The Agenda Setting Journal - Volume 4, Issue 1, 2020

Why do parties pay more attention to some policy issues than to others? To what extent does policy attention conveyed by the media, public opinion, and parliament explain party agenda-setting? And, more specifically, to what extent does the media agenda influence other agenda effects? This paper addresses these questions in an original manner by analyzing the influence of these three agendas – media, public opinion, and parliament – in party manifesto elaboration. The analysis relies on an extensive database of the Portuguese Policy Agendas Project that includes media attention, voter preferences, parliamentary questions and pledges in manifestos, between 1995 and 2015. Our findings show that the media agenda is the most influential in party manifesto elaboration, and that the other agendas have a stronger effect when the media also give attention to the issue. This depends, however, on the political party being in cabinet or in opposition, as well as on the economic context. These findings have important implications for party competition literature.

This article reports a comparative analysis of the media’s political agenda setting capacity in 27 European media systems, aimed at testing the hypothesis that the magnitude of this phenomenon is moderated by factors such as development of the press markets, journalist professionalization, strength of public television or political pluralism. The empirical analysis relies on data collected by the expert survey European Media Systems Survey, the World Association of Newspapers, the European Audiovisual Observatory, and the research project Providing an Infrastructure for Research on Electoral Democracy in the European Union (PIREDEU). Results show that political agenda setting is perceived as more common in press markets in which newspapers work as means of horizontal communication (and are, as subsystem, politically imbalanced), but that journalist professionalization and strength of public broadcasting systems foster political agenda setting effects.

The issue of whether and how political parallelism could play a role in the agendadynamics between media and politics is relevant. Yet, this issue has been exploredonly rarely and the findings are unclear. Using Italy as an illustration, this studyinvestigates the interactions between parallel media and the political agenda between2006 and 2011. Based on the analysis of a longitudinal dataset, this investigation aimsto assess whether and to what extent parallel media coverage may have affected thepolitical agenda concerning two policy issues: (i) reform of the labor market and (ii) theaccess of regular migrants to Italian citizenship. Specifically, the media’s attention tothese two policy issues will be analyzed based on the parliamentary questions (PQs)addressed by members of Parliament (MPs).

Why do politicians react to some stories in the news and ignore others? We attempt to answer this question by integrating the micro-level politician perspective with a macro-level country approach. Using a unique experimental approach, we test when politicians in the Netherlands and Switzerland (N = 80) take political action based on a (fictional) news report. We find that all politicians react more to negative coverage, but not if the information is merely presented as investigative reporting. Results also reveal a systematic variation that we ascribe to two key differences in the electoral systems. In The Netherlands, with its large single voting district, politicians react to news reports covering issues they are specialized in. In Switzerland, where between-party competition is more important, politicians are more likely to capitalize on the party’s profile. Overall, this study shows when and how politicians react to news coverage also depends on the institutional context.

This paper analyzes the mutual influence between media and political agendas in the Netherlands and Switzerland. While these two countries share a number of similarities, they also exhibit some important differences (e.g. the frequency of parliamentary meetings) that are likely to affect the patterns of influence. Time-series cross-section analyses of monthly data about issue attention in parliamentary questions and in media coverage for the period 1995–2003 (Switzerland) and 1995–2011 (Netherlands) provide partial support for our hypotheses. Agenda-setting and -building effects are overall stronger in Switzerland, which may be due to differences in the workings of national parliaments and varying degrees of mediatization. Moreover, our analyses reveal more pronounced differences between the coalition and opposition parties in Switzerland. Overall, this study demonstrates that it is important to consider smaller institutional differences when studying political agenda-setting and -building in a cross-national perspective.

This article explores to what extent the euro crisis brought about unprecedented attention to the European Union (EU) and if so with what consequences on the media visibility of different political actors in Spain. Drawing on a database of more than 27,000 stories published in the most read Spanish newspaper from 2004 to 2012, we demonstrate that following the outbreak of the crisis, executive elites receive more media coverage than social movements, trade unions, and challenger parties critical with EU policies and decisions. The media coverage of EU affairs, however, is not business as usual. Executive elites receive disproportionate media attention but they are no longer presented using the EU following credit-claiming strategies. Our results also indicate that the media are not passive actors that respond to institutional determinants but might be actively involved in the process of giving some actors more visibility in public debates on EU affairs.