Historical Trends in Questioning Presidents, 1953‐2000

Abstract

This article develops a system for analyzing the aggressiveness of journalists' questions to public figures and applies that system to a sample of presidential news conferences from Eisenhower through Clinton. The primary objective is to use the phenomenon of aggressive questioning as a window into the White House press corps and its evolving relationship to the presidency. Ten features of question design are examined as indicators of four basic dimensions of aggressiveness: (1) initiative, (2) directness, (3) assertiveness, and (4) adversarialness. The results reveal significant trends for all dimensions, all indicating a long‐term decline in deference to the president and the rise of a more vigorous and at times adversarial posture. While directness has increased gradually over time and is relatively insensitive to the immediate sociopolitical context, initiative, assertiveness, and adversarialness are more volatile and sensitive to local conditions. The volatile dimensions rose from the late 1960s through the early 1980s, declined from the mid‐1980s through the early 1990s, and rose again at century's end. Possible factors contributing to these trends, and their broader ramifications for the evolving relationship between the news media and the presidency, are also discussed.

Closing calls to a cancer helpline: Expressions of caller satisfaction

“…But indications of satisfaction or otherwise produced during the calls themselves, through displays of appreciation (or withholding appreciation), do help to A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t feed back to call-handlers the extent to which they have satisfied callers' expectations. Although this is beyond the scope of this report, future research might attempt to 'measure' callers' closing expressions of gratitude along a satisfaction scale, according to their design as unmarked pro forma 'thank you' to upgraded, stronger and multiple forms of appreciation (as suggested in [17] and implicit in measurement scales devised for other interactional moves [39] 4.2. Conclusion…”

When Does the Watchdog Bark? Conditions of Aggressive Questioning in Presidential News Conferences

“…Our previous research on the same database (Clayman et al 2006) documented long-term historical trends for all dimensions of aggressiveness, all involving increasing aggressiveness over time. These rising trends are linear for initiative, assertiveness, and adversarialness, and level off over time for directness and accountability.…”

“…When quantitative measures of talk are derived from prior CA findings, they are internally validated in an "emic" (Pike 1967) sensethat is, grounded in the understandings of interactants themselves-and are proving to have strong predictive and explanatory value. It is in this spirit that the present study of aggressive questioning in news conferences, which employs a coding scheme grounded in extensive prior work on question design in broadcast news interviews and other environments (Clayman et al 2006;Clayman and Heritage 2002b), was developed.…”

“…They applied that system in a comparative study of Dwight D. Eisenhower's and Ronald Reagan's news conferences, and later conducted a large-scale study of news conferences from Eisenhower through Clinton, documenting long-term historical trends toward more aggressive questioning (Clayman et al 2006). The present study, using the same database, moves beyond the description of historical trends to isolate some of the major social conditions associated with variations in aggressiveness.…”

“…Despite the continued prominence of official sources, news content in recent years has become more interpretive and more critical of officials and their policies. The growing prevalence of such content has been documented in studies of election campaign coverage (Hallin 1992;Patterson 1993) and political news more generally (Clayman et al 2006;Clayman and Heritage 2002b;Entman 2003;Hart, SmithHowell, and Llewellyn 1990;Robinson 1976Robinson , 1981Rozell 1994;Sabato 1991;Smoller 1990; see also Cohen 2004). Although this could be interpreted as support for the watchdog model, some press critics argue that journalism has gone too far, presenting an indiscriminately critical and corrosively cynical view of officials and candidates.…”