Setting the Media Agenda:
The President and His Honeymoon with the Media
By Yulian Li
Doctoral Student
Room 111, Murphy Hall
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55104
Tel: 651-625-7564
Email: [log in to unmask]
* paper submitted to the Mass Communication and Society Division of AEJMC
Convention in New Orleans, 1999
Setting the Media Agenda:
The President and His Honeymoon with the Media
Introduction
In today's complex world, the public has no other effective way of knowing what
is happening in a distant place than through the mass media. What the media
present to the public is what the public knows about the world (Lippmann, 1922;
Park, 1922). As a result, the media are stunningly successful in telling people
"what to think about" (Cohen, 1963, p. 13), "know about" and have "feelings
about" (Lang & Lang, 1966, p. 468). The seminal study by McCombs and Shaw (1972)
found that people not only learn factual information about the world from the
media, they also learn how much importance to attach to an issue or topic from
the emphasis placed on it by the media. Such an impact of the media has been
labeled the "agenda-setting function of mass communication" (McCombs & Shaw,
1977, p. 5).
However, in the agenda-setting research, most researchers accept the media
agenda "as a given" without examining how it is influenced by outside factors
(Dearing & Rogers, 1996, p. 17). Westley (1976) suggested that the
agenda-setting researchers should examine how the media agenda is created and
altered, because researchers "do not do justice to the agenda-setting process"
unless "the total social matrix within which it occurs" is considered (p. 45).
The question of who sets the media agenda was raised as early as in a study by
Setting the Media Agenda
Weaver and Elliot (1985), who examined how the media agenda was influenced at
the local level. Recent researchers (Dearing & Rogers, 1996) again asked why
certain issues go onto the media agenda while others are ignored by the media
(pp. 1-2). It was suggested that the agenda-setting process between the media
and the public was closely linked to the political power elements and their
"policy agenda" (Dearing & Rogers, 1996, p. 5; Takeshita, 1997, p. 21).
This study attempted to find out whether the president of the United States sets
the media agenda and to what extent. The role of the president is unmatched by
any other politician in the government. Dearing and Rogers (1996) maintained
that the president "can move the media on any particular issue" (p. 56). Another
(Bosso, 1987) argued that the president is "capable of heating up or cooling
down the politics of any single issue or of an entire platter of issues" (p.
261). Neustadt (1990) said that the president "controls the most encompassing
array of vantage points in the American political system" (p. 31).
Because of the huge influence and power the president has over the public,
critics voiced their concern that he may "pose a potential threat" to the
democracy (Davis, 1987, p. 133). Such power may "allow a president to push
through programs that Americans unwittingly supported" (Press & VerBurg, 1988,
p. 201). Since the process by which members of a democratic community decide
which issues or problems should be addressed is important to the proper
functioning of that community (Lasorsa, 1997, p. 156), the study of the
president's influence on the media has become especially important. So far,
Setting the Media Agenda
"agenda-setting researchers have devoted relatively little attention to the
president-public relationship" (Miller & Wanta, 1996, p. 392).
Literature Review
The overall relationship between the media and the president is often described
as one of symbiosis (Bennett, 1980) or "mutual exploitation" (Davis, 1987, p.
108). On one hand, the president has to go public for his political power, and
he simply has "no more effective way" to do so than "through newspapers,
television, or radio" (Press & VerBurg, 1988, p. 5); on the other hand, the
media find the president "indispensable" in satisfying their audience (Edwards &
Wayne, 1994, pp. 137-138), because the president is "the chief newsmaking source
in the nation" (Davis, 1987, p. 121).
The president's need to influence the media agenda stems from his dependence on
the public. This dependence starts at the presidential election stage. Reforms
proposed by the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1972 transferred the nomination of
the party's candidate from party leaders at the convention to the mass
electorate in primary elections and caucuses (Kernell, 1986, p. 39). The 1974
Federal Election Campaign Act further reduced the influence of political parties
on the presidential election by providing presidential candidates with federal
funding. As federal matching money is dependent on popularity, the public has
become the key holder (Cohen, 1997, p. 11). Thus, a connection between the
president and the public is forged right from the start (Cohen, 1997, p. 9).
Setting the Media Agenda Likewise, the president's re-election is
contingent upon public approval.
Also, most of the programs that the president wants to get through Congress
require public support (Light, 1983; DiClerico, 1990; Cohen, 1997). Contrary to
popular belief, the formal presidential powers granted in the Constitution are
"rather modest" (Davis, 1987, p. 110). The Constitution (Article I, Section 7)
states that every bill has to pass the House of Representatives and the Senate
before it becomes a law. Therefore, the president often appeals to the public
directly so as to put pressure on congressmen. Kernell (1986) called it
constructing "bandwagons" that congressmen have to mount for political survival
(p. 4). Davis (1995) observed that congressmen seldom "risk being viewed by
their constituents as uncooperative with the nation's leader" (p. 144).
Furthermore, the fragmentation of Congress, called "subcommitteeization" (Davis,
1995, p. 143) or "balkanization" (Light, 1983, p. 212), makes it almost
impossible for the president to deal with members of Congress directly. For the
president of the minority party, going public is sometimes "the only" way in
dealing with a stronger opposition party in Congress (Davis, 1995, p. 146).
Political scientists emphasized that it is the president's relationship with the
public that gives his office its power (Cornwell, 1966; Neustadt, 1990).
Such power is achieved by controlling the content of the national media (Edwards
& Wayne, 1994). Berkman and Kitch (1986) found that one-third of the high level
White House staff are directly involved in media relations (p. 185). They
include the press
Setting the Media Agenda
secretary, speech writers, and specialized media experts such as the director of
communications. Their sole task is to promote as much favorable coverage of the
president as possible (Davis, 1987; Press & VerBurg, 1988; Blakesley, 1995;
Kumar, 1995). The fact that the president is frequently successful in
manipulating the media has earned the media the name "the daily national
amplifier of the presidential voice" (DiClerico, 1990, p. 135).
The methods of putting the president's issues onto the media agenda are many.
Press releases are the most common way of getting an issue on the presidential
agenda across to the media agenda (Press & VerBurg, 1988, p. 187). Often media
events are created to dramatize an issue the president wants to make (Bennett,
1980; DiClerico, 1990). Leaking is another often-used way to test public or
congressional reaction to ideas and proposals or to stimulate public concern
about an issue (DiClerico, 1990).
Among the media, the president is particularly interested in gaining access to
network television, because television is a "massive national forum" due to its
easy and wide accessibility (Davis, 1987, p. 111), and it enables the president
to communicate with his audience without any of his words and appeals being
filtered through editing or an intermediary process (Davis, 1995, p. 137). Kumar
and Grossman's study (1982) of CBS evening news programs between 1968 and 1978
found that, on the average, almost 37 percent of the time of each broadcast was
devoted to the president; on the average, four stories an evening were about the
White House, of which approximately 23 percent appeared before the first
commercial break-television's equivalent to the front page of
Setting the Media Agenda newspapers.
The limited number of agenda-setting studies on the president-media relationship
also supported the theorizing that the president influenced the media. Wanta et
al. (1989) compared the ranking of 15 issues in Nixon's State of Union address
in 1970 with the media's ranking of the same issues and found that Nixon's
agenda of issues correlated more highly with the post-address media coverage
than with the pre-address coverage.
Wanta and Foote (1994) studied the first 80 weeks of the Bush administration and
found that Bush influenced media coverage of international problems and some
domestic issues in which he had a "pet interest" (p. 437). For example, Bush was
successful in pushing the issue of patriotism/flag burning onto the media
agenda.
Johnson et al. (1995) found that Roosevelt influenced the issue agendas of those
newspapers that supported him. Another study (Weaver et al., 1981) found that
the issue agendas of the two leading political candidates in 1976, Ronald Reagan
and Jimmy Carter, were mirrored by the media (pp. 106-108).
Research Question and Hypotheses
Some political scientists argued that the president's influence was only
effective during the initial period of his term in office. They found that "the
first year of the [president's] term is remarkably different from the rest of
the term" (Light, 1983, p. 186). Such a period is called the honeymoon period
(Manheim, 1979; Grossman & Kumar, 1979;
Setting the Media Agenda
Locander, 1981). In the honeymoon period, the president brings with him a "halo
effect," stemming from his electoral victory (DiClerico, 1990, p. 152), and
Manheim (1979) found that, in the honeymoon period, the media are more willing
to follow the president's guidance and raise questions pertaining to issues
raised by the president himself than in the post-honeymoon period. The honeymoon
period is also termed the phase of alliance, during which it is relatively easy
for the president to dominate the media agenda with his new policies, because
the media consider this period as an expository time when the president is given
a chance to express his new policies (Grossman & Kumar, 1979). The honeymoon
period is termed by Locander (1981) a time of "abnormal cooperation," which is
marked by "an absence of press criticism of the president and an unusual
willingness to accept the White House's version of events" (p. 49).
During the honeymoon, the opposition party and various interest groups seldom
challenge the president before his new policies come out (Press & VerBurg, 1988,
p. 174)., Media coverage focuses on the president and his appointees and their
plans (Edwards & Wayne, 1994; Hess, 1996). As a result, "the president's
rhetoric itself is the story" (Press & VerBurg, 1988, p. 174).
However, almost all presidential candidates tend to make extravagant promises
during their campaigns, a phenomenon called the "over-promising" syndrome
(Reedy, 1987, p. 116). When the president fails to deliver on his campaign
promises, his popularity
Setting the Media Agenda
and public opinion ratings begin to sag (Davis, 1987, p. 134). Lewis (1994)
pointed out that the ending of the honeymoon "lies not in delivering too little
but in promising too much" (p. 60). A study (Light, 1983) showed that the
percentages of the president's campaign promises going onto his domestic agenda
after he enters the White House was 36 percent for Kennedy, 41 percent for
Johnson, 34 percent for Nixon, and 42 percent for Carter (p. 97).
In the post-honeymoon period, the White House finds it "more difficult to
prevent the media from producing stories that raise issues in ways it does not
want them raised, . . . and conveying messages that the White House would prefer
to have remained unsent" (Mueller, 1973, pp. 45-46). "No longer is the
president's rhetoric the only story" (Press & VerBurg, 1988, p. 176). As the
president enters the post-honeymoon period, his dominance on the media agenda
starts to wane and the divergence between the agendas of the president and the
media becomes increasingly wider. The honeymoon phenomenon is a familiar one in
the president-media relationship. However, it has seldom been put to test in the
agenda-setting research.
Based on the literature and the research question, this study hypothesizes:
1. Overall, the president has a strong effect on the media.
2. The president has a stronger effect on television than on newspapers.
3. The president has a stronger effect on the media in the honeymoon period than
in the post-honeymoon period.
Setting the Media Agenda
Methods
Content analysis was used in this study. The two variables were the presidential
agenda and the media agenda. The former was conceptualized as the issues
mentioned by the president and the latter was conceptualized as the same issues
covered by the media. The presidential agenda was defined as the number of
mentions of issues by President Clinton in his weekly national radio addresses
in the two years of his first term, 1993 and 1994, as well as his six other
national addresses in the two years: two State of the Union addresses, two
Economic Program reports, one Health Care Reform report, and one Middle Class
Bill of Rights report. The speeches are available in Public Papers of the
Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (see Appendix 2 for the
number of President Clinton's mentions of issues).
The media agenda was defined as the number of news stories, both straight and
analytic, devoted to issues in three major newspapers, the New York Times, the
Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, as well as three major television
networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC. Most agenda-setting researchers agree that the
number of stories about an issue is the "best measure of the media agenda"
(Dearing & Rogers, 1996, pp. 83-84). This study's counting of news stories of
the three newspapers and ABC was conducted on the electronic database of
Lexis-Nexis (classic version). The counting of stories for CBS and NBC was
conducted on Bell & Howell Company's "CBS News Transcripts Ondisk" and "NBC News
Transcripts Ondisk" (see Appendixes 3 and 4 for the number of stories on
Setting the Media Agenda issues).
Six top issues were selected for analysis and they were economy, jobs, health
care, deficit, tax, and crime. The unit of analysis on Clinton's addresses was
the individual word or phrase about an issue. These words and phrases are, for
the issue of economy, "economy, economic program, economic plan and economic
growth;" for jobs issue, "job, jobs, employment and unemployment;" for the
health care issue, "health care, health benefit, health insurance, health
security and health coverage;" for the deficit issue, "federal budget, budget,
deficit and national debt;" for the tax issue, "tax, taxes, tax reform, tax cut,
tax increase and taxation;" and for the crime issue, "crime, murder, and gun
control."
The same words and phrases were used as the key words in searching for media
stories so that comparability could be ensured. The search command for obtaining
the number of stories on both databases consisted of key words and dates. For
example, the search command for the number of stories about the health care
issue in the first week of 1993 (Saturday, Jan. 2, to Friday, Jan 8) on
Lexis-Nexis was "health care or health benefit or health security or health
coverage or health insurance and date aft 1/1/93 and date bef 1/9/93." On the
CD-ROMs, the search command was "health care or health benefit or health
security or health coverage or health insurance and DA(2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or
7 or 8 and Jan and 1993)."
The six issues were examined individually instead of being rank-ordered. Some
Setting the Media Agenda
studies (Winter, 1981; Eyal et al., 1981) found that matching agendas on an
aggregate level can be problematic, because differences exist among issues.
Others (Zucker, 1978; Weaver et al., 1981) maintained that it is presumptuous to
assume that media impact is the same for all types of issues and to expect a
hierarchy of issues to be transferred from one agenda to another in the same
order. Also, the direction of causality changes from issue to issue. "Depending
on the issue, either media coverage influences problem awareness or vice versa"
(Brosius & Kepplinger, 1990, p. 185). Becker (1982) suggested that "an adequate
test of the agenda-setting hypothesis requires the researcher to move beyond
these simple aggregate comparisons" (p. 528).
Clinton's radio speeches and other national speeches were coded because they
were considered as accurate reflections of the presidential agenda. Press and
VerBurg (1988) maintained that national speeches provide the president "the best
opportunity" to present and discuss issues on his agenda (p. 191).
The selection of the media was based on the fact the three prestige newspapers
(Stempel & Windhauser, 1984) were regularly read by presidents (Cohen, 1963;
Press & VerBurg, 1988), and that the three networks were closely followed by
presidents (Edwards & Wayne, 1994, p. 141). Among them, the New York Times is
"the first paper read at the White House" (White, 1973, p. 259), and "it comes
closest to being the national newspaper of the elite" (Weiss, 1974, p. 5). The
Post "dominates the capital, . . . rivals the Times as an outlet for politicians
who want to leak a story" (Berkman & Kitch, 1986, p. 27), and it
Setting the Media Agenda
"probably qualifies as the primary newspaper of Washington officialdom" (Weiss,
1974, p. 5). The two newspapers, together with the Los Angeles Times, the second
largest metropolitan newspaper in the nation, are considered by journalists as
the most important media in covering Washington (Thompson, 1985).
Both Clinton's mentions of issues and media stories were divided into 96 units
of data (46 for 1993 and 50 for 1994), based on the dates on which the radio
addresses were made (see Appendix 1 for the dates). Wanta (1997) pointed out
that previous "researchers were examining a time frame that was too long for the
optimal agenda-setting effect to occur. Perhaps the agenda-setting effect occurs
relatively quickly-in a week or so-and dissipates shortly thereafter"(p. 151). A
preliminary qualitative analysis of media coverage revealed that the media
usually responded to the president's speeches within one week; therefore, this
study set the time lag between the presidential agenda and the media agenda at
one week.
Correlations were run between the number of mentions by Clinton in a week and
the number of media stories in the following week. The purpose of this analysis
was to determine whether the presidential agenda sets the media agenda. Then
correlations were run between the number of mentions by Clinton in a week and
the number of media stories in the preceding week. The purpose of this analysis
was to determine whether the presidential agenda was influenced by the media
agenda.
Most coding in this study was done by the author. However, three reliability
tests
Setting the Media Agenda
were conducted before and during the coding process. Before each test, the
author explained to the participants- two graduate students, one male and one
female- what key words should be used in content-analyzing the presidential
speeches by hand, and in doing searches on Lexis-Nexis and the CD-ROMs. The
intercoder reliability by Scott's pi (Stempel & Westley, 1981) was 91 percent
for hand coding of the presidential speeches and 97 percent for electronic
coding of the media. According to Gonzenbach (1996), "for Scott's pi, a standard
acceptable level is .75" (p. 28).
Findings
The study found that during the two-year time period of 1993 and 1994, the
mentions of all six issues by President Clinton in his national address were
significantly correlated with the following week's media coverage. The
president's mentions were more highly correlated with the television coverage
than with the newspaper coverage. The correlations between the president's
mentions on four issues and media coverage of these issues were significantly
higher in 1993 than in 1994. Therefore, all three hypotheses were supported. In
addition, the study found that the mentions of five issues by President Clinton
were significantly correlated with the preceding week's media coverage and that
Clinton received more influence from the media than he gave on the crime issue
in 1993.
Hypothesis One stated that, overall, the president would have a strong effect on
the
Setting the Media Agenda
media. This was supported by data in Table 1. In the time period of two years,
the correlations between Clinton's mentions and the post-mention media coverage
were significant on all six issues: deficit (r=.773, p<.01), health care
(r=.634, p<.01), tax (r=.726, p<.01), crime (r=.407, p<.01), economy (r=.571,
p<.01), and jobs (r=.271, p<.01). Hypothesis One was also supported by data in
Table 2, which showed that the correlations between Clinton's mentions and the
post-mention media coverage were significant on most issues in 1993 and 1994.
Considering that the correlations between Clinton's mentions and the pre-mention
media coverage were also significant on five of the six issues in the two-year
time period and on three issues (deficit, health care, and crime) in 1993, this
study conducted a paired-samples t-test comparing the means of the correlations
between Clinton's mentions and post-mention media coverage with the means of the
correlations between Clinton's mentions and pre-mention media coverage. In the
two-year time period, the correlations between Clinton's mentions and the
post-mention media coverage (M=.49375) were significantly higher (t=7.222,
df=11, p<.0001) than those between Clinton's mentions and the pre-mention media
coverage (M=.25142). The difference was also significance in 1993 (t=4.057,
df=11, p<.01) and 1994 (t=6.266, df=11, p<.001) (see Table 3).
Hypothesis Two stated that the president would have a stronger effect on
television than on newspapers. This was supported by data in Table 1. In the
time period of two years, the correlations between Clinton's mentions and the
post-mention television Setting the Media Agenda coverage were higher
than the correlations between Clinton's mentions and the post-mention newspaper
coverage on all six issues: deficit (.773>.576), health care (.634>.458), tax
(.726>.415), crime (.407>.338), economy (.571>.501), and jobs (.271>.255). To
determine the significance of the difference, a paired-samples t-test was
conducted comparing Clinton's influence on television and newspapers. The result
was supportive (t=3.15, df=5, p<.05) (see Table 4).
Hypothesis Two was also supported by data in Table 2. On the majority of the six
issues in both 1993 and 1994, the correlations between Clinton's mentions and
the post-mention television coverage were higher than those between Clinton's
mentions and the post-mention newspaper coverage. A paired-sampled t-test showed
that the difference was significant (t=3.185, df=11, p<.01) (see Table 4).
Hypothesis Three stated that the president would have a stronger effect on the
media in the honeymoon period than in the post-honeymoon period. This was
supported by data in Table 2. The correlations between Clinton's mentions and
the post-mention television coverage were higher in 1993 than in 1994 on four
issues: deficit (0.835 > 0.271), economy (0.587 > 0.167), health care (0.777 >
0.444) and tax (0.778 > 0.461). The correlations between Clinton's mentions and
the post-mention newspaper coverage were higher in 1993 than in 1994 on five
issues: the deficit (0.619 > 0.269), the economy (0.442 > 0.117), health care
(0.629 > 0.113), taxes (0.431 > 0.379) and crime (0.371 > 0.231). A
paired-samples t-test indicated that Clinton had a significantly higher
influence (t=2.926,
Setting the Media Agenda df=11, p<.05) in 1993 (M=.50567) than in 1994
(M=.28683).
This study also had a couple of exceptional findings. One was that the
correlation between Clinton's mentions and the pre-mention media coverage on the
crime issue in 1993 was higher than that between Clinton's mentions and the
post-mention media coverage (television in 1993: 0.401 > 0.266; newspapers in
1993: 0.391 > 0.371). The other was that the correlation between Clinton's
mentions and post-mention media coverage was lower in 1993 than in 1994.
Conclusion and Discussion
This study confirmed what some agenda-setting researchers have posited: that the
media agenda is not a given but is influenced by variables existing in the total
social matrix in which the agenda-setting process occurs (Westley, 1976; Dearing
& Rogers, 1996). This study produced evidence showing that the president of the
United States is stunningly successful in setting the media agenda on a range of
important issues. It is obvious that issues portrayed as important by the
president are also emphasized by the media. This findings lend support to the
argument that the media are agents of power (Altschull, 1984) and play the role
of reinforcing dominant social values and legitimizing the positions of elites
in the society (Bennett, 1980; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996).
However, the president's ability of manipulating the media is greatly diminished
by the end of his first year in office, i.e., when the honeymoon is over. This
finding indicates
Setting the Media Agenda
that the president is not the sole source of the media agenda and that there are
competing power elements. As Light (1983) pointed out, the president's power
came when the "policy windows" were left open to him by other power elements,
such as Congress and those represented by various interest groups (p. 161).
The finding that the presidential agenda was more highly correlated with
television coverage than with newspaper coverage indicates that the president is
more successful in controlling the electronic medium that can reach a large
national audience instantly.
This study also found that the president responded to media coverage on the
crime issue, confirming previous findings (Gilberg et al., 1980; Wanta et al.,
1989; Johnson et al., 1995) that there existed a two-way flow of influence
between the president and the media on certain issues. Political scientists
(Press & VerBurg, 1988) explained that the president has a need to survey his
political environment, which determines that he has to follow media coverage of
events, crises and opinions of his political opponents. Most politicians worry
about the interpretations resulting from media reports, because they recognize
that public perceptions, rather than reality, are the basis for most political
action. A qualitative analysis of media coverage revealed that there were very
active lobbyists, such as Sarah Brady with her Handgun Control Inc., trying to
push the issue of crime onto the media agenda, which in turn influenced Clinton.
With the passing of the Brady Bill in 1993, the interest groups seemed to lose
their momentum in setting the 1994 media agenda on that issue.
Setting the Media Agenda
Corroborating evidence from observational studies indicated that the president
generally attempts to follow events through the media. For example, Kennedy
scanned a dozen major papers each morning; President Lyndon Johnson had three
televisions installed side by side so he could watch the three networks
simultaneously. Presidents since Nixon receive a full news summary each day,
prepared by the press office (Light, 1983, p. 96). A survey of 118 presidential
aides showed that the media are generally viewed by the respondents as a source
of pressure (Light, 1983, p. 96).
This study had limitations. It examined only one president, while a different
president may demonstrate a different behavioral pattern due to a different
attitude or personality. Also, the study examined only two years of President
Clinton's presidency. The agenda-setting effect may take on a different pattern
after two years, particularly in the fourth year of a first term when the
president prepares himself for his re-election. Future research may also study
the influence of competing power elements on the media, such as Congress or
interest groups. Bennett (1980) pointed out that power elements tend to be
represented by interest groups whose task is to "promote the interests of the
wealthy and advantaged over the interests of the poor and disadvantaged" and
that they are "instruments of issue formation" (pp. 230-231). In agenda-setting,
the extent to which interest groups set the media agenda is relatively unknown.
References
Altschull, J. (1984). Agents of power: The role of the news media in human
affairs. New York: Longman.
Becker, L. B. (1982). The mass media and citizen assessment of issue importance:
A reflection on agenda-setting research. In D.C. Whitney & E. Wartella (Eds.),
Mass communication review yearbook 3 (pp. 521-536). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bennett, W. (1980). Public opinion in American politics. Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc.
Bennett, W. (1995). The clueless public: Bill Clinton meets the new American
voter in campaign '92. In S. Renshon (Ed.), The Clinton presidency: Campaigning,
governing, and the psychology of leadership (pp. 91-112). Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Berkman, R., & Kitch, L. (1986). Politics in the media age. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Blakesley, L. (1995). Presidential leadership: From Eisenhower to Clinton.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
Bosso, C. J. (1987). Pesticides and politics: The life cycle of a public issue.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Brosius, H. B., & Kepplinger, H. M. (1990). The agenda-setting function of
television news: Static and dynamic views. Communication Research, 17, 183-211.
Cohen, B. C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Cohen, J. E. (1997). Presidential responsiveness and public policy-making: The
Public and the policies that presidents choose. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
Michigan Press.
Cornwell, E. E. (1966). Presidential leadership of public opinion. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.
Davis, J. (1987). The American presidency: A new perspective. New York: Harper &
Row.
Davis, J. (1995). The American presidency. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Dearing, J., & Rogers, E. (1996). Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DiClerico, R. (1990). The American president. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Edwards, G., & Wayne, S. (1994). Presidential leadership: Politics and policy
making. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Eyal, C. H. (1981). The roles of newspapers and television in agenda-setting. In
G. C. Wilhoit & H. DeBock (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook 2 (pp.
225-234). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gilbert, S., Eyal, C. H., McCombs, M. E., & Nicholas, D. (1980). The state of
the union address and the press agenda. Journalism Quarterly, 57, 584-588.
Gonzenbach, W. (1996). The media, the president, and public opinion: A
longitudinal analysis of the drug issue, 1984-1991. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Grossman, M., & Kumar, M. (1979). The white house and the news media: The phases
of their relationship. Political Science Quarterly, 94, 37-53.
Hess, S. (1996). Presidents and the presidency. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings
Institution.
Johnson, T. J., Wanta, W., Byrd, J. T., & Lee, C. (1995). Exploring FDR's
relationship with the press: A historical agenda-setting study. Political
Communication, 12, 157-172.
Johnson, T. J., Wanta, W., Boudreau, T., Blank-Libra, J., Schaffer, K., &
Turner, S. (1996). Influence dealers: A path analysis model of agenda building
during Richard Nixon's war on drugs. Journalism Quarterly, 73, 181-194.
Kernell, S. (1986). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership.
Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Kumar, M. (1995). President Clinton meets the media: Communications shaped by
predictable patterns. In S. Renshon (Ed.), The Clinton presidency: Campaigning,
governing, and the psychology of leadership (pp. 167-193). Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Kumar, M., & Grossman, M. (1982). Images of the White House in the media. In D.
Graber (Ed.), The president and the public (pp. 85-110). Philadelphia: Institute
for the Study of Human Issues, Inc.
Lang, K., & Lang, G. (1966). The mass media and voting. In B. Berelson & M.
Janowitz (Eds.), Reader in public opinion and communication (pp. 455-472). New
York: Free Press.
Lasorsa, D. (1997). Media agenda setting and press performance: A social system
approach for building theory. In M. McCombs, D. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.),
Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in
agenda-setting theory (pp. 155-167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lewis, A. (1994). The press and the presidency. In M. Beaubien & J. Wyeth, Jr.
(Eds.), Views on the news: The media and public opinion (pp. 46-68). New York:
New York University Press.
Light, P.C. (1983). The president's agenda: Domestic policy choice from Kennedy
to Carter. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: MacMillan.
Locander, R. (1981). The president and the news media. In E. Kearny (Ed.),
Dimensions of the modern presidency (pp. 41-58). Saint Louis, MO: Forum Press.
Manheim, J. (1979). The honeymoon's over: The news conference and the
development of presidential style. Journal of Politics, 41, 55-74.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D.L. (1977). The agenda-setting function of the press.
In D.L. Shaw & M.E. McCombs (Eds.), The emergence of American political issues:
The agenda-setting function of the press (pp. 1-18). St. Paul, MN: West.
Miller, R., & Wanta, W. (1996). Sources of the public agenda: The
president-press-public relationship. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 8(4), 390-402.
Mueller, J. (1973). War, presidents and public opinion. New York: Wiley.
Neustadt, R. (1990). Presidential power and the modern presidents: The politics
of leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan. New York: The Free Press.
Park, R. E. (1922). The immigrant press and its control. New York: Harper.
Press, C., & VerBurg K. (1988). American politicians and journalists. Glenview,
Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Public papers of the presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton, 1993
(1994). Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and
Records Administration.
Public papers of the presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton, 1994
(1995). Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and
Records Administration.
Reedy, G. (1987). The twilight of the presidency from Johnson to Reagan. New
York: NAL Penguin Inc.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of
influence on mass media content. New York: Longman.
Stempel III, G. H., & Westley, B. H. (1981). Research methods in mass
communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stempel III, G. H., & Windhauser, J. W. (1984). The prestige press revisited:
Coverage of the 1980 presidential campaign. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 49-55.
Takeshita, T. (1997). Exploring the media's roles in defining reality: From
issue-agenda setting to attribute-agenda setting. In M. McCombs, D. Shaw, & D.
Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers
in agenda-setting theory (pp. 15-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thompson, K. (Ed.). (1985). The media. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Wanta, W. (1997). The messenger and the message: Differences across news media.
In M. McCombs, D. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy:
Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 137-151).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wanta, W., & Foote, J. (1994). The president-news media relationship: A time
series analysis of agenda-setting. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
38, 437-448.
Wanta, W., Stephenson, M., Turk, J., & McCombs, M. (1989). How president's state
of union talk influenced news media agendas. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 537-541.
Weaver, D., & Elliot, S. (1985). Who sets the agenda for the media? A study of
local agenda-building. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 87-94.
Weaver, D., Graber, D., McCombs, M., & Eyal, C. (1981). Media agenda-setting in
a presidential election: Issues, images and interest. New York: Praeger.
Weiss, C. H. (1974). What America's leaders read. Public Opinion Quarterly,
38(1), 1-22.
Westley, B. H. (1976). Setting the public agenda: What makes it change? Journal
of Communication, 26, 43-47.
White, T. H. (1973). The making of the president 1972. New York: Atheneum. .
Winter, J. P. (1981). Contingent conditions in the agenda-setting process. In G.
C. Wilhoit & H. DeBock (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook 2 (pp.
235-244). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Zucker, H. G. (1978). The variable nature of news media influence. In B.D. Ruben
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 2 (pp. 225-240). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books.
Table 1
Pearson Correlation Coefficients between the Number of Mentions by President
Clinton and the Number of Media Stories on Six Issues (N=96)
Deficit TV networks Newspapers
Clinton and following week's media .773** .576**
Clinton and previous week's media .331** .211*
Health care TV networks Newspapers
Clinton and following week's media .634** .458**
Clinton and previous week's media .344** .279**
Tax TV networks Newspapers
Clinton and following week's media .726** .415**
Clinton and previous week's media .307** .269**
Crime TV networks Newspapers
Clinton and following week's media .407** .338**
Clinton and previous week's media .243* .125
Economy TV networks Newspapers
Clinton and following week's media .571** .501**
Clinton and previous week's media .298** .312**
Jobs TV networks Newspapers
Clinton and following week's media .271** .255*
Clinton and previous week's media .117 .181
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Table 2
Pearson Correlation Coefficients between President Clinton's Mentions and
Post-mentions/Pre-mention Media Coverage on Six Issues in 1993 (N=46) and 1994
(N=50)
Deficit TV networks Newspapers
1993 1994 1993 1994
Clinton and following week's media .835** .271 .619** .269
Clinton and previous week's media .308* -.094 .139 .080
Health care TV networks Newspapers
1993 1994 1993 1994
Clinton and following week's media .777** .444** .629** .113
Clinton and previous week's media .458** .184 .479** -.141
Tax TV networks Newspapers
1993 1994 1993 1994
Clinton and following week's media .778** .461** .431** .379**
Clinton and previous week's media .286 .124 .251 .172
Crime TV networks Newspapers
1993 1994 1993 1994
Clinton and following week's media .266 .383** .371* .231
Clinton and previous week's media .401** .056 .391** -.143
Economy TV networks Newspapers
1993 1994 1993 1994
Clinton and following week's media .587** .167 .442** .117
Clinton and previous week's media .168 .198 .077 -.002
Jobs TV networks Newspapers
1993 1994 1993 1994
Clinton and following week's media .283 .280* .050 .327*
Clinton and previous week's media .119 .120 -.028 .228
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Table 3
Paired-samples t-test Comparing Correlations between Clinton's Mentions and
Post-mention Media Coverage with Correlations between Clinton's Mentions and
Pre-mention Media Coverage (N=12)
2 years Correlation mean t df sig.
Clinton and following week .49375
Clinton and previous week .25142 7.222 11 p<.001
1993 Correlation mean t df sig.
Clinton and following week .50567
Clinton and previous week .25408 4.057 11 p<.01
1994 Correlation mean t df sig.
Clinton and following week .28683
Clinton and previous week 6.52E-02 6.266 11 p<.001
Note: N=12 (both television and newspapers on the six issues)
Table 4
Paired-samples t-test Comparing Correlations between Clinton's Mentions and
Post-mention Television Coverage with Correlations between Clinton's Mentions
and Post-mention Newspaper Coverage
2 years (N=6) Correlation mean t df sig.
Clinton and television .56367
Clinton and newspapers .42383 3.15 5 p<.05
1993+1994 (N=12) Correlation Mean t df sig.
Clinton and television .461
Clinton and newspapers .3315 3.185 11 p<.01
Table 5
Paired-sampled t-test Comparing Correlations between Clinton's Mentions and
Post-mention Media Coverage in 1993 with Correlations between Clinton's Mentions
and Post-mention Media Coverage in 1994 (N=12)
Correlation mean t df sig.
Clinton and following week in 1993 .50567
Clinton and following week in 1994 .28683 2.926 11 p<.05
Appendix 1
The Dates of the Weekly Radio Addresses
Week 1993 Week 1994
01- Jan 2 01- Jan 1
02- Jan 9 02- Jan 8
03- Jan 16 03- Jan 15
04- Jan 23 04- Jan 22
05- Jan 30 05- Jan 29
06- Feb 6 06- Feb 5
07- Feb 13 07- Feb 12
08- Feb 20 08- Feb 19
09- Feb 27 09- Feb 26
10- March 6 10- March 5
11- March 13 11- March 12
12- March 20 12- March 19
13- March 27 13- March 26
14- April 3 14- April 2
15- April 10 15- April 9
16- April 17 16- April 16
17- April 24 17- April 23
18- May 1 18- April 30
19- May 8 19- May 7
20- May 15 20- May 14
21- May 22 21- May 21
22- May 29 22- May 28
23- June 5 23- June 4
24- June 12 24- June 11
25- June 19 25- June 18
26- June 26 26- June 25
27- July 3 27- July 2
28- July 10 28- July 9
29- July 17 29- July 16
30- July 24 30- July 23
31- July 31 31- July 30
32- Aug 7 32- Aug 6
33- Aug 14 33- Aug 13
34- Aug 21 34- Aug 20
35- Aug 28 35- Aug 27
36- Sept 4 36- Sept 3
37- Sept 11 37- Sept 10
38- Sept 18 38- Sept 17
39- Sept 25 39- Sept 24
40- Oct 2 40- Oct 1
41- Oct 9 41- Oct 8
42- Oct 16 42- Oct 15
43- Oct 23 43- Oct 22
44- Oct 30 44- Oct 29
45- Nov 6 45- Nov 5
46- Nov 13 46- Nov 12
47- Nov 20 47- Nov 19
48- Nov 27 48- Nov 26
49- Dec 4 49- Dec 3
50- Dec 11 50- Dec 10
51- Dec 18 51- Dec 17
52- Dec 25 52- Dec 24
Appendix 2
President Clinton's Mentions of Six Issues in 1993 and 1994
crime deficit economy health care jobs tax
week 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994
1 99 7 99 1 99 4 99 9 99 10 99 1
2 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99
3 99 1 99 0 99 1 99 1 99 4 99 0
4 99 31 99 20 99 12 99 42 99 34 99 9
5 99 9 99 3 99 2 99 9 99 8 99 1
6 0 0 6 4 8 4 1 2 7 28 3 0
7 4 1 41 0 27 1 28 1 51 0 31 0
8 0 0 3 0 6 0 1 0 4 0 5 0
9 0 20 3 0 9 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
10 0 0 4 6 8 8 1 1 12 16 3 0
11 0 0 2 2 4 4 0 0 11 22 0 0
12 0 0 3 0 6 0 1 18 6 0 1 0
13 0 0 3 0 11 0 1 20 18 0 1 0
14 0 4 0 0 9 1 0 1 9 3 0 0
15 99 22 99 0 99 2 99 2 99 6 99 0
16 2 12 4 0 10 0 2 0 13 0 0 0
17 1 22 3 0 6 0 1 0 21 2 2 0
18 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 1 0
19 0 3 1 1 3 2 3 12 4 2 3 0
20 0 5 7 1 9 2 0 0 4 1 12 1
21 1 2 10 3 4 6 1 13 6 4 5 0
22 0 0 5 0 7 1 2 0 0 0 7 0
23 0 0 7 4 6 8 1 4 7 15 10 4
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 1 0 0
25 0 20 5 2 5 2 0 2 8 4 8 0
26 0 2 10 2 7 5 2 20 8 5 6 1
27 0 4 3 2 7 2 0 12 5 4 4 1
28 0 0 4 3 5 10 1 0 8 10 0 0
29 0 21 6 2 7 2 0 2 14 1 5 2
30 1 0 12 0 8 0 2 10 14 0 13 0
31 0 11 30 1 21 3 12 9 26 4 33 1
32 0 15 5 1 4 3 4 5 5 2 7 0
33 17 19 1 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 1
34 0 18 5 0 9 0 29 0 4 0 0 1
35 2 13 2 2 3 0 6 3 5 0 1 1
36 0 4 4 4 8 2 5 2 7 6 4 3
37 0 10 2 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 0
38 1 0 2 0 2 0 89 0 4 0 2 0
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 1 0 1
40 0 5 1 1 0 1 29 2 0 2 1 1
41 20 0 1 0 5 0 2 0 2 0 0 0
42 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 11 1 0 0
43 18 1 1 1 4 2 3 0 5 0 0 2
44 0 1 0 0 0 4 21 0 0 2 0 0
45 0 2 0 2 2 5 1 1 10 14 0 3
46 3 1 1 1 8 5 3 0 9 9 0 0
47 0 99 0 99 4 99 2 99 14 99 0 99
48 7 5 1 0 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 1
49 0 2 2 1 9 2 0 0 12 3 2 0
50 23 1 0 7 0 8 0 2 0 9 0 8
51 0 0 1 0 10 3 2 0 7 3 2 2
52 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note: 99 = Missing data.
Appendix 3
The Frequencies of New York Times Coverage of Six Issues in 1993 and 1994
crime deficit economy health care jobs tax
week 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994
1 404 520 195 113 333 343 175 189 851 851 339 337
2 456 578 212 93 340 306 167 171 914 851 421 321
3 407 475 225 133 355 290 172 152 918 840 450 378
4 462 526 212 179 366 307 209 232 959 936 494 463
5 423 530 237 154 375 338 251 255 932 938 458 451
6 455 557 212 192 345 332 231 276 951 865 540 463
7 395 479 359 161 474 322 272 202 932 838 624 380
8 447 489 292 140 406 273 229 210 942 830 541 350
9 496 659 268 129 381 282 217 220 955 853 540 385
10 494 593 226 138 371 263 196 211 968 941 466 353
11 512 567 193 142 372 285 175 226 933 903 378 351
12 484 549 206 141 334 279 213 200 884 831 418 358
13 488 543 160 116 346 278 223 178 914 844 385 351
14 480 537 178 114 348 283 210 193 907 893 420 322
15 510 548 154 121 344 241 197 198 841 851 537 435
16 587 509 178 111 349 291 222 204 932 772 512 402
17 491 530 205 113 390 289 250 216 930 893 529 430
18 484 523 183 109 325 250 225 208 929 824 493 342
19 485 517 141 109 341 256 217 197 927 814 443 305
20 442 500 198 127 360 251 226 196 931 846 446 353
21 459 493 225 113 333 269 216 215 965 858 457 335
22 460 503 211 104 320 261 193 191 881 863 428 352
23 470 464 208 124 339 282 206 184 956 838 527 404
24 453 472 201 110 358 266 197 242 890 850 475 354
25 392 594 204 113 323 234 180 208 913 788 496 316
26 491 550 157 124 331 279 191 244 962 828 405 358
27 465 567 140 87 343 254 155 174 848 741 340 314
28 456 548 145 100 313 265 151 222 843 859 383 331
29 497 557 131 97 291 264 196 233 858 852 434 342
30 488 497 137 81 310 260 217 252 849 872 495 384
31 516 563 242 103 345 258 204 249 877 801 519 374
32 477 517 190 95 324 255 208 254 879 809 464 354
33 529 618 136 88 319 255 189 310 828 790 418 296
34 577 606 102 95 271 236 174 241 816 755 339 359
35 495 580 105 72 291 275 194 212 940 893 339 320
36 435 600 109 102 312 269 228 200 889 907 350 355
37 488 603 134 113 321 290 300 211 939 935 406 355
38 471 561 154 119 363 253 363 188 914 877 394 351
39 503 536 131 124 334 306 341 252 931 857 379 393
40 547 609 132 117 323 286 265 223 965 906 353 407
41 590 529 134 127 302 302 243 232 949 914 435 406
42 640 616 145 138 314 276 259 210 980 927 574 467
43 586 651 137 158 296 309 244 234 942 880 505 557
44 622 706 111 165 336 300 245 216 966 958 557 571
45 537 713 117 239 288 317 215 277 928 955 442 614
46 511 464 135 161 383 295 234 176 967 872 384 439
47 531 464 150 144 277 221 184 171 911 822 338 383
48 499 464 157 162 330 291 181 157 905 820 323 352
49 603 518 148 203 311 269 194 173 941 919 317 543
50 580 455 114 173 328 242 182 165 939 828 345 548
51 516 445 107 176 273 245 143 170 785 825 343 501
52 485 397 103 144 296 238 167 119 773 725 290 386
Appendix 4
The Frequencies of ABC Coverage of Six Issues in 1993 and 1994
crime deficit economy health care jobs tax
week 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994
1 76 137 58 13 59 62 51 61 101 122 29 36
2 59 180 54 2 39 62 32 18 95 82 50 14
3 47 128 49 13 49 63 42 25 127 133 35 28
4 59 307 46 18 68 57 64 131 153 137 56 34
5 76 217 72 5 108 42 58 76 131 117 64 26
6 129 149 57 40 83 27 53 42 134 96 90 35
7 54 86 166 25 194 31 70 36 155 58 205 23
8 79 79 56 12 71 21 42 35 101 71 77 9
9 90 142 28 6 50 21 41 73 94 63 33 25
10 112 138 27 10 55 29 53 72 106 79 34 37
11 70 117 39 5 53 37 48 80 83 130 30 28
12 54 89 39 12 44 34 56 76 87 99 46 68
13 72 117 35 5 55 48 61 45 112 107 41 30
14 102 88 37 7 60 60 46 76 112 121 30 29
15 102 119 23 3 40 22 38 61 97 112 64 69
16 127 104 17 7 29 42 26 37 96 91 20 37
17 58 64 25 2 62 45 75 28 109 140 42 19
18 84 179 21 6 52 33 55 46 105 98 36 26
19 74 111 46 4 68 36 40 45 113 87 56 28
20 69 106 64 5 42 36 48 58 104 120 81 23
21 75 120 88 5 82 38 72 88 117 107 108 17
22 47 98 30 7 57 40 32 55 134 121 66 18
23 72 61 51 10 62 44 27 59 122 135 102 25
24 82 164 56 7 53 24 38 78 100 115 88 21
25 53 248 77 11 48 21 27 101 105 102 72 21
26 72 297 14 14 51 34 12 90 104 113 24 35
27 55 277 36 1 75 30 15 33 121 137 24 24
28 31 129 31 8 45 32 22 51 75 101 32 14
29 61 128 28 9 38 22 18 103 107 81 38 16
30 67 145 65 8 44 20 31 96 98 109 53 19
31 77 166 109 13 51 43 25 132 93 124 116 36
32 105 134 56 10 39 20 46 143 101 110 57 31
33 142 243 9 21 35 38 69 134 62 96 21 22
34 178 250 9 9 27 36 33 79 71 120 32 23
35 111 178 13 7 36 56 40 48 121 103 23 14
36 120 144 13 6 35 34 83 52 89 103 37 30
37 106 92 4 15 29 19 97 33 94 120 30 20
38 63 114 25 9 39 21 253 29 99 115 66 9
39 78 147 15 13 33 37 117 53 85 117 44 30
40 98 153 7 16 23 33 55 39 109 119 16 20
41 127 100 2 11 15 39 31 24 114 111 8 35
42 149 120 12 7 46 40 57 23 119 72 22 25
43 136 151 22 22 48 44 79 33 99 95 41 38
44 197 222 6 16 49 38 58 23 94 119 44 31
45 157 164 19 35 43 50 56 65 122 133 52 77
46 129 87 16 12 65 37 47 25 124 105 24 35
47 179 118 17 18 35 34 27 22 114 113 20 60
48 153 132 13 15 42 32 53 22 158 121 39 52
49 209 101 14 16 41 39 35 33 107 102 30 69
50 136 102 15 49 54 32 24 30 127 100 20 129
51 119 102 14 20 60 29 13 9 122 107 24 55
52 93 94 8 6 52 29 31 18 94 80 30 39
|
