We were never married: rallying effects of election victories on President Clinton's honeymoon with the press

Bradley C. Freeman

ABSTRACT

It is widely believed that presidents enjoy a time of harmonious relations with the media known as the "honeymoon period." This content analysis of presidential coverage supports the prevalent notion that Bill Clinton did not receive such "preferential" treatment by the press after taking office. The study finds that immediately following both of his election victories, coverage of Clinton was both positive and assertive, suggesting an election rallying effect. In contrast, alter both inaugurals coverage turned decidedly negative in the first 100 days of both terms. Implications of press coverage on legislative policy, congressional relations, and public opinion are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Not unlike other presidents before him, President Bill Clinton had a mixed relationship with the American media. Depending on various factors, the coverage ranged from the extremely negative and critical on one hand to the positive and almost sympathetic on the other. There was also a lot of coverage that could be described as somewhere between the two extremes; coverage that was more objective and neutral. Which type of coverage was more prevalent? And were there certain times when coverage was more likely to lean one way versus another?

Traditional political science literature and mass communications research have suggested that presidents are likely to receive a "honeymoon period" in their relations with Congress and the press. (1) This is juxtaposed with their final days in office, during which time modern presidents are likely to receive a "lame-duck" moniker. The Harper-Collins Dictionary of American Government & Politics referred to the "honeymoon period" as "the relatively short time after taking office that an elected executive may have harmonious relations with the press, with legislature, and with the public." (2)

During this time period of unspecified length, the media (and Congress) are said to 'go easy' on the president. President Ford once said to the press: "I do not want a honeymoon with you. I want a good marriage." (3) And in 1981 Walter Mondale stated in an interview:

[A] president, in my opinion, starts out with a bank full of good will and slowly checks are drawn on that, and it's very rare that it's replenished. It's a one-time deposit. And you have to be careful - the more you do to encourage public trust, the longer those reserves are there. (4)

While the notion of a "honeymoon period" may be an oversimplification (especially if we consider only a journalistic conception of it), there is definitely an element of importance to the initial stages of the press-president relationship. The resultant themes that emerge from coverage during this time period, for example, can do much to set the agenda for what the public is likely to think about the new president. Nelson referred to this period as an "alliance phase, during which journalists and the White House have a shared interest in promoting 'gee whiz' stories about the new president." (5) These early portrayals of a president set the tone for his future coverage. (6) Thus, the media play an important role not only in what the public thinks about the president, but also how they think about him.

There is also another concept in the academic literature known as a "rallying event" that must be referenced here, because it has many similar elements with the notion of the honeymoon. Mueller initially defined a "rally" phenomenon as the support that the public gives to a president during an international crisis. (7) Other scholars have echoed the international nature of rally events, but have also hinted at the possibility that the phenomenon might occur in other instances. (8) Brody and Shapiro, for example, asserted:

Rallies occur because opinion leaders fail to criticize the president's policies; hence the public receives primarily positive messages about them from the media. The absence of negative elite evaluations indirectly leads to the absence of negative public evaluations, thereby producing surges in presidential popularity. (9)

During the first few months of the Clinton presidency, the media took control (perhaps taking its cue from the public); forcing the president to react to certain issues over others. (10) Some of the issues covered were not at the top of the public agenda (e.g., gays in the military, attorney general appointment); therefore, the media actively engaged in the process known as agenda-setting, asserting their own collective influence in determining which issues would receive attention from the Oval Office. (11) In taking this pro-active position and by framing stories a certain way, the public's perceived salience of issues may also have been altered. (12) It appeared that President Clinton's reactions were greatly influenced by the press coverage in the early days of his administration. While a certain amount of the coverage was brought on by Clinton himself and the way he handled things (and partisan Republicans eager to play their "balancing role" in highlighting any misstep), there were many other factors at work.

While some have implied, or outright asserted that "[r]eporters accorded Clinton no presidential honeymoon," and "Clinton was not even granted the honeymoon that newly elected presidents usually receive," this study intends to test that notion empirically. (13)

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Increasingly, ours is a society of information and message overload. Largely as a result of technology and the 24-hour news cycle, we are now quickly able to know more about the various happenings in the world, yet we do not have direct acquaintance with these events, newsmakers, and phenomena. As a result, much of the information that the public receives comes from the media, or second-hand information based on media exposure. (14) We believe that interpersonal communication may hold more sway with our friends and neighbors under certain conditions. (15) However, Mutz's assertion that our mediated surveillance amounts to a kind of "impersonal influence" also bears considerable weight. (16) Her thesis that media influence (by "supply[ing] us with information about those beyond our personal experiences and contacts...with impressions of the state of mass collectives" can be beneficial to democracy -- instructs the current study, in that it describes the relationship between the President of the United States a nd the citizenry -- it is largely mediated. (17)

The numerous and varied images and text that make their way through the gatekeeping process and into the communication channel on a daily basis represent the most important aspect of how the polity view the president, if not the office itself. Walter Lippmann wrote about this image construction in Public Opinion. (18) The idea is that people collect certain pictures in their heads, which can then later be called upon as necessary to describe the meanings or essence of things that are unfamiliar to them. Research indicates that the media are in fact able, on some level, to imprint these images of the world into people's heads. (19) Thus, while the exact audience level effects can be debated, clearly, the president's public image is determined in the press. Thus, the media continually define the presidency through their coverage of an individual president: his political philosophy, policy initiatives, his goals, and even his pets and pet interests. (20)

When studying presidential communications, there is no shortage of published material from which to choose. (21) A review of the literature revealed that the relationship between the press and the presidency varies considerably based on the perspective of the examiner. The story has been recounted by journalists, press secretaries, former advisors, scholars, and the presidents themselves (and their co-authors). The common thread among these interpretations is that while similarities exist -- the relationship of a president to the media is not consistent from one administration to another -- each president views and handles the press differently, and finally, each has left his own indelible mark on the process.

Things were different for Clinton once he entered the Oval Office. The candidate turned president was in a position to understand what Grossman and Kumar had written about a decade earlier:

A person's perception of presidential power changes when he becomes president. From the outside the presidency appears to be an all-powerful position. Once the president takes office, however, he becomes more aware of the power of those outside the White House, especially those he perceives as his antagonists. The media form one of the powers surrounding and restraining the presidency, as incumbents see it. (22)

The public's perception of the president's efforts is often reported through public opinion ratings. There exists a strong positive correlation between media coverage and public opinion. (23) Thus, the effectiveness of the president in puffing together his agenda of issues and communicating those to the press is very important; especially since high approval scores have been linked to greater effectiveness for the president in dealing with Congress. (24) In turn, Light declared, "[C]ontrol of the agenda becomes a primary tool for securing and extending power." (25) Further, Liebovich asserted, "Kennedy... and his staff realized that in the 1960s the president first had to capture the support of the constituency through the media. That would then translate to pressure on Congress." (26) Clinton's worst ratings came in the first year of his first term as he was roundly criticized from all sides on many issues. (27)

A Wanta and Foote study focused on an eighty-week period during President George Bush's time in office. Their study incorporated the public's agenda and used three national television networks to determine the media's agenda. The study examined the start of the administration, but did not make reference to any 'honeymoon' aspects, real or anticipated. The study was able, however, to suggest certain factors that might better predict the president's influence on media coverage patterns and vice-versa. In particular, the authors discovered that Bush was not very effective in influencing the media's agenda during this time frame -- just before the Persian Gulf War. In fact, the authors stated, "While the purpose of this study was to examine trends in presidential agenda-building, the study provides a telling commentary on the public presidency of George Bush." The study supported the assumption that the honeymoon is connected with subsequent presidential portrayals and governing effectiveness. (28)

On the Bush presidency, Rozell related that during the 1988 campaign period many stories in the press described Bush as a president without a clear agenda: "This perception of the man lacking a leadership vision became a constant theme in the press coverage of the Bush presidency." (29) This supported the notion that early reports and images of the president during the "honeymoon phase," can have an important impact on future coverage. Liebovich agreed, saying:

Reporters sniped at Bush for what they perceived as his lack of initiative and his indecisiveness, a theme that bounced back and forth for months: Bush could not handle the job; Bush could not settle on a course of action; Bush had no ideas or agendas; Bush's appointees were a disgrace. (30)

In addition, Kovach and Rosenstiel asserted:

The press in the late 1980s and 1990s was becoming more judgmental and interpretive, partly in response to an overstated fear that it had been manipulated by Ronald Reagan. After an early honeymoon, George Bush suffered relentlessly negative coverage during his last two years in office, especially during his reelection campaign. The barrage would only intensify for Clinton. (31)

Further, Rozell added, "Bush's openness towards the [elite] press did little to improve the nature of his coverage." (32) Judging from the literature evaluating the early elite media coverage, this was a lesson candidate Clinton did not learn (or refused to acknowledge) until well after his election. (33)

There are several anecdotal reasons as to why Bill Clinton did not enjoy a "honeymoon" period with the press. While the focus of the current study is more descriptive, some of these suggestions as to the "why" of the coverage are beneficial and as such are included. One of the more telling reasons, for example, is explained by Liebovich: "Immediately after the inauguration, Clinton's staff informed reporters that White House access would be restricted. Reporters were kept away from [certain] rooms and confined to the press and briefing areas in the basement." (34) It was also suggested that Clinton was frustrated early on by the media coverage of his administration and wanted to "go over the heads" of the White House press corps to talk directly to the people. (35) Rosenstiel countered that there was no strategy to govern the country by bypassing the national press. (36) He contended that it was merely the inexperience and ineptitude of a young White House staff. For his part, George Stephanopolous included t he chapter heading "What Honeymoon?" in his book and anecdotally reported that the Clinton's did not mind a confrontational stand with some members of the press, even though he favored a less confrontational approach. (37)

Nevertheless, for a three-week time-span during the 1992 campaign, candidate Clinton specifically avoided what were conventionally and collectively known as mainstream news media outlets. He appeared "on the Arsenio Hall television show, played a saxophone and later appeared on MTV, establishing a new level in undignified campaigning." (38) During this time, he visited programs linked more with popular culture than with politics. (39) It proved to be a bold and unprecedented move with the popular press and the public, or better stated "the audience." (40)

It also opened a floodgate. From that point on, many media outlets regardless of format, it seemed, had an increased propensity (if not credibility) to comment on presidential issues. (41) In this respect, it could be said that Clinton truly "popularized" the presidency. It was widely reported that Bush viewed such appearances as unpresidential. (42) This new "openness," perhaps owing as much to public relations and modern campaigning as anything else, also helps to explain why Clinton did not receive a "honeymoon period" with the traditional (and elite) news media, as other presidents most assuredly had during his first year in office. (43) The contrast between Bush and Clinton's views of the media, especially television, and its role in presidential politics was marked. It was also generational. Bush saw television as a power and a tool that was to be both feared and respected. This was evidenced early in his administration when he made it a point to meet directly with reporters and seemed to reject the Rea gan manipulation methods." Clinton, on the other hand, was comfortable with the medium. His generation had grown up with it. One could surmise that he was at ease in front of the camera and trusted his rhetorical skills in the live interview setting, as evidenced early with his three appearances on Larry King Live in the first year of his term. Clinton remarked that he felt he had to call fewer formal press briefings as a result of his media appearances. (45) Indeed, as Gelderman pointed out: "Clinton, in his first year as president, spoke publicly three times as often as Reagan did in his first twelve months." (46)

Previous studies in this area of research by Johnson illuminate the press-president relationship during the transitional stages between administrations. Her findings revealed that the portrayal of the president depended largely on the factors mentioned previously: What president and what media outlets were being examined. She also found that, while there were parallels in the representation of incoming and outgoing presidents in the print media outlets examined, there were also tremendously different "frames" occurring among the media as well. In the case of President Ford, for example, Newsweek adopted the "frame" or selective view that Ford was a sore loser when he lost to Carter, but Time characterized him in more positive tones. (47)

Hughes conducted a study on the issue of the honeymoon period, looking at the first one hundred days of headlines in The New York Times for six presidencies. His development of a "presidential assertiveness score" is useful (using this scale, Eisenhower and Reagan scored highest, Clinton and Carter lowest). Hughes looked at the media's portrayal "of the president's willingness and ability to exercise presidential power. Assertive language includes phrases such as 'demand' and 'attack,' suggestive of vigorous, authoritative action." The end result Hughes asserted was that the media, through its selection of language could influence the public portrait of a president. Further, he stated that "all honeymoons are not equal." (48)

This study incorporates the variable of assertiveness; however, it seeks to improve on the methodology of the Hughes piece by expanding the data source material (beyond headlines) and the time frame for the investigation, while focusing on the Clinton Administration and the proposed lack of a honeymoon period.

The literature supports the assertion that American presidents do receive a honeymoon with the press. (49) The more recent literature also indicates, however, that Clinton did not receive a honeymoon with the traditional news media. To what degree were the media (through their presidential portrayals) responsible or able to set the Clinton Administration's agenda during his first year in office? Looking at the entirety of his time in office, it is clear that the administration became better at "handling" the media. Arguably, the administration gained more experience and thus was better able to manage Clinton's portrayals. As a result, the administration was clearly able to exert greater influence on the media's agenda following Clinton's first year in office.

The current study highlights an important aspect of the American political process, which is a relevant issue for all future presidents. At the same time, it offers an important consideration for political scientists seeking to understand the effectiveness of the presidential agenda. The assertion is that a honeymoon with the press offers a president a decided advantage in his early and important dealings with Congress. Further, by setting the media's agenda, a president's public support can be increased, thereby making it easier for the president to engage in the strategy of "going public," (i.e., using this support to influence Congressional action. (50) In addition, it seeks to examine the nature of the two-term presidential system that portrays the president as less newsworthy as his second term transpires. The following hypotheses and research questions are suggested:

H1: During the initial stages of the first term of the Clinton presidency, the elite press portrayed Clinton as less assertive than at other times during his time in office.

The initial stages of the Clinton presidency are defined as the transition period immediately following his election victory in 1992 to his first day in office, and following the convention initiated by F.D.R., the first 100 days in office. The elite press include several outlets which have been shown in studies to influence other subsequent media reports. (51) For the current study, the two newsmagazines Newsweek and US. News and World Report are examined. Inclusion of data from newspapers and television is anticipated, as this study represents an on-going research area for the author.

H2: Press coverage of Clinton was less positive during his first 100 days in office than at other times ("bad news versus good news").

While existing literature suggests that a president enjoys a brief respite in his dealings with the press and Congress, a body of literature exists indicating that Clinton did not receive this kind of treatment. (52) It has been suggested that Clinton created his own coverage troubles by sticking closely to campaign promises and agenda issues that were not important to the mass polity. Further, some have reported that the Republicans in Congress were stunned by the Clinton victory and were thus keenly interested in thwarting the Clinton administration.

This study addresses both the issue of a honeymoon and a lame-duck period in reference to press portrayals of the Clinton presidency.

RQ1: Will the amount of press coverage be less in Clinton's second term than in his first term of office?

RQ2: Is the framework of press coverage of Clinton more descriptive as opposed to interpretive depending on the time period under examination? (53)

METHOD

This study is based on a content analysis of press coverage of President Clinton during his time in office. The term "press" is defined in this study as Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. Operationally, a census of articles in these news outlets that reference the president is selected, samples are then drawn, analyzed and coded according to: valence, assertiveness, narrative style, and word counts. The author acknowledges previous literature and research that has provided considerable methodological direction. (54)

Time Frame

The period under investigation was comprised of four separate time frames during the Clinton Presidency: the transitional period just after the election up to the inauguration (11/4/1992 to 1/19/93); and, the first 100 days of the Clinton Presidency (1/20/93 to 4/29/93). For comparison, the mid-point of his administration will be sampled (11/6/96 to 1/19/97; 1/20/97 to 4/29/97). The study treats the time frames as separate and compares portrayals in each as well as the usefulness of this time period approach for future research. Time frame selection does not imply that the honeymoon period is a specific length; these periods were chosen based upon suggestion of previous studies.

The first 100 days are important because it is during this time that the president outlines his tasks for the first part of his administration. In such respect, President Lyndon B. Johnson was quoted as saying that the president has one year to accomplish things:

You've got to give it all you can that first year. ... You've got just one year when they treat you right and before they start worrying about themselves. The third year, you lose votes...The fourth year's all politics...So you've got one year. (55)

Concerning the transition period, there are historical examples of where president-elects have issued an agenda platform before officially taking office, even the week after the election. There is also support for the assertion that during the transition period, attention turns decidedly away from the incumbent (lame-duck) and towards the new office holder (president-elect). This assertion is not specifically being tested in this particular study, rather it is the author's intention to focus on Clinton and his portrayals in the press. Future considerations of the lame-duck concept and term limits are to be considered, as this study represents one part of a larger research project for the author.

Study Issues

The variables under examination are from article coverage of the president and have been suggested by previous research as noted. Articles mentioning Clinton are coded according to: (1) Overall valence of the article (good news versus bad news), based on a content analysis: positive (+1), neutral (0), negative (-1); (2) Assertiveness, as determined by words used to describe Clinton. Assertions will be coded and assigned a value as follows: assertive (+1), passive (non-assertive, -1), or neutral (0); (3) Narrative structure, interpretive versus descriptive; and (4) The total word count of the systematically sampled articles written about the president in the various time periods (to test for variance in the number and average length of stories among the time periods, if any). A note here: The researcher does not mean to imply, by way of the categorical numbering system employed here, that positive coverage is the expected or anticipated outcome. The numbering system merely represents one way of categorizing th e data.

Presidential Assertiveness

Following a model employed successfully by Hughes, the study develops an overall "presidential assertiveness score, derived from a content analysis of the language" used in the outlets examined during Clinton's time in office. As mentioned in the study issues section, the assertions used in the press will be coded and assigned values to create an overall assertiveness score for each article. The theoretical linkage here is that a president's assertiveness (as tallied in the press portrayals) offers insight into his press relations and effectiveness in pursuing an agenda with the media, Congress, and the public.56

Media Sample

A content analysis of the print media outlets of Newsweek and US. News & World Report was conducted. These two newsmagazines are widely circulated and read, and are representative of the genre. The unit of analysis is the article, the recording unit is the individual assertion within each article. For the variables of valence and assertiveness, assertions concerning Clinton will be selected and coded from each article. (57) A thematic analysis approach will be used to collect data on the variable of journalistic reporting style -- descriptive or interpretive. (58)

A total of 200 articles were examined following a systematic sampling method which was employed in order to arrive at 25 articles per media outlet (of which there were two) per time frame (of which there were four). Articles are included based on their use of "Clinton" as a subject matter of the text. Of the entirety of articles meeting this qualification, a systematic sampling approach was utilized, taking every so many articles depending on the total number in existence for a given time frame. In this systematic sampling process, if the article included at least one assertion on Clinton, it qualified for inclusion in the analysis. If the article did not include such an assertion, examination then moved to the next suitable article.

Once the assertions were identified following the procedure outlined in the code book, they were individually evaluated and scored. The resultant scores were added together and divided by their combined total number in the article to arrive at one final continuous level score (range = +1 to -1) for the variables of valence and assertiveness for each of the 200 articles.

RESULTS

This study considered presidential press portrayal in the newsmagazines Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report during four separate time periods involving the Clinton Administration and the oft cited "honeymoon" and "lame-duck" time periods. A consistent pattern in coverage of Clinton emerged from this investigation.

The universe of articles considered for the study included all issues of the two newsmagazines during the four time frames of the study and appear in Table 1. The numbers represent the population of articles from a Nexis search. As described total of 25 articles were systematically sampled from the following population numbers; giving a final n of 200.

Clearly Clinton was less newsworthy in the second half of his tenure. Table 1 answers the first research question by showing a dramatic drop in total coverage of the president in the later time periods of the study. Numerous articles appear in time periods 1 and 2, while in time periods 3 and 4 a near census of articles was necessary to fill the sample size of 25 articles from each period.

The 25 systematically sampled articles were coded according to total word count and journalistic style. In addition, a total of 1,219 assertions were identified and coded according to valence and assertiveness. Originally, 50 assertions were double-coded and an intercoder reliability score of .85 was recorded. Since the number of assertions pulled for this initial test was low, another test was necessary to determine that assertion identification was reliable.

Assertions were identified by the researcher and an intracoder test resulted in >.93 reliability scores for each tested time frame. This procedure entailed pulling three articles (>10% of sample) from each time frame nearly two weeks after the original assertion coding activity and re-coding the articles. The procedure followed Johnson's (1985) successful implementation. (59)

Formal assertion coding on the variables of valence, assertiveness and journalistic style was conducted by two independent coders; intercoder reliability on assertion analysis for valence was recorded at .88, .84 Scott's Pi, and for the variable of assertiveness a .82 score was computed with a .75 Scott's Pi.

Assertiveness

In all time frames, it appears at first glance that President Clinton was portrayed more often using assertive language (51% - using cross tabulated results and reported in Figure 1) than the other categories of neutral (26.2%) or non-assertive (22.8%), according to the definitions of these terms used by this study and established by Hughes. (60) However, an ANOVA among the study's time frames and this variable indicated no statistical significance in the relationships (Table 2).

Table 3 shows the mean assertiveness scores and standard deviations for each of the four time frames. Hypothesis one was not supported. This hypothesis suggested that Clinton would be portrayed with less assertive language as he came under (and reacted to) increased press scrutiny in the beginning days of his administration. (61)

Valence

Combining the scores of all the articles from all the time frames, coverage of President Clinton leaned negative (Figure 2). This finding is not surprising, as it is predicted by the prevailing literature on the subject. However, it was discovered that the outlets studied portrayed the president-elect using more positive language during time periods one and three, the transition time periods between his election and the inauguration. Table 4 shows the means for each of the four time periods and the overall totals for this variable. An ANOVA test among the time periods indicated significance between time period one (November 4, 1992 to January 19, 1993) and three (November 6, 1996 to January 19, 1997), as well as between three and four (January 20, 1997 to April 29, 1997). The findings shown in Table 2 indicate support for a "honeymoon" period in Clinton's presidential press portrayals that seemed to last for roughly a two-month time period following the elections. Clearly, however, once Clinton took office an d began making decisions, his press coverage turned negative. The mean for time period four lends moderate support for a "lame-duck" effect in press portrayals of the president. A note of consideration here, though, because one might expect that for the lame-duck concept to be in full effect, negative portrayals would necessarily be indicated in both of the investigated time periods following his successful election to a second term.

The findings lend support for hypothesis two which predicted that coverage would be less positive during the first 100 days of each of his two terms (time period one referred to as the "honeymoon period" and time period four as the "lame-duck" period). The Clinton communication team's success seemed most apparent during the campaign and the transition period immediately following the election, but before inauguration. After taking office the team's reported mishandling of press relations may have been one of the factors involved in the negative coverage doubling during the first 100 days. It can be asserted that Clinton enjoyed a limited honeymoon with these press outlets immediately following the election (a rally effect?), but that this type of coverage did not last long for this president.

Journalistic Style

As predicted in the literature, most of the stories written followed an interpretive bent. Figure 3 shows the large difference between stories written from a descriptive perspective and those following a more interpretive style. This variable was coded using a thematic analysis approach and intercoder reliability on this variable alone was recorded with .97 score.

DISCUSSION

It is problematic to draw any wide-ranging conclusions based on the study of one president's relationship with the press. This study examined the nature and type of coverage afforded Clinton during key points in his administration. Interestingly, a pattern in the coverage was found in the two media outlets observed. The pattern was for coverage to lean positive immediately following an election (possible rallying effects of the election) supporting the notion of a honeymoon; while coverage turned negative after Clinton took the oath of office and continued for the first 100 days of each of his terms. Thus we can assert that Clinton did receive a brief "honeymoon" with these outlets (at least) just prior to the start of both his terms; Further, the lame-duck concept may not be as strong an effect as has been suggested.

The exact nature of the honeymoon and lame-duck concepts will likely remain a subject of debate among political scientists, historians, and communication researchers for the foreseeable future. The main contention is deciding which time periods should represent the honeymoon and lame-duck and be included when investigating these phenomena. This author asserts that the analysis can be effective by using the transition and first 100 days time periods, as suggested and reworked from previous studies. (62) This study's findings indicate support for both concepts in the context of press portrayals of the Clinton presidency. There is a pattern in the coverage, which may be linked to the election and relationship of the president with specific segments of the press corps. This assertion could be strengthened in future studies by examining public opinion data in conjunction with the press coverage analysis.

As noted, each president brings their own unique style to the way in which they will deal with the press. (63) The literature suggests that while Clinton held a disdain for certain factions of the press, especially the Washington press corps, there may have certain reporters who were enamored of the president and wrote only positive stories of his administration. (64) In terms of the assertiveness, while the scores were not as high as those recorded for previous presidents, it appears based on the results found here that the press' language tends to favor assertive words more than the opposite. (65)

The present study considered Clinton's portrayal in certain mainstream media outlets, outlets that have been the focus of numerous media research studies. As a result of this selection being chosen, testing for a liberal media bias, whether one views it as an assertion or an assumption was not within the purveyance of this study. It is worthy to note, however, that regardless of this president's actions or feelings towards the press (or perhaps in spite of them) a pattern emerges from the coverage consistent with prevailing literature on the subject of president-press relations.

The pattern uncovered here showed that coverage leaned positive immediately following an election, and dipped negative once Clinton began taking action more directly concerning his agenda. This finding is not uncommon for the press-president relationship as characterized and reported by others in the popular and academic press. Many would not have difficulty with the suggestion that Clinton was a good campaigner and knew enough to condition his rhetoric to gain a favorable response from the electorate and the press -- up to and then immediately following election day.

A final note of concern, the study did not seek to imply one way or another the cause for Clinton's coverage, although references addressing the "why" question pertaining to Clinton's coverage were to a large degree unavoidable due to the nature of the study. Also in choosing Clinton as the focus, invariably the limitations of the model of "N equals one" are raised. This paper dealt in a descriptive manner with President Clinton's coverage, as such the heuristic value is recognized as limited.

One of the hallmarks of democracy is the peaceful transition of power. In the United States, the penultimate opportunity to showcase this attribute of our government occurs every four years during presidential elections. During the 1992 and 1996 campaigns, like most campaigns, debate over policy and personal issues occurred. Every presidential election season, campaigning may take its toll on the candidates, but once the election is over, the country is said to "come-together" in support of the president-elect. While the term "honeymoon" has been applied to these early stages of an administration, might an election victory qualify more appropriately as a "rallying event?"

This paper examined press treatment of President Clinton during the initial stages of each his two terms in office in order to understand the nature of presidential press treatment during this time period. Although further investigation is warranted, it is possible that the election victory acted as a rallying event for Clinton. This assertion is supported by the data analysis in this paper showing that immediately following his election victories, criticism was momentarily muted or suspended in the press. However, shortly after his inauguration, the coverage changed considerably.

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he said that he believed "no man will ever bring out of that office the reputation that carries him into it." (66) For Clinton, history and further research on his press relations and portrayals will allow for at least one more important perspective in a more detailed assessment on the overall successes and shortfalls of his presidency.

Table 1

Clinton's Coverage in Two Newsmagazine, 1992-1997 *

         Newsweek  U.S. News

1992-93  58        99
1993     89        111
1996-97  39        29
1997     40        31

* Select time periods within these years.

Numbers represent article totals uncovered using the Lexis-Nexis
database. Each article was reviewed for relevance of Clinton coverage

Table 2

One-way Analysis of Variance for Assertiveness and Valence of Coverage
by Time Period, Means and Standard Deviations *

Time Periods

  Variables    11/4/92 to  1/20/93 to  11/6/96 to  1/20/97 to   F
                1/19/93     4/29/93     1/19/97     4/29/97
               Mean (SD)   Mean (SD)   Mean (SD)   Mean (SD)

Assertiveness     .38         .25         .27         .38      1.27
                 (.39)       (.48)       (.49)       (.48)
   Valence        .06        -.14         .02        -.28      0021
                 (.48)       (.47)       (.53)       (.49)

  Variables     df    significance



Assertiveness  3,196      .284

   Valence     3,196      .002


* Assertions within articles were coded on a scale -1 to +1; same scale
was utilized for both variables.

Table 3

How Assertive was President Clinton? *

Time Period              Article Count  Mean  Standard Deviation

11/4/92 to 1/19/93       50             .38   .39
1/20/93 to 4/29/93       50             .25   .48
11/6/96 to 1/19/97       50             .27   .49
1/20/97 to 4/29/97       50             .38   .48

Total, all time periods  N = 200        .32   .46

* Coding score range is between -1 (non-assertive) and +1 (assertive).

This analysis is based on press portrayals of Clinton's words and
actions. See text for a more detailed explanation of the assertiveness
variable.

Table 4

Was Coverage of President Clinton Positive or Nagative? *

Time Period              Article Count  Mean  Standard Deviation

11/4/92 to 1/19/93       50             .07   .48
1/20/93 to 4/29/93       50             -.14  .47
11/6/96 to 1/19/97       50             .02   .53
1/20/97 to 4/29/97       50             -.28  .48
Total, all time periods  N = 200        -.08  .46

* Coding score range is between -1 (negative and +1 (positive).

Figure 1

The Press Portrays President Clinton, 1992-1997 *

Descriptive Statistics on the Variable of "Assertiveness"

Non-Assertive (278)           22.8%
Neutral (319)                 26.2%
Positive (622)                51%

* Selected time periods within these years. Figure represents the
aggregated results of all the assertions in the study.

N = 1,219 assertions in 200 total selected articles.

Note: Table Made from bar graph.

Figure 2

The Press Portrays President Clinton. 1992-1997 * Descriptive Statistics
on the Variable of "Valence"

                Positive vs.
                  Negative
                 Assertions

Negative (440)     36.1%
Neutral (453)      37.2%
Positive (326)     26.7%

* Select time periods within these years. Figure represents the
aggregated results of all the assertions in the study. N= 1,219
assertions in 200 total selected articles.

Note: Table made from bar graph

Figure 3

The Reporting Framework of Clinton Stories in Newsweek and U.S. News,
1992-97 * Descriptive Statistics on the Variable of "Narrative
Structure"

                              Number of Stories

Descriptive Framework (35)    17.5%
Interpretive Framework (165)  82.5%

* Select time periods within these years, N = 200.

Note: Table made from bar graph

NOTES

(1.) R. Locander, "The adversary relationship: a new look at an old idea," Presidential Studies Quarterly, 9 (1979): 265-278; K.S. Johnson, "The honeymoon period: Fact or fiction?" Journalism Quarterly, 62 (4, 1985): 869-876.

(2.) J. M. Shafritz, The Harper-Collins dictionary of American government and politics (New York, NY: Harper-Collins, 1992).

(3.) Shafritz, The Harper-Collins dictionary, 279.

(4.) M. Greenfield, "Who will be sworn in that day?" The Washington Post, (1981, January 20): A21.

(5.) M. Nelson, "Why the press exalts presidential power," Media Studies Journal, 8 (2, 1994): 155.

(6.) G. Edwards, The public presidency (NY: St. Martin's, 1983).

(7.) J. E. Mueller, War presidents, and public opinion (NY: Whiley, 1973).

(8.) S. L. Parker, "Toward an understanding of 'rally' effects: Public opinion in the Persian Gulf war," Public Opinion Quarterly, 59 (1995): 526-546. This study offers several other instances where the rally effect may take hold. Several passages are devoted to the rally phenomenon in Brody, Assesing the president: The media, elite opinion, and public support (CA: Stanford University Press, 1991). And finally, G.C. Edwards, III. & T. Swenson, "Who rallies? The anatomy of a rally event," The Journal of Politics, 59 (1, 1997): 200-212.

(9.) As quoted in Parker (1995): 527. In addition, it has also been suggested that "In the absence of formalized opposition to a policy of external military engagement, external conflicts such as the Persian Gulf War tend to mobilize support behind authority." D.M. McLeod, W.P. Eveland, Jr., & N. Signorielli, "Conflict and public opinion: Rallying effects of the Persian Gulf War," Journalism Quarterly, 71 (1, 1994): 20.

(10.) S. Hess, "President Clinton and the White House press corps -- year one," Media Studies Journal, 8 (2, 1994): 1-8.

(11.) M. McCombs, & D. Shaw. "The agenda setting function of the mass media," Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (1972): 176-185. The research was updated and summarized in J. Dearing, & E. Rogers, Agenda-setting (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996).

(12.) Iyengar, & D. R. Kinder, News That Matters: Television and American Opinion (University of Chicago Press, 1987).

(13.) L. Liebovich, The press and the modem presidency (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998): 183; T. E. Patterson, "Legitimate beef: The presidency and a carnivorous press," Media Studies Journal, 8 (2, 1994): 21.

(14.) H. D. Lasswell, "The structure and function of communication in society," In L. Byson, (Ed.), The communication of ideas (NY: Harper and Brothers, 1948).

(15.) D. F. Kinsey, & S. H. Chaffee, "Communication behavior and presidential approval: The decline of George Bush," Political Communication, 13 (3, 1996): 281-291.

(16.) D.C. Mutz, Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes (NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

(17.) D. C. Mutz, Impersonal influence. See also, R. Hart, Seducing America: How television charms the modern voter (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998). In this sense, though, Hart argues that the medium of television tends to alienate us from the democratic process, while Mutz's argument is to suggest that (depending on certain factors) this is not necessarily a bad thing for our democracy.

(18.) W. Lippmann, Public Opinion (NY: Macmillan, 1921).

(19.) G. Gerbner, L. Gross, & N. Signorielli, "Charting the mainstream: Television's contributions to political orientations," Journal of Communication, 32 (1982): 100-127; M. Stephens, The rise of the image, the fall of the word (NY: Oxford Press, 1999).

(20.) In terms of White House "pets" see: J. Neuman, "The press and presidential pets, children and embarrassing relatives," Media Studies Journal, 8 (2, 1994), 177-183. On the subject of "pet interests" (often the subject of the Saturday morning presidential radio addresses) see W. Wanta, & J. S. Foote, "The president-news media relationship: A time series analysis of agenda-setting," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38 (1994): 437-448.

(21.) R.W. Lee, Politics & the press (Washington, DC: Acropolis Books, 1970); K.E. Kendall, Presidential campaign discourse: Strategic communication problems (Albany: SUNY Press 1995); S. Ponder, Managing the press: Origins of the media presidency, 1897-1933 (NY: St. Martin's Press,1998); J. Tebbel, & S.M. Watts, The press and the presidency (NY: Oxford University Press, 1995); W. E. Leuchtenburg, In the shadow of FDR: From Harry Truman to Bill Clinton (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993).

(22.) M. B. Grossman, & M. J. Kumar, Portraying the president: The White House and the news media (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1981).

(23.) D. Domke, D. Fan, M. Fibison, D. Shah, S. Smith, & M. Watts, "News media candidates and issues, and public opinion in the 1996 presidential campaign," Journalism & Mass Communications Quarterly, 74 (4, 1997): 718-737.

(24.) W. Wanta, "Presidential approval ratings as a variable in the agenda-building process, Journalism Quarterly, 68 (4, 1991): 672-679.

(25.) P. C. Light, The president's agenda, 3rd ed. (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999): 2.

(26.) Liebovich The press and the modern presidency, 17.

(27.) T. Rosenstiel, The beat goes on: President Clinton's first year with the media (NY: Twentieth Century Fund, 1994). Others have examined more closely the relationship between the polling data and the president, see for example J. Stimson, "Public support for American presidents: A cyclical model," Public Opinion Quarterly, 40 (1, 1976): 1-21; or Wants "Presidential approval ratings as a variable in the agenda-building process." For the current study, I have shied away from delving into these numbers. My contention (hardly original) is that the media ultimately tell us about the activities of POTUS and also how to evaluate his performance. Thus, the approval ratings follow the framing in the press portrayals -- for discussion of this research see: Z. Pan, & G.M. Kosicki, "Priming and media impact on evaluations of the president's performance," Communication Research, 24 (1, 1997): 3-30. Brody (in Assessing the president) said that "approve" is a more socially desirable answer for respondents in the first year of an administration? There may be something to this.

(28.) W. Wanta & J. S. Foote, "The president-news media relationship..." The quote in the text comes from p.445. To be sure, the study made several noteworthy findings, among them: 1. Bush "was able to elevate certain issues to national importance [by tapping] an underlying public emotion or expectation;" 2. "Media coverage and presidential influence often coincided;" and 3. "[P]residents are most effective at 'agenda-surfing,' simultaneously riding the waves within the original news cycle." These comments are found in the document's discussion section.

(29.) M.J. Rozell, The press and the Bush presidency (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1996): 12.

(30.) Liebovich The press and the modern presidency, 176.

(31.) B. Kovach, & T. Rosenstiel, Warp Speed: America in the age of mixed media (NY: Century Foundation Press, 1999): 84.

(32.) Rozell, The press and the Bush presidency, 3.

(33.) There is a distinction that I wish to make here: Clinton was open (he gave more public speeches than his immediate predecessors did in the early going), but this was mainly in alternate media outlets, not in what we know as the traditional White House press. In relation to the inveterate reporters, the Clinton media staff did (perhaps) react by restricting access. I discuss Clinton's relation to both the elite and more popular media in the study. For further elaboration of these concepts see C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite and Bell's Populism and Elitism: Politics in the Age of Equality. Another reference to examine on this subject is M.D. Watts, D. Domke, D. V. Shah, & D. P. Fan, "Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns: Explaining public perceptions of a liberal press," Communication Research, 26 (2, 1999): 144-175.

(34.) Liebovich, The press and the modern presidency, 184.

(35.) C. Georges, "Bad news bearers: The media really were mugging Bill Clinton; Here's the proof," Washington Monthly. 25 (1993): 28-29.

(36.) Rosenstiel The beat goes on: President Clinton's first year with the media.

(37.) G. Stephanopolous, All too human: A political education (Boston, MA: Brown & Little Publishers, 1999).

(38.) Liebovich, The press and the modern presidency, 177.

(39.) For discussion and salience of this link see, for example: Weaver & Drew, "Voter learning in the 1992 presidential election: Did the "nontraditional" media and debates matter?" Journalism & Mass Communications Quarterly, 72 (1, 1995): 7-17.

(40.) For a discussion of the difference see: R. Baker, "A time for barkers," In Hahn, "The media and the presidency: Ten propositions," Communication Quarterly, 35 (2, 1987): 257. Also, S. Mickelson, From whistle stop to sound bite: Four decades of politics and television. (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1989). As well as, J. Street, Politics & popular culture (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1997).

(41.) J. Carey, "The mass media and democracy: Between the modem and the postmodern," Journal of International Affairs, 47 (1993): 1-21.

(42.) J. A. Maltese, Spin control: The White House office of communications and the management of presidential news (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1994).

(43.) The established system was not being followed, as MTV appeared to carry as much clout on Pennsylvania Avenue as the New York Times. That Clinton appeared regularly on popular (read non-elite) television programs and granted interviews to non-traditional press outlets was to say the least, puzzling to the Bush campaign. Bush considered such appearances as "un-presidential." And yet following these appearances, Clinton received boosts in the polls and more media coverage than had any other presidential candidate previously. Was Clinton merely looking for exposure any way he could get it, or was there an underlying philosophy to these appearances? Clinton was not of Washington (read outsider) and did not believe that the priorities of the elite press there were the agenda items important to the public or that he wished to even address. It is widely held that Clinton reveled in having the ability to do talk shows and town halls to circumvent the official Washington press corps. Mongerson, among others, wrot e to this effect in The power press, that during and alter the 1992 election, candidates clearly preferred to bypass the traditional media. I'm not sure that this claim applies to George W. Bush, who seems to have reverted to a more traditional relationship with the press. The colorful reports of Bush's behavior on the campaign trail in Bruni's Ambling into history (2001), for example, arguably do not represent the common frame in coverage by the traditional press coverage for this president. On an anecdotal side note (and for what it's worth): Mainstream broadcast outlets and commentators (including Rush Limbaugh and Paul Harvey) were reporting in April of this year that Bush's "honeymoon" with the press was ending. Two occurrences were being listed as the possible culprit: 1. Bush's enacting of tariffs on steel imports and 2. Al Gore's return to the national spotlight, criticizing some of the Bush administration's domestic policies.

(44.) Rozell, The press and the Bush presidency.

(45.) Hess, "President Clinton and the White House press corps -- year one."

(46.) C. Gelderman, All the presidents' words: The bully pulpit and the creation of the virtual presidency (NY: Walker and Go, 1999).

(47.) K.S. Johnson, "The portrayal of lame-duck presidents by the national print media," Presidential Studies Quarterly, 16 (1986): 50-65.

(48.) W.J. Hughes, "The 'not-so-genial' conspiracy: The New York Times and six presidential 'honeymoons,' 1953-1993," Journalism & Mass Communications Quarterly, 72 (4, 1995), 841-850. The quotes are from pages 843 and 841 respectively.

(49.) Brody, Assesing the president: The media, elite opinion, and public support.

(50.) Powell altered our understanding of the "Going Public" phenomenon. He uncovered that presidents gave more public speeches as their policies and agenda were being well received, thus creating some extra time to stump. This finding challenges the claim that presidents increase their use of rhetoric and public speech ("go public") in order to promote and defend their positions that are perceived to be "in trouble" of some sort or that are not gaining positive attention. R. Powell, "'Going public' revisted: Presidential speechmaking and the bargaining setting in Congress," Congress & the Presidency, 26 (2, 1998), 153-170.

(51.) There are numerous studies that reference this difference among lead agenda-setting media outlets versus those that are more aptly considered followers, among them, Shoemaker & Reese for example. That the New York Times and Washington Post are considered among those outlets in the lead agenda setting "camp" is fast becoming a point taken for granted in mass communication research. P.J. Shoemaker, & S.D. Reese, Mediating the message, 2nd Ed. (White Plains, NY: Longman, 1996).

(52.) Clinton himself, in a CBS television interview had said as much. In the academic literature (and mainstream press) several of the studies mentioned throughout this paper address the issue, Patterson, "Legitimate beef: The presidency and a carnivorous press," for example.

(53.) For a detailed discussion of the difference between these two journalistic styles see T. E. Patterson, Out of order, (New York: Vintage Books, 1994). The argument might be considered conceptually analogous to the difference between episodic and thematic approaches in television journalism.

(54.) T.E. Patterson, Out of order, K.S. Johnson, "The portrayal of lame-duck presidents by the national print media;" D. Rife, S. Lacy, & F. G. Fico, Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research (Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishers, 1998); Shoemaker & Reese Mediating the message; W.J. Hughes, "The 'not-so-genial' conspiracy: The New York Times and six presidential honeymoons,' 1953-1993;" K. Neuendorf, The content analysis guidebook Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002).

(55.) In H. McPherson, Apolitical education (Boston: Little & Brown, 1972): 268.

(56.) The coding process was intense. Copies of the coding instructions and procedures are available upon request. In order to get a better grasp of this notion of presidential assertiveness it is highly recommended that the reader check out the Hughes piece since it does the best job substantiating the concept. Of course, others have employed different variables in evaluating the president In Preston's work, for example, the construct "power" is utilized. In his definition, assertiveness along with dominance and a sense of a controlled, organized hierarchy play a role in determining a president's overall power position. T. Preston, The president and his inner circle: Leadership style and the advisory process in foreign affairs (NY: Columbia University Press, 1997).

(57.) As successfully implimented by: M. Eichholz, Judging by media coverage? CEO images in the press (Unpublished manuscript, Syracuse University, 1998).

(58.) As successfully implemented by Johnson, "The portrayal of lame-duck presidents by the national print media."

(59.) The following formula was used:

R = 2Pab/Pa + Pb

Where R is reliability, Pa is the number of observations of the first coding, Pb is the number of observations of the second coding, and Pab is the number of agreed upon observations (Johnson, 1985: 872).

(60.) Brody, Assessing the president.

(61.) Patterson, "Legitimate beef..."

(62.) Johnson, "The honeymoon period: Fact or fiction?;" Johnson, "The portrayal of lame-duck presidents by the national print media;" Hughes, "The 'not-so-genial' conspiracy: The New York Times and six presidential 'honeymoons,' 1953-1993."

(63.) Maltese, Spin control.

(64.) T. Graham, Patterns of deception: The media's role in the Clinton presidency (Alexandria, VA: Media Research Center, 1996)

(65.) Hughes, "The 'not-so-genial' conspiracy: The New York Times and six presidential 'honeymoons,' 1953-1993."

(66.) As quoted in Shafritz, The Harper-Collins dictionary, 279.

Bradley C. Freeman is a doctoral student in the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communication at Syracuse University. His research interests include political communication, media history, radio (issues with traditional, satellite, and webcasts), and media credibility. He has authored several articles in the popular press and completed his M.A. at Syracuse. The author delivered an earlier draft of the article appearing in White House Studies at the NPSA annual meeting in Philadelphia in 2001 and wishes to thank Scott J. Spitzer of Seton Hall university for early reviews of this paper.

COPYRIGHT 2002 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group