Think tanks in Denmark Media visibility and Network Relations

Think tanks in Denmark Media visibility and Network Relations Paper prepared for the ECREA 2014-conference By: Professor, PhD, Mark Blach-Ørsten, University of Roskilde (oersten@ruc.dk) & Associate Professor, PhD, Nete Nørgaard Kristensen, University of Copenhagen (netenk@hum.ku.dk) Introduction Special interest think tanks have a long history in countries such as the US, Great Britain and Germany but have only recently entered the public and political arena in Denmark. This entry is closely associated with the weakening of societal corporatism in Denmark since the 1980 s and 1990 s, which have necessitated that actors seeking to influence political decisions making, such as interest groups, have had to find new ways of influencing policy making (Rommetvedt et al., 2012). Studies of special interest groups in Denmark have pointed towards three important arenas of influence for organized interest: the Parliament, the administration and the news media (Binderkrantz et al., 2012). However, such studies have until now not included think tanks. In our study we, first and foremost, analyze the two most prominent advocacy think tanks in Denmark, the liberal think tank CEPOS and the social democratic think thank the Economic Council of the Labor Movement (ECLM), and their influence on two of the three arenas: the media arena and the administrative arena. Theoretically, we draw on theories of neo-corporatism (Rommetvedt et al., 2012) and mediatization (Hjarvard, 2013; Strömbäck & Esser, 2014), and argue that media visibility and attention have become increasingly important for political actors seeking to influence decision makers (Rich & Weaver, 2000), but that corporatist networks and access to the administrative sphere are also still important arenas of influence (Binderkrantz et al., 2012). In the empirical study of the media arena in this paper we analyse the full-yearly coverage of the selected think thanks in the three of the largest Danish broadsheet newspapers in two selected years 2006 to 2013 (n = 1696 news items), since especially national broadsheets in a Danish context continue to play an important role as agenda-setters (e.g., Lund et al., 2009). For the study of the administrative arena we have used a database containing the members of all (by January 2014 active), nationally relevant boards. Thereby containing the boards of the top corporations, all state committees and councils, all boards and subcommittees of nationally represented interest group, and several formal and informal networks. The unit of analysis is the ap- 1

pearance of a member of the board or advisory board of the selected think tanks, in any of these nationally relevant boards. Our study shows that both CEPOS and The ECLM are very active and visible in the media, but that the media s coverage of these think tanks to some extent confirms the repoliticization of Danish newspapers, which others have pointed to (e.g., Hjarvard, Kristensen & Ørsten, 2004; Esmark & Ørsten, 2006; Binderkrantz & Christensen, 2013; Hjarvard & Kristensen, 2014). That is, that the Danish newspapers, traditionally closely linked to the political parties (e.g., Allern & Ørsten, 2011), are to some extent politically biased in their coverage of the two think tanks. Our network analysis of boards and committees shows that the social democratic think tank is very well connected to state, government, and organizations mirroring a classical corporatist network structure, whereas the liberal think tank has much weaker links to state and government being outside the corporatist structure. De-corporatization and the new terrain for political actors Think Tanks are a new phenomenon in a Danish political context. Although well-known both internationally and in our neighbouring countries Sweden and Norway, Denmark only got its first think tank have a think tank until the year 2004. Today the number of thinks tanks, depending on how you define them, may be as high as 34. 1 That think tanks are now playing an increasingly important role in the Danish public and political debate (Kelstrup, 2014) is no coincidence. Recent research shows that as the traditional corporatist structure, i.e. that of integrating employers associations, trade unions, and other interest groups in the policy making process, is in decline in Denmark. Indeed throughout Scandinavia, political actors seeking to influence political decision making have had to adjust and find new and alternative ways of gaining public and political influence (Rommetvedt et al., 2012; Tyllström, 2013, Binderkrantz et. al., 2013). In a study on corporatism in Denmark and Norway from 1980 to 2005 Rommetvedt et al. (2012: 46) conclude that: Interest group participation in policy preparing committees has declined dramatically since the early 1980s, and today political decisions are rarely prepared in corporatist committees. Similar Swedish studies argue, along the same lines, that: ( ) the Swedish political system ( ) has undergone a significant decorporatization since the 1990s in which corporatist institutions have lost their influence (Tyllström, 2013:21). All in all these studies argue that evidence suggests that the so-called Scandinavian Model is not what it used to be. 1 See http://gotothinktank.com/dev1/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/gotoreport2013.pdf, p. 22, and last retrieved 19. September 2014. 2

These studies also imply that the process of de-corporatization has led to several important changes in political influence and decision-making. First of all de-corporatization has occasioned what Rommetvedt et al. (2012) name the revival of Parliament. This means that the Parliaments have become more active, influential, and competitive, but also that the outcome of the decision making process has become more uncertain since the political opposition in many instances has succeeded in changing or amending government policy in ways the government did not foresee or intend (Rommevedt et. al. 2012: 477). As part of the revival of Parliament, civil servants in the ministries have also become increasingly part of the policy preparing process. Thus, for political actors outside of government, parliament, and the ministries the process of de-corporatization has led to increasing uncertainty as to the outcome of parliamentary decision-making. As a consequence a new strategic terrain for those seeking to influence political decision making has emerged (Rommevedt et. al., 2012). One part of this new terrain consists of the rise of lobbying and PR (Rommevedt et. 2012; Tyllström, 2013) Since Parliament and civil servants have become more powerful, it has also become more important for organized interests to seek to influence public policy making via these channels. Thus, increased political lobbyism directed at civil servants, government and parliament has been observed in all Scandinavian countries (Tyllström, 2013; Rommevedt et al., 2012). Another consequence is the increased focus by political actors on strategic political advocacy through the news media (Binderkrantz & Christensen, 2013; Tyllström, 2013). Advocacy can here be understood as the building of public opinion around an issue through the news media (Tyllström, 2013). Thus, this kind of advocacy means preparing press releases and talking to journalist both off and on the record, but this media advocacy is often complemented with other activities, such as the direct lobbying of politicians, civil servants, etc. A third development that may be seen as part of this new strategic terrain is the rise of the think tank. As mentioned Denmark only recently saw the introduction of the first think tank, but both Tyllström (2013) and Kelstrup (2014) point out that Europe as a whole has seen an explosion in think tanks in recent years (Tyllström, 2013:21), and the news media are one important arena for think tanks in general to practice political advocacy. But whereas news media advocacy by special interest groups (e.g., business groups, unions, organizations of public institutions, etc.) and, to some extend their lobbyism, have already been the focus of some research (e.g., Binderkrantz, 2012, Binderkrantz et al. 2013), the rise of the think tank in the Danish political and public debate has so far been the subject of less scholarly attention. 3

Visibility, political influence and the news media From the studies mentioned above, but also from studies on both visibility (Thompson, 1995, 2005) and the mediatization of politics (Ørsten, 2004; Hjarvard, 2013; Strömbäck & Esser; 2014), it is clear that with the decline of corporatism the news media as an arena of political influence has become increasingly important. Addressing the change in Danish corporatist structure in the late 1980s Pedersen (1989) stated that the bargaining and decision making process that used to take place behind the closed doors of the corporatist committees to an increasingly degree now took place in the news media (Ørsten, 2005). Indeed Thompson (1995, 2005) has argued that the increasing visibility of public life is to be understood as one of the most important structural changes in modern society, transforming public life from face-toface interaction to mediated quasi-interaction. In his work, Thompson outlines a general theory of mediated visibility that analyzes how the development in communication media has changed social interaction in modern societies. To bring out the significance of this change Thompson focuses on the relationship between visibility and political power, arguing that the media has become a central arena for the battle for power. Indeed he states that mediated visibility is not just a vehicle through which aspects of social and political life are brought to the attention of others: is has become the principal means by which social and political struggles are articulated and carried out (Thompson, 2005: 49). In much the same way the mediatization of politics thesis argues that western societies to an increasing degree is submitted to, or becomes dependent on, the media and their logic (Hjarvard, 2008:14). In fact Hjarvard argues that despite the decline of the party press in the Nordic countries during the 20th century, we have in recent years witnessed a re-politicization of the news media, which have turned into an opinion industry, meaning that the media s contribution to the formation of public opinion becomes institutionalized as a permanent feature of modern politics, and the media no longer solely reflect politics, but become intimately involved in the very production of politics (Hjarvard, 2013: 52). In this new environment political actors including politicians, their spin doctors, but also trade unions, special interest groups, NGO s, business corporations, public bureaucracies, etc. center much of their activities on the news media (Binderkrantz & Christiansen, 2013). In a large study on Danish special interest groups, Binderkrantz et al. (2013) for instance argue that special interest groups in theory can be active in three different arenas of political influence: the administrative arena, the parliamentary arena and the media arena, but they also argue that the media arena has become an increasingly important arena (Binderkrantz et. al. 2012:4). Binderkrantz et. al (2013: 183) further state that: In line with the mediatization of 4

politics, decisions makers have become increasingly sensitive to the news ( ). A prominent media presence provides an opportunity to effect or even shape the political agenda and influence the content of ongoing debates as well as political decisions. When it comes to think tanks the question of access to the media arena is also central, even though think tanks can also be active in the other arenas, depending on the type of think tank (see below). On the subject of think tanks and media visibility in general Rich & Weaver (2000: 81) write: Media visibility has become an especially important priority for nongovernmental research organizations whose principal mission is to produce and promote their expertise among policymaker ( ) Policymakers are known to be influenced by and to pay attention to issues and ideas covered by the news media (Cook, 1989) ( ) media visibility of research organizations is often assessed as a proxy for organizational viability and success. But that special interest groups and think tanks are successful in gaining media attention, as the studies of both Binderkrantz et al. (2013) and Rich & Weaver (2000) suggest, has not only got to do with the structural changes in political decision making. Indeed both argue that special interest groups and thinks tanks are in possession of a number of more general attributes that interact favorably with the way in which the news media as an institution (Cook, 1998; Ørsten, 2005) understands its role in society and organizes it work. At the most general level, the news media in Denmark, as well as the rest of Scandinavia, act as the director and interpreter of the public and political debate (Allern & Blach- Ørsten, 2011). A clear political priority given to public service television as well as direct and in-direct state subsidies for the press have made the news media in Scandinavia less vulnerable to technological and economic changes compared to, for instance, the US news media (Blach-Ørsten, 2013). Thus, the news media maintains a high focus on national politics and national political actors as part of its political and democratic obligation to further public debate (Esmark & Ørsten, 2006). This also means that the news media actively compete for the best political stories, a fact that many types of increasingly professionalized news sources have exploited in recent years (Allern, 2001; Kristensen, 2004; Blach-Ørsten, 2013). Indeed it is the special interest groups and think tanks ability to assume the role of a professional news sources that both national and international studies point to as one of the reasons why both kinds of political actors have been so successful in gaining media attention (Rich & Weaver, 2000; Binderkrantz & Christiansen, 2013). Much evidence suggest that think tanks and special interest groups to the news media simply represent new sources of information or new voices in the public debate, and thus may help to contribute positively to a more varied, informed political debate. Along these lines Pautz (2011: 426) and others argues 5

that: Think-tank analysts are best defined as part of the network of organic intellectuals ( ) among whom civil servants, technicians, policy experts or legal experts can also be found. From a news media perspective this implies that think tanks are seen as a new category of expert sources to the already heterogeneous group of experts and pundits characterizing contemporary journalism and its increasingly interpretive turn (e.g., Hopmann & Strömbäck, 2010; Hjarvard, 2010). This argument is supported by Schlesinger (2009), who argues that: the connections between think tanks and news media (as well as the political system) are key because some key-think tank players are also media intellectuals. The practice of think tankery is above all about the mediation of ideas. However, evidence also suggests that not all special interest groups or think tanks receive the same amount of media attention. Both Binderkrantz & Christiansen (2013) and Rich & Weaver (2000) suggest that resources play an important role when it comes to the battle of media access and media visibility. The more resources a think tank or a special interest group can invest in media attention, the more attention it gets. This is confirmed by McGann & Sabatini (2011: 63) who argue that one of the challenges for think tanks to get impact is that (especially European) think tanks have not been engaged by the media and likewise do not attract media attention ( ) Many think tanks simply don t have the resources available to actively pursue the media. But the existing research also suggests that the media attention may be unevenly distributed across media outlets with the ideology or political dispositions of the news media being a clear factor in this distribution. In the US study on think tanks Rich & Weaver (2000) find some correlation between the newspapers ideological standpoint and the think tanks it favors. Binderkrantz & Christiansen s (2013) study, focusing on the historical political parallelism between newspapers and political parties, also finds that left leaning newspapers and right leaning newspapers favor different interest groups, with the left leaning favoring unions, and the right leaning favoring business groups. These findings exemplify Hjarvard s (2013) argument of the re-politicization of the news media. Thus, changing political circumstances ( intra-political ) and changing relations between politics and media ( extra-political ) are influential factors paving the way for the emergence of think tanks in a Danish context. However, these same circumstances potentially entail that the political access and media access, gained by different think tanks, vary considerably. 6

The Danish study: Think tank typology, research design and research questions Typology of Danish think tanks, and the think tanks included in this study As indicated, think tank is a heterogeneous concept, because a variety of special interest groups, NGOs and grassroots all proclaim themselves as such. Indeed defining what a think tank is, and drawing the line between think tanks on other types of institutions and actors, are at the centre of a great deal of the existing literature on think tanks (Kelstrup, 2014). Furthermore, much of this literature concerns the US and is therefore biased towards the American debate and conceptualization of the subject. Writing on think tanks in an European context Kelstrup (2014:21) suggests that, at the most basic level, a think tank can be identified by the following definition: 1) Think tanks are organisations with a physical headquarters (sic). 2) Think tanks claim some degree of autonomy. 3) Think tanks attempt to exert influence on public policy, understood broadly as courses of action adopted and pursued by political decisions-makers. 4) Think tanks are active in mobilizing research with relevance for public policy by displaying a certain level of activity whether by conducting events, publishing or wielding media impact. In more detail, McGann & Sabatini (2011) argue that the functions of think tanks include: mediating between government and public; identifying, articulating, and evaluating current or emerging issues, problems, or proposals; transforming ideas and problems into policy issues; serving as an informed and independent voice in policy debates; and providing a constructive forum for the exchange of ideas and information between key stakeholders in the policy formulation process. Among the number of organizations that may, according to these characteristics, be acknowledged as a think tank, there are typically three types 2 : Advocacy think tanks, universities without students, and party-affiliated think tanks. Whereas the universities without students are seen as the oldest think tanks internationally, the advocacy think tank is seen as a newcomer amongst think tanks (Stone, 1991,1996, Kelstrup, 2014: 37). In a Danish context, DIIS (the Danish Institute for International Studies) is close to a think tank of the second kind, but since most Danish think tanks are relatively new, many of these can be defined as advocacy think tanks for instance CEPOS, CEVEA, and KRAKA which are all included in this study. More specifically, Center for Political Studies/CEPOS, founded in 2004, and began its activities in 2005, by business people, cultural personalities, 2 Kelstrup (2014) proposes a fourth type of think tank called the policy think tank. This category is not found in the international literature, and differs, in our opinion, only slightly from the well-known category of advocacy think tank. 7

and politicians, frames itself as an independent liberal think tank. This American inspired think tank aims at: ( ) Promoting a society based on freedom, responsibility, private initiative and limited government (http://cepos.dk, last retrieved September 22 2014). More specifically, CEPOS seeks to influencing the political debate and thereby the political decisionmaking and policies, among other things by means of the media. Key topics for CEPOS are welfare, the public sector and municipalities, labor market and growth, business- and energy politics, taxes, and financial/monetary politics. One might argue that CEPOS has popularised the term think tanks in a Danish context and, more importantly, made way for competing or opposing, left-wing think tanks such as CEVEA and KRAKA. CEVEA, for example, was founded in 2008 as an independent center-left think tank that develops ideas with the purpose to work for a society based on the values of equality, freedom and community (http://cevea.dk/english, last retrieved September 22 2014), while KRAKA, founded in 2011 also as an independent think tank, aims to securing the future Danish Welfare state. It is Kraka s task to point out professionally well functioning and politically realistic solutions that can match the challenges confronting the Danish welfare state in the years to come (http://kraka.dk/om_kraka, our translation, last retrieved September 22 2014). In Kelstrup s (2014) definition the Economic Council of the Labor Movement (ECLM) started out as a party-affiliated organization, founded in 1936 with close ties to the Danish Trade Unions, and funded by the trade union umbrella organisation LO. But since such organizations enjoy little credibility in the Danish public, it has moved away from its status as party-affiliated and towards a role as advocacy-think tank with a clear focus on professional media strategies. This development is clearly stated on the Council s homepage, explaining that the Council changed its way of organizing itself in 2003, transforming from an economic council to a more independent think tank. More specifically, ECLM aims to promote social justice in Denmark and at a society where economic growth and wealth does not result in increased inequality and new social divisions. Our vision is a society where the economically strong as well as the economically weak, have the same opportunities when it comes to taking an education and follow their personal goals (http://www.ae.dk/english, last retrieved 22 September 2014). In Kelstrup s analysis the ECLM is still listed as the only party-affiliated think tank in Denmark, but Kelstrup recognizes that this position has been challenged and nuanced on several accounts (Kelstrup, 2014: 139). Therefore, we argue that from 2003 and onwards the Council changed from a party-affiliated think tank to being a leftleaning advocacy think tank. 8

Thus, these four think tanks are included in this study, because 1) all of them may be considered advocacy think tanks the most dominating type of think tanks in Denmark, and because 2) two of them (ECLM and CEPOS) have existed in the full period of our study (2006-2013), while the other two (CEVEA & KRAKA) are new-comers, exemplifying the very recent emergence and growth of advocacy think tanks in a Danish context. Arenas of influence and samples In line with Binderkrantz et al. s (2013) abovementioned theoretical argument of special interest groups acting in three different arenas of political influence (the administrative arena, the parliamentary arena and the media arena), we analyze the influence of think tanks in two of these arenas: the media arena and the administrative arena. Since special interest groups are still active in the parliamentary arena and invited to participate in the legislative process, this arena is of continuous importance to the study of special interest groups. However, think tanks are not recognized in this way and are not a formal part of legislative processes. Thus, they have less influence on this arena, at least in the traditional sense. Or put in another way, if think tanks want to influence politics, they have to go through the other two arenas. In the empirical study of the media arena, we analyse the full yearly coverage of the selected think thanks in two selected years 2006 to 2013, covering a time-period characterised by, as already mentioned, a considerable increase in think tank efforts in Denmark (Kelstrup, 2014). We include the coverage in three national broadsheets (print-version included only) (n = 1696 news items), since especially national broadsheets in a Danish context continue to play an important role as agenda-setters (e.g., Lund et al., 2009). The newspapers are; the broadsheets Berlingske Tidende (right-wing conservative, 200.00 daily readers, Winter 2013), Jyllands-Posten (right-wing liberal, 290.000 daily readers, Winter 2013), and Politiken (centre-left, 329.000 daily readers, Winter 2013) (Gallup, 2013). 3 The codebook was developed as part of a larger comparative study of think tanks in the Nordic countries. For the purpose of this paper, however, we have chosen to include only a small selection of the variables coded for. Based on our theoretical framework, the empirical design was namely developed in order to answer, among other things, the following research questions: 3 Future publications will compare these national broadsheets to two tabloids (B.T., 177.000 daily readers, Winter/Spring 2014; and Ekstra Bladet, 182.000 daily readers, Winter 2013), and two niche newspapers (Information, left-leaning, 99.000 daily readers, Winter 2013; and Kristligt Dagblad, Christian-based, 104.000 daily readers, Winter 2013). 9

RQ 1: How (much) are the different think tanks represented in different printed newspapers? This question concerns the general visibility in the newspapers of the four advocacy think tanks, and whether the visibility of the individual think tanks can be linked to the political leaning of the different news media. RQ 2: What kind of source role(s) do the think tanks play in the news articles? This question is linked to the general debate on the media-sources relationship. Do the think tanks in question appear as neutral expert sources in the news articles, or are they clearly identified as sources with a special interest. For the study of the administrative arena we have used a database containing the members of all (by January 2014 active), nationally relevant boards. Specifically the database contains the boards of the all Danish top corporations, all state committees and councils, all boards and subcommittees of nationally represented interest group and several formal and informal networks. The unit of analysis is the appearance of a member of the board or advisory board of the selected think tanks, in any of these nationally relevant boards. The database has been collected by Ellersgaard & Larsen (2014:14) for their study of power elites in Denmark. It is based on the inclusion principal in the selection meaning that ( ) if a registered gathering of some sort, be it a corporation board, a social club, a royal ball, within the limits of our sociological imagination can be conceived as potentially either powerful in its own right or serve as a vehicle for social integration between elite individual, it is included ( ). The database contains 5.332 organizations and 62.841 positions, but cannot be considered big data, according to its collectors. Instead it is data of middle range, since it is deliberative focused on Danish society (Ellersgaard & Larsen, 2014). But, in this sort of analysis other types of relationships that could have potential influence on network relations are overlooked, for example 1) informal relationships such as friendship and kin, 2) and relations created in the past, for instance between actors from the same education/university (Ellersgaard & Larsen, 2014: 18). The aim of the network analysis was to answer the following research question: RQ 3: How are the different think tanks connected to the administrative arena? This question concerns the fact that while corporatism is in decline, the administrative arena is still an important arena of influence. 10

Results from the content analysis When it comes to how often the various think tanks are mentioned by the different printed newspapers (RQ1), the empirical data shows that all the broadsheets most frequently refer to the liberal think tank CEPOS, indicating that CEPOS has been very successful in gaining media visibility and managing the news media. This is especially the case in newspapers of a similar political leaning, since CEPOS is more frequently mentioned in the right-wing conservative newspaper Berlingske Tidende and the right-wing liberal newspaper Jyllands-Posten compared to the centre-left-leaning broadsheet Politiken (see table 1). This last-mentioned newspaper, Politiken, favours the left-leaning think tanks ECLM and KRAKA by more often including these think tanks in the coverage compared to Berlingske Tidende and Jyllands-Posten. Thus, these findings more generally point to a tendency of political parallelism and thus a re-politicization of the interplay of Danish broadsheets and ideologically or politically toned social agents. But, the findings also confirm that liberally/conservative parties often are more successful at influencing and entering the news media. Thus Rich & Weaver (2000: 98-99) in their study of think tanks in the US media conclude that think tanks with in the conservative cluster talk with a larger collective voice, than think tanks in the liberal cluster. Also Hopmann & Strömbäck (2010) in their study of the media coverage of elections, found that media pundits more often than not have a right-wing rather than a left-wing background (p. 955), and that conservative groups are better at promoting their opinions, and that they are more active and better funded. As a result there are more conservative pundits to include in the media coverage of elections (ibid.: p. 956). Our study indicates that this pattern also characterises think tanks in the Danish news media. This conclusion is supported by the fact that even though two new left-wing think tanks (KRAKA and CEVEA) have entered the media arena in the analysed time period (2006-2013), CEPOS continuous to be the most frequently mentioned think tank in all three broadsheets in 2013, no matter their political leaning. 11

Table 1: Think tank most in focus * Name of newspaper Name of newspaper Jyllands- Berlingske Posten Politiken Total Think tank most in focus CEPOS Count 348 270 206 824 % within Name of newspaper 53,5% 51,9% 39,2% 48,6% ECLM Count 198 181 198 577 % within Name of newspaper 30,5% 34,8% 37,6% 34,0% KRAKA Count 52 46 97 195 % within Name of newspaper 8,0% 8,8% 18,4% 11,5% CEVEA Count 52 23 25 100 % within Name of newspaper 8,0% 4,4% 4,8% 5,9% Total Count 650 520 526 1696 % within Name of newspaper 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% This conclusion is also supported by the use of think tanks as source and the source role(s), more specifically, attributed by the news media to the think tanks (RQ2). First and foremost, there has been a significant increase in the use of think tank representatives as sources more generally in the news coverage: While approximately six in ten articles in 2006 included a think tank representative as source, this number had by 2013 increased to eight in ten (table not shown). In addition, think tanks are frequently used as the main source by all three broadsheets in fact, approximately every one in three main sources, quoted or referred to by the analysed newspapers, are think tank representatives (table not shown). Furthermore, the think tanks are in every second case cast in the role of (autonomous) experts and thus not explicitly affiliated with specific political agendas or interests (see table 2 below). The broadsheets much less frequently approximately in one in five cases frame the think tanks as special interest sources, promoting specific viewpoints. This confirms the earlier mentioned theoretical arguments on think tanks as being successful in orchestrating themselves as part of the increasingly large network of organic intellectuals or media intellectuals characterising contemporary media culture (e.g. Townsley & Jacobs, 2011; Kristensen & From, 2015). 12

Table 2: If think tank source, in what role? * Name of newspaper Crosstabulation Name of newspaper Jyllands- Berlingske Posten Politiken Total If think tank source, in what role? Expert Count 210 182 155 547 % within Name of newspaper 53,4% 53,2% 53,1% 53,3% "Special interest" source Count 91 67 60 218 % within Name of newspaper 23,2% 19,6% 20,5% 21,2% Peripheral_reference Count 71 81 70 222 % within Name of newspaper 18,1% 23,7% 24,0% 21,6% Other Count 21 12 7 40 % within Name of newspaper 5,3% 3,5% 2,4% 3,9% Total Count 393 342 292 1027 % within Name of newspaper 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% This dominating performance and casting of think tanks as neutral experts is confirmed by the fact that all the analysed newspapers are most often either positive or neutral to a proposal or initiative made by the think tanks when included in a news story (see table 3 below). In less than one in thirty cases, the newspapers apply a negative approach the proposals or ideas presented by the think tanks. Thus, as is the case with most sources performing the role of expert sources, or being cast in this role in the news coverage, the think tanks only on rare occasions are meet by a critical framing by the analysed newspapers. Accordingly, the think tanks seem to have more or less unhindered access to supply the news media and the public with tailored information and agendas. 13

Table 3: News angle tendency * Name of newspaper Crosstabulation Name of newspaper Jyllands- Berlingske Posten Politiken Total News angle tendency Positive to a proposal/initiative from the think tank most in focus Negative to a proposal/initiative from the think tank most in focus Neutral to a proposal/initiative from the think tank in focus Count 165 151 123 439 % within Name of newspaper 42,0% 44,2% 42,1% 42,7% Count 7 10 10 27 % within Name of newspaper 1,8% 2,9% 3,4% 2,6% Count 123 140 106 369 % within Name of newspaper 31,3% 40,9% 36,3% 35,9% Irrelevant/not possible to decide Count 98 41 53 192 % within Name of newspaper 24,9% 12,0% 18,2% 18,7% Total Count 393 342 292 1027 % within Name of newspaper 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% This picture is to some extend confirmed when looking a commentary articles that is, articles often produced by the think tank representatives themselves. Not surprisingly this entails an even larger share of articles, compared to the news articles, with a positive stance towards the idea or argument proposed by the think tank (see table 4 below). Among these opinion pieces we do however also find more critical attitudes towards the think tank initiatives that is, viewpoints most likely presented by opponents of the think tank, its proposals or ideological standpoint. This indicates that if looking for critical approaches to think tanks in the newspapers one must turn to the op-ed pages and thus opinionated genres rather than to the news. 14

Table 4: Commentary tendency * Name of newspaper Crosstabulation Name of newspaper Jyllands- Berlingske Posten Politiken Total Commentary tendency Positive to a proposal/initiative from the think tank most in focus Negative to a proposal/initiative from the think tank most in focus Neutral to a proposal/initiative from the think tank in focus Count 156 119 140 415 % within Name of newspaper 60,7% 66,5% 59,8% 61,9% Count 48 34 54 136 % within Name of newspaper 18,7% 19,0% 23,1% 20,3% Count 20 21 28 69 % within Name of newspaper 7,8% 11,7% 12,0% 10,3% Irrelevant/not possible to decide Count 33 5 12 50 % within Name of newspaper 12,8% 2,8% 5,1% 7,5% Total Count 257 179 234 670 % within Name of newspaper 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Results from the network analysis As Stone (2007) points out think tanks do not act alone in setting an agenda. As evident from the analysis above, the news media is an important partner for most think tanks, but also network relationships to donor-groups, government, organizations, corporations, etc. may assist think tanks in being recognized and gaining status as authoritative experts in society. Thus turning to the analysis of the network affiliations of ECLM and CEPOS, we first of all need to keep in mind that the unit of analysis is the appearance of a member of the board or advisory board of the selected think tanks, in any of the nationally relevant boards that have been included in the database. Looking first at the network affiliations of ECLM (see appendix 1), this think tank obviously has a high density of network relations. Looking closer at these relations, as done in table 5 below, it becomes clear that most of these relations include affiliations with either the state or with organizations, corporations, and the Danish Parliament. 15

Table 5: ECLM s network affiliations Percentage No. of relations Parliament 13 % 14 Foundations 8 % 9 Commissions 5 % 5 Organizations 26 % 28 State 32 % 34 Corporations 15 % 16 The density of relations is linked to the fact that the ECLM still has a close relationship with the Danish Workers Union and many of their members, and to the fact that the Danish Workers Union continues to have a strong relationship with the Social Democratic party, which at the time of this analysis, is leading the Danish coalition government that came into power in 2011. However, the many network relations also show that the corporatist state, in many ways, is still alive and well. Though we cannot go back in time and conduct the same network analysis at time when the corporatist state was in its heyday, this study does suggest that the notion of de-corporatization should be considered an ongoing process, and that many of the corporatist networks still remain firmly in place. Thus, the analysis shows that the ECLM has no fewer than 106 relations all in in all. Turing to CEPOS, it is evident from the network analysis (see appendix 2 and table 6 below) that the network relations of this think tank are fewer and also to some extent different from those of the ECLM. With a total of 27 network relations CEPOS is connected to a much smaller, national network than the ECLM. Furthermore, CEPOS is connected to different types of organizations and corporations compared to ECLM, and the think tank is to a much lesser extend linked to State and Parliament than was the case for the ECLM. Instead CEPOS has most relations to organizations and corporations, on the one hand emphasising its profile as a neoliberal, market-oriented think tank, but, on the other hand, also implying successful media management and extensive visibility in the media arena does not necessarily reflect dense network relations outside the media. Indeed, it might be the other way around. CEPOS being a newly formed liberal think tank does not have any strong historically based network 16

relations with the actors of the Danish corporatist state, but compensates for this lack network relations by focusing its resources on media relations instead. Table 6: CEPOS network affiliations Percentage No. of relations Foundations 15 % 4 Commissions 4 % 1 Organizations 37 % 10 State 15 % 4 Corporations 22 % 6 VL-Networks 7 % 2 Conclusion Our analysis shows that the two oldest and largest think tanks, CEPOS and the ECLM, receive almost the same amount of media attention, yet the liberal think tank receives more positive attention by the liberal media, and the social democratic think tanks receive more positive attention by the centre left media (RQ1). This confirms the tendency towards repolitization of the news media in Denmark that we have pointed to in other works (Esmark & Ørsten, 2006; Hjarvard & Kristensen, 2014), but which also was confirmed by Binderkrantz & Christiansen (2013) in their study of the representation of Danish special interest groups in the Danish news media. Similar conclusions have also been reached based on data from the US news media (Rich & Weaver, 2000). Our content analysis also shows that think tank most often appear as independent expert sources in a news item as opposed to special interest sources. The content analysis even shows that there is an increase from 2006 to 2013 in the number of news items where think tanks appear as expert sources. Our network analysis shows that both think tanks are well connected, but are largely connected to different spheres of society. CEPOS is mostly connected to media and private business, whereas the ECLM has a much larger network that connects them to the state/government, to private business, to the unions, etc. We can therefore conclude that think tanks are very active in Denmark, have a high media visibility and are very successful in cast- 17

ing themselves in the news media as expert sources rather than being affiliated with specific political interests. But we can also conclude that media visibility is only one part of the equation. The social network of the think tanks must also be taken into consideration, and here we argue that the ECLM comes out on top as the most well connected of the two dominating think tanks in Denmark. Thus, though the debate on de-corporatization would suggest that the news media as an arena of influence has become the most important one, our analysis show that some of the corporatist structures still are intact and thus still warrants both focus and analysis. 18

Appendix 1: ECLM network affiliations 19

Appendix 2. CEPOS network relations 20

References Allern, Sigurd. Flokkdyr på Løvebakken: søkelys på Stortingets presselosje og politikkens medierammer. Pax, 2001. Allern, Sigurd, & Mark Blach-Ørsten. "The news media as a political institution: A Scandinavian perspective." Journalism Studies 12.1 (2011): 92-105. Binderkrantz, AS & Christiansen, PM 2013, 'Making it to the news. Interest groups in the Danish media' i Politische Interesenvermittlung und Medien. Binderkrantz, AS (2012) Interest groups in the media: Bias and diversity over time, European Journal of Political Research, Volume 51, Issue 1, pages 117 139, January 2012 Binderkrantz, AS, Christiansen, PM & Pedersen, HH 2014, 'Interest Group Access to the Bureaucracy, Parliament and the Media' Governance. Blach-Ørsten, Mark. "The Emergence of an Increasingly Competitive News Regime in Denmark." Political Journalism in Transition: Western Europe in a Comparative Perspective (2013): 93. Christiansen, Peter Munk, and Hilmar Rommetvedt. "From Corporatism to Lobbyism? Parliaments, Executives, and Organized Interests in Denmark and Norway." Scandinavian Political Studies 22.3 (1999): 195-220. Cook, Timothy E. Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution. University of Chicago Press, 1998. Ellersgaard, Christoph Houmann & Anton Grau Larsen. Identifying power elites a social network analytis approach. Paper, 2014. Esmark, Anders & Mark Ørsten. Media and Politics in Denmark in Jesper Strömbäck, Mark Ørsten & Torill Aalberg (red.) Political Communication in the Nordic Countries, Nordicom, 2006. 21

Hjarvard, Stig, and Nete Nørgaard Kristensen. "When media of a small nation argue for war." Media, War & Conflict 7.1 (2014): 51-69. Hjarvard, Stig, Nete Nørgaard Kristensen, and Mark Ørsten. Mediernes dækning af invasionen af Irak. Modinet,(Working Paper no. 13), 2004. Hjarvard, Stig. The mediatization of culture and society. Routledge, 2013. Hopmann, David Nicolas, and Jesper Strömbäck. "The Rise of the Media Punditocracy?: Journalists and Media Pundits in Danish Election News 1994-2007." Media Culture and Society 32.6 (2010): 943-960. Kelstrup, Jesper Dahl. Think tanks in Europe: explaining their development and variation in Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark and at the EU-level. Diss. Roskilde Universitet. Kristensen, Nete Nørgaard. Journalister og kilder-slinger i valsen?. Ajour, 2004. Lund, Anker Brink, Ida Willig, and Mark Blach-Østen. Hvor kommer nyhederne fra?: Den journalistiske fødekæde i Danmark før og nu. Ajour, 2009. McGann, James G. "Introduction. I McGann, James G. & Sabatini, Richard (red)." Global Think Tanks. Policy Networks and Governance (2011): 1-12. Pautz, Hartwig. "Revisiting the think-tank phenomenon." Public Policy and Administration 26.4 (2011): 419-435. Rich, Andrew, and R. Kent Weaver. "Think tanks in the US media." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 5.4 (2000): 81-103. Schlesinger, Philip. "Creativity and the experts New Labour, think tanks, and the policy process." The international journal of press/politics 14.1 (2009): 3-20. 22

Stone, Diane. "Old guard versus new partisans: think tanks in transition." Politics 26.2 (1991): 197-215. Stone, Diane. "Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? Three myths regarding policy analysis institutes." Public Administration 85.2 (2007): 259-278. Strömbäck, Jesper, and Frank Esser. "Mediatization of Politics: Towards a Theoretical Framework." Mediatization of Politics. Understanding the Transformation of Western Democracies (2014): 3-28. Thompson, John B. Media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995. Thompson, John B. "The new visibility." Theory, Culture & Society 22.6 (2005): 31-51. Jacobs, Ronald N., and Eleanor Townsley. The space of opinion: Media intellectuals and the public sphere. Oxford University Press, 2011. Tyllström, Anna. "Legitimacy for Sale: Constructing a Market for PR Consultancy." (2013). Ørsten, Mark. Nyhedsinstitutionen et ny-institutionel perspektiv på den medierede politiske kommunikation, i Økonomi & Politik, vol. 78, nr. 3, 2005. Ørsten, Mark. Transnational politisk journalistik. Roskilde Universitet, 2004. 23