The SAGE Handbook of Political

Communication
Political Communication in Latin America

Contributors: Silvio Waisbord

Edited by: Holli A. Semetko & Margaret Scammell
Book Title: The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication
Chapter Title: "Political Communication in Latin America"
Pub. Date: 2012
Access Date: May 18, 2020
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications Ltd
City: London
Print ISBN: 9781847874399
Online ISBN: 9781446201015
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446201015.n35
Print pages: 437-449
© 2012 SAGE Publications Ltd All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

Political Communication in Latin America

SilvioWaisbord

The purpose of this chapter is to identify and discuss key issues in political communication research on Latin
America. The premise of the analysis is that the study of media and political processes in Latin America illus-
trates the contributions of ‘areas studies’ to the field at large.1

First, Latin American scholarship expands the scope of inquiry by considering research questions and findings
that have not been closely considered in the West. The literature has largely reflected academic concerns and
debates in the USA and, to a lesser degree, in a handful of European countries. The combination of the ‘third
wave’ of democracy, the global impact of market principles across media systems and the spread of digital
technologies offers tremendous opportunities to enlarge the analytical range in the field of political communi-
cation.

Second, the development of Latin American scholarship suggests that ‘area studies’ in political communica-
tion research need to go beyond region-specific issues, and engage with broad conceptual and analytical
debates in the field. The ‘de-Westernization’ (Curran and Park, 2000) should not only widen the range of cas-
es and analytical perspectives. It also needs to contribute to theoretical development by bringing up cases
and findings from across the world. Unfortunately, such bifocal approach on particular regional issues and
broad theoretical questions is rare. ‘Area studies’ research tends to make findings and conclusions mainly
relevant to regional specialists. The growth of cross-national and comparative research (Esser and Pfetsch,
2004) is certainly an auspicious development. It purposefully sets out to bridge this gap by using country and
regional cases to refine conceptual thinking and conclusions. To avoid the compartmentalization and margin-
alization of ‘areas studies’, country and regional research should contribute to a common body of knowledge
defined by theoretical and analytical questions. Even if studies are not formulated as comparative projects,
they should keep “comparative” perspective in mind.

Approaching ‘regions/areas’ as units of analysis is not problem-free. Regions are typically defined on the ba-
sis of shared characteristics such as political history, language, geography, media systems, culture and so
on. Yet, as comparative politics scholars (Mainwaring and Perez Liñan, 2005) have argued, regions are not
homogeneous entities. They comprise significant similarities and differences that need to be considered not
only descriptively, but analytically, too.

Taken as a political-communication unit of analysis, Latin America is heterogeneous. On the one hand, it fea-
tures three basic commonalities. First, most countries have a similar political history. With different degree of
continuity and intensity, all have experienced political authoritarianism for much of the 20th century. Since the
1980s, however, no country has experienced a serious reversal of democracy. Second, all media systems
have been historically organized similar principles: market principles, frequent and discretionary government
intervention and almost non-existent public broadcasting. Third, contemporary democracies are character-
ized by similar negative and positive trends. Whereas they are beleaguered by strong anti-party sentiments
and the low legitimacy of democratic institutions, citizens' mobilization and the existence of innovative partic-
ipatory mechanisms (for example, referenda, participatory budget) suggest the vitality of participation (Seele
and Peruzzotti, 2009).

On the other hand, the region offers heterogeneous political and media developments. The index of democ-
ratic performance is wide ranging: the quality of democratic politics in Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay stands
in sharp contrast with the chronic weakness and tumultuous politics of most countries in the region. Drug-traf-
ficking, guerilla movements and armed gangs threaten state authority in Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala
and Mexico. While traditional parties continue to take turns in power in some countries, historic parties have
been in dire straits elsewhere. Also, differences in media systems are significant. Whereas few families con-
trol media companies in Central America and the Caribbean, media ownership is more diversified in countries
with bigger economies (Lugo, 2008; Rockwell and Janus, 2002a). Whereas the professional culture of jour-

The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication

Page 2 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

nalism has found better ground in metropolitan news organizations, it is notoriously weaker in the provinces.
Whereas governments are the largest media advertisers in the interior, media revenues are more diversified
in urban areas. Whereas newspaper readership remains low, both radio and television have high penetration
and large audiences (Bisbal, 2006; Fox and Waisbord, 2002).

With this context in mind, this chapter is organized around three issues that have been at the center of re-
search agenda in the region: the mediatization of politics, the challenges for media democracy, and the link-
ages between media, civic participation and political conflict.

The Mediatization of Politics

Similar to other regions, the mediatization of politics in Latin America has attracted a great deal of academic
attention during the past decades. The focus has been on the causes and the consequences of the mediati-
zation of politics. Mediatization refers to the process by which political actors and dynamics are increasingly
oriented around the media (Mazzoleni and Schulz, 1999). It includes four dimensions: the role of the media as
the main source of political information; the independence of the media from political institutions; the preva-
lence of the media logic and the influence of the media logic on political process (Stromback, 2008). Much
of the literature on Latin America, however, has been primarily concerned with the last question: how political
actors use and follow the ‘media logic’ to achieve and maintain power.

Interest in this dimension of mediatization is present in several lines of research in recent scholarship. Studies
have examined how presidential communication has utilized the media for ‘going public’ (Kernell, 1997). Such
dynamics are not entirely new. The political science and communication literature extensively discussed this
issue in relation to the media strategies of populist leadership in the 1950s, and the propaganda tactics of
military dictatorships in the 1960s and 1970s (Fox, 1988). More recently, the focus has been on presidential
strategies intended to set the news agenda and build popular support. In order to achieve these goals, ad-
ministrations have produced weekly radio and television programs, and presidents frequently give nationally
broadcast speeches (Gómez et al., 2006, Rincón, 2008). The literature has critically assessed such tactics
as shrewd attempts to set the news agenda bypassing the intermediary role of the press, and strengthen
the ‘personal’ ties between citizens and charismatic leaders. Such goals are also evident in the absence of
regular press conferences by heads of state, or refusing to be interviewed by oppositional media. Whereas
strategies for ‘going public’ in the US politics are typically intended to drum up popular support for presidential
agendas, Latin American presidents have used it to bypass the adversarial press.

The recurrent utilization of such tactics put in evidence the consolidation of the ‘permanent campaign’
(Conaghan and de la Torre, 2008) and ‘media Cesarism’ (Rincón, 2008) in the region. They are not designed
to promote dialog between elites and citizens, or to hold presidents accountable. Rather, they are calculat-
ed strategies to promote personalistic leaderships and reinforce plebiscitary politics. In a region with a pro-
nounced deficit of democratic accountability, such strategies further deepen old problems of transparency and
representation.

Another manifestation of the mediatization of politics has been the transformations of election campaigning.
The focus has been on the professionalization of election communication namely, the central role of the
media in campaign strategy, the strategic management of candidates' media appearances, the extensive use
of opinion polling and segmented campaigning (Skidmore, 1992; Waisbord, 1994). Across the region, politi-
cal parties and candidates have widely embraced technological and managerial innovations in election cam-
paigns. The personal attributes of candidates have overshadowed partisan ideologies. While political market-
ing was a novelty during the first elections held in the early 1980s, political consultancy and ‘spin doctors’
have become ubiquitous in past campaigns (Plasser, 2000). Also, television advertising has become central
to campaign strategies. Although the frequency and funding of television ads vary according to national elec-
toral laws, paid advertising is common and attracts the lion's share of campaign investments. The astronomi-
cal growth of campaign expenditures is attributed to the incorporation of professional techniques, particularly
the intensive use of television advertising (Lozano, 2006).
The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication
Page 3 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

Within this context, the media have taken over the ‘mediation’ between political parties and citizens. The rise
of candidate-centered, capitalintensive, ‘modern’ campaigns is inseparable from the crisis of traditional forms
of representation. Although campaigns often bear a resemblance to the US campaigns, they are hardly the
outgrowth of external and global trends. Rather, they are the product of indigenous political and media devel-
opments (Waisbord, 1996).

The mediatization of politics has also been studied around the blurring of the boundaries between politics and
entertainment. In a region historically dominated by entertainment media, there has never been a stark dis-
tinction between the realms of politics and mediated entertainment. Entertainment programming often brings
in political news, and political elites frequently reach out to entertainment media to go public. Television pro-
gramming regularly addresses political issues, and producers find inspiration in political headlines for plots
and characters. Telenovelas, the melodramas that have historically been the most popular television genre,
often address contemporary politics (Palaversich, 2006; Porto, 2005). Newsweeklies and entertainment mag-
azines frequently cover politicians like entertainment celebrities (Landi, 1992). Likewise, game shows, real-
ity shows and comedies make frequent references to political news. politicians' media appearances are tai-
lored to appeal to tabloid and entertainment templates. Taking advantage of name recognition and popularity,
dozens of show-biz celebrities (for example, singers, actors, filmmakers) have jumped into politics throughout
the region. Just as political news provides material for a range of media content, entertainment media provide
larger audiences for political communication (Martin-Barbero and Rey, 1999).

Studies have attributed the consolidation of mediated politics to the crisis of political representation. Media-
tization is not seen simply as another manifestation of the dominant role of the media in contemporary so-
cieties. Instead, there are specific political reasons that have spawned new media politics. The conventional
argument is that the crisis of representation has pushed the media into centerstage (Bisbal, 2004). In several
countries (for example, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela), the traditional party system collapsed. Political parties
became fragmented, and new electoral forces emerged. Party identities have become weaker. The secular-
ization of political identities happened even in countries (for example, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay) where tra-
ditional parties have remained in control of electoral politics. Also, anti-party sentiments have become domi-
nant, and paved the way for the rise of new political forces (for example, Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela).
The incapacity to maintain autonomous communication channels is part of the broad institutional difficulties
of traditional and new political parties.

The consequences for democratic governance of the mediatization of political communication have generated
much discussion. The tone of the conclusions has been generally pessimistic. Informed by familiar condem-
nations of ‘videopolitics’ (Bourdieu, 1999; Sartori, 1998), scholars have offered bleak assessments about the
current situation. The notion that televised politics fosters ‘personalism’ (instead of institutions), de-politicized
‘spectators’ and ‘consumers’ (instead of active citizens) and emotions (instead of rational debates) are com-
mon in the literature (Catalán and Sunkel, 1989; Martin-Barbero and Rey, 1999; Rey, 1998; Rincón, 2008;
Rincón et al., 2003; Silva, 2004). Likewise, the arguments that entertainment media cultivate political cynicism
and passivity, and democracy is hamstrung by commercial television are ubiquitous (Landi, 1988; Schmucler
and Mata, 1992).

Regrettably, such assessments have not been sufficiently nuanced or consistently grounded in evidence to
effectively determine the corrosive effects of mediated politics on democracy. They reflect a tendency in Latin
American communication scholarship to make sweeping assessments that are neither properly supported in
evidence nor disaggregated into ‘middle-level’ research questions. Because they are formulated at a high
level (‘the power of the media’), they fail to distinguish the impact of various media on political attitudes and
behaviors across different populations and political systems in the region.

Although they did set out to challenge pessimistic conclusions, recent studies suggest that the media do not
necessarily cultivate political malaise. The news media have contributed to civic mobilization during elections,
referendums, coup attempts and political crisis (Calderón et al., 2008; Hughes and Lawson, 2004; Kaiser,

The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication

Page 4 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

2002; Subite and Gutierrez, 2006; Torrico and Sandoval, 2007). These studies throw into question whether
the media necessarily reinforce cynicism and apathy in Latin American democracies. Given the complexity of
the news–consumption–participation nexus among various groups, and the scarcity of evidence-based con-
clusions in the region, further research is required.

The Impact of Commercialization

Latin American scholarship has paid considerable attention to the structural challenges to media democracy
by studying the linkages between media, economics and politics. The mediatization of democratic politics has
renewed long-standing interest about the obstacles for media democracy in the region. Here media democ-
racy is understood in terms of systems that promote critical and diversified information as well as leveled
opportunities for a range of issues and perspectives to be expressed in the public sphere. Media democracy
requires a system that prioritizes pluralism and expectations from both liberal theories (for example, oversight
of political power, fair and quality information, presence of diverse opinions) and communitarian approaches
(for example, the media as institutions that promote civic representation and participation, and the expression
of minority voices).

Studies have identified a range of obstacles for media democracy (Hughes and Lawson, 2005). Obstacles
can be clustered in two fundamental set of problems: the runaway commercialization of the media, and the
persistence of media patrimonialism.

Commercial principles became dominant in the print press during the first half of the 20th century. Although
the modern press was born in the late 19th century as partisan platforms for elite politics, a market-oriented
press subsequently developed linked to the emergence of urban markets and commercial advertising. Many
newspapers that were born amidst aristocratic politics (for example, Argentina's La Nación, Brazil's Estado
de São Paulo, Chile's El Mercurio, Peru's El Comercio) became market-oriented, and have remained domi-
nant. Furthermore, political turmoil and authoritarianism made the existence of the partisan press impossible.
Even in countries with longer periods of stable democracy (for example, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela), where
a ‘party-press parallelism’ survived longer than in the rest of the region, the growth of commercial newspapers
overshadowed partisan media.

The rise and consolidation of market-oriented press did not bring about a radical shift in journalistic ideals.
Although newspapers gradually shed off partisan linkages, they did not embrace the ideals of professional
objectivity commonly identified with the US press.2 Despite the growing influence of the US journalism in the
region, particularly after World War II, the principle of political neutrality never took firm roots. Instead, news-
papers generally mixed editorial and reporting, and openly revealed ideological and partisan preferences. Al-
though newspapers basically operated according to commercial principles, the European model of ‘journalism
of opinion’ remained influential.

Market principles also dominated the historical evolution of broadcasting systems. A strong tradition of public
broadcasting never took root in the region. In some countries, there have been attempts to develop ‘public’
television and radio by assigning a small number of licenses to governments and universities. These initia-
tives, however, never became true alternatives to private broadcasting. The lack of independent manage-
ment, chronic under-funding (which pushed stations to rely on advertising just like private media) and the
tendency of governments to see ‘public’ broadcasting as personal communication fiefdoms, undermined the
prospects for strong public media institutions.

The early consolidation of market interests accounts for why contemporary Latin American media systems
feature dominant multimedia corporations (which are mostly privately owned), and are intertwined with a
range of industrial interests (Fox and Waisbord, 2002; Lugo, 2008). Brazil's Globo, Mexico's Televisa and
Venezuela's Venevisión have ranked among the largest media companies worldwide (Sinclair, 1999). In most
The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication
Page 5 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

cases, they originally were family-owned newspaper and radio companies that subsequently expanded into
other media sectors (over-the-air, cable and satellite television, telephony, Internet) during the second half of
the 20th century.

Despite the domination of market principles, the news media did not severe its ties with the political sphere.
The press and the political sphere remained intertwined. There was neither a ‘full market revolution’ nor
major political shifts that could have dislodged media business from the state. News organizations have been
generally aligned with competing political factions at both national and provincial levels. Particularly in the
provinces, political elites have directly or indirectly owned the main media outlets, a pattern that remains dom-
inant until today. During authoritarian periods, military dictators tightly controlled the press through censorship
and persecution, and thus maintained close ties between the news media and the political sphere.

A mix of economic and political reasons explains why the news media never gained full autonomy vis-à-vis
the state. Despite economic growth and the expansion of national advertising markets, the state remained
one of the largest advertisers, particularly in the provinces and countries with smaller economies. This situa-
tion put government officials in a powerful position in media economics. They held power over key decisions
affecting the interests of press owners, such as official advertising, government contracts, tax breaks, impor-
tation permits, loans from government-owned banks and media policies. Discretionary management of deci-
sions affecting media business gave officials tremendous power vis-à-vis press companies. In turn, the ability
to cultivate close relations with governments gave media owners significant business advantages.

Also, ideological and political reasons underlie the close proximity between private media and governments.
Conservative media owners openly supported right-wing administrations. The ideological alliance between
leading news organizations and military dictatorships has been extensively documented (Fox and Waisbord,
2002). Media barons unabashedly defended official policies and aligned their companies with the govern-
ment. By the same token, publishers with liberal and populist positions openly supported like-minded govern-
ments. Just like the conservative media did, the values of press criticism and independence were eschewed
when sympathetic administrations were in power.

The combination of commercial media and cozy relations between the press and governments has informed
pessimistic conclusions about media democracy in the region. The dominating presence of private companies
and profit-making principles stifled the possibilities for noncommercial, minority and civic media. Market inter-
ests distort the priorities of the news media. Given the influence of advertisers, the news media have cau-
tiously approached or simply ignored business issues with direct political implications. Because support for
official policies brought favorable economic deals, major news organizations sacrificed the value of indepen-
dence and critical reporting in covering governments. Quality journalism has suffered from business decisions
to prioritize cost-cutting, and produce news on shoestring budgets. Horizontal integration leads to the homog-
enization of news content. Media companies are reluctant to scrutinize the same governments that they need
to advance business goals. Conceived as tools of broad political and business interests, the news media
largely function as communication platforms for political and economic elites rather than horizontal mecha-
nisms for the expression and participation of citizens. In summary, commercialization meant the triumph of
business interests over the public mission of the press.

For several scholars, the consolidation of democracy has not altered the basic market orientation of the press
(Mastrini and Becerra, 2006; Sunkel and Geoffroy, 2001). The fundamental pillars of market-based media
system have been left intact even as democracy settled throughout the region. The affirmation of political
democracy has not resulted in media democracy. Furthermore, the adoption of liberalization and deregula-
tion policies by civilian governments has greatly contributed to the expansion of leading news companies into
old and new media sectors. Across the region, leading news organizations are units of multimedia corpora-
tions and/or diversified industrial conglomerates with interests in key economic sectors (for example, banking,
food, retail, agriculture and mining). Given the fact that press, political and economic interests are tightly in-
tertwined, they argue, it is impossible for news organizations to meet effectively democratic expectations of

The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication

Page 6 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

critical and diverse reporting. Market logic is anathema to the needs of democratic governance.

Despite its merits, this line of argument is insufficient to explain the complexity of contemporary media politics
in the region. As an explanation of the fundamental structures of media systems, it correctly points out at
the importance of the collusion between political and economic actors. Commercial principles, indeed, remain
unchallenged and government policies (particularly during the 1990s) helped to cement the dominant role
of few corporations. As an analysis of political communication processes, however, the ‘commercialization’
argument misses important aspects. The news media in the region are more diversified than what those ap-
proaches typically recognize. Although leading news organizations largely espouse conservative economics
and politics, ‘the press’ is splintered into a myriad of market-based yet ideologically diverse news organiza-
tions. These divisions underlie the changing relations between news media and presidents.

Also, important significant differences across administrations contribute to shaping news and perspectives
that are more diverse than what economicistic approaches typically recognize. For the past three decades,
Latin American democracies have been governed by administrations with contrasting ideological and political
positions. At one time or another, national and state governments have promoted free-market and Keynesian
economics, conservative and populist politics and a range of policies on crime, environmental protection, hu-
man rights, indigenous rights, unions, abortion rights and foreign investment. Because governments wield
significant power in newsmaking (Miralles, 2003; Montenegro, 2007; Muraro, 1997; Waisbord, 2000), political
differences across administrations offer changing opportunities for covering a range of issues and perspec-
tives.

The combination of news organizations and ruling administrations with diverse ideologies and politics has
produced conflictive and dynamics relations between ‘the press’ and ‘the state’. Relations cannot be neatly
described based on ownership patterns, or the dominant presence of commercialization. Nor can we say that
there have been static relations between news organizations and governing elites. The ideological fractures
inside the press as well as the substantial differences among and inside governments have rendered news
with plenty of conflict and disagreement. Just as conservative media and populist administrations have done
it, progressive news organizations and neo-conservative governments have battled out their differences in
the news. Differences have been particularly salient during times of political polarization and crisis, which are
not unusual in the region.

One can certainly argue whether such confrontations have undermined journalistic autonomy, fairness and
neutrality. The fact that media owners frequently drag newsrooms into pro- or antigovernment camps has
deepened the historical weakness of journalistic neutrality and fairness (Monsivais and Scherer, 2003). Yet
the confrontations between the press and government suggest that commercialization does not fully explain
the dynamics of political communication. The interaction between politics and media actors and processes
are crisscrossed by the rowdy nature of the region's politics.

Media Patrimonialism and Media Democracy

The literature has also extensively discussed the problems for media democracy associated with, what I call,
‘media patrimonialism’. Following Max Weber's classic typology of political rule, patrimonialism is defined by
the domination of particularistic politics and the weak rule of law. Government officials exercise discretionary
power. Rules and impersonal procedures are either absent or ineffective in binding personal behavior. Pow-
er is used for the benefit of rulers and personal dependents. Patronage, that is, exchange relations between
rulers and followers, is dominant. This order is antithetical to the effective functioning of the rule of law found
in rational-legal, bureaucratic, modern political systems.

Patrimonialism has been central to the modern development of political-media systems in Latin America. It
actively shaped the historical evolution and the functioning of media markets. As many studies have docu-
The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication
Page 7 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

mented, the personal hand of government officials was often directly responsible for shaping market struc-
tures including ownership, funding and legal framework. Heads of state have typically approached the media
as a prolongation of their personal power. They have exercised discretion in decisions affecting news busi-
ness. In countries with a notorious deficit of accountability mechanisms, secrecy and personalism have of-
ten dictated key decisions. Such practices allowed government officials to keep the media on a short leash,
achieve political and economic benefits and reward cronies. In turn, media patrimonialism has been critical
to the formation of large media business. The rise and consolidation of media corporations throughout the
region is intertwined with the domination of patrimonialist politics.

Why is media patrimonialism detrimental to media democracy? By favoring the pursuit of particular benefits,
patrimonialism runs contrary to the promotion of wide, public interests. By opposing any system of rules, it
is contrary to media systems based on notions of transparency and accountability. Because it is driven by
personal ties between officials and business, it is incompatible with public regulation, fair competition and so-
cial responsibility. By approaching public communication resources such as broadcasting licenses and official
funds as personal property, it has deepened the weakness of the rule of law.

Media patrimonialism has continued despite the affirmation of democratic rule in the region. The continuation
of civilian administrations during the past three decades is, no doubt, a historical landmark given the region's
troubled political history. This is particularly remarkable considering that, during that period, democracies were
rocked by sharp economic downturns, coup attempts, presidential impeachments and resignations and armed
insurgency. The abolition of state-sponsored censorship and systematic persecution of dissident substantially
changed the overall conditions for political communication. Democratic rule, however, has been insufficient
to roll back the legacy of media patrimonialism. Not only administrations have been reluctant to undo that
legacy. They have also perpetuated old practices to further their own goals. Old practices, such as no-bid as-
signments of official advertising, government contracts and broadcasting licenses to cronies, have continued
(Kodrich, 2008; Rockwell and Janus, 2002b).

Scholars have concluded that the media policies of conservative administrations directly benefited large news
companies, such as the decision of the Menem administration to privatize two television stations in Argentina
in 1989, and the media law sponsored by the Fox government in Mexico in 2005 (Mastrini and Becerra, 2006;
Sanchez Ruiz, 2007). The Fujimori government, which ruled throughout the 1990s in Peru, infamously stands
out as the embodiment of the worst excesses of media patrimonialism (Conaghan, 2005). Besides conven-
tional patronage methods, it resorted to persecution, coercion and bribes to secure a sycophantic press.

During the past decade, much of the analysis on media patrimonialism has focused on neopopulist govern-
ments. Since former lieutenant colonel Hugo Chavez was elected president in Venezuela in 1999, a wave of
populist administrations has swept the region.3 Neo-populism patently illustrates the problems of media patri-
monialism. Studies have shown the persistence of patronage in decisions affecting media economics, discre-
tionary use of public resources and advertising, and cronyism in the relations between governments and the
media. Critics have charged that populist governments have tried to control the media and benefit cronies.
Such conclusions were based on various developments, such as the Chavez administration's decision not
to renew the license of a leading television network and 2006 ‘social responsibility’ press law, the Morales
government control of a network of local radio stations in Bolivia, and the decision by the Correa govern-
ment to expropriate two television networks in Ecuador (Cañizales and Correa, 2003; Grebe, 2007; Rincón,
2008). Furthermore, populist administrations have done little to address the weakness of transparency and
accountability mechanisms through. Actions such as sponsoring and enforcing ‘freedom of information’ law,
transferring control of official advertising to independent bodies, and overhauling ‘gag’ laws are necessary to
strengthen media independence.

Amid these conflicts, the literature has raised attention to civic efforts that promote media pluralism and curb
the power of both markets and governments.

The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication

Page 8 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

One set of initiatives is aimed at promoting diversity and government accountability through pushing for media
reforms. Civic groups have spearheaded public debates and conducted advocacy with policymakers to pro-
mote legal changes on freedom of information, broadcasting, press rights and community media. Experiences
from Mexico to Uruguay show not only that media democratization has become a demand for citizens, but
also that organized publics opened up spaces for deliberation and built alliances to spearhead changes (Gill
and Hughes, 2005; Pinto, 2009; Waisbord, 2009). The impact of such actions has been significant. In some
countries, they provided the impetus for landmark legislation that allows public access to government infor-
mation, and recognizes community media. Likewise, citizens' media observatories have become important
references for media criticism and policy debates (Alfaro, 2005; Rey, 2003).

A second set of efforts was intended to expand grassroots media spaces for deliberation outside the main-
stream media that are organized around public, rather than market or state, principles. They have been fo-
cused on carving out autonomous communication, citizen-centered platforms (Rodriguez, 2001). Such efforts
are rooted in the strong tradition of community media activism in the region. Since the 1950s, there have been
numerous experiences of civic mobilization that were envisioned to provide alternatives to media dominated
by elite interests (Gumucio, 2001). Examples include community radio, ‘alternative’ press, and video and tele-
vision cooperatives (Salazar and Cordova, 2008). This tradition of ‘participatory media’ had played important
roles during both authoritarian regimes and contemporary democracies. Because many had been linked to
peasant and workers' unions and social movements, their development has been closely linked to the political
evolution of specific organizations.

Studies on the politics of media reform and community media offer a picture that diverges from the bleak as-
sessments about the consequences of ‘video-politics’ and media-centered politics. Although they recognize
the lopsided distribution of communication resources, they find promising signs of media democratization
in contemporary democracies. citizens' initiatives may be incipient and small scale to overcome entrenched
hurdles posed by unregulated markets and patronage politics, yet they represent important innovations and
trends in the mediated politics of the region.

Media, Civic Society and Political Conflict

In line with this modestly optimistic view, other studies have called attention to instances showing that the
news media effectively meets democratic expectations. Several examples show that the press has scruti-
nized power, fairly covered citizens' demands and offered reasonably accessible platforms for civic debates.
Certainly, unregulated commercialization and patrimonialism limit opportunities for democratic debate given
that they shape the media ecology of the region. They do not suppress, however, changing relations among
media institutions, political elites and civic actors. Because neither one is a unified bloc nor do they maintain
static relations, the analysis needs to sharpen the focus in search of nuances and conflicts.

The turbulence of mediated politics in the region yields processes that are significant for the quality of democ-
racy. Consider the case of watchdog journalism and scandal politics. From Mexico to Argentina, scores of
press denunciations have been published in the past decades (Hughes, 2006; Matos, 2008; Waisbord, 2000).
They have uncovered government wrongdoing, human rights abuses and business malfeasance. The pub-
lication of exposes was indicative of novel developments in a region where the press has been historically
subjected to pressures and censorship.

First, they suggested the intention of a limited yet influential number of news organizations and journalists
to break stories despite persecution and intimidation. The rise of ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ and maverick
journalists, and the adoption of ‘professional values’ in newsrooms shook up old cozy relations the press and
political power (Alves, 2005; Hughes, 2003; Lawson, 2002 Waisbord, 2000; Wallis, 2004). Ideological and
economic rivalries between specific news media and administrations underlie press exposes. Whereas leftist
and liberal news media delved into corrupt practices of conservative administrations, the traditional press ex-
The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication
Page 9 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

posed wrongdoing during populist governments. Second, watchdog journalism offered opportunities for pow-
erful sources to wage conflict ‘by other means’. Infighting among government officials, whistle-blowing politics
and intra-elite battles frequently provided the original impetus for exposes. Studies have shown that many
high-profile denunciations were the result not only of the perseverance of enterprising reporters, but also the
actions of self-interested sources who leaked information to the press to battle their rivals (Waisbord, 2000).

Several press denunciations spawned political scandals. The combination of congressional and judicial in-
vestigations on crimes originally reported in the news, and steady media attention on wrongdoing and cover-
ups fueled scandals. Virtually all democracies in the region have been rocked by scandals during the past
decades. They revealed abuses of power such as cash-for-votes schemes, cozy relations between politicians
and criminals, bribes and kickbacks and human rights violations. As a consequence of scandals, several pres-
idents were impeached or resigned, and dozens of cabinet secretaries, governors and members of Congress
stepped down.

The politics of watchdog journalism and scandals have significant implications for democratic governance.
They suggest new forms of social accountability by which the media shame public officials, and activate ac-
countability mechanisms (Peruzzotti and Smulovitz, 2006). Commercialization and patrimonialism may limit
but they do not completely suppress opportunities for public scrutiny of political and economic power. Further-
more, they show that the media play a key role in channeling political conflict. Both the interests of specific
news media and elite competition foster changing political communication dynamics.

Similar dynamics are also evident in news coverage of civic mobilization. Several studies have argued that
the media fail to provide quality and sustained coverage of a range of civic and social issues (Gonzalez Bom-
bal, 1996; Larrain and Valenzuela, 2004). News coverage of issues linked to ‘social development’ such as
environment, health and education, has many shortcomings. It is focused on individual events rather than
long-term processes. It is focused on political and economic elites, and ignores citizens' voices (Alfaro, 2008).
The provision of basic health and educational services, poverty and appalling sanitation and water conditions
get sporadic attention from the media. Central environmental problems such as rural degradation caused by
the expansion of the agricultural exploitation and mining rarely get the attention they deserve. The volume of
environmental news has modestly grown, but coverage remains superficial and intermittent (Carabaza et al.,
2007; Luft, 2005). Public safety, an issue that has become a top priority in public opinion and elections recent
years, is frequently covered as waves of individual crimes committed against private property as it affects
middle- and upperclass neighborhoods (Cerbino, 2005; Luchessi, 2007; Rey, 2005).

These shortcomings are explained by two reasons. First, given the market-driven structure of the media, news
organizations generally cover issues that attract audiences and do not offend advertisers. Because the main-
stream news media are geared toward urban and well-off populations, they typically ignore issues that affect
poor, indigenous and rural communities. Second, the strong orientation toward political elites in the profes-
sional culture of journalism explains why the press gives scant attention to ordinary citizens. Unlike political
elites, average citizens lack power to make news.

Although such conclusions correctly assess basic problems, they are analytically too blunt to capture the com-
plex interaction between the news media, civic groups and political conflict. Studies have shown that news
coverage does not necessarily offer either a warped view of mobilized publics or consistently positive views
of political elites (Bisbal, 2004; Bonilla and Garcia, 1995; Maia, 2009).

This conclusion is found in several recent studies. Bonner (2009) has convincingly argued that national news
about police violence against protesters in a southwestern province in Argentina prominently featured citi-
zens' voices, and offered sympathetic views of the protesters. By criticizing the governor who firmly defended
police officers accused of killing protesters in cold blood, the coverage pushed for holding political authorities
accountable. Waisbord and Peruzzotti (2009) have shown that the Argentine press offered a positive cover-
age of citizens' protests against the building of paper mill plants on the Uruguayan side of the Rio Uruguay

The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication

Page 10 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

(which serves as the natural border with Argentina). Concerned about the environmental impact of pulp pro-
duction, citizens from the Argentine cities directly across the sites mobilized to stop the building of the plants.
During several years, they kept intermittent blockades of roads and bridges between both countries. As long
as national and state officials supported the movement's goals, national and local news coverage was also
supportive. As the situation spiraled into an international conflict, and Argentine officials took distance from
the movement's intransigent positions, media coverage of the movement became less positive. Another ex-
ample is offered by Kowalchuk (2009) in her study of Salvadoran newspaper coverage about civic opposition
to the privatization of the healthcare system. She demonstrates that the main press not only offered a sym-
pathetic portrayal of citizens who resorted to both protest and legislative strategies, but it also criticized the
government plan.

These studies raise two key points. First, news coverage offers complex and changing perspectives of protest
actions and social movements. Leading news media neither necessarily distort citizens' demands nor portray
them negatively. Second, elite positions about civic protests as well as intra-elite competition play a signifi-
cant role in shaping news coverage. Given the news-making power of key political officials, elite support for
popular protests and disagreements among elites produce mixed frames about public demands and social
movements.

To be clear, these studies do not argue that the findings are representative of all news about citizens' move-
ments or applicable across all possible cases. Such conclusions would be impossible given the endless num-
ber of cases. Nor do they intend to demonstrate that political and economic structures are irrelevant. Rather,
they suggest the need for nuanced analyses of the factors that shape news coverage of social and political
conflict. The news media are not a homogeneous bloc with predictable, clear-cut, unwavering positions vis-à-
vis civic mobilization, social problems and political conflict. Divergent editorial positions and reporters' views,
elite competition and the media strategies of civic groups influence press coverage (Waisbord, 2009). The
fact that media systems are subjected to the influence of commercialization and patrimonialism should not
lead to rule out ex ante that the relations between various news organizations and political actors may spawn
different coverage of civic issues and social demands.

Conclusion
This chapter reviewed and discussed key issues in contemporary political communication research in Latin
America.

Specific regional developments as well as academic traditions have informed research priorities. Consider
the study of mediatization. Notably absent in the region is research on the impact of the news media on public
opinion and policy, or on the effects of press frames on political attitudes and behavior, issues that have at-
tracted a great deal of attention in the recent US and European literature. A few exceptions are worth men-
tioning. Studies have shown that, although media-centered campaigns in Mexico fail to bridge the ‘knowledge
gap’ between voters from different socioeconomic backgrounds (McCann and Lawson, 2006), they do not
necessarily contribute to political demobilization and disenchantment (Hughes and Guerrero, 2009). Also, re-
search has shown that frames of news and political ads affect public perception of problems in Brazil (Porto,
2007), and that the availability of multiple frames promotes reasoned debates and multiple perspectives (Ma-
ia, 2009).

Attention has been largely put on understanding whether mediatization exacerbates the crisis of political rep-
resentation in the region, and whether populism further weakens the roles of oversight and accountability of
the news media. In both cases, the conclusions are affirmative. The centrality of the media has sharpened
the problems of political representation. Media populism aggravates the problems of accountability through
news management practices and media policies to circumvent critical news media. Interest on the institutional
impact of mediatization and media politics issues dovetails with broad concerns about the persistent troubles
The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication
Page 11 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

of party systems, strong executives and weak parliaments and the tenuous linkages between public opinion
and the legislative process in the region (Morgenstern and Nacif, 2002).

Likewise, regional developments explain why the literature has focused on the challenges and opportunities
for media democracy. The persistent ‘double whammy’ of runaway commercialization and patrimonialism on
media systems in the region explains why these issues remain at the center of the research agenda. By the
same token, the literature remains focused on the study of community broadcasting, media reform move-
ments and civic media advocacy as important, citizen-led developments aimed at shaking up traditional pat-
terns in the relationship between media and political actors.

Research priorities also reflect scholarly traditions, namely, structuralist and institutionalist theories as well as
qualitative methodologies in both communication studies and political science. Other set of theoretical ques-
tions and methodological approaches (for example, media effects, the dynamics between media and public
opinion, quantitative research), which have been dominant in the US and European political communication
research, never found a strong grounding in the region. In fact, the exceptions previously mentioned were
produced by scholars based in the USA and/or who were trained outside Latin America.

The review also provides ideas for lines of research to contribute to a theoretically ambitious, global research
agenda. ‘Area studies’ in political communication have often been balkanized in separate set of countries and
regions. This is understandable given that, as mentioned earlier, local developments largely drive research
priorities. Yet, it is important not to lose sight of the need to tackle broad theoretical questions that can be
informed by findings from regional studies.

Two sets of questions coming out of Latin American research need further global and comparative attention.
One set of questions address whether citizens' mobilization and new information technologies effectively
transform the core of media systems. Does civic engagement around a range of social, political and media
issues effectively change the way the news media cover social problems? Do social media and other Inter-
netbased platforms improve opportunities for public expression in media systems limited by commercial and
government interests? How do global forms of participation contribute to fostering more plural and egalitarian
media at the national level? Another set of questions is related to the linkages between media, elites and po-
litical conflict. What are the consequences of intra-elite confrontations and stridently ideological news media
for mediated politics? Do they suppress or foster a diversity of views? Do they contribute to addressing prob-
lems of accountability and transparency in new democracies? Do internal divisions within governments and
the press as well as between both institutions open opportunities for critical and diverse news coverage?

The review shows not only the contributions of Latin American political communication scholarship to under-
standing the dimensions of mediatization, the challenges for media democracy and the linkages between me-
dia and political conflict in the region. They also suggest a wealth of experiences and arguments that helps to
diversify the pool of evidence, research questions and conceptual frameworks in the field.

Notes
1 Although the role of ‘area studies’ has been extensively argued in comparative politics and sociology (Bates,
1997; Hall and Tarrow, 1998), it remains notoriously under-discussed not only in political communication but
also in the field of communication. This gap is particularly remarkable, considering the large number of studies
on ‘international’ issues, and the towering presence of the ‘globalization debate’ in the field of communication
during the past two decades.

2 The glaring exception is Brazil, where particularly the leading newspapers based in the Rio-Sao Paulo have
embraced central tenets of the model of objectivity since the process of the ‘modernization’ of the press in the
1950s (de Abreu, 2002).
The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication
Page 12 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

3 Whereas some scholars have dubbed this trend a ‘left turn’ in the region (Beasley-Murray et al., 2009), oth-
ers have argued that the ideological complexity of these administrations falls outside conventional left/right
categories (de la Torre, 2009). Despite a substantial literature, populism remains an equivocal concept. Un-
like European contexts, Latin American populism does not refer to right-wing, xenophobic political parties.
Instead, it is identified with governments that promote certain economic policies (Keynesianism, distribution-
ism), political ideology (anti-liberalism, anti-party), style of political leadership (hierarchical, charismatic) and
rhetoric (appeals to ‘the people’ and ‘the nation’, and discursive opposition against imperialism and oligarchy).

References
Alfaro, R. M.(2005)Hacia Nuevas Rutas Éticas en Nuestros Medios. Memoria Dela Campaña Ciudadana So-
bre la Ley de Radio y Televisión.Lima: Veeduría Ciudadana de la Comunicación Social.
Alfaro, R. M. (ed.) (2008)Desarrollo? Encuentros y Desencuentros Entre Medios y Ciudadanía.Lima: Aso-
ciación de Comunicadores Calandria.
Alves, R.(2005)‘From Lapdog to Watchdog: The Role of the Press in Latin America's Democratization’, in
H.de Burgh (ed.), Making Journalists.London: Routledge. pp. 181–204.
Bates, R. H.‘Area Studies and the Discipline: A Useful Controversy?’,PS: Political Science and Poli-
tics,(1997)30(2):166–9.
Beasley-Murray, J.,Maxwell, C. andHerschberg, E.‘Latin America's Left Turn: An Introduction’,Third World
Quarterly(2009)30(2):319–30.
Bisbal, M.‘Medios, Ciudadanía y Esfera Pública en la Venezuela de Hoy’,Quorum Académico,(2004)1(1).
Bisbal, M.‘Redescubrir el Valor del Periodismo en la Venezuela del Presente’,Contratexto(2006)14:52–78.
Bonilla, J. I. andGarcía, M. E.‘Nuevas Dinámicas de Representación Política: Espacio Público, Movimientos
Sociales y Redes de Comunicación’,Diálogos de la Comunicación,(1995)42:5–17.
Bonner, M.‘State Discourses, Police Violence and Democratisation in Argentina’,Bulletin of Latin American
Research,(2009)28(2):227–45.
Bourdieu, P.(1999)On Television.New York: New Press.
Calderón, C. A.,Cañizález, A. andMoret, J.‘Los Medios Como Proyección de las Preocupaciones Ciu-
dadanas’,Comunicación,(2008)142:80–93.
Cañizales, A. andCorrea, C.(2003)Venezuela: Situación del Derecho a la Libertad de Expresión e Informa-
ción.Caracas. Espacio Público.
Carabaza, J.,Lozano, J.C.,González, J.,Pasco, L.,Reyes, L.,Berumen, A. andAlvarez, P.(2007)‘Cobertura del
Medio Ambiente en la Televisión Mexicana’,Comunicación y Sociedad 7.
Catalán, C. andSunkel, G.(1989)La Política en Pantalla.Santiago: ILET.
Cerbino, M. (ed.) (2005)Violencia en Los Medios de Comunicación, Generación Noticiosa y Percepción Ciu-
dadana.Quito: FLACSO. http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/726/72620204.pdf
Conaghan, C.(2005)Fujimori's Peru: Deception in the Public Sphere.Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh
Press.
Conaghan, C. andde la Torre, C.‘The Permanent Campaign of Rafael Correa: Making Ecuador's Plebiscitary
Presidency’,International Journal of Press/Politics,(2008)13(3):267–84.
Curran, J. and Park, M. J. (eds.) (2000)De-Westernizing Media Studies.London: Arnold.
de Abreu, A.(2002)A Modernização da Imprensa (1970–2000).Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor.
De la Torre, C.‘Populismo Radical y Democracia en los Andes’,Journal of Democracy,(2009)1:24–37.
Esser, F. and Pfetsch, B. (eds.) (2004)Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Chal-
lenges.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, E. (ed.) (1988)Media and Politics in Latin America: The Struggle for Democracy.Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Fox, E. and Waisbord, S. (eds.) (2002)Latin Politics, Global Media.Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Gill, J. andHughes, S.‘Bureaucratic Compliance with Mexico's New Access to Information Law’,Critical Stud-
ies in Mass Communication,(2005)22(2):121–37.
Gómez, J. C.‘Del Régimen de Comunicación Política del Presidente de Colombia Álvaro Uribe Vélez’,Palabra
Clave,(2005)13:1–27.
The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication
Page 13 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

Gómez, J. C.,Pacheco, A.,Turbay, J. andMatiz, W.‘La Personalización en la Política, Una Práctica a Prueba
de Reformas’,Palabra Clave,(2006)9(2):53–65.
González Bombal, I.(1996)La Visibilidad Pública de las Asociaciones Civiles.Buenos Aires: CEDES.
Gumucio, A.(2001)Making Waves: Participatory Communication for Social Change.New York: Rockefeller
Foundation.
Grebe, R.‘Evo Morales y los Medios’,Chasqui,(2007)98:10–15.
Hall, P. A. andTarrow, S.‘Globalization and Area. Studies: When Is Too Broad Too Narrow?’,Chronicle of High-
er Education,(1998)44:B4-B5.
Hughes, S.‘How Institutional Entrepreneurs Transformed Mexican Journalism’,Harvard International Journal
of Press/Politics,(2003)8(3):87–118.
Hughes, S.(2006)Newsrooms in Conflict: Journalism and the Democratization of Mexico.Pittsburgh, PA: Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh Press.
Hughes, S. andGuerrero, M.‘The Disenchanted Voter: Emotional Attachment, Social Stratification, and Me-
diated Politics in Mexico's 2006 Presidential Election’,The International Journal of Press/Poli-
tics,(2009)14(3):353–75.
Hughes, S. andLawson, C.‘Propaganda and Crony Capitalism: Partisan Bias in Mexican Television
News’,Latin American Research Review,(2004)39(3):81–105.
Hughes, S. andLawson, C.‘The Barriers to Media Opening in Latin America’,Political Communica-
tion,(2005)22(1):9–25.
Kaiser, S.‘Escraches: Demonstrations, Communication and Political Memory in Post-Dictatorial Argenti-
na’,Media, Culture & Society,(2002)24(4):499–516.
Kernell, S.(1997)Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Kodrich, K.‘The Role of State Advertising in Latin American Newspapers: Was the Demise of Nicaragua's
Barricada Newspaper Political Sabotage?’,Bulletin of Latin American Research,(2008)27(1):61–82.
Kowalchuk, L.‘Can Movement Tactics Influence Media Coverage? Health-Care Struggle in the Salvadoran
News’,Latin American Research Review,(2009)44(2):109–35.
Landi, O.(1992)Devórame Otra Vez.Buenos Aires: Planeta.
Larrain, S. andValenzuela, A.(2004)Televisión y Ciudadanía.Santiago: Fucatel.
Lawson, C.(2002)Building the Fourth Estate: Democratization and the Rise of a Free Press in Mexico.Berke-
ley, CA: University of California Press.
Lozano, J. C.(2006)‘Political Advertising in Mexico’, in L. L.Kaid and C.Holtz-Bacha (eds.), The SAGE Hand-
book of Political Advertising.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 259–67.
Luchessi, L.‘Narraciones del Delito: Pánico y Control Social’,Diálogos de la Comunicación,(2007)75:1–8.
Luft, S.(2005)Jornalismo, Medio Ambiente e Amazonia: Os Desmatamentos nos Jornais.São Paulo:
Annablume.
Lugo, J.(2008)The Media in Latin America.Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Maia, R.‘Mediated Deliberation: The 2005 Referendum for Banning Firearm Sales in Brazil’,International Jour-
nal of Press/Politics,(2009)14(3):313.
Mainwaring, S. andPerez-Linan, A.(2005)‘Why Regions of the World are Important: Regional Specificities and
Region-Wide Diffusion of Democracy’,http://kellogg.nd.edu/publications/workingpapers/WPS/322.pdf
Martin-Barbero, J. andRey, G.(1999)Los ejercicios del ver.Barcelona: Gedisa.
Mastrini, G. and Becerra, M. (eds.) (2006)Periodistas y Magnates: Estructura y Concentración de las Indus-
trias Culturales en América Latina.Buenos Aires: Prometeo.
Matos, C.(2008)Journalism and Political Democracy in Brazil.Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Mazzoleni, G. andSchulz, W.“Mediatization” of Politics: A Challenge for Democracy?',Political Communica-
tion,(1999)16(3):247–61.
McCann, J. andLawson, C.‘Presidential Campaigns and the Knowledge Gap in Three Transitional Democra-
cies’,Political Research Quarterly,(2006)59(1):13–22.
Miralles, A. M.(2003)Periodismo, Opinión Pública y Agenda Ciudadana.Bogotá: Norma.
Monsiváis, C. andScherer, J.(2003)Tiempo de Saber. Prensa y Poder en México.Mexico: Editorial Nuevo
Siglo.
Montenegro, S.(2007)Los Medios de Comunicación como Actores Políticos en Nicaragua.Managua: Centro
de Investigación de la Comunicación.
The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication
Page 14 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

Morgenstern, S. and Nacif, B. (eds.) (2002)Legislative Politics in Latin America.Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Muraro, H.(1997)Políticos, Periodistas, y Ciudadanos.Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Palaversich, D.The Politics of Drug Trafficking in Mexican and Mexico-Related Narconovelas,Azt-
lan,(2006)31(2):85–110.
Peruzzotti, E. and Smulovitz, C. (eds.) (2006)Enforcing the Rule of Law: Social Accountability in the New
Latin American Democracies.Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Pinto, J.‘Transparency Policy Initiatives in Latin America: Understanding Policy Outcomes from an Institution-
al Perspective’,Communication Law & Policy,(2009)14(1):41–71.
Plasser, F.‘American Campaign Techniques Worldwide’,Harvard International Journal of Press/Poli-
tics,(2000)5(4):33–55.
Porto, M.‘Political Controversies in Brazilian TV Fiction: Viewers Interpretations of the Telenovela Terra Nos-
tra’,Television & New Media,(2005)6(4):342–59.
Porto, M.‘Framing Controversies: Television and the 2002 Presidential Election in Brazil’,Political Communi-
cation,(2007)24(1):19–36.
Rey, G.(1998)Balsas y Medusas: Visibilidad Comunicativa y Narrativas Políticas.Bogota: CEREC Fundación
Social.
Rey, G.(2003)Ver Desde la Ciudadanía. Observatorios y Veedurías de Medios de Comunicación en América
Latina.http://www.veeduria.org.pe/articulos/rey.htm
Rey, G.(2005)El Cuerpo del Delito.Bogotá: Centro de Competencia en Comunicación para América Latina.
Rincón, O.(2008)Los Tele-Presidentes: Cerca del Pueblo, Lejos de la Democracia.Bogota: Centro de Com-
petencia en Comunicación para América Latina.
Rincón, O.,Bonilla, J.,García, S. andLondoño, A.(2003)Campañas Políticas Presidenciales y Medios de Co-
municación en Colombia 2001–2002.Bogota: FESCOL-Universidad Javeriana.
Rockwell, R. andJanus, N.(2002a)Media Power in Central America.Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Rockwell, R. andJanus, N.‘The Politics of Coercion: Advertising, Media, and State Power in Central Ameri-
ca’,Journalism,(2002b)3(3):331–54.
Rodríguez, C.(2001)Fissures in the Mediascape. An International Study of Citizens' Media.Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Salazar, J. F. andCordova, A.(2008)‘Imperfect Media and the Poetics of Indigenous Video in Latin America’,
in P.Wilson and M.Stewart (eds.), Global Indigenous Media: Cultures, Poetics, and Politics,39–57.Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Sánchez Ruiz, E. E.(2007)Concentración Mediática o Gobernabilidad Democrática?Gobernabilidad
Democrática, Cultura Política y Medios de Comunicación en México.
Sartori, G.(1998)Homo Videns: La Sociedad Teledirigida.Mexico: Taurus.
Schmucler, H. and Mata, M. C. (eds.) (1992)Politica y Comunicación: Hay un Lugar para la Política en la Cul-
tura Mediática?Córdoba: Universidad de Córdoba.
Seele, A. and Peruzzotti, E. (eds.) (2009)Participatory Innovations and Representative Democracy in Latin
America.Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Press/John Hopkins University Press.
Silva, P.‘Doing Politics in a Depoliticized Society: Social Change and Political Deactivation in Chile’,Bulletin of
Latin American Research,(2004)23(1):63–78.
Sinclair, J.(1999)Latin American Television: A Global View.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skidmore, T. (ed.) (1992)Television, Politics, and the Transition to Democracy in Latin America.Washington,
DC: Woodrow Wilson Center.
Stromback, J.‘Four Phases of Mediatization: An Analysis of the Mediatization of Politics’,International Journal
of Press/Politics,(2008)13(3):228–46.
Subite, E. andGutierrez, M.(2006)Espacios de Intermediación en Tiempos de Conflicto: Medios de Comuni-
cación en Bolivia.La Paz: CIPCA CRS.
Sunkel, G. and Geoffroy, E. (eds.) (2001)Concentración Económica de los Medios de Comunicación.Santia-
go: Lom.
Torrico, E. andSandoval, V.(2007)Un Año de la Constituyente en la Prensa.La Paz: Observatorio Nacional de
Medios y PNUD.
Waisbord, S.‘Television and Election Campaigns in Argentina’,Journal of Communica-
The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication
Page 15 of 16
SAGE SAGE Reference
© Holli A

tion,(1994)44(2):125–35.
Waisbord, S.(1996)‘Secular Politics: The Modernization of Argentine Electioneering’, in D.Swanson and
P.Mancini (eds.), Politics, Media, and Modern Democracy.Westport, CT: Praeger. pp. 207–26.
Waisbord, S.(2000)Watchdog Journalism in South America.New York: Columbia University Press.
Waisbord, S.(2009)‘Advocacy Journalism in a Global Context: The “Journalist” and the “Civic” Model’,
in K.Wahl-Jorgensen and T.Hanitzsch (eds.), Handbook of Journalism Studies.New York: Routledge. pp.
371–85.
Waisbord, S. andPeruzzotti, E.‘The Environmental Story that Wasn't: Advocacy, Journalism, and the Ambien-
talismo Movement in Argentina’,Media, Culture & Society,(2009)31(5):691–709.
Wallis, D.‘The Media and Democratic Change in Mexico’,Parliamentary Affairs,(2004)57(1):118–30.

• patrimonialism
• mediatization
• media democracy
• political communications
• news media
• news
• media

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446201015.n35

The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication

Page 16 of 16