The mediatization of the “Islam debate” in The Netherlands and its agenda-setting capability
Cats: Politics|
This paper argues how the mediatization of issues related to the religion of Islam and its manifestations in the Dutch society effected the public debate and how political actors who portrayed themselves as experts, or who were portrayed by the media as experts used this political wave to put their issue on the political agenda.
In general, politicians consider media to be very powerful in influencing public opinion. They know that media have the power to either make or break a politician. Their relationship with media is therefore mostly one of love and hate. Media on the other hand have a more commercial approach to news coverage. They cover those stories that have ‘news value’, whether they are institutional-driver or event-driven.
In their love and hate relation with media, politicians tend to ‘ride the wave’ of certain public debates that receive attention in media. They either do this to show the public that they care about that subject, or because they want to show that their idea’s or political program provide solutions to the issue discussed in the public debate. Moreover they hope that their media appearances could push their cause or issue onto the political agenda. In short, Gadi Wolfsfeld and Tamir Sheafer describe these periods during which politicians use media to draw attention to certain public issue as ‘political waves’.
During these political waves, depending on the issue, media search for actors that are either experts on the subject or for politicians who have a clear opinion about the issue and its possible solutions. But which actors are in the best position to participate? According to Gadi Wolfsfeld and Tamir Sheafer charismatic politicians are most likely to ‘ride the wave’ in ‘open waves’, while specialists are in the best position to participate in ‘restricted waves’. For this last group thematic relevance is most important. The question, however, is whether the distinction between ‘charismatic politicians’ and ‘specialists’ is one correctly made by media.
This question comes to mind when examining the case of the behavior of Dutch media related to issues of oppression of women and apostates in the Dutch Muslim community. In the period of 2002-2008 there were several ‘public debates’ about the oppression of women and apostates within the Dutch Muslim community. Several Dutch politicians at the time were in the news almost on a daily basis, making statements about the religion of Islam, supporting it with arguments they based on the Quran, the Hadith or other Islamic writings.
These politicians, being Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Member of the Dutch parliament for the VVD, liberal party) and in a later period Ehsan Jami (Member of the City Council of Leidschendam- Voorburg for the PvdA, labour party), are both very charismatic personalities according to Wolfsfeld & Sheafer’s description (charismatic politicians are gifted with a combination of “demonstrated skills, performance and talent in the political communication arena”) who know the “rules of the game” and can find their way to the media very well. Instead of approaching them as ‘charismatic politicians’ though, the Dutch media made the public believe that these politicians were in fact scientific experts on issues related to Islam. Whenever an incident occurred which was related to Islamic practices or the effects of it in the Dutch society, these two politicians would be invited to television programs and interviewed on their ideas about the subject. They would then use written sources to support their critical statements about the religion of Islam. They would also give examples from personal experience, since both politicians have an Islamic background. Their personal connection to the religion and the references they made to written sources made the broad public think they were specialists, when in fact they were politicians aiming to put this subject on the political agenda.
But what kind of wave was this public debate? The religion of Islam and the way Muslims live, whether oppressive or not, is one which belongs to a restricted wave. In a restrictive way it is the specialists with thematic knowledge who are most likely to ‘ride the wave’. How then can the behavior of the media towards these two political actors be explained?
From my point of view it was due to the ‘mediatization’ of this subject that made Dutch media choose these political actors as ‘experts’ in order to sharpen the edges of the public debate. The commercial approach of media provides a simple explanation for this decision. When there is much controversy added to a public debate, by for example charismatic figures making critical or perhaps even insulting remarks about the religion of a large group of people living in that country, there would be more people willing to follow that story. The attention span of the media and the public is then stretched and perhaps even more newspapers covering that story are sold. A more important question that rises in this case is whether the mediatization of the subject influenced the political agenda. Walgrave & Van Aelst refer in their article to Eilders who states that the media could influence politics if all media focus on the same issue, frame it in a similar way and do that persistently.
History shows that the Dutch Media, by giving attention to every comment and statement made about the Islam, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, raised the subject to a broad public debate. One could say that the political wave stretched from a restricted wave to an open wave. Hirsi Ali, who at the time was a member of parliament appeared in media and was portrayed as being an expert on issues relating to Islam. Her main subject, female genital mutilation, is one which received much attention in media and created an avalanche of reactions both from the group supporting Hirsi Ali’s idea’s and the group protesting against them.
Due to the mediatization of the subject of ‘oppressive Islamic culture’, supported by Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s “specialist” advocacy in media, the subject reached the parliamentary agenda and eventually resulted in an adaption of a law allowing the GGD to control young women from certain ethnic backgrounds on FMG, as a means of prevention. One could say that the mediatization of the subject, introduced by a politician in the role of a specialist, led to agenda-setting of the subject.
On the other hand, the second example of the politician Ehsan Jami would refute the claim that mediatization of the same subject of ‘oppressive Islam’ could lead to agenda-setting. As in the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the media portrayed Ehsan Jami as a critical expert of Islam displaying his statements about this religion and its negative manifestations in Dutch society. The mediatization of this subject in his case, however, other than in the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, resulted in the same kind of public debate but failed to reach the political or parliamentary agenda.
On the contrary, the media attention in his case shifted from the core debate of Islamic oppressive practices to Ehsan Jami himself. After a period of constant media coverage regarding the same topic, the tone of the media coverage altered portraying him as an opportunist who uses a strategy of ‘Islam bashing’ in order to draw attention to himself, by feeding the public’s fear towards this religion in a post 9-11 society, in order to eventually benefit his own personal political career. Jami himself proceeds his instrumental use of media though, in order to bring across his statements and opinion to the public. The media attention given to the subject, initiated by himself, however, still has not affected the political agenda.
In this example both politicians are charismatic and know the rules of the game, both focus more or less on the same subject, but they reached different effects. Disregarding other factors that could influence the political agenda-setting by Jami, one could perhaps state that the spell surrounding his main subject has worn out in the media.
As it seems, the media has the power to strengthen a public debate by mediatizing an issue and giving sharp-edged politicians the full ‘specialist’ voice of the subject, through which it could even influence the political agenda. Moreover, the media also has the power to magnify a political actor within that same public debate and again portray him as a “specialist”, only then, depending on factors such as the “expiry date” of a debate or the “public attitude” decide to alter the target of its mediatization, influencing the path of agenda-setting. In both cases, the role of the media and its agenda-setting capability should not be underestimated.
