No abstract

No abstract

Among well-documented factors that shape political news coverage are reliance on official sources, indexing of coverage to the range of opinion among officials, and privileging of “episodes” over “themes.” The Downing Street Memo controversy of 2005 embodies a clash among those media agenda-setting factors and the intense desire of Internet activists to bring coverage to an issue that most political and media elites initially ignored. This case study analyzes the brief burst of mainstream coverage of the controversy. While straight news and television coverage was pegged mostly to official words and action, activists apparently had an easier time penetrating the op-ed pages of major newspapers.

Beginning with Ronald Reagan in 1982, U.S. presidents have typically given a radio address every Saturday morning designed primarily to make news in the Sunday newspapers and on the Sunday news programs. A content analysis of the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette from 1982 to 2005 shows that coverage of the presidents' addresses has diminished over time both in terms of the percentage of radio addresses covered and the number of paragraphs directly citing the president. Positive predictors of coverage include presidential approval ratings and a foreign-policy topic. Negative influences on coverage include the number of addresses given by all presidents since Reagan, indicating a decreasing lack of novelty, and whether the speech occurred in an election year.

No abstract