This article presents a study on special ministerial advisers examining their careers beyond their role in the machinery of government. Applying a theoretical framework derived from the literature on the sociology of work and the transformation of the organization of politics in the Nordic welfare states, we make two theoretical points. First, special advisers are part of an emerging group of partisan policy professionals, and second, the characteristics of this group are best analyzed through the lens of the boundaryless career. By combining these two positions, we contribute to studies on special advisers by offering a longer career perspective, and we contribute to studies on the boundaryless career by analyzing a job market other than the dot-com and cultural industries. Mapping the entire career paths of all Danish special ministerial advisers from 2000 to 2017 ( n = 144), we show that the position of special adviser serves as a stepping-stone to a new labor market that typically culminates with a position in private public relations. This conclusion lends fresh support to concerns about the privatization of politics changing policy formation in the Nordic welfare states.

No abstract

This article focuses on the Europeanization of the Danish news media. Europeanization of media content refers to two central criteria: a) an increased focus on European themes and actors, and b) an evaluation of theses themes and actors from a connation state dominated point of view. According to such criteria,recent studies across Europe, have documented a significant level of overall Europeanization of Danish media at the level of media content. This article compares the results of some of the most recent studies of Europeanization and tries to answer the question of what makes Denmark a best-case example, when it comes to Europeanization of the news media.

This article focuses on the relationship between the media and the state in Denmark before and during the invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003. The media-state relationship in time of crisis and war is central to the discussion of the media's watchdog role in a democratic society. So far, studies of the war in Iraq have focused primarily on the media-state relationship in an American or British context; fewer have focused on the smaller countries that were also part of the coalition. This article explores an often neglected aspect of the media-state relationship: what are the different historical contexts for the media-state relationship in countries such as Denmark, the USA and Great Britain, and do historical differences in this relationship reflect the Danish media's coverage of the war in Iraq when viewed through the lens of Robinson's (2001) policy-media interaction model. A content analysis of 2045 news items produced by the Danish news media before and during the first weeks of the Iraq war in 2003 shows that there are clear differences, but also clear similarities, between Danish, British and American news coverage of the invasion. Like most of the international media, the Danish media took as their clear thematic focus the reporting of military strategy and battles, and were too reliant on sources within the national government (politicians as well as civil servants), the coalition and the military. Nevertheless, they were critical of the invasion in two ways: 1) there was a supplementary strong thematic focus on the many negative social and psychological consequences of the war, and 2) significant use was made of sources that possibly represented alternative angles on the war, including Iraqi civilians and the media's own representatives.This analysis points to a paradox in the Danish coverage of the war: on the one hand, there appears to have been an intention to report on the war independently of official (political and military) versions of events; but on the other, the opportunity, willingness and ability to actually do this appear to have been lacking.

In the network society the boundaries between media, politics, economy and culture is put under pressure. The media is placed in an increasingly direct competition with the state, private companies, interest organisations etc. about the powers of definition within important spheres of society. This is illustrated by for instance “the Muhammad crisis” and the debate about the documentary “The secret war”. Both cases also show the importance of the legitimacy of the roles played by the media in the network society. This puts forward the old question about the objectivity of journalism, and makes this question important in the debate about the roles of journalism in the network society.