 2002. 7 A particular debate can of course take up several political topics. But if the change of topic also include a change of participants in the debate (and sometimes a new moderator) it has been registered as a new debate.
12
Party) more strongly than NRK Television did, excluded the Red Election Alliance from their
programs and gave the other small parties a little lower representation than that which would
correspond to their standing in the opinion polls.
Both channels mostly used the politicians that are most known publicly. For the parties this in
the long run can be a strategic problem because it gives the parties less opportunities to launch
“new faces” on the public scene. However, the parties’ leaderships normally accept this
policy, and the present leaders of course also know that such choices can secure their own
position in the limelight.
Table 4 shows the number of performances for the politicians who most frequently
participated in the television debates. The leader of the Conservative Party is on top of the list,
with the Prime Minister from the Labour Party and the leader of Socialist Left Party in the
next two places. Two parties, the Conservative Party and the Christian Peoples Party, got two
politicians each on this exclusive list. These eight politicians from six political parties had
about half of all appearances in duels and panel debates during the election campaign. There
is, however, a certain difference when we compare the choice of the two channels. In TV 2
the party leaders and prime minister candidates all together dominated the debates and duels
more than they did in NRK Television.
Table 4 Politicians with most television performances during the election campaign 2001, NRK Television and TV 2 Politician, position and party Number of performances NRK TV2 Both channels Jan Petersen, Leader, Conservative Party 4 7 11 Jens Stoltenberg, Prime Minister, Labour Party 4 6 10 Kristin Halvorsen, Leader, Socialist Left Party 4 6 10 Kjell M. Bondevik, Parlamentarian Leader, Christian Peoples Party 5 3 8 Carl I. Hagen, Leader, Progress Party 3 3 6 Per Kr. Foss, Vice Leader, Conservative Party 2 4 6 Odd R. Enoksen, Leader, Centre Party 4 1 5 Valgerd S. Haugland, Leader, Christian Peoples Party 3 2 5 Sum for eight politicians 29 32 61 Per cent of all politicians performances 45 58 51 (N) (65) (55) (120)
When parties and politicians complain about “discrimination” or exclusion from certain
debates in television, a standard argument from editors (and clearly a legitimate argument
13
from a journalistic point of view) is that a all parties cannot be represented in every debate. If
the debates shall function as “good television” the number of participants have to be limited.
As a consequence, they invite the politicians who they think are the most “interesting” for the
public in a special duel or panel debate. The problems, from a normative, democratic point of
view, arises if and when this in practice is used to discriminate some political alternatives.
However, the NRK Television still seem to feel a stronger obligation than TV 2 to ensure that
also the smaller parties get a minimum representation.
In many western countries the top candidates only from two big party machines
usually participate in television debates, if there are any such debates at all (Holme 2000: 92-
103). The present policy of the Norwegian channels would under such circumstances
probably be regarded as fair and democratic, because it still gives the opposition parties -
including some of the smallest - a chance to get their voice heard. Some would also argue that
to give small parties the same rights as bigger and more established parties can encourage
party splits and sectarianism and in this way undermine political stability. In Norway, where
NRK Television in most cases treated all national parties alike in election programs through
several decades, the policy in 2001 can in contrast be seen as a break with egalitarian and
democratic traditions.
In 2001 the parties’ representation in the party leader debate in NRK Television
became a heated topic of discussion. This debate traditionally is a sort of symbolic finale in
the election campaign, and is a program with high ratings. Not to be represented there is
defined by politicians and the Press as being out of “the political room”.
Before the election campaign in 2001 NRK invited seven of the eight parties that were
represented in the parliament to participate in this debate, plus the revolutionary socialist Red
Election Alliance8. Excluded from the start was the regional Coast Party. In August the NRK
leadership suddenly announced that neither the Red Election Alliance nor the Coast Party
would be invited. This decision, unsurprisingly , resulted in indignant protest from both
excluded parties, and in the hours before the party leader debate election activists
demonstrated outside the NRK studios.9
8 This party won a seat from Oslo in the general election in 1993. 9 The parties which were refused admission were not the only critics. Norway’s biggest morning newspaper, Aftenposten, with a liberal conservative political profile, wrote in an editorial that both these parties should have joined the panel. The main argument was that the two parties had real chances of representation, and that the TV channels should not risk suspicions of being political actors, should anyone argue that in the final days of the election campaign, they limited the right to speak.
14
Beside the election programs both channels had several daily news programs, which
included reports about opinion polls, political initiatives and other election stories, plus some
news sequences which took up political issues outside the formal frame of the election
campaign. The channels policy is that in news production all parties are judged by the same
values or standards: to be registered as “newsworthy” the initiatives and speech acts of the
parties and politicians have to be relevant, actual and interesting for a broader public. The
decisions concerning topics and sources are made in the news room from day to day.
An analysis of two evening news programs on both NRK Television and TV 2 in the
four election campaigning weeks (13th of August to 9th of September), shows that these
transmissions included 292 news sequences where politicians were interviewed or in other
ways referred to as news sources.
In these news programs the Labour Party were represented in more than half of the
news sequences with one or more political source. Of the 424 “political sources” referred to in
these sequences, the share of the Labour politicians was 40 per cent (table 5). The rank of the
parties generally follow the same pattern as in the election debates, but with a much higher
share for the Labour Party, and a less for most of the others. The priorities of the different
political news sources were about the same in the two competing channels.
Table 5 Politicians interviewed or quoted as sources in evening news programs in NRK Television and TV 2 during the election campaign Party NRK TV2 Both channels Labour Party 37 44 40 Conservative Party 18 14 16 Christian Peoples Party 13 12 13 Progress Party 8 8 8 Socialist Left Party 7 5 6 Liberal Party 4 5 5 Centre Party 4 3 4 Coast Party 4 3 4 Red Election Alliance 2 1 2 Other parties/lists 2 3 3 All 100 100 100 (N) (215) (209) (424)
The main reason for the dominance of Labour Party sources in the news seem to be their
government position. They were, as Cook (1998) put it, “governing with the news”. The
Prime Minister and his office, as well as the different ministers and their departments, are
normally, and not least in an election period, regular producers of events which both
15
broadcasting channels and other news organisations look upon as newsworthy by
conventional criteria. Examples of such news events are law proposals, announcements of
budget proposals or other governmental initiatives. When an opposition party attacks the
government, the Prime Minister or other ministers also have a short way to the news rooms if
they want to answer.
The “news criteria” and the day to day decisions of what is newsworthy seem more or
less to be based on the parties’ political power positions, supplied with their actual market
value according to the opinion polls. Normally this favours the biggest parties. The Socialist
Left Party, and in a short period, also the Coast Party, however got some more news attention
when the opinion polls told they were increasing their strength among the voters. As the
election result (Appendix 1) surely indicates: to be defined out of the debates and the news
can surely be a problem in election times. However, to be in the news is definitely no
guarantee for political success.
Frames and topics in television debates and news programs
To participate in a duel, or in a party leader panel debate, gives politicians a chance to make a
good impression on constituents that have not yet decided how to vote. Alternatively, such a
chance can also be misused. The leader of the Labour Party was, for example, met with severe
criticism after the party leader debate on NRK Television in the municipal elections in 1999,
because many thought he had given a poor performance and lacked the necessary qualities to
be a television communicator. In the same way, news about parties can be good or bad,
positive or negative. Party leaders who week after week during an election campaign get
headlines about their party’s poor or decreasing support, would often wish that there were less
frequent news about opinion polls.
Which issues will dominate the headlines and comments in the news media? The
answer to this question is of vital importance for party strategists, and before and during an
election campaign they will always try to influence the agenda of the news media. The parties
will try to highlight political questions and areas where they already have succeeded in
establishing an “issue ownership”. They know that the priming of the news media can effect
the parties chances in the election.
Long before the election in 2001 the Conservative Party, as an example, concentrated
on two issues, both with special appeal to the urban middle class: tax cuts and better schools.
16
The party leadership gave priority to these questions in budget debates, took them up in
speeches and media interviews and during the election campaign the slogan “lower taxes and
better schools” was repeated at every possible occasion, sometimes to the frustration of
reporters and moderators trying to take up other questions. The Socialist Left Party, on their
side, gave priority to “better schools” and benefits for young families and children. They
therefore attacked the tax proposals of the Conservative party. This meant that two very
different opposition parties more or less were in harmony concerning what policy questions
should be discussed. For the news organisations such tendencies and signals are important.
Another example, in contrast to this, can be the attempts of the Centre Party to make
Norway’s relations to the European Union to a central issue in the 2001 election. The Centre
Party played a leading role in the successful struggle against Norwegian membership in 1994,
and has established an issue ownership in debates about Norway’s relations to the European
Union and especially against all “directives from Brussels”. Opinion polls in 2001 confirmed
that there still is a no-majority among the voters. The Labour Party and the Conservative
Party (who were both on the losing side in the 1994-Referendum) understandably tried to
avoid any election debate about this issue, and this tactics was a success.
The news organisations on their side, normally take three questions into consideration
when they make their plans for the election period. Which issues will, according to opinion
polls, be of greatest interest for voters? Which issues will the leading political parties try to
put on the public agenda? And finally: are there any issues that the government or the parties
neglect, that should be highlighted through initiatives by the media themselves during the
election weeks? The answers to the first two questions are often combined: the opinion polls
are taken both as a barometer for the popularity of parties and the interest for certain issues.
The content analyses of the debates and the news programs includes several variables,
among them frames and topics. We have chosen to distinguish between to values, a “power
play frame” and an “issue frame”. The first frame includes all topics concerning the “horse
race”, general party bickering and speculations about winners and losers, government
alternatives and prime minister candidates. The second frame includes the news and debates
topics concerning political issues like taxes, schools, environment and so forth. The topic
variable includes 27 values.
Table 6 shows important frames and topics in the 44 different television debates on the
two channels10. About a quarter of the topics discussed were “meta-debates” about the
10 In some programs the topic or topics of discussion was clearly defined and framed by the moderators, in other programs the questions taken up was more general and open. To differentiate between different “topic values” is
17
chances for alternative governments, comments to opinion polls and other questions which
belong to the “power play frame”. Most news media framed the general election as a
“government election” with three prime minister candidates. These candidates were the then
Prime Minister from the Labour Party (Jens Stoltenberg), the parliamentarian leader of
Christian Peoples Party (former Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik) and the leader of the
Conservative Party (Jan Petersen). All of them were invited to “prime minister duels” on both
channels, and in these discussions the other parties and their leaders were placed on the
sideline.
Three quarters of the discussed topics can be described as belonging to a “issue
frame”, concentrating on different political answers to substantial policy questions in the
election.
Table 6 Television debates after frames and topics in NRK Television and TV 2 during the election campaign 2001. Per cent Frames and issues NRK Television TV 2 Both channels Power play frame 22 26 24 - Prime minister duels/ government questions 9 12 10 - Opinions polls, election campaign 13 14 14 Issue frame 78 74 76 - Welfare, social policy and health 22 26 24 - Tax questions, finance policy 13 23 18 - Foreign policy 11 2 7 - School and education 4 3 6 - Other issues 28 16 22 All 100 100 100 (N) (46) (43) (89) Of the topics grouped under the “issue frame”, the most frequent was welfare and health, for
one thing wage earners’ economic rights during sick leave. The Labour Party focused on the
last issue during the first week of the election campaign, and the Prime Minister received
much applause when he criticised The Conservative Party for wanting to finance tax
reductions at the expense of sick people. This tactics boomeranged when two newspapers
(after leaks to the press) exposed that the Labour government, earlier the same year, behind
the public scene, had considered restrictions in sick leave rights - plans they had to give up sometimes easy, sometimes difficult, especially when there is a more or less “anarchistic” change of topics from the participants in a debate. We have chosen to attach importance to the moderators and program hosts questions and remarks about which issues they wanted the participants to discuss. In most cases they also introduced the change of topics. NB: The topics registered is not weighted according to time used.
18
after opposition from the Trade Union Movement. Traditionally the Labour Party has had an
issue ownership in matters concerning social welfare and health, but this ownership has been
weakened over many years. As a government party the Labour Party has insisted on being the
most “responsible” of all parties in financial policy questions, and has especially warned
against the use of more “oil money” in the internal economy, also when the proposals have
been grants to secure better health care and increased pensions for the elderly. As a result a lot
of social democratic voters have turned to the right-wing, populist Progress Party or to the
“real social democrats” in the Socialist Left Party.
Another main topic was debates about tax questions and financial policy. As
mentioned this was a favourite issue for the Conservative Party, and traditionally also for the
Progress Party. The Socialist Left Party succeeded on their side to be a spokesman for those
who feared that huge tax cuts would undermine welfare benefits, and the Christian Peoples
Party warned against tax cuts that would undermine aid programmes to Third World
countries. The Labour Party tried to take up both these consequences, but lacked credibility.
For most of the other parties the tax debates meant that they more or less were ignored.
School and education was a topic in relatively few debates, but one of them was
important: a “Peoples Meeting” in NRK Television. International questions got some
attention on NRK Television, but nearly none in TV 2. The commercial channel’s reluctance
to take up international questions is no doubt due to the demand for “hot” and entertaining
topics in their talk show formats. Of the political parties only the Centre Party tried,
unsuccessfully, to give foreign policy questions any priority. NRK on their side tried to put
criminal policy on the agenda trough a “People meeting”. For several years this has been one
of the favourite issues of the Progress Party, who normally have tried to frame criminal
problems as consequences of a liberal and “soft-hearted” immigration policy. This year the
Progress Party had other priorities, the discussion became tame and the debate got a relatively
low rating. This indicates that attention in a “big television debate” is no guarantee for high
public interest in an issue. Also, other factors than media content influence this.
Table 7 shows the distribution of different frames and political topics in the television
news11. The news decisions are normally taken from day to day, with little long-term
11 The programs which is analysed is the main news program (19.00 o’clock) and the evening news program (normally 23.00 o’clock) in NRK Television, and the two evening news programs in TV 2 (at 18.30 o’clock and 21.00 o’clock). Every news program consists of several news sequences, which is the unit analysed here. Political news sequences is defined as all sequences concerning general election issues and all other issues concerning national, regional or local public affairs and involving public authorities or political parties. Included is also some other sequences during the election weeks, where politicians were interviewed or referred to as sources (like the Royal Wedding and a interview with the leader of the Christian Peoples Party at a football
19
planning. In the election period we have not found any example in the two channels of
political news based on independent, investigating journalism. The general news frame is, to
use Iyengar’s concept, “episodic”, with very little room for thematic news, and in most cases
dependent on initiatives from the political parties and other sources, including newspapers.
The most “independent” news is the opinion polls organised by the news organisations.
Table 7 News sequences after frames and political topics in NRK television and TV 2 during the election campaign 2001. Per cent Frames and topics NRK Television TV 2 Both channels Power play frame 36 41 39 - Prime minister duels/ government questions 13 6 9 - Opinion polls, election campaign 23 35 30 Issue frame - Welfare, social policy and health 10 16 11 - Foreign policy 12 7 9 - Tax questions, finance policy 8 7 8 - School and education 9 6 8 - Environment policy 6 2 4 - Immigration, minority policy 4 3 3 - Other issues 14 17 16 All 100 100 100 (N) (127) (165) (292)
In practice, the two channels followed more or less the same framing and topical priorities in
the news as in debate programs, but with even more attention to the election as a power play
and “horse race” between a few prime minister candidates and their parties. 39 per cent used
this type of framing, mostly linked to opinion polls. Beside this, welfare policy and health
questions (especially sick leave rights), tax questions and school/education were central
issues. In the news there was also some more place for questions concerning environmental
policy and minority policies than in the debates. The foreign policy questions in the news
were mostly about the conflict between Norwegian and Australian authorities concerning
refugees on the ship Tampa, and did not become a real part of the election campaign.
An interesting question is if there were important political issues or political areas
which more or less were kept out of the public eye during the election campaign? The answer
is that this definitely was the case both in the news programs end the election debates. One of match). Only one topic is registered per sequence, and if the sequence consists of more than one topic the first mentioned topic is chosen.
20
these issues was defence and security, including questions concerning Norway’s membership
in NATO and the government partnerships in different international “peace keeping
operations” , among them in the Balkans. One day after the general election, on the 11th of
September, came the terrorist attack in New York and Washington and soon Norwegian
politicians again were involved in a political and military alliance with US authorities.
However, no questions relevant to such policies were ever debated throughout the election
campaign. Neither the economic and social consequences of “globalisation”, nor answers to
other important international problems, were discussed.
Among the other non-issues in television during the election campaign, was industrial
policy, including oil and energy questions. The only aspect of such policies which became
news was environmental problems connected with plans for the development of the gas
industry. Culture and media policy were also totally neglected.
The problems connected with depopulation in the periphery (which, in Norway,
includes most of the important fishery districts) for a long time was ignored by most urban
media. The interest for North-Norway awakened both in the television channels and the
dailies, when the Coast Party suddenly got higher ratings in the local opinion polls. This
interest, however, focused more on the personality of the party’s leader, Steinar Bastesen12,
than the political factors behind his party’s progress. The public also witnessed how easily
news journalism and political campaigns can be coordinated. In the last days and hours before
the election day, TV 2’s news department “disclosed” old news about Bastesen who owned
some shares in a company which used the internet to distribute pornographic pictures of
school girls. The female President of the Norwegian parliament13 then was invited by TV 2 to
denounce his investment. For the Coast Party the election campaign on television ended with
an unhappy ending.
The role and rhetoric of moderators
The role as hosts and moderators in political talk shows and panel debates gives, as we have
seen, television channels and their responsible journalists different types of power. They
decide both the topics of discussion and whom shall discuss with who. The journalists’ role as
12 Steinar Bastesen is a member of parliament (Stortinget) and a former fisherman and whaler, known for his many confrontations with Greenpeace. He has never been much of a communicator in television programs, neither a good speaker at public meetings, but has his strength in direct contact with ordinary people, especially in the coast districts in North Norway. 13 Kirsten Kolle Grøndahl, the Labour Party.
21
moderators also give them the power to frame the discussions, for example through questions,
interruptions and comments, by inviting witnesses who personalise the problems that are
discussed and by cooperating with experts who can function as a corrective to the politicians
(and often also as supporters of the moderators angle).
In the general election in 2001 both NRK Television and TV 2 arranged several
debates about economic questions, and two of these discussions gave interesting examples of
different rhetoric styles and different types of framing.
One of these programs is a debate in TV 2’s “Election Combat”14. The main topic was
Norway’s high tax-level. About twenty people were present in the studio, and nine of them
were invited to speak during the program. The main actors were five leading politicians. The
other speakers were an economic expert from a private bank, a lobbyist from the House
Owners Association, a spokeswoman from another interest organisation and a local trade
union leader. The other people in the studio were invited to be there as a small studio
audience.
The moderator, an experienced talk show host, us usual directed the debate from a
position in the middle of the studio. Sometimes he spoke to the participants, sometimes he
appealed directly to the television audience. No person talked as much as the host, and in this
program he used one fourth of the total speaking time. He had most of the time but not always
a very active role, and interrupted 36 per cent of the total number of utterances in the debate.
His rhetoric contained elements of both logos, ethos and pathos.
When he introduced the topic of the debate the moderator started with a “factual
statement” directed at the television audience: “Of everything you have earned up to now this
year.. you have to wait to after the summer holidays before you can put what you earn in your
own pocket. An industrial worker with average wages pays more than seven monthly wages
in direct and indirect taxes”. The message on and between the lines is that the tax level in
Norway is far to high, and that there is a antagonistic contradiction between what you earn
and what the state takes.
The Labour Party’s representative in the debate tried to protest, both against the
“facts” and the framing of the debate, but was easily overruled. Both the politician from the
Conservative Party, The Progress Party and the chosen economic expert confirmed the
statements from the moderator.
14 Transmitted 21th of August 2001.
22
During the debate, which several times resulted in a bickering, the participant from the
Socialist Left Party tried to introduce a new political framing, namely that it gives little
meaning in discussing the tax level without taking into account what you get in return, for
example as free health services, free school, subsidised public transport and other
contributions to the public welfare. He did not succeed, and the program was also organised in
such a way that the participants more or less had to accept the political frame that was
introduced by the host if they wanted to participate in the discussion. In this program the host
and moderator acted both as an entertainer and an impresario, a spokesman for the “man in
the street” against the tax authorities - and at this occasion clearly as an actor with a political
agenda.
The other program connected with this discussion is a “Peoples meeting” on NRK
television.15 The topic here was the how the enormous income from the petroleum sector
(“oil money”) should be used in the national economy, and several questions related to this.
This was an election debate outside the ordinary television studios. There were two
moderators, six politicians in a panel and an audience of several hundred people in the
assembly room.
The two moderators (a woman and a man, both senior reporters) operated as a team
and played more or less the same role. They cooperated and constantly interacted. The female
moderator used a rhetoric with short, nice and sometimes ironic remarks, which contributed to
creating a pleasant tone in the debate. The journalistic strategy of both moderators seemed to
be to expose dimness or contradictions in the utterances from the politicians. 23 per cent of
the utterances of the politicians were interrupted, a much lower share than in TV 2s “Election
combat”. The style was matter-of-fact, politically neutral and without metaphors or elements
of pathos. The moderators used much of their time and remarks just to moderate, they
demanded clear and short answers to their questions, but seldom tried to follow up the
political contradictions in the panel. They acted like impresarios, who in the end gave the
politicians with most initiative the right to frame the discussion.
Concluding remarks
Some main findings:
15 Transmitted 5th of December 2001.
23
- Today journalists and editors represent a societal institution which have the power to
influence election campaigns as well as other political processes. In Norway’s general
election in 2001 the two national television channels chose the formats and topics of
the elections programs, decided which parties should be invited and which politicians
should represent the parties. Through this ‘definition power’ and priming they had an
important political influence on the election campaign, and not least on the priorities
of the top politicians. In this way they also can be characterised as independent
political actors. The attention and time on air given to parties/politicians both in
political debates and in news programs was strongly linked to their political “market
value”: they were more or less represented as relative to their position in the opinion
polls. This program policy represents a break with the old public service ideal of equal
access for all national parties in the election programs. NRK, however, still seems to
feel a stronger obligation than TV 2 to ensure that also the smaller parties get a
minimum representation.
- An important and positive effect of the two Norwegian television channels role in the
election campaign in 2001 was their ability to organise debates and other types of
election programs, which interested broad groups of constituents.
- The most important negative consequence of this media power seem to be what Asp
(1986) called the “medialisation” of politics. Elections campaigns and media election
campaigns are in our time more or less synonymous concepts. During the election
campaign the different television debates is the favoured arena of all leading
politicians, and most political initiatives concerns television news and debates. This
influences what they give priority and how they present their message. During election
campaigns the top politicians do not dare to travel far away from the central television
studios, because they must always be able be there on short notice. The two most used
standard in market-oriented journalism for the judgement of politicians and parties, are
their ability to be effective communicators on television, and their positions in the
opinion polls. This development strengthen a tendency to reduce political parties to
centralised public relations machines.
- The television channels has an agenda-setting role in the elections campaign, and
influences the framing of politics. However, when we look at the most important
24
political issues in the elections campaign, the two television channels can not be
characterised as active agenda-setters. The chosen political topics in television debates
and the news were more or less the same as the politicians in the urban political elite
had already given priority to. For example, tax questions, education and “government
alternatives”. The politicians that were chosen to participate in the debates, and
regularly used as important news sources, were mostly party leaders and cabinet
ministers. There are few examples which can confirm that the television channels
through debates or news programs independently influenced the parties election
campaigns. In must cases they were agenda-senders, above all for the biggest political
parties and some important interest groups. In this respect there were small differences
between the two channels.
- The Conservative Party and the Socialist Left Party in this election both seemed to
gain from the priming effects of national television. However, the fate of the Labour
Party demonstrate that a heavy representation both in debates and news programs is of
little help if voters do not have confidence in the party’s politics and election
promises. The priming effects, and especially the exclusion from many debates,
clearly were negative for most of the small parties. They were often “invisible” and
seldom became “news”. The Liberal Party, for example, lacked just a few votes to
pass the threshold (4 per cent of the national vote), which could have given several
additional seats. Due to this the party did not pass the threshold, and the plans for a
new coalition government between The Christian Peoples Party, The Centre Party and
The Liberal Party were dropped without further discussion. Norway therefore, gained
a government coalition dominated by the Conservative Party.
- More than one third of the sequences about politics in news programs presented
opinion polls or framed the election as a “horse race” between the prime minister
candidates, with little weight on substantial political questions. This framing of the
election can come to undermine voters interest for political issues, long term politics
and ideological questions. The most extreme expression of this tendency was the
“boxing match” format in TV 2’s “Election duel” where one of the participants after
the debate was elected “the winner”.
25
- Talk shows, duels and panel debates between party leaders and other top politicians
were the main program format on both channels. The two dominant journalist roles
were the traditional moderator and the entertaining talk show host. In most cases the
type of programs, and the framing, were well known ground for the media trained
politicians. Both channels wanted to entertain, but NRK Television showed a stronger
obligation to enlightenment in the election debates than TV 2.
Conclusion: News organisations, like television channels, play an important role in politics,
and especially in election periods. Journalists can be characterised as political actors, but
without ties or loyalty to any particular party. Commercial priorities, conventional news
values and media formats normally favour the ruling political elites and can easily be
exploited by media trained politicians and their “spin doctors”. This development is a
challenge for all who want to encourage serious political debates and strengthen democratic
institutions.
Appendix 1: The general election in 2001
The result of the election is presented in table 1. The voters choice was a particular catastrophe for the ruling Labour Party. Other “losers” compared with the 1997- election were the Liberal Party and the Centre Party. The “winners” of the general election in 2001 were the Conservative Party and Socialist Left Party. Table 1 General election, Norway 2001. Share of votes and number of seats after party list Party Share of (+/ - compared Seats votes with –97-election) Labour Party (Det norske Arbeiderparti) 24,3 - 10,7 43 Conservative Party (Høyre) 21,2 + 6,9 38 Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet) 16 14,6 - 0,7 26 Socialist Left Party (Sosialistisk Venstreparti) 12,5 + 6,5 23 Christian Peoples Party (Kristelig Folkeparti) 12,4 - 1,3 22 Centre Party (Senterpartiet)17 5,6 - 2,3 10 Liberal Party (Venstre) 3,9 - 0,6 2 Coast Party (Kystpartiet)18 1,7 + 1,3 1 Red Election Alliance (Rød Valgallianse) 1,2 - 0,5 0 Other parties/lists 2,6 + 1,0 0 All 100,0 165
Source: Statistics Norway
16 The Progress Party was founded in 1973 as a populist and right wing “tax protest” movement. The last five years the Progress Party has also succeeded in establishing a issue ownership in health politics, especially concerning the rights of the elderly, and this development has strengthened the Progress Party’s position in the traditional working class at the expence of the Labour Party. 17 Former the Centre Party was called the Agrarian Party. 18 The Coast Party is a regional party with its main base in North-Norway.
26
References Allern, S (1997) Når kildene byr opp till dans (When news sources ask you to dance), Pax, Oslo. Allern, S (2001) Flokkdyr på Løvebakken: Søkelys på Stortingets presselosje og politikkens medierammer (Herd journalism? Spotlight on the Norwegian
parliamentary press lobby and the media’s framing of politics), Pax, Oslo. Asp, Kent (1986): Mäktige massmedier (Powerful mass media), Akademilitteratur,
Stockholm. Bachrach, Peter & Baratz, Morton S. (1962): “Two faces of power”, American Political Science Review, Vol.
61: 947-952. Bartlett, Randall (1973): Economic Foundations of Political Power, The Free Press, New York. Bjørklund, Tor (1991): ”Election Campaigns in Postwar Norway (1945-1989): From Party-Controlled to Media-
Driven Campaigns”, Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 14 – No.3: 279-303. Bjørklund, Tor (2001): “Det første stortingsvalg I det 21. århundre” (The first General Election in Norway in the
21th Century), Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift 4/2001. Cohen, B. C. (1963): The press and foreign policy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Coleman, Stephen (2000), ed.: Televised Election Debates. International Perspectives, MacMillans Press,
London. Coleman, Stephen (2000): “Meaningful Political Debate in the Age of the Soundbite”, in Coleman (ed.). Cook, T (1998): Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution, Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Dearing, James W. & Rogers, Everett M. (1996): Agenda-Setting, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Eide, Martin (1991): Medievalgkamp (Media Eleciton Campaign), Tano, Oslo Entman, Robert M. (1993): “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm”, Journal of
Communication 43 (4). Ericson, Richard V, Baranek, Patricia M. & Chan, Janet B.L: Negotiating Control: A Study of News Sources,
Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Gandy, O T (1982): Beyond Agenda Setting: Information Subsidies and Public Policy, New Jersey: Ablex. Gans, Herbert (1980), Deciding What’s News, Constable, London. Gitlin, Tod (1980): The Whole World is Watching. Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left ,
University of Calefornia Press, Berkeley. Hjarvard, Stig (1999): “Politik som mediemontage. Om mediernes forandring av den politiske kommunikation”
(Politics as media montage. How media change political pommunication), in Den demokratiske udfordring (The Democratic Challenge), Magtutredningen og Hans Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen.
Holme, Richard (2000): “Third Parties and Television debates”, in Coleman, ed. Iyengar, Shanto (1991): Is anyone responsible? How television frames polical issues, University of Chigago,
Press, Chicago. Iengar, Shanto & Kinder, Donald R. (1987): News that matters. Television and American Opinion, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago Lukes, Stephen (1974): Power. A Radical View, Macmillans Press. Lippman, Walter (1922/1997): Public Opinion, Free Press Paperbacks, New York. Narud, Hanne Marthe & Valen, Henry (2001): Partikonkurranse og sakseierskap (Party competition and issue
ownership), Institutt for statsvitenskap/Institutt for samfunnsforskning, Oslo McCombs, Maxwell & Shaw, Donald (1972): “The agenda-setting function of the mass media”, Public Opinion
Quarterly, 36: 176-187. McCombs, Maxwell (1997): “Building Consensus: The News Media’s Agenda-Setting Roles”, Journal of
Communication, 14: 433-434. Patterson, Thomas E.: The mass media election, Praeger, New York. Patterson, Thomas E.: “The News Media: An Effective Political Actor?”, Political Communication, Vol. 14:
445-455. Pedersen, Ove K. (2000): “Den demokratiske mellemtid. Den politiske dagsorden, en ny institution” (The
Democratic Interval. The Political Agenda, a New Insitution), in Pedersen, Ove K. & et. Al. (eds.): Politisk journalistik (Political Journalism), CFJE/ Forlaget Ajour, Århus.
Petrocik, John R. (1996): “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study”, American Journal of Political Science 40: 825-850.
Semetko, Holli A. & Canel, Maria José (1997): “Agenda-Senders versus Agenda-Setters: Television in Spain’s 1996, Election Campaign”, Political Communication Vol. 14: 459-479.
Syvertsen, Trine (1997): Den store TV-krigen (The Great TV-War), Fagbokforlaget, Bergen.
27
Tuchman. Gaye (1977): “The Exception Proves the Rule: The Study of Routine News Practice”, in Hirsch, P.M., Miller, P.V & Kline, F.G: Strategies for Communication Research, Sage, London.
Vriese, Claes H. de (2001): “Election Broadcast – New Directions for Public Broadcasting”, European Journal of Communication, vol 16(2): 155-180.
Waldahl, Ragnar & Bruun Andersen, Michael & Rønning, Helge (2002): Nyheter først og fremst (First and foremost: News), Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Østbye, Helge (1997): “Media in Politics: Channels, Arenas, Actors, Themes”, in Strøm, Kaare & Svåsand, Lars (eds.): Challenges to Political Parties, Ann Arbor, Michigan University Press.
