This article compares the mediatization of public agencies in Australia and the Netherlands.
In both countries, public sector reforms in the 1990s have led to substantial levels of autonomy
for many executive and regulatory agencies. This might theoretically have implications
for the ways in which agencies are treated by the media and conversely for the ways in which
they manage their media environments strategically. The formal autonomy of agencies makes
it more likely that journalists address them directly, that their executives feature in media reporting,
and that agencies pursue strategic objectives through communication strategies. Their
persisting dependence on the political process, however, means there are apparent risks involved
in strategic communication via the news media. This article assesses if and to what
extent public agencies in Australia and the Netherlands
have become mediatised, i.e. to what extent they have adapted their structures
and processes in a way to be able to manage their media environments effectively.
Empirically, the analysis is based on content analyses of
media coverage and organizational websites, interviews with chief executives and their senior
policy advisors, a small-N questionnaire, and focus groups with senior participants from
agencies in both countries. The article shows that (and in what ways) the Australian agencies are more mediatised than the Dutch ones. Respondents from Australian agencies had received
more media training, invested more resources in media monitoring, had to handle more critical
media attention, operated with larger levels of communicative coordination, and generally
made more strategic use of the media. Simultaneously and surprisingly, however, respondents
from Dutch agencies reported more media-related stress. These differences are discussed, notably
with respect to the differences between the political systems of both countries.
