|
Article Excerpt
Introduction
New presidents and their executive branch teams endeavor to make a good first impression. To that end, incoming presidential administrations carefully organize their public affairs staff, select issues they wish to emphasize, and try to present the president in ways that will maximize public support and approval of the new chief executive (Han 2001; Kumar 2002, 2003; Lowi 1985). While some media stories develop as a result of administration efforts to set the political agenda, including the presidential tax plans of 1981, 1993, and 2001, there are limits to what can be accomplished through executive branch media management initiatives. Often-skeptical reporters may or may not accept the framing of a story proposed by the executive branch (Cook 1998; Iyengar 1991; Kurtz 1994). More importantly, unanticipated events, including the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan in 1981 and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, dramatically affect presidential popularity and can come to dominate media coverage of a significant part of a presidency (cf. Gregg and Rozell 2003; Iyengar 1991; Kernell 1997; Woodward 2002).
The content of news reports can expand or limit the ability of presidents to pursue their policy agendas (Abramson, Aldrich, and Rohde 1982, 2002; Booth 2002; Campbell and Rockman 1996; Ceaser and Busch 2001; Kumar 2003; Sabato 2002; Sabato, Stencel, and Lichter 2000; Woodward 2002). Presidents whose administrations are viewed as effective are likely to enjoy the high public approval ratings that help with passing legislation (Gregg and Rozell 2003; Kernell 1997).
For most people most of the time, public perspectives on the presidency are formed largely through a news media led by the "big three" broadcast television networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC (Farnsworth and Lichter 2003; Graber 2002). Although their influence has declined over the past quarter century, the networks, along with the many news organizations around the country that follow their lead, are the lenses through which most citizens view their government (Cook 1998; Graber 2002; Sparrow 1999). Newer media sources, including 24-hour cable news, the Internet, and a revived talk radio, have not displaced the old; instead, they offer a wider range of choices for news consumers, many of whom continue to rely heavily on the evening network newscasts (Davis 1999; Davis and Owen 1998; Farnsworth and Lichter 2003; Seib 2001).
This study examined network television news coverage of the federal government during the first calendar year of the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. For Bush, we also divided the results into coverage before and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. (We excluded the military services, whose role in government is distinctive enough to require its own analysis.) The three presidencies examined here comprise the three most recent partisan transfers of power involving the executive branch. Partisan changes of power involve substantial policy and personnel shifts, and therefore represent more comparable periods for comparison than a same-party change of power. They are also periods of heightened attention to the White House, as partisans look to the future with either optimism or dread.
Although presidents do not take office until January 20, presidents-elect become the focus of governmental coverage well before the inauguration ceremony. We therefore included stories about the incoming administration starting January 1 (but excluded the coverage of the outgoing administration). This approach enabled us to examine the status of proposed agenda items and the reception given to Cabinet nominees and other appointments as a new administration made its transition into power.
A comparative study of first-year coverage of the three most recent partisan changes in the executive branch enables us to chart changing trends in the volume and tone of network news reports during three different decades. We also compare network news coverage of the executive branch with that of the legislative and judicial branches to examine the shares of coverage devoted to the three branches of government in 1981, 1993, and 2001.
Network Television News and the Presidency: Past Research
Debates over media content start from a point of general agreement: today's television news reports of government are more negative than in the past (cf. Farnsworth and Lichter 2003; Kerbel 1995; Patterson 1994; Sabato 1993). Print coverage of the president from 1953 to 1978 and network news coverage from 1968 to 1978 showed a consistently favorable portrayal of the president (Grossman and Kumar 1981). At CBS, for example, the amount of positive coverage approached double that of negative, with a 45 percent to 24 percent advantage for more positive coverage during the 1974-1978 period (Grossman and Kumar 1981, 265). In the New York Times, the comparable percentages for that period were 38 percent positive and 23 percent negative (Grossman and Kumar 1981, 265). Another research project involving the CBS Evening News over a somewhat different time frame, from 1968 to 1985, found a trend of rising negative coverage for presidents during those years (Smoller 1986).
Experimental evidence strongly supports the proposition that less substantive news coverage increases public cynicism. "When journalists frame political events strategically, they activate existing beliefs and understandings; they do not need to create them" (Cappella and Jamieson 1997, 208). But research in this area has not identified a precise threshold where audience effects become observable in experimental settings.
The declining volume of political news coverage over the course of recent decades is another significant development. In 1977, nearly 72 percent of the stories on ABC's evening newscast focused on political news (including military, foreign policy, and domestic policy matters); in 1997 the percentage of such stories fell to 45 (Graber 2002, 274). Reduced political coverage undermines public interest in and respect for government, according to past research (cf. Edelman 1985; Jamieson 2000; Patterson 2000; Postman 1985; Putnam 2000).
In a third major finding in past research, the executive branch is far more frequently the subject of news coverage than the legislative branch, with the judicial branch functioning as little more than an afterthought for television reporters (Grossman and Kumar 1981; Hess 1981; Kaid and Foote 1985; Lichter and Amundson 1994). This should not be surprising, as a modern president is commander-in-chief of the world's sole remaining superpower, legislator-in-chief when it comes to setting the national agenda, and the head of a largely unified political institution (particularly when compared to a Congress divided by partisan conflict). Presidents and their administrations possess a near-monopoly of foreign policy information and frequently can be decisive actors in international and domestic matters (Lowi 1985; Waterman, Wright, and St. Clair 1999). Given these structural advantages, presidents and their administrations possess essential information for news-hungry reporters (Cook 1998; Kurtz 1994). Much of what Congress does, in contrast, is tentative, and therefore less newsworthy (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 1995). A presidential pronouncement about a policy preference is Far more definitive, for the executive branch, at least, than a lawmaker talking about a bill that may not pass in both chambers, or that may not survive a conference committee, or that may be vetoed by the president (Graber 2002).
Quantitative analysis has demonstrated that a president has a far greater opportunity to be seen and heard than do...
|
