|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Clintonomics: Good News and Bad News
| Article
# : |
10199 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
8 / 1993 |
2,058 Words |
| Author
: |
Diana Owen
Diana Owen is assistant professor of government at Georgetown
University in Washington, D.C. Her most recent book is Media
Messages in American Presidential Elections (Greenwood Press,
1992). |
For President Bill Clinton, press reports about the economy have proved to be a double-edged sword. Bad economic news during the campaign helped Clinton to successfully negotiate the road to the White House. Clinton was able to defeat George Bush largely because the economy was in a slump, and news reports emphasized this fact.
Good economic news, however, has not made the trip from the White House to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue any easier for Clinton. Since January, news coverage of the economy has been quite positive, yet this has not translated into widespread congressional support for his economic reform package; in fact, the news has served to undermine his efforts. Further, favorable reports about the economy have not helped Clinton's popularity with the American people, which plummeted as the economy improved.
This somewhat paradoxical situation raises an interesting question about how media coverage of the economy influences presidential approval. Specifically, if negative media coverage of the economy worked against Bush's reelection, why hasn't positive coverage helped Clinton garner congressional support for his programs or public support for his presidency?
Pre/post election
Stories about the economy have dominated the domestic news agenda for over five years. There has been a substantial increase in the number of economic news reports in recent months coinciding with the presidential election cycle. Dramatic differences in tone are apparent, however, when we compare coverage during the Bush and Clinton administrations, especially through the periods directly before and after the presidential contest.
Reports issued by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) indicate that journalistic accounts of the economy were markedly more negative prior to the November election than they were after Clinton's victory. In fact, between July and October 1992, 96 percent of news stories that presented economic evaluations and 83 percent of reports that provided predictions about the economy were pessimistic.
The press highlighted slowed economic growth, high unemployment rates, stagnation in personal income levels, and a serious decline in consumer confidence. Highly charged terms, such as "recession" and even "depression," were used to describe the condition of the economy.
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
