Abstract

Research in political science currently utilizes a no-nonsense principle. Little time is invested in complicated theoretical constructions. Only the facts matter. What is examined is the way in which certain ideas and behaviours cohere with other ideas and behaviours, and the explanations offered for this coherenece are usually quite brief. In some cases, the tone used in an explanation can make us suspect that there are complex underlying presuppositions.Some critics seem to base their opinions on a more optimistic liberal view of human nature, while others have a pessimistic view of the quality of journalism, the disappearance of social capital, the short-sightedness of the political parties and the various popular forms of information and communication. Theoretical presuppositions are seldom the immediate focus of discussion. Facts are opposed to facts, since ultimately facts are the only basis for legitimate argument.Indeed, discussions that are not about facts are of little benefit to anyone. Predictions of doom with no basis in reality can hardly lead to a constructive dialogue. Facts, however, are always interpreted facts, and in order to interpret accurately, one needs theory. When actors are considered as individual black boxes who produce a certain output when confronted with a given input, then it is impossible to explain why people who watch a lot of television also tend to believe that they are powerless politically. And it is even more difficult to provide reasons for why viewers of soaps, game shows and sitcoms are more likely to harbour feelings of insecurity than viewers of news programmes or films, particularly since the latter exhibit images of aggression and conflict.Likewise, it remains unclear why commercial broadcasters give more airtime to reports of crime, or why the presentation of political issues in black and white terms is so rewarding at the polls. In this paper, I will first of all present a broad theoretical perspective, and subsequently come back to the facts