The Personalization of Politics in Media Context: Discourse Analysis of Political Talk-Show
Abstract
Whitin the last decades political communication has suffered transformation in the world’s ongoing globalization conditions. Political personalization is the main characteristic of political communication not only in transitional democracies, but in developed democracies too. There are three types of political personalization in academic literature: Media personalization, institutional personalization and electoral personalization.The present article aims to examine political personalization in media context in Georgia. In accordance with the research hypothesis weak institutionalization of party system promotes media personalization. It should be determined by the results of study, whether there is media personalization? What characteristics is detected? How it is connected to the party system institutionalization? The Survey results suggest, big part of time in media coverage is devoted to the problem consideration. Nevertheless, there is political personalization in Georgia and it has negative character. In the research are used qualitative methods: The Analysis of personal coverage (Issue / Process); Distribution of the personalization evidence by types; The resaerch of the character and quality of personalization. In-depth interviews with representatives of political parties and selected electorate.References
1. მშვი¬დო¬ბის, დე¬მოკ¬რა¬ტი¬ის და გან¬ვი¬თ¬არე¬ბის კავ¬კა¬სი¬უ¬რი ინ¬სტი-ტუ¬ტის ან¬გა¬რი¬ში, (2008), წამ¬ყვა¬ნი ტე¬ლე¬ვი¬ზი¬ე¬ბი და წი¬ნა¬სა¬არ¬ჩევ¬ნო პე¬რი-ო¬დი სა¬ქარ¬თვე¬ლო¬ში. მე¬დია (ზე)მოქ¬მე¬დე¬ბა¬ში, CIPDD.
2. Anable, D. (2006). The Role of Georgia’s media and Westernd aid in the Rose Revolution.
The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(3), pp. 7-43. Retrived 28 January, 2013 http://hij.sagepub.com/content/11/3/7.full.pdf+html
3. Bader, (2007), Making parties fit for democracy: Georgia, Ukraine and the Challenge for democracy assistance. Opleidging Europese Studies, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Retrived 18 January, 2015
4. Bennet, L. (1996), News. The Politics of Illusion, 3rd edn. New York: Longman.
5. Bielsiak, J. (2005). Party competition in emerging democracies: representation and effectiveness in post-communism and beyond. Democratization 12:3, pp. 331-356. Retrived 20
February, 2015, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340500126764#.VdJGgSbJJuM
6. Blumler, J. G. and Kavanagh, D. (1999), The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and Feature. Political Communication, (16). pp. 209-230. Retrived 18 February, 2013 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/105846099198596#.VdJA7ibJJuM
7. Callaghan, K. (2005), Conclusion: Controversies and new directions. In: K. Callaghan and F. Schnell (Eds.), Framing American Politics, (pp. 179-189). Pitssburg: University of Pitssburg Press.
8. Dalton, R., Wattenberg, M. (2000). Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University press.
9. Darchiashvili, M. (2008), Transition of Georgian State Television in to the Public Broadcaster. Central European University.
10. Druckman, J. N. (2004), Political Preference Formation: Competition, deliberation and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671-686.
11. Hart, R. (1992), Seducing America. How Television Charms the Modern Voter. London: SAGE.
12. Holtz-Bacha, C., (2004). ,,Political Campaign Communication: Conditional Convergence of Modern Media Election.” In: Esser, F., Pfetsch, B. (2004). Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases and Chalenges.Cambridge University Press, pp. 213- 230. Retrived 6 October, 2013 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584600600809008?journalCode=upcp20#.VdY0ySbJKG4
13. Jacoby, W. G. (2000), Issue framing and public opinion on government spending, American Journal of Political Science, 44, 750-767.
14. Kaase, M . (1994), Is there personalization in politics? Candidates and voting behavior in Germany. International Political Science Review 15, pp. 233-255.
15. Karvonen, L. (2010), ,,The Personalization of Politics: A Study of Parliamentary Democracies;” In: Rahat, G. and Sheafer. T. (2007), The Personalization(s) of Politics: Israel, 1949- 2003. In: Political Communication 41(1), pp. 65-80. Retrived 6 February, 2015 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584600601128739#.VdOb0CbJKG4
16. Kovach, B. and Rosenstiel, T. (2001). The Elements of Journalism. Crown/Archetype.
17. Mair, P. (2005), Democracy Beyond Parties. Irvine: Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California.
18. MacKinnon, M. (2007). The New Cold War: Revolutions, Rigged Elections and Pipeline Politics in the Former Soviet Union. New York: Carroll & Graf Pub.
19. McAllister, I. (2007), ,,The Personalization of Politics,” in: R. J., Dalton and Klingemann, Hans- Dieter (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavoiur. Oxford Handbooks Online. Retrived 7 March, 2015 http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.001.0001/oxfordhb- 9780199270125
20. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z.M. and Clawson, R. A., (1997a), Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political behavior. 19 (3), pp. 221-246. Retrived 19 March, 2015 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/209410295_Toward_a_Psychology_of_Framing_Effects
21. Olson, D. M. and Iionszki, G. (2012), Post-Communist Parliaments Change and Stability in the Second Decade. Routledge.
22. Plasser, F., &Plasser, G. (2002). Global Political Campaigning.United States of America. Greenwood Publishing Group.
23. Sussman, J. (2006). The Myths of ,,Democracy Assistance:” U.S. Political Intervention in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Monthly Review 58(7), pp. 15-29. Retrived 19 September, 2012
http://monthlyreview.org/2006/12/01/the-myths-of-democracy-assistance-u-s-political- intervention-in- post-soviet-eastern-europe/
24. Swanson, D.L. and Mancini, P. (1996), Politics, Media and Modern Democracy. An International Study of Innovations in Electoral Campaigning and Their Consequences. London: Praeger Series.
25. Tarkhan – Mouravi, G. (2006). Politicheskie Partii v Gruzii. Zatiunuvsheesia Stanovlenie. Political Science Quarterly 1.
2. Anable, D. (2006). The Role of Georgia’s media and Westernd aid in the Rose Revolution.
The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(3), pp. 7-43. Retrived 28 January, 2013 http://hij.sagepub.com/content/11/3/7.full.pdf+html
3. Bader, (2007), Making parties fit for democracy: Georgia, Ukraine and the Challenge for democracy assistance. Opleidging Europese Studies, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Retrived 18 January, 2015
4. Bennet, L. (1996), News. The Politics of Illusion, 3rd edn. New York: Longman.
5. Bielsiak, J. (2005). Party competition in emerging democracies: representation and effectiveness in post-communism and beyond. Democratization 12:3, pp. 331-356. Retrived 20
February, 2015, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340500126764#.VdJGgSbJJuM
6. Blumler, J. G. and Kavanagh, D. (1999), The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and Feature. Political Communication, (16). pp. 209-230. Retrived 18 February, 2013 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/105846099198596#.VdJA7ibJJuM
7. Callaghan, K. (2005), Conclusion: Controversies and new directions. In: K. Callaghan and F. Schnell (Eds.), Framing American Politics, (pp. 179-189). Pitssburg: University of Pitssburg Press.
8. Dalton, R., Wattenberg, M. (2000). Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University press.
9. Darchiashvili, M. (2008), Transition of Georgian State Television in to the Public Broadcaster. Central European University.
10. Druckman, J. N. (2004), Political Preference Formation: Competition, deliberation and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671-686.
11. Hart, R. (1992), Seducing America. How Television Charms the Modern Voter. London: SAGE.
12. Holtz-Bacha, C., (2004). ,,Political Campaign Communication: Conditional Convergence of Modern Media Election.” In: Esser, F., Pfetsch, B. (2004). Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases and Chalenges.Cambridge University Press, pp. 213- 230. Retrived 6 October, 2013 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584600600809008?journalCode=upcp20#.VdY0ySbJKG4
13. Jacoby, W. G. (2000), Issue framing and public opinion on government spending, American Journal of Political Science, 44, 750-767.
14. Kaase, M . (1994), Is there personalization in politics? Candidates and voting behavior in Germany. International Political Science Review 15, pp. 233-255.
15. Karvonen, L. (2010), ,,The Personalization of Politics: A Study of Parliamentary Democracies;” In: Rahat, G. and Sheafer. T. (2007), The Personalization(s) of Politics: Israel, 1949- 2003. In: Political Communication 41(1), pp. 65-80. Retrived 6 February, 2015 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584600601128739#.VdOb0CbJKG4
16. Kovach, B. and Rosenstiel, T. (2001). The Elements of Journalism. Crown/Archetype.
17. Mair, P. (2005), Democracy Beyond Parties. Irvine: Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California.
18. MacKinnon, M. (2007). The New Cold War: Revolutions, Rigged Elections and Pipeline Politics in the Former Soviet Union. New York: Carroll & Graf Pub.
19. McAllister, I. (2007), ,,The Personalization of Politics,” in: R. J., Dalton and Klingemann, Hans- Dieter (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavoiur. Oxford Handbooks Online. Retrived 7 March, 2015 http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.001.0001/oxfordhb- 9780199270125
20. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z.M. and Clawson, R. A., (1997a), Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political behavior. 19 (3), pp. 221-246. Retrived 19 March, 2015 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/209410295_Toward_a_Psychology_of_Framing_Effects
21. Olson, D. M. and Iionszki, G. (2012), Post-Communist Parliaments Change and Stability in the Second Decade. Routledge.
22. Plasser, F., &Plasser, G. (2002). Global Political Campaigning.United States of America. Greenwood Publishing Group.
23. Sussman, J. (2006). The Myths of ,,Democracy Assistance:” U.S. Political Intervention in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Monthly Review 58(7), pp. 15-29. Retrived 19 September, 2012
http://monthlyreview.org/2006/12/01/the-myths-of-democracy-assistance-u-s-political- intervention-in- post-soviet-eastern-europe/
24. Swanson, D.L. and Mancini, P. (1996), Politics, Media and Modern Democracy. An International Study of Innovations in Electoral Campaigning and Their Consequences. London: Praeger Series.
25. Tarkhan – Mouravi, G. (2006). Politicheskie Partii v Gruzii. Zatiunuvsheesia Stanovlenie. Political Science Quarterly 1.
Published
2018-12-14
How to Cite
MELIKIDZE, Giorgi.
The Personalization of Politics in Media Context: Discourse Analysis of Political Talk-Show.
Politics / პოლიტიკა, [S.l.], dec. 2018.
ISSN 2449-2833.
Available at: <https://test.psage.tsu.ge/index.php/Politics/article/view/100>. Date accessed: 13 nov. 2024.
Issue
Section
სტატიები
Keywords
Political Personalization, Media, Negative Context, Talk-Show
- Authors preserve copyright and gives the journal right of first publication, that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors can enter into separate, additional arrangements for the distribution of the journal’s published version of the work, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors can post their work online prior to and during the submission process, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
