Discussions about the role of communication in democracy traditionally take their starting point in the nation-state, where elite newspaper and television provide citizens with political information, contribute to a feeling of community, and facilitate a national public sphere. Recently, technological developments, commercialization, and the emancipation of the audience have led to a fragmentation of media use and put the journalistic profession under pressure. At the same time, globalization and the emergence of supranational institutions have challenged the importance of the nation-state. These changes challenge the traditional understanding of the role of political communication in the democratic process, a theme that is central to the new books by Francisco Seoane Pérez and by Pablo Boczkowski and Eugenia Mitchelstein.

Pérez’s Political Communication in Europe deals with the gap between the European Union and European citizens. When French and Dutch voters rejected the European Constitution in referenda in 2005, it became clear that many European citizens feel disconnected from European institutions. Given the success of Euroskeptic parties during the 2014 European Parliamentary elections, this remains a relevant issue. Pérez takes on the claim that this disconnection is due to a “communications gap,” created by failing public relations for the EU institutions, Euroskeptic journalists, and national leaders who attribute blame to the EU for decisions for which they are coresponsible. The book argues convincingly that not all problems are communication problems, and that the real explanations for the lack of public engagement are the cultural and structural characteristics of the EU.

Inspired by the work of Jürgen Habermas and Carl Schmitt, Pérez argues that the European Union is distant and disengaging due to a lack of domesticization (common identity among the citizens and lack of identification with the rulers) as well as a lack of politicization: “[T]he EU is about diplomatic compromise and technocracy, not about the fray of ideological clashes that characterizes politics in national democracies” (p. 1). This argument is supported by in-depth interviews, observations, and a content analysis of regional newspapers in pro-EU Galicia and EU-skeptic Yorkshire.

Pérez should be applauded for the thorough theoretical grounding of his argument and for bringing the politics back into the discussion about political communication in the EU. Nonetheless, the book somewhat overstates its case by presenting a bit of a straw man version of the communication deficit argument. In public debate, journalists and politicians may have sometimes taken the full blame for the lack of public engagement with European institutions. However, the academic literature on the communication deficit is more nuanced than the version of the deficit presented in the book, and in the literature the communication deficit is hardly ever seen as the only cause of public disengagement. More importantly, the literature on the communication deficit has extensively discussed the usefulness of well-known political communication concepts in the EU context. Pérez could have made a stronger argument by building upon and engaging more directly this literature.

This applies first of all to the domesticization deficit. Others have questioned the need for a public sphere or a common identity in order for democracy to work. Marianne Van de Steeg (“Rethinking the Conditions for a Public Sphere in the European Union,” European Journal of Social Theory 5 [November 2002]: 499–519), for example, has argued that it is better to speak of European public discourse than of an European public sphere, since the concept of the public sphere is often discussed in too rigid terms, not allowing for flexibility and placing too much emphasis on a common language and communication within national borders. Following this line of reasoning, an engaged Europe does not require one European public sphere, as debate about the EU within the individual states is just as important. Although some of these arguments are mentioned in the text, the nation-state is the main point of reference.

This point also becomes apparent in the operationalization of politicization. Empirically, the book shows that politicization about the EU along ideological lines is low, even in the EU-positive Galician region. However, to conclude that political debate is absent and that this explains the absence of a European engagement would be rather sharp. Debate about the EU is more likely to take place along other conflict lines, such as between different levels of government, different member states, or different visions of Europe.

In defense of the author, it has to be noted that most of these limitations are also mentioned in the text, leaving no doubt that the concepts of domesticization and politicization help to explain the European people’s disengagement with European institutions. Nevertheless, this point would have been stronger if, rather than taking the nation-state as an implicit frame of reference, these concepts had been adapted further to the different reality of the European Union.

Where Francisco Seoana Pérez studies the gap between citizens and European institutions, Pablo Boczkowski and Eugenia Mitchelstein’s The News Gap addresses another political communication gap: the divergence between the preferences of journalists and their audiences. Using the stories that journalists place at the top of the online news agenda as proxy for journalistic preference, and looking at the most-read online articles as a proxy for audience tastes, the authors convincingly show that there is a sizable gap between the preferences of journalists and audiences for public affairs news. The book shows that this gap is present in several countries around the world. Contrary to what others have suggested, the gap cannot be closed by using new storytelling formats like soft news or user-generated content, which present public affairs news in a more enticing way.

It is likely that the news supply–demand gap has been a regular feature of journalism for decades. However, as the authors argue, the meaning of the gap has changed. In the past, elite media had a strong market position and audiences had limited possibilities to tune out. At present, news organizations are under more commercial pressure, and the growth of available channels has made it easier for audiences to avoid public affairs news. News organizations closely monitor the tastes of the audiences, which has “made consumers’ preferences evident in the newsroom and thus much harder for journalists to ignore than in the past” (p. 11).

Given the changed media environment, how should we conceive of this gap normatively? On the one hand, one could argue that the persistence of the gap is a positive sign, as it shows that the professional standards still rule news decisions. This interpretation is also confirmed in interviews with journalists who argue that for the moment, the “logic of the occupation trumps that of the market” (p. 79). An interesting nuance to the story is presented by the finding that the supply–demand gap narrows in times of crisis and during elections. When it matters, the audience does pay attention to public affairs news. The consumers “move in and out of rational ignorance in a pattern that falls under the notion of monitorial citizenship” (p. 145).

On the other hand, the authors seem to see the gap in negative terms, arguing that it now “threatens the public service mission of mainstream news organizations” (p. 21). In Chapter 6, they address the possible negative implications of the news gap for the agenda-setting function of the media, the information function, and the watchdog function, as well as for the possibility of providing a public sphere. Although each point is not discussed as thoroughly as one could wish, the authors raise important questions and give ample food for thought.

Unfortunately, the normative discussion about the implications of the news gap is limited by the sharp distinction made between the logic of the occupation equated with public affairs news, on the one hand, and the logic of the market which implies nonpublic affairs news, on the other. Although online audiences may prefer nonpublic affairs news over public affairs news, recent studies have shown that public affairs still make up a large part of people’s news diets and that most people rely on both online and traditional news sources. People who get their political information primarily from the Internet are more interested in being entertained than in being informed. This suggests that there might be a spillover from exposure to nonpublic affairs to public affairs news (e.g., Damian Trilling and Klaus Schönbach, “Skipping Current Affairs: The Non-users of Online and Offline News,” European Journal of Communication 28 [no. 1, 2013]: 35–51). It is true that people have more control over the topics they read about online than in newspapers or see on television news, which traditionally offer a mix of public affairs and nonpublic affairs news. Nevertheless, people still largely turn to the online versions of traditional news outlets when they look for news. This could indicate that they value this mix of public affairs and nonpublic affairs news.

Thus, the logic of the occupation and the logic of the market are not necessarily in contradiction, and catering online news supply to the tastes of the audience does not necessarily have to imply a doomsday scenario whereby public affairs news is abandoned. The book could have benefited from a deeper discussion of the interviews that the authors conducted with online news users. This would have given more context to the important findings presented in the book and allowed for a deeper discussion of the implications of the supply–demand gap.

Both Political Communication in Europe and The News Gap are timely publications that pose the right questions, do not shy away from addressing normative questions, and dare to take a stand. The field needs this type of work to drive the debate forward toward a better understanding of the changing role of communication in politics.