When good news is scarce and bad news is good: Government responsibilities and opposition possibilities in political agenda-setting

European Journal of Political Research

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 364-389

  Thesen, Gunnar ^a,b  

^a INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF STAVANGER   (Norway)

^b AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Agenda setting; Government; Media; Opposition; Parties

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875660491     PISSN: 03044130     EISSN: 14756765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02075.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Armingeon, K. (2002). The effects of negotiation democracy: A comparative analysis. European Journal of Political Research 41(1): 81-105.
2. Bartels, L.M. (1996). Politicians and the Press: Who Leads, Who Follows? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, September.
3. Baumgartner, F.R. (1987). Conflict and rhetoric in French policymaking. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
4. Baumgartner, F.R. & Jones, B.D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5. Bennett, W.L. (1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication 40(2): 103-127.
6. Brambor, T., Clark, W.R. & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14(1): 63-82.
7. Brandenburg, H. (2002). Who follows whom? The impact of parties on media agenda formation in the 1997 British general election campaign. Harvard International Journal of Press Politics 7(3): 34-54.
8. Carmines, E.G. (1991). The Logic of Party Alignments. Journal of Theoretical Politics 3(1): 65-80.
9. Dalton, R.J., McAllister, I. & Wattenberg, M.P. (2000). The consequences of partisan dealignment. In R.J. Dalton & M.P. Wattenberg (eds), Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Edwards, G.C. & Wood, B.D. (1999). Who influences whom? The President, Congress and the media. American Political Science Review 93(2): 327-344.
11. Elmelund-Præstekær, C. (2010). Beyond American negativity: Toward a general understanding of the determinants of negative campaigning. European Political Science Review 2(1): 137-156.
12. Fridkin, K.L. & Kenney, P.J. (2004). Do negative messages work? The impact of negativity on citizens' evaluations of candidates. American Politics Research 32(5): 570-606.
13. Gallagher, M., Laver, M. & Mair, P. (2006). Representative government in modern Europe. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
14. Green-Pedersen, C. (2007). The growing importance of issue competition: The changing nature of party competition in Western Europe. Political Studies 55(3): 608-628.
15. Green-Pedersen, C. (2010). Bringing parties into parliament: The development of parliamentary activities in Western Europe. Party Politics 16(3): 347-369.
16. Green-Pedersen, C. & Mortensen, P.B. (2010). Who sets the agenda and who responds to it in the Danish parliament? A new model of issue competition and agenda-setting. European Journal of Political Research 49(2): 257-281.
17. Green-Pedersen, C. & Stubager, R. (2010). The political conditionality of mass media influence: When do parties follow mass media attention? British Journal of Political Science 40(3): 663-677.
18. Green-Pedersen, C. & Thomsen, L.H. (2005). Bloc politics vs. broad cooperation? The functioning of Danish minority parliamentarism. Journal of Legislative Studies 11(2): 153-169.
19. Håkansson, N. (1999). Valretorik: Om politisk språk i partipropagandan. Göteborg studies in politics 65. Göteborg: Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Göteborgs Universitet.
20. Hopmann, D.N. etal. (2012). Party media agenda-setting: How parties influence election news coverage. Party Politics 18(2): 173-191.
21. Jones, B.D. & Baumgartner, F.R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22. Karvonen, L. (2010). The personalisation of politics: A study of parliamentary democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
23. Keman, H. (1994). The search for the centre: Pivot parties in West European party systems. West European Politics 17(4): 124-148.
24. Kenny, D.A. (2008). Mediation with Dichotomous Outcomes. Unpublished working paper.
25. Kirchheimer, O. (1966). The transformation of the Western European party systems. In J. LaPalombara & M. Weiner (eds), Political parties and political development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26. Lund, A.B. (2002). Den redigerende magt: Nyhedsinstitutionens politiske indflydelse. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
27. Mancini, P. (1999). New frontiers in political professionalism. Political Communication 16(3): 231-245.
28. Mazzoleni, G. & Schulz, W. (1999). 'Mediatization' of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication 16(3): 247-261.
29. Panebianco, A. (1988). Political parties: Organization and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Petrocik, J.R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825-850.
31. Rudolph, T.J. (2003). Who's responsible for the economy? The formation and consequences of responsibility attributions. American Journal of Political Science 47(4): 698-713.
32. Semetko, H.A. etal. (1991). The formation of campaign agendas: A comparative analysis of party and media roles in recent American and British elections. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33. Skaperdas, S. & Grofman, B. (1995). Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review 89(1): 49-61.
34. Soroka, S.N. (2002). Agenda-setting dynamics in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.
35. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. International Journal of Press Politics 13(3): 228-246.
36. Vliegenthart, R. & Walgrave, S. (2008). The contingency of intermedia agenda setting: A longitudinal study in Belgium. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 85(4): 860-877.
37. Vliegenthart, R. & Walgrave, S. (2011a). Content matters: The dynamics of parliamentary questioning in Belgium and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies 44(8): 1031-1059.
38. Vliegenthart, R. & Walgrave, S. (2011b). When the media matter for politics: Partisan moderators of the mass media's agenda-setting influence on parliament in Belgium. Party Politics 17(3): 321-342.
39. Walgrave, S. & Van Aelst, P. (2006), The contingency of the mass media's political agenda setting power: Toward a preliminary theory. Journal of Communication 56: 88-109.
40. Walgrave, S., Soroka, S. & Nuytemans, M. (2008). The mass media's political agenda-setting power: A longitudinal analysis of media, parliament and government in Belgium (1993 to 2000). Comparative Political Studies 41(6): 814-836.
41. Wiberg, M. & Koura, A. (1994). The logic of parliamentary questioning. In M. Wiberg (ed.), Parliamentary control in the Nordic countries: Forms of questioning and behavioural trends. Helsinki: Finnish Political Science Association.