Studies have shown that parties selectively emphasize different issues to compete with each other to raise the salience for their preferred issues and to appear competent in handling them. This study applies the selective emphasis framework to individual politicians. We argue that politicians compete with both politicians from different parties and with their party members. We expect that issue ownership matters to competition with politicians from different parties and issue specialization to competition with politicians from their own party. We studied the individual issue agendas of 144 Belgian politicians for a period of 9 months on Twitter, in the news and in parliament. Our results show that issue specialization is a consistent driver of the three issue agendas of politicians, while the effect of issue ownership varies across agendas. This means that both factors are not mutually exclusive and that combining them can be an opportune strategy for politicians.
AlbækE (2011) The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism12(3): 335–348.
2.
AndewegRBThomassenJ (2011) Pathways to party unity: sanctions, loyalty, homogeneity and division of labour in the Dutch parliament. Party Politics17(5): 655–672.
3.
AndréAWautersBPiletJB (2012) It’s not only about lists: explaining preference voting in belgium. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties22(3): 293–313.
4.
ArnoldRD (2004) Congress, the Press, and Political Accountability. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
5.
BeckmanL (2006) The competent cabinet? Ministers in Sweden and the problem of competence and democracy. Scandinavian Political Studies29(2): 111–129.
6.
BräuningerTBrunnerMDäublerT (2012) Personal vote-seeking in flexible list systems: how electoral incentives shape Belgian MPs’ bill initiation behaviour. European Journal of Political Research51(5): 607–645.
7.
BudgeIFarlieD (1983) Party competition – selective emphasis or direct confrontation? An alternative view with data. In: DaalderHMairP (eds) West European Party Systems. Continuity and Change. London: Sage, pp. 267–305.
8.
CeronA (2017) Intra-party politics in 140 characters. Party Politics23(1): 7–17.
9.
ConradP (1999) Uses of expertise: sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science8(4): 285–302.
10.
ConwayBAKenskiKWangD (2015) The rise of twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(4): 363–380. DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12124
11.
Conway-SilvaBAFilerCRKenskiK, et al. (2018) Reassessing Twitter's agenda-building power: An analysis of intermedia agenda-setting effects during the 2016 presidential primary season. Social Science Computer Review36(4): 469–483.
12.
DaltonJRWattenbergM (eds) (2002) Parties without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
DamgaardE (1995) How parties control committee members. In: DöringH (ed) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. New York: St. Martin's Press, pp.308–325.
14.
DandoyR (2011) Parliamentary questions in Belgium: testing for party discipline. The Journal of Legislative Studies17(3): 315–326.
15.
DäublerTBräuningerTBrunnerM (2016) Is personal vote-seeking behavior effective?Legislative Studies Quarterly41(2): 419–444.
16.
De WinterLDumontP (2000) Parliamentary party groups in Belgium: subjects of partitocratic dominion. In: HeidarKKooleR (eds) Behind Closed Doors: Parliamentary Party Groups in European Democracies. London: Routledge, pp. 106–129.
17.
GreeneZHaberM (2017) Maintaining partisan ties: preference divergence and partisan collaboration in Western Europe. Party Politics23(1): 30–42.
18.
Green-PedersenC (2007) The growing importance of issue competition. The changing nature of party competition in Western Europe. Political Studies55(4): 608–628.
19.
HarderRSevenansJVanAP (2017) Intermedia agenda setting in the social media age: How traditional players dominate the news agenda in election times. The International Journal of Press/Politics22(3): 275–293. DOI: 10.1177/1940161217704969
20.
JürgensPJungherrASchoenH (2011) Small worlds with a difference: new gatekeepers and the filtering of political information on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international web science conference 2011, New York, 15–17 June 2011, p. 21. USA: ACM.
21.
KrebsRRJacksonPT (2007) Twisting tongues and twisting arms: the power of political rhetoric. European Journal of International Relations13(1): 35–66.
22.
MattsonIStrømK (1995) Parliamentary committees. In: DöringH (ed) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. New York: St. Martin's Press, pp.249–307.
23.
MayhewD (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
McGannAJ (2002) The advantages of ideological cohesion: a model of constituency representation and electoral competition in multi-party democracies. Journal of Theoretical Politics14(1): 37–70.
25.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–850.
26.
RahatGSheaferT (2007) The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949-2003. Political Communication41(1): 65–80.
27.
ReeseSDVosTPShoemakerPJ (2009) Journalists as gatekeepers. In: Wahl-JorgensenKHanitzschT (eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. Routledge, pp.93–107.
28.
RobertsonD (1976) A Theory of Party Competition. London; New York: Wiley.
29.
SchoberMFConradFGAntounC, et al. (2015) Precision and disclosure in text and voice interviews on smartphones. PloS One10(6): e0128337.
30.
SchröderVSteckerC (2017) The temporal dimension of issue competition. Party Politics24(6): 708–718.
31.
SevenansJ (2018) One concept, many interpretations: the media’s causal roles in political agenda-setting processes. European Political Science Review10(2): 245–265.
32.
SevenansJAlbaughQShahafT, et al. (2014) The automated coding of policy agendas: A dictionary based approach (v. 2.0.). In: CAP Conference 2014, Konstanz, June 2014, pp.12–14.
33.
SheaferTTzionitS (2006) Media-political skills, candidate selection methods and electoral success. The Journal of Legislative Studies12(2): 179–197.
34.
SiebererU (2006) Party unity in parliamentary democracies: a comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies12(2): 150–178.
35.
StrömbäckJEsserF (2017) Political public relations and mediatization: The strategies of news management. In: Van AelstPWalgraveS (eds) How Political Actors Use the Media. Springer, pp.63–83.
36.
TakensJKleinnijenhuisJVan HoofA, et al. (2015) Party leaders in the media and voting behavior: priming rather than learning or projection. Political Communication32(2): 249–267.
37.
ThesenGGreen-PedersenCMortensenPB (2017) Priming, issue ownership, and party support: the electoral gains of an issue-friendly media Agenda. Political Communication34(2): 282–301.
38.
TreschA (2009) Politicians in the media: determinants of legislators’ presence and prominence in Swiss newspapers. International Journal of Press/Politics14(1): 67–90.
39.
Van AelstPSheaferTHubéN (2016) Personalization. In: De VreeseCEsserF (eds) Comparing Political Journalism. Routledge, pp.130–148.
40.
Van AelstPSheaferTStanyerJ (2012) The personalization of mediated political communication: a review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism13(2): 203–220.
41.
Van AelstPVliegenthartR (2014) Studying the tango: An analysis of parliamentary questions and press coverage in the Netherlands. Journalism Studies15(4): 392–410. DOI: 10.1080/1461670x.2013.831228
42.
Van CampK (2017) The Influence of Issue Ownership Perceptions on Behavior of Journalists. PhD Thesis, University of Antwerp, Antwerp.
43.
van HolsteynJJMAndewegRB (2010) Demoted leaders and exiled candidates: disentangling party and person in the voter’s mind. Electoral Studies29(4): 628–635.
44.
Van SchendelenM (1976) Information and decision making in the Dutch Parliament. Legislative Studies Quarterly1: 231–250.
45.
VosD (2016) How ordinary MPs can make it into the news: a factorial survey experiment with political journalists to explain the newsworthiness of MPs. Mass Communication and Society19(6): 738–757.
46.
WalgraveSLefevereJTreschA (2012) The associative dimension of issue ownership. Public Opinion Quarterly76(4): 771–782.
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.
