Your search

This chapter explores the case of President Bill Clinton and the Lewinsky scandal as a pivotal moment in the convergence of political, technological, and cultural changes that elevated the presence of gossip and rumor in mainstream news sources, with major, lasting consequences. Throughout the unfolding of the scandal, unconfirmed and often salacious information about what had happened was transmitted among individuals and amplified through the media. The chapter takes a close look at some key elements contributing to such trends, including use of anonymous sourcing, heightened competition between media outlets, and the emergence of new media actors covering American politics and the presidency. An analysis of two specific incidents, involving coverage of allegations there were eyewitnesses to the president’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and that Lewinsky had a dress stained with the president’s DNA in her possession, demonstrates how prominent national news outlets publicized information reflecting weaker reporting standards and conveyed unsubstantiated rumors as news. As the news media devalued itself in cases such as this one, abandoning professional conventions and prioritizing sensational, entertaining content, the public began to no longer trust or rely on such sources to help it interpret events. We continue to see the ramifications of those developments in the present, with widespread belief in fake news, little consensus on what constitute facts or reality, and stark partisan divides about who can be relied upon to transmit the truth of political events. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

This work examines expressions of personal hostility and animosity toward presidents―even beloved ones―throughout American history and their impact on policymaking, politics, and culture.People involved or simply interested in politics often ask whether today's political environment is more toxic than ever before. Hatred of America's Presidents: Personal Attacks on the White House from Washington to Trump presents an impartial and authoritative history of invective toward the White House so readers can determine the answer for themselves.The book focuses on the most representative and commonplace attacks of a vitriolic and personal nature, detailing who instigated and trafficked in the attacks and how presidents, administrations, and political parties defended themselves. It also illustrates how honest disagreements about policy―such as FDR's New Deal, Ronald Reagan's Central America policies, George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, and Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act―fueled expressions of hatred and condemnation. Finally, the book includes perspectives from both the right and the left on the legitimacy of these attacks and the victims' defenses as well as their impact on American politics and policy.

This work examines expressions of personal hostility and animosity toward presidents―even beloved ones―throughout American history and their impact on policymaking, politics, and culture.People involved or simply interested in politics often ask whether today's political environment is more toxic than ever before. Hatred of America's Presidents: Personal Attacks on the White House from Washington to Trump presents an impartial and authoritative history of invective toward the White House so readers can determine the answer for themselves.The book focuses on the most representative and commonplace attacks of a vitriolic and personal nature, detailing who instigated and trafficked in the attacks and how presidents, administrations, and political parties defended themselves. It also illustrates how honest disagreements about policy―such as FDR's New Deal, Ronald Reagan's Central America policies, George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, and Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act―fueled expressions of hatred and condemnation. Finally, the book includes perspectives from both the right and the left on the legitimacy of these attacks and the victims' defenses as well as their impact on American politics and policy.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act came into existence at a time when the president’s ability to lead the public was in question, political polarization had intensified, and the media environment appeared ever more fragmented, fast-moving, and resistant to control. Under such circumstances, how can contemporary American presidents such as Barack Obama build and maintain support for themselves and their policies, particularly as controversies arise? Using case studies of major contests over how key elements of the Affordable Care Act would be framed, and analysis of how those frames fared in influential and popular U.S. news sources, Hopper examines the conditions under which the president can effectively shape public debates today. She argues that despite the difficult political and communications context, the president retains substantial advantages in framing major controversial issues for the media and the public. These presidential framing advantages are conditional, however, and Hopper explores the factors that help make presidential frames more or less likely to gain hold in the news today. More so than in the past, an element of unpredictability in this news environment means that in pursuing favorable messaging, the president and his surrogates may also generate some unintentional consequences in how issues are portrayed to the public. Presidential frames can evolve with unfolding events to take on new meanings and applications, a process facilitated alternately by supporters, opponents, and media actors. Still, media figures and political opponents remain largely reactive to presidential communications, even as some seek to publicize and exploit weaknesses in the administration’s narratives. A close look at these recent cases casts new light on the scholarly debate surrounding the president’s ability to persuasively communicate and challenges conventional wisdom that the 21st century media largely present an unmanageable news environment for the White House. Presidential Framing in the 21st Century News Media engages with current events in American politics, focusing on the Obama Administration and the Affordable Care Act, while also reflecting upon the state of the American presidency, the news media, and the public in ways that have substantial implications for all of these actors, not merely in the present, but into the future, making it a compelling read for scholars of Political Science, Media Studies, Communication Studies, and Public Policy. © 2017 Taylor & Francis.

Studies of the institutional development of the presidency and popular leadership by presidents over time lead us to contrary expectations as to how a nineteenth-century president would react to a major political scandal. Scholarship on newspapers of the late 1800s is also unclear on how a quasipartisan media, with some outlets moving toward independence, would cover a White House scandal. I find that a close analysis of the case of President Ulysses S. Grant and the Whiskey Ring scandal forces us to reconsider what we assume to be firmly modern developments in both presidential studies and media history. Though a supposedly “premodern” president, Grant still mounted a concerted effort to mitigate the damage of the scandal. Further, although the president could get his version of events across in prominent newspapers, Republican newspaper coverage was hardly reliable. Newspapers also connected politicians’ character and psychology to mistakes made in office and made presidential strategies to shape public perception clear to their audiences—emphases on political gamesmanship considered hallmarks of the modern media environment.