What can political candidates do to make their agenda more enticing to journalists? This study argues that the answer lies in appealing to newsworthiness values—specifically conflict, human interest, and simplicity—via rhetorical newsworthiness cues. Using an original data set of announcement speeches and national news media coverage from 1984 to 2016, this study tests this argument and finds that candidates whose speeches include more anger and candidate-based appeals, which appeal to journalists’ preference for conflict and human-interest stories, have their issue agenda covered with greater proportionality. It concludes with a discussion of the implications of these incentives on the electorate.
AhmadianS.AzarshahiS.PaulhusD. L. (2017). Explaining Donald Trump via communication style: Grandiosity, informality, and dynamism. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 49–53.
2.
AlbertsonB.GadarianS. K. (2015). Anxious politics: Democratic citizenship in a threatening world. Cambridge University Press.
BanksA. J. (2014). Anger and racial politics: The emotional foundation of racial attitudes in America. Cambridge University Press.
5.
BaumgartnerF. R.De BoefS. L.BoydstunA. E. (2008). The decline of the death penalty and the discovery of innocence. Cambridge University Press.
6.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
7.
BenoitW. L. (2007). Communication in political campaigns. Peter Lang.
8.
BoussalisC.CoanT.HolmanM.MüllerS. (n.d.). Gender, candidate emotional expression, and voter reactions during televised debates. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/4kqgr/
9.
BoydstunA. E. (2013). Making the news: Politics, the media, and agenda setting. Chicago University Press.
10.
BraderT. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. University of Chicago Press.
11.
BridgesJ. A.BridgesL. W. (1997). Changes in News Use on the Front Page of the American Daily Newspaper, 1986-1993. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 826–838.
12.
ConwayB. A.KenskiK.WangD. (2015). The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 363–380.
13.
Conway-SilvaB. A.FilerC. R.KenskiK.TsetsiE. (2018). Reassessing Twitter’s agenda-building power: An analysis of intermedia agenda-setting effects during the 2016 presidential primary season. Social Science Computer Review, 36(4), 469–483.
14.
CookT. E. (1998). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution. University of Chicago Press.
15.
DalmusC.HänggliR.BernhardL. (2017). The charm of salient issues? Parties’ strategic behavior in press releases. In Van AelstP.WalgraveS. (Eds.), How political actors use the media: A functional analysis of the media’s role in politics (pp. 187–205). Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.
17.
EdyJ. A.MeirickP. C. (2018). The fragmenting public agenda: Capacity, diversity, and volatility in responses to the “most important problem” question. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(4), 661–685.
18.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
19.
FennoR. (1978). Home style: Representatives in their districts. Little, Brown.
20.
FlowersJ. F.HaynesA. A.CrespinM. H. (2003). The media, the campaign, and the message. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 259–273.
21.
FrijdaN. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43(5), 349–358.
22.
GansH. J. (1979). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. Random House.
23.
GervaisB. T.MorrisI. L. (2018). Reactionary republicanism: How the tea party in the house paved the way for Trump’s victory. Oxford University Press.
24.
GitlinT. (2007). The bulldozer and the big tent: Blind republicans, lame democrats, and the recovery of the American ideals. Wiley.
25.
GraberD. A.DunawayJ. (2018). Mass media and America politics (10th ed.). CQ Press.
26.
GravengaardG.RimestadL. (2012). Elimination of ideas and professional socialisation. Journalism Practice, 6(4), 465–481.
27.
GrossmanM.HopkinsD. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological republicans and group interest democrats. Oxford University Press.
28.
HamiltonJ. T. (2004). All the news that’s fit to sell. Princeton University Press.
29.
HarcupT.O’NeillD. (2001). What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism Studies, 2(2), 261–280.
30.
HartR. P. (2000). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us. Princeton University Press.
31.
HartR. P.ChildersJ. P.LindC. J. (2013). Political tone: How leaders talk and why. University of Chicago Press.
32.
HayesD. (2010). The dynamics of agenda convergence and the paradox of competitiveness in presidential campaigns. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 594–611.
33.
HaynesA. A.MurrayS. G. (1998). Why do the news media cover certain candidates more than others? The antecedents of state and national news coverage in the 1992 presidential nomination campaign. American Politics Quarterly, 26(4), 420–438.
34.
HeffingtonC.ParkB. B.WilliamsL. K. (2019). The “most important problem” dataset (MIPD): A new dataset on American issue importance. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 36(3), 312–335.
35.
IyengarS.KinderD. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. University of Chicago Press.
36.
JamiesonK. H. (1996). Packaging the presidency: A history and criticism of presidential campaign advertising (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
37.
JostJ. T.KruglanskiA. W.GlaserJ.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
38.
JungherrA.RiveroG.Gayo-AvelloD. (2020). Retooling politics: How digital media are shaping democracy. Cambridge University Press.
39.
KendallK. E. (2000). Communication in the presidential primaries: Candidates and the media, 1912-2000. Greenwood.
40.
KingE. G. (1990). Thematic coverage of the 1988 presidential primaries: A comparison of USA Today and the New York Times. Journalism Quarterly, 67(1), 25–44.
41.
KiousisS. (2005). Compelling arguments and attitude strength: Exploring the impact of second-level agenda setting on public opinion of presidential candidate images. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(2), 3–27.
42.
KiousisS.KimS. Y.McDevittM.OstrowskiA. (2009). Competing for attention: Information subsidy influence in agenda building during election campaigns. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(3), 545–562.
43.
KiousisS.MitrookM.WuX.SeltzerT. (2006). First-and second-level agenda-building and agenda-setting effects: Exploring the linkages among candidate news releases, media coverage, and public opinion during the 2002 Florida gubernatorial election. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(3), 265–285.
44.
KreissD.LawrenceR. G.McGregorS. C. (2018). In their own words: Political practitioner accounts of candidates, audiences, affordances, genres, and timing in strategic social media use. Political Communication, 35(1), 8–31.
45.
KuG.KaidL. L.PfauM. (2003). The impact of web site campaigning on traditional news media and public information processing. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 528–547.
46.
LancendorferK. M.LeeB. (2010). Who influences whom? The agenda-building relationship between political candidates and the media in the 2002 Michigan Governor’s race. Journal of Political Marketing, 9(3), 186–206.
47.
LangG. E.LangK. (1983). The battle for public opinion: The president, the press, and the polls during watergate. Columbia University Press.
48.
LeeJ. H. (2009). News values, media coverage, and audience attention: An analysis of direct and mediated causal relationships. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(1), 175–190.
49.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.
50.
McGregorS. C. (2018). Personalization, social media, and voting: Effects of candidate self-personalization on vote intention. New Media & Society, 20(3), 1139–1160.
51.
McGregorS. C.LawrenceR. G.CardonaA. (2017). Personalization, gender, and social media: Gubernatorial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society, 20(2), 264–283.
52.
MohammadS. M.TurneyP. D. (2013). Crowdsourcing a Word–Emotion Association Lexicon. Computational Intelligence, 29(3), 436–465.
53.
NeimanJ. L.GonzalezF. J.WilkinsonK.SmithK. B.HibbingJ. R. (2016). Speaking different languages or reading from the same script? Word usage of Democratic and Republican politicians. Political Communication, 33(2), 212–240.
54.
NewhagenJ. E. (1998). TV news images that induce anger, fear, and disgust: Effects on approach-avoidance and memory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(2), 265–276.
55.
NisbetM. C. (2008). Agenda building. In DonsbachW. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 1, pp. 1–6). Wiley.
56.
NorranderB. (2010). The imperfect primary: Oddities, biases, and strengths of U.S. presidential nomination politics. Routledge.
57.
OliverJ. E.RahnW. M. (2016). Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 election. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1), 189–206.
58.
PanagopoulosC. (2021). Bases loaded: How US presidential campaigns are changing and why it matters. Oxford University Press.
59.
ParmeleeJ. H. (2013). The agenda-building function of political tweets. New Media & Society, 16(3), 434–450.
PfetschB. (1999). Government news management—Strategic communication in comparative perspective. Science Center Berlin for Social Research.
62.
PhoenixD. L. (2019). The anger gap: How race shapes emotion in politics. Cambridge University Press.
63.
PolsbyN. W. (1983). Consequences of party reform. Oxford University Press.
64.
RidoutT. N.MellenR.Jr. (2007). Does the media agenda reflect the candidates’ agenda?The International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(2), 44–62.
65.
RimH.HaJ. H.KiousisS. (2014). The evidence of compelling arguments in agenda building: Relationships among public information subsidies, media coverage, and risk perceptions during a pandemic outbreak. Journal of Communication Management, 18(1), 101–116.
66.
RyfeD. M. (2012). Can journalism survive?An inside look at American newsrooms. John Wiley & Sons.
67.
SandersK.CrespoM. J. C.Holtz-BachaC. (2011). Communicating governments: A three-country comparison of how governments communicate with citizens. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 523–547.
68.
ScaccoJ. M.CoeK. (2016). The ubiquitous presidency: Toward a new paradigm for studying presidential communication. International Journal of Communication, 10, 2014–2037.
69.
ScottZ. (2021). Lost in the crowd: The effect of volatile fields on presidential primaries. American Politics Research, 49(2), 221–232.
70.
SearlesK.BandaK. K. (2019). But her emails! How journalistic preferences shaped election coverage in 2016. Journalism, 20(8), 1052–1069.
71.
SeifertE. J. (2012). The politics of authenticity in presidential campaigns: 1976-2008. McFarland & Company.
72.
ShoemakerP. J. (2006). News and newsworthiness: A commentary. Communications, 31, 105–111.
73.
ShoemakerP. J.DanielianL. H.BredlingerN. (1991). Deviant acts, risky business and U.S. interests: The newsworthiness of world events. Journalism Quarterly, 68(4), 781–795.
74.
ShoemakerP. J.EichholzM.KimE.WrigleyB. (2001). Individual and routine forces in gatekeeping. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(2), 232–246.
75.
SidesJ. (2006). The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 407–436.
76.
SigelmanL.BuellE. H. (2004). Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in US presidential campaigns, 1960–2000. American Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 650–661.
SorokaS. N. (2012). The gatekeeping function: Distributions of information in media and the real world. The Journal of Politics, 74(2), 514–528.
79.
StegerW. P. (1999). Comparing news and editorial coverage of the 1996 presidential nominating campaign. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 29(1), 40–64.
80.
StrömbächJ.EsserF. (2014). Introduction: Making sense of the mediatization of politics. Journalism Studies, 15(3), 243–255.
81.
TedescoJ. C. (2001). Issue and strategy agenda-setting in the 2000 presidential primaries. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2048–2067.
82.
TuchmanG. (1978). Making news: A study in the constructing of reality. The Free Press.
83.
TurkJ. V. (1986). Information subsidies and media content: A study of public relations influence on the news. Journalism Monographs, 100(1), 1–38.
84.
UsherN. (2014). Making news at The New York Times. University of Michigan Press.
85.
ValentinoN. A.BraderT.GroenendykE. W.GregorowiczK.HutchingsV. L. (2011). Election night’s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. The Journal of Politics, 73(1), 156–170.
86.
VavreckL. (2009). The message matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns. Princeton University Press.
87.
VinsonC. D.MooreW. V. (2007). The campaign disconnect: Media coverage of the 2000 South Carolina presidential primary. Political Communication, 24(4), 393–413.
88.
WeaverD. H.WillnatL.WilhoitG. C. (2019). The American journalist in the digital age: Another look at US News people. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(1), 101–130.
89.
WeaverR. M. (1953.). The ethics of rhetoric. Henry Regnery.
90.
WestD. M. (2010). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, 1952-2008 (5th ed.). CQ Press.
91.
YioutasJ.SegvicI. (2003). Revisiting the Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal: The convergence of agenda setting and framing. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 567–582.
92.
YoungD. G. (2020). Irony and outrage: The polarized landscape of rage, fear, and laughter in the United States. Oxford University Press.
93.
ZallerJ. (n.d.). A theory of media politics: How the interests of politicians, journalists, and citizens shape the news. Unpublished Manuscript.
94.
ZelizerB. (1993). Journalists as interpretive communities. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10(3), 219–237.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
