In fact, trends such as interpretative
reporting and psychological framing in the coverage of politics raise some
questions over the challenge to separate opinions and facts, as well as the
place for impartiality.
(chaprer 7 of comparing political journalism) assessed
the degree of so-called infotainment features in political journalism, and
concluded that it does increase political cynicism. In fact, boundaries between
publics’ affairs and pop culture have become more difficult to discern.
Thus, we argue that personalization in
political coverage embodies one of the causes of these blurred lines. In fact,
in order to emotionally attract the audience, political journalism has increasingly
focused on the personalities of politicians.
Some could argue that it permits to humanize
politics and carry strong symbolism. In fact, it provides citizens with the
tools to better understand politicians’ real values, and how they would act in
critical situations. However, this obsession with politicians can frequently
happens at the expense of policy and political parties.
Greenslade (année, truc) argued that the need to
fill excessive spaces created for politics, in news and current affairs
schedules, has resulted in the trend of high journalistic interpretation. Consequently,
comments on the news sometimes become more important than the news itself, and
there is a risk of losing its primary significance.
Psychological framing is also symptomatic
of the increase in commentary and interpretative reporting. It happens when the
behaviour and decisions of politicians are explained through an analysis of
their character. Esser (2008,p.48) argued that
political journalistic intervention is high when journalists report about
politics in “their own words, scenarios and assessments”. Therefore, it raises
some questions about impartiality when reporting politics in this way.
Moreover, it leads to the increasing use of
strategic game frames with politics (Patterson, 1993,
2000), which in turn increase negativity towards politicians (Djerf-Pierre and Weibull, 2008). However, some could argue that
reflexive political reporting could empower the audience to probe behind the
packaged political message. (ecpr)
Esser and Umbricht (2014, truc) pointed
out that while US newspapers preferred to mix information and interpretation, French
newspapers would preferred to run more opinions pieces. Thus, it leads us to
reflect over the challenge caused by possible confusion between facts and
Indeed, we argue that partisan political
journalism could participate to the increase of citizens’ polarization because
it frames issues and politicians as either being good or bad. Even if partisan
political journalism can be perceived as enabling journalists’ freedom of
speech, we would argue that too much of it does not enhance the democratic
debate because it reinforces filter bubbles.
political journalism often includes speculations about future consequences of
events. For instance, with recent elections in the US and in the UK, political
journalists’ analyses were mainly based on past continuity. Thus, it represents
a challenge to overcome because what is interesting about period of political
discontinuity is humility in front of the stories.(M.T
Therefore, I argue that this confusion between
facts and commentaries participated to citizens’ emotional vote.