Congressional Media Strategy: House Members, Rhetorical Strategies and Press Releases

7/28/2019 Congressional Media Strategy: House Members, Rhetorical Strategies and Press Releases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/congressional-media-strategy-house-members-rhetorical-strategies-and-press 1/88

Congressional Media Strategy: House Members, Rhetorical Strategies and PressReleases.

Political Science Distinction Thesis, 2012-2013

Brittany R. Legasey



2

On February 24th, 2011 in Houston Texas, a fire destroyed the home-based daycare run

by Jessica Tata. Tata returned to the daycare from a shopping trip to find the home ablaze and

the children still inside. Four toddlers died as a result of the fire, and three others were injured.

Initially, Tata was not charged, but new developments soon made prosecutors reevaluate Tata’s

role in the situation. Tata fled the country for Nigeria a few days after the fire occurred.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, of Houston’s 18 th Congressional District, distributed a

press release on March 8th clarifying her stance on the situation and the efforts she has made in

attempt to bring Tata to justice. Congresswoman Jackson Lee’s press release said:

I therefore urgently request that the State Department and the Department of Justice

officially send additional U.S. law enforcement officers to Nigeria, and that they engage

the Nigerian government and urgently ask for their immediate and intensified efforts to

find, detain and arrest this alleged perpetrator who has left 4 dead babies in Harris County

and some 3 other babies fighting for their lives while their parents and loved ones suffer

in a state of excruciating anguish. (2011)

When Tata returned to the U.S., she was arrested and charged with four counts of felony

murder, four counts of abandoning a child and one count of reckless injury to a child. In 2012,

Tata was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to 80 years in prison.

After distributing the press release on March 8th 2011, Rep. Jackson Lee was featured in

eight different news stories about Tata’s return to the U.S. Each of Houston’s four network news

stations produced at least one news report about Tata’s dramatic return featuring Rep. Jackson

Lee. Houston’s newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, printed two news articles about Tata’s return

featuring Jackson Lee. By distributing one press release, Rep. Jackson Lee successfully



3

associated herself with Tata’s extradition process. She made herself a primary source for all of

the local news coverage surrounding the extradition process.

Interestingly enough, the location of Tata’s home-based daycare was not found in

Jackson Lee’s Congressional district. Rep. Jackson Lee had no obvious association with any of

the victims of the fire, Tata, or the daycare; yet she was the only member of Houston’s nine-

member Congressional Delegation that played any public role in the incident. However, Rep.

Jackson Lee’s press release was written to highlight the emotional plight of those impacted by

the fire. Rep. Jackson Lee personalized the issue by focusing on the emotional hardship that the

victims and their families were suffering while Tata was evading due process; she did this while

asserting that the United States government should take action on behalf of these victims. At the

end of the press release, Rep. Jackson Lee also highlighted her personal connection to the

situation. It said, “In the wake of the tragedy, Congresswoman Jackson Lee visited the site of the

gruesome fire, and she commemorated her visit by leaving behind flowers for the victims and

their families.”1 By articulating her personal experience with the aftermath of the fire and forging

these emotional ties, Rep. Jackson Lee was able to associate herself to the situation through these

newfound personal ties and her policy efforts in Washington. Rep. Jackson Lee often speaks out

about local or national issues pertaining to the justice system and she often makes the news

commenting about these issues.

Members of the United States’ House of Representatives work in Washington D.C., but

ultimately answer to the finite portion of the population that elected them. Constituents’

perception of their member of congress is based on what information is available, either from the

member of congress directly or from the local media outlets whose job it is to cover them. While

members of congress can control any direct communication they have with their constituents,

1 Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Congressional Office, 2011.



4

such as through direct mail or town hall meetings, indirect communication through media outlets

is somewhat beyond their control. Members of congress do try to influence the news making

process and they do so through the implementation of a media strategy. Strategy implies direct

and planned decision making employed in an attempt to yield a specific outcome. Members of

congress look to yield as much positive media coverage as possible. They also seek to make the

news on topics that of are particular importance to them. Members of congress have three main

interests in garnering positive news coverage: reelection, making policy, and bolstering their

professional reputation.2 Thus, whether or not members of congress can influence the news

making process would be important because the ability to influence making process would

signify that they are able to increase their chances of reelection, promote their policy and bolster

their professional reputation.

But how much influence do members of congress have over the news making process?

And which media strategies most effectively influence the news making process?

This project seeks to evaluate congressional media strategies. The relationship between

members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the local media outlets that cover them

provides ample opportunity for an evaluation of congressional rhetoric because the nature of the

constituent-congressperson relationship is repeatedly renegotiated every two years in an election.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives represent a very specific subset of the population

in a very specific geographic location. Each member of congress also functions within a specific

‘market’ of public communication institutions dedicated to covering the member of Congress

and reporting any developments to those who seek information from within the media market.

2 Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp. ix.



5

This project will evaluate the congressional media news making process, focusing

particularly on the use of rhetorical strategies used in pursuit of media coverage. Personalization

and policy assertion can be seen as alternative rhetorical strategies employed by members of

Congress when they communicate. I developed the terms personalization and policy assertion

based on a close reading of the press releases used for the data analysis section of this paper. The

use of these strategies is pronounced when members of Congress communicate directly with the

press through press releases. An evaluation of different rhetorical strategies and their relative

effectiveness would be of interest to public relations professionals, political decision makers, and

media professionals.

For the purposes of this analysis, personalization and policy assertion will have narrow

definitions. Personalization or issue personalization is classified as any sentence that articulates:

a personal or emotional reaction to the issue in question; an association between the issue in

question and some facet of the author’s life or personal opinions; potential consequences on a

community member or a community (i.e. the community or community member receives the

action of legislation); or an expression of want or desire (unrelated to a piece of legislation).

Policy assertion or assertion is defined as any sentence that articulates: information about a piece

of legislation that involves the author (i.e. the author sponsored a piece of legislation or supports

it); commentary on legislation that involves the author; the potential consequences or impact of a

piece of legislation (generally without direct individuals that receive the consequences of the

legislation); normative policy assertions using imperatives (i.e. “we need,” “we must,”) or

expression of want or desire related to a policy position or a piece of legislation. I developed

these definitions myself based on a close reading of the population of press releases distributed

by members of the Houston Congressional Delegation during the 112th session of congress. I



6

thought it was appropriate to develop these definitions and focus my research on the distinction

between these two rhetorical strategies in congressional communication because the existing

literature was void of any discussion about the congressional news making process and the

rhetorical strategies employed by members of congress.

Members of congress are ideal test subjects when focusing on media strategy because

congressional elections are held every two years and members of congress are responsible to a

definitive, localized constituency. In order to win reelection every two years, members of

Congress must reach this localized constituency and effectively communicate a persuasive

argument, one that is persuasive enough to garner enough electoral turnout. Thus, for members

of Congress, media strategy is an implicit component of congressional campaign strategy, and

since U.S. House campaigns are somewhat continual, for members of the U.S. House media

strategy is constantly a priority. With elections held every two years there is less downtime in-

between campaign cycles and media decisions during any point of a congressional session

become a component of a member of congress’ media strategy.

Ultimately, media practitioners decide when a member of Congress makes the news.

Journalists and editors decide news content based on the concept of newsworthiness. How these

decision-makers interpret Congressional news, or employ commentary from members of

Congress in local or national news stories, largely determines what information constituents

receive about their representatives.

How effective are congressional media strategies? When answering this question, a

number of other questions arise, such as: how often are members of congress in the news, and on

what topics are they newsworthy; how often do they employ different rhetorical strategies; and



7

do the news stories correspond with press releases? By answering these questions, I should be

able to discern which rhetorical strategy is more effective at cultivating local media attention.

This paper seeks to examine congressional media strategy by preforming a quantitative

analysis using a sample of congressmen from the U.S. House of Representatives. The analysis

examines the entire 112th

session of congress and content analysis will be done on the

congressional input to the news making process, press releases, as well as the output of news

stories. The data gleaned from the content analysis will provide the resources to present a

descriptive background about the congressional news making process and it will also be used to

run a probit analysis to test the effectiveness of both personalization and policy assertion.

This paper seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of congressional media strategy. It also

seeks to determine whether issue personalization is a more effective rhetorical strategy than

policy assertion within the context of congressional media strategy. First, I present the origins of

this topic and the purpose of answering such questions. I will then present the existing literature

about this topic, highlighting its limitations and laying the theoretical foundations for my

hypothesis. I also utilize first-person perspectives to provide background information as to how

the congressional news making process currently functions through the use of press releases and

utilizes issue personalization and policy assertion. I then present my hypothesis, that issue

personalization is more effective in yielding media coverage than is policy assertion. From there,

I demonstrate how I conceptualized each of the rhetorical strategies and describe my research

methods. My findings are organized into two parts, representing how press releases can incite

news coverage through either direct or indirect causality. The indirect causality section makes

use of descriptive data to showcase what members of congress are doing and how their actions

are being reciprocated by the local news media. The direct causality section presents different



8

ways for evaluating the effectiveness of the press releases and the rhetorical strategies used

within them. I present four models: the first using dummy variables to represent the rhetorical

strategies; the second using proportional values for the real use of the rhetorical strategies; the

third which uses calculated probabilities to assess the effectiveness of each combination of

rhetorical strategies; and the fourth which reverts back to the use of dummy variables to test the

interaction effect between those issues identified as newsworthy and the various rhetorical

strategies. I then reflect upon my research in the conclusion and make suggestions for future

research.

Research Origins

An inquiry into local media strategy is necessary because members of the United States

House of Representatives are locally elected and serve at the federal level of government, thus

they need to articulate their work in Washington D.C. in a way that speaks to those back home in

their district. Members of congress advocate for and vote on national changes, changes that may

or may not be relevant to their local constituents, but in order to maintain their positions

members of congress need to maintain frequent interaction with their constituents in order to

make their legislative successes known. The ways in which local media cover members of

congress is important in shaping how the constituents perceive the work that is being done on

their behalf in Washington D.C. and a positive portrayal by local media is often critical to

maintaining office.

It is important to study both the decisions made by the members of congress and the

actions of the press because these individuals are the primary decision makers and practitioners

of media strategy. The purpose of a strategy is to achieve a particular end and a strategy’s

usefulness is determined by its effectiveness at achieving these ends. Thus, strategy needs to be



9

tried, tested, and proven successful. A media strategy that is tried, tested, and proven successful

would be of interest to both legislators and their counterparts in local media because it would

expose the Congressional news making process itself. Legislators have an interest in which

strategies were most successful, so that they could use these strategies to suit their own

legislative interests or to manipulate the local media in their favor.

Exploring how effective the members of the U.S. House of Representatives are at

controlling their media image and maintaining their personal brand is important because

explorations of this nature should be representative of how political agenda setting works from a

procedural standpoint. Any procedures that are informative to how a member of congress

creates a personal brand, a brand that is used to influence their portrayal in the news media, is

important because these actions may be characteristics of a media strategy.

Theory and Rational

Most research on congressional news making focuses little on strategy, but rather, it

focuses either on how news media cover politicians or how politicians create and act on an issue

agenda. The work of literature that is of most importance to this project is Congress, the Press,

and Political Accountability by R. Douglas Arnold. In his book, Arnold (2004) reports on

empirical studies he carried out regarding the volume of newspaper coverage for all members of

congress during a two-year term, how newspapers cover legislatives and how legislatives take

positions. Arnold finds that geographic location is a large determinant of how much information

about their representative citizens are exposed to. Arnold also finds that the volume of news

coverage changes depending on the number of representatives representing the newspaper’s

market.3 Drawing from these conclusions, Arnold found that a majority of the articles written

3 Arnold, R. Douglas. 2004. Congress, the Press, and Political Accountability. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Press. May.

Pp. 62



10

about members of congress focus on the representative’s role in national policy making and that

most stories approach the issue neutrally, only ten percent containing criticisms of the

representative’s performance.4

Arnold also does extensive research on how newspapers cover legislative position taking

and how the legislators vote in congress. Arnold’s research design regarding volume of coverage

and the content of this coverage largely inspired how I designed and carried out my analysis of

local news content. While Arnold’s research on congressional press coverage and its

implications is quite thorough, he largely disregards the news making process, focusing more on

the press’ output than the member of congress’ input.

In a work similar to Arnold’s, C. Danielle Vinson’s Local Media Coverage of Congress

and its Members looks at how members of congress are covered by local media outlets by

preforming content analysis on a number of different news sources from multiple geographic

locations in order to draw conclusions about congressional news in general. Vinson found that

the congruence between a member’s district boundaries and the media market that covers the

member of congress is a good indication of how much coverage a member of congress will

receive.5 In this sense, a media market includes both the print and broadcast news organizations

within one geographic area such as a city and its suburbs. The congruence between media market

and congressional district also has an impact on a members’ media strategy. Vinson explained,

"Even if all congressional offices were equal in their media relations strategies, one should not

necessarily expect uniform results…. the congruence between media markets and congressional

districts may render such strategies all but useless.6 Vinson also found that news coverage

increased with market-district congruence and that senators, congressional leaders and women

4 Arnold, R. Douglas. 2004. Pp. 895 Vinson, Danielle. 2002. Through Local Eyes: Local Media Coverage of Congress. Creskill, NJ: Hampton. pp. 101.

6 Vinson, Danielle. 2002. pp. 101.



11

were more newsworthy.7 She also found that members of Congress vulnerable to electoral defeat

and members who had been in office longer were less likely to be covered.8

Vinson also tested whether the media directly used press releases, but she had mixed

results. The media’s use of press releases varied by news medium and it also varied by the type

of media market.9

Vinson compared the press releases that she had access to with the news

coverage from the same period of time, and she found that, “publication of members’ statements

in most cases was hit or miss, even in weekly papers.” More specifically, six of the

representatives received no coverage incited by news releases in any of the media she evaluate,

four of these six members were from low-congruence markets.

10

Six of the members she studied

distributed press releases that did receive attention, but she found that television news stations

did not utilized any of the press releases in their coverage.11 She also found that newspapers

tended to extract quotes from the press releases that were about major, national issues but

ignored those that were focused on local issues.12 Vinson’s analysis of the impact of press

releases on the news making process is largely incomplete, considering that she studied only four

weeks of news coverage and press release input. Within her findings, there was a large variation

in whether the press release was picked up by the local media or not. While studying whether or

not the press release directly incites a news story is important, Vinson largely disregards the use

of press releases for the construction of an issue agenda, which would not be directly measured

by whether or not the press release incites a news story, but rather it would be measured by

7 Vinson, Danielle. 2002. pp. 44.8 Vinson, Danielle. 2002. pp. 44.9 Vinson, Danielle. 2002. pp. 96.10 Vinson, Danielle. 2002. pp. 96-97.11 Vinson, Danielle. 2002. pp. 97.12 Vinson, Danielle. 2002. 97



12

comparing the issues discussed in the press releases to the issues on which the member of

congress is covered by local media.

Justin Grimmer (2010) created a model to discern the political rhetoric of press releases

originating from U.S. Senate offices. He was able to analyze which topics were the most

preeminent across all press releases and how these topics relate to each individual Senator,

allowing him to pinpoint the Senators’ expressed agendas. Grimmer found that local newspapers

regularly use press releases; making press releases an important interlocutor between Senators,

the mass media, and constituents.13 Grimmer presents an interesting, yet complex, method for

analyzing press releases. His focus was on press releases as a means of assessing the Senator’s

expressed agendas, which highlighted the importance of issues and the role that they play in

communicating a specific agenda to the press. Grimmer’s research method demonstrates how

useful press releases can be when assessing Congressional communication.

In Making Laws and Making News, Timothy E. Cook (1989) examines the relationship

between members of Congress and the news industry. He describes the relationship between

members of Congress and the news media as a constant negotiation and renegotiation because

each group holds important negotiating powers over the other.14 This is important, as it shows

that neither group, members of congress or media professionals, has primary control over the

outcome of the news making process.

Yiannakis (1982) found that members of congress’ communication styles were a function

of district and member characteristics.15 The findings of Arnold (2004), Vinson (2003), and

13 Grimmer, Justin. 2010. A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas

in Senate Press Releases. Political Analysis, 18(1), 1. Pp. 614 Cook, Timothy. 1989. Making laws and making news: Media strategies in the US House of Representatives.

Washington, DC: Brookings. pp. 31. 15

Yiannakis, Diana Evans. 1982. ‘‘House members’ communication styles: Newsletter and press releases.’’ Journal

of Politics 44(4). pp.1049.



13

Yiannakis, as well as similar qualitative studies about congressional communication strategy by

Fenno (1978) and Mayhew (1974), suggest that geographic characteristics of the member’s

district influences the news making process. In studying the congressional news making process

further, it is thus necessary to control for geographic characteristics.

The related literature looks at two different sides of the same coin, these sides being

congressional communication and congressional news coverage. Neither topic assesses the

coin’s value or examines how congressional communication and congressional news coverage

go together. Congressional communication can be seen as an input and congressional news

coverage can be seen as an output. Congressional news making can be seen as a larger process,

and research into the intricacies of this larger process would be informative as to how the process

works and what can be done to alter the output. An evaluation of this nature would have practical

implications, as its results would demonstrate what types of strategies employed within

individual press releases would be more effective in increasing the amount of news coverage a

member of congress receives. The analyses performed by Grimmer(2010) and Arnold(2004) can

be combined in a way that would allow for investigation into the characteristics of press releases,

so that these characteristics could be compared to the media coverage during the same period of

time. Such an analysis would allow for an evaluation of the news making process from the

perspectives of both the legislators and the news professionals.

Broadcast news stations and newspapers are businesses and news editors and producers

make decisions on content with a business model in mind. In line with this logic, Lance Bennett

(2007) defines four information biases that influence news content – personalization and

dramatization being two of these biases. Personalization, as an information bias, drives news

coverage of humanized stories of success and failure, largely devaluing the importance of the



14

larger structural phenomena behind the individualized stories.16 Bennett describes this tendency,

saying, “The reasons for this are numerous, from the journalist’s fear that probing analysis will

turn off audiences to the relative ease of telling the human-interest side of a story as opposed to

explaining deeper causes and effects.”17 Reporting from a personalized angle is aimed at

cultivating audience attention and adding ease to the news making process.

Bennett’s analysis of dramatization as an information bias is also relevant because

dramatization plays off personalized content. Dramatization as an information bias is the

journalistic tendency to favor stories or narratives as a format rather than analysis.18 Bennett

describes this information bias, saying, “News dramas emphasize crisis over continuity, the

present over the past or future, and the personalities at their center. News dramas downplay

complex policy information, the workings of government institutions, and the bases of power

behind the central characters.”19 Bennett argues that these biases have a large impact on the news

making process, which causes personalized stories to be more abundant than policy related

stories.20 The discussions of newsworthiness within journalism textbooks also demonstrate the

presence of Bennett’s information biases. Lloyd and Guzzo (2009) highlight ‘people’ as a

newsworthy characteristic, saying, “[p]eople are more interesting to read about than programs

and policies.”21

16 Bennett, W. Lance. 2007. News: The Politics of Illusion, 7th ed. New York: Pearson Longman. Chapter 2 (“News

Content: Four Information Biases that Matter”), pp. 4017 Bennett, W. Lance. 2007. pp. 4018 ibid.19 Bennett, W. Lance. 2007. pp. 4120 Bennett, W. Lance. 2007. pp. 41

21 Lloyd, Robert, and Glenn Guzzo. 2009. Writing and reporting the news as a story. Pearson Education, Inc., pp.

27.



15

While Bennett describes how these information biases take shape within the media, the

literature is largely void of any mention of personalization’s role in the news making process.

The literature does not differentiate between legislators’ use of personalization or assertion as

tools to further their media coverage related goals. The literature also did not provide any

distinction between personalization or assertion and their role in the news making process. This

paper serves as an original contribution to the study of congressional communication.

From a procedural standpoint, legislators and their staffs should be able to play into the

information biases identified by Bennett to increase the likelihood that their press releases

become news. First-person perspectives provided by a congressional communications director

and a newspaper editor from Houston, Texas work to support this claim.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s Communications Director Mike McQuerry offered insight that

suggests that congressional staff often consider the implications of a press release when deciding

how to frame an issue. McQuerry said, “It is important to think about the impact of the press

release on the public, and so there is virtually always a degree of personalization involved in a

press release.”22 McQuerry focuses on the potential media output presented by each press release

and for him, personalizing issues is a means for associating these issues with the public. When

asked which rhetorical strategy he found more effective at meeting his press related goals,

personalization or policy assertion, McQuerry said that he finds personalization more effective.

He said, “A policy position can only go so far, since everyone can have an opinion. Making the

connection to how the issues affects constituents is more important.”23 For McQuerry and Rep.

Jackson Lee, personalization is not only a means to garner media coverage; it is a means by

which Rep. Jackson Lee connects with her constituents.

22 McQuerry, Mike. Personal communication. January 31st, 2013.23 McQuerry, Mike. Personal communication.



16

Since press releases can be seen as an attempt to connect with constituents by way of

media outlets, the role of the media outlets in this process is of vital importance. McQuerry said

that policy positions with a local angle are most likely to become news. He said, “Local media

outlets are often concerned about the member’s position on issues that have a direct affect on her

constituents.”24

This positions contrasts Vinson’s finding that press releases about local media

tended to ignore press releases written about local issues. McQuerry’s conception of what local

news outlets look for also drastically contrasts what the Houston Chronicle’s Washington Bureau

Chief Richard Dunham identified as the type of information about local members that he looks

for. Since the Houston Chronicle is a major newspaper, it caters to a geographically diverse

audience.25

Policy related to constituents was not of primary concern for Dunham, but rather he

focuses on timely national and local issues in general, neglecting to associate them with any

particular audience. Dunham said, “A comment or analysis on breaking news is the most likely.

Input on important national issues before Congress… is another. We also look for issues of

particular local interest such as energy, NASA/space/science, medical research and

transportation.”26 Dunham also identified issues that would be of interest to Houston’s Latino

and African American readers, saying that the Chronicle would be likely to cover issues such as

voting rights, education, discrimination, redistricting and diversity.27

McQuerry and Dunham share very similar views about the use and implications of issue

personalization. Dunham identified personalization as the rhetorical strategy most likely to

create news. He said, “Yes, for better or for worse, personalizing an issue yields better results in

modern-day journalism. Readers (or editors?) are looking for a connection between their elected

24 McQuerry, Mike. Personal communication.25 Dunham, Richard. Personal communication. December, 17 th, 2012.26 Dunham, Richard. Personal communication.27 Dunham, Richard. Personal communication.



17

officials and the issues that matter to them.”28 Dunham also highlighted the importance of policy

assertion, saying that policy assertion made in a timely fashion in relation to breaking news

events “yields good results.”29

Based on this theory and rationale, members of congress who represent districts within

the same media market as other members of congress should receive less news coverage than

members of congress whose district is congruent with a media market. It is unclear from past

research what kind of role press releases play in the news making process, but based on the first-

person accounts press releases appear to be a means by which members of congress attempt to

make news and attempt directly connect with constituents by way of the local media outlets.

Based on Dunham’s first-person account, it appears that press releases play a role. Dunham

indicated that press releases indirect inform or incite the political content he creates for the Texas

on the Potomac website about 20% of the time. Logically, the employing personalization within

a press release should thus increase the likelihood that the press release plays a role inciting a

news story.

Hypothesis

I argue that issue personalization is an effective media strategy in that local media outlets

would cover this type of political messaging most of the time. A complementary argument that I

will make is that policy assertion would not be an effective media strategy in that local media

outlets would not cover this type of political messaging most of the time. Since personalization

and policy assertion tend to occur simultaneously, it would be impossible to directly test these

arguments. By combining the logic used in formulating these arguments, I formulated a

28 Dunham, Richard. Personal communication.29 Dunham, Richard. Personal communication.



18

generalized hypothesis: personalization is more effective in yielding media coverage than is

policy assertion.

Personalization an issue would be a good strategy for members of congress because it

would put the issue within a specific framework for their constituents to understand.

Personalizing issues would allow members of congress to forge connections with their

constituents by way of the issues that they are personalizing, because it would demonstrate that

they have some sort of personal relationship with the issue they are communicating about. Those

constituents who also have a personal relationship or found their position on particular issue with

personal evidence would be likely to feel some connection with the legislator who personalizes

that issue. While personalizing an issue is helpful when looking to connect to constituents, it

would also be helpful when communicating with the media. When communicating with the

media through the distribution of press releases, personalizing an issue would demonstrate that

the legislator has a personal stake in an issue and give the press a reason to pay attention to what

they are saying about that issue.

Since members of congress serve at the federal level of government but advocate for

individuals from very specific geographic regions, personalizing issues would be a means by

which members of congress could translate the issues within the national debate to make them

relevant to the unique neighborhoods and communities within their district. Personalizing issues

would also highlight the consequences and impacts of certain policies on particular individuals

or groups within the district. Personalizing issues in this way would also make national issues

more relevant to one’s constituents, putting a local face on those constituents who would either

benefit or be harmed by a particular issue or policy. For issues that are highly technical such as



19

the federal budget, personalization would also be a means by which to simplify the issue into

situations and scenarios that the average constituent could understand.

In contrast, policy assertions can be provided by anyone. The assertion would not be

expected to have the same effectiveness as personalization would because assertions are

commonplace for members of congress. Creating and enacting policy is what members of

congress are sent to Washington to do, thus policy assertion in itself is not as newsworthy as

issue personalization.

We should expect issue personalization to generate more media coverage than policy

assertion because of the format and numerous biases inherent in the mass media, characteristics

that make media coverage more apt to cover personalized, dramatic narratives rather than

straightforward policy assertions, especially during campaign seasons. During campaign

seasons, congressional incumbents or congressional candidates are looking to win the votes of

constituents and to do so, candidates or incumbents often attempt to relate their own personal

experiences to issues of importance to their platform. Anecdotes about personal experiences of

constituents also commonplace during campaigns, as these anecdotes are used as a tool to

connect personal struggles with larger issues that a candidate or incumbent looks to address.

Campaigns in themselves are dramatic because they are contest with high political stakes that

arouses much media fanfare. Candidates and incumbents can also use campaign advertisements

as a platform from which to attack their opponent personally or about a policy issue. Often, the

campaign advertisements are produced to dramatize the claims being made and to highlight the

potential impacts of the claim on specific individuals or groups of constituents.

Journalists gravitate towards stories that have a personalized angle and offer a clean

storyline due to the fact there are many members of Congress and each member promotes their



20

own stories and angles.30 The tendency to gravitate towards stories with personalized angles and

with clean storylines, meaning that there is an obvious beginning, middle and end, would be

especially true for media markets that service an area in which there are a number of

congressional representatives.

When a member of congress personalizes an issue, they are framing that issue in a

context that speaks to the information biases that journalists look for. Providing local media

outlets story ideas or issues packaged in a personalized frame should increase the likelihood that

these stories or issues become news content, because the framing speaks to the biases journalists

are trained to look for when evaluating newsworthiness. Based on the news biases identified by

Bennett and the first-person perspective provided by McQuerry and Dunham, we should expect

personalization to be a more effective rhetorical strategy than policy assertion, in that

personalization incites a greater volume of news coverage than policy assertion does.

Research Design

To specifically test the hypotheses and address the larger questions at hand, namely the

relationship between local media and congressional representatives, I will use the data

accumulated through the content analysis to conduct a large-n study. Content analysis is an

appropriate data collection method because its goal “is to produce counts of key categories, and

measurements of the amounts of other variables.”31 Preforming content analysis will allow me to

measure the presence of both personalization and policy assertion in congressional press

releases. Ultimately, the data gleaned from content analysis regarding personalization and policy

30 IIyengar, Shanto and Jennifer A. McGrady. 2007. Media Politics: A Citizen’s Guide. New York:

W.W. Norton. Chapter 7 (“Going Public: Governing through the Media”), pp. 186.

31 Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp.

14.



21

assertion in press releases will become independent variables used in an evaluation of the news

making process with a dependent variable derived from the content analysis of news stories that

measures whether or not there was a corresponding news story that followed a press release.

I preform content analysis on 1215 press releases sent out by eight members of the

United States House of Representatives during the 112th

session of Congress (January 5th

, 2011 –

January 3rd, 2013). The press releases were taken from each member of Congress’ website,

where they are posted shortly after being sent out to the press. In one case, a significant

proportion of the press releases were not available on the website and I received them directly

from the congressional office. When preforming content analysis on the press releases, I used the

sentence as my unit of measurement. I coded each sentence as one of four possible rhetorical

strategies and also categorized the entire press release into one of seventeen issue areas. These

issue areas were determined during the coding process, by evaluating which issues were

discussed and then formulating groups to categorize those specific issues under a more

generalized issue title. For example, if a press release were written about the Keystone XL

Pipeline, it would be coded as an “Energy/Environment” issue and if a press release was written

about the national deficit, it was coded as a “Budget” issue. By coding the press releases in such

a fashion, I was able to generate a data set that allowed for analysis at the press release level, by

member of Congress, by issue area, or as a total for all members of the sample.

I also utilized 1048 local news stories and I preformed content analysis on all of the news

stories that involved the eight members of Congress during the 112 th session. These news stories

consisted of 635 newspaper articles and 414 broadcast news clips. These new stories are the

population of news stories produced about eight members of Congress during the entire 112th

session. The newspaper articles were located using LexisNexis news search, which allowed me



22

to locate all of the stories that mentioned a member of Congress within the specified time period

and in a particular newspaper. The broadcast news stories, produced by four independent local

news stations, were not archived on LexisNexis and had to be accessed from each individual

news stations’ website. The content available through these online archives varied with each

individual news station, some stations making fewer clips available than others. I utilized

whichever news clips were available on the online archives that fell within the dates of interest

for this study. When preforming content analysis on the newspaper articles and broadcast TV

segments, I coded for: the primary and secondary issues addressed; the context of which the

member of congress is mentioned (i.e. are they the main topic, do they comment on an issue, or

are they just mentioned) any signifiers of issue personalization or policy assertion; as well as

generic attributes such as length, author, date released, and placement within the newspaper or

news hour. Similar to the content analysis performed on the press releases, I will categorize each

news story into one of seventeen issue categories. The sentence will not be the unit of analysis

used for news stories, but rather each individual news story will be a unit of analysis from which

the descriptive data regarding issue, role, and use of rhetorical devices is gleaned.

This analysis uses the Houston, Texas region as a sample population of members of the

U.S. House of Representatives and local media outlets. Focusing on one geographic region

allows for an intricate investigation into the relationships between individual members of

congress and the local media outlets that cover them because it accounts for regional factors that

are hard to control for. For example, by using one geographic region, it is not necessary to take

into account regional political differences, differences in the media environment, or differences

in issue selection when comparing members of Congress. Houston, Texas is the fifth largest

media market in the United States and the largest city in the state of Texas. With a population of



23

2.1 million people, it boasts a diverse mixture of urban, suburban and rural areas. Being one of

the United States’ largest metropolises, Houston has a well-established media market, including

one major newspaper, The Houston Chronicle, the ninth largest newspaper in the U.S. with a

circulation of close to 326,000 on weekdays, 340,000 on Saturdays and 1.07 million on

Sundays.32

The Houston Chronicle services much of the area surrounding the city of Houston by

covering both regional and state news. The Chronicle has a bureau in Austin, Texas as well as

Washington, D.C. Houston is also the home to a local affiliate of each of the four major

television networks, ABC (KTRK-13), CBS (KHOU-11), Fox (KRIV-26) and NBC (KPRC-2).

Houston has one of the largest congressional delegations in the United States, boasting

nine members of Congress. This analysis will use eight of these members of Congress as a

sample population. The members of congress this study will focus on are: Rep. Ted Poe (TX-2),

Representative John Culberson (TX-7), Rep. Kevin Brady (TX-8), Rep. Al Green (TX-9), Rep.

Michael McCaul (TX-10), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18), Rep. Pete Olson (TX-22), and Rep.

Raymond “Gene” Green (TX-29).

32 Hearst Corporation. Houston chronicle. [cited 12/15/2012 2012]. Available

from http://www.hearstmediahouston.com/?id=houston-chronicle.



24

These representatives all have a stake in the Houston area media market, as they

represent some geographic area covered by the market. This study will not include

representative Ron Paul (TX-14) because Rep. Paul was considerably engaged in the national

media due to his Presidential campaign and he also did not be seek re-election for Texas’ 14th

congressional district, suggesting that his media strategy operated under unique circumstances.

His presence in the national spotlight did not fit well with this analysis, as his presidential

campaign would have impacted when and for what reason he made the local news.

Operationalization

Drawing from the works of Arnold and Grimmer, I use press releases as the primary

source of communication between members of congress and the press and compare this primary

source to the news media produced by local news outlets. The press releases were used to



25

capture the direct interaction between members of congress and local media outlets. Press

releases serve as the primary means by which members of Congress communicate with media

outlets. While press releases are the primary means by which members of Congress

communicate with media outlets, this communication is one way and does not provide insight to

the decisions that are made by news media. The news content produced by local news media

provides an assessment of how the local media ‘responded’ to the communication from the

members of Congress, by either writing a story about an issue communicated in a press release,

or ignoring the issue.

Conceptualizations

In preforming content analysis, each sentence was placed into one of four categories and

thus creating four rhetorical variables used in Congressional communication. These variables

were: issue personalization, policy assertion, both issue personalization and policy assertion, and

information.

Issue personalization is classified as any sentence that articulates: a personal or emotional

reaction to the issue in question; an association between the issue in question and some

facet of the author’s life or personal opinions; potential consequences on a community

member or a community (i.e. the community or community member receives the action

of legislation); or an expression of want or desire (unrelated to a piece of legislation).

Policy assertion is defined as any sentence that articulates: information about a piece of

legislation that involves the author (i.e. the author sponsored a piece of legislation or

supports it); commentary on legislation that involves the author; the potential

consequences or impact of a piece of legislation (generally without direct individuals that

receive the consequences of the legislation); normative policy assertions using



26

imperatives (i.e. “we need,” “we must,”) or expression of want or desire related to a

policy position or a piece of legislation.

Issue personalization and Policy assertion (hybrid) is defined as any sentence that

contains characteristics of from both the issue personalization and policy assertion

categories. It normally would articulate a reaction or personal statement from the

member of congress along with specific information regarding a piece of legislation.

Information is defined as any sentence that: does not contain any of the elements from the

issue personalization or policy assertion categories. Generally, sentences coded as

information tend provide background information. The information provided may

present opinionated or biased information, but is phrased in a factual way.

Important note on sentence order: sentence order was often a factor in determining what

category a specific sentence was classified as. The press releases were read as a narrative would

be. In order for a sentence regarding a specific piece of legislation to be classified as a policy

assertion, there first needed to be a sentence that explained the member of congress’ relation to

that legislation (i.e. did he or she sponsor it, co-sponsor it, vote for, etc.). Any sentences that

described a piece of legislation but came before the sentence that specifically connected this

legislation to the particular member of congress was not considered policy assertion, but rather it

was considered information. In another sense, the member of Congress who produced the press

release needed to rhetorically associate him or herself with a piece of legislation before it was

considered a policy assertion by these terms. This is applicable only when legislation is being

discussed, as a member of Congress can make a generalized policy assertion as any time.

Measuring effectiveness



27

The data gleaned through content analysis and the interpretation of this data has allowed

me to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the rhetorical strategies employed in the

press releases. The effectiveness of the rhetorical strategies is compared using two causal

explanations: indirect and direct causality. Indirect causality would be generating media content

in specific issue areas based on a well defined and articulated issue agenda in that said issue area.

An issue agenda is defined as a single issue category or multiple issue categories which a

member of Congress has involved him or herself. It can be identified by evaluating a member of

congress’ committee assignments, legislative priorities, and for the purpose of this experiment,

the number of press releases distributed. In terms of press releases, the issue agenda would be

determined by identifying the most frequently used issue categories.

By comparing a member of congress’ self-declared issue agenda, as stated on their

official websites, to their actual output of press releases, I was able to determine which issues

were integral parts of each member of congress’ issue agenda. It was then possible to compare

the press release ‘input’ to the ‘output’ of news stories categorized in those issue areas

previously defined as part of the issue agenda. If there were correlation between a member’s

self-declared issue agenda, press release input by issue and media output by issue, then a

member’s issue agenda would be considered strong.

Direct causality would be when a press release directly incites a related news story.

Direct causality is helpful when looking at the impact of personalization, policy assertion, and

the hybrid of the two rhetorical strategies because it would allow for measurement of how

effective each strategy was at generating media content directly. By comparing press releases

and media output directly, I was able to test whether or not issue personalization and policy

assertion generate news output.



28

During the 112th session of Congress, there were several major news events that dominated the

headlines. These events are summarized in the news events section of the appendix, which also

shows how each story was categorized into one of seventeen different issue categories. These

news events will be used during the analysis as specific examples to complement the quantitative

analysis.

The majority of these stories originated independently, in that the members of congress

did not play a direct role in inciting the news story’s initial development. Thus, press releases

distributed about these stories were reactions. Only in the Chad Holley case and the Metro

Expansion news events were members of Congress implicitly involved in the story’s

development.

Data analysis:

When evaluating Congressional media strategy, it is important to keep in mind why

members of Congress want to make news. As discussed earlier, House members want to be

reelected every two years, they want to legislate on issues that are important to them and they

want to bolster their reputation and improve name recognition. Members of Congress indicate

which issues are most important to them in a number of ways, for instance, most members of

Congress have a dedicated “issues page” on their official website. They also indicate which

issues they find the most important by sponsoring/cosponsoring legislation, serving on related

committees or generally, talking a lot about those issues. In answering the question “are

congressional media strategies effective?” one first needs to consider whether members of

congress are attempting to make news about those issues that they find important. One would

expect that a member of Congress who self-identifies “Taxes” as being an important issue would



29

spend a considerable amount of time talking about budgetary issues in press releases and that this

member would be featured in news stories about budgetary issues. If the member who identifies

“taxes” as being an important issue does not allocate time to discuss budgetary issues in his or

her press releases and is not featured in news stories about budgetary issues, it is safe to assume

that budgetary issues and taxes are not of high importance to that member of Congress. One of

the first and most important characteristics of an effective media strategy would thus be

coherence between one’s self-declared issues and personal platform (one’s issue agenda) and

one’s communications record on these issues. Coherence between one’s issue agenda that one

communicates about in press releases can be considered an effective issue agenda.

Using content provided on each member of Congress’ official website denoting which

issues him or her finds important, I compared these ‘self-declared’ issues, matched them to one

of the seventeen issue categories of use for this analysis and provided a percentage for each issue

category to convey how much of each member’s time was spent on the given issues. Self-

declared issues that made up less than five percent of the total press release distribution were left

out of this chart.



30

Reps. Brady, Culberson and Poe were quite good at articulating their issue agendas, as

their press release output matches those issues they made note of on their websites. Reps. Gene

Green, Jackson Lee, McCaul and Olson do fairly well at articulating their issue agendas, but

have neglected at least one issue category that they frequently communicate about through press

releases. Important to note, that “constituency” as an issue category is not necessarily a standard

issue category that a representative would be expected to communicate about. The constituency

issue category encompasses issues or events that are specifically local and concern one’s district.

Since members of Congress represent a specific district, it is somewhat implied that district level

issues would be important to them. “Justice” is a similar issue category to that of “constituency”

in that it pertains situations within the justice system and these situations were usually local or

regional in scope. Since members of Congress are lawmakers, it is clear why they would want to

Self Declared Important IssuesMember

Brady Economic Recovery Economy/Jobs* 26%

Spending Reform

Your Taxes

Budget* 31%

Budget

Culberson Budget Budget* 17%Medicare Healthcare* 9%

Veterans Veterans/Military* 9%

Health Care Healthcare 7%A. Green

G. Green Energy

Environment

Energy/Environment* 22%

Energy/Environment*

Health Healthcare or Other 9%

Foreign A airs Foreign Policy* 15%Jackson-Lee

Homeland Security National Security 5%

Homeland Security National Security* 44%McCaul

Energy Energy/Environment* 26%Olson

NASA Space 14%

Foreign A airs and Terrorism Foreign Policy*/National Security 18%Poe

Energy Energy/Environment* 12%

Unarticulated & Frequent issue categories

*one of member’s most frequent press release issue categories

see appendix for full issue agenda/press release comparison

Justice 17%, Foreign Policy 9%

Constituency 18%

Transportation 9%

Foreign Policy 17%

Constituency 14%

Associated Issue Category/% of Press Releases

Self-Declared Issue Agenda compared to Press Release distribution



31

be vocal about how laws are enforced. Similar to constituency, it is somewhat implied that

issues regarding the justice system would be important to them.

Drawing from the issue categories the members of congress self-identified on their

websites, the absence of constituency as an issue category is important to note. One possible

reason for its absence is that members of congress attempt to communicate with their

constituents through issues that can be both national and local, such as the categories

‘transportation,’ or ‘energy/environment.’ Rep. Al Green failed to articulate on the issue page of

his website any issue categories that corresponded with his press release output. All of the issue

categories he referenced on his website made up less than five percent of his total press release

distribution, suggesting that the topics he listed are not quite as important as his website might

suggest.

Using the information provided by the members of Congress and comparing it to their

press release distribution provides us with a general understanding about each member’s issue

agenda. When the issues that members’ listed on the issue page of their websites did not

correspond with the issues they made use of in their press releases, their issue agenda was

formulated by using the most frequent issue categories they made use of when producing their

press releases. In these cases, such as the case of Rep. Al Green, the primary and secondary

components of his issue agenda were created by using the most frequent and second most

frequent issue category that he made use of when producing his press releases. Each member of

Congress’ issue agenda was then judged as strong, moderate or weak based on the coherence

between their self-declared issue agenda and the top two issues that were most frequently

featured in their press releases.



32

Member Issue Agenda vis-à-vis issue categories Strength of Issue Agenda

Brady Budget, Economy/Jobs Strong

Culberson Budget, Health Care Strong

A. Green Justice, Foreign Policy* Weak

G. Green Energy/Environment Moderate

Jackson Lee Foreign Policy, Transportation Moderate

McCaul National Security, Foreign Policy Moderate

Olson Energy/Environment, Space Moderate

Poe Foreign Policy, Energy/Environment Strong

Press releases are a very common form of political communication and they are

specifically used to communicate with the media. Since many members of Congress use press

releases as a news-making tool, the releases themselves are useful units of analysis from which

to draw conclusions and make comparisons about political media strategy. Press releases have

no standard format, but they tend to be written in a similar fashion to that of the typical news

story, which clearly demarcates a title, date, location, headline and contact information.

Congressman Benjamin Butler who represented Massachusetts’ 5th, 6th and 7th districts during

the late nineteenth century is credited as having invented the press release, which was formatted

as a lengthy, self-prepared opinion.33 Clearly, members of Congress have had a long history of

using press releases, as they continue to use them in attempt to garner the media’s attention. It is

thus necessary to evaluate the descriptive qualities of press releases in order to gauge exactly

what a member of Congress is doing in attempt to garner that media attention and make news.

33 Cook, Timothy. 1989. Making laws and making news: Media strategies in the US House of

Representatives. Washington, DC: Brookings. pp. 20.



33

Descriptive qualities that provide information regarding the frequency of distribution, quantity,

issue subject, and use of rhetorical strategies will shed light on the congressional logic behind the

news-making process.

Figure 3 provides a general overview of how many press releases each congressional

office of interest to this study distributed during the 112th

session of Congress. By evaluating the

total number of press releases put out, one can get a general understanding of how frequently

these members of Congress chose to distribute press releases. There is much variation between

these frequencies, as Rep. Jackson Lee put out almost three hundred press releases during the

two-year term and Rep. Al Green put out only forty-six press releases during that same period of

time. At this rate, Rep. Jackson Lee put out a new press release about every two and a half days,

where as Rep. Al Green distributed one about every sixteen days. Of course, the press releases

were not distributed so systematically, but framing the frequency with a systematic evaluation of

the highest and lowest distributor of press releases from the sample population of members of

Congress demonstrates that members of Congress distribute press releases quite frequently.



34

Delving a bit deeper into the content and strategy employed within the press releases,

figure 4 displays the use of the four different rhetorical strategies by member of Congress. These

figures were calculated by taking the total number of sentences in which each member of

congress made use of one of the four rhetorical categories and then dividing by the total number

of sentences to get the percentage. Information was universally the most used rhetorical strategy,

but members of Congress use information at variant rates. For instance, Rep. McCaul provides

information about sixty-four percent of the time, where Rep. Al Green only provides information

about thirty-four percent of the time. The hybrid strategy employing both issue personalization

and policy assertion in the same sentence was by far the least used rhetorical strategy, whereas

policy assertion and personalization are used at variant rates. All eight members of congress



35

used policy assertion more frequently than personalization. The differences between members of

Congress were not found to be statistically significant.34

Although member differences in use of the rhetorical strategies were not found to be

significant, the usage the rhetorical strategies by party affiliation were found to be significant.

Figure 5 displays how the Democrats and Republicans in the Houston Congressional Delegation

made use of the four different rhetorical strategies. When evaluating the use of the different

rhetorical strategies from a party perspective, there are differences between how members of

Congress employ these rhetorical strategies. Democrats assert policy, personalize and use the

hybrid strategy more often than Republicans. Republicans use information far more than

Republicans do on average, providing informational sentences void of any rhetorical strategy the

34 by way of an ANOVA test



36

majority of the time. These results were found to be statistically significant, with a P-value of

0.000!.35

It is also important to consider that members of congress dedicate differing amounts of

time to the production of press releases. Figure 6 graphically conveys each member of congress’

average number of sentences. The average press release for all members was found to be about

twelve sentences. Rep. McCaul tended to be the lengthiest in his press releases, with an average

of about fourteen sentences. To contrast, Rep. Culberson tended to keep his press releases brief,

with an average of only nine sentences.

35 difference of two proportions test



37

When evaluating descriptive information regarding press release output, it is important to

consider how the member of Congress has chosen to allocate time and resources. It is possible to

evaluate how members of Congress allocate time and resources when distributing press releases

by identifying categories of press releases that serve no obvious purpose. One such category of

press releases, which was somewhat of a reoccurring phenomenon, was the occasional holiday

dedicated press release. Figure 7 provides a the numerical breakdown of how often during the

112th

session of Congress these eight members of Congress sent out holiday related press

releases and it also displays what percentage of the total number of press releases holiday press

releases made up for each member of Congress. Holiday press releases are not prevalent, but



38

they do exist. They appear to be a misallocation of resources, in that under no circumstances do

holiday related press releases lead to news output. Since press releases are sent to media outlets,

these holiday releases may be seen as a showing of good faith and thanks to the media outlets

that cover them. Holiday press releases sometimes contain generalized policy assertions

regarding things such as national security, the military, and foreign policy. These generalized

policy assertions may be helpful in maintaining an issue agenda, in that a press release sent out

on the anniversary of September 11th, calling for increased national security would be supportive

of an issue agenda centered on national security.36 But not all holiday press releases serve this

purpose. Some appear useless, as Rep. Culberson put out a release entitled, “Happy

Thanksgiving!” that included no body message.

Six of the eight in sample members of Congress dedicate less than five percent of their

press releases to holidays. Seven of the eight in the sample dedicate less than ten percent of their

releases to holiday. Rep. Culberson is a major outlier, dedicating almost twenty percent of his

total press release output to holidays.

Since the purpose of a press release is to incite media interest and draw attention, it is

thus necessary to evaluate how local media outlets cover members of Congress. In evaluating

media content, it becomes clear that certain members of the sample make the news more often

36 this would be a good place to quote a press release

Figure 7: Holiday Press Release Totals

Member of Congress Total #

Rep. Brady

Rep. Culberson

Rep. A. Green

Rep. G. Green

Rep. McCaul

Rep. Jackson-Lee

Rep. Olson

Rep. Poe

3

14

8

1

11

2

2

4

Percentage of Total Releases

2.65%

19.72%

6.84%

0.89%

4.70%

1.23%

1.96%

2.92%



39

than their counterparts in the Houston delegation. The results are provided in Figure 8. Rep.

Jackson-Lee made the news the most, playing a role in a total of 234 news stories, mirroring her

role in Congress as one of the most talkative and outspoken members. Rep. Michael McCaul,

who in November of 2012 was chosen to become Chairman of the Committee on Homeland

Security, played a role in 162 news stories. The majority of media coverage about Rep. McCaul

was centered around issues of national security, mirroring his rising stature during the 112th

Congress as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security. National security is the major

issue of which McCaul focuses his issue agenda and his presence in the news demonstrates that

he is relatively successful with this issue agenda, as he played a role in a total of eighty stories

relating to national security. Rep. McCaul’s second most frequent category of which he played a

role in news coverage was on issues relating to his constituency, as he played a role in a total of

only 18 stories. In comparison, Rep. Jackson-Lee was most newsworthy when it came to local

issues, as she played a role in forty-eight stories about local issues. Jackson-Lee’s presence in

stories relating to her constituency indicates that she plays a more direct role in her district,

advocating on behalf of her constituents, being involved in local projects and attending

community events. In contrast, McCaul’s issue agenda puts a lot of emphasis on the role he

plays in the formulation of U.S. national security policy, an issue that is (usually) far removed

from the district. Based on these results, Reps. McCaul, Olson, G. Green and Brady would have

effective issue agendas, because at least one issue category component of their issue agenda is

also the category in which they receive the most news coverage.



40

Since this analysis looks at both print and television news coverage, it is necessary to

break down the media coverage and evaluate the frequency of which each member of congress

was covered by either medium. Television news has limited space to which it can feature

members of Congress and would generally cover members in a less technical way than print

news would. Based on the issue categories, I found that there is a difference between which

issues each medium focuses on when featuring members of Congress. For six of the eight

members in the sample, their top issue category in which they are featured in print news was not

the same as their top issue category in which they were featured in broadcast news. Rep. McCaul

plays a role in television news about issues of national security the most often, being featured in

a total of forty-seven television news stories. National security is also the issue of which he



41

plays a role the most often in print news, as he played a role in thirty-three newspaper articles.

Rep. Jackson Lee plays a role in print news concerning local issues the most often, as she is

featured in twenty-four newspaper articles about local issues. She also plays a role in broadcast

news concerning local issues the most often, as she is featured in twenty-one broadcast news

stories about local issues (although she is also featured in twenty-one television news stories

about issues of justice as well).

Figure 9 breaks down the media coverage data by medium, displaying each member of

Congress’ strongest issue area for both newspaper and broadcast news coverage. For Rep.

Culberson, the news event concerning Houston Metro’s expansion into his district altered the

amount of print coverage he received about transportation. Rep. Culberson played a role in print

news nine times in articles about Metro’s expansion, leaving only two stories that were not

related to Metro’s expansion to make up Culberson’s maximum of eleven new stories

categorized as transportation. Culberson’s major issue category for broadcast news was space,

with all four of the stories being about the space shuttle retirement news event. For Rep.

Culberson, this analysis shows that the majority of the news content about him was the result of

the major news events that took place. Since neither of these issues related to issues of budget or

health care (Rep. Culberson’s issue agenda), Rep. Culberson’s media strategy can be considered

ineffective, as the majority of the media coverage he receives was not related to the issues that he

was primarily concerned with in his press releases.

As a point of comparison, Rep. Brady’s strongest category for print news were budgetary

issues, whereas on television news he was strongest with issues that related to the economy or

jobs. The issue categories of budget and economy/jobs are similar, dealing with finances and

economics, but the fact that there is a divergence between his print and television coverage



42

suggests that some issues may be more or less suitable for each medium, for instance, economy

and jobs related news is more suitable to television’s format because of its dramatic and timely

nature, whereas budgetary issues tend to be more technical and easily explained by print news.

Members of congress themselves are newsworthy when it comes to two distinct issue

categories: Congress and elections. For this reason, media coverage of these two issue categories

was separated from the general presentation of news output of the other thirteen issue categories.

The results are displayed in figure 10. In stories about Congress generally, such as stories about

partisanship, political gridlock, or congressional wealth, all members of Congress are

newsworthy. Since these media outlets are focus primarily on local or regional news, the local



43

delegates tend to be the focus of the article. The same can be said about elections, since all

members of Congress are up for election every two years, local members of Congress are all

featured in stories conveying information about the elections, the stakes, the opponents, and the

public sentiment. Since 2012 was a Presidential election year, the Houston delegation also

frequently played a role in articles that had to do with the national elections and their role in

these articles often provided a regional or partisan angle. Since their newsworthiness is inherent

when it comes to issues of congress and elections, members of Congress who have staked out a

definitive role for themselves in the local delegation, by establishing an issue agenda or

possessing authority in a committee, tend to make news on these issues more so than those that

do not. Another important characteristic when analyzing the newsworthiness of these two issue

areas is political ambition. Rep. McCaul was somewhat vocal about his political ambitions, as

many speculated he was going to pursue Texas’ Senate seat when the opportunity arose after

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison announced her retirement in 2012.



44

When evaluating Congressional media coverage, it is also important to examine the role

members of Congress play within each news story. A visual breakdown of how members of the

sample are featured in the local media is provided in Figure 11. A feature article about a

member of Congress has greater significance than does a short blurb mentioning how that

member attended a community event. Members of Congress provide commentary on local or

national events most frequently, which allows them to voice their opinions in connection to an

issue that they have made part of their issue agenda. Members of Congress who are very active

in the community and who work to maintain a strong relationship with their constituency tend to

be mentioned in the news equally as much as they provide commentary in the news. Where as



45

Rep. McCaul with his strong national security issue agenda, primarily provides commentary on

news stories. Both Reps. Culberson and Al Green are mentioned far more than they comments

on developments, but Rep. Al Green takes a very active role in the community and interacts far

more with his constituency than does Rep. Culberson. It is not often that members of Congress

are newsworthy enough to merit their own story, but Rep. McCaul was most frequently the focus

of a new story, with headline news stories making up about eight percent of his total news

coverage. He made the headlines a record thirteen times during this two-year period. A few

other members of Congress were not very far behind him, with headline news stories making up

about eight percent of Reps. Culberson, Al Green and Jackson Lee’s total coverage. Rep.

Culberson, who is mentioned more than he provides commentary, made headlines relatively

often compared to other members of Congress who weld considerable more political clout and

have a more effective issue agenda, such as Rep. Brady. Rep. Culberson’s frequent appearance

in the headlines was due to his opposition to the Metro rail expansion, which again is another

indication that he has been ineffective at establishing his issue agenda with local media outlets.



46

When determining whether or not press releases yielded media coverage, it is useful to

make a comparison between the number of press releases about particular issues and the number

of news stories produced on those same issues. Within this comparison, one can test the

effectiveness of the issue agenda that a member of Congress developed through the distribution

of press releases. Figure 12 graphically displays this comparison. Rep. McCaul was the only

member of the sample who received a greater percentage of his total news coverage about

national security than he himself devoted to national security in his press releases. Rep. Gene

Green’s news coverage of energy and environment issues is slightly less than the percentage of

which he released press releases about energy or the environment. For the remaining six

members of the sample, their percentage of the press release input regarding their issue agenda

was considerably lower than the percentage of total media coverage that they received.



47

When performing the same comparison for the secondary issue of each member’s issue

agenda, the results were similar to that of the first comparison. Only Rep. Al Green’s foreign

policy related news coverage received a higher percentage of his total news coverage, than did

his press release input about issues of foreign policy. The remaining seven members of the

sample input a higher percentage of their total number of press releases about their secondary

issue than they received output about that same issue in the news media. For particular

members, such as Rep. McCaul who devoted a considerable amount to maintaining his national

security issue agenda, the other issues that he focused on had far less traction in the news media

than did national security.



48

20%

32%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

34%

36%

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

52%

20%

32%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

34%

36%

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

52%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

Member of Congress

Rep. Brady

Rep. Culberson

Rep. A. Green

Rep. G. Green

Rep. McCaul

Rep. Olson

Rep. Poe

Top Category

Budget

Budget

Justice

Energy/Environment

National Security

Energy/Environment

Foreign Policy

% of total input

29.91%

16.96%

17.39%

21.05%

34.29%

25.86%

17.73%

Press Release Input

% of output

18.58%

7.04%

14.53%

20.54%

49.38%

15.69%

10.22%

Media Output

Most Freequent Press Release Category Compared to Category’s Media Output

20%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

20%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

Second Most Frequent Press Release Category Compared to Category’s Media Output

Member of Congress

Rep. Brady

Rep. Culberson

Rep. A. Green

Rep. G. Green

Rep. McCaul

Rep. Jackson Lee

Rep. Olson

Rep. Poe

Top Category % of total input

Press Release Input

% of output

6.18%

2.82%

11.11%

9.82%

6.84%

4.94%

5.88%

5.11%

Media Output

Economy/Jobs

Healthcare

Foreign Policy

Constituency

Transportation

Foreign Policy

Constituency

Energy/Environment

26.07%

9.36%

8.70%

19.74%

19.28%

17.14%

13.79%

12.06%

Figure 12: Press Release Input Compared to Media Output by Top Issue Categories

% ofPress Releases % of Media Output

% ofPress Releases % of Media Output

Rep. Jackson Lee Foreign Policy 15.12% 2.56%



49

Direct Causality

To determine whether or not a press release directly incited a news story, I created a new

variable called ‘hit’ that served as my dependent variable. This variable was created by

combining aspects of the data gleaned from the content analysis of the press releases to that of

the media coverage. A press release of a given issue category was coded as ‘1’ if a news story

categorized in the same issue category appeared within seven days from the press release issue

date. If there was not a corresponding news story within those seven days, the press release was

coded as ‘0.’ This process was automated using Stata for fifteen of the seventeen issue

categories. The issue categories ‘constituency’ and ‘other’ were coded manually, as these

categories encompassed a broad range of story topics, unlike the other fifteen issue categories.

‘Hit’, as the dependent variable, was compared against independent variables in four different

models. The independent variables in the first model were dummy variables assigned to each

rhetorical strategy. When a press release had at least one sentence that was categorized as

personalization, the dummy variable for personalization was coded one, and when there were not

any sentences in a press release that were categorized as personalization, the dummy variable

was coded as zero. Probit analysis with these dummy variables allowed for an evaluation of

whether the presence of each rhetorical strategy had an impact on the likelihood that press

release would incite a news story. The independent variables in the second model were the

relative proportional values of each rhetorical strategy. Probit analysis with the proportional

values as the independent variables allowed for an evaluation of whether the presence, as well as

the amount of each rhetorical strategy, impacted the likelihood that a press release would incite a

news story role. For these first two models, I was able to control for each rhetorical strategy by

including an independent variable representing each of the three rhetorical strategies into each



50

model.37 In these two models, I was able to control for other attributes that might alter the

likelihood that a press release would directly incite a news story, such as party affiliation,

individual member effects, sentence length of the press release, and issue category.

The third model proceeds with the dummy independent variables used in model one, as

the independent variables used in model two were found to be inconclusive, and it uses these

independent variables to calculate each press release’s predicted probability of getting a hit.

Model three presents an analysis of these predicted probabilities, examining how the predicted

probability of getting a hit changes with the presence, or lack of presence, of each rhetorical

strategy. Model three examines the predicted probability of a press release getting a hit in each

issue category.38

The fourth model proceeds with the dummy independent variables and builds off the

results from model three regarding the predicted probability of press releases from each issue

category. Specifically, model four focuses on issue areas in which personalization worked to

increase the predicted probability of getting a hit by a large amount. A new variable was created

to capture the interaction effect between those issue areas and the presence of either

personalization or assertion. Similarly, a variable was also created to capture the interaction

between personalization and assertion, as model three found this interaction to be quite effective.

Those issues that were determined the most likely to receive a hit were also combined into a new

independent variable, which was run in a probit analysis with the dummy independent variables

to reassess each rhetorical strategy’s effectiveness of garnering a hit while controlling for these

special issue categories.

37 Although data was also collected regarding the presence and amount of text categorized as “information,”

information was not included in the analysis.38 Issue categories ‘immigration,’ ‘trade,’ and ‘veterans/military’ were exempt from this analysis because these

categories predicted failure perfectly.



51

‘Hit’ as a dependent variable

Members of Congress receive a ‘hit,’ meaning that one of their press releases directly

incited a news story within seven days of the press release issue date, relatively infrequently.

During the 112th session of Congress, twenty-nine was the maximum number of hits achieved by

a member of this sample. Getting a hit is thus somewhat of a rare occasion, as it happened less

than a quarter of the time that a press release is distributed for all members of this sample and

less than ten percent of the time for two of the members. Figure 13 displays the number of hits

each member of congress received as a percentage of the total number of press releases they

distributed during the 112

th

Congress. Rep. Culberson received the least amount of hits, only

directly inciting six news stories over the course of the two-year session. Only four percent of

Rep. Culberson’s press releases helped him to directly cultivate news coverage. In comparison,

Reps. Brady, Jackson Lee, McCaul and Poe all incited more than twenty news stories. Rep.

Jackson Lee distributed far more press releases than did the other seven members of the sample,

so while she directly incited twenty-four news stories, those twenty-four instances made up only

eight percent of her total press release output. Rep. Gene Green the most success and was the

most effective at directly inciting news coverage, as about twenty-two percent of the press

releases he distributed received a hit.



52

When breaking these results down by issue category, the results were reflective of which

members were the most effective at directly inciting news coverage. Figure 14 displays the

number of hits received my each issue category. The issue categories national security and

budget received the most hits, which was to be expected since Reps. Brady and McCaul received

the most hits and their issue agendas focused on budget and national security respectively. Also

not surprising were the number of hits received by the categories energy/environment and

constituency, as Rep. Poe received a considerable number of hits and he had a strong

energy/environment issue agenda. Although Rep. Jackson-Lee had a foreign policy related issue

agenda, the constituency issue area received a considerable number of hits because of her – as

her most frequented category of news output was constituency.



53

Evaluating the distribution of the dependent variable hit demonstrates that receiving a hit

is a fairly rare occurrence when considered in the context of the total number of press releases

distributed by each member. Since each member of the sample has a fairly low rate at which

they receive hits, a rhetorical strategy’s ability to increase or decrease the likelihood that a press

release directly incites news coverage would be important because with such low success rates,

strategies that would increase the success rate by even a few percentage points would have

tangible effects.

Model 1:

Model one39 uses dummy variables for each of the independent variables. These

variables are named: personalization, assertion and hybrid, representing the three rhetorical

strategies that were coded for during the data collection process. In this model, the presence of

personalization and assertion both increased the likelihood that the press release would incite a

news story. However, the difference between personalization and assertion was not found to be

39 See appendix Tables 1-9



54

statistically significant, with a P-Value of 0.826. Assertion increased the likelihood that a press

release would incite a news story just slightly, as the marginal effect of assertion increased more

from zero to one than did the marginal effect of personalization.40 The hybrid strategy generally

worked to decrease the likelihood of getting a hit. In describing the marginal effects, assertion

increased the probability of receiving a hit by about 1%, where as personalization increased the

probability of getting a hit by about 1.5%. In this model, we can be about 83% confident that the

effect of personalization is greater than zero, where as we can be about 82% confident that the

effect of assertion is greater than zero. However, based on their Z-Scores, we cannot distinguish

any of the coefficients representing the rhetorical strategies from zero.

Table 2. Dummy independent variables

Variable Coefficient Standard Error Z P>|z|

Personalization 0.13378 0.09726 1.38 0.169

Assertion 0.16642 0.12433 1.34 0.181

Hybrid -0.10376 0.09713 -1.07 0.285

Constant -1.33036 0.13568 -9.80 0.000

N= 1214

Proceeding with this same set of variables, I controlled for the individual member effects.

Members of congress themselves may be influencing how much news coverage they receive;

impacting how often they directly incite news stories from their press releases. This model thus

helps to weed out the influence of member characteristics such as name recognition, tenure in

office and likeability, making it possible to evaluate the impact of each of the rhetorical

strategies without these personal characteristics that might be confounding the results calculated

for each the rhetorical strategies. When controlling for the influence of each individual member,

it used the first member, in this case Rep. Brady, as a baseline. I found that Reps. Culberson and

Jackson-Lee had a negative influence on likelihood of getting a hit. This means that by just

40 Marginal effects for this probit analysis are listed in Table 22 of the appendix



55

being himself, Rep. Culberson reduced the likelihood of directly inciting a news story with a

press release. The same can be said about Rep. Jackson Lee, but the negative impact she had was

much less than that of Rep. Culberson. In comparison, being Reps. McCaul, Gene Green, Al

Green, Olson or Poe increased the likelihood of getting a hit. Based on the Z scores, the

coefficients for each of the rhetorical strategies could not be distinguished from zero with high

confidence. Reps. Culberson McCaul, and Gene Green had statistics that were found to be

distinguishable from zero with high confidence.

Table 3. Dummy independent variables controlling for member



Policy Assertion 0.14163 0.12824 1.10 0.269

Hybrid -0.14061 0.10306 -1.36 0.172

N= 1214

Table 4. Individual member effects

Member Coefficient Standard error Z P>|z|

Culberson -0.61747 0.21160 -2.92 0.004

A. Green 0.36249 0.24178 1.50 0.134

G. Green 0.42604 0.19364 2.20 0.028

Jackson-Lee -0.21867 0.15062 -1.45 0.147

McCaul 0.33712 0.16078 2.10 0.036

Olson 0.14302 0.17875 0.80 0.424

Poe 0.22379 0.16824 1.33 0.183

Next, I supplemented the original three indepdent variables with one additional dummy

variable representing each member’s party affiliation. This model controled for party, adding an

independent dummy variable representing affiliation with the Democratic Party. This new

variable was called “democrat,” as press releases put out by members affiliated with the

Democratic party were assigned a ‘1’ and those put out by Republicans were assigned a ‘0’.

“Democrat” was found to be statistically significant with a P-value of 0.001. I found that being a

democrat generally decreased the likelihood of receiving a hit. When controlling for party, the

marginal effects of personalization and assertion remain somewhat constant with the results from



56

the first probit.41 The main difference in the marginal effects of this model was that using

assertion tended to decrease the likelihood of receiving a hit by about 1.2%. Calculating the

marginal effects allowed for an evaluation of the marginal effects of being a Democrat or a

Republican. I found that democrats were about 1.5% less likely to receive a hit than were

republicans. For a member of congress who distributes many press releases like Rep. Jackson

Lee, this would equate to a loss of about five news stories. Importantly, “Democrat” was also

found to be distinguishable from zero with ninty-five percent confidence.

Table 5. Controlling for Party



Assertion 0.17279 0.12485 1.38 0.166

Hybrid -0.11038 0.09774 -1.13 0.259

Democrat -0.32823 0.09523 -3.45 0.001

Constant -1.12220 0.14835 07.56 0.00

N= 1214

Next, I supplemented the original three independent dummy variables with a new

independent variable representing the number of sentences in the press releases. This effectively

controlled for length, allowing me to evaluate how sentence length altered the impact of each of

the rhetorical strategies The difference between personalization and assertion in this model was

not found to be significant, with a P-value of 0.942. Generally, Sentence length increased the

likelihood of receiving a hit. In this probit analysis, none of the four independent variables were

found to be distinguishable from zero with high confidence.

Table 6. Controlling for sentence length

Variable Coefficient Standard Error Z P>|z|Personalization 0.107819 0.09908 1.09 0.277

Assertion 0.11864 0.12858 0.92 0.356

Hybrid -0.12122 0.09190 -1.23 0.217

Sentence Length 0.00826 0.00548 1.51 0.131

Constant -1.36826 0.13777 -9.93 0.00

41 The marginal effects for this probit can be found in Table 23 of the appendix



57

Lastly, I ran the original probit analysis with the three independent dummy variables and

controlled for the issue categories. Three of the categories were not included as control variables

because they predicted failure perfectly and including them in the probit analysis would have

limited the number of cases analyzed. When controlling for the fourteen remaining issue

categories, Personalization was found to increase the likelihood that a press release would

directly incite a news story, where assertion was found to decrease the likelihood that a press

release would directly incite a news story. Assertion was not statistically significant, with a P-

value of 0.993, where personalization was close to the 0.05 P-value needed to achieve 95%

confidence with a P-value of 0.070. The difference between personalization and assertion was

not found to be significant, with a P-value of 0.276. The rhetorical strategies were also not found

to be distinguishable from zero with high confidence as their Z-scores were less than 1.96.

However, the control variable for each issue category was found to be distinguishable from zero

with high confidence and all fifteen issue areas had a P-value of less than 0.05. This suggests

that the issue topic of a press release is an important characteristic when determining a press

release’s likelihood of receiving a hit. All of the issue categories were found to have coefficients

that were positive and since they were all found to be positive, comparing the coefficients and

the marginal effects of these issue categories as independent variables provides provide a general

sense as to which issue categories were the most effective at increasing the likelihood of

receiving a hit. Press releases categorized as justice or national security tended to increase the

likelihood of receiving a hit the most with a coefficients of 2.06 and 2.02 respectively. Based on

the marginal effects of each of the control issue category variables, being categorizes as an issue

pertaining to justice increased the likelihood of getting a hit by about 38%, where as being

categorized as an issue of national security increased the likelihood of getting a hit by about



58

35%.42 Other issue categories which were more likely to receving a hit (relative to categories

with lower likelihoods) were election, with a coefficient of 1.83, energy/environment with a

coefficient of 1.77, and constituency with a coefficient of 1.7. Based on the marginal effects of

each of the control issue category variables, being categorized as election increased the

likelihood of getting a hit by about 37% being categorized as energy/environment increased the

likelihood of getting a hit by about 33% and being categorized as constituency increased the

likelihood of getting a hit by about 43%. With coefficients around 1.5, the issue categories space,

transportation and budget were also increased the likelihood of receiving a hit by a relatively

large ammount. The marginal effects of these three categories were: 33%, 32% and 27.9%

respectively. The remaining four issue categories healthcare, economy/jobs, education and

foreign policy were the least likely to receive a hit with coefficients around 1.1.

Table 7. Controlling for issue



Assertion -0.00127 0.14898 -0.01 0.993

Hybrid -0.68070 0.10833 -0.63 0.530

Budget 1.52315 0.28357 5.37 0.00

Congress 1.47676 0.39173 3.77 0.00

Constituency 1.71796 0.29634 5.80 0.00

Economy/Jobs 1.06067 0.31407 3.38 0.001

Education 1.12922 0.57225 1.97 0.048

Election 1.83316 0.73899 2.48 0.013

Energy/Environment 1.77465 0.29415 6.03 0.000

Foreign Policy 1.14764 0.30242 3.79 0.000

Healthcare 1.18218 0.31946 3.70 0.000

National Security 2.01599 0.29368 6.86 0.000

Justice 2.05654 0.366483 5.61 0.000

Space 1.58734 0.33797 4.70 0.000

Transportation 1.51969 0.35728 4.25 0.000Constant -2.60263 0.28466 -9.14 0.000

42 The marginal effects for this probit can be found in Table 25 of the appendix



59

In conclusion, in the first probit model one found that personalization and assertion both

increased the likelihood of receiving a hit. However, the independent variables in the first probit

were found to be statistically the same as zero. When controlling for individual member effects,

the independent variables for the rhetorical strategies were still found to be statistically the same

as zero. Personalization and assertion still worked to increase the likelihood of receiving a hit

when controlling for member effects. Reps. Culberson and Jackson Lee decreased the likelihood

of receiving a hit, while Reps. Gene Green, Al Green, McCaul, Poe and Olson all increased the

likelihood of receiving a hit.43 When controlling for party affiliation, the “Democrat” control

variable was also found to be unequal from zero. Being a Democrat tended to decrease the

likelihood, as the three Democrats in the sample were about 1.5% less likely to receive a hit than

were the Republicans in the sample. Controlling for sentence length did not have any tangible

impact on the effects of the three rhetorical strategies. When controlling for issue, assertion no

longer worked to increase the likelihood of getting a hit, while personalization was the only

rhetorical strategy that did so. All of the issue category control variables were found to be

different from zero. The categories justice, national secuirty, election, energy/environment, and

constituency increased the likelihood of getting a hit the most.44

The hybrid indepdent dummy variable was not discussed because in each analysis its

coefficient was found to be negative in each analysis and it was found to be statistically equal to

zero. This could be for various reasons, one being that the hybrid strategy was employed the

least often which meant that there were less cases for which the analysis to generate the statistics

regarding the hybrid strategy

43 List provided in descending order, with Rep Gene Green increasing the likelihood of receiving a hit the most.44 List provided in descending order, with Justice increasing the likelihood of receiving a hit the most.



60

Model 2:

The second model45 used proportions as the value for each of the independent variables:

personalization, assertion and hybrid. For each of the probit analyses run with these variables, all

of the coefficients for the rhetorical strategies were negative and none of these variables were

found to be statistically different from zero. This suggests this model did not capture the effects

of each independent variable as hoped. The sentence level coding did not capture the rhetorical

strategies at work and for this reason, the findings using proportional variables were laregly

inconclusive.

The analysis done using the proportional independent variables ran the same probit

analyses as model one, substituting the dummy variables for the proportional variables. Two of

the analyses demonstrated limited results, these two analyses being the control for party and the

control for member effects.

When controlling for individual member effects, personalization was found to increase

the likelihood of getting a hit more so than assertion – but again, both coefficients were negative

indicating that they both worked to decrease the likelihood of getting a hit. As for the individual

member results, model two expands upon the results from model one in that four of the seven

members of the sample, for which the coefficients were calculated, had coefficients that were

found to be distinguishable from zero with high confidence. Being Reps. Al Green, Gene Green,

and McCaul and increased the likelihood of getting a hit, while being Rep. Culberson decreased

the likelihood of getting a hit.

In this analysis, being Al Green would increase the likelihood of getting a hit the most – a

finding quite different from the results found during the model one analysis analysis with the

dummy variables, where Rep. Gene Green increased the likelihood of getting a hit the most.

45 See appendix Tables 10-17



61

Looking back to the total numbers of hits by member, Rep. Al Green had the second fewest

number hits overall – making these results quite compelling and suggesting that his use of the

rhetorical strategies and the degree to which he employs each rhetorical strategy may be

important.

Table 8. Controlling for member


Personalization -0.28235 0.27918 -1.01 0.312

Assertion -0.30307 0.22289 -1.36 0.174

Hybrid -1.04808 0.53311 -1.97 0.049

Table 9. Individual member effects

Member Coefficient Standard Error Z P>|z|

Culberson -0.61882 0.21252 -2.91 0.004

A. Green 0.48461 0.24727 1.96 0.050

G. Green 0.44623 0.19352 2.31 0.021

Jackson-Lee -0.18362 0.15154 -1.21 0.226

McCaul 0.33207 0.16128 2.06 0.039

Olson 0.13918 0.17897 0.78 0.437

Poe 0.24551 0.16864 1.46 0.145

N: 1213

When controlling for the effect of party affiliation, the effectiveness of each rhetorical

strategy was largely inconclusive but the “Democrat” control variable was found to be

distinguishable from zero with high confidence, with a Z-Score of 3.22. Being a Democrat

decreased the likelihood that of receiving a hit.

Table 10. Controlling for party



Assertion -0.32560 0.21304 -1.53 0.126

Hybrid -0.69586 0.47986 -1.45 0.147

Democrat -0.30907 0.09597 -3.22 0.001

Constant -0.77918 0.11248 -6.93 0.00 N= 1213

In conclusion, the analyses conducted in model two produced few statistically significant

results. This model was useful in demonstrating that sentence level data did not produce results



62

that could be interpreted and explained. This suggests that the rhetorical strategies may be taking

effect at a larger level of analysis, such as the paragraph or even the press release level. This

also suggests that the amount that each rhetorical strategy was employed may not be as important

as the employment of the presence of strategy in general.

Model 3:

While an analysis based on marginal effects and statistical significance may be useful in

order to understand the statistical importance of those concepts being tested, an analysis of the

calculated probabilities for each of those concepts being tested would address my hypothesis

more directly. Since I am attempting to make comparisons between various rhetorical strategies,

it is helpful to evaluate the effectiveness of these rhetorical strategies by examining the impact

each strategy has on a press release’s predicted probability of getting a hit. Stata was used to

automate the prediction process, leaving me with a predicted probabiltiy for each press release.

These individual press release results were then analyzed as a whole to calcualte the overall

probability that a hit will result from a press release with the baseline press release being one that

does not employ any of the three rhetorical strategies. With this baseline, it was then possible to

compare how the predicted probability changed as the implemnation of rhetorical strategies

changed. I then proceeded to repeat this process within eleven of the fourteen issue categories

used as controls in models one and two.

Overall, the probability of getting a hit without employing one of the three rhetorical

strategies was found to be .092. Employing both personalization and assertion in the same

release was found to be the most effective strategy, as it increased the probability of getting a hit

to .152, an increase of about 6%. In general, employing all of the rhetorical strategies together

was also very helpful, as it increased the likelihood of getting a by about 3.7% to a probability of



63

.128. Using only personalization was found to have a probability of .116, compared to using

only assertion, which had a probability of .112. Using only the hybrid rhetorical strategy

generally decreased the likelihood of getting a hit - its probability was found to be .076, a

decrease of about 1.6%.

Table 11. Calculated Probabilities

Rhetorical Strategy Probability Frequency Percent

Hybrid only 0.07577 11 0.91

No Strategies 0.0917 48 3.95

Personalization and Hybrid 0.0967 53 4.37

Assertion and Hybrid 0.1025 141 11.61

Assertion only 0.1122 257 21.17

Personalization only 0.1157 117 9.64

All strategies 0.1284 246 20.26

Personalization and Assertion 0.1515 341 28.09

Overall, personalization only and both personalization and assertion were found to be the

most effective rhetorical strategies, in that for each of the issue categories a press release with

either option had the highest probability. For every issue category, the probabilities of these two

options (to be called the effective options) were separated by less than a percentage point. This

analysis shows that employing either option would be the most effective strategy for any given

issue category. This analysis also demonstrates that using policy assertion alone tends to

decrease the likelihood of getting a hit, as the probability of only employing assertion is less than

the probability of getting a hit when only information has been provided for each issue category

(to be called the baseline).

Press releases categorized as justice tended to be the most likely to directly incite news

coverage. Although there was no probability for the baseline for issues of justice, press releases

in each the other four rhetorical options had higher probabilities than did all of the other issue

categories. While issues of justice were the most likely to get a hit, issues of national security



64

displayed the largest percentage change from the baseline to either personalization only or both

personalization and assertion. Issues of national security that employed either option were 6.8%

more likely to get a hit than the baseline option without any of the rhetorical strategies. Issues of

energy/environment showed a 5.9% change between the baseline and the effective options and

issues of constituency displayed a 5.6% change between the baseline and the effective options.

In contrast, press releases categorized as economy/jobs were found to have the lowest

probability of directly inciting news stories, with a baseline probability of .06 and a percent

change to the effective options of only 2.7%. Issues of foreign policy and healthcare were also

found to be less likely to incite news stories in compared to the other issues. Press releases

written about issues of foreign policy had a baseline probability of 0.07 and a percent change of

only 3.1 % from the baseline to the effective options. Healthcare had a baseline probability of

0.08 and a percent change of 3.2% from the baseline to the effective options.

Table 12. Calculated Probabilities by issue category46

Issue category Baseline Only

Personalization

%∆ Only

Assertion

%∆ Both %∆ All %∆

Justice 0.36225 0.29207 0.36177 0.33659

National Security 0.27872 0.34716 6.84 0.27830 0.00 0.34669 6.79 0.32192 4.32

Energy/Envir 0.20384 0.26293 5.91 0.20348 0.00 0.26251 5.87 0.24081 3.70

Constituency 0.18817 0.24477 5.66 0.18783 0.00 0.24437 5.62 0.22351 3.53

Space 0.15498 0.20564 5.07 0.15468 0.00 0.20528 5.03 0.18647 -6.3

Budget 0.14019 0.18785 4.77 0.13991 0.00 0.18751 4.73 0.15827 1.81

Congress 0.13011 0.17561 4.55 0.12984 0.00 0.17528 4.52 0.15827 2.82

Healthcare 0.07774 0.10995 3.22 0.07755 0.00 0.10971 3.20 0.09746 1.97

Foreign Policy 0.07284 0.10359 3.08 0.07266 0.00 0.10336 3.05 0.09164 1.88

Economy/Jobs 0.06154 0.08878 2.72 0.06139 0.00 0.08857 2.70 0.07814 1.66

Employing all three rhetorical strategies was also found to be helpful, but not as helpful

as employing only personalization or both personalization and assertion. Employing all three

46 Issue categories: education, transportation, and election were left out of this analysis because the calculated

probabilities for these issue areas could be calculated for less than three of the eight possible rhetorical strategy

combinations.



65

rhetorical strategies was most helpful for issues of national security, as the option employing all

strategies was found to be 4.3% greater than the baseline.

In conclusion, the calculated probabilities of each combination of the three rhetorical

strategies helps to demonstrate which strategies have the highest probability of receiving a hit.

This model found that employing only personalization or employing both personalization and

assertion were the most effective options, in that they increased the probability of getting a hit

the most in comparison to those other combinations. Using only personalization or using both

personalization and assertion will henceforth be referred to as the “effective options”. I was also

able to calculate the probabilities for each combination of rhetorical strategies within each issue

category and found that the issue categories justice and national security had the highest

probability of receiving a hit. Thus, employing either of the effective options in either or these

two issue categories in a press release would substantially increase the probability that a member

of congress would directly incite a news story. Justice was found to be the most effective issue

category and economy/jobs was found to be the least effective issue category.

Model 4:

Model three found that five of the ten possible issue categories were more likely to get

hits than the remaining five. Model four builds on this finding, by creating a new dummy

variable to represent those issues that generally have a higher probabilty of directly inciting news

coverage than other issues do. Controlling for these issues will allow for an evaluation of how

the rhetorical strategies function generally and it will also provide results that are somewhat

more generalized as some of the ‘super issues’ are issues that are very important to Houston, but

may not be for other regions of the country. These ‘super issues’ are: justice, national security,

energy/environment, constituency, and space. While justice and constituency are issues that are



66

going to be important to public represntatives serving anywhere in the United States, Houston

Texas has a special relationship with the issues areas: national security, energy/environment and

space. Houston’s is relatively close to the U.S. border and it also has the largest U.S. port for

international commerce, characteristics which make national security an important issue for

Houston. A large part of Houston’s economy is based in energy and it recognized worldwide for

its focus on oil and natural gas. The Houston region is also the home of the Johnson Space

Center, which used to employ many people and served as a source of pride for the region.

Controlling for these issues should provide a more generalized understanding of how the

rhetorical strategies function independently from the issue categories.

Table 13: Controlling for ‘Super issue’



Assertion 0.20273 0.12900 1.57 0.116

Hybrid -0.45639 0.10085 -0.45 0.651

Superissue 0.75942 0.09726 7.81 0.00

Constant 1.65889 0.14939 -11.10 0.00

N=1214

When controlling for the “super issues”, personalization and assertion still work to

increase the likelihood of getting a hit. In this probit analysis, the rhetorical strategies were not

found to be distinguishable from zero with high confidence based on their respective Z-Score.

The “super issues” control variable was found to be distinguishable from zero with high

confidence based on its Z-Score. Generally, being a super issue increased the likelihood of

getting a hit and it did so more than the presence of the rhetorical strategies. Being a super issue

increased the likelihood of receiving a hit by about 5% based on the marginal effect of the ‘super

issue’ control variable, and while controlling for the super issues, assertion was found to increase



67

the likelihood of receiving a hit by about 4% and personalization was found to increase the

likelihood by about 3%.47

Since model 3’s results suggested that the interaction between personalization and

assertion was important, I next ran a probit analysis with personalization, assertion, the

interaction between personalization and assertion and the super issues control variable.48

This

analysis provides an idea of how effective the interaction of the rhetorical strategies is when

controlling for the super issues.

Table 14. Controlling for the interaction between Personalization and Assertion and for super issue

Variable Coeficient Standard Error Z P>|z|


Assertion 0.13483 0.25453 0.53 0.596

Personalization*Assertion 0.08180 0.29469 0.28 0.781

Superissue 0.76491 0.09709 7.88 0.00

Constant -1.61708 0.24252 -6.67 0.00

N=1214

When controlling for both the ‘super issue’ category and the interaction between

personalization and assertion, personalization and assertion both work to increase the likelihood

of receiving a hit. However, we can not distinguish these effects from zero with high confidence

based on their Z-scores. To get the effect of interaction term, the coefficient provided by the

analysis should be subtracted from the combination of the coefficients “personalization” and

“assertion”. This value was found to be 0.10756, which suggests that when personalization and

assertion are both present in a press release it increases the likelihood of receiving a hit. The

interaction between personalization and assertion was found to be more effective than only

personalizing but less effective than only using assertion.

Next, I ran a similar probit, this time controlling for the interaction between superissues

and personalization as well as the interaction between the interaction term for personalization

47 Calculated using the marginal effects of each rhetorical strategy, table 33 is provided in the appendix.48 The hybrid strategy was left out of this analysis because of the inconclusiveness of its effects



68

and assertion and the superissues category. This analysis would allow for a comparison within

the context of those super issues between those two most effective options identified in model

three.

Table 15. Controlling for the interaction between personalization and assertion, super issues, the

interaction between personalization and super issues and the interaction between personalization,assertion and super issues

Variable Coeficient Standard Error Z P>|z|


Assertion 0.13652 0.25411 0.54 0.591

Personalization*Assertion 0.03008 0.32666 0.09 0.927

Super issues 0.72843 0.16305 4.47 0.00

Personalization*Superissue -0.02845 0.30924 -0.09 0.927

Personalization*Assertion*Superissue 0.10756 0.29586 0.36 0.716

Constant -1.60349 0.24679 -6.50 0.00

N=1214

In this analysis, the results for “personalization” and “assertion” provide the predicted

effects of personalization for those issues not categorized as superissues. Based on this analysis,

assertion should be more effective in increasing the likelihood of receiving a hit than

personalization. We also have a predicted effect for the interaction between personalization and

assertion, the effective option of having both personalization and asseriton in a press release. For

those issues not categorized as super issues, the predicted effect of having both personalization

and assertion would be found by combining “personalization” and “assertion” and subtracting

“personalizaton*assertion”. The coefficient for having both personalization and assertion in a

press release was thus found to be 0.18037, suggesting that this option increases the likelihood of

receiving a hit for those issues not categorized as a super issues more so than personalizaton or

assertion do independently. To compare the relative impacts of the two most effective options

identified my model three, the predicted effects for super issues need to be calculated for both

options. To calculate the predicted effects of super issues that were only personalized, we need

to combine “personalization” and “personalization*superissue” to get a value of 0.04548. For the



69

predicted effect of having both personalization and assertion in a press release about a super

issue, we need to combine both “personalization” and “assertion”, subtract the interaction term

“personalization*assertion” and add “personalization*assertion*superissue” to get a value of

0.28793. This suggests that employing both personalization and assertion in the same press

release is more likely to directly incite a news story than only employing personalization.

While it is helpful to gauge the effectiveness between our two most effective options, it is

also helpful to compare the predicted effects of personalization and assertion to evaluate which

rhetorical strategy is more effective. I ran a probit controlling for the super issues, the interaction

between the super issues and personalization and the interaction between the super issues and

assertion.

Table 16. Controlling for super issues, the interaction between personalization and super issues, and the

interaction between assertion and super issues



Assertion 0.12294 0.17117 0.72 0.473

Super issue 0.57894 0.28136 2.06 0.040

Personalization*superissue 0.07402 0.20493 0.36 0.718

Assertion*superissue 0.16601 0.25653 0.65 0.518

Constant -1.59155 0.18312 -8.69 0.00

N=1214

This analysis provided us with two predicted effects for personalization and assertion.

The first predicted effect is the ‘personalization’ variable, which provides the effect of

personalization on issues not classified as superissues. The second predicted effect of

personalization is the effect of personaliztion on those superissues, which is found by combining

“personalization” and “superissue”. This new coefficient was found to be 0.67677. The same

can be said about assertion, the predicted effect of assertion on superissues being found 0.70188.

To compare the effects of personalization and assertion specifically on superissues, this is done



70

by combining “personalization” and “personalization*superissue” and comparing it to the

combination of “assertion” and “assertion*superissue”. The effect of personalization on

superissues was found to be 0.17185 where the effect of assertion on superissues was found to be

0.28895. This suggests that assertion would increase the likelihood of getting a hit on

superissues more so than personalization would.

I then tested the interaction between the individual ‘super issues’ and the rhetorical

strategies, as done with the “superissue” control. This will allow for an evaluation of whether

personalization or assertion was more effective within the context of specific issue categories.

Table 17: Controlling for Justice, Interaction between Personalization and Justice and the Interaction

between Assertion and Justice.



Assertion 0.14770 0.12524 1.18 0.238

Justice 1.01393 0.94770 1.07 0.285

Personalization*Justice -0.20599 0.57366 -0.36 0.720

Assertion*Justice -0.21937 0.84172 -0.26 0.794

Constant -1.37298 0.13622 -10.08 0.00

N=1214

For issues of justice, personalization has a predicted effect of 1.14825 and assertion has a

predicted effect of 1.6163. While both strategies work to increase the likelihood of getting a hit,

the predicted effect of assertion is greater than that of personalization. This shows that for issues

of justice, employing either rhetorical strategy increases the likelihood of getting a hit by quite a

lot as compared to issues not concerned with justice. To compare the relative impacts of

personalization and assertion, this is done by combining the coefficients for “personalization”

and “personalization*justice” to the combination of “assertion” and “assertion*justice”. The

relative impacts of personalization and assertion on issues of justice were found to be the same at



71

a value of -0.07167. This suggests that the relative impact of both rhetorical strategies is the

same for issues of justice.

Table 18: Controlling for National Security, Interaction between Personalization and the Interaction between National Security and Assertion and National Security.



Assertion 0.10480 0.12826 0.82 0.414


Personalization*National

Security

-0.00033 0.29984 -0.00 0.999

Assertion*National

Security

-0.15083 0.56787 -0.27 0.791

Constant -1.39904 0.14056 -9.95 0.00

N=1214

Similar to the probit run with the “superissues”, in this analysis there are two predicted

effects for both personalization and assertion. For national security issues, personalization has a

predicted effect of 1.01086 and assertion has a predicted effect of .97102. The predicted effects

for issues not concerend with national security are presented by the “personalization” and

“assertion variables” While both strategies work to increase the likelihood of getting a hit,

personalization is more effective than assertion for issues of national security. This shows that

for national security issues, employing either rhetorical strategy increases the likelihood of

getting a hit by quite a lot. To compare the relative impacts of personalization and assertion, this

is done by combining the coefficients for “personalization” and “personalization*national

security” to the combination of “assertion” and “assertion*national security”. The relative

impacts of personalization and assertion on issues of national security were found to be 0.14431

for personalization and -0.04603 for assertion. This suggests that personalizing issues of

national security is more effective than providing policy assertions.



72

Table 19: Controlling for Space, Interaction between Personalization and Space and the Interaction

between Assertion and Space.



Assertion 0.19119 0.12903 1.48 0.138

Space 0.41241 0.64274 0.64 0.521

Personalization*Space 0.28625 0.65070 0.44 0.660

Assertion*Space -0.53582 0.50369 -1.06 0.287

Constant -1.39080 0.13978 -9.95 0.00

N=1214

Again there are two predicted effects for both personalization and assertion. For issues of

space, personalization has a predicted effect of 0.51349 and assertion has a predicted effect of

.6036. The predicted effect for non-space issues is demonstrated by the “personalization” and

“assertion” variables. While both strategies work to increase the likelihood of getting a hit,

assertion is more effective than personalization for issues of space. This shows that for issues of

space, employing either rhetorical strategy increases the likelihood of getting a hit by quite a lot

as compared to issues not concerend with space. To compare the relative impacts of

personalization and assertion, this is done by combining the coefficients for “personalization”

and “personalization*space” to the combination of “assertion” and “assertion*space”. The

relative impacts of personalization and assertion on issues of national security were found to be

0.40533 for personalization and -0.34463 for assertion. This suggests that personalizing issues

of space is more effective than providing policy assertions.

Table 20: Controlling for Constituency, Interaction between Personalization and Constituency and theInteraction between Assertion and Constituency.



Assertion 0.17266 0.14010 0.123 0.218

Constituency 0.10936 0.44691 0.24 0.807

Personalization*Constituency 0.18255 0.42168 0.43 0.665

Assertion*Constituency 0.46416 0.34421 1.35 0.177

Constant -1.38841 0.14913 -9.31 0.00

N=1214



73

For issues of constituency, personalization has a predicted effect of .020304 and assertion

has a predicted effect of 0.28202. While both strategies work to increase the likelihood of

getting a hit, assertion should be more effective than personalization for issues of constituency.

This shows that for issues of constituency, employing either rhetorical strategy increases the

likelihood of getting a hit as compared to issues not concerend with constituency. To compare

the relative impacts of personalization and assertion, this is done by combining the coefficients

for “personalization” and “personalization*constituency” to the combination of “assertion” and

“assertion*national security”. The relative impacts of personalization and assertion on issues of

constituency were found to be 0.27623 for personalization and 0.63682 for assertion. This

suggests that providing policy assertions about issues of constituency was more effective than

personalizing.

Table 21: Controlling for Energy/Environment, Interaction between Personalization andEnergy/Environment and the Interaction between Assertion and Energy/Environment.



Assertion 0.12200 0.12664 0.88 0.376

Energy/Environment 0.37638 0.68855 0.55 0.585

Personalization*Energy 0.08985 0.29652 0.30 0.762

Assertion*Energy 0.01941 0.67568 0.03 0.977

Constant -1.37311 0.13916 -9.87 0.00

N=1214

For issues of energy/environemnt, personalization has a predicted effect of .51656 and

assertion has a predicted effect of 0.49838. While both strategies work to increase the likelihood

of getting a hit, personalization should be more effective than personalization for issues of

energy/environment. This shows that for issues of energy/environment, employing either

rhetorical strategy increases the likelihood of getting a hit as compared to issues not concerend

with energy/environment. To compare the relative impacts of personalization and assertion, this



74

is done by combining the coefficients for “personalization” and “personalization*energy” to the

combination of “assertion” and “assertion*energy”. The relative impacts of personalization and

assertion on issues of energy/environment were found to be 0.23003 for personalization and

0.14141 for assertion. This suggests that personalizing issues of energy or environment is more

effective than assertion in that it increases the likelihood of getting a hit more.

In conclusion, model four demonstrated that the interaction between personalization and

assertion was more effective than only employing personalization when controlling for the ‘super

issues’. When controlling for the interaction between personalization and assertion, the ‘super

issues’, the interaction between the ‘super issues’ and personalization’ and the interaction

between the ‘super issues’ and the interaction between personalization and assertion, employing

both personalization and assertion was identified as being more effective than either

personalization or assertion independnetly for those issues not categorized as ‘super issues’. That

same probit analysis also demonstrated that the interaction between personalization and assertion

was more effective for the ‘super issues’ than was only personalization. When comparing the

effects of personalization and assertion in the context of the ‘super issues’, assertion was

identified as the more effective strategy. When evaluating whether personalization or assertion

was more effective for each of the individual super issues, the results were varied.

Personalization was found to be the more effective strategy when evaluating the interaction

effects between the rhetorical stragies and the issue categories national security, space and

energy/environment. Where as for issue categories justice and constituncy, assertion was found

to be the more effective strategy when evaluating the interaction effects between the rhetorical

strategies and these two issue categores. This suggests that personalization may be the most

effective when it is used to personalize an issue that isn’t already personal or unique to the



75

district. Those issue categories “justice” and “constituency” deal primarily with local issues, and

would inherently have a local, more personalized angle than would the more generalized issue

categories that deal with a policy debate, such as “national security”. These findings support the

findings from model three, in that the issue category of a press release plays an important role in

determining that press releases’ likelihood of directly inciting news coverage.

Evaluating My Hypothesis

Drawing from the results presented in the “Direct Causality” section, I have evidence to

support my original hypothesis, that personalization is more effective than assertion in yeilding

media coverage. Models one and two were generally did not provide evidence that could be

used to prove or disprove my hypothesis because the difference between personalization and

asssertion was found to be statistically insignificant in each of the analyses. Also, the statistics

calculated for personaliztion and assertion in models one and two were not distinguishable from

zero with high confidence based on their Z-Scores. I believe model three provided the best

scenario for directly comparing the effectivness of personalization and assertion because it

provided the calculated probability for each combination of rhetorical strategies. Model three

found that employing only perosnalization in a press release tended to increase the likelihood of

directly inciting news coverage as compared to the baseline, where as employing only assertion

in a press release tended to decrease the likelihood of directly inciting news coverage as

compared to the baseline. With this evidence, I failed to reject my hypothesis. However, in

model three I also found that employing both personalization and assertion tended to increase the

likelihood of directly inciting news coverage compared to the baseline, a scenario that my

hypothesis failed to consider. Model four expands upon these results, suggesting that for the

combination of personalization and assertion was more effective for ‘super issues’ than was



76

personalization. I also compared the effectiveness of personalization and assertion for each of

the five individual ‘super issues’, finding that the interaction between personalization and each

issue was only more effective than assertion for issues of national security, energy/environment,

and space. This being, for issues of justice and constituency assertion was found to be more

effective. The results from model four suggest that the results are more complex than model

three indicates, showing that assertion may be more effective for particular issues. But in

general, the findings from model three support my hypothesis, while the statistics regarding the

rhetorical strategies in models one, two and four were not distinguishable from zero with high

confidence.

Conclusion

Are congressional media strategies effective? There is no simple answer to this question,

because each member of congress employs a different strategy within the context of a specific

geographic location. For the most part, those legislators who had a strong issue agenda centered

around one or two legislative issues tended to receive more media coverage about those issues.

Although it is important to note that having a strong issue agenda isn’t causally related to a high

frequency of news coverage about that particular issue, because there are other factors that are

difficult to quantify, such as having a leadership role in committee, tenure in office and general

name recognition that may be intervening and causing a member to receive more coverage than

they otherwise would of. As demonstrated in model three, certain issues are more likely to get

covered than others, so those members of congress who have chosen a ‘super issue’ as part of

their issue agenda increase the probability that they will receive news coverage when distributing

press releases about those issues. Having a strong issue agenda seems to help the members of



77

congress of interest to this study receive more frequent news coverage about that issue,

especially when they are the only legislator in their geographic region focusing on that issue.

While this study only looked at eight members of Congress from one geographic

location, its finding can be generalized to suggest that any member of congress could

strategically utilize the two most effective options to further increase the likelihood they will

receive news coverage. However, the findings of this project are also limited, as the analysis

was conducted using data derived from only eight members of congress. By focusing narrowly

on one geographic area, my findings were somewhat limited to this geographic area. For

evaluating local media strategy, having a sample that was limited in size and geographic might

have been a benefit, because it captured some of the location specific characteristics such as the

locally important issue categories. Doing a broad, all encompassing study of a similar nature

would have provided results that were more generalized, but these results would have been

useful when explaining specific media markets, areas or individuals. I coded all of the primary

sources myself by hand, which may have worked to reduce the accuracy of my results.

To expand upon my findings, I would recommend that similar studies are done using

different geographic locations and different sized media markets. It would be beneficial to

compare the findings presented in this analysis of the Houston delegation and the Houston media

market to similar analyses done on other markets. Such research would complement the findings

of Vinson (2003) and Arnold (2004) and allow for further evaluation as to how the amount of

media coverage of members of congress changes with the location and media market size. Such

research would also allow for comparison between location and market size and it would

differentiate which aspects of strategy are broad and can be applied anywhere from those

characteristics that are media market specific or region specific. This project also only focused



78

on very specific rhetorical strategies defined within the very narrow context of press releases.

Further research could delve deeper into the rhetorical aspects of these strategies or even identify

other potential strategies at work. My analysis in model two was largely inconclusive,

suggesting that, for the type of probit analysis that I used, the sentence was not an appropriate

unit of analysis. Further research could use paragraphs as a unit of analysis, or focus more

broadly on each press release as a whole – similar to what I did in models one, three and four.

The inconclusiveness of model two demonstrates the need for further research to be conducted to

better understand how the amount of which a rhetorical strategy was employed impacted the

effectiveness of the overall strategy. Congressional media strategy could also be researched by

evaluating the members of congress themselves and assessing the logic behind the decisions they

make regarding local media. It would also be helpful for a direct evaluation of this nature to be

conducted on local media professionals as well to asses their decision making process. This

would allow for further insight into the logic behind the usage of various rhetorical strategies.

Overall, the findings of this project may have practical implications for both members of

congress and media professionals. Members of Congress could make use of the effective options,

employing only personalization or both personalization and assertion, to increase the probability

of directly inciting a news story with a press release. Members could also distribute press

releases about those issues that were found to have a higher probability of getting a hit. For

media professionals, knowing about which strategies were found to be the most likely to incite

news coverage would simplify how press releases are evaluated. Knowing that there are

rhetorical strategies that increase the likelihood of inciting a news story might make media

professionals less likely to take the statements directly from press releases, for media



79

professionals would be aware that the statements were written with the intention of receiving

news coverage.



80

Appendix

Model 1

Difference between personalization and assertion was not found to be significant with a P-Value of 0.826

Table 22. Marginal effects of dummy independent variablesVariable Dy/dx Standard Error Z P>|z| X

Personalization 0.02404 0.0171 1.41 0.160 0

0.02596 0.01857 1.40 0.162 1

Assertion 0.03052 0.02137 1.43 0.153 0

0.03167 0.02223 1.42 0.154 1

Hybrid -0.01593 0.01458 -1.09 0.275 0

-0.02305 0.0214 -1.08 0.281 1

Difference between personalization and assertion was not found to be significant with a p-value of 0.804

Difference between personalization and assertion was not found to be significant, p-value of thedifference was 0.764

Table 23. marginal effects of dummy independent variables contorlling for party

Variable Dy/dx Standard

Error

Z P>|z| x


0.02128 0.01618 1.32 0.186 1

Assertion 0.04032 0.02765 1.46 0.145 0

0.02788 0.01884 1.48 0.139 1

Hybrid -0.02202 0.01917 -1.15 0.251 0

-0.02132 0.0187 -1.14 0.254 1

Republican -0.05742 0.02016 -2.85 0.004 0Democrat -0.07190 0.02261 -3.18 0.001 1

The difference between personalization and assertion was not found to be significant with a value of

0.942

Table 24. Marginal effects of dummy independent variables controlling for sentence length

Variable Dy/dx Standard

Error

Z P>|z| x


0.01907 0.01756 1.09 0.277 1

Assertion 0.02010 0.02111 0.95 0.341 0

0.02085 0.02193 0.95 0.342 1Hybrid -0.01744 0.01374 -1.27 0.204 0

-0.02465 0.01963 -1.26 0.209 1

Sentence Length 0.00129 0.00085 1.52 0.128 0

0.00156 0.00093 1.67 0.094 5

(average) 0.00170 0.00112 1.51 0.131 11.784

0.00175 0.00119 1.47 0.143 15

0.00183 0.0013 1.41 0.160 20



81

The difference between personalization and assertion was not found to be significant with a P-value of .276

Table 25. Controlling for issue - marginal effects

Variable Dy/dx Standard Error Z P>|z| X


0.02663 0.01459 1.83 0.068 1

Assertion -0.00001 0.00201 -0.01 0.993 0

-0.00020 0.02349 -0.01 0.993 1

Hybrid -0.00084 0.00114 -0.59 0.588 0

-011219 0.01774 -0.63 0.527 1

Budget 0.13556 0.04211 3.22 0.001 0

0.41475 0.08858 4.68 0.00 1

Congress 0.12548 0.06972 1.80 0.072 0

0.44350 0.14562 3.05 0.002 1

Constituency 0.18354 0.0506 3.63 0.00 0

0.51657 0.09873 5.23 0.00 1Economy/Jobs 0.05692 0.02718 2.09 0.036 0

0.26640 0.09912 2.69 0.007 1

Education 0.06569 0.07133 0.92 0.357 0

0.31118 0.21331 1.46 0.145 1

Election 0.21618 0.21047 1.03 0.304 0

0.58687 0.26403 2.22 0.026 1

Energy/Environment 0.19921 0.05797 3.44 0.001 0

0.53025 0.09536 5.56 0.000 1

Foreign Policy 0.06821 0.02953 2.31 0.021 0

0.29165 0.09479 3.08 0.002 1

Healthcare 0.07311 0.03562 2.05 0.040 00.31438 0.10691 2.94 0.003 1

National Security 0.27410 0.06872 3.99 0.000 0

0.62046 0.08862 7.00 0.00 1

Justice 0.28788 0.10455 2.75 0.006 0

0.65705 0.11219 5.86 0.00 1

Space 0.15036 0.06225 2.42 0.016 0

0.48147 0.12071 3.99 0.00 1

Transportation 0.13479 0.0649 2.08 0.038 0

0.45652 0.12987 3.52 0.00 1

Table 26. Controlling for interaction between personalization and assertionVariable Coefficient Standard Error Z P>|z|


Assertion 0.19788 0.24891 0.80 0.426

Hybrid -0.10415 0.09716 -1.07 0.284

Interaction -0.04191 0.28628 -0.15 0.884

Constant -1.3582 0.23450 -5.79 0.00

N=1214



82

Table 27. Marginal effects of probit controlling for interaction between personalization and assertion

Variable Dy/dx Standard error Z P>|z| x


0.03221 0.4536 0.71 0.478 1

Assertion 0.03576 0.04099 0.87 0.383 0

0.03684 0.04076 0.90 0.366 1

Hybrid -0.01538 0.01452 -1.06 0.290 0

-0.02309 0.02135 -1.08 0.279 1

Interaction -0.00646 0.04117 -0.16 0.875 0

-0.00898 0.0626 -0.14 0.886 1

The difference between personalization and assertion was not found to be significant, with a P-value of .855

Model 2

Table 28. Proportions as independent variables

Variable Coefficient Standard Error Z P>|z|Personalization -0.28283 0.26802 -1.06 0.291

Assertion -0.40931 0.20950 -1.95 0.051

Hybrid -0.70806 0.47874 -1.48 0.139

Constant -0.94196 0.10045 -9.38 0.000

Pseudo R2: 0.0065 N=1213

Table 29. Marginal effects of Proportions as independent variables

Variable Dy/dx Standard Error Z P>|z| X

Personalization -0.07240 0.07306 -0.99 0.322 0

-0.02771 0.01465 -1.89 0.059 1

Assertion -0.10478 0.06163 -1.70 0.089 0

-0.04010 0.1535 -2.61 0009 1Hybrid -0.18126 0.1286 -1.41 0.159 0

-0.05402 0.00927 -5.83 0.00 1

Table 30. Marginal effects of proportional independent variables controlling for party

Variable Dy/dx Standard Error Z P>|z| x

Personalization -0.06929 0.08272 -0.84 0.402 0

-0.00600 0.00737 -0.81 0.415 1

Assertion -0.09588 0.06844 -1.40 0.161 0

-0.00831 0.00979 -0.85 0.396 1

Hybrid -0.20493 0.14705 -1.39 0.163 0

-0.01776 0.0152 -1.17 0.243 1

Republican -0.07969 0.02588 -3.08 0.002 0

Democrat -0.01136 0.01477 -0.77 0.442 1

Table 31. Proportional independent variables controlling for sentence length



Assertion -0.38672 0.21150 -1.83 0.067



83

Hybrid -0.66876 0.48206 -1.39 0.165

Sentence Length 0.00814 0.00527 1.54 0.123

Constant -1.06191 0.12806 -8.29 0.00

Table 32. Marginal effects of proportional independent variables controlling for sentence length.

Variable Dy/dx Standard Error Z P>|z| x

Personalization -0.04587 0.06622 -0.69 0.489 0Assertion -0.08779 0.05655 -1.55 0.121 0

Hybrid -0.15182 0.11651 -1.30 0.193 0

Sentene Length 0.00185 0.00106 1.74 0.082 0

Table 33. Controlling for member effects




Hybrid -0.62011 0.54105 -1.15 0.252

Budget 1.55930 0.28674 5.43 0.00

Congress 1.48130 0.39322 3.77 0.00

Constituency 1.69240 0.29840 5.67 0.00

Economy/Jobs 1.07269 0.31728 3.38 0.001

Education 1.14982 0.57227 2.01 0.045

Election 1.79475 0.73064 2.46 0.014

Energy/Envir 1.78791 0.29638 6.03 0.001

Foreign Policy 1.17381 0.30432 3.86 0.00

Healthcare 1.23540 0.32108 3.85 0.00


Justice 2.12333 0.36791 5.77 0.00

Space 1.58698 0.34021 4.66 0.00

Transportation 1.58699 0.36115 4.39 0.00

Constant -2.39278 0.28065 -8.53 0.00

Model 4: Interaction effects

Table 34. Marginal effects when controlling for super issues

Variable Dy/dx Standard error Z P>|z| X


0.04007 0.03162 1.64 0.101 1

Assertion 0.024105 0.01406 1.17 0.086 0

0.06248 0.0381 1.64 0.101 1

Hybrid -0.00443 0.02939 -0.46 0.647 0

-0.01527 0.03361 -0.45 0.650 1

Superissue 0.13563 0.02939 4.61 0.00 00.18448 0.03033 6.08 0.00 1

Example of a coded Press Release

Personalization highlighted in red

Assertion highlighted in blue

Hybrid highlighted in yellowInformation not highlighted



84

jacksonlee.house.gov

Jackson-Lee

Contact: Michael McQuerry 202-225-7080

CONGRESSWOMAN SHEILA JACKSON LEE CALLS FOR JANITOR NEGOTIATIONS TO

START UP NEXT WEEK

WASHINGTON, Jul 27 -

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee released the following statement regarding Renewed Negotiations in

Janitors' Strike:

“The Houston area Janitors engaged in negotiations are our neighbors and friends. All they are asking for are fair wages for a fair day of work. I have met senior citizens who are making less $9 and hour. Houston

cannot be engaged in denying those that clean major corporate buildings where billions of dollars aremade from earning a fair pay. I support the efforts of the janitors to negotiate peacefully, to strike

peacefully and to engage in civil disobedience peacefully.

“Houston’s economy owes a great deal to the Houston business community for their contributions as

successful, innovative, and responsible corporate citizens. Their high quality products and services, aswell as your community leadership and philanthropy helps make Houston one of the best cities in thenation to live and work. Accordingly, I am very proud to represent the Houston corporate community in

Congress.

“The enduring power of the American Dream is the promise that hard work and perseverance will bring prosperity and a better life for American workers and their families. Unfortunately, for millions of minimum wage workers the American Dream is illusory. In the past few weeks the janitors have made

their demands and withheld their labor. I applaud all of those involved in the negotiations because we

could not let this dispute stain the soil of economic opportunity and social growth.

“At many junctures in our nation's history, people of good will have courageously and nonviolentlyrefused to cooperate with injustice by engaging in nonviolent protest and civil disobedience. These

include the Boston Tea Party, Harriet Tubman's Underground Railroad, and the fight for women to gainthe right to vote. In 1961, civil rights activists engaged in Freedom Rides to Deep South. These werecaravans of African Americans and whites who traveled far and wide to protest Jim Crow segregation.

Inspired by the Freedom Riders, janitors from across the country have traveled to Houston to fight

injustice by engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience.

“Their cause was just. Houston janitors work hard mopping, dusting, scrubbing, and polishing thousands

of offices each and every day. I look forward to working with all sides to develop a successful result inthis process. Houston is a major metropolis and cannot be the only city that has not resolved this

difference.”

###



85

Coded as: Constituency

Print

Close

Highway Funding Extended Two Years

June 29, 2012

Brady not satisfied but applauds more local control, fewer delays in road projects

Washington, DC – Today the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to extend federal

highway, transit, and other surface transportation programs for two years - through September 30,2014. The measure also included provisions to extend low-interest college student loans.

“I fought for a five year highway bill that also removed roadblocks to more American-made energy

production. Our Texas highway officials really wanted more long-term certainty to give the green light toneeded roadway projects,” said Brady. “Nonetheless, the bill cuts red tape and returns more local controlto Texas which will shorten the approval process and get our road projects underway in half the time,

which is what we’ve been insisting upon for a long time. Overall, this bill is a step in the right direction

for Texas.”

The Highway Bill includes several long overdue reforms, like provisions that eliminate red tape and

streamline the process for completing federally-funded transportation projects. It also consolidates dozensof federal programs, which Brady sees as another step in the right direction.

Categorized as: Budget

News events



86

Major News Events in Houston, TX During the 112th Session

Story Synopsis Categorized as Congressional Actorstheir involvement

Story Dates

Houston’s failed bid for

a retired space shuttle

As the home of the Johnson Space Center, Houston

was being considered as a location for one of three

space shuttles to be retired in 2011. Lawmakers

grew worried in March when those in Washington

indicated that Ohio was being considered as a

potential location and those in the Houston Delegation

publically pressured the NASA administrator to select

Houston. NASA annouced the retirement location

for the shuttles Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavor in

April, 2011 and New York City and Washington D.C.

being chosen over Houston. The Houston Delegation

lobbied against the decision into September, 2011.

Space Brady (4)

Culberson (6)

A. Green (3)G. Green (8)

Jackson-Lee (3)McCaul (3)

Olson (16)

Poe (6)

March 2011-

October 2011

Chad Holley’s arrest

and evidence of policebrutality

Chad Holley was a local high school student who

was arrested as bugrlary suspect and later found

guilty. During his trial, video evidence surfaced

showing that he was brutally beaten during his

arrest by several members of the Houston Police

Department. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee played a role

in distributing the video to local media . The trial of

juries , as completly white juries acquited one of the

Justice February 2011-

May 2012

A. Green (9)

Jackson-Lee (9)

Houston Metro’s

expansion into the 7th

congressinal district

Rep. Culberson came out in strong opposition

after Houston Metro released plans for expansion.

Culberson opposed Metro’s expansion into his

district, particulary in the Richmond and Post Oak

area because Metro did not hold a public referendum

concerning its expansion into this area, as it did

with other areas of the city. The Richmond and Post

Oak expansion was a late addition to expansion

plans. Culberson sought to prevent the expansion by

inserting language that would block federal funding

for Metro’s expansion into the Richmon and Post

Oak area. His manuevering was ultimately sucessful,

as the House adopted the spending measure to which

he attached the language to block the funding.

Transportation April 2011-

August 2012

Culberson (9)

A. Green (1)G. Green (2)

Jackson-Lee (2)

Medicare fraud in

Houston

The Houston Chronicle exposed the misuse of

Medicare funding in October of 2011. The paper’s

intial probe and discovery of fraud initiated several

other investigations, which revealed that several other

members of the community had been committing

Brady called for a congressional hearing into the

fraud and more generally, into the allocation of

Medicare funds to the area. Soon after Brady called

for this assesment, arrests were made in a $90 million

Medicare fraud.

Health Care October-

December 2011

Brady (3)

Culberson (2)Jackson-Lee (1)

Olson (1)

Allegations of religious

censorship at Houston’s

National Cemetary

Department of Veterans Affairs had censored

religious speech, including the word “God” at

Houston National Cemetary. Rep. Poe acted on these

allegations by attending a ceremony and witnessingthe censorship, he became one of the major actors

in the story and eventually called for the Cemetary

Veterans/Military Culberson (1)

McCaul (3)

Olson (1)

Poe (7)

June-July 2011

Reaction and local angle

of Tuscon shooting

U.S. Rep Gabrielle Giffords was shot and critically

injured on January 8th, 2011 in a suburb of Tuscon,

AZ. This incident prompted a debate about gun

violence, a discussion about congressional security

measures as well as commentary on the incident.

Other Brady (3)

A. Green (3)

G. Green (8)

Jackson-Lee (4)

McCaul (2)

Olson (6)

Poe (8)

Janurary 2011



87

Works Cited:

Arnold, R. Douglas. 1992. The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Arnold, R. Douglas. 2004. Congress, the Press, and Political Accountability. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

Press.

Bennett, W. Lance. 2007. News: The Politics of Illusion, 7th ed. New York: Pearson Longman. Chapter 2

(“News Content: Four Information Biases that Matter”), pp. 36-73.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Congressional Office, (2011). Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee

Calls on the State Department and the Department of Justice to Engage more Resources on theGround to Find Ms. Tata [Press release].

Cook, Timothy. 1988. ‘‘Press secretaries and media strategies in the House of Representatives: Deciding

whom to pursue.’’ American Journal of Political Science 32(4):1047–69.

Cook, Timothy. 1989. Making laws and making news: Media strategies in the US House of

Representatives. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Druckman, James and Michael Parkin. 2005. The Impact of Media Bias: How Editorial Slant Affects

Voters. Journal of Politics.

Dunham, Richard. Personal communication. December, 17th, 2012.

Fenno, Richard. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little Brown and Company.

Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Boston: Addison Wesley.

Gans, Herbert J. 1979. Deciding What’s News. New York: Pantheon. Chapter 2 (“Values in the News”),

pp. 39-55.

Grimmer, Justin. (2010). A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring ExpressedAgendas in Senate Press Releases. Political Analysis, 18(1), 1.

Iyengar, Shanto and Jennifer A. McGrady. 2007. Media Politics: A Citizen’s Guide. New York:W.W. Norton. Chapter 7 (“Going Public: Governing through the Media”), pp. 167-196.

Lloyd, Robert, and Glenn Guzzo. 2009. Writing and reporting the news as a story. Pearson Education,

Inc.

Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

McCombs, Maxwell. 2004. Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity.

McQuerry, Mike. Personal communication. January 31st, 2013.

Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc.



Niven, David. 2002. Tilt? The Search for Media Bias. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Chapter 3 (“The Jury isStill Out: Academic Evidence on Media Bias”), pp. 51-71.

Schaffner, Brian. 2006. ‘‘Local news coverage and the incumbency advantage in the US house.’’Legislative Studies Quarterly 31(4):491–511.

Schiller, Wendy. 2000. Partners and rivals: Representation in US Senate delegations. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Sulkin, Tracy. 2005. Issue Politics in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vinson, Danielle. 2002. Through Local Eyes: Local Media Coverage of Congress. Creskill, NJ: Hampton.

Yiannakis, Diana Evans 1982. ‘‘House members’ communication styles: Newsletter and press releases.’’

Journal of Politics 44(4):1049–71.

Congressional Media Strategy: House Members, Rhetorical Strategies and Press Releases

Documents

Transcript of Congressional Media Strategy: House Members, Rhetorical Strategies and Press Releases