This paper explores the impact of domestic terrorism on the public agenda. Specifically, it examines the extent to which the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing required assistance, or "accompaniment," to capture the attention of lawmakers. Accompaniment was defined in terms of governmental and popular concerns for an issue prior to a focusing event. Content analyses of The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, the New York Times Index, the Washington Post Index, and Congressional Quarterly, as measures of prior congressional, presidential, and public interest, suggested that domestic terrorism did not require accompaniment to achieve agenda status. Instead, unique focusing event characteristics—the intendedly violent, sudden, novel, and criminal nature of the explosion—were responsible.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baumgartner, F.R. (1987). Parliament's capacity to expand political controversy in France. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 12, 33-54.
2.
Birkland,T. (1995). Toward a theory of focusing events and agenda setting. Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Washington.
3.
Cobb, R., & Elder, C. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
4.
DeNeufville, J.I., & Barton, S.E. (1987). Myths and the definition of policy problems: An exploration of home ownership and public-private partnerships. Policy Sciences, 20, 181- 206.
5.
Dery, D. (1984). Problem definition in policy analysis. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas .
6.
Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. The Public Interest, 28, 38-50.
7.
Edelman, M. (1977). Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. New York: Academic Press .
8.
Evestone, R. (1978). From social issues to public policy. New York, NY: Wiley.
9.
Flynn, E.E. (1996). International terrorism and the United States . In R. Muraskin & A. R. Roberts (Eds.), Visions for Change: Crime and Justice in. the Twenty-First Century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
Ginsberg, B. (1976). Elections and public policy. American Political Science Review, 70, 41 - 49.
11.
Ivengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Key, V.O. (1961). Public opinion in American democracy. New York: Knopf.
13.
Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.
14.
Light, P.C. (1982). The president's agenda. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15.
Page, B.I., & Shapiro, R.Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77, 315-325.
16.
Portz, J. (1996). Problem definitions and policy agendas: Shaping the educational agenda in Boston. Policy Studies Journal.24, 371-386.
17.
Rochefort, D., & Cobb, R. (1993). Problem definition, agenda access, and policy choice. Policy Studies Journal, 21, 56-73).
18.
Rochefort, D., & Cobb, R. (1994). The politics of problem definition. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
19.
Schneider, S.K. (1995). Flirting with disaster: Public management in crisis situations. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe .
20.
Sharp, E.B. (1992). Agenda-setting and policy results: Lessons from three drug policy episodes. Policy Studies Journal20, 538-551.
21.
Shoemaker, P., Wanta, W., & Leggett, D. (1989) Drug coverage and public opinion, 1972-1986. In P. Shoemaker (Ed.), Communication campaigns about drugs: Government, media, and the public (pp. 67-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
Sinclair, B.D. (1977). Party realignment and the transformation of the political agenda. American Political Science Review71, 940-953.
23.
Stone, D. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/ Little, Brown.
24.
Stone, G.C., & McCombs, M.E. (1981). Tracing the time lag in agenda-setting. Journalism Quarterly, 52, 15-22.
25.
United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (1993). Terrorism in the Unites States 1982-1992 . Washington D.C.
26.
Weiss, J. (1989). The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork. Policy Sciences.22, 97-121.
