Designerly influence on politics and the press: Changing a deadlocked relationship

Abstract

In recent years, political communication and political television debates have become farcical because of the professionalization of political communication. This has resulted in a deadlock between politicians, journalists and citizens, who appear to have fundamentally different goals. Consequently, television debates have become predictable, less focused on political argument, and far removed from their consequences in the daily lives of citizens. Drawing on empirical data from a workshop attended by a diverse set of stakeholders-journalists, producers, politicians, and media students-this paper presents the initial findings on how co-design and design games can take part directly in the 'heat' of democracy and make room for mutual understanding. In addition, the paper argues for new perspectives on design game research by demonstrating how prioritization, selection, and 'reversal of perspectives' can be incorporated into design games. DESIGNERLY INFLUENCE ON POLITICS AND THE PRESS What role could design play in politics and policy-making? How might designers act as political agents in such situations? To investigate these broad questions, we decided to take an approach that differs from what we consider the most obvious ones at present-critical design and design fiction. Instead, we wondered how co-design and design games could be part of the highly explosive political field, where power relations, opinions and 'serious' decision-making are explicit parts of daily life in politics and media. Having previously worked with participatory business innovation, we do not think that for instance policy-making situations are radically different from those seen in companies. However, process and decision-making might take on a different look, and it remains to be seen whether the stakeholders share any goals. At present, political communication is characterised by high-profile politicians that keep a group of spin-doctors in order to steer communication in the direction they want. As this movement of professionalised communication has entered politics, journalists have found it more difficult to ask critical questions that provide new information on any issue. Therefore, one can observe an increased focus from the press on political processes and the private side of the politician instead of the strengths and weaknesses of a specific political argument. Politicians occasionally even admit that before a political debate, they know exactly what to say and in what manner, thus turning such debates into predictable television. Comments by citizens and viewers have shown that they are displeased by politicians' use of rhetorical tricks (trash-talk, numbers without substance and so on), as well as by the journalists' tendency to ask the same 'critical' question again and again, even though they do not receive a new answer (Lakoff 2008; Kock 2011). A comment often made by citizens is that both politicians and journalists act as if they were in a 'kindergarten'. With the rise of social media and the general effects of the Internet revolution, a larger proportion of citizens want to have direct influence; otherwise, they could not care less. When citizens lose interest in politics, television companies have fewer viewers, and politicians can act without considering the consequences of their policies, which potentially could lead to a bigger problem-less democracy. Instead of approaching politicians or political parties, we suggested to the Danish national television company