Public Perceptions of the Media Coverage of Irregular Immigration

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (7) ◽  
pp. 839-857 ◽  
Author(s):  
Audun Beyer ◽  
Jörg Matthes

Irregular immigration has become a globally important topic. While there have been some studies on public opinion toward irregular immigration, virtually no studies have examined how audiences evaluate the media coverage of this issue. There is also a lack of comparative research. The aims of this article are to provide survey data on public opinion toward irregular immigration in the United States, France, and Norway as well as a comparative analysis of public perceptions of the news coverage. Findings suggest that irregular immigration remains a highly salient issue in public opinion in all three countries. Furthermore, public opinion is generally critical and skeptic toward irregular immigration and immigrants, and differences between countries regarding the coverage of the issue in national mainstream media do not necessarily seem to be mirrored in public opinion. The survey data also suggest that citizens in all three countries tend to believe that the negative aspects of irregular immigration such as crimes or border control receive too little coverage whereas perspectives more positive to irregular immigration receive too much. Implications for further comparative research on public opinion and media coverage are discussed.

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (7) ◽  
pp. 771-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjersti Thorbjørnsrud

The media coverage of irregular immigration has the power to influence public opinion, fuel the formation of popular movements, and mold the political climate related to immigration. Based on comparative and multimethod data sets, this special issue of American Behavioral Scientist contributes to a renewed understanding of the role and impact of the mass media on the current climate, opinions, and policies related to irregular immigration in three different Western countries. Analysis of source strategies and ethnographic methods is combined with large-scale quantitative content analysis of news and surveys measuring the reception of this news coverage by audiences in the United States, France, and Norway. The research design pursued in this special issue of American Behavioral Scientist identifies (a) the dominant voices, narratives, and arguments in the mainstream media coverage of irregular immigration; (b) how stakeholders work strategically to promote their messages in the media; and (c) what attitudes the public holds about the coverage of irregular immigration in the media, and how these media evaluations relate to their attitudes toward immigration. Together, the articles in this issue offer new and surprising insights into how a controversial and important issue is strategically framed, covered in the news, and understood among the audience.


Author(s):  
D. B. Tindall ◽  
Mark C.J. Stoddart ◽  
Candis Callison

This article considers the relationship between news media and the sociopolitical dimensions of climate change. Media can be seen as sites where various actors contend with one another for visibility, for power, and for the opportunity to communicate, as well as where they promote their policy preferences. In the context of climate change, actors include politicians, social movement representatives, scientists, business leaders, and celebrities—to name a few. The general public obtain much of their information about climate change and other environmental issues from the media, either directly or indirectly through sources like social media. Media have their own internal logic, and getting one’s message into the media is not straightforward. A variety of factors influence what gets into the media, including media practices, and research shows that media matter in influencing public opinion. A variety of media practices affect reporting on climate change─one example is the journalistic norm of balance, which directs that actors on both sides of a controversy be given relatively equal attention by media outlets. In the context of global warming and climate change, in the United States, this norm has led to the distortion of the public’s understanding of these processes. Researchers have found that, in the scientific literature, there is a very strong consensus among scientists that human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change is happening. Yet media in the United States often portray the issue as a heated debate between two equal sides. Subscription to, and readership of, print newspapers have declined among the general public; nevertheless, particular newspapers continue to be important. Despite the decline of traditional media, politicians, academics, NGO leaders, business leaders, policymakers, and other opinion leaders continue to consume the media. Furthermore, articles from particular outlets have significant readership via new media access points, such as Facebook and Twitter. An important concept in the communication literature is the notion of framing. “Frames” are the interpretive schemas individuals use to perceive, identify, and label events in the world. Social movements have been important actors in discourse about climate change policy and in mobilizing the public to pressure governments to act. Social movements play a particularly important role in framing issues and in influencing public opinion. In the United States, the climate change denial countermovement, which has strong links to conservative think tanks, has been particularly influential. This countermovement is much more influential in the United States than in other countries. The power of the movement has been a barrier to the federal government taking significant policy action on climate change in the United States and has had consequences for international agreements and processes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (04) ◽  
pp. A02
Author(s):  
Lena Jelinski ◽  
Katrin Etzrodt ◽  
Sven Engesser

When, to what extent and under what conditions autonomous driving will become common practice depends not only on the level of technical development but also on social acceptance. Therefore, the rapid development of autonomous driving systems raises the question of how the public perceives this technology. As the mass media are regarded as the main source of information for the lay audience, the news coverage is assumed to affect public opinion. The mass media are also frequently criticized for their inaccurate and biased news coverage. Against this backdrop, we conducted a content analysis of the news coverage of autonomous driving in five leading German newspapers. Findings show that media reporting on autonomous driving is not very detailed. They also indicate a slight positive bias in the balance of arguments and tonality. However, as soon as an accident involving an autonomous vehicle occurs, the frequency of reporting, as well as the extent of negativity and detail increase. We conclude that well-informed public opinion requires more differentiated reporting — irrespective of accidents.


2019 ◽  
pp. 50-97
Author(s):  
Matt Guardino

This chapter analyzes media content, elite discourse, and public opinion surrounding Ronald Reagan’s 1981 economic plan. It demonstrates that major television and newspaper coverage of this early neoliberal policy significantly favored free-market perspectives that justified economic inequality. It also shows that media outlets marginalized elite and nongovernmental criticism of the Reagan plan. Commercial tendencies of the media system in that historical context are connected to these patterns in the news. Survey data suggest that such media coverage shaped public opinion to support this influential model of regressive tax policy.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 827-845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil T Gavin

The notion that the media’s principal role regarding public opinion is reinforcement of pre-existing attitudes – and that this idea is relative inconsequential politically – is pervasive, across many political and social science sub-disciplines, and in non-academic commentary. This article comprehensively challenges the evidential and theoretical underpinnings of this thesis, drawing on a wealth of contemporary survey data and media coverage research, across a range of issues, including climate change, Brexit, immigration, the economy and benefit fraud. It also argues that ‘reinforcement’ is an important and consequential power, and that the processes involved have significant implications for public misperception of salient political issues. It makes the case that the media create attitudinal uncertainty, and can have pervasive but subtle influences on political attitudes, particularly when there are persistent patterns of coverage across a range of media. But also that in contexts like particularly close political contests, such influences can be decidedly consequential.


2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-214
Author(s):  
Saqib Riaz

Abstract The relations between the United States of America and Pakistan have a significant impact on the world’s politics as well as in shaping the future of the globe. However, the relations between the two countries have been passing through a lot of ups and downs during the last seven decades. Media have a pivotal role in framing and shaping this ‘love and hate’ relationship. The purpose of this study was to investigate the coverage of the United States-Pakistan relations by the American newspapers because the media coverage shapes the public opinion. Two major newspapers of the United States were content analyzed for a period of one year with the help of Lexis and Nexis and the coverage of Pakistan was measured and analyzed qualitatively as well as quantitatively. The results of the study revealed that the American newspapers portrayed a highly negative image of Pakistan and most of the coverage about the bilateral relations was found as negative.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 797-811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianne Suldovsky ◽  
Asheley Landrum ◽  
Natalie Jomini Stroud

In an era where expertise is increasingly critiqued, this study draws from the research on expertise and scientist stereotyping to explore who the public considers to be a scientist in the context of media coverage about climate change and genetically modified organisms. Using survey data from the United States, we find that political ideology and science knowledge affect who the US public believes is a scientist in these domains. Our results suggest important differences in the role of science media attention and science media selection in the publics “scientist” labeling. In addition, we replicate previous work and find that compared to other people who work in science, those with PhDs in Biology and Chemistry are most commonly seen as scientists.


2021 ◽  
pp. 2046147X2199601
Author(s):  
Diana Zulli ◽  
Kevin Coe ◽  
Zachary Isaacs ◽  
Ian Summers

Public relations research has paid considerable attention to foreign terrorist crises but relatively little attention to domestic ones—despite the growing salience of domestic terrorism in the United States. This study content analyzes 30 years of network television news coverage of domestic terrorism to gain insight into four theoretical issues of enduring interest within the literature on news framing and crisis management: sourcing, contextualization, ideological labeling, and definitional uncertainty. Results indicate that the sources called upon to contextualize domestic terrorism have shifted over time, that ideological labels are more often applied on the right than the left, and that definitional uncertainty has increased markedly in recent years. Implications for the theory and practice of public relations and crisis management are discussed.


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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 095715582110217
Author(s):  
Marion Dalibert

By questioning the media coverage of the seven feminist movements that have received most publicity in the French mainstream media since the 2000s, this article shows that the media narrative regarding feminism perpetuates the national metanarrative produced in generalist newspapers. This metanarrative reinforces the power of majority groups by portraying them as inherently egalitarian, while those with the least economic, social, political and cultural power, such as Muslim men, are portrayed as the most sexist. It also highlights that racialised collectives are still socially invisible or limited to a visibility that is framed by representations rooted in a (post) colonial imaginary. Non-white women are in fact presented as fundamentally submissive, while (upper)-middle-class white women are the only ones associated with emancipation, which is significant of white and bourgeois hegemony at work in the French news media.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document