Abstract: The Vice Presidency is one of the most ambiguous political offices in the United States, and the role of the Vice President is based on the preference of the President. As a result, some Vice Presidents are significantly more influential than others. Through reviewing previous literature, and analyzing 500 articles within US national newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post, based on 13 categories, this thesis provides insight in the role of five Vice President — Dan Quayle (1989-1993), Al Gore (1993-2001), Dick Cheney (2001-2009), Joe Biden (2009-2017) and Mike Pence (2017-present) — during their first year in office.

Previous research is compared to this new data, and these five Vice Presidents are divided over two classifications: the doormat vice president (the powerless), and the matador vice president (the powerful).

Keywords: print media, quantitative content analysis, washington post, new york times, united states, politics, vice president, president, dan quayle, al gore, dick cheney, joe biden, mike pence. 

(3)

Tables

Appendixes

Note: As the articles analyzed in this research total in excess of one thousand pages, they were omitted from the appendixes in this thesis. If desired, please reach out to d.van.hulzen@student.rug.nl and I will gladly provide the complete sample. 

Table 1: Time range of sample ………. ³⁶

Table 2: Section ……… ⁴⁶

Table 3: Mentions per 1000 words ………... ⁴⁷

Table 4: Mentions per article ……… 47

Table 5: Relevance ………... ⁴⁸

Table 6: Prominence ………. 49

Table 7: Professional vs. personal ……… ⁵⁰

Table 8: Topic ………... ⁵¹

Table 9: Issues ……….. ⁵³

Table 10: Total mentions ……….. ⁶²

Appendix A: Coding manual ……… ⁷⁸

Appendix B: Data ………. 80

Appendix C: Results ……… ⁹¹

(5)

My thanks goes to my parents for their unwavering support, and my sister, for the many hours we spent

studying (and drinking coffee) together.

Also, I would like to express my gratitude to  

my supervisor, Marc Esteve Del Valle, for his constructive

criticism and suggestions, and his support in keeping my progress on schedule, however tight it may have seemed. 

(6)

There are two types of Vice Presidents: doormats and matadors.

Which do you think I intend to be?

— PROTAGONIST FRANCIS J. UNDERWOODIN HOUSEOF CARDS

1) Introduction

One heartbeat away from the presidency. That is how the vice presidency of the United States of America is often dramatically epitomized. As the president is generally considered to be the most powerful individual — or, politician, may be more accurate — in the United States, this would make the vice presidency the second most powerful position. Yet, the nature of this second highest political office of the United States, and thus the power vested in it, is more complex than that, and differs from presidency to presidency — and from vice president to vice president. The cause of this complexity is rather simple. Whereas the rather extensive powers of the

president are explicitly stated within Article II of the United States Constitution (executive powers, legislative powers, powers of appointment, emergency powers, and the role of Commander-in-Chief), the constitutional powers of the vice president are exceptionally inexplicit and remarkably insignificant (U.S. Const. art. II).

This “least understood, most ridiculed, and most often ignored constitutional office in the federal government” is, besides being the next in line to the presidency,

constitutionally invested with only one power (Hatfield 2019). Or, rather, one duty:

presiding over the US Senate. Even then, its powers are limited. “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided,” the US Constitution states (U.S. Const. Art. I. Sec. 3). Thus, only in the case of an equally divided Senate (fifty ‘Yeas' and fifty ‘Nays’), the vice president will have “influence” on legislation. Since 1789, this occurred 268 times (U.S. Senate 2019). Thats an average of just under six votes per vice president — although quite a few never had the honors. As Dan Quayle, vice president to George H.W. Bush, once put it during an interview with the Indianapolis monthly:

Vice president’s an awkward office. [You are] president of the Senate. [You

(7)

are] not even officially part of the executive branch—[you are] part of the legislative branch. [You are] paid by the Senate, not by the executive branch.

And it’s the president’s agenda. It’s not your agenda. [You are] going to disagree from time to time, but you salute and carry out the orders the best you can. (West 2016)

Besides casting those occasional tie-breaking votes, and being ready to take the reins were something to render the president incapable of leading the country, there does not seem to be much to the job. Take Lyndon B. Johnson, who went from being the Senate majority leader (a rather powerful position) to being vice president to John F.

Kennedy. Although Johnson stayed loyal to his president, he grew increasingly more frustrated with his position, and the lack of power and influence he was given by Kennedy. Merle Miller of The Washington Post writes:

The truth is, Lyndon had virtually given up any thought of trying to reexercise power. He had resigned himself to the fact that the only power that counted in the executive branch was in the Oval Office and the few men who had freest access there. (Miller 1980)

Of course, Johnson went on to become president himself, but at the time of his vice presidency he felt outright powerless and shut out. More than anything, Johnson was a stand-in for the president at funerals and other ceremonial attendances. In conclusion:

the vice presidency may be the second highest political office in the United States, but it is also one of the least powerful offices in the federal government, or, as John Nance Garner, vice president under President Roosevelt, would call it: “The vice presidency is not worth a bucket of warm piss” (Brower 2018, xi). ¹

Yet, that is not necessarily true. Granted, constitutionally speaking the vice president has significantly less power than many other officials within the federal government. Not all is about constitutional power, however. “Politics and power is a

Garner’s quote is often (incorrectly) changed to conclude on “warm spit,” presumably to make it less

1

explicit.

(8)

realm of relative influence,” Indian-American journalist Fareed Zakaria (TIME, Newsweek) once said (Zakaria 2011). Often, power is extracted from influence, and in the case of the vice president, influence is his primary source of power. Johnson was not one of those “few men who had freest access” to the Oval Office, because Kennedy chose not to let him be one of those men. The fact that “[n]either man particularly liked the other, and their styles contrasted starkly,” may have played a significant part in that division between Kennedy and Johnson (Hatfield 1997, 453).

The interpretation of the role of the vice president lies primarily with the preference of the president himself. If the president wants to involve his second man in closed-door meetings, executive decision making, and military strategy, the vice president will be involved. If the president does not, the vice president will not. The vice president may have all necessary security clearance, but the president’s decision is final. If he wants him shut out, he will be shut out.

That does not mean, however, that all vice presidents have to resign to the fact that the only power that counts in the executive branch is in the Oval Office, like Lyndon B. Johnson did. Johnson was likely chosen by Kennedy to help him carry Texas and the South during the election, making it a principally strategic pick.

Richard Nixon, vice president to Dwight D. Eisenhower, was chosen by the latter for different reasons: “Eisenhower radically altered the role of his running mate by presenting him with critical assignments in both foreign and domestic affairs once he assumed his office. The vice president welcomed the president's initiatives and worked energetically to accomplish White House objectives” (Gellman 2012). Nixon was welcome to attend Cabinet meetings as well as national security meetings, and even chaired them in Eisenhower’s absence. Certainly at the time, this was not common practice.

Whereas some vice presidents serve as ornate figureheads to alleviate the president from time-consuming burdens like attending funerals, library openings and other ceremonial niceties, others seem to form an integral component of the Oval Office’s interior and take part in every segment of the executive process that

(9)

surrounds the president. To make a distinction between these two types of vice presidents, this thesis will borrow a phrase from the political drama House of Cards, and some terminology from there within. As protagonist Frank Underwood states in the third episode of the second season of the show: “There are two types of vice presidents: doormats and matadors” (House of Cards). Doormats being those vice presidents without any real power, and matadors the ones that serve as trusted advisors and aides of their presidents — as shadow-presidents, almost. Those being stepped on, and those fighting in the bullring.

This thesis will look at the division of power between the last five Vice Presidents of the United States — Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence — based on their representation in newspapers, and aim to divide them in doormats and matadors based on different factors within their respective news coverage, ranging from the prominence of their coverage in the papers, and the topic reported on, to the prominence of the vice president within the articles, and the frequency with which they make an appearance in print. By evaluating the role of these different vice president through their news coverage during their first year in office, and

subsequently comparing that to the role that they have retrospectively been given by the public and in literature, this research aims to give an indication of whether their respective newspaper coverage confirms the common view of these vice presidents, or whether it poses a different division of power amongst them. Additionally, this

analysis will aim to find out whether, based on this data, the role of either doormat or matador could indeed be assigned to each one of these four, and what type of news coverage is consequently associated with these two roles.

This, then, leads to the following research questions:

1. How do major American newspapers (such as The New York Times and The Washington Post) cover the White House?

2. What topics are most important in the coverage of the White House and the vice president?

(10)

3. How are Vice Presidents Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence portrayed in current literature?

4. How are these five vice presidents covered in The New York Times and The Washington Post during their first year in office?

5. How does that period’s news coverage of these vice presidents compare to current literature?

6. Which role, doormat or matador, would be assigned to these vice presidents based on current literature, and which roles would be assigned based on the print news coverage of their first year in office — and how do they differ?

First, this paper will briefly look at the vice presidency, and how it has evolved over time, as to give a concise overview of the office and what it entails. Then, by means of a literature review, it will establish the role of the press in reporting on the

presidency and the White House, as well as the ways in which these four vice presidents have appeared in the news respectively, with regard to their character and power in the West Wing. Additionally, as part of the literature review, these two roles, the “doormat” and the “matador” will be briefly discussed and given more concrete boundaries. Thereafter, the newspaper coverage of Vice Presidents Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence will be analyzed by the use of quantitative content analysis, which will be further substantiated in the methods section. To conclude, the findings will be discussed, followed by conclusions that can be drawn from the data.

NEXTIN LINE

In recent decades, the vice presidency has evolved from being a sort of Stand-In-in- Chief (the ceremonial figurehead, so to say), to an office of relative influence.

“Presidents do not plan to leave office involuntarily,” Charles O. Jones wrote in 2007,

“and therefore they have, in the past, typically selected running mates more to help them get elected than to help in governing later” (Jones 2007, 102). Yet, Jones recognizes the increasing relevance of the vice presidency. “Recent practice … has been to acknowledge the potential usefulness of a vice president once in office, often

(11)

to strengthen a presidential weakness” (2007, 102). Take longtime senator Walter Mondale, who was chosen as running mate by Jimmy Carter to supplement his lack of Washington experience, and George H.W. Bush, who was chosen by Ronald Reagan for his diplomatic background. The same can be said for Al Gore, who served in both the House of Representatives and the Senate before being chosen as Bill Clinton’s running mate. Regardless, the office still has an asterisks. Even though the position of the vice president in the White House seems to have been steadily improving since the 1950s, this is not necessarily the case for their presence in the media: content analysis of The New York Times and Time by Grossman and Kumar shows that between 1953 and 1978, coverage of the vice president in these newspapers has decreased quite significantly (1981, 269). “Staff stories have increased in both publications, particularly in Time, but stories about the vice president have declined over the period,” they add to the data (270). Additionally, they mention that:

The attempt to integrate the vice president fully into the White House publicity activities has not been accomplished, for the same reasons that the vice president has not been brought into the inner circles in other matters.

Vice presidents have separate political bases, reflected in their staffs as well as in their personalities. The Kennedy-Johnson staff rivalry was extremely strong; many members of Kennedy’s staff had hoped that Johnson could be dropped from the ticket in 1964. Ford’s staff succeeded in dropping Nelson Rockefeller in 1976 …. The built-in tensions between presidents and vice presidents make it difficult for the White House to exploit fully the latter’s political stature. (Grossman and Kumar 1981, 120)

When Gore was chosen as vice president to Clinton in the early nineties, Harvard professor Richard E. Neustadt “forwarded some ‘rules of thumb’ to his former student, Al Gore, … [r]ecognizing the unique relationship between the president and the vice president” (Jones 2007, 104) — most notably:

1. The vice president cannot be fired, but the president can ignore, or haze him

(12)

— and, if the president, then the staff will too — with relative impunity.

2. The only thing more frustrating than being bypassed is to have one’s advice heard, pondered, and not taken. (2007, 104).

Not what one might reasonably expect from the second highest political office in the United States. This is changing rapidly, Jones believes: “The working relationships between recent presidents and vice presidents have been quite strong and productive,”

he writes. “Most vice president in the future may be expected to have presidential ambitions” (2007, 104-105). This, however, remains to be seen. Responsibilities given by the president can have a significant impact on the vice president’s future ability to run the government if and when he decides to run for the presidency himself, but he still has to be elected. The chances of being elected and being allowed to step into the shoes of their predecessor, is based on the decision of the people. A decision which, in turn, is based upon public opinion — and the common perception of the vice

presidency remains one of little power or influence. Consequently, this leads back to the media, as this is one of the major influencers of public opinion.

(13)

Once there were two brothers: one ran away to sea, the other was elected vice president. Nothing was ever heard from either of them again. 

.

— THOMAS R. MARSHALL, VICEPRESIDENTUNDER

PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON (BROWER 2018, XI)

2) Covering the White House

The way we perceive, interpret, and assess the administration, the president, and the vice president, is almost exclusively through the media. Naturally, the White House makes regular public announcements and statements, but the majority of the public receive the information within these reports through the lenses of the media, creating a mutually dependent relationship. “Since each uses the other’s prestige to add to its own, the relationship between the two sides is often cooperative,” Grossman and Kumar write in Portraying the President (1981, 3). “Both White House officials and reporters work to capture a national audience that demands information about the presidency” (1981, 3). Especially major news outlets form important partners for the president and his vice president. Certainly, the White House can control their message to some extent, but the media form the gatekeepers that decide what part of the story, announcement, or statement is most important, what part is admirable, and what part should be taken with a grain of salt — or the whole shaker. For the White House and the media, “[c]ooperation and continuity are at its core” (Grossman and Kumar 1981, 1). In accordance with the nature of this paper, this research will focus mostly on print media. More specifically, the major players in the field of US print media.

M^EDIA M^AJORS 

Among two other print publications (Time and Newsweek), Grossman and Kumar identify The New York Times and The Washington Post as what they call

“majors” (Grossman and Kumar 1981, 52). They define “majors” as those newspapers that are “important political indicators for the Washington political community and that also influence other media throughout the United States in how they portray the Washington political community” (Johnson 1986, 52). According to Grossman and

(14)

Kumar, five specific qualities make that these “majors” in print media differ from the rest of the US media, namely:

1) They reach the elite among policy influences, including the President, who learn about the more important stories published about them immediately after they appear. 2) The information they provide about the Washington community becomes the common currency of the next highest level of influentials in the White House, Congress, the bureaucracy, the interest groups, research institutions, and the media. 3) Items that appear in them are accepted as authoritative by the rest of the media and are given national circulation by the wire services and the broadcast media. 4) They provide the most complete and continuing coverage of national affairs, and the only such coverage that consistently includes an insider's point of view. 5) They reach many citizens throughout the country directly, either because they have a national circulation or because local newspapers subscribe to their news services. (Grossman and Kumar 1981, 52-52)

To qualify, then, as a “major” in media, the “publication has at least four of these five qualities, and the first two are unique to them,” Grossman and Kumar write. To summarize: both The New York Times and The Washington Post can be classified as two of the four most significant print media publications, according to Grossman and Kumar. All points that they mention are relevant in this context, but especially the fact that these newspapers have an relatively large circle of influence (‘quality’ 2, 3 and 5), and that they are often based on inside information (‘quality’ 5), makes these two publications distinctly suitable for the content analysis presented in this paper.

COVERAGE AND INFLUENCE

Media play an important role in changing the chief White House executives from names into people; elevating them from the ‘President’ or ‘Vice President’ to people with faces, stories, character, emotions, and ambitions. “[T]he media allow chief executives to remain in full public view on the political stage, keeping their human

(15)

qualities and professional skills on almost constant display,” Doris A. Graber and Johanna L. Dunaway write in Mass Media and American Politics, a critically acclaimed work that looks at the impact of media on politics (2015, 177).

“Newspapers, television, radio and the Internet supply a steady stream of commentary about a president’s daily routines” (177).

When discussing the vice presidency, they add that even for the vice president

coverage of their personal life may be extensive, such as Dick Cheney’s heart surgery coverage in 2001 (177). During this period, the public was kept apprised of his medical status and progress. “Human-interest stories help to forge close personal ties between people and their leaders,” Graber and Dunaway write (177). “They make it easier for them to trust leaders and therefore support their policies,” but “may also diminish the stature of presidents by reveling their human flaws” — which also applies to the vice president (177).

Just like the president, then, vice presidents are often covered extensively by the media. This coverage can have a major influence on the image of the vice presidents, but can also provide a significant inside into the role of the vice president within the administrations. Unquestionably, this depends largely on the extent, tone, topic, and angle of the coverage, but ultimately all these factors can once again be retraced to the nature of his influence within the Oval Office, and the nature of the vice president’s relationship with the commander-in-chief. In essence: the better the relation between the vice president and the president, the more significant his influence in the West Wing, the more substantial his influence on important issues. After all, one could argue that the most powerful vice presidents are those who participate in the most crucial matters the White House has to tackle — because no head of state would send his funeral-placeholder to clean up a mess that could mark his presidency for the worse.

POLITICAL PRIORITIES

When assessing the role of the vice president within the White House, it is important

(16)

to also determine those matters crucial to the administration. Previous research has shown that presidents tend to appoint their most competent candidates to those agencies and policies most important to them and their agendas (Lewis 2008;

Hollibaugh et al. 2014; Weko 1995; Hollibaugh 2016). In extent, this suggests that a vice president’s importance to the president can to some extend be determined by assessing their involvement in those issues deemed most important. However, evaluating different policies for every vice president and their respective president’s agenda would greatly overcomplicate this thesis. Therefore, this research will be limited to those issues most commonly seen as important, and crucial to any administration.

In the context of the White House, ‘crucial matters’ is a rather broad term. Naturally, these important matters include crises, terrorism, and war. However, in addition to those inherently urgent matters, it is also important to make a distinction — or, a ladder of urgency, if you will — with regard to everyday matters that appear in the news. One example of such an important everyday matter is the economy. “Since one of the most dangerous public perceptions of a president is that he does not understand the financial problems of ordinary Americans, administrations often swing into action quickly when trouble strikes,” Farnsworth explains in The Global President

(Farnsworth et al. 2013a, 66). The economy is something every US citizen has to deal with, whether it is about taxes, jobs, debts, or interest, and thus one of the primary concerns of the federal government.

A report published by the Pew Research Center in January 2019, supports this theory (Pew 2019). This publication charts the political priorities of the public from 2002 to 2019, and shows that between 2002 and 2019, on average, the economy has been the primary political priority among the American public (2019). Additionally, it shows that terrorism is a major (and second highest) concern, at some stages even surpassing the economy (2019). Jobs are another priority, and come in third on average,

especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis (2019). Lastly, health care is one of the political priorities of the public, although only more recently (starting in 2007,

(17)

most likely when Barack Obama made it a primary talking point during his presidential campaign) (2019).

In 2006, the journal Health Affairs published an article by Robert J. Blendon, Kelly Hunt, John M. Benson, Channtal Fleischfresser, and Tami Buhr — “Understanding The American Public’s Health Priorities: A 2006 Perspective” — which substantiates the assertion that health care has been a top priority in recent decades, although not the top priority (Blendon et al. 2006, 510). They discuss the priorities in various years (1993, 2002, and 2006) based on polls, and found that in 2002 and 2006 Health care was the fourth policy priority. The top three was terrorism, economy, and war for 2002, and war, economy, and oil prices/energy for 2006 (510). However, in 1993, the research reports, Health care was the number two priority (510). Yet, economy was still the top priority (510). In short this confirms that, on average, the economy seems to be the highest political priority throughout the timeframe that this research focuses on. It is only surpassed by the war or terrorism for two of these three years, but with economy still as the second priority in both of these years.

Taking into account the research of Farnsworth, Blendon, Hunt, Benson,

Fleischfresser, and Buhr, and the Pew Research Center, the overall most prominent political priorities seem to be economy, terrorism, war, health, and energy.

W^HITE H^OUSE H^ONEYMOON

After the elections, when the reigns of the White House are handed over from the previous administration to her successor, these reigns are most often pulled in tightly, especially with the media. “[E]very White House deploys a massive public relations operation designed to portray the president and his policies in as positive a light as possible, creating media-friendly venues to shape the coverage to the administration’s liking,” Farnsworth writes (Farnsworth et al. 2013a, 64). Additionally, when they first enter the Oval Office, “[n]ew presidents were long thought to enjoy a ‘honeymoon’

with journalists,” where the journalists take it easy on the administration and allowed them to “settle in,” resulting in a brief “period of relative harmony among White

(18)

House officials and the reporters who cover them, which gave way to more critical coverage as the administration’s policymaking began in earnest” (2013a, 64-65).

Although during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush these honeymoon periods were not as pronounced as they had once been, this tradition seemed to return in full force when Barack Obama took office (2013a, 65; Farnsworth et al. 2013b). Either way, it seems that during the first part of any presidency, some leeway is given to the administration by the media.

Normally, such a “honeymoon”-period could prove problematic for research,

especially when the research focuses on media coverage during this first period of the presidency. However, in this particular research, it will not be likely to influence the results — or, it might even benefit the analysis. First of all, print media coverage of all vice presidents in this research is analyzed over the same period, avoiding

discrepancies between them in the analysis. Moreover, during this so-called

honeymoon period, the press seems to be less critical of what the White House states, explains, and announces. This, then, means that news coverage during this period is closer to what the White House wants it to be than is the case for any other period during the presidency. This research aims to assess the role of the vice president, which is largely (if not completely) based on the role he is given by the president.

Basically, the White House shows the press (and in turn the nation) the views of the president himself, and if the vice president is portrayed in a certain way during this period, that would suggest that this portrayal is closest to how the president evaluates and utilizes his second-in-command. 

(19)

You die, I fly.

— GEORGE H.W. BUSH, VICE PRESIDENTTO RONALD

REAGAN, COMMENTINGONBEINGDISPATCHEDAROUNDTHE WORLDTOATTENDFUNERALSOFDIGNITARIESANDFORMER HEADSOFSTATE (BROWER 2018, XII)

3) Doormats and Matadors

Research in relation to the concept of doormats and matadors is scarce, if not

nonexistent. For this reason — and based on prior research presented in section 2, as well as research presented in the next section of this paper — this part will discuss these two terms, and provide them with profiles, so to say.

DOORMAT

A doormat would be a vice president who purely serves at the pleasure of the

president, or is forced to do so, in the sense that they take care of those aspects of the presidency that the president, bluntly put, cannot be bothered with. Doormats are limited in their influence and power within the White House, shut out of meetings, not assigned any important executive tasks, and/or mainly used as a stand-in for the president at ceremonial events, such as funerals of foreign dignitaries, speeches to unions, community outreach, speaking at conferences, and television appearances to promote the administration’s agenda.

Based on the research and literature presented in the next sections, the primary example of a ‘doormatian vice president’ would be Dan Quayle, as he was often ridiculed, and deemed unfit for office. Additionally, both Al Gore and Joe Biden have tendencies that might classify them as doormats, but both of them have a stronger lean towards the matador classification.

MATADOR

In contrast to doormats, matadors are those vice presidents that have significant influence within the White House, which reveals itself through their substantial involvement within the most important policies and undertakings of the

(20)

administration. They are actively involved in briefings, national security decisions, and Cabinet meetings, and are frequently consulted by the president. Most often, these vice presidents have (in addition to their constitutional role as President of the Senate) a strong leading role within the executive branch of the government.

Based on the research and literature presented in the next section of this thesis, Dick Cheney would be a primary example of a ‘matadorian vice president’, as he is presented as a strong influence within the White House and the Oval Office, with staffers and even top government officials turning to him for instructions. In addition to Cheney, both the vice presidencies of Al Gore and Joe Biden have characteristics close to those of a matador. Mike Pence is slightly more difficult to classify, as truly retrospective literature of his vice presidency is not yet available, but current literature strongly suggests a matadorian role for Pence.

DOORMATVS. MATADOR

This, then, results in the following definitions of these terms:

1. Doormat: a Vice President who is, generally, not taken seriously, limited in his influence and power within the White House, shut out of meetings, not assigned any important executive tasks, and/or mainly used as a stand-in for the president at ceremonial events (e.g. funerals of foreign dignitaries, ribbon-cutting).

2. Matador: a Vice President, who has a significant influence within the White House, over the president, and/or over the Administration’s policy, focus, or executive decisions. He is actively involved in briefings, national security decisions, and Cabinet meetings, and is frequently consulted by the president.

(21)

The vice presidency is “that rare opportunity in politics for a man to move from a potential unknown to an actual unknown." 

.

— SPIRO AGNEW, VICEPRESIDENTUNDER  

PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON (BROWER 2018, XI)

4) The Vice Presidents

Before analyzing the coverage of these five vice presidents in print media, this section will look at their current and past portrayal in (academic) literature. It will look at the levels of influence that these vice presidents did or did not have within the White House, and their relation with their president, as described by authors and researchers.

In turn, this will allow for post-analysis evaluation of contrasts and similarities between the current view of these vice presidents, and the image produced by print media during their respective first year in office.

THE MONDALE MODEL

Prior to discussing the role of these different vice presidents as presented in current literature, one should have a basic understanding of the model that the modern vice presidency is primarily build upon. The Mondale Vice Presidency (1977-1981) introduced some significant changes in the way the office was organized and perceived. Some fifteen years before then, the office was hardly part of the White House. Literally speaking, it was not part of it at all. The vice president “long maintained offices on Capitol Hill,” and it was not until 1961, “when space was provided for the vice president and his staff in what was then known as the Executive Office Building, an edifice situated adjacent to the White House,” that the

“institutionalization of a counterpart executive office began” (Relyea 2010, 329-330).

This was just the first step in a process that changed the Office of the Vice President forever. “[T]he Ford and Mondale offices became quite hierarchical, involving specific chains of command and functions,” which resulted in a tighter organization that allowed for better communication between the Office of the Vice President and the rest of the Executive Office of the President (Light 1984, as cited in Relyea 2010, 330). Harold C. Relyea, of the Congressional Research Service, a think tank and public policy research arm of the United States Congress, continues:

(22)

The Mondale vice presidency brought some other important developments.

The first involved perquisites—the availability of “White House mess privileges, better aircraft, better offices, fast printing support, and

limousines”—signaling institutional prestige. There was also an integration of the vice president’s staff into the White House policy-making process.

Furthermore, Mondale received an office in the West Wing, placing him in close proximity to the Oval Office, to which he reportedly was readily welcomed. (Relyea 2010, 330)

As Relyea establishes, this helped to increase the prestige of the office. Joel K.

Goldstein, a widely cited professor within the context of the Vice Presidency, and author of The White House Vice Presidency: The Path to Significance, Mondale to Biden, wrote a chapter of his book on this model. He wrote that “The Mondale model of the vice president as a close presidential adviser and troubleshooter has compelling logic,” and that “[t]he vision emerged after months of study, consultation, and thought as Carter, Mondale, and their associates reimagined the office to rescue it from its normal low status” (Goldstein 2016, 52). With this vision, that President Carter accepted, they disposed of the “conventional view that the second office was ‘standby equipment’ … [and] emphasized the vice presidency as a contributing institution in the executive branch, not simply a national insurance policy” (52). The Vice Presidency would no longer be — or, at least, should no longer be — the role of insignificance, and in some views, indignation, that it once was. Goldstein concludes that, “[i]n making the vice president a significant part of the administration,

Mondale’s proposal mitigated some traditional obstacles to a meaningful vice- presidential role while better serving the succession function” (52).

According to Mondale himself, both Vice Presidents Dan Quayle and Al Gore “built their vice presidencies after this model, allowing for their differing interests,

experiences, and capabilities as well as the needs of the presidents they served” (qtd.

in Relyea 2010, 331). But Cheney, Mondale commented, “set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president,” involving “an

(23)

unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president” (qtd. in Relyea 2010, 331). To this, Relyea adds that, “while some may not have agreed with Mondale’s choice of words, a consensus has emerged that the political power of the office did increase during Cheney’s incumbency” (331).

DAN QUAYLE

From 1989 until 1993, Dan Quayle served as vice president under President George H.W. Bush. Ronald Reagan praised Bush’s for his “excellent choice” of Quayle as his running mate, and complimented Quayle on his “energy” and “intellect” (Reagan 1988). Regardless, Quayle’s nomination for vice president was controversial from the beginning, and many questioned his fitness for office (Goldstein 2016, 154). Quayle withdrew after a few weeks from the 1996 Presidential race due to health issues, but ran for the Republican nomination in 2000 (275). Later, however, he withdrew once more and backed George W. Bush for President (275).

According to Goldstein, and contrary to widespread assumptions, Quayle “functioned as an important and effective presidential adviser and troubleshooter,” who was highly engaged in the Bush Administration (Goldstein 2016, 113). Disregarding the negative media coverage and intense ridicule Quayle received, Bush often voiced his

appreciated of his vice president, and complained that Quayle was “getting the most unfair rap from his critics of anybody that’s been in this job” (Moore 1992; Goldstein 2016, 155). However, this was also partly due to the role Quayle was assigned by Bush himself.

When he entered office in 1989, Quayle, who was primarily interested in foreign and national security policy, was rather constrained in his options. "Bush began his term with far more experience, relationships, and interest in foreign and national security policy than any other recent president,” Goldstein writes, "and accordingly was less dependent on his vice president” (154). The fact that James Baker, a close friend of Bush and his Secretary of State from 1989 until 1992 (when he became White House

(24)

Chief of Staff) was a Quayle detractor, did not help (154). In general, Bush kept Quayle in a relatively general advisory position, rather than letting him tend to matters that required special treatment.

Quayle “acted to rehabilitate his standing,” by maintaining regular access to the president and assembling a highly competent and aggressive staff (155). Yet, he rejected counselors’s advise to “undertake a speaking tour to restore his standing,” as he preferred to “concentrate on loyally serving Bush” (155). In 2016, during an interview with the Indianapolis Monthly, Quayle spoke about his time as vice president and attested to the limitations of the office:

Vice president’s an awkward office. [You are] president of the Senate. [You are] not even officially part of the executive branch—[you are] part of the legislative branch. [You are] paid by the Senate, not by the executive branch.

And it’s the president’s agenda. It’s not your agenda. [You are] going to disagree from time to time, but you salute and carry out the orders the best you can. (West 2016)

This speaks to his influence in the White House, and, more importantly, the Oval, which seems to have been quite limited. Regardless of whether this was actually the case, it remains that Quayle was often portrayed as incompetent, unfit, and even blatant comical. And no matter how hard he worked to change this image, it never seemed to subside (Goldstein 2016). In this regard, then, an initial assessment would place Vice President Quayle in the doormat category. This, however, is solely based on the discussed previous literature, and the consequential aim of this research is to see whether this assessment can be substantiated by print media coverage of their first year in office. This applies to every initial assessment in this section of this thesis.

AL GORE

From 1993 until 2001, Al Gore served as vice president under President Bill Clinton, and is best known for his strong stance on environmental issues. He ran for the

(25)

democratic nomination himself in 1988 but finished third overall, losing to Michael Dukakis who became the nominee.

Past research and literature concerned with Al Gore’s vice presidency is quite scarce.

Nevertheless, Aubrey Immelman has written a relevant analysis of Al Gore’s personal traits based on his second presidential run, which may prove useful when assessing Al Gore’s time in the vice presidential office. In her research on the political personalities of then presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore during the election of 2000, she wrote a comprehensive list of the personality attributes often given to Vice President Al Gore in the media (Immelman 2000, 28-29). Although possibly

somewhat overwhelming due to its sheer scope, the list of personality traits can give an insight into the portrayal of Al Gore in the media, and thus his image in the public eye. This, then, makes a short recital of Immelman’s summary valuable. She writes:

Oldham and Morris’s (1995), Millon’s (1994), and Strack’s (1997)

descriptions of the conscientious, conforming, respectful personality style are consistent with media reports of Vice President Gore’s personal style and public behavior as being disciplined; principled; meticulous; occasionally fretful or fastidious; serious-minded; efficiency-oriented; cautious; dutiful;

loyal; reliable; stiff; emotionally inexpressive; morally beyond reproach; self- effacing, self-deprecating, ironic, deadpan, or dry in his sense of humor;

pointedly reasonable, and occasionally pretentious, ostensibly to mask a hidden self; periodically pedantic or condescending; stingy; and sometimes not sufficiently courageous or firm in confronting powerful adversaries.

(Immelman 2000, 28-29)

Descriptors that stand out in the context of this research, are cautious, dutiful, loyal, reliable, pedantic, and not sufficiently courageous or firm “in confronting powerful adversaries” (2000, 29). Immelman offers no clear description of President Clinton’s character, but President George W. Bush, who beat Gore in the 2000 presidential elections, is described in the same analysis as dominant, and someone who is

“[a]ssertive, realistic, and competitive; [and who] enjoys the power to direct others

(26)

and to evoke respect, often asserting control under the guise of good-natured fun and teasing; authoritative without being authoritarian, tending to use position power for the greater good; creates rules and expects subordinates to follow them, though within reasonable limits” (2000, 26). Bush, then, serves as a useful comparison of character within Immelman’s research, and would be more easily classified as a matador, rather than Gore, whose individual tendencies and approach to his role in the White House tend to correspond more closely to the doormat type. 

Still, classifying Gore as a doormat should not be done that eagerly. After all, he ran for president himself during the 2000 presidential elections at the end of his vice presidency — winning the popular vote — and was involved in a number of

significant political developments during his term in office. In an article published in Phi Delta Kappan, an eponymous journal published by PDK International, Al Gore writes that “[o]ver the last eight years, the Clinton/Gore Administration has fought to ensure that every American has access to the resources that he or she needs to prepare for success in the 21st century. As President, I would continue my commitment to this mission by fighting for an education agenda that would enable all Americans to reach their full potential, through a reasonable balance of investment in education and accountability from educators and students” (Gore 2000, 123). Striking is the manner in which Vice President Gore addresses the administration — Clinton/Gore, rather than the Clinton Administration which is customary — but also the emphasis on the work he has done during his term in office. It should be noted, however, that this article was published in the run-up to the elections, and is therefore meant to portray Gore as an adept candidate for the presidency — and, most importantly, it is written by the man himself.

Nonetheless, according to the Council of Foreign Relations, a United States nonprofit think tank which specializes in US international affairs and foreign policy, Vice

President Gore was “privy to the president’s daily intelligence briefings and counseled Clinton across a range of issues” (Masters 2016). Additionally, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated that Vice President Gore was considered “a full partner in

(27)

policy discussions” and a “key member” of the Clinton Administration’s foreign policy team (Albright and Woodward 2003). This is in line with the post-World War II trend of vice presidents being involved in the foreign policy aspects of the White House, which has become even more pronounced towards the end of the twentieth century (Kengor 1997). An article written by Paul Kengor and published in the Presidential Studies Quarterly states that “Vice President Gore has traveled abroad to engage in substantive meetings with foreign officials, often involving bargaining for the executive branch or announcing key policy objectives,” adding that, “[i]ndeed, Gore has continued a fortunate trend whereby modern vice presidents' foreign-policy roles are no longer confined simply to what might have been called wreath-laying missions at funerals of foreign dignitaries” (Kengor 1997, 14). All in all, with Vice President Gore, there are indicators for both the doormat and the matador role, although there seems to be quite a strong lean towards the latter. Again, the analysis results of this research may provide a more definite classification for Gore.

DICK CHENEY

From 2001 until 2009, Richard B. “Dick” Cheney served as vice president to

President George W. Bush. As second-in-command during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, and the consequential War on Terror, Cheney is commonly seen as one of the most powerful vice presidents to ever hold the office, and sometimes nicknamed a “shadow president” by virtue of the sway he seemed to hold over President Bush and the White House in extent (Gellman 2008; Brower 2018). Cheney “pushed for certain outcomes, and first-term administration policy generally followed directions he favored in areas of interest to him, especially regarding national security” (Goldstein 2016, 148). Additionally, “[h]e minimized foreign and political travel and avoided long-term line assignments, all of which allowed him to focus his energies on policy formulation” (148). This view is backed by Vice President Cheney’s character profile as assembled by The Washington Post, which states that:

In addition to his heavy influence on Bush's national security policies,

(28)

Cheney pushed a conservative agenda within the White House on issues ranging from taxes to air pollution. Cheney sometimes pushed his own agenda at Bush's expense. A capital-gains tax cut Cheney wanted, for instance, forced a reduction in a dividend-income tax cut sought by Bush.

And despite Bush's stated desire for a more diverse Supreme Court, Cheney ran a vetting process that emphasized conservative philosophy and produced five white candidates, all but one of them male. (“Richard B. Cheney”)

Literature on Vice President Cheney is significantly more extensive than that of Al Gore, and, frankly, any other vice president in this research. Especially the Pulitzer Prize winning book Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency by Barton Gellman gives great insight into Cheney’s notorious vice presidency. In addition to the contents of the book, Gellman gave some insight in Cheney’s modus operandi in a television interview: “He tends to approach the levers of power obliquely” and does not want for people to see him coming. Cheney “finds his way to the place where decisions are made and often [does not] leave many signs of his presence” (Democracy Now 2008).

Especially on September 11, 2001, this seemed to come to fruition most explicitly. In the absence of President Bush, who was in Florida, Vice President Cheney took charge of the response to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. After being rushed to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC, an underground bunker below the White House), Cheney was, according to numerous accounts, “the coolest head in the room, working calmly to gather data, digest it, and direct the cabinet,” Gellman writes (Gellman 2008, 118). Historically, customarily, and

constitutionally, this is exceptional. “In another administration, that would have been the national security advisor’s job, or the chief of staff’s” (2008, 118). Cheney “was holding the fort,” said one of the White House staff members present in the bunker:

“He was the man in charge” (2008, 118). Most notably at around 10:10 a.m., when another commercial jetliner presumed hostile was headed for Washington D.C. and Cheney ordered to shoot it down, fully aware that it was filled with innocent

passengers (2008, 119). As it turned out, the airliner had already crashed in a field in

(29)

Pennsylvania. Later, it was claimed that President Bush had ordered to engage the airplane, and that Cheney was merely passing on the directive — but doubts, and later evidence, made the 9/11 Commission suggest otherwise (2008, 120). It was,

ironically, Dick Cheney who twelve years prior “told Dan Quayle correctly that the vice president [has] no lawful place in the chain of command” (2008, 120). The vice president has no authority on such matters, but issued the order regardless — and his

‘inferiors’ (which they technically were not) accepted it without question.

This, however, is merely Gellman’s retelling, based on eyewitness accounts from the bunker. Nevertheless, many believe this version of events, to the point where it is accepted as the truth (Ridgeway 2011; Baker 2013b; Goldstein 2016). Eventually, Cheney confirmed this version of events in his book In My Times: A Personal and Political Memoir (Cheney 2013). But his influence reached far beyond the bunker and that specific day, writes Jacob Heilbrunn for The New York Times in 2008: Cheney acted like a great power seeker “to maximize influence and quash any rivals.” He

“treated the State Department and the National Security Council as foreign enemies, spying on them” and humiliated National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell (Heilbrunn 2008). Heilbrunn: “Whenever possible, he has acted unilaterally, even working behind President Bush’s back to alter his tax and environmental policies” (2008). This suggests that Cheney wielded quite significant power behind the closed doors of the White House. The 2018 movie Vice depicts a similar image of Cheney (“Vice” 2018). Of course, this is a dramatized retelling, but it speaks to the public perception of Cheney and his role during his presidency. Yet, this outside image is not necessarily true or complete. According to Baker, an inside perspective may provide a more accurate view:

Cheney found the image of him as the dark controller of a weak-minded president … to be absurd. [General] Richard Myers, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was on hand for some of the most critical moments, agreed. “This whole notion that the vice president was the puppet master, I find laughable,” Myers said. “He was an active vice president because I think

(30)

he was empowered, but he wasn’t a dominant factor. The alpha male in the White House was the president.” (Baker 2013a)

This view of Cheney as a relatively powerful vice president but nothing more, was endorsed by multiple White House insiders (Goldstein 2016). Furthermore, according to then White House deputy press secretary Adam Levine, Cheney’s persona changed from a calm, wise presence, to a powerful, strong voice in the White House,

especially post-9/11 (Baker 2013b; Danner 2014). After that, it was not Cheney who changed, but President Bush, Baker writes: “not in his core beliefs or his general personality, but in his approach to the same goals. By the latter half of his presidency, he had grown more confident in his own judgments and less dependent on his vice president” (Baker 2013b, 10). This, then presents us with multiple conflicting views of Vice President Cheney. Cheney himself is quite clear on the matter: “I [did not]

change,” he said. “The world changed” (qtd. in Baker 2013b). Regardless, when leaving office, Vice President Dick Cheney’s approval ratings were at thirteen percent (Friedersdorf 2011). Yet, based on the presented literature, it is rather difficult to suggest anything else than the matador category for his classification.

JOE BIDEN

Generally, Cheney and Joe Biden played relatively similar roles within the White House, as they were both decidedly influential advisors of their respective presidents to a greater extend than any of their predecessors had ever been (Goldstein 2016).

Between 2009 and 2017, Joe Biden served as Vice President to Barack Obama and is, possibly, and remarkably, best known for his widely covered “bromance” (close friendship) with the president. Although this started as a so-called meme (“an amusing or interesting item, such as a captioned picture or video, or genre of items that is spread widely online especially through social media,” as defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary), it became an integral part of the relationship between the President and Vice President, who mentioned it themselves on several occasions later on. A running joke, but a returning item that marked their relationship and the

presidency nevertheless.

(31)

Although Joe Biden was often ridiculed by comedians, columnists and cartoonists (Waisanen and Becker 2015), his close friendship with the president granted him a great amount of influence. Not necessarily influence over the president, that is, but influence with him, as he had Obama’s ear. Although some argue that Biden went through a “steady ascent in stature” throughout his vice presidency, and grew “from gaffe-happy presidential contender to one of the most powerful vice presidents in U.S.

history,” this could be an erroneous conclusion (Hirsh 2012). Others suggest that Biden was an important factor in the White House from day one, and as this was one of his conditions voiced to Obama for coming on as vice president, the “gaffe-happy presidential contender”-view of Biden might just have been an outside perspective (Brower 2018).

From the moment they entered office, “Biden spent considerable time with Obama,”

writes Joel K. Goldstein, a Professor of Law who focuses on the constitution and the presidency, and author of The White House Vice Presidency: The Path to Significance, Mondale to Biden (Goldstein 2016, 141). Biden had Obama agree that the vice

president would be the “last person in the room,” and he attended both intelligence briefings, and meetings with the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury, and occasionally other Cabinet officials (2016). Furthermore, Biden was included in the paper flow, and Obama allowed him to speak freely during meetings and ask though questions candidly (141-142). Biden and Obama had a weekly lunch, wherein

information and opinions were shared freely (142). Also, he played an important role in policy discussions regarding Afghanistan, and a range of other issues (142). Biden assumed portfolio’s that the president deemed significant, and with that he “managed three central efforts of Obama’s first term—implementing the recovery plan,

disengaging from Iraq, and the Task Force on Middle Class Working Families,” all time-limited and interdepartmental issues (143; 148).

Additionally, Biden became the "administration’s principal negotiator on a series of legislative deals,” and virtually all his diplomatic missions were “deeply

(32)

substantive” (145-146). And, possibly most significantly, Biden was point person on gun control initiatives: “Following the Newtown, Connecticut, tragedy in which twenty children and six faculty members were killed in a school shooting in

December 2012, Obama charged Biden with leading an initiative to propose new gun- control measures” (147). This is noteworthy, as gun control was one of the issues that Obama seemed most passionate about, and assigning it to Biden was a sign of trust.

Nevertheless, Biden was target of a lot of criticism during his time in office, focusing on his “lack of seriousness and propensity for gaffes,” suggesting “impending lame- duckdom” and that he has been a “joke and punchline” for his entire career (Lott 2008; Newton-Small 2014; Gillespie 2015; Laskas 2013). In 2012, Jonathan Martin, then senior political writer for Politico and currently political correspondent for The New York Times, wrote a piece on a former aide to Vice President Biden, who called him an “egomaniacal autocrat” who was “determined to manage his staff through fear” (Martin 2012). These portrayals reflect badly on Joe Biden as Vice President, but not necessarily on Joe Biden as a matador. Naturally, the perspective of Joe Biden as a “joke” and a man with “propensity for gaffes” leans towards the doormat

classification, but the latter typification as an egomaniacal autocrat with a fear-based management strategy, in combination with the before mentioned description of his influence by Goldstein, is closer to the matador classification (especially if one considers the context in which these two terms are presented within television drama House of Cards, wherein they were coined). Vice President Joe Biden, then, has a divided character within recent literature and online retrospective coverage.

MIKE PENCE

From 2017 until present day, Mike Pence has been serving as Vice President to President Donald J. Trump. Expectedly, of all five vice presidents discussed in this paper, least is known of Pence’s role in the White House. Of course, one can read the news and reports on White House operations, but retrospective research and analysis is naturally limited, since Pence has (at the time of writing) only been in office for just over two years.

(33)

His presence in literature, then, is scarce. Current literature includes The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence by Michael D’Antonio and Peter Eisner, and Pence: The Path to Power by Andrea Neal. Additionally, Pence appeared in Kate Anderson Brower’s book First in Line, who mentions that “[e]ven top aides admit that Pence is loyal to a fault, sometimes standing by and defending Trump even when it jeopardizes his own reputation,” and that “[w]hen he stands beside the president he has a look of pure devotion and, with that, subservience” (Brower 2018, 270; 265).

This does not mean, however, that Pence has no further ambition, or no influence within the current Administration.

D’Antonio and Eisner suggest that Pence still has strong presidential aspirations, and that he will grab the chance when it presents itself, or when he has created it himself (D’Antonio and Eisner 2018; Schultz 2018). Evidence that their book offers, includes the fact that Trump’s administration is largely made up of Pence’s people — as, it is suggested, Trump did not have people of his own — and that Pence makes use of his and Trump’s contrasting public personas (D’Antonio and Eisner 2018; Schultz 2018).

The New York Times suggested something similar in August 2017, when they published a lengthy article about a possible “shadow campaign” that seemed to be building up aimed to position Pence for the presidential elections of 2020 (Martin and Burns 2017). This report was strongly rejected by Pence, however, who called it

“disgraceful and offensive,” and ridiculed by The Washington Post opinion writer Ed Rogers, who called it “dumb” (Baker 2017; Gaudiano 2017; Rogers 2017).

In addition, author Andrea Neal offers some insight into Pence as vice president — albeit that only the epilogue of her book covers the post-election Mike Pence. Neal suggests that, based on his first year in office, Pence might be one of the most influential vice presidents yet. She writes:

[A]s the author Jules Witcover noted, “the American vice president has for all practical purposes come to be the de facto assistant president.” The job description fittingly applies to Mike Pence, who has achieved more policy

(34)

victories from his position inside the Trump administration than he

accomplished during twelve years on Capitol Hill. Whether casting tie votes as president of the Senate in his official capacity, influencing foreign policy behind the scenes, or luring conservative thinkers into key positions, Pence’s vice presidency has promised to be one of the most substantial in US history.

(Neal 2018, 224)

Tim Alberta, national political reporter at Politico, proposed a similar view of Pence in 2017, stating that “[f]ive months into the Trump era — and less than a year since he was plucked from a thorny situation in Indiana — Pence, once an endangered small- state governor, has become the most popular Republican in the country and

accumulated an astonishing amount of power” (Alberta 2017). His influence in the White House seems to be far-reaching, Alberta states, which could in time threaten

“the harmony between Pence and his famously fickle superior” (2017). Alberta:

[Pence] is deeply involved with nearly every major decision coming from the White House, whether it be the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord or the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. He is the

administration’s most effective and reassuring messenger, often because of his license to clarify or even correct things said by his boss. And he is widely viewed by Republicans on Capitol Hill as the de facto leader of the GOP—

not just the safety parachute for a free-falling presidency, but a polished, respected statesman from whom members can take their cues. (2017)

This safety parachute-metaphor that Alberta mentions, describes a situation that may have a considerable impact on the public image of Pence. As mentioned, he is popular among Republicans, but even among Democrats Pence is frequently seen as a ‘lesser of two evils’, so to say, granting him relative support in his aspirations to the

presidency even across the aisle — albeit in the form of an impeachment of President Trump, rather than in the presidential elections themselves. All in all, the literature discussed gives a quite definite assessment of Pence as a matadorian vice president. 

(35)

I do not propose to be buried until I am really dead and in my coffin. 

.

— SENATOR DANIEL WEBSTER’SREPLYWHENOFFERED  

THERUNNING-MATESPOTIN 1848 (BROWER 2018, XI)

5) Methods

This section will elucidate the analysis conducted and presented within this paper, clarifying the sample and type of analysis used, and the different manifest and latent categories by which the articles are analyzed.

QUANTITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS

This analysis makes use of quantitative content analysis. According to Bernard

Berelson, author of Content Analysis in Communication Research, “[c]ontent analysis is a research technique for the objective, systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication” (Berelson 1952, 18). A similar description is given by Ole Holsti in Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, which was published seventeen years later. He writes: “Content analysis is any technique for making inferences by objectively and systematically identifying

specified characteristics of messages” (Holsti 1969, 14). More recently, Alan Bryman transformed these definitions to an arguably more modern, concise definition that reads: “Content analysis is an approach to the analysis of documents and texts that seeks to quantify content in terms of predetermined categories and in a systematic and replicable manner” (Bryman 2012, 290). In essence, content analysis focuses on the collection of data from sources such as text, based on predetermined categories.

‘Quantitative’ in the context of content analysis, refers to the collection of numerical data (Bryman 2012, 160).

The analysis will mainly focuses on the type of coverage each vice president receives.

It will look at the prominence of the VP’s presence in news coverage that mentions them, and thereafter analyze the nature of the coverage, based on topics and specific issues mentioned, whether it focuses on the vice president’s personal or professional

Table of contents

D

M

:

,