| dc.description.abstract | This project takes an in-depth look at the role that media coverage of both
individual members of Congress and Congress as a whole plays in shaping approval
of legislators and the legislative branch. I argue that by examining what the media
choose to cover and how the media cover it, we can learn more about the standards
by which judgments of political performance take place. As such, I also contend
that differences between the tone and substance in which the media cover individual
legislators compared to how they cover the legislative branch go a long way to explaining
why Americans cast favor upon those they send to Congress and cast doubt
on Congress itself.
The essential dichotomy examined in the project, based on Thomas Patterson's
(1993) assessment of the changing nature of how the mass media cover campaigning,
splits reporting on Congress into governing coverage and game coverage. Governing
coverage deals more with substantive issues, policy problems, and signals that
business is taking place. Game coverage, on the other hand, is more concerned with
the parliamentary struggles between actors and parties to pass legislation and accrue
power; it treats politicians as strategic actors always competing for advantages.
Game coverage also focuses heavily on winning and losing. I argue that the over time
focus on either game or governing aspects of legislating and representing will drive
assessments of members of Congress and Congress itself. More specifically, I analyze
how game frame coverage is likely to spur negative job approval, while governing frame coverage drives positive assessments of job performance. | en |
