It can be explained to varying degrees by three sets of factors - market-district congruence, characteristics of different types of media, and member-media relations."--BOOK JACKET.

Congress, the Press, and Political Accountability is the first large-scale examination of how local media outlets cover members of the United States Congress. Douglas Arnold asks: do local newspapers provide the information citizens need in order to hold representatives accountable for their actions in office? In contrast with previous studies, which largely focused on the campaign period, he tests various hypotheses about the causes and consequences of media coverage by exploring coverage during an entire congressional session. Using three samples of local newspapers from across the country, Arnold analyzes all coverage over a two-year period--every news story, editorial, opinion column, letter, and list. First he investigates how twenty-five newspapers covered twenty-five local representatives; and next, how competing newspapers in six cities covered their corresponding legislators. Examination of an even larger sample, sixty-seven newspapers and 187 representatives, shows why some newspapers cover legislators more thoroughly than do other papers. Arnold then links the coverage data with a large public opinion survey to show that the volume of coverage affects citizens' awareness of representatives and challengers. The results show enormous variation in coverage. Some newspapers cover legislators frequently, thoroughly, and accessibly. Others--some of them famous for their national coverage--largely ignore local representatives. The analysis also confirms that only those incumbents or challengers in the most competitive races, and those who command huge sums of money, receive extensive coverage.

Members of Congress have increasingly embraced media relations to influence policymaking. In Congress and the Media, Vinson argues that congressional members use the media to supplement their formal powers or to compensate for their lack of power to explain why congressional members go public and when they are likely to succeed in getting coverage.

In this fourth volume of his highly acclaimed Newswork series, Stephen Hess offers a revealing look at the culture of journalism in Washington and the relations between legislators and the media. Satellite technology, cable television, and gavel-to-gavel coverage of floor proceedings in the House and Senate during the 1980s led many to believe that local media were challenging the importance of big-circulation newspapers and network television news. As headlines proclaimed that hometown coverage was booming, observers envisioned new sources of information for viewers and voters. But journalists and scholars questioned whether increased local coverage would further ensure the reelection of incumbents, whether senators and representatives would become media show horses, and whether the commitment to representing the people would be compromised. In Live from Capitol Hill! Hess challenges conventional wisdom about media-Congress relations by vividly exploring how Congress affects local news media and how the media influence Congress. He assesses how much gets reported by the Washington regional news bureaus and how little actually appears on television screens across the country, and discusses which members of Congress receive coverage and in what context. On the other side, he shows how legislators try to influence new coverage through press releases, video tapes, columns in local newspapers, and op-ed articles.

The gold standard for Congress courses for over 30 years Congress and Its Members, Sixteenth Edition, by Roger H. Davidson, Walter J. Oleszek, Frances E. Lee, and Eric Schickler, offers readers current, comprehensive coverage of Congress and the legislative process by examining the tension between Congress as a lawmaking institution and as a collection of politicians constantly seeking re-election. The Sixteenth Edition of this best-selling text considers the 2016 elections and discusses the agenda of the new Congress, White House–Capitol Hill relations, party and committee leadership changes, judicial appointments, and partisan polarization, as well as covering changes to budgeting, campaign finance, lobbying, public attitudes about Congress, reapportionment, rules, and procedures. Always balancing great scholarship with currency, the best-seller features lively case material along with relevant data, charts, exhibits, maps, and photos.

From the Affordable Care Act to No Child Left Behind, politicians often face a puzzling problem: although most Americans support the aims and key provisions of these policies, they oppose the bills themselves. How can this be? Why does the American public so often reject policies that seem to offer them exactly what they want? By the time a bill is pushed through Congress or ultimately defeated, we’ve often been exposed to weeks, months—even years—of media coverage that underscores the unpopular process of policymaking, and Mary Layton Atkinson argues that this leads us to reject the bill itself. Contrary to many Americans’ understandings of the policymaking process, the best answer to a complex problem is rarely self-evident, and politicians must weigh many potential options, each with merits and drawbacks. As the public awaits a resolution, the news media tend to focus not on the substance of the debate but on descriptions of partisan combat. This coverage leads the public to believe everyone in Washington has lost sight of the problem altogether and is merely pursuing policies designed for individual political gain. Politicians in turn exacerbate the problem when they focus their objections to proposed policies on the lawmaking process, claiming, for example, that a bill is being pushed through Congress with maneuvers designed to limit minority party input. These negative portrayals become linked in many people’s minds with the policy itself, leading to backlash against bills that may otherwise be seen as widely beneficial. Atkinson argues that journalists and educators can make changes to help inoculate Americans against the idea that debate always signifies dysfunction in the government. Journalists should strive to better connect information about policy provisions to the problems they are designed to ameliorate. Educators should stress that although debate sometimes serves political interests, it also offers citizens a window onto the lawmaking process that can help them evaluate the work their government is doing.