The Politics of Persuasion

Anthony R. Dimaggio

Description

Tracking the effects of media content on the public is a difficult endeavor, and media effects vary on a subject-to-subject basis. To address this challenge, The Politics of Persuasion employs a multifaceted, mixed method approach to studying mass media and public attitudes. Anthony R. DiMaggio analyzes more than a dozen case studies covering US domestic economic policy and examines a wide range of theories of how bias operates in mass media with regard to coverage of these issues. While some research claims that journalists are overly negative and biased against government officials, some reveals that journalists favor citizens groups. Still other studies contend there is a liberal bias in the media, a progovernment bias, or a bias in favor of advertisers and business interests. Through his analysis, DiMaggio is the first to systematically examine all of these competing interpretations. He concludes that reporters tailor stories to corporate and government interests, but argues that the ability to "manufacture consent" from the public in favor of these elite views is far from guaranteed. According to DiMaggio, citizens often make use of their own personal experiences and prior attitudes to challenge official narratives.
List of Illustrations
Acknowledgments
Introduction: Political Officials, the News, and Public Opinion

1. The Research on Media Bias

2. Split Party Government and Reporting on the Minimum Wage, 1996 and 2007

3. Unified Republican Government: Debating Tax Cuts and Social Security, 2001–2005

4. Unified Democratic Government: Debating the Stimulus and Executive Pay, 2009

5. The Attack Dog Bias? Bad News and Economic Policy, 1996–2009

6. Media Effects on Public Opinion

7. Media Coverage and Its Effects: Expanded Case Studies, 1993–2014

8. Experimental Evidence of Media Effects on Public Opinion

Conclusion

Post-Script
Notes
Bibliography
Index

Sujets

• USA
• United States of America
• Película fotográfica
• Visual culture
• Media studies
• History of the Americas
• États-Unis
• Film

Informations

• Publié par: State University of New York Press
• Date de parution: 21 février 2017
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781438463469
• Langue: English

Extrait

The Politics of Persuasion
The Politics of Persuasion
Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era
Anthony R. DiMaggio
Published by State University of New York Press, Albany
© 2017 State University of New York
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
For information, contact State University of New York Press, Albany, NY
www.sunypress.edu
Production, Eileen Nizer
Marketing, Kate R. Seburyamo
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Dimaggio, Anthony R., 1980– author.
Title: The politics of persuasion : economic policy and media bias in the modern era / Anthony R. DiMaggio.
Description: Albany : State University of New York Press, 2017. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016020985 (print) | LCCN 2016045100 (ebook) | ISBN 9781438463452 (hardcover : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781438463469 (e-book)
Subjects: LCSH: United States—Economic policy—21st century. | Mass media—Political aspects—United States—History—21st century. | Public opinion—Political aspects—United States.
Classification: LCC HC106.84 .D56 2017 (print) | LCC HC106.84 (ebook) | DDC 070.4/49330973—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016020985
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
List of Illustrations
Acknowledgments
Introduction: Political Officials, the News, and Public Opinion
1. The Research on Media Bias
2. Split Party Government and Reporting on the Minimum Wage, 1996 and 2007
3. Unified Republican Government: Debating Tax Cuts and Social Security, 2001–2005
4. Unified Democratic Government: Debating the Stimulus and Executive Pay, 2009
5. The Attack Dog Bias? Bad News and Economic Policy, 1996–2009
6. Media Effects on Public Opinion
7. Media Coverage and Its Effects: Expanded Case Studies, 1993–2014
8. Experimental Evidence of Media Effects on Public Opinion
Conclusion
Post-Script
Notes
Bibliography
Index
Illustrations
Tables
Table I.1. News Sources and Their Importance
Table 2.1 The Minimum Wage (1/1–8/31/1996): Competing Frames in the News
Table 2.2 The Minimum Wage (1/1–5/31/2007): Competing Frames in the News
Table 2.3 The Minimum Wage (1/1–8/31/1996): Political Actors in the News
Table 2.4 The Minimum Wage (1/1–5/31/2007): Political Actors in the News
Table 2.5 The Minimum Wage (1/1–8/31/1996): Mentions of Parties and Party Leaders
Table 2.6 The Minimum Wage (1/1–5/31/2007): Mentions of Parties and Party Leaders
Table 3.1 Tax Cuts (1/1–5/31/2001): Competing Frames in the News
Table 3.2 Tax Cuts (1/1–5/31/2001): Political Actors in the News
Table 3.3 Tax Cuts (1/1–5/31/2001): Mentions of Parties and Party Leaders
Table 3.4 Social Security (1/1–5/31/2005): Competing Frames in the News
Table 3.5 Social Security (1/1–5/31/2005): Political Actors in the News
Table 3.6 Social Security (1/1–5/31/2005): Mentions of Parties and Party Leaders
Table 4.1 The Stimulus (1/1–2/28/2009): Major Frames in Print and Television Media
Table 4.2 The Stimulus (1/1–2/28/2009): Political Actors in Print and Television News Stories
Table 4.3 The Stimulus (1/1–2/28/2009): Mentions of Parties and Party Leaders
Table 4.4 Executive Pay (1/1–3/31/2009): Major Frames in Print and Television News Stories
Table 4.5 Executive Pay (1/1–3/31/2009): Political Actors in Print and Television News Stories
Table 4.6 Executive Pay (1/1–3/31/2009): Mentions of Parties and Party Leaders
Table 5.1 Bad News and Partisan Conflict over Social Security: A Sampling of Congressional Statements (January–May 2005)
Table 5.2 Bad News and Partisan Conflict over the Stimulus: A Sampling of Congressional Statements (January–February 2009)
Table 5.3 Within-Party Rejections of the President in Voting and the News
Table C.1 Presidential Priorities and the Tone of News Coverage: A Nonrelationship
Table P.1 Pro-Government Media Bias in Non-Elite News Outlets, 10 Case Studies (1993–2014)
Figures
Figure I.1 Shifting Reporting on the Child Health Insurance New York Times (2007–2009)
Figure I.2 Conditions for Successful Persuasion
Figure I.3 Conditions for Failed Persuasion
Figure 5.1 Media Attentiveness and Attitudes Toward Government
Figure 5.2 New York Times Coverage of Tax Cuts (January–May 2001)
Figure 5.3 New York Times Reporting on Social Security Reform (January–May 2005)
Figure 5.4 New York Times Reporting on the Stimulus (January–February 2009)
Figure 5.5 New York Times Reporting on Executive Pay (January–March 2009)
Figure 6.1 Attentiveness to and Knowledge of Social Security (Feb. 2005)
Figure 6.2 Media Consumption on, and Political Awareness of the Stimulus (Feb. 2009)
Figure 6.3 Alternative Spending Priorities for Budget Surplus (% Preferring Each Option)
Figure 6.4 Media Consumption and Opinions of Tax Cuts by Ideology (Feb. 2001)
Figure 6.5 Media Consumption and Opinions of Tax Cuts by Party (Feb. 2001)
Figure 6.6 Media Consumption and Opinions of Tax Cuts by Ideology (Feb. 2001)
Figure 6.7 Media Consumption and Opinions of Tax Cuts by Party (Feb. 2001)
Figure 6.8 Public Opinion on Social Security Reform (9/04–6/05)
Figure 6.9 Media Consumption and Opinions of Social Security by Ideology (Feb. 2005)
Figure 6.10 Media Consumption and Opinions of Social Security by Ideology (May 2005)
Figure 6.11 Media Consumption and Opinions of Social Security by Party (Feb. 2005)
Figure 6.12 Media Consumption and Opinions of Social Security by Party (May 2005)
Figure 6.13 Public Opinion on the Stimulus (2/09–3/09)
Figure 6.14 Media Consumption and Opinions of the Stimulus by Ideology (Jan. 2009)
Figure 6.15 Media Consumption and Opinions of the Stimulus by Party (Jan. 2009)
Figure 6.16 Public Perceptions of Media Negativity and Stimulus Reporting (% Subscribing to Each Description)
Figure 6.17 Media Consumption and Opinions of the Stimulus by Party (Feb. 2009)
Figure 6.18 Media Consumption and Opinions of the Stimulus by Ideology (Feb. 2009)
Figure 6.19 Public Opinion on Executive Compensation (2/2009–10/2009)
Figure 6.20 Effects of Attention to Media Coverage and Political Discussions on Public Opinion of Wall Street (Mar. 2009)
Figure 6.21 Media Consumption and Opinions of Executive Pay by Party (Mar. 2009)
Figure 6.22 Media Consumption and Opinions of Executive Pay by Party (Mar. 2009)
Figure 7.1 Reporting on Political Parties and Leaders During Unified Government ( New York Times )
Figure 7.2 Reporting on Political Parties and Leaders During Divided Government ( New York Times )
Figure 7.3 Attention to and Attitudes Toward Health Care Reform (2009–2010)
Figure 7.4 Media Effects for Four Policy Disputes
Figure 7.5 Attentiveness and Opposition to Medicare Reform by Age (12/2003)
Figure 7.6 Attention and Opposition to Medicare Privatization as Related to Age (5/2011)
Figure 8.1 Survey Group’s Opinion on a Second Stimulus (2012)
Figure 8.2 Public Attitudes on a Second Stimulus (2012)
Figure 8.3 Survey Group’s Opinions of Making the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent (2012)
Figure 8.4 Public Opinion on Taxes (2012)
Figure 8.5 Survey Group’s Opinion of Raising the Minimum Wage (11/2014)
Figure 8.6 Public Opinion on Raising the Minimum Wage (2014)
Figure 8.7 Public Opinion on Lowering Student Loan Interest Rates (11/2014)
Figure 8.8 Public Opinion on Student Loans (2014)
Acknowledgments
This book represents the culmination of a research agenda that occupied countless hours, and began more than a decade ago when I was in graduate school. There are many people I wish to thank for aiding me in my intellectual journey. First, I want to thank my wife Mary and sons Frankie and Tommy for their support and love during the long nights and weekends that went into this project. Your love and company have kept me going all these years. Other family I’d like to thank for their support include: Sam, Alissa, Marty, Jon, Kristina, Mom, and Dad. I would also like to thank a number of intellectuals who served as mentors, including: Carlos Parodi, Ali Riaz, Doris Graber, Andy McFarland, Andy Rojecki, Jamal Nassar, and Manfred Steger. I am particularly appreciative to Carlos Parodi, Ali Riaz, Stephen Caliendo, and Andy McFarland for your support over the years as I searched for a permanent academic position. Today’s academic job market is cutthroat, and without your support I would never have made it. To my friends and colleagues who were there for me over the years, I express thanks: Amentahru Wahlrab, Jacob Van Laar, Erik Lisauskas, Erik Abderhalden, Kevin McGee, Grant Smith, Rob Godsill, John Wilson, Paul Fasse, Tony Prudden, Wael Habboub, Zach Gebhardt, Zach Wolfe, Chris McDonald, John Vinzant, Mark Roehrs, John Roberts, Colin Suchland, David Reynolds, and Aaron Berkowitz. Fellow inte