The relationship between media and politics is often characterized by a so-called mediatization of politics. In this study we want to address two specific questions that are part of this larger debate on mediatization of politics. First, we want to know to what extent the work of parliamentarians is mediatized. Second, we want to know how the interaction between media and parliamentary politics is determined by the institutional context. Through a content analysis of oral parliamentary questions and press coverage thereof in three West European countries (the Netherlands, France and Germany), we look for explanations of the newsworthiness of PQs on two levels of analysis. At the country level we study procedural and organizational characteristics of parliaments and question hours. We include factors such as whether or not PQs are asked and answered spontaneously, whether debate is allowed, and the total amount of questions asked in one question hour. At the micro-level we depart from news value and agenda-setting research, to study the most important characteristics of every parliamentary question. This includes the content of the question, the political actors involved and the media coverage that precedes the question. Results from the regression analysis show that voicing criticism, in particular on the functioning of individual members of government, increases the chances of getting press coverage. But the most important factor in determining newsworthiness is the amount of media attention for a certain topic preceding the PQ. Finally, as expected, in the Netherlands the oral PQs are the most newsworthy, and in Germany the least, with France taking a middle position. Overall, we conclude that in all three countries members of parliament can only reach a broader public when they adjust to the existing media agenda and adapt to contemporary news standards.
