International Communication Association: Communication Aacross the Life Span,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 21-25, 2015
N. Leila Trapp and Bo Laursen1
Media work as public affairs: moving beyond media savvy.
Insights from press contact staff members at 50 Danish insider
interest groups
1 Introduction
It is well know that organizations seeking political influence often target
the news media in their communication efforts, as obtaining media coverage is a
central means of exerting political influence. Indeed, most citizens in Western
democratic political systems rely on the news media for political information
(Strömbäck 2008; Purcell, Mitchell et al. 2010). This practice is not likely to
change soon as the news media continues to strengthen its standing as a
prominent forum for political communication (e.g. Strömbäck and Esser 2014),
and there is an ever-growing amount of media-savvy amongst communication
staff in organizations with political agendas (e.g. Davis 2000; Larsen 2006).
For political organizations, targeting the media can, however, present
risks and challenges. In this study we first examine these risks and challenges
through a review of the relevant literature, focusing in particular on so-called
insider (lobbying) organizations. We then empirically explore the ways that
press contact staff in 50 Danish, insider interest groups understand and handle
the risks and challenges. As the literature review will reveal, interest groups are
just one type of social actor, amongst many, that constantly undergo adaption
processes that enable them to suit a “news media logic”, and thereby further
their political goals. The purpose of this study is to contribute up-to-date and
nuanced insights into these adaptation processes, not only to enrich the public
relations literature and knowledge base, but also to provide food-for-thought for
professional communicators.
2 Literature review
We begin the literature review by presenting the relevant concept of
“mediatization” and the motivations for political organizations to target the news
media. Focus is then centered on the insider-outsider political organization
distinction, and, specifically the extent to which media work is considered risky
for insider groups.
2.1. Mediatization: The central role of the news media in politics
As noted, of key importance to this study is the central role that the news
media plays in the political sphere, and, subsequently, the consequences this can
have on how political actors, such as interest groups, adapt to and interact with
1Department
of Business Communication, Aarhus University, Denmark
the news media in order to further their political goals. This is addressed in the
mediatization literature, where mediatization is defined as an ongoing social
change process in which the news media’s “logic” increasingly influences various
spheres of society, including political processes, institutions, organizations and
actors (Cook 1998; Strömbäck 2008; Hjarvard 2013; Strömbäck and Esser
2014). The news media logic refers to institutionalized and often internalized
professional routines and values which guide editors’ and journalists’ selection
and presentation of news content (ibid.).
Larson (2006) reports for example on mediatization within political
organizations. Here we see that professional communicators are not only careful
to create news stories which fit the well known news criteria (e.g. current
relevance, identification, conflict), but they also typically take care to prime the
news institution with opinion polls, background analyses, and other types of
reports (ibid.).
We also see the forces of mediatization in Strömbäck and Van Aelst’s
theoretical study of media adaption in political parties (2013). They report that
in terms of communication strategy adaptation, many parties are devoting more
resources to “proactively shape the media agenda and promote their issues and
frames through the media”, “adapting their communication to the media and
their needs and standards of newsworthiness”, and building personal relations
between party leaders and communication staff on the one hand and journalists
on the other (ibid., pp. 344-345).
2.2 Media Work for agenda-setting, attention-getting and involving the public
The reasons for political organizations to persevere in targeting the
media are many-fold. In general, interest groups that are embedded in
democratic states are typically motivated to approach the media because
attempts to influence politics are most effective when they involve multiple
tactics (Baumgartner and Leech 1998). This key insight is an important aspect of
the “agenda-setting approach” that considers the struggle for general public’s
attention to be a key mechanism in the development of political conflicts (e.g.
Baumgartner and Jones 2002). It also reflects the famous observation made half
a century ago by the political scientist Schattschneider that the result of political
contests are determined by the scope of public involvement, and that “conflicts
are frequently won or lost by the success that the contestants have in getting the
audience involved in the fight or in excluding it, as the case may be”
(Schattschneider 1988, p. 4).
2.3 Insider-Outsider Interest Groups and their Political Influence Strategies
When examining media work in political organizations such as interest
groups, it is useful to know that the extent to which an organization will rely on
the media in their political communication has traditionally been seen to be
dependent on whether the group has privileged inside access to policy makers in
decision-making arenas or not. This insider/outsider distinction was developed
by Wyn Grant in 1977 to categorize the types of influence strategies that groups
pursue; insider groups were seen to pursue direct contact with bureaucrats and
parliamentarians, and outsider groups were seen to pursue indirect means of
influence such as media campaigns and mobilization of members (Grant 2000;
Grant 2004; Binderkrantz 2005). However, contrary to the model, a great deal
evidence has since been gathered which reveals that insider groups often use not
only the predicted insider strategies, but also so-called outsider media strategies
as well (Beyers 2004; Binderkrantz 2005; Kriesi, Tresch et al. 2007;
Binderkrantz and Krøyer 2012). This practice of using media strategies does not,
however, mean that media strategies are the most important; instead, insider
interest groups are generally seen to prioritize inside, lobbying strategies (Kriesi,
Tresch et al. 2007). Evidently for them, media work is considered a supplement
to directly accessing policy makers (ibid.).
These findings weaken Grant’s proposal that when a group has the
opportunity to simultaneously combine insider and outsider strategies, in the
long run either an insider or an outsider strategy should be chosen in order to
avoid the “serious tensions” that can otherwise arise (Grant 2004, p. 410). In
particular for insider groups, Grant proposes that because insider groups are
expected to behave responsibly, the simultaneous use of insider and outsider
strategies would weaken the group’s relations with decision makers (Grant
2000, p. 32; Grant 2001, p. 343).
Grant’s proposal has also been questioned in British studies which find
that government officials do not necessarily get provoked by interest groups’
simultaneous use of insider and outsider strategies; instead, government officials
are found to understand the game rules for gaining influence, and to invite these
groups anyway to join privileged participatory fora, such as working groups
(Jordan and Richardson 1987; Page 1999).
Despite these findings, Grant’s suggestion that a serious risk is run by
interest groups when choosing outside strategies has not, however, been
completely dismissed. For example, another study that explores the
(in)compatibility of “public” (outside) political strategies, such as media
campaigns, with inside lobbying notes that public strategies might indeed harm
the interest groups’ reputations as trustworthy interlocutors (Beyers 2004). In
summary, the literature is not conclusive regarding the extent to which media
strategies are indeed risky for insider groups during periods of lobbying, but the
potential risk is well-known.
In summary, given the complex environment in which professional
political communicators work, there are clear benefits as well as risks associated
with media work. We now turn to our interview study to explore the ways that
press contact staff members understand them and thereby accordingly adapt
their practices.
3 The Empirical Study: Method
The empirical study is a semi-structured, qualitative interview study,
which was preceded by a newspaper analysis to identify relevant interviewees.
3.1 The Newspaper Analysis: selection of interviewees
To ensure that our chosen interviewees do indeed carry out effective,
professional media work, we conducted a newspaper analysis to identify the
interest groups that managed to gain press coverage in Denmark’s three largest
national papers (Berlingske, Politiken and Jyllands-Posten) during a random
eight-day period (28th October – 4th November 2013). The analysis involved an
examination of all articles printed in the newspapers’ main section and business
section, if any. In some of the articles, it was evident that the interest group had
proactively sought the media coverage, in others, the interest group had been
asked to reactively comment on an existing issue, and in yet others the interest
group was simply named by the journalist. Regardless of the circumstance, the
interest group was included on our list. The final list included 64 interest groups.
We were granted telephone interviews with a key press contact staff member at
55 of the 64 interest groups.
3.2 The Interview Study: data collection
The study reported on here is part of a broader interview study of media
strategies and tactics in Danish interest groups. In this current study, results
stem from responses to one broad, open question, designed to encourage
respondents to reflect freely on key aspects of their work as press contact staff
members in an insider political organization:
How do you view the relationship between media work, public affairs/lobbying,
and other means of gaining support for your interests?
We aimed at a rather informal interview style that allowed for responses and
comments that were not strictly related to the questions we posed.
The interviews were recorded, ranged between 8 and 37 minutes (mean:
18 minutes), and were conducted between March and June 2014. Each author
conducted half of the interviews, guided by a pre-established, written interview
guide. To encourage unhampered dialogue, the interviews were conducted in the
interviewees’ first language, Danish. All direct references to the interviews in this
article are therefore translations from Danish.
At the beginning of each interview, the interviewees were asked how
their organization seeks support for its political interests other than through
media work. Groups which reported on direct dialogue with political actors or
public officials were considered insider groups. Press contact staff from all but
three groups reported on insider activities. The interviews from these three
groups were therefore excluded from the data set. The results, then, are based on
interviews with staff in 50 insider groups. Roughly one third of the groups were
industry and trade groups (18), and one third were labor groups (14). Because
categorizing interest groups is complicated (Binderkrantz 2012), the last one
third of the groups (20) is a collection of heterogeneous “other” groups. It
includes, for example, local authority, consumer, parent and hobby groups.
3.3 The Interview Study: data analysis
Rather than transcribing the recorded interviews in their full, only those
utterances that were judged relevant to this study were transcribed and coded.
This was the first step of a two-step qualitative data analysis process, as
described by Coffey and Atkinson, which includes coding and interpreting data
(1996).
During the first step, the data was coded according to data-driven themes
and patterns. In other words, the code categories did not reflect tight or theorydriven categories, just as the interview question was designed with the goal of
exploring the nature of media work in interest groups vis-à-vis other means of
gaining political support.
In the subsequent analysis phase, the move from coding to interpreting the
data involved “playing with and exploring the codes and categories that were
created” in order to extract meaning (ibid., p. 46). This exploration involved, for
example, thinking about how the data relates to contemporary theoretical ideas,
and to findings and gaps in the existing academic literature. Through this
interpretation, we found that the data provided us with insights in three topics:
1. The raison d’être of media work in interest groups.
2. The role of media work in relation to other public affairs activities.
3. The circumstances that influence interest group use of media work.
A further analysis of the interview data within these topics, especially the
first and third topic, provided us with the study’s results.
4 Results
The interviewees described a wide range of reasons for carrying out
media work, including two public affairs-related reasons. The results presented
here are all related to these two public affairs functions. The first function,
unsurprisingly, is to set or influence the political agenda. The second function is
more surprising: to establish, maintain and nurture relationships with political
actors. The interviewees described several tactics which make this possible,
including establishing goodwill will political actors through media-conveyed
flattery and praise, providing the media with news which can strengthen
political actors’ political profiles, and constantly profiling their own interest
group as an active and relevant participant in the political arena. The study’s
main finding is based on the interviewees’ descriptions of these tactics: press
contact staff in Danish insider interest groups display not only a great deal of
media-savvy, but an impressive deal of political-savvy as well.
Further evidence of this main finding was also provided in the
interviewees’ discussions of tactics used to deal with what is understood as the
two main risks associated with media work: (1) the risk of harming lobbying
efforts and legislation processes and (2) the risk of harming relationships with
political actors.
With respect to risks to lobbying efforts and legislation processes, the
importance of media work timing was often underscored. With respect to
relationships with political actors, the interviewees underscored the importance
of gaining their goodwill through media-based flattery and praise, keeping
themselves popular in the media’s “beauty contest”, strengthening the profiles of
political actors, saving the face of political actors, and giving political actors
honor and credit to political actors for positive political outcomes.
In the following sections, we provide a more nuanced discussion of these
findings, as well as interview fragments to illustrate them.
4.1 The Raison D´Être of Media Work
Our data indicate that insider interest groups seek media visibility for at
least three reasons. Firstly, they use the media simply to make themselves
known to the general public. Several respondents mentioned that the general
public’s familiarity with the organization’s name and goals increases its power
and influence. Secondly, they seek media visibility to gain and strengthen their
legitimacy amongst current and potential members. By taking part in mediated
debates and publicly taking firm stands, organizations demonstrate that they are
active and influential social actors who defend the interests of their members.
Thirdly, the media are seen as a forum for interest groups’ public affairs efforts.
The remainder of the results presented in this study focus exclusively on this last
point.
4.1.1 Media work as public affairs: agenda setting
Overall, our respondents discussed two public affairs related functions of
media work: agenda setting and establishing, maintaining and nurturing
relationships with politicians. The first function was not surprising; media
coverage was seen as an important means for interest groups to put their
fingerprints on the political agenda, as the media agenda is closely linked to the
political agenda. The agenda-setting process was in general described in terms of
media exposure to spread the organizations’ views to broader audiences, and,
hopefully, to thereby influence public opinion. In turn, this media-induced public
opinion is meant to spark political interest amongst politicians. Indeed, the
respondents explained that most politicians keep close track of public opinion
and cannot allow themselves to close their eyes and ears to major mediated
debates.
“We can decide to go to the press with a case to get public attention and
thereby put citizen-based pressure on the politician.”
“The media agenda can help establish a willingness amongst politicians to
listen to [our] proposed solution. It can help bust the door in.”
Some interviewees noted that, for their organization, influencing public
opinion through the media is essential because without pressure from public
opinion, their issues would never make it to the political agenda. This is
especially the case when the issues in question do not fit the existing political
agenda, or do not seem promising in terms of politicians’ attempts at
strengthening their profile and voter appeal.
4.1.2 Media work as public affairs: establishing, maintaining and nurturing
relationships with politicians
The second public affairs function of media work was more surprising:
instead of primarily discussing media work in terms of the well known risks it
carries of weakening their relationships to politicians, our interviewees often
discussed instead the opportunities it presents for establishing, maintaining and
nurturing relationships with politicians. But it was evident that this mediafacilitated relationship building is not easy. It depends on a great deal of political
savvy. For example, this raison d´être of media work was evident in several cases
where respondents described their media work as reflecting their keen
awareness of the fact that a politician’s potential for success and re-election is
greatly dependent on positive media visibility.
4.1.2.1 Goodwill: flattery and praise
The many respondents who discussed this political reality described their
media work as a means of creating goodwill with politicians by helping them to
gain this positive media visibility. Goodwill is sought by interest groups through
flattery and praise of politicians in the media.
“Media work can also be used to go out and praise a ministry or politician if
we believe this can strengthen our cause. One can send lots of signals
through the media. That is obvious.”
4.1.2.2 Strengthening politicians’ profiles
Respondents also described their intentional introduction and framing of
issues in ways that allow politicians to strengthen their profiles to broader
audiences.
“Media work helps to establish a debate that politicians also want to
participate in and profit from. Both [our organization] and politicians use
media debates to profile themselves. Both parties have a shared interest in
the media debate.”
“At times there is a shared interest between the organization and
politicians. Politicians need issues they can profile themselves with in the
media. These can be delivered by the organization.”
Those respondents who expressed this solid insight into the mechanisms
of political life explained that by understanding and accommodating politicians’
needs and interests, they hoped to increase their own chances of gaining
influence on political outcomes.
4.1.2.3 Staying in the loop
Finally, one interviewee mentioned that regular media visibility is
necessary to remind key politicians of the interest group’s existence and
importance. Media visibility was described as a signal to politicians that the
interest group is a serious partner in political dialogues. The media was
described as hosting a permanent beauty contest in which ambitious interest
groups need to be seen as significant participants.
“Because we are visible in the press, we are also indicating that we are a
serious collaborator for politicians. We have to constantly show our
relevance. It’s like a permanent beauty contest”
4.2 Nuanced understanding of the risks and benefits of media work on political
outcomes and tactics for success
As we have seen, the vast majority of our respondents see media work as
a valuable PA tool because they consider the media as a channel to influence the
political agenda as well as establish, build and nurture relationships with
politicians. However, most respondents also clearly indicated that media
visibility is not deemed strategically appropriate in all situations, and that the
use of media tactics is highly contextually dependent:
“We evaluate from case to case. Can we strengthen our case by going to the
press?”
In discussing the contextual circumstances that guide their media work,
our respondents were conscious of the need to balance the risks and
opportunities connected with media work. They focused heavily on two areas of
risk and opportunity: (1) the influence of media coverage on the outcomes of
lobbying efforts and (2) the influence of media coverage on interest group’s
relationships to influential officials and politicians. With regard to the influence
of media coverage on lobbying efforts, timing was a key concern, and with regard
to the influence of media coverage on relationships, face and credit were key
concerns.
4.2.1 The Importance of media work timing on lobbying efforts
The majority of our respondents said that in most PA efforts to influence a
political process and its outcome, they use traditional lobbying as well as media
tactics, but note that in many cases, the two types of activity are not used
simultaneously. Media work and lobbying tend to be used during different
phases of an issue process because, as several respondents stressed, timing their
media work is crucial for a successful, overall outcome.
The general picture that emerged from our data is that interest groups
start by seeking to engage in direct dialogue with selected politicians, and avoid
approaching the media to begin with because media tactics can potentially harm
the negotiation or legislation process.
”If we choose to approach the media first, this will hurt our chances of
getting to negotiate and discuss options with the politicians. If we choose to
go to the media with an issue, and the issue gets blocked by the politicians,
there is no second chance. It is easier to send something directly to the
politicians that they don’t want to address, and then afterwards approach
the media. It is simply taking in to consideration the issue and timing that
we do every time”
”We always evaluate whether we should present a case in the media or not.
We avoid doing it if it will disturb a legislation process”
”Sometimes we don’t want to be in the media because it can have a negative
effect on a current, ongoing legislation process or on our dialogue with
politicians”
”If we get through to the state administration, if there is an active political
dialogue, we will refrain [from approaching the media] because we don’t
want to risk short circuiting anything.”
As long as the dialogue with political actors is progressing without
problem, and is yielding satisfactory results for the interest groups, the interest
groups avoid seeking media coverage. If the dialogue is not yielding satisfactory
results, however, they will then use media coverage to publicly set the agenda
and thereby put more pressure on the politicians, as described above. In this
way, media tactics, when used, tend to be used at later stages in the PA effort.
“If our people are stumped in their lobby work, we [the media staff] can help
them by putting some pressure on with a story, or we can also attract public
attention on some agendas that are about to be discussed politically. We are
understood as those who can help them by creating attention in the public
on agendas they [PA staff] are fighting for.”
”If nothing is really happening at the political level [e.g. in the city council]
in a concrete case, it is often very effective to go to the press with it.”
”Other times the PA staff can’t convince the politicians to have “the right”
opinion, so then we can decide to go to the press with the case to introduce
it to the public and thereby put popular pressure on the politicians.”
Insider strategies seem to be preferred to media work because they are
perceived as discrete, flexible, and efficient. Media work is harder to control. As
several respondents mentioned, if an issue hits the media, it tends to get
politicized and thus less controllable. One respondent furthermore explained
that interest groups are not always able to choose their arena of influence
because other political actors may already have taken an interest in politicizing
an issue by raising it in the media. In such cases, interest groups have no other
choice than to become involved in the media debate.
4.2.2 The importance of political profile, face, honor and credit on relationships
with influential political actors
Just as establishing, sustaining and nurturing relationships with political
actors was found to be a key raison d’être of interest groups’ media work, the
quality of the relationship with politicians on whom interest groups depend is a
constant concern in their media work. Respondents reported that although they
fight for their cause in the media and often criticize political initiatives, they
generally do their best not to harm existing and future relations with politicians:
“It is a balancing act between expressing sharp [political] opinions on the
one hand, and at the same time remaining conscious of the fact that we also
have to be able to cooperate with politicians on the other hand. In other
words, we mustn’t ruin our relationships with politicians by communicating
inappropriately.”
“We take care not to step on anyone’s toes. For example, if we get access to a
ministry and perhaps a good contact with a politician, we won’t go to the
press with aggressive/critical messages.”
While these accounts focus on the risks associated with media work and
relationships, our respondents also surprisingly expressed an awareness of
opportunities. More specifically, they described the strategic advantage they
occasionally see in helping politicians to position themselves as powerful in the
public’s eye. One respondent was very clear when he stressed that without being
able to offer benefits to the politicians on whom his organization depends,
chances of success are slim:
”If a billion Danish crowns are granted [to our interest area] in the state
budget, it is not because we asked for it. It is because there are some
politicians who can profile themselves from it and get something out of it
(…) We respect that there should be something in it for those whom we wish
to include [in our PA work]. Otherwise it is difficult to include anyone.”
The question of who loses or wins a political battle is crucial in mediated
politics. Therefore putting pressure on politicians behind the scenes in direct
encounters is one thing, but doing it publicly in the media is another; it may be
counterproductive because politicians cannot afford to publicly lose face by
giving in to interest groups’ demands. Therefore, care is taken to only use media
work in ways that do not make politicians look weak; indeed, care is taken to
make politicians look good.
”There will be [cases] where it would be inappropriate for the case to be in
the press. If we approach the press and say that we think the case should
result in a specific way, it would become difficult for a politician to actually
suggest that result because that would make the politician look weak in the
public’s eye. In other words, it is also about who gets the honor for a
particular result. The politicians may take the honor for initiatives that
originally are taken by us, as long as they fight thoroughly for the case. We
don’t care as long as our suggested result wins. (…) If they were inspired by
us, and they take the honor, then our work has paid off.”
“When a broad compromise has to be made it can be most appropriate to
downplay the media work because there should not be public awareness of
which side “won” the negotiation and which side “lost”. In that way all the
[political] participants share the honor. Politicians as well as interest
groups can have an interest in this. Sometimes an interest group will
officially give the politicians the honor for a negotiation outcome – even if
the group thinks they should have the honor themselves. It is the result that
counts.”
5 Discussion
This study has aimed at gaining up-to-date and nuanced insights into the
ways that press contact staff in insider interest organizations understand and
thereby respond to the risks and challenges of media work as a form of public
affairs. In the following discussion section, we compare our findings to earlier
studies and situate the findings within a theoretical framework. Limitations to
generalization of the results are also discussed.
5.1 Media work in insider interest groups: subordinate to insider strategies
First, and in line with the literature that examines insider and outsider
groups and their choice of strategies, our study provides clear evidence that
insider interest groups do not limit themselves to insider lobbying strategies, but
also find it natural to rely on so-called outsider media strategies as well (Beyers
2004; Binderkrantz 2005; Kriesi, Tresch et al. 2007; Binderkrantz and Krøyer
2012). More specifically, and in line with the findings from Kriesi et al. (2007),
our study indicates that insider interest groups commonly prioritize inside
strategies and delegate “public oriented strategies” such as media work an
important, albeit subordinate, public affairs role.
5.2 Mediatization in interest groups: adapting to a news media and political logic
We found that a great majority of our respondents exhibited extensive
communication strategy adaptation to suit a news media logic, as described in
the mediatization literature, to make themselves known to the public and gain
legitimacy amongst members. But in terms of media work as a public affairs
activity for political gain, our respondents made it clear that news media
adaptation processes do not fully explain their practices. Indeed, we found that
besides exhibiting an awareness of, and adaptation to, a news media logic, our
respondents are keenly aware of, and guided by, a political logic. This reflects the
work of Strömbäck and Esser (2014) in which political logic is described as a
competing logic to the news media logic, where both logics reflect patterns of
behavior and thinking within each of the two institutional spheres, based on the
sphere’s purposes, needs and structure.
Akin to Strömbäck and Esser’s study of communication strategy
adaptation in political parties (2013), our interviewees reported on shaping the
media agenda, framing media stories to promote their issues, and adapting to the
medias’ standards of newsworthiness. However, in addition to noting the
importance of building relationships with journalists, our interviewees also
focused heavily on the importance of building relationships with political actors.
On the whole, through insights provided regarding the raison d’être of
media work, the role of media work in relation to other public affairs activities,
and the circumstances that influence the use of media work, our interviewees
revealed a daily work life characterized by adaptive practices which aim not only
at suiting a news media logic but, not the least, a political logic as well.
5.3 Limitations
The question regarding the extent to which one can generalize findings
from qualitative interview studies will always be difficult to answer. Due to the
careful interviewee selection process, the quality and number of interviewees,
and the care taken to precisely portray the interviews in the analysis, we feel
confident that our findings reveal insights that accurately reflect professional
approaches to media work in Danish insider interest groups in general. It is
highly likely that professional press contact staff in other sorts of politically
motivated, insider organizations in Denmark would recognize many of the
insights provided here as well.
We hesitate in generalizing to interest groups outside of Denmark,
however. This is primarily due to Denmark’s rather unique political landscape.
Traditionally, Denmark has had a corporatist political system in which a great
deal of interest groups and other political organizations have had access to, and
participated in, councils, committees and boards with members of the state
administration; they have thereby been able to exert political influence quite
informally and face-to-face (Binderkrantz and Christiansen 2010). Since the end
of the 1970s, however, corporatism has been diminishing in Denmark
(Christiansen, Nørgaard et al. 2010). Concurrent to this has been the
strengthening of the media’s political importance, including an intensification of
mediatization processes, as described at the beginning of this study. In this way,
it is quite possible that the study’s findings are largely generalizable to insider
interest groups in other Western democratic states anyway.
References
Baumgartner, F. R. and B. D. Jones (2002). Positive and negative feedback in
politics. Policy dynamics. F. R. Baumgartner and B. D. Jones. Chicago, University
of Chicago Press: 3-28.
Baumgartner, F. R. and B. L. Leech (1998). Basic interests: The importance of
groups in politics and in political science. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University
Press.
Beyers, J. (2004). "Voice and access: Political practices of European interest
associations." European Union Politics 5(2): 211-240.
Binderkrantz, A. S. (2005). "Interest Group Strategies: Navigating Between
Privileged Access and Strategies of Pressure." Political Studies 53: 694-715.
Binderkrantz, A. S. (2012). "Interest groups in the media: Bias and diversity over
time." European Journal of Political Research 51(1): 117-139.
Binderkrantz, A. S. and P. M. Christiansen (2010). "Tordenskjolds soldater:
Interesseorganisationerne i medierne." Politica 42(1): 27-48.
Binderkrantz, A. S. and S. Krøyer (2012). "Customizing strategy: Policy goals and
interest group strategies." Interest Groups & Advocacy 1(1): 115-138.
Christiansen, P. M., A. S. Nørgaard, et al. (2010). "Varieties of Democracy: Interest
Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making." Voluntas
21: 22-40.
Coffey, A. and P. Atkinson (1996). Making sense of qualitative data:
Complimentary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage.
Cook, T. E. (1998). Governing with the news: The news media as a political
institution. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Davis, A. (2000). "Public relations, news production and changing patterns of
source access in the British national media." Media, Culture & Society 22: 39-59.
Grant, W. (2000). Pressure Groups and British Politics. London, Macmillan.
Grant, W. (2001). "Pressure Politics: From Insider Politics to Direct Action?"
Parliamentary Affairs 54: 337-348.
Grant, W. (2004). "Pressure Politics: The Changing World of Pressure Groups."
Parliamentary Affairs 57(2): 408-419.
Hjarvard, S. (2013). The Mediatization of Culture and Society Routledge.
Jordan, A. G. and J. J. Richardson (1987). Government and Pressure Groups in
Britain Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Kriesi, H., A. Tresch, et al. (2007). "Going Public in the European Union: Action
Repertoires of Western European Collective Political Actors." Comparative
Political Studies 40(1): 48-73.
Larsen, O. F. (2006). En eksklusiv politisk dagsorden. . Politisk journalistik og
kommunikation: forandringer i samspillet mellem politik og medier. P. F. Bro, R.
Jønsson and O. F. Larsen. Frederiksberg, samfundslitteratur.
Page, E. C. (1999). "The insider/outsider distinction: an empirical investigation."
British Journal of Politics and International Relations 1(2): 205-214.
Purcell, K., A. Mitchell, et al. (2010). Understanding the Participatory News
Consumer:How Internet and Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social
Experience. Washington, DC, Pew Research Center.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1988). The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View at
Democracy in America. New York, Holt, Rienhart and Winston.
Strömbäck, J. (2008). "Four Phases of Mediatization: An Analysis of the
Mediatization of Politics." The International Journal of Press/Politics 13: 228246.
Strömbäck, J. and F. Esser (2014). "Introduction. Making sense of the
mediatization of politics." Journalism Practice 8(3): 245-257.