Using parallel content analysis to measure mediatization of politics: The televised leaders’ debates in Canada, 1968–2008

Abstract

Owing to their focus solely on media content, most empirical studies on mediatization of politics fail to consider the dynamic relationship between politics and journalism, even though this relationship would provide ideal data for assessing the mediatization hypothesis. This study aims to measure the mediatization of politics using a research design that tracks parallel trends in political and media content over several decades, with televised Canadian leaders’ debates and their coverage by newspapers as a case study. Our specific hypotheses target the discursive style of journalists (factual, analytical, judgmental), agenda building (the range of areas of activity), and framing (strategic or governing). Our findings support the hypothesis which states that reports on leaders’ debates have become less factual as journalists have increased the share of analytical and judgmental styles in their stories. Also, use of the strategic frame in news stories has grown, and it has been incorporated by party leaders into their own discourse during debates. Evidence is mixed regarding the impact of mediatization on agenda building.