This article argues that the agenda-setting power of protest must be understood in dynamic terms. Specifically, it develops and tests a dynamic theory of media reaction to protest which posits that features of street demonstrations—such as their size, violence, societal conflict, and the presence of a “trigger”—lead protest issues to be reported and sustained in the media agenda over time. We conduct a unique empirical analysis of media coverage of protest issues, based upon a data set of 48 large-scale street demonstrations in nine countries. Time-series cross-sectional analysis is used to estimate the dynamic effects of demonstration features on media coverage of the protest issue. The findings show that violence can increase media attention in the short term and larger protest size sustains it over the longer term. The agenda-setting power of protest is structured in time.
AndrewsK. T.BiggsM. (2006). The dynamics of protest diffusion: Movement organizations, social networks, and news media in the 1960s sit-ins. American Sociological Review, 71, 752-777.
2.
AndrewsK. T.CarenN. (2010). Making the news: Movement organizations, media attention, and the public agenda. American Sociological Review, 75, 841-866.
3.
AnduizaE.CristanchoC. (2011, April). Our sample of demonstrations. Presentation to Caught in the Act of Protest: Contextualizing Contestation project meeting, Geneva, October 2011.
4.
BarrancoJ.WislerD. (1999). Validity and systematicity of newspaper data in event analysis. European Sociological Review, 15, 301-322.
5.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BeckN.KatzJ. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89, 634-647.
7.
BennettL. (1996). An introduction to journalism norms and representations of politics. Political Communication, 13, 373-384.
8.
BennettL. (2003). New media power: The Internet and global activism. In CouldryN.CurranJ. (Eds.), Contesting media power (pp. 17-37). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
9.
BennettL. (2016). News: The politics of illusion (10th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
BoxG. E. P.TiaoG. C. (1975). Intervention analysis with applications to economic and environmental problems. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 70-79.
12.
BoydstunA. (2013). Making the news: Politics, the media and agenda-setting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
BoykoffM. T. (2007). Flogging a dead norm? Media coverage of anthropogenic climate change in United States and United Kingdom, 2003-2006. Area, 39, 470-481.
14.
ChoiI. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20, 249-272.
DownsA. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. The Public Interest, 28, 38-50.
17.
EarlJ.MartinA.McCarthyJ. D.SouleS. A. (2004). The use of newspaper data in the study of collective action. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 65-80.
18.
GaltungJ.RugeM. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 64-90.
19.
GabyS.CarenN. (2016). The rise of inequality: How social movements share discursive fields. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 21, 413-429.
20.
GamsonW. (1975). The strategy of social protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
21.
GandyO. H.Jr. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
22.
IyengarS. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
IyengarS.KinderD. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R. (2005). The politics of Attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
KingdonJ. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
26.
KlandermansB.Van StekelenburgJ.WalgraveS.Van TroostD.Van LeeuwenA.Van LaerJ.. . . WoutersR. (2010). Manual for data collection on protest demonstrations. Brussels, Belgium: Caught in the Act of Protest, Contextualising Contestation.
27.
KoopmansR. (2004). Movements and media: Selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory and Society, 33, 367-391.
28.
KoopmansR.OlzakS. (2004). Discursive opportunities and the evolution of right-wing violence in Germany. American Sociological Review, 110, 198-230.
29.
LipskyM. (1968). Protest as a political resource. American Political Science Review, 62, 1144-1158.
MatusitzJ.BreenG.-M. (2012). An examination of pack journalism as a form of groupthink. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 2, 896-915.
32.
McCarthyJ. D.McPhailC.SmithJ. (1996). Images of protest: Dimensions of selection bias in media coverage of Washington demonstrations, 1982 and 1991. American Sociological Review, 61, 478-499.
33.
OlzakS. (1989). Analysis of events in the study of collective action. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 119-141.
34.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
35.
SeguinC. (2016). Cascades of coverage: Dynamics of media attention to social movement organizations. Social Forces, 94, 997-1020.
36.
ShoemakerP. J.ReeseS. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
37.
SmithJ.McCarthyJ. D.McPhailC.AugustynB. (2001). From protest to agenda building: Description bias in media coverage of protest events in Washington, D.C. Social Forces, 79, 1397-1423.
38.
SorokaS. (2012). The gatekeeping function: Distributions of information in media and the real world. Journal of Politics, 74, 514-528.
39.
SorokaS. (2014). Negativity in democratic politics: Causes and consequences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
TarrowS. (1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
TillyC. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
42.
van ZoonenE. A. (1992). The women’s movement and the media: Constructing a public identity. European Journal of Communication, 7, 453-477.
43.
VliegenthartR.WalgraveS.WoutersR.HutterS.JenningsW.GavaR.. . . Chaques-BonafontL. (2016). The media as a dual mediator of the political agenda–setting effect of protest. A longitudinal study in six Western European countries. Social Forces, 95, 837-859.
44.
WalgraveS.SorokaS.NuytemansM. (2008). The mass media’s political agenda-setting power: A longitudinal analysis of media, parliament, and government in Belgium (1993 to 2000). Comparative Political Studies, 41, 814–836.
45.
WalgraveS.VliegenthartR. (2012). The complex agenda-setting power of protest: Demonstrations, media, parliament, government and legislation in Belgium, 1993-2000. Mobilization, 17, 129-156.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
