VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND DIPLOMACY

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION

Jaunius Špakauskas

MEDIA CRISIS:
POLITICAL ‘CELEBRITIES’ AS A NEW REALITY OF
MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEM

Kaunas, 2010
 POLITICAL ‘CELEBRITIES’ AS A NEW REALITY OF MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEM
Jaunius Špakauskas

Instead of introduction: analytical approach and limitations

Today media is experiencing a major crisis. Some tend to believe that it was caused by the
economical and financial turmoil of 2007 but it is quite obvious that the later occurrence only
highlighted tendencies within the public word.
The controversial idea of media crisis can be analyzed in variform ways, in endless contexts,
using miscellaneous analytical approaches. From the ideal of the media “<the role attributed to the
media in a democratic environment requires them [journalists] – at least ideally – to report
comprehensively and impartially without serving specific interests1.” Sustaining this insight, media
has a distinct stance within democracy itself. Thus “<…> their task is to enable public debate, and
they should not represent specific interests that are held by civil society and organizations 2.” The
latter ideal agreeably to many experts and even journalists is in jeopardy today.
The given analysis of the political communication and political actors as celebrities, firstly
and mostly is analyzed from the perspective of the political system. The media as a stringent
participant in the process of political communication is analyzed from the position of political
actors and institutions as media is being manipulated in various ways in order to pursue the public
and, paradoxically, the journalists as well (for instance in the case of metacoverage). Hence instead
of disclosing the ‘rotten’ journalism and media as a whole it is being demonstrated and illustrated
by manifold examples how media is sometimes ‘subordinated’ by the politics. The examples are
taken mostly from the United States and the United Kingdom as both countries has strong
traditions in political communication.
Inter alia very important questions are being raised in the following essay such as what are
the implications of the political communication 3 to a modern political system? And what role for the
third part of political communication process – the audience – has been is left today? And, finally,
how the political system of tomorrow will look like in the pattern of the media of today?
Also I hypothesize that political communication and ‘amusing’ political actors may have a
detrimental affects to the political system and public attitudes towards political process in general as
it public attracts attention from the crucial events in the state and vulgarize important issues.

Dealignment

1
Paffenholz, Thania (2010) Civil Society and Peacebuilding: A Critical Assessment, Lynne Rienner, USA, p. 8.
2
Ibid, p. 9.
3
‘Politician as ‘celebrity’ is only one example of many and should be considered rather as an instrument of
political communication than independent theoretical category. For instance, politicians behave as Hollywood
celebrities in various ways such as sharing details of private life or participating in TV, reality shows etc.
 POLITICAL ‘CELEBRITIES’ AS A NEW REALITY OF MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEM
Jaunius Špakauskas

Liberal democracy has experienced a turbulence throughout the 20 th century: the second
half of the last century was marked by the process of de-ideologization or as it is often referred –
dealignment, in most Western democracies.
Dealignment which was accelerated by “<…> the process of de-industrialization and the rise
of the service economy has seen the decline of traditional, relatively stable class structures, and the
identities based upon them, and their replacement by more fluid forms of association and identity4.”
First dealignment manifested at around the 1960s primarily in Scandinavia and the Nordic
countries which were famous for their social-democratic governments. This period was marked
with the greatest crisis within the political Left, triggered by the broader socio-economic changes –
tremendous decrease of blue-collar workers and a shift of economy from industrial towards service
based capitalism. The following crisis was an echo of much broader changes in capitalist economy
and society but within the context of political Left it has fuelled the reconsideration of the focus
supporters as the blue-collar workers were gradually ‘replaced’ by the public servants.
Aforesaid crisis of the political Left was not only the ‘headache’ of the leaders of social-
democratic parties but had much wider implications on the whole political system because it was
connected with changing identities on both individual and societal level: “the collective identities
that accompanied the industrial age are slowly disappearing, replaced by ‘personalized’ identities
of the second modernityi 5.”
It is natural that decreased loyalty and partisanship of the voters increased the number of
‘swing’ votes tremendously. As ideological loyalty evaporated it exposed constituents to various
manipulations and caused the grandiose rise of political communication. Such phenomenon as
‘audience’ (voters) market research, the rise of high-level public relations in the political field,
particularly metacoverage etc. is becoming every day routine in almost any democratic society.
In the political news coverage field, the partisan media (particularly newspapers) in the
United States declined sharply and “<…> had almost disappeared by the 1950s 6.” At the same time
“in Britain, while press/party parallelism remained, partisan opinion was very much removed from
reporting, restricted to the editorial or op-ed pages of the newspaper.” The latter factor also
contributed to the successive dealignment process.
Although the broad discourse about gradual disappearance of orthodox political spectrum
has been evident for decades some Lithuanian (and Western as well) political scientists, observers

4
Stanyer, James (2008) Modern Political communication: Mediated Politics in Uncertain Times, Polity Press:
Cornwall, p. 8.
5
Ibid, p. 5-6.
6
Ibid, p. 97.
 POLITICAL ‘CELEBRITIES’ AS A NEW REALITY OF MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEM
Jaunius Špakauskas

still refuses to believe in it. For instance well known academician and political scientist Antanas
Kulakauskas repeatedly has argued that both “the basis and the essence of democratic politics and
civil participation are the [political] parties 7.” Similar position was coherently supported by another
well known Lithuanian political scientist Lauras Bielinis who was former advisor of the President of
Lithuania Valdas Adamkus8. Notwithstanding recently published book “The end of party
democracy?” by a group of political scientists alleges the decline of political parties in Lithuania 9.
Despite the refusal by some experts (both in Lithuania and the West) to admit the shift of
conventional politics, this shift is hardly deniable. Importantly that the weakening of ‘traditional’
political parties was marked by an interesting paradox – political activists were simultaneously
disgusted by political parties on the one hand but still quite politically motivated on the other. This
paradox determines the situation where political parties are being replaced by a single-cause
political activism. These quasi-political parties as I refer it, includes feminism, anti-homophobic,
imigration (or on the contrary – xenophobic), equal right movements, the greens etc. Incidentally,
the following process of ‘individualization’ in the political sphere by sociologist Ulrich Beck was
named – sub-politicization of society10. Hence within this new political setting the media has to
adjust and become more diverse in order to represent the needs of increasingly plural society.
Regardless of what was stated we must admit the fact that Western societies are becoming
less interested in political process in general. Yes, people still tend to be interested in ‘intimate’
activities that influence their personal life (such as immigrant worker who is taking their own
workplace) but at the same time the broader issues, such as foreign affairs or human rights in Third
World countries, are widely neglected 11. This trend is represented in gradual decrease of civic
activities and even more evident in the decline in participation in elections: voter turnout was
gradually but coherently decreasing during the past decades in all Western democracies 12.
The general decrease in public interest in politics induces to acknowledge the problem of
democratic deficit as a lack of public interest and support in various issues opens up the
7
Vytautas Bruveris "Lietuvos rytas": Politologas A.Kulakauskas: „Judėjimai - tie patys partiniai grybai, tik
mažiau skaidrūs ir mažiau atsakingi“. Source: http://www.lrytas.lt/-12849556991283682713-politologas-a-
kulakauskas-jud%C4%97jimai-tie-patys-partiniai-grybai-tik-ma%C5%BEiau-skaidr%C5%ABs-ir-ma
%C5%BEiau-atsakingi.htm Retrieved: 2010-12-06.
8
Lauras Bielinis, “Lietuvos žinios”: Politinės partijos jau nebereikalingos? Source: http://www.alfa.lt/
straipsnis/10423087/?Politines.partijos.jau.nebereikalingos.=2010-11-12_07-29 Retrieved: 2010-12-06.
9
Ramonaitė, Ainė (2010) Partinės demokratijos pabaiga? Versus Aureus, Vilnius, p. 227.
10
Ibid, p. 9.
11
The latter process could be widely described in a completely separate work. A comprehensive analysis in
globalization and localization is done by sociologist Anthony Giddens in his book “Modernity and personal
identity” and other works.
12
Source: The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA); Rafael
Ló pez Pintor, Maria Gratschew and Kate Sullivan, Voter Turnout Rates from a Comparative Perspective: A
Global Report; http://www.idea.int/publications/vt/upload/Voter%20turnout.pdf Retrieved: 2010-11-23.
 POLITICAL ‘CELEBRITIES’ AS A NEW REALITY OF MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEM
Jaunius Špakauskas

possibilities for private, even selfish interests to flourish. Lobbyists, interest groups, political
manipulators, specialists of public relations etc. are swelling in modern political systems.

Political communication

As societies became more pluralist and diverse, it necessarily required the adjustment of
political rhetoric and political communication as a whole. Similar message cannot be sent to the
various publics (or audiences) anymore because needs, values and habits of different people differ.
Political scientist Steven Foster suggests “<…> as elections became more competitive, politicians
sought more efficient means of communicating their messages 13.” For instance, the previous United
States mid-term elections in the end of 2010 were historic because it was extremely innovative in
the field of political communication (and extremely expensive as well 14) because direct and
targeted communication was more specific than any time in the past: it is common that targeted
communication is based upon occupation, ethnicity and other features. But this time campaign by
the Republican candidate Meg Whitman was also based on “microtargeting software” that was
used in sending specific mail and making specific phone calls to voters and was based on such
purchasable consumer data as magazine subscriptions and car ownership. As Garry South,
Democratic strategist, claims: “if you’re a voter in California, it’s possible you have received 16 or
17 mailings by this time, all of them highly specific to you, with your name on them, talking about
issues they know you care about. <…> That’s never been done in California 15.”
Ergo even if political communication may have been used in the past, today it is being done
more professionally, purposively and consistently as never before.
A mere definition of political communication is provided by media sociologist Brian McNair
as he puts it as a "purposeful communication about politics 16." B. McNair claims that the political
communication almost at all cases seeks to persuade, mobilize people, to influence knowledge of
the audience and to make the impact on the political behavior.
Another political scientist James Stanyer in his book “Modern political communication”
notices that political communication is necessarily connected with the communication process of 3
groups – political actors (or organizations), media (journalists and media organizations) and
audiences (electorate)17. Visually this process is demonstrated bellow (see chart 1):
13
Foster, Steven, (2010) Political Communication, Edinburgh University Press, UK, p. 4.
14
Republican gubernatorial candidate in California and former CEO of eBay Meg Whitman spent around 145
million USD (in which 120 million was her own). Source: TIME magazine, October 11, 2010.
15
Crowley, Michael, What $120 Million Buys, TIME magazine, October 11, 2010, p. 34-37.
16
McNair, Brian (2003) An Introduction to Political Communication, London: Routledge, p.24
17
Stanyer, p. 1.
 POLITICAL ‘CELEBRITIES’ AS A NEW REALITY OF MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEM
Jaunius Špakauskas

Media

Political
actors Audience

Chart 1: participants in the political

communication process

Even though the audience is the largest group in numbers, the lack of unity and
coordination of actions determines that this group is also the least influential among of the three. At
this point we may refer to the democratic deficit once again but the latter paradigm is not a direct
outcome of political communication process18 itself so it will not be considered comprehensively.
B. McNair also states that communication is not limited to verbal (or written) declarations
but almost equally includes such points as appearance (from hairstyle to outfit), symbols of wealth,
luxury, solidity and in the opposite – modesty, simplicity, sensitivity etc. All these aspects comprise
the full image of politician or political party. These aspects are the most important to our analysis
as look, outfit and other viewable features of celebrities are the most portrayed in the media. So as
politicians want to influence their constituencies (firstly through the media) in endless ways, the
main purpose of political communication is to make an impact of voters’ choices.
The actions of political communication can no more be episodic and must be consistent,
purposive and creative as the voter who is becoming less interested in political process, must be
engaged all the time continually. These attempts ordain that the boundary of start and end of the
elections is vanishing; hence we may talk about the permanent electoral campaign today.
Among the benefits of political communication such as transparency of political process and
accountability of politicians there are several menaces. One of the most solid ones is that politicians
18
Rather it is the outcome both of representative democracy, adjusting separation of powers, lack of
accountability of politicians on the one hand and shifts in media such as commercialization and concentration
etc. on the other.
 POLITICAL ‘CELEBRITIES’ AS A NEW REALITY OF MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEM
Jaunius Špakauskas

try to influence only those groups of electorate which has an ‘electoral’ (or economical etc.) power.
Consequently the gap between the focus groups and the marginalized ones is becoming even wider:
“in connection with the process of deideologization divisions between those who earn a lot and
those who has nothing increased tremendously in the previous decades. Comparative analysis in
both USA and UK demonstrates that “<…> in the UK, income inequality over recent years has
increased on average by 1.8 per cent per annum, and in the US by 0.79 per cent. The US now has
the largest income inequality compared to other advanced industrial democracies 19.”
Such disparity creates a skew image of society as some groups are preferred in favor of the
others: immigrants, low paid workers, ethnic, racial, sexual minorities etc. are economically,
socially, culturally and politically deprived. Members of these groups are marginalized even more
as political communicators tend to disregard them as not crucial for electoral process 20.

Professional political communication in modern politics: ‘to believe or not to believe?’

Oddly a sort of ‘Hamletian’ question “to believe or not to believe” seems to be even more
relevant today than any time in the past. Commercialization and concentration of media, constant
attempts to distort the reality and truth, contributes to the “postmodern savviness, which
“recognizes” behind every promise of truth or authenticity the reality of an illusion 21” as an
American professor Mark Andrejevic puts it.
Ergo political communication today must become even more creative than it ever was
because mass skepticism is ‘awake’ 24/7. At the same time media is trying to avoid manipulation by
the politicians hence it absorbs the same public skepticism as well. Sociologist Todd Gitlin “<…>
locates this turn toward the savvy within the context of political news coverage, which, he argues,
has responded to political manipulation of the media by developing a cynical metacoverage that
describes the way in which such manipulation takes place – a move that at least keeps journalists
from looking gullible. The result, however, is not to challenge the manipulative character of politics,
but to privilege it and naturalize it – and what’s more, to devote even more time to covering
manipulation. This metacoverage is what Gitlin terms a “postmodern fascination with surfaces and
the machinery that cranks them out, a fascination indistinguishable from surrender 22.”

19
Stanyer, p. 5.
20
The dilemma of democratic deficit is faced once again just from completely another angle – instead of the
representative side of democracy but from the normative perspective as democracy is a majority rule that
protects minorities.
21
Andrejevic, Mark (2004) Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC.
Maryland, p. 133.
22
Ibid, p. 133.
 POLITICAL ‘CELEBRITIES’ AS A NEW REALITY OF MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEM
Jaunius Špakauskas

T. Gitlin makes a parallel between politics, audience and media in the middle with a reality
show “Big Brother”. According to T. Gitlin “<…> Big Brother exemplifies the equation of
spectatorship with participation. After all, the viewers are, according to the show’s premise, the
ones who control the show’s outcome by choosing whom to banish from the Big Brother house 23.”
Therefore can be added that all means of ‘direct participation’ such as phone calls (and phone
voting), comments online etc. creates an illusion that you are really participating, you are a
decision-maker and after all – you are the ‘insider’. Even though you are not by any means.
As a spectator (and simultaneously as a voter) is sitting on its couch in their living room
they passionately believe that one or another politician is dancing on the dance project or is singing
in a TV show and communicating with them directly, also he or she is just an ordinary human being,
thus can be trusted and treated as a friend, a neighbor or a colleague. Such feeling is connected to
the concept developed by sociologist Jurgen Habermas – egalitarian ethos – that means the neglect
of social status because of illusions created by the media 24.
As exemplified such effects creates an illusion that may be dangerous or even have
detrimental impact on political systems on both individual level (we don’t need to leave our home
in order to influence politics) and state-level (direct participation, influencing opinion of decision-
makers is vulgarized and does not involve such forms as participating in the elections anymore).
One of common ‘innovations’ by ‘political celebrities’ is intimacy of politicians: “<…>
thanks to television and the rest of the media we know [celebrities]. To a greater or lesser degree
we have internalized them, unconsciously made them part of our consciousness, just as if they
were, in fact, friends25.” J. Stanyer adds to this that citizens today know not only how one or another
politician look like but also shares a lot of information about his/hers personal life. The weakening
of personal life is caused because of several factors – “<…> politicians <…> ‘go personal’ in an effort
to shape public perceptions of them <…>” and because “the shrinking zone of privacy is also the
result of a media hungry for gossip and scandal 26.” Therefore modern politicians are exposing
publicly the details of their private life, personal feelings that used to be inappropriate and
unprofessional in the past, yet today it is an effective tactic of constructing favorable image.
Political analysts observe that politicians ‘go personal’ in both sides of the Atlantic: “In the
US, for instance, there has been a slow disappearance of, in Hillary Clinton’s words, the ‘zone of

23
Andrejevic, Mark (2004) Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC.
Maryland, p. 133.
24
Marcinkevičienė, Rū ta, “Akiračiai“, Nuo Habermaso iki Valinsko. Viešosios erdvės privatėjimas. 2009-04-09.
Retrieved: 2010-11-21.
25
Stanyer, p. 79.
26
Stanyer, p. 80-81.
 POLITICAL ‘CELEBRITIES’ AS A NEW REALITY OF MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEM
Jaunius Špakauskas

privacy’ that surrounds the presidency. <…> In the UK, the zone of privacy around politicians is also
fading. Seymour-Ure (2003) argues that there has, especially, been an erosion of the Prime
Minister’s privacy27.”
In the US, where the television tradition is very strong, public appearances of politicians
today are common. But few decades ago it was not as usual as it is today: “for example, in the spring
of 1992, as part of an effort to get voters to connect with him, [Bill] Clinton’s campaign team
launched the ‘Manhattan Project’, which involved Clinton using such shows to relay personal details
about his childhood. His opponent, George Bush senior, appeared on Larry King Live, MTV and also
the Nashville Network28.”
Within the European context, particularly in a conservative democracy such as United
Kingdom which has a long parliamentarian tradition such public appearances looks less acceptable.
However the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was the first UK leader who appeared on a
chat show in 1984. After nearly a decade British Prime Minister Tony Blair, “<…> made more
appearances on chat shows than any of his predecessors 29.”
A picturesque example may be the new reality show with American politician Sarah Palin
and her family which is also a good demonstration of the erosion of private life that used to be a
precious matter in the past: the premiere of new reality show delivered record-breaking ratings for
TLC, Alaskan television. On a starting night the new show – "Sarah Palin's Alaska" – attracted 5
million viewers – largest in the channel’s history.
Former Alaskan Governor, former Republican vice-Presidential and possible Presidential
candidate in the following elections Sarah Palin is spending time with her family while fishing in the
rivers and the sea, travelling around the state etc. in this family reality show. Politician even states
enthusiastically – “you can see Russia from here 30” (and it definitely makes her credible to be the
next President of the most powerful country in the world) in one of the episodes.
Another example of creative political communication is repeated ‘visits’ on “The Simpsons”
show by former mayor of the New York city and former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. R.
Giuliani also appeared on a comedy “I now announce you Chuck and Larry”. Interestingly, that the
following movie aired in 2007 – just a year ago before Presidential campaign in the US started and
it is believed that campaign for the White House starts around 1,5 year before the official race so it
can be claimed that this appearance was paid, maybe by the politician himself.

27
Ibid, p. 80.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid. 82.
30
Source: http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sarah-palin-alaska/ Retrieved: 2010-11-23.
 POLITICAL ‘CELEBRITIES’ AS A NEW REALITY OF MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEM
Jaunius Špakauskas

Another example of unconventional political communication was rendered during the

previous presidential race in the US in 2008. The Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton cried
publicly in the city of Portsmouth in New Hampshire. This personal moment happened at the coffee
shop at the time where the cameras of life television broadcasting were on. There were also around
100 of media representatives too, according to the Neewsweek magazine 31.
As Newsweek journalist notes, H. Clinton exposed herself as a sensitive and vulnerable
person at a time when she was losing ‘fire’ in “<…> her once formidable campaign struggles to
regain the momentum lost to Barack Obama 32.” H. Clinton tears also appeared at the time when she
repeatedly was entitled as too frosty by different media channels.
Newsweek magazine also mentions that of 16 undecided voters, vast majority (14) of them
were women who were nodding sympathetically and even having tears in their own eyes. This
moment of tenderness occurred just before the primaries in New Hampshire – in the state where H.
Clinton was behind of B. Obama in double digit numbers so it is difficult to believe in sincerity of
this act.

Summa sumarum: political communication and modern political system

The rise of political communication which was inevitably connected with such dynamics of
second modernity as dealignment and individualization of politics was coincided with the broader
media crisis i.e. shifts in the whole public life. The electorate is being treated increasingly as an
audience which shares different ‘tastes’ and needs. Even though the audience is the largest group
participating in the political communication triangle, the lack of unity and coordination of actions
determines that this group is also the least influential among of the three.
As the broad indifference in politics intensifies, political actors need to develop new,
creative means of attracting attention of the public. Such continual attempts have broader impact
on the political system because the election cycle is evaporating – the electoral campaign is
becoming permanent. Therefore we may presume that it contributes even further to the
continual apathy towards politics because it exhausts the ‘audience’. Also it might have even
broader detrimental effects because serious, sometimes even crucial decisions (in the case of war
or human rights) cannot be portrayed as amusing or lightweight but such decisions lack public
interest and support and opens up possibilities to operate for various private, selfish interests
(political PR, marketing experts, interest groups, lobbyists etc.).
31
Karen Breslau, January 07, 2008, Hillary Tears Up, http://www.newsweek.com/2008/01/06/hillary-tears-
up.html Retrieved: 2010-11-22.
32
Ibid.
 POLITICAL ‘CELEBRITIES’ AS A NEW REALITY OF MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEM
Jaunius Špakauskas

Another important implication of the shifts within relations of political actors, media and
audience is that political communicators tend to influence only those groups of electorate which
has an ‘electoral’ power. Such targeting of political communication contributes to the
marginalization of already deprived minority groups: ethnic, racial, sexual minorities, immigrants,
low paid workers etc. Thus the vicious cycle is created – excluded groups have no interest in
political process and politicians have no interest in them as irrelevant group and vice versa.
What is more audience can be described as spectators that are fooled by illusionary
participation in the modern political system: ‘audience’ passionately believes in an illusion that
they are participators (through phone calls, internet and so on), decision-makers, and ‘insiders’.
Such illusion might have detrimental impact upon democracy on both individual level (as individual
believes that he is an active contributor to the political process) and state-level (as participation in
the elections replaced by alternative forms of “direct” participation). These impacts are determined
by manifold processes that were analyzed such as spectatorship, egalitarian ethos, intimacy of
politicians etc.
Certainly political communication and politician as a celebrity, a friend, a participant in the
reality show can contribute to the transparency of political process as it uncovers all the details not
only of the public but even private life and allows to make a clearer impression how decisions are
made, how many resources it requires, finally that nothing is as simple and straightforward as it
appears. On the other hand a critic come could argue that on the screen the audience sees only
those parts of the private life that was on the screenplay.
On the other hand political communication could contribute to accountability of politicians
because political process became closed and tricky as democratic world is distancing from the
‘Greek agora’ ideal – open, transparent, public political process destined by the mass rule.
Regardless of diverse viewpoints we must admit the fact of modern politics that political
communication has became inevitable part of it. We can comfort the audience by the hope that
modern society is facing an overdue-time problem – it demands time to adjust to this new political
setting that has changed permanently. People will inevitably become more critical and resistant to
any manipulation by political actors and, sadly, media professionals (consciously or not).
i
The notion of second modernity was firstly proposed by sociologist Ulrich Beck and later debated and developed
by various other scholars. The core of this theory is the idea that “<…> the world is still modern rather than
postmodern, but this modernity is radicalizing itself as a conscious response to the myriad risks and unanticipated
side effects generated by the processes of modernization. In other words, modernity seems to have reached the
limits of its current development and is entering a new phase that can be appropriately called second modernity.
Unlike the earlier phase, second modernity confronts rather than takes for granted the foundations of modern growth
that are now undermined by events defined as ambiguous, fluid and lacking in certainty*.”

U. Beck also claimed that the first modernity which was ‘based on a nation-state society, on given collective identities
such as classes, families, ethnicities**’ is now turns to be changed by a second modernity that is characterized by
‘individualization, globalization, risk and uncertainty ***.’ J. Stanyer into this list adds such concepts as “the growth of
new communication technologies, which have greatly affected political communication systems: with the arrival of
new delivery systems of cable and direct satellite broadcasting in the 1980s and, more recently, digital technology
and the internet, there has been a pluralization of communication space.****”

* Lee, Raymond L. M. (2008) In search of second modernity: reinterpreting reflexive modernization in the context of
multiple modernities, Social Science Information, SAGE Publications, p. 57. N.B. italics and other remarks are mine.

** Beck, Ulrich & Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabeth (2002) Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social
and Political Consequences. London: Sage, p. 206
*** Ibidem.
**** Stanyer, James (2008), Modern political communication: Mediated Politics in Ucertain Times. Cornwall: Polity
press, p. 6.