Startseite Media malaise or mobilization during repeat elections? Evidence from Israel’s three consecutive rounds of elections (2019–2020)
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Media malaise or mobilization during repeat elections? Evidence from Israel’s three consecutive rounds of elections (2019–2020)

  • Moran Yarchi

    Moran Yarchi Ph.D. is an associate professor and the Head of the Digital Influence & Perceptions specialization at School of Communications, the Head of the Public Diplomacy program, a Senior fellow at the Abba Eban Institute for Diplomacy, and a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) at Reichman University (IDC), Israel. Her main area of research is political communication, especially the media’s coverage of conflicts and terror, public diplomacy, and election campaigns.

    ORCID logo EMAIL logo
    und Tal Samuel-Azran

    Tal Samuel-Azran (PhD, University of Melbourne; MA, New York University) is the Head of the international program at the Sammy Ofer School of Communications. His main fields of research are political communication, new media, public diplomacy and media globalization.

    ORCID logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 24. Februar 2023

Abstract

In 2019–2020, Israel went through three consecutive elections in less than a year on grounds of alleged corruption by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and his lack of ability to form a coalition. This study aims to contribute to analyses of the media mobilization/malaise effect by examining the impact of such a prolonged period of campaigning on citizens’ political behavior. Thus, we conducted six online surveys using a longitudinal sample of Israeli society before and after each election. The analysis found that, despite participants’ testimonies that they were increasingly “tired of dealing with elections,” there was a significant increase in participants’ reported certainty in their vote, news consumption, participation in online political discussions, and level of political efficacy between the elections. Next, a multivariate analysis aiming to explain variations in voters’ political efficacy found that political trust, participants’ reported certainty about their vote, and political interest all explained high levels of political efficacy. The analysis provides one of the strongest reinforcements to date regarding the validity of political mobilization theory, demonstrating its relevance under challenging conditions. We discuss further implications and generalizability of our findings.

About the authors

Prof. Moran Yarchi

Moran Yarchi Ph.D. is an associate professor and the Head of the Digital Influence & Perceptions specialization at School of Communications, the Head of the Public Diplomacy program, a Senior fellow at the Abba Eban Institute for Diplomacy, and a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) at Reichman University (IDC), Israel. Her main area of research is political communication, especially the media’s coverage of conflicts and terror, public diplomacy, and election campaigns.

Prof. Tal Samuel-Azran

Tal Samuel-Azran (PhD, University of Melbourne; MA, New York University) is the Head of the international program at the Sammy Ofer School of Communications. His main fields of research are political communication, new media, public diplomacy and media globalization.

References

Aarts, K., & Semetko, H. A. (2003). The divided electorate: Media use and political involvement. The Journal of Politics, 65(3), 759–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.0021110.1111/1468-2508.00211Suche in Google Scholar

Aharoni, T., Kligler-Vilenchik, N., & Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K. (2021). “Be less of a slave to the news”: A texto-material perspective on news avoidance among young adults. Journalism Studies, 22(1), 42–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.185288510.1080/1461670X.2020.1852885Suche in Google Scholar

Avery, J. M. (2009). Video malaise or virtuous circle? The influence of the news media on political trust. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(4), 410–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161209336.10.1177/1940161209336224Suche in Google Scholar

Blais, A. (2014). Why is turnout so low in Switzerland? Comparing the attitudes of Swiss and German citizens towards electoral democracy. Swiss Political Science Review, 20(4), 520–528. https://doi:10.1111/spsr.1211610.1111/spsr.12116Suche in Google Scholar

Bossetta, M., Segesten, A. D., & Trenz, H. J. (2018). Political participation on Facebook during Brexit: Does user engagement on media pages stimulate engagement with campaigns? Journal of Language and Politics, 17(2), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17009.dut10.1075/jlp.17009.dutSuche in Google Scholar

Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.100854210.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542Suche in Google Scholar

Boyd, R. (1986). Election calendars and voter turnout. American Politics Research, 14(1–2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X860140010610.1177/1532673X8601400106Suche in Google Scholar

Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195090635.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Chang, E. C., & Chu, Y. H. (2006). Corruption and trust: Exceptionalism in Asian democracies? The Journal of Politics, 68(2), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00404.x10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00404.xSuche in Google Scholar

Chang, E., & Golden, M. A. (2010). Sources of corruption in authoritarian regimes. Social Science Quarterly, 91(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00678.x10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00678.xSuche in Google Scholar

Craig, S. C. (1980). The mobilization of political discontent. Political Behavior, 2(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0098989010.1007/BF00989890Suche in Google Scholar

Curran, J., Coen, S., Soroka, S., Aalberg, T., Hayashi, K., Hichy, Z., Iyengar, S., Jones, P., Mazzoleni, G., Papathanassopoulos, S., Rhee, J. W., Rojas, H., Rowe, D., & Tiffen, R. (2014). Reconsidering ‘virtuous circle’ and ‘media malaise’ theories of the media: An 11-nation study. Journalism, 15(7), 815–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/146488491352019810.1177/1464884913520198Suche in Google Scholar

Daoust, J. F., & Péloquin-Skulski, G. (2021). What are the consequences of snap elections on citizens’ voting behavior? Representation, 57(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2020.180444010.1080/00344893.2020.1804440Suche in Google Scholar

Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

De Vries, C. E., & Solaz, H. (2017). The electoral consequences of corruption. Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052715-11191710.1146/annurev-polisci-052715-111917Suche in Google Scholar

Díaz Jiménez, O. F. (2017). Election campaigns, the media and their impact on civic engagement of Mexicans in the 2012 presidential election. Comunicación y Sociedad, 29, 139–164. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2271-894010.32870/cys.v0i29.6302Suche in Google Scholar

Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (2006). Voter learning in the 2004 presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990060830010310.1177/107769900608300103Suche in Google Scholar

Effendi, R., Haryanegara, M. E. A., Sukmayadi, V., & Aziz, F. (2020). Consumption of online political news and political participation of first-time voters. Jurnal Pendidikan Ilmu Sosial, 29(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.17509/jpis.v29i1.1975110.17509/jpis.v29i1.19751Suche in Google Scholar

Ejaz, W. (2018). Investigating malaise and mobilization effects of media use on European identity before and after the Eurozone crisis. Global Media Journal German Edition, 8(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.22032/dbt.35000Suche in Google Scholar

Fackler, T., & Lin, T. M. (1995). Political corruption and presidential elections, 1929–1992. The Journal of Politics, 57(4), 971–993. https://doi.org/10.2307/296039810.2307/2960398Suche in Google Scholar

Fernández-Vázquez, P., Barberá, P., & Rivero, G. (2016). Rooting out corruption or rooting for corruption? The heterogeneous electoral consequences of scandals. Political Science Research and Methods, 4(2), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.810.1017/psrm.2015.8Suche in Google Scholar

Ferraz, C., & Finan, F. (2008). Exposing corrupt politicians: The effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 703–745. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.70310.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.703Suche in Google Scholar

Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 891–913. https://doi.org/10.2307/211118610.2307/2111186Suche in Google Scholar

Furedi, F. (1999). Consuming democracy: Activism, elitism and political apathy. The European Science and Environment Forum online, 15, 1–18.Suche in Google Scholar

Garman, S. (2017). Election frequency, choice fatigue, and voter turnout. European Journal of Political Economy, 47, 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2016.12.00310.1016/j.ejpoleco.2016.12.003Suche in Google Scholar

Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.xSuche in Google Scholar

Gil de Zúñiga, H., Ardèvol-Abreu, A., & Casero-Ripollés, A. (2021). WhatsApp political discussion, conventional participation and activism: Exploring direct, indirect and generational effects. Information, Communication and Society, 24(2), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.164293310.1080/1369118X.2019.1642933Suche in Google Scholar

Green, M. (2020). Exposure to political news via media and political trust in South Africa: A quantitative study [Master’s thesis]. Stellenbosch University.Suche in Google Scholar

Hansen, K. M., & Pedersen, R. T. (2014). Campaigns matter: How voters become knowledgeable and efficacious during election campaigns. Political Communication, 31(2), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.81529610.1080/10584609.2013.815296Suche in Google Scholar

Hanson, G., Haridakis, P. M., Cunningham, A. W., Sharma, R., & Ponder, J. D. (2010). The 2008 presidential campaign: Political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. Mass Communication and Society, 13(5), 584–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.51347010.1080/15205436.2010.513470Suche in Google Scholar

Hibbing, J., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2001). What is it about government that Americans dislike? Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Holtz-Bacha, C. (1990). Videomalaise revisited: Media exposure and political alienation in West Germany. European Journal of Communication, 5(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/026732319000500110.1177/0267323190005001005Suche in Google Scholar

John, N. A., & Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2015). ‘I don’t like you any more’: Facebook unfriending by Israelis during the Israel–Gaza conflict of 2014. Journal of Communication,65(6), 953–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.1218810.1111/jcom.12188Suche in Google Scholar

Jung, N., Kim, Y., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 14(4), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.49613510.1080/15205436.2010.496135Suche in Google Scholar

Kostelka, F., & Wuttke, A. (2017, August 31–September 3). Does more democracy kill participation? Election frequency and voter turnout in Canada and Germany [Conference presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, United States.Suche in Google Scholar

Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), 30–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041400103400100210.1177/0010414001034001002Suche in Google Scholar

Moy, P., & Pfau, M. (2000). With malice toward all? The media and public confidence in democratic institutions. ABC-CLIO.Suche in Google Scholar

Moy, P., Torres, M., Tanaka, K., & McCluskey, M. R. (2005). Knowledge or trust? Investigating linkages between media reliance and participation. Communication Research, 32(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365020427139910.1177/0093650204271399Suche in Google Scholar

Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540505145210.1017/S0003055405051452Suche in Google Scholar

Newton, K. (1999). Mass media effects: Mobilization or media malaise? British Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 577–599. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712349900028910.1017/S0007123499000289Suche in Google Scholar

Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511609343Suche in Google Scholar

Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511973383Suche in Google Scholar

Ognyanova, K., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2015). Political efficacy on the internet: A media system dependency approach. In Communication and information technologies annual, vol. 66 (pp. 3–27). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.10.1108/S2050-206020150000009001Suche in Google Scholar

O’Keefe, G. J. (1980). Political malaise and reliance on media. Journalism Quarterly, 57(1), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990800570011810.1177/107769908005700118Suche in Google Scholar

Overby, L. M., & Barth, J. (2009). The media, the medium, and malaise: Assessing the effects of campaign media exposure with panel data. Mass Communication and Society, 12(3), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/1520543080246109510.1080/15205430802461095Suche in Google Scholar

Peters, J. G., & Welch, S. (1980). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections. The American Political Science Review, 74(3), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.2307/195815110.2307/1958151Suche in Google Scholar

Pinkleton, B. E., Austin, E. W., & Fortman, K. K. (1998). Relationships of media use and political disaffection to political efficacy and voting behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/0883815980936443310.1080/08838159809364433Suche in Google Scholar

Pharr, S. J., & Putnam, R. D. (2000). Disaffected democracies: What is troubling the trilateral countries? Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691186849Suche in Google Scholar

Powell, G. B., Jr. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. Yale University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Rahat, G., Hazan, R. Y., & Ben-Nun Bloom, P. (2016). Stable blocs and multiple identities: The 2015 elections in Israel. Representation, 52(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2016.119059210.1080/00344893.2016.1190592Suche in Google Scholar

Reed, S. R. (1996). Political corruption in Japan. International Social Science Journal, 48(3), 395–405.10.1111/1468-2451.00040Suche in Google Scholar

Rundquist, B. S., Strom, G. S., & Peters, J. G. (1977). Corrupt politicians and their electoral support: Some experimental observations. American Political Science Review, 71(3), 954–963. https://doi.org/10.2307/196010010.1017/S0003055400265179Suche in Google Scholar

Robinson, M. J. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise: The case of “The Selling of the Pentagon”. American Political Science Review, 70(2), 409–432. https://doi.org/10.2307/195964710.2307/1959647Suche in Google Scholar

Rodríguez, G. R., & Fernández-Vázquez, P. (2011). Las consecuencias electorales de los escándalos de corrupción municipal, 2003–2007 [The electoral consequences of the municipal corruption scandals, 2003–2007]. Foundation Alternativas.Suche in Google Scholar

Salzman, R. (2016). News media consumption and political behavior in Latin America. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 7(2), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X150070020310.1177/1866802X1500700203Suche in Google Scholar

Schleiter, P., & Tavits, M. (2016). The electoral benefits of opportunistic election timing. The Journal of Politics, 78(3), 836–850.10.1086/685447Suche in Google Scholar

Schleiter, P., & Tavits, M. (2018). Voter reactions to incumbent opportunism. The Journal of Politics, 80(4), 1183–1196. https://doi.org/10.1086/69875810.1086/698758Suche in Google Scholar

Schuck, A. R. (2017). Media malaise and political cynicism. In P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner, & L. van Zoonen (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1–19). Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0066Suche in Google Scholar

Seligson, M. A. (2006). The measurement and impact of corruption victimization: Survey evidence from Latin America. World Development, 34(2), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.03.01210.1016/j.worlddev.2005.03.012Suche in Google Scholar

Skrivanek, S. (2009). The use of dummy variables in regression analysis. More steam. https://www.moresteam.com/WhitePapers/download/dummy-variables.pdfSuche in Google Scholar

Smith, A. (2003). Election timing in majoritarian parliaments. British Journal of Political Science, 33(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712340300018810.1017/S0007123403000188Suche in Google Scholar

Stockemer, D., LaMontagne, B., & Scruggs, L. (2013). Bribes and ballots: The impact of corruption on voter turnout in democracies. International Political Science Review, 34(1), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251211141982410.1177/0192512111419824Suche in Google Scholar

Strömbäck, J., & Shehata, A. (2010). Media malaise or a virtuous circle? Exploring the causal relationships between news media exposure, political news attention and political interest. European Journal of Political Research, 49(5), 575–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01913.x10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01913.xSuche in Google Scholar

Thorson, K., Vraga, E. K., & Klinger-Vilenchik, N. (2014). Don’t push your opinions on me: Young citizens and political etiquette on Facebook. In J. A. Hendricks, & D. Schill (Eds.), Presidential campaigning and social media: An analysis of the 2012 campaign (pp. 1–40). Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Turnbull‐Dugarte, S. J. (2022). Do opportunistic snap elections affect political trust? Evidence from a natural experiment. European Journal of Political Research, 62(1)), 308–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.1253110.1111/1475-6765.12531Suche in Google Scholar

Valentino, N. A., Gregorowicz, K., & Groenendyk, E. W. (2009). Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation. Political Behavior, 31(3), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9076-710.1007/s11109-008-9076-7Suche in Google Scholar

Tsfati, Y., Cohen, J., Dvir-Gvirsman, S., Tsuriel, K., Waismel-Manor, I., & Holbert, R. L. (2021). Political para-social relationship as a predictor of voting preferences in the Israeli 2019 elections. Communication Research, 49(8), 1118–1147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650221103282210.1177/00936502211032822Suche in Google Scholar

Vivyan, N., Wagner, M., & Tarlov, J. (2012). Representative misconduct, voter perceptions and accountability: Evidence from the 2009 House of Commons expenses scandal. Electoral Studies, 31(4), 750–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.06.01010.1016/j.electstud.2012.06.010Suche in Google Scholar

Wolfsfeld, G., Yarchi, M., & Samuel-Azran, T. (2016). Political information repertoires and political participation. New Media & Society, 18(9), 2096–2115. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144481558041310.1177/1461444815580413Suche in Google Scholar

Yair, O., Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R., & Dotan, Y. (2020). Can institutions make voters care about corruption? The Journal of Politics, 82(4), 1430–1442. https://doi.org/10.1086/70850410.1086/708504Suche in Google Scholar

Yarchi, M., Wolfsfeld, G., & Samuel-Azran, T. (2021). Not all undecided voters are alike: Evidence from an Israeli election. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.10159810.1016/j.giq.2021.101598Suche in Google Scholar

Appendix

Table 6:

Correlations between the main variables.

News consumption TM – E2

News consumption TM – E3

Political trust – E1

Political trust – E3

Digital political discussions – E1

Digital political discussions – E2

Digital political discussions – E3

Certainty in vote – E1

Certainty in vote – E2

Certainty in vote – E3

Political efficacy – E1

Political efficacy – E3

News consumption TM – E1

.481***

.467***

.329***

.166***

.353***

.257***

.216***

 .143***

 .046

 .056

.062

.114**

News consumption TM – E2

.508***

.202***

.088*

.235***

.256***

.164***

 .120**

 .033

–.023

.096*

.124**

News consumption TM – E3

.178***

.156***

.191***

.173***

.213***

 .113**

 .099*

 .135***

.079

 0.99*

Political trust – E1

.481***

.135***

.087*

.041

 .118***

 .127***

 .089*

.255***

.274***

Political trust – E3

.109**

.154***

.257***

 .050

 .148***

–.003***

.305***

.275***

Digital political discussions – E1

.498***

.414***

 .041

–.047

–.003

.080*

.161***

Digital political discussions – E2

.519***

–.057

–.051

 .015

.075

.099*

Digital political discussions – E3

–.094*

–.079

–.006

.148***

.102*

Certainty in vote – E1

 .391***

 .318***

.040

.019

Certainty in vote – E2

 .473***

.031

.053

Certainty in vote – E3

.040

.125**

Political efficacy – E1

.462***

Table 7:

Demographic information in our surveys.

April 2019 –

before

April 2019 –

after

September 2019 –

before

September 2019 –

after

March 2020 –

before

March 2020 –

after

Age

M = 37.09

SD = 13.54

M = 38.39

SD = 13.90

M = 39.08

SD = 13.87

M = 39.27

SD = 13.69

M = 39.52

SD = 13.93

M = 40.44

SD = 14.13

Gender

53.4 % women

50.2 % women

52.7 % women

51.7 % women

54.1 % women

52.9 % women

Education

M = 4.08

SD = 1.25

M = 4.11

SD = 1.24

M = 4.17

SD = 1.24

M = 4.17

SD = 1.23

M = 4.18

SD =1.24

M = 4.18

SD = 1.23

Political leaning

M = 4.75

SD = 2.43

M = 4.65

SD = 2.35

M = 4.57

SD = 2.32

M = 4.54

SD = 2.32

M = 4.78

SD = 2.34

M = 4.75

SD = 2.32

Published Online: 2023-02-24
Published in Print: 2024-11-06

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 26.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/commun-2022-0041/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen