No abstract

The relationship among media, politicians, and the public has been studied a lot, especially how the media’s portrayal of politics affects people’s (cynical) attitudes. Scholars know little about the antecedent of this assumed spiral of cynicism: How cynical are politicians and journalists about each other and about politics? Based on a survey among Dutch politicians and political journalists, the research presented in this article tries to fill this gap. The results show that politicians are rather cynical about media and journalists, especially when they feel media are out to set the political agenda. Journalists are equally cynical about politicians as the latter are about themselves, but it is a relative cynicism since it is lower than that of the general public. Journalists are, however, convinced that most politicians are driven by what we call “media salacity,” a drive to get journalists’ attention and coverage, a conviction shared, surprisingly, by the politicians themselves.

Many claim that populism in the Netherlands has grown over the last 10 years; that it spreads among mainstream parties; that its success has to do with the media, who pay more and more attention to populist parties and immigration issues; but that it is difficult to distinguish between political populism intended for the media and populism by the media. In a longitudinal content analysis of newspapers, television news, talk shows and party political broadcasts, covering seven elections in nearly 20 years, these claims are put to the test. The picture that emerges is far more ambiguous than publicized opinion suggests, with no clear trend but a downward one in 2012.

No abstract

Media and journalists have an uneasy relationship with their public. They are there for them, but not so much to listen as to speak to -to inform them about what goes on in society, the facts and figures, backgrounds and opinions they deem relevant, interesting, in the public interest or exciting for people to know. Journalists feel slightly uncomfortable when the public respond, especially with criticism of their performance. When their professional roles, reliability and integrity are called into doubt, journalists are often more self-referential (listening to their colleagues) than responsive (listening to their audiences); even when they are aware that more than a third (37 percent) of the European public tend not to trust television and almost half (48 percent) feel equally negative about the press (Eurobarometer 67, 2007). At the same time, journalists need their public, if only to survive in a competitive media market, a fact of which managers and owners may be more acutely aware.The ambiguity of this relationship between journalists and public has recently increased and been put to the test by at least four -interrelated and mutually reinforcing -developments: two inside and two outside the direct realm of journalism. In the first place, with increasing competition between and commercialization within media, and decreasing loyalty and changing news consumption patterns of their audiences, a shift can be noted from a supply to a demand market in communication (Van Cuilenburg, 1998). Media no longer decide exclusively what the public should read, watch or listen to based on what the former think the latter need as democratic citizens. Rather, the assumed wishes and desires of the public have become more decisive for what the media provide. Consequently, the selection of news (what is relevant and important?) could well be based more on market considerations, of what sells and is attractive for the public, than on in the public interest.