Abstract

Professionalization has become a self-defining, catch-all buzzword employed to explain the recent changes in political communication. However, because of the catch-all or blanket explanatory quality of the term 'professionalization', its use within the literature on political communication and campaigning obscures multifaceted shifts in the methods by which political actors communicate through the media. Drawing on a number of interviews with former and current UK members of parliament and prospective parliamentary candidates, the authors argue that much of what is referred to within the discourse of professionalization is linked more to responses to technological change. They propose, therefore, that more care should be taken when describing all modern political communication as professional, otherwise there is a danger of inferring that the practices of the past were amateurish; a conclusion that does not stand up to rigorous research.