Search

In an era of post-truth and disinformation, the crucial relationship between journalists and politicians is under increasing pressure. Some politicians publicly question the media's role in spreading inaccurate and false information, and journalists have reason to be critical of politicians too, as they can easily disseminate falsehoods online. This study deals with how politicians and journalists perceive each other's role in spreading disinformation, drawing on surveys with political journalists (N = 148) and local politicians (N = 452) in Belgium. We find that 33 percent of politicians, in particular right-wing politicians, blame journalists for spreading "fake news". Journalists, in turn, are even more critical of politicians: 58 percent of the journalists blame politicians in general, 75 percent blame radical left politicians, and 90 percent blame radical right politicians for spreading disinformation. Importantly, journalists' views of politicians' role in spreading disinformation impact their relationship. Although journalists who believe politicians add to the spread of disinformation are not necessarily less likely to interact with politicians, they are significantly more negative about their interactions with politicians. Such perceptions potentially add to the tense relationship between journalists and politicians we are increasingly observing and could have important ramifications for political news-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relation between journalists and politicians in liberal democracies is traditionally conceptualized as highly institutionalized, based on mutual dependence, and grounded in a shared culture of jointly respected role relations. While this conceptualization provides a fruitful framework to understand the relation between mainstream journalists and politicians, it falls short in explaining the way outsider politicians such as Beppe Grillo, Donald Trump, Thierry Baudet, or Nigel Farage address the mainstream media. Thus, this article rethinks the relation between journalists and politicians in the light of the Western political-media environment in the 2010s, where the rise of authoritarian populism, the fragmentation of media audiences, and the fading boundaries around the journalistic profession have substantially changed media–politics relations. This article aims to make a theoretical contribution by conceptualizing the relation between outsider politicians and mainstream journalists as an ongoing negotiation over legitimacy. Central in this conceptualization is a classification of five strategies which outsider politicians use to delegitimize mainstream journalists: attacking their character, connecting them with other institutions which are seen as illegitimate, attacking their ethical standards, challenging the claim that journalists work in the public interest, and questioning the beneficial consequences of their work. The consequences of these delegitimation strategies are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study discusses changes in the relationship between local journalists and local politicians in the Czech Republic as a consequence of the professionalization of political communications at national as well as local levels following the so-called Velvet Revolution of 1989. This phenomenon has been studied widely in Western democracies but is relatively new in the Czech Republic. Politicians’ improved communication skills and the employment of communication professionals in politics influence trust – a key component in the relationship – between politicians and journalists. The article is based on semi-structured interviews with 10 journalists and 11 politicians from different Czech localities, which aim to explore how these actors understand and maintain levels of mutual trust. First we describe key components of trust and explain why in the era of professionalized political communication trust is perceived as more threatened than in the 1990s and we conclude by exploring the three most important threats to trust as identified by our interviewees.

As Chinese politicians hold the power to control the dissemination of political information, beat journalists must guard their relationship with the authorities to expand the boundaries of news reporting; that is, to gain more access to political information and report more sensitive news. What remains a puzzle is how beat journalists can possibly expand these boundaries. Data from participatory observation and in-depth interviews with journalists reveal that in order to gain more access to political information, they not only serve as political advocates but also seize the opportunity to act as watchdogs. To report more sensitive news without being sanctioned or denounced by the authorities, they coordinate with peers both within and outside the news organization.

According to the canons of liberal democracy, both political and media systems constitute two spheres which strongly interact but still are separated and fulfill different aims. The actors belonging to these spheres play specific social roles, due to sets of rules called (respectively) the logic of politics and media logic. Politicians are supposed to create and reshape the world gaining electorate support while the media should show, explain and interpret the world in a way that attracts its audience. The two are expected to compete inside their spheres but not with each other. Today, however, the mediatization of politics and politicization of the media have changed the relationship between politicians and journalists. The aim of the article is to describe the phenomenon of redefinition of roles of the main actors of political communication, using content analysis of television political interviews during an election campaign. Elections create a special situation of mutual interdependence of the two entities as well as the need to achieve their specific goals. The authors weigh up whether the changing formula of TV interviews is an element of a broader phenomenon of competition and trial of taking up control in the process of political communication or just incidental behavior typical for the time of an election. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]