Reject or include? : A comparative content
analysis of media populism in the United
Kingdom and Ecuador
Belén Rocío Estrella Fiallo
Student ID number: 11300329
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Erasmus mundus master: Journalism, Media and
Globalisation
Supervisor: dhr. Michael Hameleers MSc
02 of June of 2017
Reject or include? : A comparative content analysis of
media populism in the United Kingdom and Ecuador.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 5
POPULISM: A MINIMAL DEFINITION 5
POPULISM´S SUBTYPES: EXCLUSIONARY VERSUS INCLUSIONARY POPULISM 7
MEDIA POPULISM 9
POPULISM: THREE IMPORTANT CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS 10
THE CLOSENESS TO THE PEOPLE 10
ANTI-ELITISM. 11
EXCLUSIONISM 12
THE JOURNALIST ROLE 13
TABLOID AND ELITE MEDIA 14
METHODOLOGY 15
RESULTS 19
THE PRESENCE OF CLOSENESS TO THE PEOPLE ON THE COVERAGE 19
THE PRESENCE OF ANTI-ELITISM ON THE COVERAGE 21
THE PRESENCE OF EXCLUSIONISM ON THE COVERAGE 22
POPULISM IN TABLOID AND ELITE MEDIA 23
THE ACTIVE VERSUS THE PASSIVE JOURNALIST 24
CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION 26
REFERENCE LIST 31
APPENDIX 34
APPENDIX A1: CODEBOOK UNITED KINGDOM 34
Reject or include? : A comparative content analysis of media
populism in the United Kingdom and Ecuador.
Abstract:
The media, as a populist actor, could play a central role in disseminating populist messages. Although empirical research has provided extensive insights on the communication strategies used by populist parties and politicians, the relation between media and populism has not been largely researched. Advancing this knowledge, the current article draws on a content analysis, which systematically explores media populism across regions and subtypes, Latin America inclusionary populism and European exclusionary populism. By using a consistent definition of populism, which identified three core indicators (closeness to the people, anti-elitism, and exclusionism), we compared how populism is being communicated in the newspaper's coverage of politics. In line with our predictions, we found that the three indicators of populism were highly present in the coverage. The closeness to the people and anti-elitism did not differ across cases or type of newspapers (tabloid and broadsheet). However, as we expected, exclusionism was higher in the United Kingdom and in tabloid media.Furthermore, the study also found that the presence of a populist style did not depend on whether the journalists were actively using a populist style or passively transferring populist ideas of other political actors. These results provide valuable insights for understanding the relation between journalism and populism in different regions of the world.
Introduction
It has been argued that we are living a “ populist Zeitgeist” (Mudde, 2004), a time where populism is the mainstream common denominator of different political systems and regions of the world. Because of its relevance, populism is again a central concept for academic studies in the current century. This research pretends to extend the knowledge of populism in the XXI century, by analysing media populism through a cross-regional comparison between Latin America and Europe.
Historically, the impact of populism had touched the entire planet; from Russia, the United States, Latin America, and Africa; all have experienced “significant populist movements and moments” (Taggart, 2004, p.270). In the last two decades, we have witnessed the rise of right wing and left wing populist political parties; but in a populist Zeitgeist, the populist message might resonate in further spheres than the limits of the political parties, getting to determine the rhetoric’s of other political actors, as the media.
The media as a political actor could have an important role in the rise of
populism (Mazzoleni, 2003; Hameleers, Bos & de Vreese, 2017). It could be a platform for populist actors or it can actually be a populist actor itself, a relation known as media populism (Mazzoleni, 2003; Krämer, 2014).
There are few studies that have explored the relation between media and populism (Mazzoleni, 2003). Populism, as a research topic, has mainly focused on the politicians, and the rhetoric employed by mainstream parties (Mudde, 2004; Canovan, 1999).Therefore, there are even fewer studies that had “systematically research, media populism across cases and regions” (Rooduijn, 2013, p.9). The intention of the current research is to enlarge the understanding of populism in this specific area of media populism cross-regionally.
Populism is understood as a political communication style, with three constant constituent elements: the closeness to the people, the anti-elite stance and an
exclusionary strategy (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2012; Rooduijn, 2014).
Furthermore, the comparison also takes into account the regional subtypes identified by Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser (2012): exclusionary populism in Europe and an
inclusionary populism in Latin America.
The aim is to investigate this active role that media could have as a populist actor, doing so through a content analysis of tabloid and elite newspapers from two representative regional cases. The research question is: To what extent and how is media populism expressed in the United Kingdom and Ecuador in the news media coverage of politics?
The paper proceeds as follows. It will begin with the definition of populism and media populism, as well as some other relevant concepts and theoretical approaches; the guiding hypothesis and research questions will also be presented. In the following section, the research design will be explained, as well as the operationalization strategy and the method of analysis. Finally, the results will be discussed, ending with some relevant concluding remarks.
Theoretical framework
Populism: a minimal definition
In order to answer the research question and hypothesis we need to define populism, as a central concept. Populism has taken “different political directions in different historical eras and places” (Mazzoleni, 2003, p.4). Equally important, it had been used in different regions to analyse “strongly divergent political actors” (Rooduijn,
described this faculty of populism to change and adapt as a “chameleonic nature” (Taggart, 2004, p.275), that had resulted in a struggle to define the term in the academic circles.
Because of this ambiguity, that characterized the concept, it has been understood from different perspectives. Some had approached to it as a particular form of political organization (Weyland, 2001), also as a thin-centred ideology (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2012) or as a political communication style (Jagers & Walgrave, 2007; Canovan, 1999).
To overcome this “awkward conceptual slipperiness” (Taggart 2000,p.1), a minimal definition was undertaken by several authors as well as the definition of
fundamental constitutive elements (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2012; Rooduijn, 2014; Mudde, 2004). The recognition of it offered the possibility to perform empirical
research and will allow the current study to analysed media content and compare different regional subtypes.
Therefore, in order to understand populism´s constituent elements, some relevant previous work must be reviewed. For Rooduijn (2014), populism consists of four characteristics: it emphasizes the central position of the people, it criticizes the elite, conceives the people as a homogeneous entity, and has a proclamation of a serious crisis.
Moreover, from another perspective, but not far from the previous one, Taggart (2004) found that populism, in an ideal type, has five characteristics: hostility to
representative politics, the centrality on the “heartland” or “the people”, is a reaction to a sense of extreme crisis and it has a self-limiting quality. Also, Mudde (2004, p.543) concluded that there are at least two points of reference in common between the different definitions: ‘the elite’ and ‘the people’.
Finally, Jagers and Walgrave (2007) showed that historical definitions of
populism have contained some common constitutive elements, specifically: closeness to the people, anti-elitism or anti-establishment positions, and the exclusion of specific population segments. They (Jagers & Walgrave, 2007) concluded that it is indeed possible to identify a “consistent populist type of political communication” (p.335).
This study tries to overcome previous difficulties when defining populism by understanding it from a minimal definition. Therefore, populism is considered as a political communication style of political actors, with its most important element the content of the discourse (Jagers & Walgrave, 2007).
In order to clarify, populism is not understood as a feature of a specific political actor, but as a “characteristic of the message of such actor” (Rooduijn, 2013, p.7); these actors could be politicians, political parties, and also the media.
To bring it all together, in this research, populism will be a particular political communication style, with three important constituent elements: the closeness to the people, anti-establishment positions and exclusionism (Jagers & Walgrave, 2007; Canovan, 1999).
Populism´s subtypes: Exclusionary versus inclusionary populism
Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser (2012) extended the understanding of populism by recognizing the existence of regional subtypes. They showed how, nowadays, European populism is predominantly “exclusive”, while Latin American populism is “inclusive”. Since the current study is comparing both regions, the differentiation between these subtypes is highly relevant.
Following Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser (2012), exclusionary and inclusionary populism differ in two factors: the way in which populist actors define who belongs to
particular populist ideology of the actors. Therefore, the main difference relies in the rhetoric’s of the populist actors, “some target the other group – into the ‘we’ or ‘us’ and others talk of the ‘them’ and ‘they’” (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2012, p.164).
In Europe, populisms have been related mostly to far right (Taggart, 2004, p.270), with the formation of populist radical right wing parties; and it has an emphasis on the exclusive power of populism. As a result, particular groups are prevented from access to state resources, from fully participating in the democratic system and are consciously not represented in the arena of public contestation. Furthermore, some segments of the society are “linked to the elite and are implicitly excluded from the people” (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2012, p.159). The differentiation commonly follows a principle of national preference, where the countries own people should have priority.
The United Kingdom (UK) will be the case selected to represent European populism because it is considered a representative case. On the 23 of June 2016, through a referendum, the UK voted in favour of leaving the European Union. This event, known as Brexit, was understood as a triumph for the “populist nationalist politics of the political party UKIP” (MacShane, 2016, p.9) and the growing populist-nationalist forces across the entire continent. Brexit would be understood as an example of European exclusionary populism. To further evidence the relevance of the case, according to Rooduijn (2013) it is even possible to argue that in Britain, “mainstream parties are rather populist” (pg.65).
Moving forward, Latin America populism, since 2000, had been mainly radical left wing populism (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2012). The Latin populism aims to incorporate segregate groups. In this subtype it is acknowledge the weakness of certain socioeconomic parts of the society, therefore they are declared to have the right to
receive more state resources. The inclusionary populism calls for a broader political participation and representation of groups that have been discriminated and criticize the elitist character of Latin American democracies and the establishment.
Populism in this region could be described as a “radical left populist trend” (Montúfar, 2013, p.297). The case selected to study the inclusionary Latin American populism is Ecuador. The country had presidential elections on the 19 of February (there was a second round of the 2 of April) where the Populist Party won. In this country the political movement Alianza País and its leader Rafael Correa have been extensively identified as an example of the populism of the current century in the region. Montúfar (2013) described it as “Correa`s revolution, as conceived by its leader, is not merely a local or national political project but part of a continental or even global movement: twenty-first century socialism” (pg. 298). Montúfar also recognized that it is similar to other populist projects in the region, as the ones of Evo Morales or Hugo Chávez.
Media populism
The media could play a crucial role in “disseminating populist messages to the people” (Krämer, 2014, p.42). In order to discern the different media relation with populism, a particular phenomenon had been identified: media populism. Media populism can be defined as a distinct phenomenon that happens when the populism is among the media.
Therefore, the rise of populist sentiments is closely connected to media – originated dynamics (Mazzoleni 2003). These dynamics used intentionally or unintentionally by the journalists have the power to actively create favourable opportunity structures to advance or decelerate the process for populist actors and
As an illustration, according to Hameleers, Bos and de Vreese. (2016), the media can have a populist discourse by framing issues in terms of the opposition between moral citizens and corrupt politicians, or the people versus the elite.
Additionally, in order to further clarify the phenomenon of media populism, an important distinction must be made. Bos and Brants (2014) distinguished between two different roles that the journalists could play: the populism could be by the media or intended for the media. Populism for the media concerns “the media’s receptivity to populist ideas” (Hameleers et al., 2016, p.4) and populism by the media is that active role that had been described as media populism.
To close the discussion on the concept of media populism and departing from the definition of populism that is being used in the current study, media populism is understood as part of the communication style of a political actor, and is characterized by the presence of the three important constituent elements: the closeness to the people, anti-establishment positions and exclusionism.
Taking these central components as a point of departure, this study aims to assess how media populism is present. Specifically, how is media populism represented in terms of the political coverage of the newspapers? Based on the reviewed literature the research focuses on a discourse that denotes the closeness to the people, anti-establishment positions and exclusionism.
Populism: Three important constituent elements The closeness to the people
Populism actors display proximity to the people and claim their legitimacy on the assumption that they are speaking for these people (Canovan, 1999; Taggart, 2004). They assumed that there is a common lost past, which is those times before the
The people “can mean different things to many different populists in many different circumstances” (Rooduijn, 2014, p.575); because who are the people is not clearly defined; it is a term “used in a vague form” (Mudde, 2004, p.545).
For Taggart (2004) the people are the members of a “heartland”. Which is an idealized imagined community to which populists actors identified themselves and appeal to. The people of each heartland are conceived as a monolithic group formed only by the moral people.
In different contexts there are different heartlands. Who is inside this monolithic group have no a precise definition, Taggart (2004) mentioned that “there is not a wider populist phenomenon that could explicitly say which are the general borders” (p.275).
Relying on the previous discussed literature, and following the identification of an inclusionary subtype of populism in Latin America (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2012), it will be expected that:
H1. The closeness to the people is more salient in Ecuador than in the United Kingdom.
Anti-elitism.
Populism usually presents an anti-elite discourse or anti-establishment stances, where the people are positioned against the elites. Moreover, who is part of the elites, could be “broadly defined” (Jagers & Walgrave, 2007, p.324). In order to distinguish between the people and the elite, there is a moral separation between the good people, and these amoral elites who are to “blame for negative outcomes that had affected the heartland” (Hameleers et al., 2016, p. 1).
an external enemy, which is subject of a certain “blame attribution” (Hameleers et al., 2016, p.1) because they are considered to have betrayed the people (Rooduijn, 2013). Usually these elites are criticized as part of the establishment, which is denounced to be “out of touch with the ordinary citizens and fails to represent the people of the
heartland” (Rooduijn, 2013, p.62).
These notions are consistent despite differences in contexts; according to Krämer (2014, p.44) it is a basic part of populism to “attack the establishment” (p.129). Even though, Wirth et al. (2016) found differences depending on certain ideological factors.
In right-wing populism, the elite are often supranational institutions, foreign governments, and parts of the national government that are close to any of the
mentioned institutions. In contrast, in left-wing populism, the elite are the “wealthy and influential economic elite, including corporations and wealthy members of the
government or parliament”. (Wirth et al., 2016, p.51)
The differentiation made by Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser (2012) between inclusionary and exclusionary populism is not expected to have an impact in terms of anti-elitism since its existence is so important to sustain to heartland; therefore, it is expected that:
H2. Anti elitism is equally salient in Ecuador and the United Kingdom.
Exclusionism
In populism, some population segments are subject to an exclusionary strategy because not every body is part of the homogeneous heartland. This notion is rooted in anti-elite feelings, which support the populist claim to defend “the collective identity of the ‘true’ people against the elites enemies” (Rooduijn, 2014, p.576). The segments that are subjects to an exclusionary strategy are considered enemies or outsiders of the
heartland.
Other kinds of political discourses had also included exclusionism; what fundamentally distinguishes populist exclusionism is the “reference to the people” (Jagers & Walgrave, 2007, p.323). The constitution of the people and the elites also implies the definition of “which groups are considered as the “bottom of society” (Wirth et al., 2016, p.10), and therefore are rejected.
The definition of who are these enemies depends on the context; it could be “the immigrants, unemployed, or people of another religion or race” (Rooduijn, 2014). Specifically across the ideological spectrum there are some identified differences. In left wing the subjects of exclusion are usually “rich managers exploiting the capitalist system” and in the right wing case “immigrants exploiting the national welfare system” (Wirth et al., 2016, p.49).
Since in Europe, Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser (2012) identified that populism is mainly exclusionary, it will be expected that:
H3. Exclusionism is more salient in the United Kingdom than in Ecuador.
The journalist role
The journalists can be understood as political actors performing independently “of any relationship to populist movements” (Krämer, 2014, p.42). These political actors can relate to populism in different ways, specifically they can actively or passively have a populist style of communication.
Journalists can have an active role if they actively use “populism as a framework to cover news event” (Hameleers et al., 2017, p.2); in contrast, a passive role is when the media transfer passively the ideas of other populist actors.
This distinction is important in order to understand who is embracing a populist discourse and also to measure if populist ideas are discredited or positively reinforced by the journalist. Hameleers et al. (2017) found that, particularly in tabloid media, journalists do not merely act as a messenger passively passing the viewpoints of populist actors to the public, but they “actively reconstruct issues in terms of the moral opposition between the people the elites” (p.18), embracing media populism.
Tabloid and elite media
Talking about media, in general, could be too broad; therefore, some long acknowledged differentiation must be included in the current analysis. The
particularities of elite and tabloid media had been broadly discussed. Many authors (Mazzoleni, 2003; Krämer, 2014; Hameleers et al., 2017) had found a tendency of tabloid media to embrace a populist discourse more often than the elite media.
Mazzoleni (2003) described how elite media is usually more aligned with the status quo and makes an effort to appear unbiased; meanwhile, tabloid media are more likely to be sensitive to ratings and to seek mass audiences.
Thinking on the basic constituents of populism, tabloid journalism coverage is usually framed presenting an opposition between the elites and the people, and
alienating from the establishment and the elites (Krämer, 2014); therefore it could be argued that it contributes more to the rise and encouragement of populism. Based on these previous findings it would be hypothesis:
H4. Populism is more salient in tabloid newspapers than in broadsheet.
It might be acknowledged that there are some authors that found contradictory results in this area. Rooduijn (2013) and Akkerman (2011) did not found significant results that support to conclude that tabloid media is more inclined to express the populist message than the elite media.
Continuing with this relation between the media and populism, Rooduijn (2013) did a relevant cross-national analysis. He found that the public debate had indeed become more populist in the last years across several European countries; interestingly there were some pertinent “cross-national variation in the degree of populism in the public debates” (Rooduijn, 2013, p.116).
About the country variation, he found some important coincidences between all the cases, “the more successful the populist parties, the more populism is observed in the public debates” (Rooduijn, 2013, p.117). Therefore, thinking about the comparison between two different nations, which is done in the current study, in both cases we are analysing contexts where populist movements had succeed, therefore is important to understand the differentiations between each country, the research question is:
RQ2. Is populism more salient in tabloid media in Ecuador compared to the United Kingdom?
Methodology
A quantitative content analysis was conducted in order to test the research questions and the hypotheses. The case selection pretended to review prototypical cases, that are representative of what Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser (2012) identified as: exclusionary European populism and inclusionary Latin American populism. Furthermore, in order to compare it was also defined that there should be common elements, specifically a political party that had extensively been recognized as populist and that experienced a certain success in recent elections or referendums.
The sampling units were newspapers; the units of analysis were on-line articles, editorials, and columns. The units of measurement were the entire texts. The sample was obtained from 4 newspapers, in the UK: “The Telegraph” and “The Sun”; and in
Ecuador “El Comercio” and “El Extra”. The logic behind the selection was: choose the tabloid and elite newspapers of higher circulation of each country of study.
In order to compare the coverage of the newspapers in both countries, two prominent debates were selected: Employment and social welfare system. The
definition of the relevance of these topics was decided thanks to a revision of the work of Macshane (2016) and Deacon and Wring (2016), who studied Brexit and the context around it; and Montúfar (2013) and Peruzzotti (2008), who studied the rise of populism in Latin America and the context of it.
The media products were retrieved from the website of the newspapers, using keywords in reference to the two debates of interest (Appendix A). In the case of El Extra, there is a limited access to the contents and the political coverage is not
extensive; therefore, the units of analysis were obtained partially from the web page and partially using the search engine of Google.
It is recognized that the differentiation in the sampling method in the newspaper El Extra is not optimal, but it is the most read newspaper in the country (as The Sun in the UK) and is the only one explicitly recognized as a tabloid. It is considered really important to carry out the comparison between elite and tabloid media, as well as the inclusion of relevant newspapers for each national context.
The time frame was two months before a significant election or referendum, where the outcome was positive for the populist political parties (see Table 1). In the case of the Ecuador: from the 18 of December 2016 - 18 of February 2017; and in The United Kingdom: 22 of April - 22 of June 2016. The periods selected were defined based on the understanding that the media pays more attention to politics during election campaigns (Rooduijn, 2013).
Table 1. Case selection and time frame
Country Event Populist party Results of the event Time Frame Media houses Elite Tabloid United Kingdom Brexit Referendum 23/06/2016
UKIP Leave the EU with: 51,9% 22 April – 22 June 2016 The Telegraph The Sun Ecuador Presidential Elections 19/02/ 2017 Alianza
País Alianza País won with: 51,16% 18December 2016 –18 February 2017 El Comercio El Extra
The total sample was of 240 items that were selected by systematic random sampling (60 of each newspaper). The method to obtain the sample used key words, which were identified to be related to the two debates, employment and social welfare system. In the UK: unemployment, jobs, job seekers, employment, labour policy; social welfare system, social security, health and education. In Ecuador: desempleo, trabajo, desempleados, sub-empleo, política laboral, sistema de bienestar social, seguridad social, salud, educación.
The search generated a large sample that was filtered with two criteria’s, at first it should included the word Ecuador or United Kingdom (related terms also accepted), in order to assure that the items referred to the national context. As second criteria, the items should also have one of the accepted terms in reference to the two selected topics (Appendix A).
This filtered sample represented the total number of relevant journalistic products. The definitive sample was obtained by dividing this number to 65, because 5 extra articles were included in each sample in case some of the units of analysis have problems. The result of the division defined the frequency in which the random sampling should be made for each newspaper, if it was not an even number the first
sample was obtained and the division was made again in order to obtain the necessary 65 articles, it is explained in Table 2.
Table 2. Sample selection
Newspaper Total Retrieved Articles Frequency of selection for the sample El Comercio 130 Each 2 articles
El Extra 65 Entire sample
The Telegraph 183 Each 3 articles that resulted in 61; the other 4 where obtained by coding each 30.
The Sun 104 Each 2 articles that resulted in 52, the other 13 articles were obtained by coding each 4.
Considering the particular languages of the countries, the coding was done in Spanish and English. For each debate, the key words were selected and translated; some context-specific words were also added. For example, the keywords included, in the UK: jobs, job seekers, employment, labour policy or social security. In Ecuador: trabajos, empleo, desempleo, sub-empleo, política laboral or seguridad social.
The language differences are not expected to generate any bias in the study because some theoretical argument of populism had been found to be “generally similar across cases and over time” (Rooduijn, 2013, p.61); therefore there is an assumption that the populist actors also use similar words.
The articles were be coded based on a codebook (Appendix A) that used the generalized concept of populism and media populism proposed in this paper. The codebook begun by obtaining some relevant information of each item in terms of type and source. Then, it proceeded with specific measurement instruments to do a
multidimensional assessment of media populism based on the three core indicators: centrality of the people, anti-elitism, and exclusionary strategy. The third part answered the how, by reviewing the active or passive role of journalists.
module on populism and mediatisation of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) Democracy (Wirth et al., 2016). These previous works were selected because they had conducted the most recent operationalization of media populism in cross-national studies, and offered an important background on how to measure the different indicators.
The resulted codebook (Appendix A) measured media populism in the
newspapers coverage of Ecuador and the United Kingdom, based on the identified the constituent elements of populism. Each indicator was measured based on an Index that was constructed thanks to a scale built upon the reviewed theory. Other variables were also included as the type of newspaper, the genre of the article, the country and the role of the journalist.
Inter- coder reliability was calculated using Krippendorff’s alpha. An external coder coded the 10% of the sample. The results of the test were not satisfactory for most of the variables, only in the journalist role was the Kalpha = 0.99, reflecting a good reliability. Therefore the codebook was reviewed, more examples were included and the explanations were extended; all the coders received a second training with the new codebook.
Results
The presence of closeness to the people on the coverage
This study, first of all, expected that the populist indicator closeness to the people would be more salient in Ecuador than in the United Kingdom (H1). Table 3 presents the results of a multiple regression analysis where the strength of closeness to the people was predicted based on the different independent variables (Country, type of
variable in terms of country did not resulted as a significant predictor of the closeness to the people, leading to the rejection of hypothesis 1. In addition, the other variables included (genre of the text, tabloid and journalist role) were also not significant predictors.
Additionally, a T-test was conducted to explore the difference in means between the countries. The test supported the rejection of the hypothesis 1; but revealed that this indicator was higher in the UK; and despite not being significant, the difference was strong and really close to significance: Ecuador (M = 6.46, SD = 2.37) compared to the UK (M = 7.16, SD = 2.03), ΔM = -0,7, t (133) = -1850, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.48], p = 0.07.
Furthermore, the closeness to the people Index was built based on a 9 item scale (Appendix A); in both countries the mean is high; which could be interpreted as a strong presence of the indicator in the coverage, with no significant difference between the countries. Lastly, based on these findings hypothesis 1 cannot be supported.
Table 3 Regression model predicting the People centrality index
Variable Model I Model II
B SE β B SE β Country (UK) 0.55 0.39 0.13 0.25 0.54 0.06
Journalist Role
(Active) -0.64 0.54 -0.14 -0.65 0.55 -0.15 Tabloid 0.27 0.39 0.06 - 0.08 0.59 -0.02
Genre of the article 0.50 0.32 0.19 0.50 0.32 0.19
Country x Tabloid 0.61 0.77 0.13 Adjusted R2 F for change in R2 0.01 1.35 0.01 0.62 *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
Note. Two-tailed tests. Unstandardized regression weights. Countries: Ecuador, United Kingdom
Genre of the article: news article, column, editorial Journalist role: Active, Passive
The presence of Anti-elitism on the coverage
To investigate whether the populism indicator, Anti-elitism, is indeed equally salient in both countries (H2), a regression model was performed. It also included other variables as possible predictors (see Table 4). Based on these findings, hypothesis 5 can be supported, because the country variation does not significantly predict the strength of anti-elitism in the coverage. All the other independent variables included in the Model I were also not significant predictors for exclusionism.
To complement the results of the regression, a T-test was conducted which resulted in: Ecuador (M = 5.15, SD = 1.88) compared to the UK (M = 4.57, SD = 1.86),
ΔM = 0.58, t (115) = 1.640, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.28]. p = 0.10. The anti-elitism index was
built based on a 7-item scale (Appendix A). The resulted means could be interpreted as a strong presence of the indicator in the coverage, with no significant difference
between countries. These findings offered support for the hypothesis 2.
Table 4 Regression model predicting Anti- Elitism Index
Variable Model I Model II
B SE β B SE β Country (UK) -0.67 0.36 -0.17 -0.77 0.52 -0.20 Journalist Role (Active) -0.29 0.53 -0.08 -0.29 0.54 -0.76 Tabloid 0.11 0.36 0.03 -0.01 0.56 -0.003
Genre of the article 0.40 0.31 0.18 0.40 0.31 0.18
Country x Tabloid 0.20 0.72 0.05 Adjusted R2 F for change in R2 0.012 1.36 0.004 0.08 *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
Note. Two-tailed tests. Unstandardized regression weights. Countries: Ecuador, United Kingdom
Genre of the article: news article, column, editorial Journalist role: Active, Passive
The presence of Exclusionism on the coverage
We were expecting the populist indicator Exclusionism, to be most salient in the United Kingdom (H3). In order to test this expectation a regression analysis was done. Other variables were also included as possible predictors (see Table 5). As can be seen in Table 5 the results supported hypothesis 3, exclusionism is higher in the UK and the difference between the countries is significant.
Once more, a T-test was performed to see the differences in terms of means between the countries. The results also offered support for hypothesis 3; in the UK (M = 7.11, SD = 1.75) there is statistically significantly more exclusionism compared to Ecuador (M = 5.17, SD = 2.04), ΔM = -1.94, 95% CI [-3.11, 0.77], t (56) = -3.322, p = 0.002. This index was measured based on a 9-item scale, in both cases the means were high, even though in the UK it is clearly statistically significant higher. These findings supported hypothesis 3.
Table 5 Regression model predicting Exclusionism index
Variable Model I Model II
B SE β B SE β
Country (UK) 1.17 0.64 0.34** 1.58 0.10 0.32
Journalist Role
(Active) 0.15 0.72 0.08 0.15 0.73 0.04 Tabloid 1.24 0.48 0.32** 1.10 1.16 0.28
Genre of the article -0.6 0.41 -0.03 -0.05 0.41 -0.2
Country X Tabloid 0.17 1.27 0.05 Adjusted R2 F for change in R2 0.16 3.64** 0.01 0.02 *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
Note. Two-tailed tests. Unstandardized regression weights. Countries: Ecuador, United Kingdom
Genre of the article: news article, column, editorial Journalist role: Active, Passive
Populism in Tabloid and elite media
From the insights that the literature offered and from the acknowledged
differences between tabloid and broadsheet newspapers, it was expected populism to be more salient in tabloid compared to broadsheet (H4). On the regression analysis, only on the Model I (Table 5) there was significant support for this hypothesis. In this model, the type of newspaper is a significant predictor of the strength of exclusionism.
Specifically, exclusionism as an indicator of populism is more salient in tabloid newspapers than in broadsheets. In the other populism indicators (closeness to the people and anti-elitism), there was not a significant difference between the types of newspapers.
To understand further the difference between the kinds of newspapers a T-test was conducted. It also denoted that tabloid media (M = 7.30, SD = 1.67) had statistically significantly more exclusionism compared to broadsheet newspapers (M = 5.92, SD = 2.06), ΔM = - 1.38, 95% CI [-2.36, -0.40], t (56) = - 2.83, p = 0.007. In both kinds of newspapers the exclusionism index is high (measured on a scale of 9 items, see appendix A), but is significantly higher in tabloid.
There was a second model on the regression analysis that included an interaction between the variables country and type of newspaper (Model II: Table 3, 4 and 5). The RQ2 asked whether media populism was more salient in the Ecuadorian Tabloid newspaper compared to the British Tabloid media. The Model II of the regression revealed that in any of the cases the interaction is significant, therefore there is no any significant difference between the tabloid newspapers of Ecuador and the United Kingdom, as predictors of the presence of populism indicators.
The active versus the passive Journalist
Despite the fact that the current paper did not have any expectation in terms of the active or passive role that the journalists could play; it represents an important factor to understand the presence of media populism based on the definition that this study follows. It was included as an independent variable in the regression analysis (Table 3, 4 and 5).
In the Tables 3, 4 and 5, in both models, it can be seen that the journalist role is not a significant predictor of any of the indicators of populism. Therefore, the strength of closeness to the people, anti-elitism or exclusionism does not depend on the factor that the journalist is actively or passively using a populist style on the coverage.
Moreover, to understand how the journalist role differed between countries and between types of newspapers a Chi-square test was conducted. It revealed some
important differentiations that would be discussed.
From the overall sample of 240 articles, 177 (74%) had at least one of the constituent elements of populism (closeness to the people, anti-elitism or exclusionism), therefore only these ones were coded for the passive or active role of the journalist.
In Graph 1, it can be seen that the passive role was prominent in 65% of the cases, and in Ecuador the passive role is higher compared to the United Kingdom. The Chi-square results evidence that χ(1) = 4.94, p = 0.026. In this case the proportion of the passive role in Ecuador is significantly different than in the UK.
Graph 1: Role of the Journalist per Country
Additionally, a Chi-square test was also conducted to measure the relation between the role of the journalist and the type of newspapers. The test revealed that χ(1) = 0.15, p = 0.69; telling us that there is no association between type of newspaper and journalist role. It is evident in the Graph 2 that both, tabloid and broadsheet newspapers, mostly cover the events with a passive populist style (65%), without significant
differentiation between the type of outlets.
Graph 2: Role of the Journalist per Type of Newspaper
73% 58% 65% 27% 42% 35% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Ecuador United Kingdom Total
Passive Active 66,0% 64,0% 65% 34,0% 36,0% 35% 0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0%
Tabloid Broadsheet Total
Passive Active
Conclusion & Discussion
The XXI century has been characterized as the “Populist Zeitgeist” (Mudde, 2004), a time where populism is a popular concept, which is being used to describe different political actors, systems, and regions of the world. In this possible populist zeitgeist, the academia had largely researched the political parties and politicians; but other actors, as the media, had received less attention.
From the central position of media in the societies, there is a necessity to explore these relations between media and populism, due to the important role that it could have in the rise of populism (Mazzoleni, 2003; Hameleers et al., 2017). The objective of the current study was to systematically research, media populism across cases and regions, aiming to extend the knowledge of the area through a cross-regional comparison between Latin America and Europe.
Departing from a minimal definition of populism, the concept of media
populism was outlined as a particular communication style used actively by the media. This style was characterized by the presence of the three indicators: the closeness to the people, anti-establishment positions, and exclusionism.
The study explored the extent and the form in which populism is expressed in the political coverage, comparing representative cases of what has been identified as an exclusionary European populism and an inclusionary Latin-American populism (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2012).
Exclusionary and inclusionary populism differ on the capacities of populism that each subtype emphasizes. According to Mudde and Rovirosa Kaltwasser (2012), in Latin America, populism targets its inclusive capacities. In contrast, in Europe, it emphasizes the exclusive character of populism, where specific groups are excluded from the “heartland” (Taggart, 2004).
By using a consistently definition of populism it was possible to cross-regionally compare how populism is communicated, based on the salience of the three identified indicators. From the differentiations of the regional subtypes, the salience of the indicators was expected to differ between the two regions.
The study had the expectation that the closeness to the people is more salient in Ecuador, based on its inclusionary characteristic; this assumption was not supported. These findings might be explained, from the fact that the people centrality in the populist discourse has been understood as a basic point of reference for the existence and the definition of populism (Mudde, 2004; Jagers & Walgrave, 2007; Rooduijn, 2014). Therefore, following the literature and according to the findings, the centrality of the people could be understood as a basic feature on a populist discourse, despite
regional particularities.
Furthermore, the salience in terms of anti-elitism was also not significantly different between the two countries. These results back up the proposed hypothesis, and go in line with the literature, where anti-elitism has also been identified as a “basic part of populism” (Krämer, 2014, p.44).
The expectation of exclusionism to be more salient in the UK also found support. These results reinforce the understanding of European populism as an exclusionary subtype. In this subtype, populism emphasis on this exclusionary
dimension, that privileges some groups, especially the native or true people of Europe, over others (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2012).
It must be acknowledged that in 74% of the sample, at least, one of these
populist constituent elements were present. Equally important, the absolute mean scores revealed that it were highly present.
The results of this study provide insights on how populism is communicated by the media, based on a minimal definition that identified three constituent indicators. From the findings, probably we can indeed “speak of a populist Zeitgeist” (Mudde, 2004, p.542), a time where the populist discourse is mainstream in the political arena of different regions of the world.
Besides, in order to understand how the media expresses populism, it was also important to differentiate between elite and tabloid media, since many authors
(Mazzoleni, 2003; Krämer, 2014; Hameleers et al., 2017) had identified a tendency of tabloid media to embrace a populist discourse more often than the elite.
As a result, the current research expected populism to be more salient in tabloid newspapers than in broadsheet. We found no support for the hypothesis in terms of people centrality and anti elitist. However, in line with our expectations, in tabloid media, the exclusionism indicator was significantly higher. Ultimately, there was no any significant difference between the tabloid newspapers of Ecuador and the United
Kingdom.
The fact that the indicators of populism were strongly present in all the newspapers coverage, despite the country and type of newspaper, could be explained from some features of present – day mass communication. Probably, a populist style is part of the current media logic (Bos, Van der Brug & de Vreese, 2010); or the routines and common practices in all the media houses. Also, it can be argued that these
common characteristics on the content are part of a process of tabloidization of media (Zelizer, 2000); where a tabloid style had intruded into mainstream journalism.
Since the main aim of this study was to explore to what extent and how is populism expressed, it can be said that the identified populist indicators (closeness to the people, anti-elitism, and exclusionism) were notably present in the coverage of the
newspapers in both countries. But the exclusionary element was particularly important for the European exclusionary populism of the UK.
Moving forward, since the media could have an important role when disseminating populist ideas by covering the events with a populist style; another important differentiation made on this work were the distinctive roles that the
journalists could play as disseminators of populism. Previous research had shown that they can actively or passively have a populist style of communication (Hameleers et al., 2017; Krämer, 2014).
It was found that the passive role was in general prominent, in 65% of the cases. And it was significantly higher in the case of Ecuador. On the whole, there was no any differentiation between tabloid and elite media of both countries in terms of the role of the journalists.
Furthermore, according to the findings of this study, the presence and salience of the indicators did not depended weather the journalists were actively or passively using it in their coverage. Therefore, the indicators were present in most of the sample.
Moreover, in most of the cases the journalists acted as messengers passing the ideas of other actors to the audiences, but in some items they also actively reconstructed the issues in terms of the contrast between the people, the elite and exclusionism. Probably the difference in the use of a passive role in Ecuador (higher) could be explained from the differentiations in the media systems of each country, but this area might be subject of further studies.
After all, the research faced few potential shortcomings. At first, it only includes two countries; more cases might be needed in order to generate stronger conclusions about the regional particularities. Also, the differences in the media systems and the political environments were not considered and might be relevant. This shortcoming
might not aloud the current research to offer a complete panorama of all the variables that could be affecting the media production.
Furthermore, the sample could have been bigger, but it must be mentioned that especially in Tabloid media in Ecuador, the access to the data was limited, which generated the necessity to retrieve the items using different search engines. Moreover, the current work only focused on the coverage of a pre-electoral period, a longitudinal analysis might offer further insights on how the use of a populist discourse had evolved across time and how dependent is it on particular events.
On the whole, we call future research to extend the knowledge in the area, specifically by reviewing if the role of the journalists, as active or passive disseminators of populism, differs between periods. Additionally, further studies should contribute to the distinction of what different contexts mean by including more countries of the different regions in the analysis.
Finally, the current research offers empirical evidence for the presence of media populism in two different contexts; broadening the knowledge of the different roles that media could play on the rise of populism and the communicative strategies behind it. It is highly relevant the distinction of media populism, from the communication style of other political actors. The extension of the knowledge in this area is crucial to the understanding of populism in the XXI century.
Reference list
Akkerman, T. (2011). Friend or foe? Right-wing populism and the popular press in Britain and the Netherlands, SAGE Journalism, 12(8), 931–945. DOI: 10.1177/1464884911415972
Bos, L., Van der Brug, W. & De Vresee, C. (2010) Media coverage of right-wing populist leaders, Communications, 35, 141-163,DOI 10.1515/COMM.2010.00 Bos, L. & Brants, K. (2014) Populist rhetoric in politics and media: A longitudinal
study of the Netherlands. European Journal of Communication, 1–17. DOI: 10.1177/0267323114545709
Canovan, M. (1999) Trust the People! Populism and the two Faces of democracy.
Political Studies. 47. 2-16. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.00184
Deacon, D. & Wring, D. (2016) The UK Independence Party, populism and the British news media: Competition, collaboration or containment?, European
Journal of Communication, Vol. 31(2), 169–184. DOI:
10.1177/0267323115612215.
De la Torre, C. & Peruzzotti, E. (2008) El retorno del pueblo, Populismo y nuevas democracias en América Latina. De la Torre, C. & Peruzzotti, E. (eds). Quito, Ecuador: Flacso
Esser, F., Stępińska, A., & Hopmann, D. N. (2016). Populism and the media. Cross-national findings and research perspectives. In T. Aalberg, F. Esser, C. Reinemann, J. Strömbäck & C. d. Vreese (Eds.), Populist political
communication in Europe. London: Routledge.
Hameleers, M., Bos, L. & de Vreese, C. (2016) “They Did It”: The Effects of emotionalized blame attribution in populist communication. Communication
Hameleers, M., Bos, L. & de Vreese, C. (2017) Shoot the Messenger? The media’s role in framing populist attributions of blame. Journalism, 1-20. DOI:
10.1177/1464884917698170
Jagers, J. & Walgrave, S. (2007) Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties' discourse in Belgium, European Journal of
Political Research, 46, 319-445. Doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00690.x
Krämer, B. (2014) Media populism: A conceptual clarification and some theses on its effects. Communication Theory, 24, 42-60. Doi: 10.1111/comt.12029
MacShane, D. (2016) Brexit- How Britain left Europe. London: I.B. Taurus
Mazzoleni, G. (2003) The media and the Growth of Neo-Populism in Contemporary Democracies. In Mazzoleni. P, Stewart.J & Horsefield.B (eds) . The Media and Neo-Populism – A Comparative Analysis. United States of America: Praeger Montúfar, C. (2013) Rafael Correa and his plebiscitary Citizens` Revolution. De la
Torre.C & Arson. C (eds) Latin American Populism in the twenty-first century: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Mudde, C. (2004) The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39, 541-563. Mudde, C. & Rovirosa Kaltwasser, C. (2012) Exclusionary vs Inclusionary Populism:
Comparing Contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and
opposition, 147-174. Doi: 10.1017/gov.2012.11
Rooduijn, M. (2013). A populist Zeitgeist? The impact of populism on parties, media and the public in Western Europe, Almanakker, Oosterhout
Rooduijn, M. (2014). The Nucleus of Populism: In Search of the Lowest Common Denominator. Government and Opposition, 49(4), 573-599. DOI:
10.1017/gov.2013.30
University Press.
Taggart, P. (2004): Populism and representative politics in contemporary Europe, Journal of Political Ideologies, 9:3, 269-288
Weyland, K. (2001) ‘Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics’, Comparative Politics, 34(1), 1–22.
Wirth, W., Esser, F., Wettstein, M., Engesser, S., Wirz, D. , Schulz, A., …Schemer, C. (2016) Chapter 2 Political populism, In The appeal of populist ideas, strategies and styles: A theoretical model and research design for analysing populist political communication. Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) Democracy. Swiss National Science Foundation
Zelizer, B. (2000) Foreword, In Sparks. C & Tulloch. J (Eds). Tabloid tales: Global debates over media standards, United States of America: Rowman & Lirrlefield Publishers, INC
Appendix
Appendix A1: Codebook United Kingdom
General coding guidelines:
Unit of Analysis: The unit of analysis are the newspaper articles, editorials and columns (do not code letters to the editor)
Selection of relevant texts
- Only code items that appear between the: 13 of April 2016 – 13 of June 2016. - The items should include the word United Kingdom (synonyms accepted as UK,
Britain, England, our country or clear terms that explicitly make a reference to the national level).
- Only code items that deal with the debates of employment and social welfare system, therefore the text should include one of the next key words:
o Employment, jobs, job seekers, unemployment, labour policy o Social welfare system, social security, health and education
Read through the entire article, then code that item using the Qualtrics coding sheet
T1.Coder: indicate your name to show that you are the one coding the item.
T2. Item ID Number: The item ID number is form by a number from 1 to 100 (giving
it in order of coding to the newspaper items) with two letters depending of the newspaper that publishes it, the codes for it newspaper are these ones: TT: The Telegraph” TS: The Sun EC: El Comercio EE: El Extra Example: 1TT T3. Category: Country
Question: To which country belongs the item? Select
(0) Ecuador / (1) The United Kingdom Variable: Country
Values (Single Choice)
Question: Which newspaper is the publisher of the item? Select
(0) “The Telegraph” (1) The Sun (2) El Comercio (3) El Extra Variable: Source
Values (Single Choice)
T5.Category: Date
Question: Indicate the Issuing date that the text was published as: YYYY. MM.DD
Variable: date
T6.Category: Genre
Question: Which genre/category does this text belong to?
Variable: Genre
Values (Single Choice) Code
0 News Article 1 Editorial 2 Column
T7.Category: Topic
Question: Which topic the item deals with?
0 Social welfare system: meaning welfare estate, social security, health and education, and policy in the area
1 Debate around Employment: jobs, job seekers, unemployment, and labour policy Values (Single Choice)
* If any of the key words is mentioned code in the corresponding topic.
T8.Category: Author?
The author is the person who wrote the content of the text.
Question: Who is the author? Please code who is the author of this text
Variable: Author Values (Single Choice) Code
2 The editor 3 A columnist 4 Politician
5 Experts (Lawyers, scientists) 6 Not clear
* NOTE: If just a name a appear without clear indication that it is a columnist or a politician, or if in doubt code journalist of the source
General guidelines
Initially, in this codebook, both populism and media populism are defined, including the indicators measurement of a populist communication style by means of categories within the content analysis. After this brief introduction the actual measurement for all the categories will be defined.
This codebook exhibits a hierarchical structure. Two levels of analysis: • First Level: the text and its content, media populism
• Second level: The journalist role First level. The text and its content: Media populism (M) Definition of populism
Populism will be a particular political communication style, with three important constituent elements: the closeness to the people, anti-establishment positions and exclusionism (Jagers & Walgrave, 2007; Canovan, 1999).
Media populism
It is a phenomenon that happens when the populism is by the media. The populist arguments are prominent in the media work, aside from other political actors, therefore the discourse includes the three constituent elements: the closeness to the people, anti-establishment positions and exclusionism. (Mazzoleni, 2003; Krämer, 2014; Rooduijn, 2014)
Indicator MP: Closeness to the people (P)
Definition
Populism actors display a proximity to the people and claim their legitimacy on the assumption that they are speaking for this people (Canovan, 1999; Taggart, 2004). The people are the members of a “heartland”; which is s an idealized imagined community to which populist’s actors identified themselves. The people of each heartland are conceived as a monolithic (uniform) group formed only by the moral people. (Taggart,
2004)
MP. Category: People centrality
MP1. Is there in the text a reference to the people?
Explanation: “You should look at every possible reference to the people. You should interpret the broader context in deciding whether to code people-centrism or not.” (Rooduijn, 2013,p.58)
“The authors can refer to ‘the people’ directly by using terms such as ‘the people’, ‘the citizens’, ‘the British’, ‘Britain’, ‘the community’, ‘the society’, ‘citizens’, ‘our
country’, ‘society’ or ‘we’ (as in ‘we the people’).
They can also refer to ‘the people’ more indirectly, this is the case if they use terms such as ‘our nation’, ‘public opinion’, ‘the electorate’, ‘our culture’, ‘we’, etc. (..) The authors of a text do NOT refer to the people if they only talk about specific subgroups within the people, such as children, elderly, migrants, etc. (Rooduijn, 2013, p.173)
Example: To assist the coding here is an extensive list of words and combinations of
words that could refer to the people: people, citizen(s), community, society, public, population, nation (al), all of us, each of us, everyone, our, we, voter(s), electorate, referenda, direct democracy, public opinion, country. And words such as: Britons” (Rooduijn, 2013,p.58), “UK firms who employ EU workers such as plumbers rather than British tradesman will be charged up to £6,000”
0 no 1 yes
If the answer is no go to MAE if the answer is yes proceed with MP2
MP2. Does any speaker in the text declare explicit closeness to a specific group?
No Yes
MP3. Is there any reference to the common man?
Explanation: If the people are specified as Hypothetical prototype of the people “ common man”: workers, families
millions of EU citizens, saying: “Europe isn’t working for working people.” 0 no
1 yes
MP4. The speaker claim to embody or represent the people?
Example: “The Justice Secretary told Vote Leave’s supporters: “The values of the
British people are open, tolerant and inclusive and on Thursday we have a chance to vote for those values by voting to show that we believe in Britain.”
0 No 1 Yes
MP5. Are the people referred to as a monolithic actor?
Example: The people is form by the moral people of the heartland, they shared a
common understanding, desires and feelings. This implies that the people are seen as a unified actor, at least with regard to their relationship with the elites. (Rooduijn, 2013,p.62)
Example: “Britain’s future as a free, sovereign nation in control of its own affairs.”,
“BRITS would be safer under Theresa May over Jeremy Corbyn, a Tory election chief has said” ,
0 No 1 Yes
MP6. Is there a declaration of belonging to the people?
0 no 1 yes
MP7.Does the speaker express that he /she cares about people?
Example: he said: “Under this Government you know what you are getting — a
Government that works to uphold our values, to protect our way of life and to stand strongly in defence of Britain’s interests.”
0 No 1 Yes
MP8.Does the speaker declare that he /she knows the needs of the people?
Example: “the candidate said, “I want people to concentrate not on my job but on their
jobs.”
0 No 1 Yes
MP9. Does the speaker declare that he /she is speaking on behalf of the people?
0 No 1 Yes
Indicator MAE: Anti-elitism (AE)
Definition
Populism usually presents an anti-elite discourse or anti-establishment stances. There is a moral separation between the good people, and these amoral elites who are to “blame for negative outcomes that had affected the heartland” (Hameleers, et al, 2016). They are an external enemy, which is subject of a certain “blame attribution”
(Hameleers, et al, 2016) because they are considered to have betrayed the people (Rooduijn, 2013).
In right-wing populism, the elite are often supranational institutions, foreign governments, and parts of the national government that are close to any of the mentioned institutions.
Elites or the establishment could be political, cultural, economic, legal, or media. “ Elites are NOT individual persons. Criticisms regarding for example a prime minister or a businessman are usually not anti-elitist. Only if these individuals are portrayed as representatives of a certain elite these criticisms should be seen as anti-elitist. Criticisms regarding a specific government, political party, company, medium or organization are usually not anti-elitist. A criticism is only anti- elitist if it concerns an elite in general, or if a specific government, political party, company, medium or organization is clearly portrayed as a representative of an elite in general. (Rooduijn, 2013,p.174)
MAE Category: Anti- Elitism
MAE1. Is there a critique to the elites or the establishment?
Examples: European Union, the institutional establishment, morally is corrupting
social liberalism, or Oxbridge boys. “THE bloated BBC has broken a promise to slash pay for top bosses, spending watchdogs have revealed” , “he explains how the EU needs Britain more than we will ever need it” or “Example: “British history is the story of how we gradually took power away from the elites.” Or “Veteran Tory Eurospectic urges Brit shoppers to take revenge against Brussels” or “WOMEN can be forced to wear high heels at work after the Government refused to change the law – despite outrage over the “sexist” dress code.”
0 No 1 Yes
If the answer is no go to ME if the answer is yes proceed with MP2
MAE2. Is there a negative attribution of certain traits to a specific group?
Example: corrupt, thieves, amoral, being wrong, lying, “The working class has been in
an abusive relationship with the Monster Raving Labour Party for years” . “Urban Outfitters became the latest sneaky firm by advertising a year-long position for zero wages.”, “Stop Jeremy Corbyn and ‘coalition of chaos’ from entering No10” , “She said they portrayed a “nasty, mean-spirited vision of Britain as a place that doesn’t welcome people to come to these shores”.
0 No 1 Yes
MAE3. Is there an explicit declaration that the elites are against the people? Example: “He said: “When you challenge the establishment in this country, they come after you.”
0 No 1 Yes
MAE4. Does the speaker do a moral distinction between different groups? Example: “UKIP Douglas Carswell called Ms Lagarde’s comments “shameful” and
accused the Treasury of “choreographing” the report with the IMF.”, “It will be a vote for those Brits who support the Eurocrats – Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson and the like.”
0 No 1 Yes
MAE5. Is there a blame attribution towards an elitist actor?
Explanation: “Explicitly blaming the elite for any inconvenient, undesirable, or
harmful development within society (… ) the elite to be challenged are supranational institutions, foreign governments, and parts of the national government fraternizing with any of them” (Wirth et al., 2016, p.8).
Example: “That’s pretty rich from a job-destroying Goliath which has inflicted mass
unemployment and economic misery across 28 member states.” Or” Britain has lost its sovereignty to the EU.” Or “Why couldn’t David Cameron keep his promise to hold net immigration below 100,000 a year? Because it’s up to Brussels, not Britain.”
0 No 1 Yes
MAE6. Does the speaker declare that the elites had betrayed the people?
Example: “Plenty of groups have suffered from EU rules, including steelworkers. In
each case, Britain is forced to apply laws which damage us.” Or “Innocent teacher left ‘unemployed and toxic’ after student’s rich parents”, “Mr Blair added the Brussels institution “has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs”, “The only thing that it destroying civilisations is the Euro – which has ruined economies and led to youth unemployment soaring to nearly 50 epr cent in southern Europe.”.
0 No 1 Yes
MA7. Does the speaker declare that the elites do not represent the people?
Example: “Europe isn’t working for working people.” Or “Businesses will slash their
costs by replacing their human workers with machines.”, “He said: “The people who lead the European Union have never said sorry, never apologised, never admitted that they’ve got anything wrong.”, “Pro-Brexit Justice Secretary Mr Gove last month dismissed warnings from “establishment” economists such as the Bank of England against leaving the EU by saying: “People in this country have had enough of experts”.
0 No 1 Yes
Indicator ME: Exclusionism (E)
Definition
It is the invert strategy than the closes to the people. Populist actors usually exclude specific population segments; because not every body is part of the
homogeneous heartland, (Jagers & Walgrave, 2007).
In contrast of the demonstration of closeness to the people, the inverse strategy discredit opponents. According to Wirth et al. (2016, p.10) “By exclusion opponents from the people and denying them the abilities to know the needs and will of the people, political actors may be attacked.”
The excluded group are considered outsiders of the heartland and therefore are subject to an exclusionary strategy. It could immigrants, immigrants exploiting the
2014; Wirth et al., 2016).
ME Category: Exclusionism (E)
ME1. Is there a denial of belonging that explicitly targets a certain group? Example: “We’ll have missed our one chance to make decisions on the level of
immigration from the EU and on what skills workers must have before they come here.”; “Open borders enable terrorists. And the British people want the right to kick out those who rule us”, “He stormed:Our labour market is thriving, but it’s notable that more than three quarters of the rise in employment over the last year has come from people born abroad.”, “Building houses for every migrant would ‘change nature and character’ of UK, says Grayling”
0 No 1 Yes
If the answer is no go to TS if the answer is yes proceed with ME2
ME2. Is any group explicitly presented as outsider of the heartland?
Example: “It recently said we couldn’t deport Abu Hamza’s criminal daughter-in-law
as that would violate her son’s rights as an EU citizen.” 0 No
1 Yes
ME3. Is any group explicitly presented as enemy?
Example: “We don’t feel safe in London because of mass crime and immigration.”,
“Archbishop of Canterbury claims immigration is placing ‘very heavy burden’ on UK” 0 No
1 Yes
ME4. Is there a denial of explicit closeness to the people?
0 No 1 Yes
ME5. Is there a denial that the excluded ones care about people?
0 No 1 Yes
ME6. Is there a denial that the excluded ones know about the needs of the people?
0 No 1 Yes
ME7. Is there a denial that the excluded ones speak on behalf of the people?
