Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha – författare

Modern presidents engage in public leadership through national television addresses, routine speechmaking, and by speaking to local audiences. With these strategies, presidents tend to influence the media's agenda. In fact, presidential leadership of the news media provides an important avenue for indirect presidential leadership of the public, the president's ultimate target audience. Although frequently left out of sophisticated treatments of the public presidency, the media are directly incorporated into this book's theoretical approach and analysis. The authors find that when the public expresses real concern about an issue, such as high unemployment, the president tends to be responsive. But when the president gives attention to an issue in which the public does not have a preexisting interest, he can expect, through the news media, to directly influence public opinion. Eshbaugh-Soha and Peake offer key insights on when presidents are likely to have their greatest leadership successes and demonstrate that presidents can indeed "break through the noise" of news coverage to lead the public agenda.

Modern presidents engage in public leadership through national television addresses, routine speechmaking, and by speaking to local audiences. With these strategies, presidents tend to influence the media's agenda. In fact, presidential leadership of the news media provides an important avenue for indirect presidential leadership of the public, the president's ultimate target audience. Although frequently left out of sophisticated treatments of the public presidency, the media are directly incorporated into this book's theoretical approach and analysis. The authors find that when the public expresses real concern about an issue, such as high unemployment, the president tends to be responsive. But when the president gives attention to an issue in which the public does not have a preexisting interest, he can expect, through the news media, to directly influence public opinion. Eshbaugh-Soha and Peake offer key insights on when presidents are likely to have their greatest leadership successes and demonstrate that presidents can indeed "break through the noise" of news coverage to lead the public agenda.

This comprehensive analysis of presidential immigration rhetoric quantifies the frequency, tone, and efficacy of public mentions of immigrants and immigration policy by the presidents from Washington through Biden.The book also explores the intersection of the presidential role with that of the other key actors in the immigration policy system—notably the press, the public, and Congress.For students of immigration studies, presidential studies, and political communication, this book also poses the question of which is of the greatest significance to the immigration policy agenda: presidential leadership making immigration a top priority or existing legislative support for comprehensive immigration reform.

This comprehensive analysis of presidential immigration rhetoric quantifies the frequency, tone, and efficacy of public mentions of immigrants and immigration policy by the presidents from Washington through Biden.The book also explores the intersection of the presidential role with that of the other key actors in the immigration policy system—notably the press, the public, and Congress.For students of immigration studies, presidential studies, and political communication, this book also poses the question of which is of the greatest significance to the immigration policy agenda: presidential leadership making immigration a top priority or existing legislative support for comprehensive immigration reform.

When presidents take positions on pending Supreme Court cases or criticize the Court's decisions, they are susceptible to being attacked for acting as bullies and violating the norm of judicial independence. Why then do presidents target Supreme Court decisions in their public appeals? In this book, Paul M. Collins, Jr and Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha argue that presidents discuss the Court's decisions to demonstrate their responsiveness to important matters of public policy and to steer the implementation of the Court's decisions. Using data from Washington to Trump, they show that, far from being bullies, presidents discuss cases to promote their re-election, policy goals, and historical legacies, while attempting to affect the impact of Court decisions on the bureaucracy, Congress, the media, and the public.