What happens when the media and politicians put politics aside? In many ways, it’s a strange question to ask. Several observers I would rather say that our politics is becoming far too, well, politicized.
Civility is out of fashion. Controversy is now the place where action and scrutiny gravitate. Rather than coming together to develop workable policies and solutions, politicians and pundits demonize each other and throwing sly insults in the hope of temporarily scoring partisan points.
It is no exaggeration, then, to say that our public sphere is hyperpoliticized. And perhaps it is not surprising that observers across the political spectrum wonder why. “Canadian politics has become so stupid”, worrying that the situation is about to “get worse as the vote draws closer”.
In a recent studyWe have identified a major trend that may contribute to this politicization: the tendency to avoid discussions of policy options, party platforms, ideological positions and ethical debates – the real substance of politics – and to instead view politics as mere entertainment, akin to reality TV.
Although this neglect of political substance in media coverage may not seem as pernicious as hyperpoliticization, we believe that citizens should be no less concerned about it.
The “Golden Age” of Democratic Journalism
Quality public information has long been considered vital element of democracyWithout it, citizens cannot make decisions in their own interests, which compromises the possibility of informed consent, the cornerstone of democracy.
A free and independent press is therefore essential. But the quality of the press is also crucial, because the style and content of media coverage shapes politics. in a complex and important way.
In the aftermath of World War II, Western professional journalism sought to produce a specific type of quality news coverage, often called Golden Age Style — which would provide serious information and analysis on current political issues.
This style was considered far superior to entertainment, commercial, partisan, or propaganda speeches. So news organizations sought to ensure that only this style was used for “serious” and informative news. Yet today, that line is much blurrier than many are willing to admit.

(CP PHOTO)
Infotainment and political news coverage
A useful concept to make sense of this changing situation is that of “infotainment.” This term, which originating from the 1980srefers to the increasing use of entertainment-style framing to present social and political information.
Infotainment has a long history And exists in many formsIn the case of political news, infotainment is coverage that is primarily:
-
Personalized: focusing on the private lives and personal characteristics of politicians;
-
Sensationalized: Using emotional or dramatic narratives, or presenting scandals, conflicts, and electoral developments without analysis or investigation;
-
Decontextualized: Presenting political information without the context necessary to make sense of it, or treating it as a strategic game or horse race.
Some optimistic observers argue that some forms of infotainment may have positive effects and be used, even in newsrooms, to educate the public. Yet these claims tend to rely on a narrow view of engagement that is more concerned with attracting attention than Cultivating a well-informed electorate.
Many therefore suggest that infotainment media coverage generally fails to provide readers with the information and analysis necessary for their role as citizen decision-makers.
Infotainment and Canadian Politics
There is virtually no research on the use of infotainment in Canadian political news coverage. To find out, we analyzed nearly 1,000 election stories published by national and regional newspapers during the 41 days of the 2019 federal election. We rated the presence and intensity of the Golden Age and Infotainment styles on a scale of one to five.
To our great surprise, Our study revealed that more than half (51 percent) of all reports showed significant levels of infotainment, with more than 42 percent showing very high levels (i.e. a rating of four to five on the infotainment scale).
This suggests that infotainment is a major part of Canadian political news coverage — a very worrying finding.
Yet 40% of stories had little or no infotainment characteristics, and nearly 45% scored four or five on the golden age scale. This suggests that while this type of reporting is less common than infotainment, there is still a tradition of golden age political journalism in Canada.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
Looking to the future
The question of how long the golden age style of political journalism will last remains open. Various pressures increase the likelihood that infotainment will continue to develop.
Quality journalism is struggle to survivefacing staff And budget discounts, faster information cycles and increased time pressuresTHE local newspapers closingAnd audience declineAll of these pressures encourage journalists and editors to employ infotainment techniques at the expense of golden-age journalism, which requires far more resources, time and skills.
This trend is now also accelerated by new technologies. Real-time datawhich tracks audience engagement and preferences, increasingly shapes the content of both journalism And political campaign.
Meanwhile, Canada’s political class appears to be adjusting its strategies to capitalize on these trends. Instead of engaging in good-faith debate, politicians appear to be adapting to a superficial infotainment culture, where image selection and sound bites are the new measure of political success.
This is not surprising, as politics, journalism and entertainment are all influence each other through “media cultures”. Successful styles used in one medium are eventually copied by other media and institutions, including Politicians and their strategistsThese convergences are likely to create even more pressure on journalists to adopt an infotainment framing.
What this means for Canadian democracy
Given the structural forces that today oppose quality political debate, there are no simple answers as to how to proceed.
To begin with, we must ensure that when we discuss how to improve our public political discourse, we acknowledge and seek to address the problem of infotainment as much as the problem of hyperpoliticization. The sensational coverage of horse racing and the polarizing controversies of infotainment can, after all, only intensify this politicization.
Journalists should assess whether quoting every word, slogan, or political attack from politicians, which is infotainment-oriented, constitutes quality reporting. Seeking out more diverse and informative voices on election issues could prompt politicians to respond with more detail and substance.
For their part, politicians and their strategists should consider how to effectively share their positions without packaging them in overly simplistic, infotainment-friendly frameworks.
Governments could also better set their priorities media educationso that citizens can reward more informative perspectives. At a minimum, critical media analysis should be a central part of today’s school curricula.
These demands are not trivial, especially when time and resources are so limited and competition for attention is so fierce. But they are far preferable to inaction or, worse, to embracing infotainment. Because either of these solutions would most likely lead to a further decline in the quality of journalism and the very viability of democracy.