Assessing the Democratic Debate: How the News Media Frame Elite Policy Discourse

This article examines the way in which the news media frame public policy issues and the extent to which other political players (e.g., interest groups, politicians) influence this issue framing process. Our analysis focuses on the issue of gun control, comparing the rhetoric generated by interest groups and public officials on the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban with actual network news coverage of this legislation from 1988 to 1996. Results indicate that both sets of political players employed several interpretative issue frames and worked hard to put their preferred themes on the agenda. However, at times, the media intervened in the framing process, especially as the debate matured. Specifically, the news media (a) structured the overall tone of the gun control debate, (b) adopted a distribution of framing perspectives different from that of politicians and interest groups, and (c) packaged policy discourse more often than not in terms of the "culture of violence" theme. These findings point toward previously ignored media effects and attest to the potential role the media play in shaping public policy debates.     

Talking Tough: Gender and Reported Speech in Campaign News Coverage

Building on the notion of "gendered mediation," we argue that conventional news frames construct politics in stereotypically masculine terms, and we examine the implications of these news frames for the coverage of female party leaders. Content analysis of reported speech in television news coverage of the 1993 and 1997 Canadian elections, combined with the results of an experiment, reveals that the speech of the three women leaders was subject to more interpretation by the media and was reported in more negative and aggressive language. The study concludes that gendered mediation may hinder women's chances of electoral success.     

Deliberative Qualities of Generic News Frames: Assessing the Democratic Value of Strategic Game and Contestation Framing in Election Campaign Coverage

News frames are patterns of news construction journalists rely on to present information to their audiences. While much of the research on news frames has focused on their identification and effects, less work has investigated the specific contributions these different frames make to democratic life. Value judgments about distinct news frames are often not generated in a systematic fashion, not grounded in democratic theory, and/or not supported by empirical evidence. In this article, we address these problems by arguing for and extending normative assessment as a standard operating procedure to determine the democratic value of political communication phenomena. We demonstrate the usefulness of normative assessment by showing how two important generic news frames (politics as a strategic game and as a substantive contestation) contribute to a deliberative public discourse prior to a general election. Using data on television news coverage of the German federal election campaign in 2009, we investigate how these frames are related to the inclusiveness and civility of public discourse and the extent to which it features exchanges of substantive reasons for political positions. Results show that mediated democratic deliberation suffers consistently from strategic game framing, while contestation frames make ambivalent contributions. Implications for political communication scholarship as well as journalistic practice are discussed.

[Supplementary material is available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Political Communication for the following free supplemental resource(s): coding protocol used in content analysis.]     

A Spiral of Cynicism for Some: The Contingent Effects of Campaign News Frames on Participation and Confidence in Government

This article explores the impact of strategy-based campaign coverage on turnout and confidence in government. Recent theoretical advances suggest that variables such as sophistication and involvement frequently moderate media exposure effects. We hypothesize that the impact of strategy frames will be moderated by political involvement and sophistication. In an experiment, we precisely isolate and manipulate particular story elements that have been said to foster public cynicism: the strategic interpretation of candidate motives, the presence of polling results, and the use of war or game metaphors to describe the campaign. Relative to the issue-oriented coverage, strategy frames boost the number of strategy-based comments people offer when describing the campaign and depress issue-based commentary. As expected, framing effects on turnout, trust in government, civic duty, and the perceived meaningfulness of elections are moderated by involvement and sophistication. Nonpartisans and those with less than a college degree are significantly demobilized and alienated by strategy-based coverage, while partisans and the highly educated are mostly unaffected.     

Circling the Wagons: Soft News and Isolationism in American Public Opinion

This study investigates the differences in coverage of foreign policy by the soft and hard news media, and the implications of such differences for public attitudes regarding the appropriate U.S. role in the world. I find that, relative to traditional news outlets, the soft news media place greater emphasis on dramatic, human-interest themes and episodic frames and less emphasis on knowledgeable information sources or thematic frames, while also having a greater propensity to emphasize the potential for bad outcomes. I then develop a conceptual framework in order to determine the implications of these differences. I argue that the style of coverage of soft news outlets tends to induce suspicion and distrust of a proactive or internationalist approach to U.S. foreign policy, particularly among the least politically attentive segments of the public. I test this and several related hypotheses through multiple statistical investigations into the effects of soft news coverage on attitudes toward isolationism in general, and U.S. policy regarding the Bosnian Civil War in particular. I find that among the least politically attentive members of the public, but not their more-attentive counterparts, soft news exposure—but not exposure to traditional news sources—is indeed associated with greater isolationism in general, and opposition to a proactive U.S. policy toward Bosnia in particular.     

Advance Agent of the Truman Doctrine: The United States,The New York Times,and the Greek Civil War

Democratic theorists observe high correlations between public opinion and government policy, but it is difficult to determine the direction of causation. This article concerns the relative abilities of government officials and media owners to influence political discourse. Both affected The New York Times' coverage of the Greek civil war before the declaration of the Truman Doctrine. When the Truman administration leaked its intention to intervene in Greece and offered a new interpretation of the civil war, the Times instantly adopted the new theme. The Times had the resources and opportunity to challenge government arguments, but its correspondent in Athens suppressed available information that contradicted official statements, and the publisher supported his reporter despite obvious partisanship. Top reporters maintained close ties with government officials, and they promoted American interventionism in the pages of the newspaper. And a seamless connection between editorials and news coverage reflects ownership's support for the Truman Doctrine. Government's influence may be strongest when officials and media owners share interests and values. And the temporal order raises implications for the relationship between opinion and policy: Policymakers may select new policies first and then move public opinion to win support for planned policy changes.     

Following the Party in Time of War? The Implications of Elite Consensus

Prominent perspectives in the study of conflict point to two factors that exert substantial influence on public opinion about foreign intervention: (1) news about casualties and (2) signals from partisan elites. Past work is limited, however, in what it can say about how these two factors interact. We present an experiment designed to understand the surprisingly common scenario where elites send competing messages about whether the public should support war or oppose it—and these messages do not coincide with party divisions. We find that partisans are generally insensitive to news about casualties, but they become noticeably more sensitive when they perceive within-party disputes over support for the war. Independents, however, respond to news of casualties irrespective of what messages elites send. These findings shed light on when and how the public responds to competing and unclear cues and speak to the role of public opinion in determining conflict outcomes and democratic foreign policy-making more broadly.     

(Ms)taking Context for Content: Framing the Fourth World Conference on Women

This article analyzes journalistic framing of the 1995 Fourth UN World Conference on Women in two mainstream American newspapers, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times . The research identified recurrent themes used by the two newspapers to frame the event before, during, and after it took place. Content analysis of all conference-related stories in both papers showed that journalists focused on incidents and problems related to logistics rather than on the issues the conference was convened to consider. When substantive issues were mentioned, they were accompanied by little or no background analysis. Further, journalists often framed the conference by its geographical and ideological contexts, emphasizing the diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China. Stories tended to marginalize and stereotype certain institutions and political groups, and journalists were unlikely to cover the event by seeking a diversity of voices from among its participants. Results also suggest that the repeated association of themes with particular individuals and groups is an important contribution to the construction and ultimate salience of news frames.     

Analyzing the Multidirectional Relationships Between the President,News Media,and the Public: Who Affects Whom?

In order to study presidential leadership and responsiveness, this research focuses on the role of the news media and examines the multidirectional relationships between the president, the news media, and the public. One of the purposes of this study is to examine competing theoretical expectations about the causal direction between the three actors by focusing on their issue stances. The potentially reciprocal influences between the three actors are estimated by using vector autoregression and moving average representation simulations. According to the statistical results, the news media significantly interact with the public and the president. In contrast, the direct relationship between the president and the public is weak or insignificant.     

Privacy,the news media,and the courts

Abstract

This article is concerned with the conflict between the news media's position that the public has a ‘'right to know'’ under the free press provision of the First Amendment and the right to privacy under the tort law. The constitutional issue is raised whenever the media print or broadcast accurate, but often embarrassing, facts about a person, or whenever personal information is publicized which an individual prefers not to share with the general public.

In unwanted publicity and public disclosure cases, the courts have accorded greater weight to the defendant defenses of consent, news‐worthiness, and media privilege than to the plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim. To remedy this inequity, a two‐tier judicial model is proposed that would have courts balance the two competing interests in such a manner as to enhance individual privacy without diminishing the informational function of the news media.     

Assessing Americans' Opinions About the News Media's Fairness in 1996 and 1998

This article reports an analysis of Americans' opinions about the news media's fairness in covering public affairs. The data come from the 1996 and 1998 National Election Studies, which contained variables tapping exposure to and opinions about the news media, as well as key political dispositions?partisanship, ideology, and opinion about presidential and congressional job performance?and a plethora of demographic variables. The data show that people who adhere to traditional moral codes and are misanthropic tend not to trust the news media to cover politics fairly. In a presidential election year, opinion about the president's job performance affects perceptions of the press's fairness. In an off-year election, however, opinion about the president's job performance is replaced by opinion about how the Congress has been doing its job. In addition, perception of how the media covered the Lewinsky scandal also influenced opinion about the press's fairness in general.     

What Makes Negative Frames Resonant? Hamas and the Appeal of Opposition to the Peace Process

Increasingly, scholars are applying Social Movement Theory to explore how radical Islamist groups strategically employ framing to legitimize the use of violence. What has not been explicitly examined, however, is under what conditions radical frames are more resonant with the public than more moderate alternatives. This article argues that the strength of a particular frame depends on the credibility of the competing claim-makers. Drawing on public opinion polls from the Palestinian Territories, the article shows that the resonance of Hamas’ frames vis-à-vis the peace process between 1993 and 2006 depended on the ability of the Palestinian leadership to maintain its legitimacy. Since the Gaza take-over and Hamas’ shift to a position of leadership rather than opposition party, the organization's inability to deliver in the economic realm or to even feign any progress regarding the peace process damaged its credibility and reputation. Accordingly, its frames vis-à-vis the peace process also started losing their resonance with the public. An understanding of the dynamics of credibility can also help explain the continued moves towards national reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.     

Interactions of News Frames and Incivility in the Political Blogosphere: Examining Perceptual Outcomes

The anonymity and flexibility of the online world allows the free expression of views. This same anonymity and unconstrained expression can initiate uncivil debate. The political blogosphere is thus replete with uncivil discussions and becomes an apt context to examine the influence of incivility on news frames. Moreover, although there is an increasingly growing literature on framing, few have examined framing effects in the contemporary media landscape. Thus, the present study brings in literature from incivility and framing effects to examine the influence of incivility on news frames for perceptual outcomes. The study uses an experiment embedded in a Web survey. Findings show that incivility increases the credibility of a news article while decreasing political trust and political efficacy. Further, results demonstrate the interactions of incivility and news frames. For instance, news credibility is increased only in the value framed condition. And a combination of strategic frames and incivility results in the least political trust and external efficacy. Implications are discussed.

[Supplementary material is available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Political Communication for the following free supplemental resource(s): stimulus material for the experiment.]     

Framing Peace Policies: The Competition for Resonant Themes

Political organizations make use of culturally resonant symbols to bring their message to the public. In response to a political organization's use of a culturally resonant symbol, competing political organizations attack the connection between that organization's message and the symbol. Rochon and Wolfsfeld propose a process for the movement of policy justification symbols from interest groups and social movements to governments. This article examines this process in the context of the struggle among the Israeli nationalist movement, the Israeli peace movement, and the Israeli government, identifying a typology of tactical frames applicable to research beyond the Israeli context: denial, incorporation, and end run. Press releases by these political competitors show a specialization of tactical frames by social organization. Nationalists prefer to deny the validity of competing resonant symbols. Peace activists prefer to invent or search for new symbols, in an end run. Governments tend to absorb and redirect symbols initially used by the competing movements to justify government actions. An analysis of the political opportunity structures and organizational conditions that determine a political organization's tactics for attacking resonant frames is conducted.     

Exploring contextual influences on the architectural structure of South African television news programmes This article is partly based on a paper presented at the International Broadcasting Content Regulation Conference,Johannesburg, 27–29 May 2005

Abstract

This article uses a qualitative textual analysis of in-depth interviews with senior news processors as a methodology to explore the unique contextual dimensions that may influence the architectural structure of South African television news programmes. The discussion rests on the basic assumption that news will always present a mediated and constructed version of reality. Six communicative frames categories have been selected to investigate operational processes and issues organising the production process of news: short, straight-forward, ‘objective’ news reports; single-sourced news items based on one major voice or main perspective; investigative news reports; marketable news chosen for financial potential; news items based on community and cultural events; and mythic tales. The findings indicate that the interface between contextual factors and journalistic practices contributes to the unique challenges facing the industry in South Africa. The article concludes with an appeal to news processors to reflect on the consequences and effects their programmes have on audiences’ perception of reality, and proposes recommendations to enable audiences to become more empowered and engaged viewers.     

Blessing or Curse for Advocacy? How News Media Attention Helps Advocacy Groups to Achieve Their Policy Goals

This article asks whether and under what circumstances a presence in news media debates helps advocacy groups to achieve their policy goals in European Union (EU) legislative politics. Common wisdom holds that lobbyists eschew the public spotlight and prefer to influence policymaking from behind the scenes. This perception contrasts with the literature on media and interest groups, which typically conceives of media attention as a crucial commodity for interest groups to influence policy decisions. This article unites these seemingly contrasting stances by arguing that media attention can be both a blessing and a curse for advocacy. The central argument posited is that media attention may improve or reduce advocacy groups’ chances of preference attainment depending on how advocacy groups frame their message in the news. The analyses draw from interviews with more than 200 policy practitioners and content analysis of 3,557 media statements connected to a sample of 125 EU policy proposals. The findings demonstrate that an advocacy group’s media presence may improve preference attainment, but only when the advocacy group manages to frame its objectives in the news as aligned with the public interest.     

Elite Polarization and Public Opinion: How Polarization Is Communicated and Its Effects

Elite polarization has reshaped American politics and is an increasingly salient aspect of news coverage within the United States. As a consequence, a burgeoning body of research attempts to unravel the effects of elite polarization on the mass public. However, we know very little about how polarization is communicated to the public by news media. We report the results of one of the first content analyses to delve into the nature of news coverage of elite polarization. We show that such coverage is predominantly critical of polarization. Moreover, we show that unlike coverage of politics focused on individual politicians, coverage of elite polarization principally frames partisan divisions as rooted in the values of the parties rather than strategic concerns. We build on these novel findings with two survey experiments exploring the influence of these features of polarization news coverage on public attitudes. In our first study, we show that criticism of polarization leads partisans to more positively evaluate the argument offered by their non-preferred party, increases support for bi-partisanship, but ultimately does not change the extent to which partisans follow their party’s policy endorsements. In our second study, we show that Independents report significantly less political interest, trust, and efficacy when polarization is made salient and this is particularly evident when a cause of polarization is mentioned. These studies have important implications for our understanding of the consequences of elite polarization—and how polarization is communicated—for public opinion and political behavior in democratic politics.     

Family ties: A case study of coverage of families and friends during the hijacking of TWA flight 847

When U.S. citizens are held hostage in a foreign land, U.S. journalists have problems making the story meaningful for their readers. The hostages are usually not accessible. The political causes are far too complex to translate well into 90‐second nightly news stories or 20‐inch newspaper articles. Friends and families of the hostages provide journalists with a way for focusing on the human element of the story. This case study of the 1985 hijacking of TWA 847 illustrates how such a focus can lead to exploitation of friends and family to manipulation of news media.     

How Much Is Too Much? Media Attention and Popular Support for an Insurgent Party

It is commonly observed that parties and candidates tend to receive coverage in the news media and attention in proportion to their electoral support. Although this norm serves to ensure that coverage is balanced or fair, news values often produce a different pattern of coverage in the television news media. This article considers the dynamic relationship between coverage in the news media and popular support for an insurgent party - the Reform party - in the 1993 Canadian election campaign. The analysis shows that coverage of Reform in the news media underwent an important change during the campaign that appears to have occurred before any change in popular support. While this change in attention to Reform was critical for Reform's ability to mobilize its potential electoral support, it also provides empirical support for the argument that there is an underlying equilibrium between the amount of coverage a party receives and its political support. Data for this analysis come from a campaign wave survey of vote intentions as part of the 1993 Canadian Election Study and a television content analysis of campaign news. The analysis applies an error-correction approach, which assumes an underlying equilibrium relationship, to model media access and vote intentions. The article thus expands the current applications of the error-correction technique while offering substantively important evidence of the political impacts of media decisions for the electoral support of new parties.