Work Package 3

Towards communicative authoritarian populism in the EU?

In this work package we propose a novel scale sensitive approach, combining macro, meso and micro levels of analysing populism in the context of media, addressing the interconnectedness between the political and the media sphere.

Exclusionary populists who rely on complicity with the media do not just adopt an affective discourse and rhetoric to popularise their political idioms and forms, but also change the institutional structures of communicative fields, the professionalism in information production, and the ownership of the mediascape. Under distorted systems of ownership structure, media organisations are drawn to pursue the private and corporate ends of the exclusionary and authoritarian populist forces, by ‘striking emotional chords on issues such as security, unemployment, inflation and immigration’ (Mazzoleni, 2007: 54-55). As such, the media constitute an understudied example of the “economisation of the public domain” and hence of the erosion of the rule of law.

An analysis of these forces requires a comprehensive research that employs a multi-level approach to investigate the political economic, legal and discursive pillars of communicative authoritarian populism in media and information fields. Since it is a trend of the European media landscape, a comparative analysis of national media systems is similarly crucial for investigating the failures and potential for democratic resilience.

Our analysis focusses on Austria, a clear case of exclusionary populist backlash in Western Europe (Sauer & Ajanovic, 2016), Croatia and Slovenia, examples of post-Yugoslav anti-Balkanism (Pajnik, 2018), and Hungary, the most prominent example of illiberal anti-pluralist ‘strong man politics’ (Lendvai, 2017; Sallai & Schnyder, 2017). We also include Turkey as a non-EU trendsetter for exclusionary authoritarian populism (Müller, 2016) where the media and communications systems have been radically transformed under the authoritarian populist administration (Çelik, 2019; Yesil, 2016).

To employ comprehensive and comparative research, the analysis takes place on three levels, combining different methodologies:

·         Macro level: Adopting a comparative media systems analysis approach in a historical context and using media policy methods, we compare countries’ communication governance and policy making in the past two decades. We  use secondary data to compare media markets, laws and ownership structures, and to assess levels of political parallelism, i.e. the extent and the kind of influence of populist politicians on the media, and journalistic professionalism (Bennett & Pfetsch, 2018). We aim to show by this analysis the ways in which market and policy imperatives drive media to popularize illiberal, authoritarian and exclusionary political forces and the similarities and differences between national media systems in their advancement of communicative authoritarian populism.

·         Meso level: Using semi-structured interviews with media professionals across the five states, we analyse how media/journalistic routines and values have changed in the journalistic field during backsliding. We analyse the domesticisation of exclusionary authoritarian populism, a process in which these actors are given extensive space in the media for spreading nativist rhetoric and securitization discourse through exploiting topics such as migration, minority protection or gender equality. We also analyse the ways in which professional and ethical journalism as ‘truth-telling and seeking’ practice has changed in the course of authoritarian populist transition (Roudakova, 2017), and explore possible strategies of journalists to distance themselves from abrasive populism.

·         Micro level: Based on frame- and discourse analysis of television programs and social media (Twitter) messages of politicians and influencers, we compare authoritarian populist discourses across countries and media outlets in the production of ‘exclusionary and divisionary discourse’ and ‘populist truth’ (Waisbord, 2018). Further, we aim to analyse how authoritarian populist actors increasingly circumvent journalistic gatekeeping, how they are politicising the traditional media domain, and how they frame exclusionary ideas. Acknowledging that informatization and digitalization push for hybrid media systems with decentralized online platforms such as Twitter (Chadwick, 2013), we analyse these new opportunities that are undermining autonomy and authority of traditional media, and mobilizing for affective forms of journalism pushing discourses that fit exclusionary populist politicians’ goals.

*****

‘Preliminary results’

Media ownership networks in authoritarian-populist context

Thus far our work has concentrated on the mapping of authoritarian communication networks, exploring media ownership structures in Central and Eastern Europe. In parallel to studies that analyse the discursive aspects of populist communications our approach has focused on the political-economic and institutional aspects of populist politics. Hence, we strive to shift the discussion on populist communications from ‘what populists say through media’ to ‘what populists and populism do to media’. We are applying the method of social network analysis on five Central and Eastern European countries where illiberal regimes are firmly established or have a strong presence of illiberal political forces in the political and media system: Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia and Turkey. We analyse trends of ownership concentration, capital accumulation as well as interpersonal connections between media owners, powerful capitalist networks (operating in various national and international markets) and political actors in the period from 2000 until 2020. Preliminary results indicate that far-reaching changes have taken place over the past two decades, pointing to the emergence of dominant media actors and increasing polarisation between large, dominant media groups and more marginal players in all four countries.

Examining media law

Our macro analysis of populist backlash entails a historical view into the erosion of communicative principles of liberal democracy. An examination of legislative changes and adopted legal measures will help us determine a range of authoritarian and populist strategies implemented by political actors attempting to exert control or influence on the media and journalists in the five analysed countries (Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia, Turkey). Researchers work inductively examining various legal changes (adopted laws), attempts to rewrite existing legislation (introduced bills), circumventions of existing legislation or even straightforward (ab)uses of political instruments (like referendums) that institutionalise resistance to the revisions of the restrictive legislation. We thus outline and traverse six thematic areas in legislative histories regulating five mediascapes: a) Ownership Laws; b) Licensing regulations; c) Regulations and the laws about the Executive Boards, Higher or Regulation Authorities in media, the press and other communication spheres; d) Freedom of Speech Laws; e) Labour Law & Regulation; f) Advertising of the companies in majority public ownership.