MEDIA

How does the combination of democratization and violence shape the public sphere? This should entail an enlargement of the public sphere and an increase in public deliberation. Since framing is a powerful tool in determining the scope and contents of public debate, what role does framing play in democratizing public spheres? Taking the state of Veracruz (Mexico) as a case study, we explore to what extent do print media allow for an enlargement of the public sphere in terms of both admissible participants and issues. We argue that framing practices contribute to a paradoxical situation in which deliberation takes place, but whose democratic character is severely compromised by the systematic exclusion of certain actors and the subordinate framing of certain issues in the media. The result is a hybrid public sphere in which ostensibly democratic media help normalize violence, authoritarian practices and traditional domination patterns.

In this article, we argue that the degree of political stability is a critical element in the evolution of media systems. In our view, it is the causal mechanism allowing for the political parallelism of media systems. We argue that political stability has three main effects on media systems: it consolidates the operating principles and mechanisms of the public sphere; it gives clear and self-assumed political identities to media actors; and it allows for the establishment of predictable, long-term professional relationships within the media system as well as between journalists and their sources. To test this hypothesis, we compare Bahia and the Federal District, two Brazilian subnational units that differ essentially by the degree of political stability they experienced between 2003 and 2018.

Populist practices and rhetoric are an integral part of politics in every region of the world. Populist rhetoric is ubiquitous in election campaigns and colors the policies of many governing parties, while populist forces have forced significant policy changes in many areas, from immigration to reproductive health. While there are several definitions of populism from different perspectives, many of them emphasize two concepts. First, that of a genuine and virtuous people; second, distrust of elites. The contours of the people and the identity of the elites in question vary according to context, as do the ideological positions of the proponents of populism. Populism manifests itself at several levels: public opinion may echo populist positions; mainstream and social media may carry populist discourses; political parties and movements and their leaders may be associated with populist agendas. The notion of populism is polysemous and full of empirical contradictions, not to mention the theoretical debates surrounding it. This special issue explores the complex relationship between populism, media and journalism at all these levels, separately or in combination. Several questions are addressed: How do the media cover populist parties and what role do journalists play in (de)legitimizing their ideas? How do populist discourses influence partisan competition? How does populist rhetoric, in a given context, conceive of the elites and the people?

Freedom of expression and access to diverse sources of information are seen as critical elements of democracy, although their concretization on the ground is subject to strong interference. Recent regime change in Maranhão, one of Brazil’s poorest states, has led to the emergence of new media and some expansion of the public sphere.

To study journalism, media or politics is to study each topic individually as well as in the context of their relationships with each other and with the societies in which they operate and to which they contribute.