Abstract
This study addresses two questions that are part of the larger debate on mediatized politics. First, we want to know to what extent the work of members of parliament is mediatized. Second, we want to know how the interaction between media and parliamentary politics is determined by the institutional context. To address these questions we present a content analysis of oral parliamentary questions (PQs) and press coverage in three West European countries: the Netherlands, France and Germany. This way we improve the insight in when and why specific political initiatives receive media attention, and if specific characteristics of these initiatives and the institutional context in which they are used increase the chance and amount thereof. Results from the regression analysis show that the most important factor in determining newsworthiness is the amount of media attention for a certain topic preceding the PQ. In addition, the analysis has shown that in the Netherlands and France voicing criticism towards a member of government in a PQ slightly increases the chances of getting covered by a newspaper. Finally, as expected, in the Netherlands the oral PQs are the most newsworthy, and in Germany the least, with France taking a middle position.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The focus on national politics is confirmed by our data on parliamentary questions. Overall, 67 per cent of the PQs focus on national issues. In Germany this is slightly lower (62 per cent) because of a higher amount of PQs that relate to international politics. In the three countries the share of questions on local issues is almost identical: in the Netherlands 15 per cent, in France 13 per cent and in Germany 12 per cent. The rules and procedures of the different parliaments can be found at: www.tweedekamer.nl, www.bundestag.de, and www.assemblee-nationale.fr.
The codebook can be obtained from the authors on request.
Intercoder-agreement was assessed on a sub-sample of the data for each country, yielding an average agreement level (percentage agreement across all relevant codes) of 80 per cent. The average agreement level for the French data is 69 per cent for the presented content variables, for the Dutch data 74 per cent and for the German data 97 per cent. To ensure comparability of coding between countries, all coders were asked to code the same fictive PQs, yielding an average agreement level of 70 per cent for the presented content variables. The reliability coefficients were calculated by PRAM (Program for Reliability Assessment with Multiple Coders) (Neuendorf, 2002).
We selected the five biggest national newspapers of each country that were available to us. The Netherlands: NRC Handelsblad, de Telegraaf, De Volkskrant, Trouw, Algemeen Dagblad. France: La Croix, Le Figaro, L'Humanité, Libération, Le Parisien-Aujourd'hui en France. Germany: Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt, Der Tagesspiegel, Financial Times Deutschland, taz - Die tageszeitung.
Lexis Nexis was used to search newspaper articles for the Netherlands, and Factiva was used for newspaper articles for Germany and France. Coders would first determine keywords for each PQ and then search newspaper articles in the databases using these keywords. Selection of relevant articles is explained in main text.
The highest amount of newspaper articles found afterwards for one individual PQ was eight; this occurred only once. For a French PQ.
In our analysis all issues (and thus all issue types) are included. As agenda-setting research suggests that media pay more attention to certain specific issues (Soroka, 2002; Walgrave et al, 2008), we tried to include this in our analysis. But including specific issues or issue-type dummies proved both theoretically difficult, and did also not, after trying various categorizations, result in significant outcomes. We have therefore not included issues as independent variable(s) in our theory nor results sections.
If not directed at a member of government, questions were addressed to the state secretary (the Netherlands and France) or the ‘Bundestag’, the German second chamber.
With a negative binomial regression, the predicted scores presented in the table are in the form of the logarithm of counts, an unfamiliar metric. To interpret the scores in the original count metric, the equation needs to be exponentiated (see for a detailed explanation for instance Coxe et al, 2009).
References
Altheide, D.L. and Snow, R.P. (1979) Media Logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bailer, S. (2011) People’s voice or information pool? The role of, and reasons for, parliamentary questions in the Swiss parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3): 302–314.
Blumler, J.G. and Kavanagh, D. (1999) The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication 16 (3): 209–230.
Brandenburg, H. (2002) Who follows whom? The impact of parties on media agenda formation in the 1997 British General Elections campaign. Harvard Journal of Press and Politics 7 (3): 34–54.
Cook, T.E. (1986) House members as newsmakers: The effects of televising Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 11 (2): 203–226.
Cook, T.E. (1989) Making Laws & Making News. MediaStrategies in the US House of Representatives. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.
Coxe, S., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2009) The analysis of count data: A gentle introduction to Poisson regression and its alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment 91 (2): 121–136.
Danielian, L.H. and Page, B.I. (1994) The heavenly chorus: Interest group voices on TV news. American Journal of Political Science 38 (4): 1056–78.
Elmelund-Præstekær, C., Hopmann, D.N. and Nørgaard, A.S. (2011) Does mediatization change MP-media interaction and MP attitudes toward the media? Evidence from a longitudinal study of Danish MPs. The International Journal of Press/Politics 16 (3): 382–403.
Franklin, M.N. and Norton, P. (eds.) (1993) Parliamentary Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galtung, J. and Ruge, M.H. (1965) The structure of foreign news. The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research 2 (1): 64–90.
Gans, H.J. (1979) Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon Books.
Gerhards, J., Offerhaus, A. and Roose, J. (2007) Die öffentliche Zuschreibung von Verantwortung. Zur Entwicklung eines inhaltsanalytischen instrumentarium. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 59 (1): 105–124.
Gerhards, J., Offerhaus, A. and Roose, J. (2009) Wer ist verantwortlich? Die Europäische union, ihre nationalstaaten und die massenmediale attribution von Verantwortung für Erfolge und Misserfolge. In: F. Marcinkowski and B. Pfetsch (eds.) Politik in der Mediendemokratie. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Green-Pedersen, C. and Stubager, R. (2010) The political conditionality of mass media influence. When do parties follow mass media attention. British Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 1–15.
Hilgartner, S. and Bosk, C.L. (1988) The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology 94 (1): 53–78.
Hjarvard, S. (2003) The study of international news. In: K.B. Jensen (ed.) A Handbook of Media and Communication Research. London: Routledge.
Hopmann, D.N., Elmelund-Præstekær, C., Albæk, E., Vliegenthart, R. and De Vreese, C.H. (2012) Party media agenda-setting: How parties influence election news coverage. Party Politics 18 (2): 173–191.
Jones, B.D. and Wolfe, M. (2010) Public policy and the mass media: An information processing approach. In: K. Voltmer and S. Koch-Baumgarten (eds.) Public Policy and Mass Media: The Interplay of Mass Communication and Political Decision Making. London: Routledge.
Kepplinger, H. M. (2002) Mediatization of politics: Theory and data. Journal of Communication 52 (4): 972–986.
Kepplinger, H.M. (2007) Reciprocal effects: Toward a theory of mass media effects on decision makers. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 12 (2): 3–23.
Korpershoek, L. and Oostlander, S.J. (2006) Internationale vergelijking van het mondelinge vragenuur. Lessen voor de Tweede Kamer. Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal.
Lengauer, G., Esser, F. and Berganza, R. (2012) Negativity in political news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism 13 (2): 179–202.
Martin, S. (2011) Parliamentary questions, the behaviour of legislators, and the function of legislatures: An introduction. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3): 259–270.
Mazzoleni, G. and Schulz, W. (1999) Mediatization of politics: A challenge for democracy. Political Communication 16 (3): 247–261.
Midtbø, T. (2011) Explaining media attention for Norwegian MPs: A new modelling approach. Scandinavian Political Studies 34 (3): 226–249.
Negrine, R. (1999) Parliaments and the media: A changing relationship? European Journal of Communication 14 (3): 325–352.
Neuendorf, K.A. (2002) The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rozenberg, O., Chopin, O., Hoeffler, C., Irondelle, B. and Joana, J. (2011) Not only a battleground: Parliamentary oral questions concerning defence policies in four Western democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3): 340–353.
Russo, F. and Wiberg, M. (2010) Parliamentary questioning in 17 European parliaments: Some steps towards comparison. The Journal of Legislative Studies 16 (2): 215–232.
Salmond, R. (2011) Bureaucrats in the headlights: Question times and delegation to bureaucrats. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3): 368–381.
Sánchez De Dios, M. and Wiberg, M. (2011) Questioning in European parliaments. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3): 354–367.
Sellers, P.J. and Schaffner, B.N. (2007) Winning coverage in the US senate. Political Communication 24 (4): 377–391.
Semetko, H.A. and Valkenburg, P.M. (2000) Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication 50 (2): 93–109.
Soroka, S.N. (2002) Issue attributes and agenda-setting by media, the public, and policymakers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14 (3): 264–285.
Strömbäck, J. (2008) Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. International Journal of Press Politics 13 (3): 228–246.
Strömbäck, J. and Van Aelst, P. (2013) Why political parties adapt to the media: Exploring the fourth dimension of mediatization. International Communication Gazette 75 (4): 341–358.
Thesen, G. (2011) Attack and defend! Explaining opposition and government responses. CEE; 30 May 2011, Paris, Sciences Po.
Tresch, A. (2009) Politicians in the media: Determinants of legislators’ presence and prominence in Swiss newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics 14 (1): 67–90.
Van Aelst, P., Maddens, B., Noppe, J. and Fiers, S. (2008) Politicians in the news: Media or party logic?: Media attention and electoral success in the Belgian election campaign of 2003. European Journal of Communication 23 (2): 193–210.
Van Aelst, P., Sehata, A. and Van Dalen, A. (2010) Members of parliament: Equal competitors for media attention? An analysis of personal contacts between MPs and political journalists in five European countries. Political Communication 27 (3): 310–325.
Van Aelst, P., Sheafer, T. and Stanyer, J. (2012) The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism 13 (2): 203–220.
Van Aelst, P. and Vliegenthart, R. (2013) Studying the tango. An analysis of parliamentary questions and press coverage in the Netherlands. Journalism Studies. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2013.831228.
Van Noije, L., Kleinnijenhuis, J. and Oegema, D. (2008) Loss of parliamentary control due to mediatization and Europeanization: A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of agenda building in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. British Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 455–478.
Vliegenthart, R. and Walgrave, S. (2008) The contingency of intermedia agenda setting: A longitudinal study in Belgium. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 85 (4): 860–877.
Vliegenthart, R. and Walgrave, S. (2011a) Content matters: The dynamics of parliamentary questioning in Belgium and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies 44 (8): 1031–1059.
Vliegenthart, R. and Walgrave, S. (2011b) When the media matter for politics: Partisan moderators of mass media influence on parliament in Belgium, 1993–2000. Party Politics 17 (3): 321–342.
Walgrave, S., Soroka, S. and 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.
Walgrave, S. and Van Aelst, P. (2006) The contingency of the mass media’s political agenda-setting power. Towards a preliminary theory. Journal of Communication 56 (1): 88–109.
Wiberg, M. (ed.) (1994) Parliamentary Control in the Nordic Countries. Tampere, Finland: Finnish Political Science Association.
Wiberg, M. (1995) Parliamentary questioning. Control by communication? In: H. Döring (ed.) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag.
Wolfsfeld, G. (2011) Making Sense of Media & Politics. Five Principles of Political Communication. New York: Routledge.
Wolfsfeld, G. and Sheafer, T. (2006) Competing actors and the construction of political news: The contest over waves in Israel. Political Communication 23 (3): 333–354.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Santen, R., Helfer, L. & van Aelst, P. When politics becomes news: An analysis of parliamentary questions and press coverage in three West European countries. Acta Polit 50, 45–63 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2013.33
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2013.33