{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026984950700570835, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0041515308770108976, 'mean_word_length': 5.3841059602649, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Going Local: Presidential Leadership in the Post-Broadcast Age

The organized, soup-to-nuts approach in this book follows a simple argument: presidents adapt to the changing media context by shifting their public activities. As a result, media coverage varies, which influences public attitudes toward the president. Cohen specifically examines the 1990s and 2000s, suggesting that this era marked a transition from ‘‘going national’’—focusing attention on the national news media—to ‘‘going narrow’’—focusing on local media and interest groups. Cohen’s research appears to support the overall hypothesis that presidents plan their communications around local media coverage, and they can make strategic decisions to influence the tone and effects of such coverage. This book fills an important gap in the literature on presidential communication, if for no other reason than it does not follow the familiar media-effects perspective. Instead, Cohen examines the ‘‘post-broadcast democracy’’ at the institutional, media, and individual levels. And there are some interesting revelations in the analyses. For instance, too many presidential speeches in a day can reduce the amount of negative coverage in local newspapers, but this comes with the cost of reducing overall coverage of the president. By giving a Saturday radio address, the president increases the total quantity of presidential coverage. And for individuals who only occasionally follow public affairs, the tone of local coverage significantly influences their evaluation of the President. What does this all mean? Presidents have some level of control over the quantity and quality of their coverage, but only to a certain point. The book ultimately serves two functions: a straightforward account of how presidents have been covered in local news over the past two decades; and a handbook for communication strategists who want to influence coverage. The first