Media Personalisation in Context: A Cross-National Comparison between the UK and the Netherlands, 1992–2007

Abstract

The phenomenon of (media) personalisation has generated a considerable amount of scholarly attention and is regarded as being a significant aspect of contemporary politics and political communication.To investigate long-term trends in personalisation, this study draws on a unique data set that is composed of Dutch and British newspaper articles from a sixteen-year period. The evidence suggests that personalisation is present in both countries, but its realisation differs in each country: where the UK is characterised by a concentration of attention towards the prominent offices and the Prime Minister, the Netherlands has seen an increased visibility of the 'non-prominent' Cabinet members.The second part of the study investigates the impact of various events on the visibility levels of the most prominent ministerial functions, with particular attention paid to the Prime Minister. Leaders appear not to be more in the foreground during national crises. Finally, the explanatory power of events for determining the visibility of Cabinet members does not seem to increase in importance over time.

The writing is on the wall: the limited professionalization of European parliament election campaign posters

“…Media coverage of Dutch politics has become more personalized over time during and outside of election campaigns (e.g. Kriesi 2012;Boumans, Boomgaarden, and Vliegenthart 2013). Similarly, Italian election campaigns are nowadays highly personalized (Campus 2010, 224;Mancini 2013b, 343).…”

Bring back the party: personalisation, the media and coalition politics

“…Research on media personalization has for the most part focused on those countries that are stable in terms of type of government, especially Germany, the Netherlands and the UK (e.g. Boumans, Boomgaarden and Vliegenthart 2013;Mughan 2000;Wilke and Reinemann 2001). Moreover, the former two are also highly similar in terms of a number of coalition-specific features and institutional rules (Martin and Vanberg 2008, 506).…”

“…Kriesi 2012;Vliegenthart, Boomgaarden and Boumans 2011). In relation specifically to the UK, research has provided fairly clear, albeit not unanimous, support for a rise on media personalization, especially for the presidentialization thesis (Boumans, Boomgaarden and Vliegenthart 2013;Langer 2011;Mughan 2000; but see Kriesi 2012).…”

“…In contrast to the growing longitudinal literature, research about the impact of the characteristics of the political system (and especially regime type and electoral and party variables) on the degree of media personalization is rare, especially studies providing actual comparative data (Boumans, Boomgaarden and Vliegenthart 2013;Dalton and Wattenberg 2000;Holtz-Bacha, Langer and Merkle 2014;Kriesi 2012;Van Aelst et al 2016). There is nonetheless consensus that institutions are key for explaining variations in the degree of personalization (Dalton, McAllister and Wattenberg 2000;Karvonen 2010;Kriesi 2012;Mughan 2000;Poguntke and Webb 2005b;Van Aelst et al 2016) .…”

Evaluations of the Spitzenkandidaten: The Role of Information and News Exposure in Citizens’ Preference Formation

“…News coverage during EP election campaigns has become more comprehensive in recent years (Boomgaarden & De Vreese, 2016;De Vreese, Banducci, Semetko, & Boomgaarden, 2006;Schuck, Xezonakis, Elenbaas, Banducci, & De Vreese, 2011) and the EP as well as individual members (MEPs) receive regular broadsheet coverage during non-election times (Gattermann, 2013;Gattermann & Vasilopoulou, 2015). Furthermore, research on the personalization of politics suggests that individual politicians (e.g., Langer, 2007;Rahat & Sheafer, 2007) and leaders in particular (e.g., Boumans, Boomgaarden, & Vliegenthart, 2013) receive increasingly more news attention at the ex- Put, Van Hecke, Cunningham, & Wolfs, 2016). pense of political parties and institutions.…”