1

Media coverage of interest groups and political actors:

A literature review

Miguel Ansemil Pérez

miguelansemil@ub.edu

Paper to be presented to the 2016 Graduate Student

Conference, Tartu, 10-13 July 2016.

[First draft, please do not cite or quote without permission]

Abstract

This paper conducts a literature review on academic articles analyzing the media coverage of

political actors and interest groups. For this purpose, we have focused on two main perspectives: 1)

the theoretical perspectives and goals defined by existing research; and 2) the research design that

scholars tend to use to study media coverage. This includes consideration of the dependent and

independent variables used by existing research as well as methodological concerns relate to the

operationalization of these variables. To do so, we have developed and original dataset, departing

from the analysis of already published research on the topic and the identification of the most

frequently cited bibliographic references. This paper is aimed to have a complete perspective on

how research has been conducted in order to identify the current lack of knowledge that must lead

future research on this type of analyses.

Introduction

Existing literature has stressed the media are the main intermediary between politicians and citizens

(e.g. Tresch, 2009), being a crucial resource for politicians that try to set their own agenda in the

media agenda as well as their claims and positions obtain visibility in the public sphere (e.g. Meijers

and Rauh, 2016). The media are an indicator of the democratic quality of national media systems

and they should act as a public forum where all the range of viewpoints, ideas and issues in a society

are represented (e.g. Yoon and Boydstum, 2014). Nevertheless, constraints of time and space in the

media selection process imply that this is highly competitive and, therefore, not all the political

actors are equally successful when they seek media attention (e.g. Soroka, 2002). Moderns politics

are also mediated politics due the importance and increasing intrusion of the media in the political

process as a consequence of their relevance for politicians to assure their reelection and obtain

prestige at the same time (e.g. Vos, 2013). Obtaining media attention helps to politicians to obtain

public support (Domke et al. 2006) because of its impact on public perceptions (e.g. Iyengar and

Kinder, 1987) and the chance of influencing the political and public debate (e.g. Tresch, 2009).

According to Wolfsfeld and Sheafer (2006) politicians spend several resources, in terms of time, to

obtain media attention and exert political influence, letting them to gain legitimacy in the political

2

process (e.g. Tresch, 2009) and show themselves before the society as relevant actors (e.g. Kioko

Ireni, 2012). Furthermore, regarding the European dimension, the European Union (UE) is

characterized by a “democratic deficit”, being one of the main shortcomings of the European

integration process (e.g. De Vreese et al. 2006). The concept of Europeanization of the national

media is related to media attention of EU actors and the creation/configuration of a European

common agenda (De Vreese et al. 2006). The Europeanization is a required condition to assure their

public accountability and mitigate the “democratic” deficit (De Vreese and Boomgaarden, 2012).

From these theoretical developments, we have conducted a literature review on media attention to

political actors and interest groups in order to analyze how this research has been operationalized

by scholars. Our aim is to obtain insight into the lacks of knowledge that must lead future research

into this specific type of media attention. For this purpose, we have developed an original dataset

of 64 academic articles, departing from already published research on the topic and the

identification of the most frequently cited bibliographic references. Concretely, we have been

interested in the analysis of the most prominent theoretical approaches investigated by existing

research as well as knowing which research designs have been more employed by scholars to

analyze the media attention to political actors and interest groups. This literature review includes

consideration of the dependent and independent variables used by existing research as well as

methodological concerns.

It must bear in mind that this paper is just first draft based only on academic articles. Given that

several scholarly publications are only available as books or chapters of books, we pretend to include

them in a forthcoming update of our data to conduct a deeper and more accurate literature review

on media coverage of political actors and interest groups. Furthermore, we will also analyze existing

research on media attention to social movements in order to draw conclusions about how far this

research field has been investigated in the different political dimensions (such as the European

arena) and having comparative data to contrast with traditional research on interest groups.

Data and measurement

Selection of existing research on political actors or interest groups

Our unit of analysis is all the academic articles published in scholarly journals whose dependent

variables, at least one of them, analyze media coverage of political actors such as political parties,

parliamentarians or interest groups. Therefore, we have discarded any other type of publications

such as PhD dissertations or conference papers.

To explore and identify previous research on this topic, we have followed three steps. First, we have

made several keyword searches to find academic articles likely to be analyzed. Second, we have

employed the citation system of Google Scholar to review those studies that make a reference to

our selected publications recursively, enabling us to prevent the limitations inherent to the keyword

search system and increase the kind of literature found. Finally, to decide whether a publication

meets the requirements to be coded, we have examined all their titles and abstracts, selecting all

those directly and explicitly related to our topic under study. Furthermore, we have only taken into

account academic studies written in English or Spanish, guaranteeing a deep understanding of the

research analyzed. We have coded each new publication with a unique identifier, ensuring the

3

creation of stable relationships between a specific publication and the rest of our variables under

study.

Moreover, we have coded the name of the academic journals where these publications have been

published and their year of publication, through a unique identifier. This variable is aimed to know

which are the most prominent scholarly journals in this research field.

All the scholars have been coded according to their order of appearance within a particular article,

not only the first author, codifying their name, surname, gender and the university linked to them

and the publications. All of them have just been introduced once into our database and are

identified by a unique identifier. Moreover, we have also identified the country of their universities.

This variable offers us, information about which are the most prominent scholars, countries and

universities carrying out research into media coverage of political actors or interest groups.

Variables under analysis

For each article we have coded the following variables:

Political area: All the political issues that have been analyzed by these publications, following the

methodology proposed by the Comparative Agendas Project, an international network of

researchers from several countries such as Spain or France. This methodology is based on 19 codes

for each policy area and will provide us a complete perspective of which issues have received more

attention in this to propose new analyses based on case studies.

Period of time: This variable is suggested in order to know whether research has been focused

either on short or long intervals of time and which periods of time or events have been analyzed by

scholars. Due to the fact that a particular publication may have several periods under study (such as

the analysis of three different national elections over time), we have coded all of them in our

database and they have been related to their publications through a unique identifier.

Media: This variable is aimed to know whether existing research is based on a comparative

perspective, which kind of media outlets have been the most analyzed and, finally, which formats

of media are prone to be combined in the analyses. We have coded their name, country and their

format: 1) Newspapers; 2) TV; 3) Radio; 4) Online new media; 5) Online traditional media; and 6)

magazines. We have coded all the media outlets selected as a sample in scholarly publications.

Level of Government: A specific publication belongs to a particular level of government from the

political dimension and policies defined in the objective pursued by the analysis. For example, a

research on the political interactions in the national parliament is coded as a “National” whereas

the analysis of the politicians’ positions regarding a European referendum is coded as a “European”.

The following unique codification has been proposed: 1) National; 2) Subnational; 3) Local; and 4)

European.

Variables: Our database also contains data related to the dependent and independent variables

employed by scholars in the research field. We have followed a harmonization process in order to

present a common description for those variables that have a similar definition among them.

Generally, an analysis may have defined several variables of both types, so we have coded all of

them.

4

Countries: We have created a unique codification from a list of 193 countries. Our goal is to identify

the most prominent countries analyzed by existing research and whether these analyses have been

based on a comparative perspective among countries. A particular publication may analyze several

countries at the same time, so we have coded all of them.

Type of actor: The following variable codes the type of actors analyzed by existing literature. Our

classification of actors is explained in the Appendix 1. We have also codified their political

dimension: 1) European actors; 2) National actors; 3) Subnational actors; 4) Local actors; and 5) All

of them. We want to know, for example, whether a publication analyzes EU or national actors.

Research features: We have coded information related to the features of the research designs

developed by scholars. First, we distinguish whether a study is: 1) qualitative; 2) quantitative; or 3)

a mix of both models. Second, whether they are: 1) descriptive, in other words, they are based on

qualitative studies or percentages; or 2) inferial, namely when they employ statistical methods.

Finally, we have considered whether these publications are: 1) case studies that are based on either

samples or particular events; or 2) macro studies that carry out a systematic and comprehensive

research during one year at least.

Bibliographic references: We have coded 3.700 exclusive bibliographic references found in the

publications with a unique identifier. We want to analyze which are the most prominent literature

cited by scholars and whether they tend to share a common literature. To do so, we have coded

their title and authors in order to obtain information though a cross-reference analysis.

Findings

Basic information

From the search of existing literature that meet our criteria, eventually our database contains 64

academic articles written by 110 scholars.

[Figure 1 about here]

Data from figure 1 shows that the most prominent scholars in the research field are Claes de Vreese,

Hago G. Boomgaarden and Angelina Wagner, being the only authors that have taken part in more

than 6% of the 64 academic articles coded. The two first scholars have focused and collaborated on

some studies related to the media visibility of EU actors whereas Angelina Wagner has written

several analyses on media attention to political women candidates in Canadian elections.

Moreover, this research field features by a high degree of collaboration among scholars. Indeed,

only the 34% of the publications were developed by a single author. Scholarly articles are a result of

the collaboration between two scholars (40,63%) whereas the 15,63% of the analyses were written

by three authors, the 3,13% by four of them, the 4,69% were analyzed by five authors and, finally,

only one was the fruit of the association among seven scholars.

Finally, there is a similar proportion among scholars in terms of gender. Women scholars represent

the 56,36% of the authors included in our database, whereas the remaining 43,64% are men. This

trend remains in the research field, without major changes in the proportion of scholars, in the case

of both single and collaborative academic articles. Concerning single publications, the 59,09% of

these studies were conducted by women researchers, whereas men scholars’ analyses represent

5

the remaining 40,91%. Moreover, women scholars represent the 52,63% of single authors, whereas

men authors are the remaining 47,37%. Within this single research, the gender bias theory is the

most prominent approach analyzed by women researchers (69,23% over single analyses) while men

authors conduct a more diverse investigation, such as analysis of media prominence of MP’s

(33,33%), the gender bias in the media and the media presence of interest groups (both 22,22%).

Regarding collaborative publications, the 42,86% of this kind of studies were conducted by women

researchers, whereas collaborative studies between men and women authors and only among

women scholars represent the 28,57% in both cases. These analyses were conducted by a 54,46%

of women researchers, whereas the remaining 45,52% were developed by male authors.

Furthermore, women scholars represent the 57,45% of authors in collaborative studies, whereas

men were the remaining 42,55%. Regarding the most analyzed approaches, collaborative research

conducted by women scholars is strongly dominated by the gender bias theory (88,89% over

collaborative research conducted by women). Notwithstanding, this approach loses prominence as

the contribution of men scholars in this articles increases. Collaborative research between men and

women scholars is still dominated by the gender bias theory, but it represents the 58,33% of these

articles as there is a major diversity of the analyses. But it is in the case of collaborative research

among men scholars where this approach is no longer the most analyzed approach, being a research

that is characterized by more diversity and where EU studies have a moderately major attention

(33,33% over collaborative analyses among men authors).

Regarding the analysis of universities and countries where this research has been developed and

published, we have considered all the scholars’ institutions that have taken part in the elaboration

of a publication. Instead, whether there are several scholars from the same university in the same

academic article, then we have included the institution only once.

[Table 1 about here]

We have found universities from 20 different countries (see Appendix 2). Because of a publication

may be the result from the collaboration of several universities from different countries, we have

found these institutions 74 times in our data. Concerning the countries, the most active of them are

The US and The Netherlands, with the 20,27% and the 13,51% over these 74 appearances

respectively.

Nevertheless, we have found some differences if we only take into account the number of

publications by university instead of the total by country. The most prominent university in the

research field is the University of Amsterdam, concretely the Amsterdam School of Communication

Research, having taken part in the 14,06% over our data. Unlike the US, which tend to diversify their

research among several universities, the Netherlands is characterized by having a specialized

institution regarding research on the media where most of these analyses are concentrated. The

following most important institutions are the University of Antwerp (Belgium), the University of

Southern Denmark (Denmark) and the university of Alberta (Canada), all of them with the 6,25%.

Otherwise, the most prominent academic journals are the Political Communication and The

International Journal of Press/Politics (see Appendix 3), being the only ones that exceed the 6% of

the academic articles analyzed in our database. The most common investigations published in these

journals are the gender bias theory (e.g. Vos, 2013) in the former journal (60% of its publications)

and both have released academic articles related to media coverage of interest groups (both 40%).

6

[Table 2 about here]

Case studies

Most of these investigations are based on samples of news or the analysis of a particular event (such

as an election race) (see Appendix 4). Concretely, the 78,13% over our data are case studies,

supposing the realization of macro studies an exception in this research field (15,63%). Moreover,

scholars are prone to employ quantitative methods (60,63%), although there is also an important

amount of scholarly articles based on descriptive analysis (42,19%), in spite of the fact that the

statistical methodology is the most outstanding trend (57,81%).

Regarding the case studies analyzed, the gender bias theory is the most common topic under study,

representing the 66% over the total of the case studies analyzed. In addition, this research has

usually focused its attention on the analysis of media coverage of political actors from a national

dimension (70,31% over our data), devoting little emphasis to other levels of government. To sum

it up, this data shows it is necessary more research on case studies in other levels of government

less explores (such as subnational actors) as well as studies on electoral context beyond the gender

bias theory.

Countries of the media analyzed by researchers

As a second feature, scholars do not develop their analyses from a comparative perspective in order

to find cross-national differences (see Appendix 5). The 78,13% publications over our data only

analyze a single country, being the most common trend for national, subnational and local research.

The 60,94% are national and non-comparative (against the 9,38% of national and comparative

analysis) research, whereas all subnational (6,25%) and local (4,69%) studies do not even carry out

any cross-national investigation. Cross-national research results in a required factor to expand the

current knowledge about the media attention to political actors and interest groups, due to there

might be outstanding variations in media coverage because of the differences among political and

media systems (the three models of media defined by Hallin and Mancini (2004) or differences in

the parliamentarian process among countries). These analyses would provide more accurate

conclusions in this research field.

Most of the existing research is mainly oriented to explain media coverage in the US (9,42% over

the countries selected as a sample), United Kingdom (8,70%), Denmark (7,25%), Germany (6,52%),

Spain (6,52%), The Netherlands (5,80%) and Canada (5,07%). Research on the media in these

countries is mainly related to the gender bias theory and media prominence of interest groups (e.g.

Binderkrantz, 2012). Investigations on gender bias in the media is the topic par excellence in the

analysis of the US (84,62% over analysis of US media coverage) and Canadian media outlets (100%

of Canadian analyses), but there is also some research on Spain (22,22% over analyses on Spanish

media) and UK (25% over analysis of this country). Studies about Danish media coverage also

investigate how the incumbency theory (e.g. Hopmann, et al. 2011) and journalistic cultures such as

the pragmatic and sacerdotal cultures (e.g. Van Dalen, 2012) may increase the media visibility of

government actors (30% of the analysis of Danish media outlets). Lastly, analysis on UK and Danish

media coverage also focus on the media visibility of interest groups (the 16,66% and 20%

respectively).

7

From a disaggregate level, this is a very similar situation from national arena, but for there are more

analyses focused on Denmark (present in the 11,76% of national analyses) than UK (9,8%) and The

Netherlands has a lower representation within this dimension (3,92%). Regarding subnational

research, Spain (50% overall subnational analyses) is the most prominent country under study,

followed by Canada and the US (both the 25%). The topics under study among the different political

dimensions coincide with the aggregate level.

Media outlets analyzed

The third and last feature of this research consists in its tendency to carry out the analysis of media

coverage from a comparative perspective in terms of media outlets (84,38% over our data) (see

Appendix 5). Notwithstanding, most research bases their conclusions in the comparison among

media outlets with the same format (60,94%) (such as newspapers), being limited those analyses

that observe the differences among several formats of media (23,44%) (for example, academic

articles oriented to explain media coverage of newspapers and TV news). In addition, scholars are

more likely to analyze only the newspapers (59,38%). The second most prominent approach in these

analyses is to obtain their sample of news from the combination of TV programs and print coverage

(12,5%). However, TV news by itself (3,13%) is less analyzed than Radio news (6,25%), thereby TV

coverage seems to be just considered within comparative analyses.

From the disaggregated level, national research does not have any outstanding difference in

comparison with the results of the previous aggregate analysis. However, the combination of

different formats of media outlets, beyond the press and TV news, is only employed by researchers

that carry out national research on the topic. Local (4,69% over our data) and subnational (6,25%)

analyses have newspapers as the most important units of analysis (75% subnational research and

100% over local investigation). Moreover, they only conduct analyses from a comparative

perspective, unlike national research that combines comparative analyses (77,78% over national

research) and non-comparative studies (22,22%). The last difference between national research and

the rest of political dimensions is that the former is the only case where there are analyses that

obtain their conclusions only through the TV coverage (6,67%). Subnational research tends to

combine only TV news and newspapers coverage (25% over subnational analysis), so national

studies have more diversity among them. Regarding local research, the authors only based their

analyses on the press media (100% over studies on local dimension).

We have noted there is a lack of media studies related to online media formats in relation media

coverage of political actors and interest groups in both single format (there are no publications in

our data that employ online traditional media, whereas the 1,56% employ online new media) and

comparative analyses (the 1,56% investigate the media coverage from newspapers and online

traditional media while other 1,56% analyze newspapers, TV and online traditional media). To sum

it up, it is necessary to obtain more insight into the implication of online media attention for the

prominence of political actors and interest groups in the news, being a plausible field to conduct

new research as a result of their increase relevance in current society as well as the possible

differences with the media coverage from the traditional media in terms of, for example, variations

in media capacity. However, we must take into account most analyses on traditional media as well.

Unlike newspapers, which can devote more space for political issues in their contents, Radio and TV

8

news have more constraints in terms of time and space (e.g. Vos, 2013), thereby there might be

important differences in media attention to political actors and interest groups.

Issues

We have coded all the issues analyzed by scholars in their academic articles. Concretely, we have

classified issues that have been analyzed within the topic under study. For example, whether a

publication analyzes the prominence of interest groups and one of their aims is to investigate their

presence within the economic and educational issues, we have coded these two topics. Eventually,

our database contains data related to 298 political areas. To do so, we have followed the

methodology proposed by the Comparative Agendas Project. This methodology is based on 19 major

topic codes for each policy area.

[Figure 2 about here]

The most common political areas analyzed are related to foreign (12,42% over the issues analyzed)

and macroeconomic policies (12,08%). In the first case, an important amount of the subtopics is

related to the EU and its institutional events (such as European Councils summits) (24,32% over the

total of foreign issues). Instead, macroeconomic affairs are generally focused on a general

perspective (63,89% over macroeconomic issues), namely a general issue or macroeconomics as a

whole, whereas economic taxes (13,89%) and budget and public spending (11,11%) are analyzed in

a lesser extent.

From a disaggregate level, these political issues are almost completely focused in analyses on the

national dimension (80,20% over the total of issues). Furthermore, there is a high degree of

correspondence between the aggregate analysis and this disaggregate level as national research

also focuses their studies on macroeconomic (10,88% over the issues analyzed in national studies)

and foreign affairs (12,33%). In this specific case, in a similar way than the aggregate level,

macroeconomic policies are investigated through a general perspective as well (61,54% over

national economic issues) whereas the foreign field is more diverse, being typically analyzed in a

general way (17,54% over national foreign issues), through the impact of EU events in the news

(10,34%) or diplomatic issues (6,9%). Subnational research has only analyzed the 3,36% of the issues

analyzed and it is more likely to pay attention to government and public administration policies

(33,33% over subnational issues), especially concerning the policies of elections, intergovernmental

relations and parliamentary activity (all the 33,33% over subnational governmental issues). Finally,

local issues represent the 4,03%. By and large, local research tends to analyze macroeconomic,

transport and education/culture affairs (all of them represent the 16,67% over local issues).

Concretely, it has been analyzed subtopics on the general economy (50% over local economic issues)

and taxes (50%), infrastructure (the 100% of issues related to local transport affairs) and, finally,

general education policy (50% over local education issues) and cultural patrimony (50%).

Theoretical perspectives and objectives

[Table 3 about here]

First, more than half of this existing research has carried out analyses on the relationship between

media attention to political actors and the gender bias theory (54,69% over our data), in other

9

words, researchers want to know how the media cover women politicians and whether there are

differences in media coverage between them and their male counterparts (e.g. Vos, 2013).

Scholars usually tend to analyze the dependent variable “media visibility of political parties or

politicians” which is aimed to analyze the differences in media prominence and presence, in terms

of amount of news, between women and men politicians.

Yet, analyses on gender bias are not only based on the amount of news that covers women

politicians, but there are other important dependent variables employed by scholars to complete

their analyses. Other most prominent variables, among others, are the personal coverage that

receives women politicians as well as news about their political background and political viability.

Firstly, the personal coverage is operationalized to investigate whether media coverage tend to

cover more intensively some women’s traits such as their appearance, size, hairstyle, wardrobe or

their “traditional” roles (“marital” or “maternal” status) rather than their political status (e.g. Devitt

2002). Finally, it has also been analyzed the differences between men and women politicians in

media attention to their leadership skills, ideology and electoral viability as candidates (political

background and political electability) (e.g. Everitt and Gidengil, 2003).

Concerning the independent variables of this topic, existing research is more likely to observe the

impact of the candidates’ gender in the media coverage (differences according whether they are

men or women) (e.g. Lavery, 2013). Other independent variables less employed by research on

gender bias theory are elements from the news value theory such as the political standing (e.g.

Fernández, 2016) or their major party affiliation (e.g. Kioko Ireri, 2012).

Lastly, scholars are more likely to investigate the gender differences in the media across electoral

contests or leadership races (68,57% over analysis on the gender bias) rather than focusing on

routine periods (34,29%). These latter analyses have been driven to investigate gender differences

in media coverage among the governmental elites (33,33% over analysis on gender bias during

routine periods), individual politicians (25%) in general terms and, finally, in the parliamentarian

arena (41,67%). In conclusion, more macro analyses must be developed in order to find the

differences among the patterns of media attention to women politicians from a comparative

perspective between election and non-election periods. The analysis of both events is important to

confirm whether the women politicians are always targeted with a different media attention in the

daily news, in other words, it is an inherent trend in the media, or, instead, the election contest has

a particular effect on media attention.

A second prominent approach in this research field consists in how the media cover the

parliamentarian arena (10,94% over our data). To give an answer to this question, this research has

investigated the role of the media in the representation of the parliamentary activity in their

contents: 1) the media as a mirror of the political reality; 2) the parliamentarians’ newsworthiness;

and 3) the political parallelism inherent in the media (71,43% over these kind of analyses) (e.g.

Tresch, 2009). Concerning the mirror theory, the media are just passive, impartial and neutral actors

that only reflect on the news the parliamentary activity developed by MP’s, reflecting the current

power structure and being dependent on the external policy environment (e.g. Tresch, 2009). The

news value theory also considers that the media are passive actors (Tresch, 2009). From this

approach, the different actors have several features (such as their political standing and the drama

and conflict inherent in the news) that may act as predictors of which actors would obtain a higher

10

degree of media prominence (e.g. Tresch, 2009, Meijers and Rauh, 2016). This theory departs from

the assumption that journalists tend to pay more attention to those actors that are more

newsworthiness for them (e.g. Soroka, 2002). Conversely, the third theory considers the media are

active actors influenced by their own preferences and political orientation (e.g. Tresch, 2009). This

research analyzes whether the media is influenced by a partisan bias (e.g. Tresch, 2009). Other

investigations, instead, has focused on other aspects of the media attention. Midtbø (2011), for

example, have conducted an analysis to find out which is the tone (positive, neutral or negative)

that the media employ in the news related to the different MP’s (14,29%). Finally, Casero et al.

(2009) has carried out a research on the media attention to a subnational parliament, instead of its

members, to prove that, in spite of its political importance in the current democracy, this institution

is frequently uncovered (14,29%).

This research is usually operationalized through the dependent variable “media visibility of MP’s”.

The parliamentarians’ newsworthiness (such as their political standing, seniority, party affiliation or

the presence of conflict) (e.g. Midtbø, 2011) and some indicators of parliamentary activity (such as

press releases, speeches or oral questions) (e.g. Gattermann and Vasilopoulou, 2015) are the most

common independent variables in this field to prove their effects over media attention to these

actors.

A third type of analyses conducts research on the degree of Europeanization in national news (9,38%

over our data). This concept refers to EU actors’ media presence in comparison with domestic actors

(e.g. Boomgaarden et al., 2013). Most research is aimed to explain these differences of media

presence between both actors during EU Parliament elections (e.g. Boomgaarden et al., 2013) (50%

over analyses on Europeanization). However, there are also studies on the effects in the media

coverage of exogenous factors, in other words, how the EU and national events influence the

national media coverage (16,67%) (Boomgaarden et al., 2010). Other two analyses have been

conducted, on the one hand, to explain the media attention to a particular EU institution and, on

the other hand, to explain how the operating logics inherent in national parliaments influence the

amount of media coverage (both 16,67%) (de Wilde, 2014).

The “democratic deficit” is one of the major shortcomings of the European integration process (e.g.

Boomgaarden et al., 2013) and might explain the prominence of the analyses on media attention

during the EU Parliament elections as a result of their importance to increase the citizens’

knowledge and information about this dimension (e.g. de Vreese and Boomgaarden, 2006).

However, future research should carry out more macro studies to observe changes in the degree of

Europeanization in the news over time, even during routine periods and not only specific events, to

draw conclusions on its true impact over the “democratic deficit”. Furthermore, European

institutions have taken a main role to solve the economic downturn of 2008 that might be result in

a change respect how the media covers EU actors and in a major degree of Europeanization in the

news such as Boomgaarden et al. (2013) has already noted.

Fourth, concerning the incumbency bonus theory or, in other words, the dominance of

governmental elites in media coverage (7,81% over our data), research has been oriented to prove

the implications of this theory regarding the media attention to opposition and these actors in the

news. This theory differs from the approach focused on media presence of MP’s in the fact that the

incumbency bonus has as a main to investigate the media presence of the government, whereas the

11

other type of approach is aimed to analyze the visibility of MP’s without focusing on the government

explicitly. According to Bennett’s indexing theory (1990) the media prioritize the array of voices

expressed in the governmental debate, so the news is dominated by an elite approach. Moreover,

research so far has evidenced government actors are more prominent in media coverage than the

opposition (e.g. Green-Perdersen, 2015). These actors are more newsworthy to the media, given by

both their political standing position as well as the impact of their decisions in the society (e.g.

Tresch, 2009). Research has also stressed the importance of the journalist norms based on the media

function as a watch dog of the government’s action and the ideal norm of balance in the news (e.g.

Green-Pedersen, 2015). According the watch dog norm, the media might increase media attention

to the government during routine periods as they have the responsibility to solve societal problems

and event are blamed for them (e.g. Green-Pedersen et al., 2015). Instead, in election periods, the

media would be prone to apply the balance norm, giving more media visibility to oppositional actors

(e.g. Hopmann et al. 2011).

The degree of the incumbency bonus in the parliamentarian arena is the most attractive analysis by

research so far (60% of these specific analyses), though there is also a significant attention to this

theory during electoral contests (40%).

By and large, this research is operationalized with the dependent variable related to the media

prominence of these actors in the media and is frequently analyzed according the differences in the

journalistic cultures as independent variables. The journalistic cultures are referred to the influence

of media systems based on a sacerdotal perspective, where the political issues are normally covered

because of they are always newsworthy, or a pragmatic approach, where these affairs do not have

this special status and the media attention is more focused on the analysis of the candidates’

chances to win the electoral contest, electoral polls and conflict among elites (Van Dalen, 2012).

Another type of journalistic culture is related to cross-national differences according the current

relationship between journalists and governmental actors. Indeed, the media with closer

relationships with government would show a lower degree of diversity in their contents in

comparison with the media of countries with a major degree of independence regarding their

sources of information (e.g. Yoon and Boydstun, 2014).

Fifth, research on media presence of interest groups is conducted to analyze which are the most

prominent associations to be covered by the media (7,81% over our data). Thrall (2006) have proved

that the media is prone to cover well-resourced organizations rather than less-resourced

associations (20% over these specific analyses). However, other scholars have conducted further

analyses and not only take into account the organizational resources, but also the variation in media

attention to these actors among issues, variations according to the ideological position of the media

(40%) (e.g. Binderkrantz, 2012) and, recently, the impact of their political positions in the news (20%)

(De Bruycker and Beyers, 2015). Moreover, Binderkrantz et al. (2016) have conducted a cross-

national analysis on the topic.

Frequently this research focuses on the “media prominence of interest groups” as a dependent

variable, being operationalized through independent variables the volume of organizational

resources, membership size or the position of these associations in the news.

Sixth, concerning research on media attention to political parties (and not from previous

approaches), 4,69% of the analyses focus on this approach. Baumgartner and Chaqués Bonafont

12

(2015) has conducted an analysis on media attention to these actors from the impact of the Pluralist

polarized media system in Spain, the politicians’ ownership of certain issues and the political

position of the media (33% over these kind of analysis). At the same time, this media attention has

been analyzed during electoral contests as well (33,33%).

The dependent variable most employed by this research is the “media prominence of political

parties” in the news, being operationalized together with independent variables such as the political

support to the government.

Finally, the personalization theory (3,13% over our data) departs from two perspectives: 1) the

individualization of the media coverage (e.g. Boumans et al., 2013), namely the tendency of the

media to cover more intensively the head of the government or the party leader rather than the

government or the political party as a whole; and 2) the privatization of news (e.g. Schulze, 2016),

in other words, the focus on the private life and characteristics of the head of government. Most of

these analyses are focused on cross-national variations according to differences among political

systems.

[Table 4 about here]

Type of actors analyzed

The most prominent actors analyzed by scholars are political parties (50% over our data) and, to a

lesser extent, the MP’s (25%). Instead, analysis on Media attention to governmental elites (7,81%),

media visibility of interest groups (7,81%) and the political institutions (such as the European

Commission) (4,69%), remain as a research almost unexplored. Moreover, only a few analyses have

focused on media coverage of any political actor regardless this specific category (4,69% of

publications).

Most of these analyses are more likely to focus their attention on the media coverage of individual

politicians, such as electoral candidates, rather than political parties as a whole. As we have already

asserted previously, scholars have paid an especial attention to the media coverage of election races

and leadership competitions in a national context (35,94% over our data) and the gender bias theory

particularly (81,25% over research on political parties) (e.g. Miller et al. 2010).

By and large, it results evident that is necessary to conduct more research less focused in these

national events, but also in the political parties as a whole rather than a specific candidate. It might

be differences in media coverage between routine and election periods due to the journalistic

norms of the balance and the function of the media as a watch dog of the government’s action (e.g.

Green-Pedersen et al., 2015). Moreover, future research must keep the differences among political

systems in mind when scholars select their units of analyses. Some countries focus more on the

candidates over the political parties, such as the case of US candidates (e.g. Miller et al. 2010),

whereas other political systems are more focused on the political parties as a whole (e.g. Kittilson

and Fridkin, 2008), which might have important implications on the media coverage or note whether

there has been an increasing level of personalization in the media over time.

Secondly, scholars have also paid attention to the MP’s in the parliamentarian arena (25% over our

data). These authors seek to investigate the political interactions between government and

opposition and in general terms without pay a particular attention these actors alike (both 37,5%

13

over analysis on MP’s). Furthermore, most publications are prone to analyze only national MP’s

(93,75%).

Once again, the gender bias is the more prominent approach regarding these actors (37,5% over

analysis on MP’s) (e.g. Sensales et al., 2016). More moderately, this arena is also analyzed in order

to determine the amount of media presence of MP’s (Midtbø, 2011) (31,25%) and the degree of

incumbency bonus (18,75%) (e.g. Green-Pedersen et al., 2015).

Thirdly, governmental and opposition elites are investigated in a few sets of publications (7,81%

over our data). Indeed, the 80% of research on these actors center their attention in the relationship

between the government and the media. Instead, the opposition is marginally analyzed outside the

parliamentary arena and only within an election context (20%). In this research, the gender bias

theory is again the most analyzed approach (60%) (e.g. Fernandez, 2013), followed by the degree of

personalization (e.g. Boumans et al., 2013) and incumbency bonus (e.g. Hopmann et al., 2011) in

the media (both 20%).

The fourth feature of the research field consists in the analysis of media attention to interest groups

(7,81% over our data). Several analyses focus their attention on national associations (60% over

research on interest groups as aim) (e.g. Binderkrantz, 2012). In a similar proportion, some research

focuses on media attention to interest groups regardless their political dimension (40%) (e.g. De

Bruycker and Beyers, 2015).

The fifth most important actors are the political institutions as actors themselves (such as the EU

Parliament) (4,69% over our data). From a subnational perspective, we find here the research

developed by Casero et al., 2009 about a subnational parliament of Spain, as we have stressed

previously.

Finally, the last category has as objective the codification of analyses that investigates media

attention to any actor regardless their category or political dimension (4,69% over our data).

Macro studies and political actors analyzed

As we have pointed out previously, macro studies are a particular exception in this research as there

are only 15,63% academic articles over our data.

When these studies are conducted, they are more likely to analyze the media attention to MP’s

(20% over macro studies), focusing on the incumbency bonus (20% over these analyses on MP’s)

(e.g. Green-Pedersen et al., 2015) and media presence of national MP’s (10%) (e.g. Midtbø, 2011).

Instead, another topic has been analyzed more moderately. These studies have consisted in the

analyses of the media personalization of the head of the government (10% over the macro studies)

(Boumans et al., 2013), the media visibility of political parties in the news (20%) and, finally, the

media presence of interest groups (20%). Furthermore, this research is different from case studies

regarding the gender bias theory, as it is not a prominent issue in these analyses (10% over the

macro studies on political parties). In spite of its importance in the research field, it seems that

authors are only interested in the differences in media attention to women and men politicians to

analyze certain events.

[Figure 3 about here]

14

We can note an increasing trend of both types of analysis, although more moderately in case of

macro studies, but scholars still conduct much more research based on case studies. From this data,

we can conclude that there is an important gap regarding exhaustive and comprehensive analyses

in the research field. Scholars have to conduct more macro studies, not only in terms of the

difference between election and non-election periods, but also the possible variations in the media

as a result of important events over time such as the pre-crisis and post-crisis periods, the

emergence of new populist parties and the evolution and the impact over the degree of

personalization in the media as a result of the great importance of the leaders of these parties.

Finally, the average of years analyzed in these macro studies is ten years. The minimum period

analyzed was only a year, but the most common trend has been carried out analyses of three and

twenty years (3,13% over our data).

Research on media attention to political actors and interest groups in the EU dimension

In spite of the fact that EU research is the second most analyzed approach by scholars (18,75% over

our data) it still remains rarely explored in comparison with national studies. This kind of studies

also employs quantitative methods (91,67% over EU research) with an especial attention to the

media attention to EU actors during EU elections (45,45%). Furthermore, research on this political

dimension is more oriented to a statistical methodology (66,67%) than the other political levels.

Scholars are more prone to drive cross-national analyses (66,67% over EU research), selecting a

sample of two or three countries (both 16,67%). Nevertheless, there also some studies that analyze

the media outlets from all EU member states (16,67%). The most common countries selected as a

sample are UK (8,75% overall countries in analyses of EU research), France (7,5%), The Netherlands

(7,5%) and Germany (6,25%). Therefore, other countries would be more interesting to analyze in

future analyses to expand the current knowledge in the research field. For example, future research

might base their analyses on the Mediterranean countries that have been less investigated by

scholars. Furthermore, these countries have been especially affected by the financial crisis of 2008

and, therefore, it might have been translated into an increase in the media attention to EU actors

(e.g. Boomgaarden et al., 2013). Finally, it will contribute to draw more accurate conclusion about

variations among the different political and media systems as well.

Unlike national research, the 100% of these analyses on EU dimension are driven through a

comparative research among different media outlets, but, at the same time, all are based on the

analysis of newspapers. Indeed, TV news is only analyzed in comparison with the press coverage

(16,67% over EU research) as well as they are the only media outlets employed in comparative

analyses together with newspapers. Likely national research, the EU dimension is characterized by

a lack of analyses on the media attention to EU actors in online media outlets. Future research

should suggest questions related how the new online media (such as blogs, websites, social

networks) and the online traditional media contribute to alleviate the “democratic deficit” and how

they impact and contribute to expand the European public and political debate.

Regarding the type of actor selected as a unit of analyses by scholars, the most prominent of them

are the parliamentarian actors (33,33% of European studies). Unlike other studies based on this

topic, there is a particular publication that analyzes the media visibility of the EU Parliament

members during a routine period (Gattermann and Vasilopoulou, 2015). Other academic articles

15

have focused on the relationship between national parliaments and EU issues (e.g. de Wilde, 2014).

As we have stressed, this activity is developed in a national parliament and, therefore, we have

coded these articles as “European” (because they focus on issues with an EU nature) and “national

actors”.

The second most prominent actors analyzed in these investigations are the political parties (25%

over EU research). These analyses are always focused on an EU Parliament elections context (100%

over EU analysis on political parties), probably due to the fact that they are national parties and

when the media covers these actors in non-election periods is within the EU parliamentarian arena.

Furthermore, there is a single publication that is completely focused on an EU actor in nature, such

as the Spitzenkandidaten (Schulze, 2016). Other authors are more prone to analyze the media

attention to national mainstream parties in relation with the Euroscepticism (Meijers and Rauh,

2016) and the gender bias (Ibroscheva and Raicheva-Stover, 2009) (both 8,33%).

A third category of academic articles of the EU dimension is more likely to analyze any kind of EU

and domestic actors in the news. For this purpose, we have named a category “Actors from all

political dimensions”, which includes these particular studies. The 16,67% over EU analyses are

included within this category and, more concretely, these studies are aimed to measure national

media coverage of any political actor during EU Parliament elections (e.g. Boomgaarden et al. 2013).

Fourth, research on media coverage of EU institutions consists on the 16,67% of the EU publications

in our database. These analyses are aimed to analyze media attention to EU institutions as a whole,

such as the EU presidency (e.g. Velders, et al. 2013), in the national media.

Finally, research on media attention to interest groups in the EU arena (8,33%) remains as the most

unexplored area by scholars. Concretely, within this category, Beyers and Bruyckers (2015) have

proved that the controversial positions of interest groups increase their media coverage in the news

related to EU directives.

Regarding the political issues analyzed in this specific research, we have coded 37 political areas.

Likely national research, these studies are also prone to analyze the media prominence of EU actors

and interest groups in the foreign policy (21,62% over the European articles). The 75% of these

issues are related to EU events specifically. This research also analyzes macroeconomic affairs

(18,92% over EU analyses) and it is analyzed as a general affair (85,71% over economic issues of EU

research). Previously, existing literature has also asserted the importance of these particular issues

in the media attention to the EU dimension (e.g. Norris, 2000).

To conclude, macro studies also represent an exception in these analyses. On the one hand,

Gattermann and Vasilopoulou (2015), for example, have analyzed the media coverage of the

members of the EU Parliament during a period of twenty-five months, basing their hypotheses in

the theories of the media as a mirror of the parliamentary activity and the news value theory. On

the other hand, Boomgaarden et al. (2010) have carried out research on media coverage of EU

actors during a period of seventeen years, analyzing the impact of the national and European events

in media attention.

From all this data, we can assert that there is an important lack of research related to the EU

dimension. Future research should conduct more macro studies in order to draw conclusions on

how the media has dealt with EU news from a major range of political issues and events over time

16

(such as the introduction of the Euro or the European Constitution). For example, the financial crisis

and the increment of the competences of EU institutions over time should have contributed to a

major prominence of the EU dimension in national media (e.g. Boomgaarden et al., 2013).

Furthermore, these analyses should have taken into account which specific EU institutions appear

in the news to obtain more accurate and comparative data related to differences of media

prominence among them as well as how the media frames these actors. Moreover, research has to

conduct further analyses on media attention to interest groups to prove whether the conflict is

really an explanatory factor of their prominence or not, beyond analyses based only on news related

to EU directives. Finally, in case of case studies, scholars have to focus more on other political areas,

where the EU has a relevant role, to measure the degree of Europeanization in the media and

compare it with previous research on the most prominent political areas.

Conclusions

In this paper, we have conducted a literature review of existing research on media attention to

political actors and interest groups to know how scholars have operationalized their studies and

which are the most common theoretical approached analyzed by scholars. For this purpose, we have

analyzed 64 academic articles whose dependent variables, at least one of them, are directly and

explicitly related to media attention to political actors and interest groups.

The research field features a high degree of collaboration among researchers to conduct new

analysis and, moreover, there is an equivalent proportion between women and men researchers.

Furthermore, women scholars are more likely to carry out research on the gender bias theory, an

approach that loses importance in favor of a greater degree of diversity in those publications with

male participation. Regarding the origin of these publications, most of them have been conducted

by universities from the US, but the University of Amsterdam School of Communication Research is

the institution where there is a higher concentration of analyses published so far. Finally, the

Political Communication and The International Journal of Press/Politics are the most active scholarly

journals publishing academic articles related to this topic.

Despite several theoretical perspectives have been analyzed to explain media coverage of political

actors and interest groups, most than half of our data have focused on the gender bias theory to

draw conclusion on how the media covers contents related to women and men politician and what

differences happen on this media attention to both actors. Existing literature has also paid attention

to other significant approaches such as the incumbency bonus theory, the personalization theory or

the mirror and the news value theories. These theories have been aimed to explain the media

prominence of the parliamentarian arena or the degree of Europeanization in the news, but, after

all, they have received little attention in general terms. In addition, there is a dominance of the

dependent and independent variables related to the gender bias theory as a result of the hegemony

of this approach in the research field. Thus, the most common variables in this literature are the

amount of news that media devotes to each politician, namely media prominence of political

parties, the amount of contents that make reference to the women’s traits such as their appearance

or their “maternal” role, in other words, the amount of women’s personal coverage, and, finally, the

number of references to their leadership skills, ideology and political viability in the news, namely

their political background and electability. Regarding the independent variables, most research

analyzes how the actors’ gender affects the media coverage of women and men politicians.

17

The analysis of the characteristic of the research designs employed by scholars in the research field

has shown several features.

Firstly, scholars have conducted their research on media attention to political actors and interest

groups, mainly from the analysis of case studies generally related to national electoral contests as

well as focusing on the gender bias theory. Thus, there is a significant lack of research regarding the

analysis of other events or specific issues as, for example, the political interactions of the

government and the opposition in the local arena during election races or even analyses on several

elections competitions from different political levels to draw accurate comparative data. However,

it is more notable the evident gap in the realization of macro studies, that it would let to obtain

more accurate conclusions on variations in the media coverage across the analysis of multiple events

(such as the differences in media attention to political actors between election and non-election

periods or the financial downturn). Furthermore, most research on macro studies has been

conducted to analyze the impact of the media over national actors while little attention has been

paid to actors in the subnational level, in spite of the relative importance of these actors and

institutions in countries based on a federal structure.

Secondly, one of the main consequences of the previous approach is that the politicians are the

most analyzed actors in the research field. However, existing literature has not focused on the

political parties as a unit of analysis, but scholars focus on individual politicians. These analyses are

followed by research on the parliamentarian arena that it is also dominated by the gender bias

studies, instead of focusing on other approach such as the relationship between the incumbency

bonus in the news and the strength of the parliament (consensus Vs majoritarian democracies). In

other words, there is a still wide range of knowledge to be explored in relation, not only through

research on other type of political actors such interest groups or EU actors, but also the political

parties themselves. This might especially be important in the case of those political systems where

the political party has more importance than the candidate itself.

Thirdly, research on media attention to political actors and interest groups is not based on a cross-

national perspective, as scholars focus their attention on a single country. It is one of the major

shortcomings in the research field, since these analyses do not take into account the main

differences among political (such as the strength of the parliament or differences in the

parliamentarian procedures, and media systems (the three models defined by Hallin and Mancini

(2004): 1) Polarized Pluralist or Mediterranean model; 2) the North/Central Europe or Democratic

Corporatist Model; and 3) the North Atlantic or Liberal Model) or journalistic cultures (such as the

sacerdotal and pragmatic journalistic cultures) that may have an important effect in the media

attention to these actors. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that scholars tend to conduct analyses

comparing several media outlets, they are more likely to obtain data across the media content of

different newspapers. Therefore, most research has not analyzed either, on the one hand, the

differences in media agenda capacity among several formats of media or, on the other hand, how

online media (such as blogs or websites) covers political actors and interest groups.

Finally, existing literature is prone to analyze the media attention to political actors and interest

groups in economic and foreign policy news, which allows us to define new case studies focused on

other important areas such as the labor market.

18

In addition, we have analyzed research on the European dimension as well. This specific research is

very similar to national studies, but for scholars are more likely to conduct their analysis across a

cross-national perspective. Unlike national research, the gender bias theory receives little attention

as scholars are more prone to analyze the impact of the EU Parliament elections in media attention

to EU actors in the national media. More macro studies have to be conducted to analyze the degree

of Europeanization in the national media over time to obtain more accurate conclusions about its

impact on the “democratic deficit” inherent in the EU. Furthermore, research has largely focused

on the media attention to macroeconomic issues and EU events, but the increasing competences of

the EU as well as certain events (such as the especial impact of the immigration crisis in the European

integration process) might conduct new research on case studies and macro studies across other

political areas.

Bibliography

Baumgartner, F. R., & Chaqués Bonafont, L. (2015). “All news is bad news: Newspaper coverage of

political parties in Spain”. Political Communication, 32(2), 268-291.

Binderkrantz, A. S. (2012). “Interest groups in the media: Bias and diversity over time”. European

Journal of Political Research, 51(1), 117-139.

Binderkrantz, A. S., Bonafont, L. C., & Halpin, D. R. (2016). “Diversity in the News? A Study of Interest

Groups in the Media in the UK, Spain and Denmark”. British Journal of Political Science, 1-16.

Boomgaarden, H. G., Vliegenthart, R., Schuck, A. R.T. and Vreese, C. H. de (2010). “News on the

Move: Exogenous Events and News Coverage of the European Union”. Journal of European Public

Policy, 17 (4), 506–26.

Boomgaarden, H. G., de Vreese, C. H., Schuck, A. R. T., Azrout, R., Elenbaas, M., Van Spanje, J. H.P.,

& Vliegenthart, R. (2013). “Across time and space: Ex-plaining variation in news coverage of the

European Union”. European Journal for Political Research, 52(5), 608-629.

Boumans, J. W., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Vliegenthart, R. (2013). “Media personalization in context:

A cross-national comparison between the UK and the Netherlands, 1992–2007”. Political Studies,

61(1 suppl), 198-216.

De Bruycker, I., & Beyers, J. (2015). “Balanced or biased? Interest groups and legislative lobbying in

the European news media”. Political Communication, 32(3), 453-474.

De Vreese, C.H. et al. (2006). “The news coverage of the 2004 European parliamentary campaign in

25 countries”. European Union Politics 7(4): 477–504.

De Vreese, Claes H. and Hajo G. Boomgaarden (2006). “Media effects on public opinion about the

enlargement of the European Union”. Journal of Common Market Studies 44, 419-36.

De Vreese, C.H. & Boomgaarden, H.G. (2012). “Explaining cross-national and over-time patterns in

news coverage of European Parliamentary election”. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (eds), Handbook of

comparative communication research. London: Sage.

De Wilde, P. (2014). “The operating logics of national parliaments and mass media in the

politicisation of Europe”. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 20(1), 46-61.

19

Devitt, J. (2002). “Framing gender on the campaign trail: Female gubernatorial candidates and the

press”. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 79:445-63.

Domke, D., E. S. Graham, K. Coe, S. L. John, and T. Coopman (2006) “Going public as political

strategy”. Political Communication, 23,3, 291–312.

Esser, Frank, and Katharina Hemmer. 2008. “Characteristics and Dynamics of Election News

Coverage in Germany.” In The Handbook of Election News Coverage Around the World, ed. Jesper

Strömbäck and Lynda Lee Kaid. London: Routledge.

Everitt, J. and Gidengil, E. (2003). “Talking Tough: Gender and Reported Speech in Campaign News

Coverage.” Political Communication 20 (3): 209-32.

Fernández-García, N. (2013). “Mujeres políticas y medios de comunicación: representación en

prensa escrita del gobierno catalán (2010)”. Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 19(1), 365-381.

Fernández-Garcia, N. (2016). “Framing gender and women politicians representation: print media

coverage of Spanish women ministries”. In C. Cerqueira; R. Cabecinhas & S. I. Magalhães (Eds.),

Gender in focus: (new) trends in media (pp. 141-160). Braga: CECS.

Gattermann, K and Vasilopoulou, S. (2015). “Absent yet popular? Explaining news visibility of

Members of the European Parliament”, European Journal of Political Research, 54, 121–140.

Green-Pedersen, C., Mortensen, P. B., & Thesen, G. (2015). “The incumbency bonus revisited:

Causes and consequences of media dominance”. British Journal of Political Science, 1-18.

Hopmann, D. N., De Vreese, C. H. and Albaek, E. (2011) “Incumbency Bonus in Election News

Coverage Explained: The Logics of Political Power and the Media Market”, Journal of

Communication, 61 (2), 264–82.

Ibroscheva, E., & Raicheva-Stover, M. (2009). “Engendering transition: Portrayals of female

politicians in the Bulgarian press”. The Howard Journal of Communications, 20(2), 111-128.

Iyengar, S. and D. R. Kinder (1987). “News That Matters: Television and American Opinion”. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kioko, I. (2012). “Newspaper Visibility of Members of Parliament in Kenya”. Journalism and Mass

Communication, Vol. 2, No. 7, 717-734.

Kittilson, M. C., & Fridkin, K. (2008). “Gender, candidate portrayals and election campaigns: A

comparative perspective”. Politics & Gender, 4(03), 371-392.

Lavery, L. (2013). “Gender bias in the media? An examination of local television news coverage of

male and women house candidates”. Politics & Policy, 877–910.

Meijers, M. and Rauh, C. (2016). “Has Eurosceptic Mobilization Become More Contagious?

Comparing the 2009 and 2014 EP Election Campaigns in The Netherlands and France”. Politics and

Governance, 4, 83-103.

Midtbø, T. (2011). “Explaining media attention for Norwegian MPs: A new modelling approach”.

Scandinavian Political Studies, 34(3), 226–249.

20

Miller, M. K., Peake, J. S., & Boulton, B. A. (2010). “Testing the Saturday Night Live hypothesis:

Fairness and bias in newspaper coverage of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign”. Politics &

Gender, 6(2), 169-98.

Norris, P. (2000). “Negative News, Negative Public?. A Virtuous Circle. Political Communications in

Postindustrial Societies”. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 9.

Schulze, H. (2016). “The Spitzenkandidaten in the European Parliament election campaign coverage

2014 in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom”. Politics and Governance, 4(1).

Sensales, G., Areni, A., & Dal Secco, A. (2016). “Italian Political Communication and Gender Bias:

Press Representations of Men/Women Presidents of the Houses of Parliament (1979, 1994, and

2013)”. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 1-17.

Soroka, Stuart Neil. “Agenda-setting dynamics in Canada”. Vancouver: UBC Press, cop. 2002. ISBN:

9780774809597.

Tresch, A. (2009). “Politicians in the media: Determinants of legislators' presence and prominence

in Swiss newspapers”. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14, 67–90.

Trevor Thrall, A. (2006). “The myth of the outside strategy: Mass media news coverage of interest

groups”. Political Communication, 23(4), 407-420.

Van Dalen, A. (2012). “Structural Bias in Cross-National Perspective How Political Systems and

Journalism Cultures Influence Government Dominance in the News”. The International Journal of

Press/Politics, 17, 32-55.

Velders, Khaël, et al. (2013) "(Un) covering Poland between PR and presidency: a quantitative

content analysis of print news coverage of the Polish EU presidency in Flanders." Central European

Political Studies, 3, 109-120.

Vos, D. (2013). “The vertical glass ceiling: Explaining female politicians' underrepresentation

intelevision news”. Communications, 38(4), 389–410.

Wolfsfeld, G. and T. Sheafer (2006). “Competing actors and the construction of political news”.

Political Communication, 23,3, 333–54.

Yoon, J. and Boydstun, A. E. (2014). “Dominating the news: government officials in front-page news

coverage of policy issues in the United States and Korea”. Journal of Public Policy, 34, pp 207-235

21

Figures

Figure 1: The most prominent authors on media attention to interest groups and political actors

Figure 2: The most common issues analyzed by research

0,00%

1,00%

2,00%

3,00%

4,00%

5,00%

6,00%

7,00%

0,00% 5,00% 10,00% 15,00% 20,00% 25,00%

Others

Environment

Defense

Justice

Health

Rights

Social policy

Education and culture

Government and public administration

Macroeconomy

Foreign Policy

22

Figure 3: Publication of academic articles over time

Tables

Table 1: Countries whose universities have published research on the topic

Country Articles Percentage

US 15 20,27%

Netherlands 10 13,51%

United Kingdom 7 9,46%

Denmark 7 9,46%

Canada 6 8,11%

Spain 5 6,76%

Germany 5 6,76%

Belgium 5 6,76%

Italy 2 2,70%

China 2 2,70%

Switzerland 1 1,35%

Romania 1 1,35%

Norway 1 1,35%

New Zeeland 1 1,35%

Korea, South 1 1,35%

Israel 1 1,35%

Indonesia 1 1,35%

Ghana 1 1,35%

Egypt 1 1,35%

Austria 1 1,35%

0,00%

2,00%

4,00%

6,00%

8,00%

10,00%

12,00%

2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Case study Macro study

23

Table 2: Research designs, non-comparative and comparative analyses

Level of Government Total Articles

European Union 18,75%

National 70,31%

Subnational 6,25%

Local 4,69%

Media outlets analyzed Total Articles

Newspapers 59,38%

TV 3,13%

Radio 6,25%

Online traditional media 0,00%

Online new media 1,56%

Magazines 1,56%

Newspaper and TV 12,50%

Newspaper and online traditional media 1,56%

Newspaper, TV and Online news media 1,56%

Newspaper, TV and Magazines 1,56%

Newspaper, TV and Radio 1,56%

TV and Radio 1,56%

Newspaper and Magazines 1,56%

Literature Reviews 6,25%

Countries analyzed Total countries

USA 9,42%

United Kingdom 8,70%

Denmark 7,25%

Germany 6,52%

Spain 6,52%

Netherlands 5,80%

Canada 5,07%

France 4,35%

Italy 3,62%

Belgium 2,90%

Ireland 2,90%

Others 36,96%

24

Table 3: Theories and objectives analyzed by scholars

Objectives defined by the research field % Articles

Gender bias theory: 54,69%

Gender differences in electoral contests 68,57%

Gender differences during routine periods 34,29%

Media visibility of parliaments and MP's 10,94%

Mirror, news value and media market theories 71,43%

Visibility and tone of the coverage 14,29%

Visibility of the Parliament as an institution 14,29%

Incumbency bonus: Dominance of the government in the news 7,81%

Inside the parliamentarian arena 60,00%

Incumbency bonus and electoral contests 40,00%

Media diversity of interest groups 7,81%

Organizational resources perspective 20,00%

Diversity (Type, resources, issues etc.) 40,00%

Diversity and conflict positions in the media 20,00%

Literature review 20,00%

Media personalization 3,13%

Degree of Europeanization in the national media 9,38%

Exogenous factors (national and EU events) 16,67%

EU institutions in national coverage 16,67%

European Parliament elections 50,00%

Media visibility and frame base on operating logics of national parliaments 16,67%

Media prominence of political parties 4,69%

Type of media system, ownership issues and journalistic standards 33,33%

Media visibility during election contests 33,33%

Literature review of media attention to politicians 33,33%

Others 1,56%

25

Table 4: Political actors and macro studies analyzed

Type of actors analyzed by research in the academic articles

Political parties 50% MP’s 25,00%

Governmental elites 7,81% Political institutions (such as a Parliament)

4,69%

Interest groups 7,81% All kind of actors 4,69%

Analysis of the type of actors regarding the Macro studies

Governmental elites 10,00% Interest groups 20,00%

EU institutions 10,00%

Political parties 20,00%

MP’s 40,00%

Political dimension of the actors analyzed

Governmental elites MP’s

National actors 6,25% EU actors 1,56%

Subnational actors 1,56% National actors 23,44%

Interest groups Political parties

Any kind of interest groups 3,13% EU actors 4,69%

National actors 4,68% Local actors 4,69%

National actors 35,94%

Subnational actors 3,13%

National and subnational actors together

1,56%

Political Institutions Actors from all political dimensions

EU actors 3,13% All 4,69%

Subnational actors 1,56%

26

Appendixes

Appendix 1 Type of actor analyzed

Type of actor

Name Description

1. Political parties

We have coded in this category all those publications that explicitly aim to analyze the media attention to political parties or individual politicians outside the parliamentarian arena

Dummy:

Type of politician

We have created a dummy variable in order to identify whether a publication is analyzing: 1) political party as an actor itself; 2) a candidate in election periods; or 3) individual politicians

2. MP’s In this category we have coded those publications that analyze the interactions among political actors inside the parliamentarian arena.

Dummies:

Government 1 whether the article analyzes the political interactions of the government in the parliamentarian arena.

Opposition 1 when the publication analyzes the parliamentarian opposition.

3. Interest groups

The aim of this category is to code those publications that analyzes the media prominence of interest groups.

4. Political institutions

We have created this category in order to code the analyses on political institutions such as the national parliament, the European Parliament or the European Commission

5. Governmental and opposition elites

Government and opposition are coded into this category when the publication analyzes their political actions outside the parliamentarian arena

Government 1 Whenever the publication analyzed the media attention to the governmental elites

Opposition 1 when the scholar analyzes the features of media coverage of opposition actors

6. All actors Because of some publications analyze media coverage of any actor regardless their particular type, we have coded these cases in this category.

27

Appendix 2 Countries and universities linked to the publication of academic articles

Country Universities Articles Percentage

US American University, Iowa State University, University of Missouri, Dartmouth College, University of Kansas, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Macalester College, University of New Mexico, George Washington University, Indiana University, Bowling Green State University, Southern Illinois University, University of California, University of Michigan, Emory University, Arizona State University, Purdue University, University of North Carolina, Washburn University

15

20,27%

Netherlands University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Centre for Contemporary European Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam

10 13,51%

United Kingdom

University of Liverpool, University of Warwick, Kingston University, University of Surrey, Bournemouth University, University of the West of England, Plymouth University, University of Strathclyde, University of York, University of East Anglia, University of Huddersfield

7

9,46%

Denmark University of Southern Denmark, Aarhus University 7 9,46%

Canada University of Alberta, University of New Brunswick, McGill University, Queen's University, University of Winnipeg

6 8,11%

Spain Universitat de Barcelona, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Universitat Jaume I de Castellón

5 6,76%

Germany Freie Universität Berlin, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Hertie School of Governance, Dresden University of Technology

5 6,76%

Belgium University of Antwerp, Ghent University 5 6,76%

Italy Sapienza University of Rome, University of Pavia, National Institute for Health, Migration and Poverty

2 2,70%

China Nanjing Normal University, Tamkang University 2 2,70%

Switzerland University of Geneva 1 1,35%

Romania National School of Political and Administrative Studies 1 1,35%

Norway University of Bergen 1 1,35%

New Zeeland

Massey University 1 1,35%

Korea South Hongik University, Yeungnam University 1 1,35%

Israel University of Haifa 1 1,35%

Indonesia Universitas Airlangga 1 1,35%

Ghana University of Ghana 1 1,35%

Egypt Damietta University 1 1,35%

Austria University of Vienna 1 1,35%

28

Appendix 3 The ten most prominent scholarly journals in terms of academic articles published

Appendix 4 Research features

Research features

Research design Research approach

Case study 78,13% Qualitative 14,06%

Macro study 15,63% Quantitative 65,63%

Literature reviews 6,25% Mix of quantitative and qualitative 20,31%

Type of analysis

Inferial 57,81% Descriptive 42,19%

Descriptive 42,19%

0,00%

1,00%

2,00%

3,00%

4,00%

5,00%

6,00%

7,00%

8,00%

9,00%

29

Appendix 5 Comparative analyses

Comparative Analysis

Among countries Among media (same and different format)

Single country 78,13% Single media outlet 15,63%

Comparative 21,88% Comparative 84,38%

Countries and Media outlets analyzed

Number of countries Media outlet analyzed in the articles

Literature review (0) 6,25% Literature review (0) 6,25%

Single country 71,88% Newspapers 66,23%

Two countries 7,81% TV 20,78%

Three countries 6,25% Radio 5,19%

Four countries 1,56% Online traditional media 1,30%

Five countries 1,56% Online new media 2,60%

Seven countries 1,56% Magazines 3,90%

twenty-seven countries 3,13%

Different formats of media outlet Number media outlet combinations

Single media outlet 15,63% Two formats 73,33%

Comparative same format 60,94% Three formats 20%

Comparative different formats 23,44% Unspecified 6,67%

Appendix 6 the most prominent variables operationalized by scholars in their research

The five most prominent dependent and independent variables

Dependent variables D. variables Independent variables I. variables

media visibility of political parties

16,67% gender 25,53%

personal coverage 12,67% Incumbent actor 7,09%

Politic background and electivity 8,67% issues 7,09%

Media visibility of MP’s 8,00% major party affiliation 5,67%

tone 6,67% seniority 4,96%

Others 47,33% Others 49,65%

30

Appendix 7 The most cited bibliographic references

The ten most cited bibliographic references

Author Citations

Kahn, K.F., & Goldenberg, E.N. (1991). Women candidates in the news: An examination of gender differences in U.S. senate campaign coverage. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 180-199. 20 Smith, K. B. (1997). When all’s fair: Signs of parity in media coverage of female candidates. Political Communication, 14, 71–81. 19 Kahn, K. F. (1994). The distorted mirror: Press coverage of women candidates for statewide office. Journal of Politics, 56, 154–173. 18 Kahn K (1996) The Political Consequences of Being a Woman: How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences of Political Campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press. 17 Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 16 Tresch, Anke. (2009). Politicians in the Media: Determinants of Legislators’ Presence and Prominence in Swiss Newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics 14, 1: 67-90. 15 Heldman, C., Carroll, S. J. & Olson, S. (2005). She brought only a skirt: print media coverage of Elizabeth Dole’s bid for the republican presidential nomination. Political Communication, 22 (3): 315–35. 15 Bystrom DG, Robertson TA and Banwart MC (2001) Framing the fight: An analysis of media coverage of female and male candidates in primary races for governor and US senate in 2000. American Behavioral Scientist 44: 1999–2013. 15 Gidengil, E. and Everitt, J. (2003) Talking tough: Gender and reported speech in campaign news coverage. Political Communication 20(3): 209–232. 14 Jalalzai, F. (2006). Women candidates and the media: 1992-2000 elections. Politics & Policy, 34(3), 606–633. 14