Presidential Framing In The 21st Century News Media

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act came into existence at a time when the president’s ability to lead the public was in question, political polarization had intensified, and the media environment appeared ever more fragmented, fast-moving, and resistant to control. Under such circumstances, how can contemporary American presidents such as Barack Obama build and maintain support for themselves and their policies, particularly as controversies arise? Using case studies of major contests over how key elements of the Affordable Care Act would be framed, and analysis of how those frames fared in influential and popular U.S. news sources, Hopper examines the conditions under which the president can effectively shape public debates today. She argues that despite the difficult political and communications context, the president retains substantial advantages in framing major controversial issues for the media and the public. These presidential framing advantages are conditional, however, and Hopper explores the factors that help make presidential frames more or less likely to gain hold in the news today. More so than in the past, an element of unpredictability in this news environment means that in pursuing favorable messaging, the president and his surrogates may also generate some unintentional consequences in how issues are portrayed to the public. Presidential frames can evolve with unfolding events to take on new meanings and applications, a process facilitated alternately by supporters, opponents, and media actors. Still, media figures and political opponents remain largely reactive to presidential communications, even as some seek to publicize and exploit weaknesses in the administration’s narratives. A close look at these recent cases casts new light on the scholarly debate surrounding the president’s ability to persuasively communicate and challenges conventional wisdom that the 21st century media largely present an unmanageable news environment for the White House. Presidential Framing in the 21st Century News Media engages with current events in American politics, focusing on the Obama Administration and the Affordable Care Act, while also reflecting upon the state of the American presidency, the news media, and the public in ways that have substantial implications for all of these actors, not merely in the present, but into the future, making it a compelling read for scholars of Political Science, Media Studies, Communication Studies, and Public Policy.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act came into existence at a time when the president’s ability to lead the public was in question, political polarization had intensified, and the media environment appeared ever more fragmented, fast-moving, and resistant to control. Under such circumstances, how can contemporary American presidents such as Barack Obama build and maintain support for themselves and their policies, particularly as controversies arise? Using case studies of major contests over how key elements of the Affordable Care Act would be framed, and analysis of how those frames fared in influential and popular U.S. news sources, Hopper examines the conditions under which the president can effectively shape public debates today. She argues that despite the difficult political and communications context, the president retains substantial advantages in framing major controversial issues for the media and the public. These presidential framing advantages are conditional, however, and Hopper explores the factors that help make presidential frames more or less likely to gain hold in the news today. More so than in the past, an element of unpredictability in this news environment means that in pursuing favorable messaging, the president and his surrogates may also generate some unintentional consequences in how issues are portrayed to the public. Presidential frames can evolve with unfolding events to take on new meanings and applications, a process facilitated alternately by supporters, opponents, and media actors. Still, media figures and political opponents remain largely reactive to presidential communications, even as some seek to publicize and exploit weaknesses in the administration’s narratives. A close look at these recent cases casts new light on the scholarly debate surrounding the president’s ability to persuasively communicate and challenges conventional wisdom that the 21st century media largely present an unmanageable news environment for the White House. Presidential Framing in the 21st Century News Media engages with current events in American politics, focusing on the Obama Administration and the Affordable Care Act, while also reflecting upon the state of the American presidency, the news media, and the public in ways that have substantial implications for all of these actors, not merely in the present, but into the future, making it a compelling read for scholars of Political Science, Media Studies, Communication Studies, and Public Policy.

In President Trump and the News Media: Moral Foundations, Framing, and the Nature of Press Bias in America, political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers takes readers on a rhetorical framing tour de force, this time incorporating elements of Moral Foundations Theory to investigate the ideological underpinnings of press reports. Using a rhetorical version of framing analysis, Kuypers analyzes four major speeches by President Trump and compares them with the reporting on those speeches by the mainstream news media. The moral foundations of both Trump and the news media are examined to assess their respective moral/ideological underpinnings. The results turn framing theory on its head by demonstrating how frames do not give rise to moral assessments as previously thought, but rather the presence of moral foundations provide moral substance to frames as they are developed and found throughout news coverage. The results reveal how journalists inject bias consciously and unconsciously into hard news stories, and that their moral foundations act to privilege liberal concerns and denigrate conservative concerns. Kuypers conveys how news media framing acted to treat President Trump not as a source of news, but as a political opponent while at the same time helping the political opposition of the President. By evaluating journalistic practices through the lens of their own published ethical standards, Kuypers argues that contemporary journalistic practices are damaging the American Republic and makes the case for immediate incorporation of viewpoint diversity within news organizations. Scholars of communications, journalism, and political science will find this book particularly interesting.

Framing Theory is concerned with the whole process of manufacturing news from everyday reality where jounalists have to choose to focus on certain aspects and leave others out inevitably giving news a dominant theme, which was developed from Agenda Setting in Late 20th Century. The framing of presidential candidates during the multiparty era in Tanzania had a great impact on how media framed the presidential candidates and issues they proposed to the electrorate.This gave the new phenomenon of the media in terms of perfomance because of the increase of political parties in the first multiparty election since independence held in 1995, and ten years later(2005)gave the trend of print media coverage of presidential candidates in both Government and Private media. The fact that Framing, being the aspect chosen by a journalist in a story, has a big effect on how the audience receive the message, it has an influence on how an individual would perceive information in one way or another.

The Presidency in the Era of 24-Hour News examines how changes in the news media since the golden age of television--when three major networks held a near monopoly on the news people saw in the United States--have altered the way presidents communicate with the public and garner popular support. How did Bill Clinton manage to maintain high approval ratings during the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Why has the Iraq war mired George Bush in the lowest approval ratings of his presidency? Jeffrey Cohen reveals how the decline of government regulation and the growth of Internet and cable news outlets have made news organizations more competitive, resulting in decreased coverage of the president in the traditional news media and an increasingly negative tone in the coverage that does occur. He traces the dwindling of public trust in the news and shows how people pay less attention to it than they once did. Cohen argues that the news media's influence over public opinion has decreased considerably as a result, and so has the president's ability to influence the public through the news media. This has prompted a sea change in presidential leadership style. Engaging the public less to mobilize broad support, presidents increasingly cultivate special-interest groups that often already back the White House's agenda. This book carries far-reaching implications for the future of presidential governance and American democracy in the era of new media.

This dissertation explores the dynamic process of traditional print and online news media framing of direct presidential actions. Since President George Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality, the proper scope and exercise of executive unilateral powers are an ongoing debate. With a mere "stroke of the pen, " presidents can change the political status quo. However, the legality of unilateral powers remains murky, at best, as the US Constitution is silent about these actions. This research investigates the role of news institutions in bringing attention to these unwritten powers of the presidency, examining the amount of coverage, type of frames that are used, who influences the frames, and whether these frames serve as a substantive check on the unilateral powers of the American presidency. Employing content and textual analyses of more than 1,000 news items and nearly 7,000 quoted sources from the New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today as well as top online blogs like Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Townhall, Hot Air, and Michelle Malkin, across twelve presidential administrations, it is argued that the framing of direct presidential action is largely favorable to executive power. This is due to presidential sources being treated as more authoritative than congressional sources and other political actors in the news and a passive political system that is indifferent to presidential unilateral actions. Thus, the news provides cover to the president by normalizing the use of these unwritten powers. However, when the political system pushes back against unitary executive actions, the media responds in kind.

Destroying a man who loves his country and the Americans is a mortal sin. Nearly seventy-five million people voted for this man Donald Trump, the highest number of votes for a sitting president ever. To this day, the mainstream media and countless political leaders show what their daily actions are to bring about President Trump's fall. He was impeached twice by a majority in Congress but not in the Senate. How is Trump now? Will he return as president in 2024, or will he become the great leader of the Republican Party? Trumpism is alive and kicking. And the mainstream media? Will they change their attitude? Will there be a change? I doubt they will ever change; they will remain using their weapons as framing and false reporting, but changing their attitude in the near future is inescapable.

Kuypers charts the potential effects the printed presses and broadcast media have upon the messages of political and social leaders when they discuss controversial issues. Examining over 800 press reports on race and homosexuality from 116 different newspapers, Kuypers meticulously documents a liberal political bias in mainstream news. This book asserts that such a bias hurts the democratic process by ignoring non-mainstream left positions and vilifying many moderate and most right-leaning positions, leaving only a narrow brand of liberal thought supported by the mainstream press. This book argues that the mainstream press in America is an anti-democratic institution. By comparatively analyzing press reports, as well as the events that occasioned the coverage, Kuypers paints a detailed picture of the politics of the American press. He advances four distinct reportorial practices that inject bias into reporting, offering perspectives of particular interest to scholars, students, and others involved with mass communication, journalism, and politics in the United States.

Media coverage of presidential actions can not only serve journalistic purposes, but can also act as a check against unilateral decision making. The book seeks to uncover how the news media has worked to curtail overreaching power within the executive branch, demonstrating how the fourth estate keeps presidential overreach at bay.

Mediated Democracy: Politics, the News, and Citizenship in the 21st Century takes a contemporary, communications-oriented perspective on the central questions pertaining to the health of democracies and relationships between citizens, journalists, and political elites. The approach marries clear syntheses of cutting-edge research with practical advice explaining why the insights of scholarship affects students’ lives. With active, engaging writing, the text will thoroughly explain why things are the way they are, how they got that way, and how students can use the insights of political communication research to do something about it as citizens.