The Effects of News Coverage of Epidemics on Public Support for and Compliance with the CDC– An Experimental Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 547-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yotam Ophir
2010 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew A. Baum ◽  
Tim Groeling

AbstractPrevailing theories hold that U.S. public support for a war depends primarily on its degree of success, U.S. casualties, or conflict goals. Yet, research into the framing of foreign policy shows that public perceptions concerning each of these factors are often endogenous and malleable by elites. In this article, we argue that both elite rhetoric and the situation on the ground in the conflict affect public opinion, but the qualities that make such information persuasive vary over time and with circumstances. Early in a conflict, elites (especially the president) have an informational advantage that renders public perceptions of “reality” very elastic. As events unfold and as the public gathers more information, this elasticity recedes, allowing alternative frames to challenge the administration's preferred frame. We predict that over time the marginal impact of elite rhetoric and reality will decrease, although a sustained change in events may eventually restore their influence. We test our argument through a content analysis of news coverage of the Iraq war from 2003 through 2007, an original survey of public attitudes regarding Iraq, and partially disaggregated data from more than 200 surveys of public opinion on the war.


2011 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Héctor Perla

AbstractThis article examines the determinants of public support for the use of military force. It puts forward a Framing Theory of Policy Objectives (FTPO), which contends that public support for military engagements depends on the public's perception of the policy's objective. However, it is difficult for the public to judge a policy's objective because they cannot directly observe a policy's true intention and influential political actors offer competing frames to define it. This framing contestation, carried out through the media, sets the public's decision-making reference point and determines whether the policy is perceived as seeking to avoid losses or to achieve gains. The FTPO predicts that support will increase when the public perceives policies as seeking to prevent losses and decrease when the public judges policies to be seeking gains. I operationalize and test the theory using content analysis of national news coverage and opinion polls of U.S. intervention in Central America during the 1980s. These framing effects are found to hold regardless of positive or negative valence of media coverage.


Author(s):  
Carl Walker ◽  
Paul Hanna ◽  
Jayne Raisborough

Abstract Generating negative news coverage of state welfare provision has been identified as a strategy designed to create public support for radical policies aimed to reduce such provision. To date, research of this kind has focused on scandals and crises. However, little is known about the complex relationship between media representations of specific events, and those of media representations in the lead up to these events, what we refer to as periphery representations. Employing a content and frame analysis, this paper analyses the frequency and intensity of peripheral representations of the National Health Service (NHS) in the British print media for 1 week a month before and for 1 week during three key events in recent NHS history: the official consultation period for the Health and Social Care Act; the publication of Five-Year Forward View, and the first Junior Doctor Strike. This article finds that negative NHS representations in articles that are peripheral to particular topical issues of controversy evidence fluctuations, amplifications and intensities across time periods, depending on the particular context. The paper concludes by arguing that repetition of negative themes in news helps to build a sensibility of ‘inadequacy’ of vital services. We hope that this focus on the ways in which amplifications and de-amplifications in negative intensity of peripheral NHS representations across time and content, helps to contribute to debate about the complex interplay between public health services, media representation and policy consent.


2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole E. Haas ◽  
Jan W. de Keijser ◽  
Gerben J. N. Bruinsma

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-118
Author(s):  
Paul G Buchanan

The article traces the origins, rationale and some of the dilemmas that have emerged in the practice of ‘embedded’ journalism. It argues that the practice emerged as a post-Vietnam response by the US military to the ‘problem’ of independent news coverage of conflicts in which the US was involved. For the post-Vietnam US military, independent news coverage was problematic because it often contradicts the official war narrative and, if left unhindered, undermines public support for the war effort. Since public support is crucial for success in a foreign war, particularly during lengthy engagements, independent news coverage is seen as a threat to the unity of the home front and therefore a threat to the war effort itself. The lesson learned from Vietnam was to restrict independent media access to battle zones, first by denying all access and withdrawing security guarantees to journalists operating in conflict theaters, and then by providing privileged but controlled access to front line units via the practice of facilitated news-gathering known as ‘embedded journalism’. As it turns out, even that practice has a downside, and there is more to the story than the military desire to control the narrative.


Author(s):  
Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha

Presidential persuasion is a central feature of presidential power and leadership. Although originally conceived of as essential for bargaining with and influencing Congress and later the bureaucracy, the rise of television and polling science—along with the constraints imposed by legislative gridlock and divided government—afforded presidents regular opportunities to appeal to the public to achieve their policy goals. Despite some scholarly allegations that presidents should persuade the public, the White House’s own expectations that presidents can do so, and the extent to which the modern White House polls and attempts to influence news coverage and public opinion, the predominant conclusion of the literature is that presidential persuasion is unlikely to change public opinion. Even evidence that supports presidential persuasion may be marginal, mixed, time bound, or vary by domestic and foreign policy. At times, presidents may not be able to lead public opinion because they have responded to it. And even the act of speaking, as expressed by scholars of the rhetorical presidency, may puff up unrealistic expectations for the occupant of the office. Nevertheless, presidents may be able to influence the public’s agenda on issues not previously salient to the American people, prime favorable aspects of their policies through speechmaking, and act strategically to parlay existing public support into legislative victories.


2006 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 45-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne P. Steger

Studies divide over which offices are the best position from which to seek the presidency. This study looks at how candidates from various backgrounds perform in the competition for resources and votes in presidential nomination campaigns. The study also sheds light on Burden’s (2002)“candidate pool “and “candidate investment” hypotheses. As a group, senators are found to be relatively weak fundraisers, receive less campaign news coverage, and attract less public support than presidential candidates from most other backgrounds. Senators as a group are more variable than other groups of office-holders, but not significantly so. Most but not all senators who enter the race appear to invest themselves in their campaign.


2021 ◽  
pp. 174165902110273
Author(s):  
Laura Vitis ◽  
Laura Naegler ◽  
Ahmad Salehin

In November 2018, Monica Baey, a student at the National University of Singapore (NUS) was recorded by a fellow student while showering in university accommodation. After the perpetrator was issued a formal warning and a one-semester suspension, Baey posted about the case on social media and named the perpetrator. This generated public support, news coverage and institutional reform. In this article, we explore a range of responses to the Monica Baey case through a thematic analysis of publicly available comments about the case on a popular message board forum, Hardwarezone. By contextualising our analysis within the political setting of Singapore, this research demonstrates that public responses to testimony-based resistance require close analysis, as extant tools for citizens to engage in ‘naming and shaming’, were relevant to understanding these responses to this mode of resistance and reflected what Ibrahim (2018) calls ‘everyday authoritarianism’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document