When the media don't seem to play along anymore: The risk of politicians' instrumental use of their private lives for campaign purposes by Christina Holtz-Bacha University of Erlangen-Nuremberg and Eva-Maria Lessinger University of Erlangen-Nuremberg and Susanne Merkle University of Erlangen-Nuremberg Paper prepared for presentation at the 2014 conference of the International Political Science Association (IPSA) in Montreal, July 19-24
2 When the media don't seem to play along anymore: The risk of politicians' instrumental use of their private lives for campaign purposes Abstract Former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder capitalized on his private life not only for election campaigns. However, when the media poked their nose into what he regarded as private matters and brought up rumors that he maintained to be incorrect, he went to court in order to stop the media's innuendos. The judgment emphasized that high-ranking politicians also have a right to privacy and even a politician who is not exactly media-shy does not have to accept everything. Nevertheless, the politicians' instrumental use of their private lives for campaign purposes has tempted the media to further push the boundaries as to what is acceptable coverage. In a similar way but with more serious consequences former president Christian Wulff became the victim of his complicity with Germany's biggest newspaper, the tabloid Bild. Compared to Gerhard Schröder, the case of Christian Wulff presented a new dimension by also affecting Wulff's wife who has even taken Google to court to defend her personal rights on the Internet. This paper uses several case studies as a starting point and deals with the risk that politicians run when they open up their private sphere in the interest of their political career and thus invite the media to take an interest in their private lives. "Mr. Sauer wants more Streusel". This was the headline of Germany's most important media website Spiegel.online (Wittrock, 2013) when it reported about the presentation of the 2013 campaign material of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU). The line was taken from a flyer to be distributed during the last weeks of the parliamentary election campaign and it refers to a statement of Chancellor Angela Merkel about her husband who seems to be complaining from time to time about the lack of Streusel on his Streusel cake. The surprise is not so much that Mr. Sauer misses Streusel but rather the fact that Merkel allows a glimpse on her private life. The German chancellor is known for being very secretive when it comes to her private side. However, when Merkel ran for the second time in 2009 her campaign demonstrated that she had learned a lesson. In 2005, she had been accused of having led an ice-cold campaign. The allegations made her understand that a bit of emotion is necessary even for selling such a serious matter as politics. So, four years
3 later, during the campaign in 2009, she opened up and spoke about her biography in interviews. One of the spots that the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) produced for television, focused completely on Merkel. Accompanied by a lot of emotional pictures Merkel talked about her political career, her daily life as chancellor and about her political visions. With tongue-in-cheek, she also mentioned the fact that she had to learn "how important a haircut can be" and thus referred to the continuous discussion of the media about her hair since she started her career in politics. So, when Merkel spoke about her husband a couple of weeks before Election Day 2013, she was serving the expectations of the media and of the voters by not only leading a personalized campaign even in a party-oriented system but also gave in to privatization. Similarly, in a TV spot for the 2013 election, again focusing completely on Merkel, she allowed the camera to zoom in on her face and her wrinkles and thus gave the viewer an impression of intimacy. Personalization privatization Personalization is used here in the sense of an individual/a politician becoming the interpretive pattern standing for complex political matters (Holtz-Bacha, Lessinger, & Hettesheimer, 1998, p. 241). This strategy is used by the political communicators in their self-representation, by the media in their reporting about politics and by voters when constructing their image of the political or when making their voting decision. For the purpose of this paper, we only look at personalization as a strategy of politicians in their self-representation, either in election campaigns or day-to-day politics. Personalization of politics in this sense is probably as old as politics itself. At all times have individuals played an important role in the political business and individuals stood for and symbolized political issues. Previous research in Germany has shown that personalization has neither been increasing over the decades nor is it a continuous strategy. Instead, the focus on candidates seems to be dependent on the particular candidate, her/his popularity in the party and in the electorate and also on the specific political or economic situation during the campaign. Findings are similar for television advertising and media reporting (Holtz-
4 Bacha, 2011; Holtz-Bacha & Lessinger, 2013; Wilke & Leidecker, 2010) Privatization is regarded here as a special form of personalization and denotes the exploitation of the private life by politicians for strategic gain. There are several reasons why politicians talk about their private matters in public. The privatization of politicians, in the sense that the candidates are presented in private roles and environments rather than in their public functions, serves four purposes: humanization, simplification and distraction, emotionalization and the striving for celebrity status. Humanization is a classic image strategy employed by politicians to appear more personable, more like 'you and me' and thus seemingly close and familiar to voters. This strategy is popular with stiff, arrogant or aloof politicians and can frequently be observed in posters or television spots depicting candidates with relatives talking about their family lives. The ultimate aim is to demonstrate an affinity with the electorate in order to counter the suggestion that they either do not care or do not understand ordinary peoples problems and in any case are only interested in their own power. Using privatization to simplify and as a distraction is a common way of dealing with complex political issues that are difficult to convey to the electorate. Political programs and solutions for problems are therefore associated with and symbolized by individuals. The politician comes to embody the program. This is suited to the requirements of the media and of television in particular which struggles to convey politics in an abstract way given its dependence on delivering pictures. The personalization of the political is also a conscious adaptation to voters apparent preference for people rather than programs. In addition, personalization is used to distract attention from uncomfortable issues: certain issues are better avoided, particularly if they are difficult or unpopular. Privatization often accompanies this kind of personalization. The use of privatization as emotionalization is designed to generate sympathy and create a bond between political actors and voters. Certain politicians have also used their private lives in an attempt to establish, maintain and increase their own celebrity status in the belief that fame is a necessary prerequisite for success, particularly with the media. Achieving such exposure may lead to fame but this is not always acquired through positive means or achievements. Celebrity guarantees media attention because it conforms to a key
5 journalistic selection criterion which is prominence. However, the media also plays an influential part in determining who continues to warrant coverage and thus remains among the famous. (See Holtz-Bacha, 2001a, 2004) Falling into the trap From the perspective of politicians, privatization is an obvious strategy, at least for some candidates. Nevertheless, using their private life for self-representation has a flip-side. Independent of the legal specification of the right to privacy, the instrumentalization of the private in the interest of the public image works like an invitation to the media to poke into a politician's private sphere and possibly further push the boundaries as to what can reasonably be reported. Once a politician has opened up the door to his private life and thus extended the invitation to the media, it will become difficult to suddenly shut the door again. In the last years, Germany has seen several cases where politicians fell into the privatization trap. A well-known case even internationally is former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, also often dubbed the 'media chancellor' by the press. Even before he appeared on the national stage, as a politician and then prime minister in the state of Lower Saxony, he and his wife Hiltrud led an open house which also earned the couple the moniker 'the Clintons of Lower Saxony'. Schröder also started bringing his wife into the campaign. His strategy became obvious for instance with joint TV appearances and a campaign poster that showed him together with his wife and the slogan 'Politics isn't everything'. So, the ground was already prepared when he and his wife separated in the spring of 1996. Interest in the following "war of roses" extended way beyond the tabloid press. After the Schröders' divorce the press took great interest in his fourth marriage. Again, in the election campaign 2002, the Social Democrats produced a poster showing Gerhard Schröder with his wife Doris and a claim that read: "How important it is that women can combine having children and follow a career, is something I hear every day. At home." (Picture 1)
6 Picture 1: Campaign 2002 The journalistic fascination in Schröder s private life continued in 2001 when a popular magazine alluded to his alleged fondness for a female bodyguard. The chancellor reacted by going to law to defend his reputation and won an interim injunction from a court in Hamburg. The magazine accepted the decision although the publisher's lawyers argued the editor had been entitled to publish because the chancellor had himself encouraged interest in his personal life by allowing the media open access to the reunion with his long lost cousins. In the election year 2002, there was controversy over whether the chancellor was dyeing his hair. The story originated from a popular magazine feature involving a selfappointed image counsellor recommending that the chancellor should cease colouring his hair in order to show off his greying temples. A government spokesperson felt obliged to issue a statement in which Schröder insisted that he did not dye his hair. The chancellor subsequently applied for an injunction on the story and won a court decision. The press bewilderment at Schröder's reaction was substantial given he had then sued the same magazine he had previously allowed to publish pictures of himself posing in fashionable and expensive Brioni suits on first taking office in 1998.
7 At the outset of 2003 the press once again pushed the boundaries between public and private by speculating about an alleged affair involving the chancellor and a TV journalist. Initially the story had appeared in the UK newspaper Mail on Sunday and had then been seized upon by much of the German media. Schröder sued the German newspaper Märkische Oderzeitung which had taken up the rumor first and obtained an injunction but could do nothing against the British publication. A more recent case concerns the now former German president Christian Wulff. Interestingly, he had been Schröder's opponent in Lower Saxony in two elections but only got elected after Schröder had left the state when he became chancellor. Wulff was elected German president in May 2010. In late 2011, he slid into a two-month scandalization process when Germany's biggest tabloid Bild disclosed irregularities in connection with a private loan Wulff took to finance a new house after he had married for the second time. In order to prevent the reporting about the loan he tried to call Bild's editor-in-chief but because he couldn't reach him, Wulff left a message on the answering machine. In this message Wulff threatened the newspaper by saying that the publication of the story would lead to the "final break" with the publisher. Since he was traveling outside Germany, Wulff also asked Bild to wait with the publication until his return. The whole matter could then be discussed and it would be decided "how to wage the war". He added that Bild would "cross the Rubicon". (Diese Nachricht..., 2012) Bild not only published the story about the dubious loan but also made sure that the president's message to Bild's editor-in-chief became known. It was primarily this message that drove the scandalization process which finally led to Wulff's resignation in early 2012. Independent of the matter that started the whole story, the message on the mailbox revealed that Wulff saw himself in a good working relationship with the newspaper making him believe that he could successfully intervene and prevent the publication of what he thought to be a damaging disclosure. Bild, on the other hand, managed to develop the incidence into a matter of press freedom and to appear as its victim.
8 In addition to the disclosure of the special relationship between the president and the newspaper further revelations brought to light that Wulff over the years obviously struggled very much to make it into the higher circles of society and was therefore amenable to favors from friends that seemed to confirm his celebrity status. After he and his wife separated soon after his resignation Wulff again got attention from the media when he was seen with a young woman at his side thus raising speculations about a new relationship. This time Wulff went to court and obtained an injunction against the people magazine Bunte which had shown the two on its cover asking: "Mr. Wulff, who is this woman at your side?" (Bunte, 2013; Picture 2). The court enjoined the magazine to suggest that Wulff and "Sabine S." were a couple and prohibited further publication of the pictures. Picture 2: Mr. Wulff, who is this woman at your side? The interest of the public vs. the private sphere of politicians The German constitution guarantees freedom of the press and right to privacy. According to the interpretation of the relation of the two fundamental rights none is prevailing over the
9 other. Instead, decisions are made on a by-case basis. Whereas German courts have generally approved a public interest in the private sphere of public figures in a wide sense on the grounds of them being role models for many people, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2004 criticized Germany for insufficient protection of the right to privacy. Other than German legal practice which regards all kinds of celebrities as public figures who have to tolerate the public interest in their private life, the ECHR tends to restrict public figures to politicians only. However, in dealing with different cases pondering freedom of the press and the public interest on one side and right to privacy on the other, the ECHR has also discussed the consequences of public figures actively using the media for their image management but did not come to a final conclusion. The two cases described here concern high-ranking politicians who are public figures and have to tolerate restrictions to their private sphere even according to the more restrictive view of the ECHR. Nevertheless, when Schröder went to court because of the rumors about the chancellor having an affair with a TV journalist, the presiding judge Michael Mauck acknowledged that the reports had invaded Gerhard Schröder's privacy without due public interest and concluded: 'even a politician who is not exactly media-shy does not have to accept everything'. The lawyer defending the newspaper that was sued by Schröder supported his case with interviews that Schröder's wife had given the press telling details of their private life. It remains therefore an open question whether or to what extent politicians forfeit their privacy if they themselves use their private life for strategic purposes. In any case, the temptation is strong for the media to jump on the occasion and push the borderline further and further. Therefore, the strategic benefit for politicians may convert into a trap that they fall in but cannot easily get out again. However, even seemingly callous politicians sometimes give in to the pressure of campaign managers and resort to emotional strategies that show a bit of their private self. To this effect, the chancellor candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and thus Merkel's
10 challenger in the present German election campaign, Peer Steinbrück, he himself rather a dry and rational character, recently had to bring his wife into the campaign to help demonstrate the candidate's softer side. One of her campaign appearances moved the candidate to tears, an event that definitely made the news. Picture 3: The SPD candidate in tears http://www.mopo.de/image/view/2013/5/16/23367356,20143912,highres,1485a0006fe29734.jpg So, for whatever strategy, modern campaigning that adapts to the expectations of the media and the electorate is unconceivable without a splash of emotion. That is why even Angela Merkel revealed the intimate secret of her husband missing more Streusel on his cake and allowed a glance at her private life. The banality of the disclosure, on the other hand, seems to show that she is aware of the fact that politicians always are on a tightrope walk when they open up their private sphere to the media and could easily fall into the privatization trap.
References Bunte. (2013, June 6). Bild. Retrieved on June 6, 2013 from http://www.bild.de/ politik/inland/christian-wulff/geruechte-neue-frau-30705170.bild.html Diese Nachricht sprach Christian Wulff auf die Mailbox. (2012, December 14). Focus. Retrieved on August 6, 2013 from http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/wulff-unterdruck/kunstwerk-zitiert-den-wortlaut-diese-nachricht-sprach-christian-wulff-auf-diemailbox_aid_882121.html Holtz-Bacha, C. (2001a). Das Private in der Politik: Ein neuer Medientrend? Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, (B41-42), 20-26. Holtz-Bacha, C. (2001b). Wahlwerbung als politische Kultur. Parteienspots im Fernsehen 1957-1998. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Holtz-Bacha, C. (2004). Germany: How the private life of politicians got into the media. Parliamentary Affairs, 57, 41-52. Holtz-Bacha, C., & Lessinger, E.-M. (2013, June). How German parties court their voters: An analysis of electoral advertising on television from 1957 to 2009. Paper presented at the 2013 ICA conference in London/UK. Holtz-Bacha, C., Lessinger, E.-M., & Hettesheimer, M. (1998). Personalisierung als Strategie der Wahlwerbung. In K. Imhof & P. Schulz (Eds.), Die Veröffentlichung des Privaten die Privatisierung des Öffentlichen (pp. 240-250). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Wilke, J., & Leidecker, M. (2010). Ein Wahlkampf, der keiner war? Die Presseberichterstattung zur Bundestagswahl 2009 im Langzeitvergleich. In C. Holtz-Bacha (Ed.), Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf. Das Wahljahr 2009 (pp. 339-372). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Wittrock, P. (2013, August 5). Herr Sauer möchte mehr Streusel. Spiegel.online. Retrieved on August 6, 2013 from http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/cdu-stellt-erstewahlplakate-fuer-merkel-vor-a-914889.html 11