Your search for: subjects:"Government And The Press United States"

Over the past decade, the public's opinion of Congress has declined - election after election - to record lows. Mark J. Rozell examines the reasons for the electorate's ongoing disgust with its legislature. Putting recent Congresses in historical perspectives, he notes that our modern ...

Over the past decade, the public's opinion of Congress has declined - election after election - to record lows. Mark J. Rozell examines the reasons for the electorate's ongoing disgust with its legislature. Putting recent Congresses in historical perspectives, he notes that our modern representatives are actually less corrupt than those of the past, due in large measure to increased public scrutiny and ongoing tightening of ethics and conflict of interest rules. Still, the public remains skeptical, indeed hostile, toward this most representative national institution. Rozell finds that much of the blame goes to highly negative press coverage of the Congress, and government in general, and that while Congress has always been a favorite target of critics and comedians, healthy skepticism has now largely been replaced by a debilitating cynicism that undermines the foundations of representative government. This is a major study which will be of interest to scholars and students of American politics, government, and media.

In this fourth volume of his highly acclaimed Newswork series, Stephen Hess offers a revealing look at the culture of journalism in Washington and the relations between legislators and the media. Satellite technology, cable television, and gavel-to-gavel coverage of floor proceedings in the House ...

In this fourth volume of his highly acclaimed Newswork series, Stephen Hess offers a revealing look at the culture of journalism in Washington and the relations between legislators and the media. Satellite technology, cable television, and gavel-to-gavel coverage of floor proceedings in the House and Senate during the 1980s led many to believe that local media were challenging the importance of big-circulation newspapers and network television news. As headlines proclaimed that hometown coverage was booming, observers envisioned new sources of information for viewers and voters. But journalists and scholars questioned whether increased local coverage would further ensure the reelection of incumbents, whether senators and representatives would become media show horses, and whether the commitment to representing the people would be compromised. In Live from Capitol Hill! Hess challenges conventional wisdom about media-Congress relations by vividly exploring how Congress affects local news media andhow the media influence Congress. He assesses how much gets reported by the Washington regional news bureaus and how little actually appears on television screens across the country, and discusses which members of Congress receive coverage and in what context. On the other side, he shows how legislators try to influence new coverage through press releases, video tapes, columns in local newspapers, and op-ed articles.

Spin Control, originally published in 1992, chronicles the development of the powerful White House Office of Communications and its pivotal role in molding our perception of the modern presidency. In this new edition, John Maltese brings his analysis up to date with a chapter detailing the media ...

Spin Control, originally published in 1992, chronicles the development of the powerful White House Office of Communications and its pivotal role in molding our perception of the modern presidency. In this new edition, John Maltese brings his analysis up to date with a chapter detailing the media techniques of the Bush administration, the 1992 presidential campaign (including the use of talk shows like "Larry King Live"), and the early Clinton administration.

Why do some citizens vote while others do not? Why does less than half of the American voting public routinely show up at the polls? Why is it that the vast majority of political issues affecting our day-to-day lives fail to generate either public interest or understanding? These questions have ...

Why do some citizens vote while others do not? Why does less than half of the American voting public routinely show up at the polls? Why is it that the vast majority of political issues affecting our day-to-day lives fail to generate either public interest or understanding? These questions have troubled political scientists for decades. Here, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Cappella provide the first conclusive evidence to date that it is indeed the manner in which the print and broadcast media cover political events and issues that fuels voter non-participation. This book illustrates precisely how the media's heavy focus on the game of politics, rather than on its substance, starts a "spiral of cynicism" that directly causes an erosion of citizen interest and, ultimately, citizen participation. Having observed voters who watched and read different sets of reports--some saturated in strategy talk, others focused on the real issues--the authors show decisive links between the way in which the media covers campaigns' and voters' levels of cynicism and participation. By closely monitoring media coverage among sample audiences for both the recent mayoral race in Philadelphia and the national health care reform debate, the authors confront issues concerning the effects of issue-based and competitive-based political coverage. Finally, they address the question repeatedly asked by news editors, "Will the public read or watch an alternative media coverage that has more substance?" The answer their findings so clearly reveal is "yes." Spiral of Cynicism is a pioneering work that will urge the media to take a close look at how it covers political events and issues, as well as its degree of culpability in current voter dissatisfaction, cynicism, and non-participation. For, in these pages, a possible cure to such ills is just what Jamieson and Cappella have to offer. Moreover, their work is likely to redefine the terms of the very debate on how politics should be covered in the future.