This article links media and social movement studies with world society theory to explain cross-national variations in media attention to domestic social protests. We compile a novel large-scale dataset with over 1.2 million protest-related news articles from 12,644 web news sites across 140 countries/areas in 2015–2020. Our cross-national analysis shows that both media- and country-level characteristics explain news coverage of domestic social protests. Our findings show that web news outlets with high web traffic and a propensity to report conflictual events tend to cover more protests. In addition, web news sites in nations with vibrant civil society organizations report more protest events. We also find that there is a positive relationship between online censorship and news coverage in general. But this is driven by news media in democratic countries, and news sites in authoritarian regimes experiencing strong censorship cover fewer protest events. Finally, news media in authoritarian nations with more organizational ties to the international community cover more domestic protests.
AlmeidaPD (2003) Opportunity organizations and threat-induced contention: Protest waves in authoritarian settings. American Journal of Sociology109(2): 345–400.
2.
AmentaECarenNOlaskySJ (2005) Age for leisure? Political mediation and the impact of the pension movement on U.S. old-age policy. American Sociological Review70(3): 516–538.
3.
AmentaECarenNOlaskySJ, et al (2009) All the movements fit to print: Who, what, when, where, and why SMO families appeared in the New York Times in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review74(4): 636–656.
4.
AmentaECarruthersBGZylanY (1992) A hero for the aged? The Townsend movement, the political mediation model, and U.S. old-age policy, 1934–1950. American Journal of Sociology98(2): 308–339.
5.
AmentaEElliottTAShorttN, et al (2017) From bias to coverage: What explains how news organizations treat social movements. Sociology Compass11(3): e12460.
6.
AndrewsKTCarenN (2010) Making the news: Movement organizations, media attention, and the public agenda. American Sociological Review75(6): 841–866.
7.
BennettWL (1996) The Politics of Illusion. White Plains, NY: Longman.
8.
BerryJMSobierajS (2013) The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
ChenowethE (2013) Terrorism and democracy. Annual Review of Political Science16: 355–378.
10.
ChiaSCLuK-HMcLeodDM (2004) Sex, lies, and video compact disc: A case study on third-person perception and motivations for media censorship. Communication Research31(1): 109–130.
11.
CoppedgeMGerringJKnutsenCH, et al (2020) V-Dem Methodology v10. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.
12.
DavenportC (2009) Media Bias, Perspective, and State Repression: The Black Panther Party. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DavisAPZhangY (2019) Civil society and exposure to domestic terrorist attacks: Evidence from a cross-national quantitative analysis, 1970–2010. International Journal of Comparative Sociology60(3): 173–189.
14.
Della PortaD (2015) Democracy in social movements. In: Della PortaDDianiM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 767–781.
15.
DiamondL (2010) Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy21(3): 69–83.
16.
DunawayJ (2008) Markets, ownership, and the quality of campaign news coverage. The Journal of Politics70(4): 1193–1202.
17.
DunawayJ (2011) Institutional effects on the information quality of campaign news. Journalism Studies12(1): 27–44.
18.
DunawayJ (2013) Media ownership and story tone in campaign news. American Politics Research41(1): 24–53.
19.
EarlJ (2003) Tanks, tear gas, and taxes: Toward a theory of movement repression. Sociological Theory21(1): 44–68.
20.
EarlJ (2011) Political repression: Iron fists, velvet gloves, and diffuse control. Annual Review of Sociology37(1): 261–284.
21.
EarlJMartinAMcCarthyJD, et al (2004) The use of newspaper data in the study of collective action. Annual Review of Sociology30(1): 65–80.
22.
EgorovGGurievSSoninK (2009) Why resource-poor dictators allow freer media: A theory and evidence from panel data. American Political Science Review103(4): 645–668.
23.
EntmanRM (2007) Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication57(1): 163–173.
FallonKMSwissLViternaJ (2012) Resolving the democracy paradox: Democratization and women’s legislative representation in developing nations, 1975 to 2009. American Sociological Review77(3): 380–408.
26.
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95(1): 1–37.
27.
GamsonWAWolfsfeldG (1993) Movements and media as interacting systems. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science528: 114–125.
28.
GamsonWACroteauDHoynesW, et al (1992) Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology18: 373–393.
29.
GanzM (2000) Resources and resourcefulness: Strategic capacity in the unionization of California agriculture, 1959–1966. American Journal of Sociology105: 1003–1062.
30.
GentzkowMShapiroJM (2010) What drives media slant? Evidence from U.S. daily newspapers. Econometrica78(1): 35–71.
31.
GoldsteinJS (1992) A conflict-cooperation scale for WEIS events data. The Journal of Conflict Resolution36(2): 369–385.
32.
GurrTR (2015) Why Men Rebel. New York: Routledge.
33.
HallinDCManciniP (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
HamiltonJ (2004) All the News That’s Fit to Sell: How the Market Transforms Information into News. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
HermanESChomskyN (2002) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
36.
HobbsWRRobertsME (2018) How sudden censorship can increase access to information. American Political Science Review112(3): 621–636.
37.
HumprechtEEsserF (2018) Diversity in online news. Journalism Studies19(12): 1825–1847.
38.
HumprechtEUdrisL (2019) Long-term trends in news content. In: ÖrnebrinkH (ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–22.
39.
JenkinsJCWallaceMFullertonAS (2008) A social movement society?: A cross-national analysis of protest potential. International Journal of Sociology38(3): 12–35.
40.
KadivarMA (2018) Mass mobilization and the durability of new democracies. American Sociological Review83(2): 390–417.
41.
KadivarMAUsmaniABradlowBH (2020) The long march: Deep democracy in cross-national perspective. Social Forces98(3): 1311–1338.
42.
KingGPanJRobertsME (2013) How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review107(2): 326–343.
43.
KitscheltHP (1986) Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science16(1): 57–85.
44.
KoopmansR (2004) Movements and media: Selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory and Society33(3–4): 367–391.
45.
LacyS (1992) The financial commitment approach to news media competition. Journal of Media Economics5(2): 5–21.
46.
LeiY-W (2016) Freeing the press: How field environment explains critical news reporting in China. American Journal of Sociology122(1): 1–48.
47.
LimATsutsuiK (2012) Globalization and commitment in corporate social responsibility: Cross-national analyses of institutional and political-economy effects. American Sociological Review77(1): 69–98.
48.
LindbergSICoppedgeMGerringJ, et al (2014) V-Dem: A new way to measure democracy. Journal of Democracy25(3): 159–169.
49.
LitmanBRBridgesJ (1986) An economic analysis of daily newspaper performance. Newspaper Research Journal7(3): 9–26.
50.
McAdamDMcCarthyJDZaldMN (1996) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
51.
McCarthyJDZaldMN (1977) Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology82(6): 1212–1241.
52.
McCarthyJDMcPhailCSmithJ (1996) Images of protest: Dimensions of selection bias in media coverage of Washington demonstrations, 1982 and 1991. American Sociological Review61(3): 478–499.
53.
McManusJ (1995) A market-based model of news production. Communication Theory5(4): 301–338.
54.
MeyerDSTarrowS (1998) A movement society: Contentious politics for a new century. In: MeyerDSTarrowS (eds) The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 1–28.
55.
MeyerJW (2010) World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology36(1): 1–20.
56.
MeyerJWBoliJThomasGM, et al (1997) World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology103(1): 144–181.
57.
MurdieABhasinT (2011) Aiding and abetting: Human rights INGOs and domestic protest. Journal of Conflict Resolution55(2): 163–191.
58.
NapoliPM (1997) A principal-agent approach to the study of media organizations: Toward a theory of the media firm. Political Communication14(2): 207–219.
59.
OliverPEManeyGM (2000) Political processes and local newspaper coverage of protest events: From selection bias to triadic interactions. American Journal of Sociology106(2): 463–505.
60.
OliverPEMeyerDJ (1999) How events enter the public sphere: Conflict, location, and sponsorship in local newspaper coverage of public events. American Journal of Sociology105(1): 38–87.
61.
OrtizDMyersDWallsE, et al (2005) Where do we stand with newspaper data?Mobilization: An International Quarterly10(3): 397–419.
62.
PanJ (2017) How market dynamics of domestic and foreign social media firms shape strategies of internet censorship. Problems of Post-Communism64(3–4): 167–188.
63.
PanJRobertsME (2020) Censorship’s effect on incidental exposure to information: Evidence from Wikipedia. SAGE Open10(1): 215824401989406.
64.
PanJSiegelAA (2020) How Saudi crackdowns fail to silence online dissent. American Political Science Review114(1): 109–125.
65.
RafailPWalkerETMcCarthyJD (2019) Protests on the front page: Media salience, institutional dynamics, and coverage of collective action in the New York Times, 1960–1995. Communication Research46(1): 33–61.
66.
ReeseSDShoemakerPJ (2016) A media sociology for the networked public sphere: The hierarchy of influences model. Mass Communication and Society19(4): 389–410.
67.
Reynolds-StensonH (2018) Protesting the police: Anti-police brutality claims as a predictor of police repression of protest. Social Movement Studies17(1): 48–63.
68.
RobertsME (2020) Resilience to online censorship. Annual Review of Political Science23(1): 401–419.
69.
RohlingerDA (2002) Framing the abortion debate: Organizational resources, media strategies, and movement-countermovement dynamics. Sociological Quarterly43(4): 479–507.
70.
ScheufeleDAIyengarS (2012) The state of framing research: A call for new directions. In: KenskiKJamiesonKH (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication Theories. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–26.
71.
SchultzJ (1998) Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72.
SeguinC (2016) Cascades of coverage: Dynamics of media attention to social movement organizations. Social Forces94(3): 997–1020.
73.
ShandraJMLeckbandCMcKinneyLA, et al (2009) Ecologically unequal exchange, world polity, and biodiversity loss: A cross-national analysis of threatened mammals. International Journal of Comparative Sociology50(3–4): 285–310.
74.
ShoemakerPJReeseSD (2014) Mediating the Message in the 21st Century: A Media Sociology Perspective. New York: Routledge.
75.
ShoretteKHendersonKSommerJM, et al (2017) World society and the natural environment. Sociology Compass11(10): e12511.
76.
SmithJMcCarthyJDMcPhailC, et al (2001) From protest to agenda building: Description bias in media coverage of protest events in Washington, D.C. Social Forces79(4): 1397–1423.
77.
SobierajSBerryJM (2011) From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication28(1): 19–41.
78.
StaggenborgS (1988) The consequences of professionalization and formalization in the pro-choice movement. American Sociological Review53(4): 585–605.
79.
TanashRChenZWallachDMarschallM (2017) The Decline of Social Media Censorship and the Rise of Self-Censorship after the 2016 Failed Turkish Coup. In 7th USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI 17).
80.
TerkildsenNSchnellF (1997) How media frames move public opinion: An analysis of the women’s movement. Political Research Quarterly50(4): 879–900.
81.
TsutsuiK (2006) Redressing past human rights violations: Global dimensions of contemporary social movements. Social Forces85(1): 331–354.
82.
TsutsuiKShinHJ (2008) Global norms, local activism, and social movement outcomes: Global human rights and resident Koreans in Japan. Social Problems55(3): 391–418.
83.
TsutsuiKWhitlingerCLimA (2012) International human rights law and social movements: States’ resistance and civil society’s insistence. Annual Review of Law and Social Science8(1): 367–396.
84.
VaughanLYangR (2013) Web traffic and organization performance measures: Relationships and data sources examined. Journal of Informetrics7(3): 699–711.
85.
YangG (2005) Environmental NGOs and institutional dynamics in China. The China Quarterly181: 46–66.
86.
ZaldMNMcCarthyJD (1987) Social Movements in an Organizational Society: Collected Essays. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
