Consideration of the theoretical foundations of political journalism will be incomplete if we restrict ourselves only to the scientific aspects of the topic. It is necessary to touch upon the issue of the relationship between journalism and politics in public practice, which, most likely, will constantly be raised in theoretical discussions, as well as in everyday editorial work, at least as long as both journalism and politics exist in the world. This relationship can be accepted by default, without “provocative” doubts and clarifications. In this case, the entire content of the issue will be reduced to the forms of functioning of both parties in the current time and the benefits they receive.
However, in this topic, one can also find fundamental problems that have to be addressed again and again, as they say, in connection with the changed circumstances. Then new observations and generalizations appear, giving rise to the aforementioned doubts and clarifications. The perception of new circumstances as inevitable is at least reckless imprudence. For example, an analysis of the dynamics of mass media participation in elections leads the researcher to the conclusion that “the mass media, being involved in the political process, increasingly take the place of parties and become effective channels for political mobilization of the electorate.” What acquisitions follow from these status changes for society, subjects of political life, journalism? Benefit or loss do they carry in themselves? Do parties (and politics in general) and journalism have such institutional characteristics that should not be subject to deformation and denial? These questions arise not in the order of criticism of the quoted statement, but in the development of a topic that undoubtedly deserves it.
In the literature, there are thoughts about the impossibility of a complete merger of the press and politics, and they belong to political scientists, and not at all to selfless fighters for the sovereignty of journalism. Thus, it is proposed to differentiate three agendas: public, political and media agendas. This is followed by a conclusion about their fundamentally separate existence: “The content of the media agenda is the closer to the political agenda, the
the authorities are more actively interacting with journalists. This correlation reaches its maximum in those mass media that are completely controlled by the authorities, but never reaches unity, since any media are forced to react in one way or another to the public agenda for … “In this perspective, a complex and interesting play of forces is drawn.
There is no less truth in the words of specialists who insist on the literary genesis of the press, at least in our country. In literature, the thesis, rich in consequences, is actively developing on the close connection of the nascent press with the development of science, knowledge of the world, or, even more broadly, with the idea of the triumph of reason – one of the cornerstones of the philosophy of the Enlightenment [3]. Undoubtedly, a powerful bundle of diverse possibilities, prerequisites and needs was concentrated in the birth of the press.
However, one cannot but admit that modern politics is connected with the press, and this connection is mutually beneficial. Political life feeds journalism with calendar events, the spite of the day, sensational resignations and appointments – in a word, it does not allow it to plunge into a measured, fearless existence. Politicians and politicians, in turn, are also forced to keep fit in front of the skeptical gaze of reporters, flirt with them and treat them as a mouthpiece to the public. Each side has its own interest, egoistic, but persistent and clearly perceived. It is no coincidence that he made his way through the thickness of restrictions even in very distant times.
