It Takes Two to Tango: Electoral Debates, Media Systems, and Their Regulation in the Americas

A Kellogg Work-in-Progress Seminar with Visiting Fellow Julio Juárez Gámiz, Fulbright-Garcia Robles COMEXUS Mexico Studies Chair

In this work, Julio Juárez Gámiz defines electoral debates as a political communication phenomenon that, in order to take place, need to meet a series of conditions that are directly related to normative, structural, and institutional variables. From a deliberative democracy perspective, this work seeks to compare the regulatory frameworks upon which electoral debates take place in Latin America. The paper is rooted on the comparative approach on ‘media systems’ laid out by Hallin and Mancini (2014) and also on Guerrero (2014) further refinement around the evidence of a shared Latin American ‘liberal captured’ media system. The work assumes the occurrence of electoral debates as a useful illustration of the need to rethink old theoretical approaches within the realm of communication studies in order to provide new concepts to approach the study of (a) the degree of political parallelism in the media; (b) journalistic professionalism; (c) the role of the state and degree of intervention in the media system; and (d) the historic development of Latin American media markets. Juárez Gámiz then contributes to a debate originally presented by Waisbord (2014) regarding the absence of new theoretical approaches within communication studies to better understand today’s conditions of media systems in Latin America. In order to do this, his work presents five dimensions through which electoral debates can be compared cross-nationally (i.e. professionalization, sustainability, accountability, accessibility, and quality of deliberation). Finally, the work concludes by presenting five additional components that could strengthen a regional approach to analyze media systems in today’s Latin American context: (1) asymmetric consumer logic and infotainment; (2) weakening ties between journalists and citizens; (3) systemic violence; (4) digital disruption; and (5) populist communication.