Today, the world is experiencing increasingly sophisticated new communication technologies. As a result, there is a rise in the access and active participation of citizens across the globe in the political process. Significantly, this is leading to an alteration in the relationship between the media, politics and democracy (Fenton, 2014). The altering of this relationship leads to a ‘radical reversal’ (Benkler, 2006: 30) and to the decentralization of information production and dissemination in political communication. As a result of this radical reversal,
From the outset, the editors sought to provide answers to two overarching questions: ‘What are the key challenges facing our increasingly digitized democracy? And how might we as citizens contribute to resolving them?’. With these questions clearly outlined, the book draws widely from examples in Australia as well as analyses of different cases in the United States of America, Egypt, the United Kingdom, and Indonesia. Despite the exclusion of examples of digitized democracy in Nordic countries, the enriching discourse in the book remains relevant for readers in the Nordic region. In the build-up to the national elections in Sweden (September 2018), Finland (April 2019) and Denmark (June 2019), strategic measures were instituted to fight the menace of fake news. The 16-chapter book draws upon the expertise of the contributors in unpacking the different challenges currently faced by the media and the democratic process, and the impact of the digital age, as well as projections for the future of a digitized democratic society, are highlighted.
The advent of a digitized democracy has led to the term ‘fake news’ becoming popular. This popularity is a result of the ‘political rise of Donald Trump as the President of United States of America in 2016’ (p. 12). This view aligns with the numerous submissions made by political communication scholars on the rise of fake news globally (McNair, 2018). Specifically, the term ‘fake news’ is used to describe false news that is intentionally disseminated, or a particular news item that is unfavourable to a politician and with which he or she disagrees (p. 16). This second type of fake news continues to gain prominence among politicians globally. Through social networking platforms, politicians wield the fake news tool to sway the unsuspecting populace. Meanwhile, the first type has continued to clog the wheels of democratic progress. This has led to conscious efforts by stakeholders in academia, the media and government to eliminate the problems associated with fake news (Cheruiyot & Ferrer-Conill, 2018).
Apart from the challenge of ‘fake news’, empirical studies from Australia and Indonesia reveal the slow adoption of digitized platforms by politicians as a means of engaging electorates and citizens. Specifically, Indonesian politicians are yet to develop the ability to use these platforms to listen to the public and to provide good governance (p. 152). Meanwhile, electorates and citizens are becoming increasingly engaged in the use of these social media platforms. On the other hand, Australian politicians are yet to ‘exploit these channels in a considered or strategic way’ (p. 41). In summary, this has ‘failed to translate into full and meaningful citizen participation in public policy decision-making’ (p. 68).
Notwithstanding this, in a digitized democracy ‘an average citizen is less likely to be silenced’ (p. 52). According to the authors, this has occurred as a result of unfettered access to social media platforms, which facilitates expression. As a result of this, platforms have rapidly moved from being social to being ‘primarily political’ (p. 1). In Egypt, this led to the effective ‘amplification of civic voices’ (p. 169) and the successful revolution in 2011. In the same vein, the rise of alternative media in the United Kingdom made an impact during the 2017 general election. This development can be termed significant and vital in a society saturated with partisan mainstream media outlets (p. 50). The rise, as some authors remind us, can also be linked to the continuous increase in media studies scholarship in alternative media across the globe (p. 78).
The book also lends its expertise to the ongoing discourse on the impact of digital and social media on traditional media. Using the environmental coverage and campaigns by
Aside from advocacy journalism, Amanda Gearing and Rodney Tiffen posit the positive impact of the digital era in aiding investigative journalism (pp. 111, 205). Drawing upon the network theory of Manuel Castells (1996), Gearing notes that journalists ‘have the opportunity to extend the scope of their influence…’ (p. 111). In the same vein, Tiffen examines the various leaks that were made possible because this decade falls within the digital era – Wikileaks, 2010, the Snowden Files, 2013, the Panama Papers, 2016, and the Russian/Wikileaks Democrats leaks, 2016. In summary, Tiffen argues that the digital era provides ‘enhanced democratic benefits’ (p. 209).
Significantly, some of the contributors touch on the growing scholarly discourse about the future and sustainability of traditional journalism. This discourse has continued to dominate media studies scholarship in the last decade. With the rise of digital platforms, advertisers’ revenue in traditional outlets is dwindling (Newman, 2009), with predictions of a greater decline in revenue and an eventual shift in the business model for the mainstream media (Newman, 2019). Based on this ongoing debate, Kristy Hess argues that local media can be sustained through the exploration of the ‘depleted “rivers of gold” of classified advertising’ (p. 88). On the other hand, David Fagan predicts that by early 2020, weekday publications of newspapers will cease (p. 189). Based on his long experience as a newspaper editor in Australia, Fagan notes that the revenue hole for media organizations is getting ‘deeper’ with the disruption in the industry caused by technology (p. 185). As we inch towards 2020, it remains to be seen whether Fagan’s prediction comes to pass. The future of journalism, as posited by Fagan, is based on the collaboration of journalists and technologists to ‘discover and tell stories’ (p. 194).
Unpacking the role of citizens in taking charge of a digitized democracy, John Keane advocates keen attention to the issues surrounding the ownership, control and taxation of automated machines (p. 223). Furthermore, Keane notes that in this era of an ‘unfinished robots revolution’, there is a need for citizens to ensure that the social inequality currently experienced across the world is solved. Most importantly, this calls for a sincere resolve to proffer solutions in these grey areas before the advancement of this age is determined by machines and robots.
Generally, it is important to note that, besides seeking to answer the questions mentioned above, the book spares some thought for the successes recorded in the digitized democracy – the impact of alternative media in the United Kingdom (p. 45), the advocacy, sustainability and social news genre of journalism (pp. 75, 88, 114), the 2011 Egyptian revolution (p. 163), and the use of digital media for education by the indigenous peoples in Australia. While this is laudable, the book fails to provide insights into the challenges of digitized democracy in sub-Saharan Africa or in Southern and Central America. These gaps might be valuable for a holistic understanding of the interaction between media, politics and technology across the globe. Hence, this could be considered by the editors if they were to venture to publish a sequel to this book.
Undoubtedly, this contribution to political communication scholarship is invaluable, timely and relevant. Most importantly, it is relevant for every graduate student, academic, policymaker and advocate of political communication.
Teaching political communication courses at universities can be a challenging task these days. When reading about well-known theories like agenda-setting or mediatisation, students are prone to ask how valid the underlying assumptions are today. Do the mass media still reach the majority of the population? Do politicians really depend on the media when they can bypass journalists and communicate directly with their followers on Twitter or Facebook? At the same time, existing theories often fall short when explaining the role of political communication in recent developments such as the Brexit vote, the election of Donald Trump as US President, or the rise of populism in Northern Europe.
Similar teaching experiences led Aeron David, Professor of Political Communication and Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Centre at Goldsmiths, University of London, to set himself a daunting task: to write a book which introduces the reader to the broadly understood subject of political communication and, at the same time, documents how broad societal developments challenge long-held assumptions about the subject.
The result is the new book
Chapter 2 is a good example of the way the discussions are presented. The chapter sets the normative framework for the book. It first introduces the reader to ideals of democracy, tracing these ideals back to the French Revolution. It then goes on to discuss the role of communication, focusing on Habermas’s public sphere ideal. The final part of the chapter discusses these normative ideals in light of recent research on comparative politics and media systems, supplemented by empirical indicators of the state of democracy and the media across the world.
Like Chapter 2, Chapter 3 sets the scene for the following chapters in the book. It brings up the question whether we are currently truly experiencing a crisis in political communication and democracy, or whether the present state of affairs is ‘just another temporary dip in the long advance of democracy’ (p. 34). Reviewing earlier discussions of this question by scholars like Norris and Inglehart and contrasting the current situation with the crises of the 1930s and 1970s, the chapter argues that tipping points for democracy have been reached due to disrupting trends. These tipping points fundamentally change the nature of political communication.
Chapters 4 to 8 discuss the current democratic crisis from the perspective of the main actors of political communication. Chapter 4 discusses how
After thoroughly discussing these key actors in political communication, the book continues with a close look at three broad forces which are presented as challenges or disruptors to democracy: economic developments (Chapter 9), the rise of digital media and online political communication (Chapter 10), and globalisation (Chapter 11). Chapters 3 to 11 primarily describe and discuss recent trends and the current state of political communication, without giving an explicit normative evaluation. In the final chapter, Davis takes a clearer stand and describes the negative democratic consequences of what is labelled ‘the Fourth Age of Political Communication’: growing instability of democratic institutions, the breakdown of national public spheres, the decline of traditional authorities, and a disconnect between public and private politics. Interestingly, Davis points to the Nordic countries as a place to start looking for solutions to these global challenges, as he tentatively argues that ‘the odds of a strong democracy enduring might be improved if following the Scandinavian template’ (p. 212).
The merit of this book can best be discussed in relation to the two objectives which the author sets in the beginning of the book: (1) to introduce the reader to the broadly understood subject of political communication and (2) document how broad societal developments challenge long-held assumptions about the subject. While pursuing two objectives necessarily comes with trade-offs, the book overall does a good job balancing between these two goals. Not only does it convincingly show that changes in political communication are so profound that there is indeed a need to revisit dominant theories and common knowledge in the field, but the book also naturally weaves broad debates in political communication together into one coherent narrative. Hypodermic needle effects, media logic, elite news sources, and media-party parallelism are just some of the key concepts in the discipline which are introduced in this volume. I could not think of a key debate in the field which was missing from the book.
In addition, the book truly lives up to its goal of taking a broad perspective on political communication. Throughout the book, and particular in Chapters 3, 8, 9 and 11, the book clearly goes beyond the media-centric perspective which often characterises books on political communication. These chapters draw strongly on insight from political science, economics, sociology and international relations and clearly present the relevance of this insight to the understanding of political communication today. It is rare to find such broad perspectives synthesised into one coherent narrative by a single author. This is refreshing, as generalists have become increasingly rare in today’s academic world, which values specialisation and narrow expertise over broad perspectives, and where different disciplines primarily meet in multi-disciplinary teams or edited volumes. While the breadth is a key strength of the book, this at times comes at the expense of the depth of the discussions presented. In discussions of, for example, audience polarisation, fake news or the rise of entertainment-driven news, some nuance is lost, and concepts could have been defined more rigorously. It would therefore be beneficial to supplement with primary literature if the book is used as a textbook in university courses. Davis offers plenty of references to further readings on the topics introduced.
The book also delivers on its second objective and clearly documents how broad societal developments challenge long-held assumptions about political communication. This is done by reviewing current research, supplemented with sharp observations about the current state of democracy around the world. Reflecting the broader state of the field of political communication, the book draws most strongly on Anglo-American literature and debates here. These debates are put in an international perspective by presenting data from sixteen countries from all parts of the world throughout the book. Following the logic of a most-different systems design, Davis shows, with data about democratic attitudes and media systems, that the trends described are present around the world. Here the focus is more on commonalities than differences across countries, which is defensible given the argument that the book is making.
The strength of the book is more in challenging and questioning existing theories and concepts than in introducing new theories and concepts to replace them. Current trends in political communication are clearly described in the book, but the author does not present a coherent theoretical or conceptual framework which explains how political communication is changing and where it is heading. Surely this would be too much to ask of an introductory book written in the middle of rapid changes. In any case, the book gives a clear diagnosis of the current state of political communication and will undoubtedly inspire future political communication scholars to develop new concepts and theories to better understand the developments described.
Adriana Margareta Dancus’ concise book
Each of the six chapters examines one or two case studies which mostly fit into the category of first-person cinema by and about a Scandinavian woman. Exceptions include works for which the credited director is not the subject of the film, such as in
In fact, Dancus does limit her research on Scandinavian films to those emerging from Norway and Sweden, almost completely skipping Denmark as a potential site of self-exploration through cinema. This feels like an oversight, with Norway and Sweden conflated as broadly similar interventionist welfare states, while Denmark is largely ignored. The exclusion of Denmark would have been less noticeable in the absence of Block’s US film, which is anomalous on account of both the production context and the gender of the filmmaker.
To pre-empt such critique, Dancus could have acknowledged Denmark as a Scandinavian nation with potentially relevant case studies and proceeded to explain why she limited her analysis to the texts featured in the published book. For example, Mette Carla Albrechtsen and Lea Glob’s 2016 documentary
Dancus acknowledges Lauren Berlant and Sara Ahmed as sources of inspiration and positions her own study next to Patricia White’s
Chapter one discusses
Dancus situates Melkeraaen within the phenomenon of ‘good girl syndrome’, which is understood as the pressure that women in contemporary societies like Norway feel to be outwardly successful. The very creation of
Chapter two opens with a vignette about the unprecedented modern tendency for parents to document the lives of their children in a preamble to the analysis of
While chapter one scrutinises vulnerability as a concept, chapter two deploys the term with little clarification of how
Chapter three looks at
It becomes especially clear, by chapter three, that each case study brings with it markedly different discussion points, techniques, and concepts. The depth of Dancus’ research and knowledge is apparent as the book progresses, but each introduction of a new methodological lens somewhat disjoins the chapters from each other: a minor weakness that could be allayed with consistent reference back to the three questions Dancus poses in the introduction.
Chapter four’s focus returns to the selfdocumentation of mental illness, using
Chapter five uses as its case studies
Chapter six looks closely at
The brief conclusion draws attention to how these films are situated in cultural discourses of belonging, individualism, and selfhood in Scandinavia and specifically in Norway and Sweden. It is a rewarding book that exposes the reader to films they may otherwise never discover and is a valuable resource for researchers in sociology, anthropology, gender studies, and cultural studies.
Joanna Zylinska’s book
The book’s physical multi-medium outlook, with the website accompaniment, is carried over into its identification of its interdisciplinary audience.
In Chapter One Zylinska elaborates on how nonhuman vision can develop ethical and political modes of practice in order to tackle ‘the debates on climate change, extinction, and the Anthropocene’ (p. 15). Zylinska states that nonhuman vision is aligned with human vision, as both are a technological product that forms an ‘assemblage of perception’ (p. 14). Nonhuman vision does, however, differ from human vision in that the former is ‘an ethico-political response to what Haraway calls the “god trick” of infinite vision’ that is necessarily a masculinist gaze of domination and occupation, ‘seeing everything from nowhere’ (p. 14). Positing a binary distinction between nonhuman vision and human vision would not be an inaccurate way of portraying the author’s argument, as Zylinska states that there is no such binary division, and aims to put forward ‘the inherent nonhumanity of all vision’ (p. 15). By this Zylinska means that human vision is always a constructed state; that is, we consider our ‘perception as active, or even world-making, rather than just secondary and responsive’ (p. 42).
Chapter Two looks at the agency of nonhuman photography and how it affects perception. Zylinska examines her own work, entitled
In Chapter Three Zylinska moves from ontology to time, and specifically a time ‘after the human’ (p. 81). This needs to be done, Zylinska states, to formulate the human ‘in a series of dynamic relations with other nonhuman entities and the process of geo- and biosphere’ (p. 81). This conceptualisation is then not just a ‘straight-forward material disappearance or conceptual overcoming’ of the human in the future, but a present look at how ‘that disappearance as a prominent visual trope’ is manifested in art photography and other cultural practices (p. 81). For Zylinska, the trope of the ruin embodies the idea of disappearance in the present, and she looks at the concept of ‘ruin lust’ or ‘ruin porn’. Zylinska states that within photography there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ruins. The exhibition at Tate Britain called
In Chapter Four Zylinska takes a geological look at how photography can capture ecological change and act ‘as a warning against environmental excesses by humans and a call for us humans to consider our political responsibility’ (p. 103). Zylinska states that we ‘dwell under the horizon of extinction’ and, simultaneously, ‘after extinction’ (p. 103). Zylinska means first that the Earth has already seen five extinctions, according to the geological designation, and therefore that humanity can be said to be living after extinction. Furthermore, geologists who analysed ‘extinction rates among amphibians across geological epochs’, have seen ‘similarly catastrophic’ events that can be classed as a ‘Sixth Extinction’, so that it can be said that we ‘dwell under the horizon of extinction’. Nonhuman photography captures this idea of being simultaneously after and under extinction, as it highlights the ‘derangements of scale’ of human-centric discourse (p. 124). Nonhuman photography allows humans to see a greater scale of time, in which our civilisation is just a small part.
One of Zylinska’s key themes running throughout the book is that photography is a medium that is centred towards death, typified by Barthes and his book
In the final chapter, ‘We have always been digital’, Zylinska unifies analogue and digital photography in the idea of ‘liquidity’ (p. 169). Further unification of the two formats comes from the fact that they both have a material basis. Zylinska states that the ‘supposed immateriality of the digital’ is only upheld by ignoring ‘the materiality of the screen’, the parts that make up the apparatus, and ‘the network cables that participate in its transfer’ (p. 172). Zylinska describes the construction of the final chapter as a ‘Heraclitean or … Deleuzian’ argument in which ‘everything is indeed in flux or flow’ (p. 175). The two facets of unification for digital and analogue formats, materiality and liquidity, operate to explain how the archive functions in human–nonhuman photography. The chapter ‘We have always been digital’ describes the liquidity of the two formats bleeding into one another, to the point where Zylinska claims it is ‘tragic’ to refer to digitalisation as ‘different from photography’ (p. 176). She supports this when she states that analogue photography has always recorded ‘binary pattern: the presence and absence of light’ (p. 176). Here the author aligns digital binary code with analogue photography’s ability to capture binary pattern, suggesting continuity over schism within the medium.
The book’s adherence to registering the ongoing traces of photography within other forms of media is certainly one of its strong points, in terms of drawing a wider analytical framework of understanding, yet on occasion this leads the author to place too high an emphasis on this framework:
The question therefore is not whether to be inside or outside the network – whether to tweet to not to tweet, to post on Instagram or not – because such spatial differentiations do not apply in the interlinked era in which we are all becoming (social) media. The question, rather, is how to envision a new mode of thinking and acting in the world in which we humans are increasingly positioned as a function of images and media – as their producers, consumers, distributors, clients, corporeal apparatuses, kinaesthetic machines, and reflexive surfaces. (p. 30)
The idea of looking for new solutions to new problems is admirable, and, furthermore, the wish to address those issues that are systematic and tacit is, of course, pertinent. However, negating individual action in favour of a speculative outside removes the idea of working through structural change, be that as an individual or as a collective.
Overall,