Methodological reflections and future research

Undertaking research is always easier with the benefit of hindsight, and this project is no different. While throughout this thesis some constraints and suggestions have been

52

120 mentioned, where appropriate, several aspects require further discussion. These refer to aspects of the methodology utilised and also the role of media in leader-voter interaction.

The most important aspect of the research that can be improved upon is the wording of the questions asked in the political logs. In general, the questions were too wordy and had the possibility of confusing participants as to what was asked of them. The second regular question in particular is problematic,53 as it suggests political figures or groups as the appropriate sources of information and could be regarded as a form of begging the question. A better phrasing for this question might be: “How did this issue come to your attention?”

Another key methodological qualification is that there are no decisive tests that could conclusively verify or falsify any of the two models or perspectives. They are too general, too complex, too multifaceted, too paradigmatic to be tested in a completely conclusive manner. Yet their relative plausibility can be assessed – and this is what my research has attempted.

6.4.1. Understanding the media

An important aspect arising from this research that needs further consideration is the role of media in leader-voter interaction. To point out the highly mediated relationship between elites and voters is to state a truism. Some observers may note that my research uses a simplistic approach to media and its role in leader-voter interaction, but this is a little misleading. In the elite-voter scheme I have presented, accounts of media are modular – they can be inserted or removed based on their feasibility. Thomas Meyer (2002), for example, argues that media has ‘colonised’ contemporary democratic politics by making it function according to its rules. Central to this account is the ‘theatricalization’ of news, wherein news articles increasingly take on the characteristics of entertainment, becoming stage-managed to ensure an easily digestible format. Consequently, it becomes increasingly difficult for citizens to cross-check political information with real life experiences, as political events become increasingly stage-managed (Meyer 2002: 75). Meyer (2002:101) contrasts “the marketplace of ancient assembly democracy” with contemporary “media democracy”, wherein the media- dominated public sphere functions as a very exclusive public stage; access is restricted to experts and elites (Meyer 2002: 99). The emphasis upon performance in media democracy means that voters tend to place emphasis on candidates and leaders as artists rather than

53

The question reads: “Who – that is, which political figure or group – signalled these issues? What was/were the main source(s) of your information on this issue (e.g. Internet news/blogs,The Australian, The Mercury, Win News, conversation with friends)?”

121 politicians. Deliberation and participation are sidelined in favour of catering to the transitory opinions of the public.

From the elitist perspective I adopt, Meyer’s (2002) account places too much emphasis on the importance of citizen deliberation and participation. These qualities are thought to be absent from citizens, and should be kept in check, lest government comes to a standstill (through excessive deliberation) or becomes unstable and chaotic (through excessive participation). Meyer does not acknowledge that the exclusive nature of the media stage is generally beneficial to elites,54 and is at least partially by their design. Nevertheless, Meyer is correct in highlighting three principal consequences of the media-dominated democratic era: the sidelining of political parties and intermediary organisations in favour of leaders; the reification of the momentary preferences of isolated citizens; and the elevation of issue-less stage-management (Meyer 2002: 139).

The fact remains that neither of the perspectives I evaluated – the neo-elitist nor aggregative approach – directly responds to the media or the highly mediated electoral age, much to their discredit. While media have been studied in detail, political sociological theories have “failed to integrate the media as an oblique force that has strong but not always clear impacts on political candidates, elections, ideologies, and legislation, and on the implementation and evaluation of policy” (Hicks, Janoski and Schwartz 2005: 2). More specifically, neither approach has concrete expectations about how voters understand and use media sources. In his extensive overviews of the pluralist and elitist models, Held (2006) makes no mention of media. Field and Higley (1980: 19-20) regard voters (non-elites) as holders of general inclinations based on the level of societal development. While elites must consider and appeal to these inclinations in justifying policies, they more determine what cannot or will not happen at each level of societal development. While it is true that media in the late 1970s were substantially less developed, no attention is given to media in later work (e.g. Higley and Burton 2006). Pakulski and Körösényi (2012) regard the contemporary era of ‘leader democracy’ as one of media centrality, but their focus is on the oratory charisma of leaders using mass media as a mouthpiece. Their treatment of media is otherwise superficial. It has

54

The Gillard Labor government was an exception to this. Media commentators frequently referred to the government’s inability to ‘cut through’ or ‘sell its achievements’. At the same time, government ministers criticised media coverage for its disinterest in covering policy (e.g. Ireland 2013; Massola and Vasek 2013).

122 been left to public opinion scholars sympathetic with the elite perspective to better understand media (e.g. Zaller 1992).

Where elitists such as Pakulski and Körösényi (2012) understand media as a tool at the disposal of leaders, Meyer (2002) is representative of the view that media is a powerful independent actor, capable of dominating politics and transforming it in a negative way. Further addressing the place and role of media will allow future researchers to produce a more comprehensive theory of contemporary democracy.