An effective ‘weapon’ for the weak? Digital media and interest groups’ media success

Abstract

The equalization-normalization debate concerns whether the Internet equalizes politics by empowering resource-poor organizations, or whether it further strengthens the position of resource-rich organizations. We address this debate by studying how interest groups' utilization of digital media is associated with their success in influencing news media. We suggest digital media is characterized by the coexistence of old and new media logics that benefit resource-rich and resource-poor groups in different ways. Analyzing a dataset of 1,127 Finnish interest groups, we found that groups' utilization of digital media is positively associated with their news media success, yet traditional ways of influencing the news media remain more effective. Among resource-rich groups with larger public relations staff, blog publishing is positively associated with both media access (media visibility) and agenda-building success (influencing news topics).In contrast, utilization of digital media among resource-poor groups only correlates with agenda-building success, and audiovisual content is more effective than other content. We suggest that while resource-poor groups benefit from network media logic in which the flow of information is initially based on popularity among social media users, resource-rich groups can exploit mass media logic where traditional journalistic gatekeeping is more important. The findings also imply that digital media has not decreased resource-related bias in interest groups' media access.

The Varying Mechanisms of Media Access: Explaining Interest Groups’ Media Visibility across Political Systems

“…Gandy, 1982; Berkowitz and Adams, 1990). The finding is also in line with previous studies on interest groups’ media access (Binderkrantz and Christiansen, 2014; Grömping, 2019; Oehmer, 2017; Vesa et al, 2020). However, the finding about the stronger effect of media effort than of insider status must be interpreted with caution, as our data provide a relatively conservative test for the effect of insider status.…”

“…Indeed, studies have found a positive association between media effort and media access in Germany (e.g. Oehmer, 2017), the Nordic countries (Binderkrantz and Christiansen, 2014; Vesa et al, 2020), and among election monitoring groups (Grömping, 2019). However, a study focusing on local environmental organizations in North Carolina found that media effort was not associated with media access when other factors, such as resources, were held constant (Andrews and Caren, 2010).…”

“…Another important normative point concerns whether more wealthy groups, which can allocate more resources to media management efforts, can secure a stronger media presence (e.g. Vesa et al, 2020).…”

Tools of digital innovation in public affairs management: A practice‐oriented analysis

“…While the literature on digital transformation is growing in several fields, research on the effects of digital innovation in public affairs management is still scattered and almost exclusively focusing on interest groups' use of social media in their direct and indirect lobbying strategies (Brown, 2016; Chalmers & Shotton, 2016; Johansson & Scaramuzzino, 2019; Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012; Van der Graaf et al, 2016; Vesa et al, 2022), with a more limited number of contributions analyzing how technological developments might change interest groups' legitimization (Fraussen & Halpin, 2018) or organizational capacities (Bailard, 2017; Halpin, 2014; Meli & Grefe, 2017; Vromen et al, 2022).…”