This study adopts an issue-specific approach to explain interest groups’ media prominence. Contrary to the classic presumption that groups confronted with public opposition invariably manage to escape the public spotlight, the results—based on a news content analysis of 196 positions expressed by 68 Belgian groups on 56 issues—show that on salient issues, some groups defending unpopular positions gain substantial prominence. Not only is media prominence used to pressure policymakers, but especially for salient issues, groups get pulled into the news to counteract adversaries and secure ties with their organizational constituencies.
AgnoneJ. (2007). Amplifying public opinion: The policy impact of the US environmental movement. Social Forces, 85, 1593–1620.
2.
AndrewsK.CarenN. (2010). Making the news: Movement organizations, media attention, and the public agenda. American Sociological Review, 75, 841–866.
3.
Austen-SmithD.WrightJ. (1994). Counteractive lobbying. American Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 25–44.
4.
BaumgartnerF.BerryJ.HojnackiM.KimballD.LeechB. (2009). Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. University of Chicago Press.
5.
BaumgartnerF.LeechB. (1996). The multiple ambiguities of “counteractive lobbying.”American Journal of Political Science, 40, 521–542.
6.
BeckersK.Van AelstP. (2019). Look who’s talking: An analysis of actors in television news (2003–2016). Journalism Studies, 20, 872–890.
7.
BeyersJ.Fink-HafnerD.MaloneyW. A.NovakM.HeylenF. (2020). The comparative interest group-survey project: Design, practical lessons, and data sets. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 9(3), 272–289.
8.
BinderkrantzA. (2005). Interest group strategies: Navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies, 53, 694–715.
9.
BinderkrantzA. (2020). Interest group framing in Denmark and the UK: Membership representation or public appeal?Journal of European Public Policy, 27, 569–589.
10.
BinderkrantzA.Chaqués-BonafontL.HalpinD. (2017). Diversity in the news? A study of interest groups in the media in the UK, Spain and Denmark. British Journal of Political Science, 47, 313–328.
11.
BinderkrantzA.ChristiansenP.PedersenH. (2015). Interest group access to the bureaucracy, parliament, and the media. Governance, 28, 95–112.
12.
BinderkrantzA.HalpinD.PedersenH. (2020). From policy interest to media appearance: Interest group activity and media bias. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25, 712–731.
13.
BorängF.NaurinD. (2022). Political equality and substantive representation by interest groups. British Journal of Political Science, 52, 1447–1454.
14.
BoydstunA. E. (2013). Making the news: Politics, the media, and agenda setting. University of Chicago Press.
15.
BoydstunA.HardyA.WalgraveS. (2014). Two faces of media attention: Media storm versus non-storm coverage. Political Communication, 31, 509–531.
CiukD.YostB. (2016). The effects of issue salience, elite influence, and policy content on public opinion. Political Communication, 33, 328–345.
18.
CulpepperP. (2011). Quiet politics and business power: Corporate control in Europe and Japan. Cambridge University Press.
19.
DanielianL.PageB. (1994). The heavenly chorus: Interest group voices on TV news. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 1056–1078.
20.
De BruyckerI. (2019). Blessing or curse for advocacy? How news media attention helps advocacy groups to achieve their policy goals. Political Communication, 36, 103–126.
21.
De BruyckerI.BeyersJ. (2015). Balanced or biased? Interest groups and legislative lobbying in the European news media. Political Communication, 32, 453–474.
22.
DimitrovaD. V.StrömbäckJ. (2009). Look who’s talking: Use of sources in newspaper coverage in Sweden and the United States. Journalism Practice, 3, 75–91.
23.
Djerf-PierreM. (2012). The crowding-out effect: Issue dynamics and attention to environmental issues in television news reporting over 30 years. Journalism Studies, 13, 499–516.
24.
DownsA. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The “issue-attention cycle.” In PeretzP. (Ed.), The politics of American economic policy making (pp. 39–50). M. E. Sharpe.
25.
DürA.MateoG. (2013). Gaining access or going public? Interest group strategies in five European countries. European Journal of Political Research, 52, 660–686.
26.
DürA.MateoG. (2014). Public opinion and interest group influence: How citizen groups derailed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Journal of European Public Policy, 21, 1199–1217.
27.
FraussenB.WoutersR. (2015). Aandacht trekken of advies verstrekken? De aanwezigheid van middenveldorganisaties in adviesraad-en beeldbuispolitiek. [Attracting attention or giving advice? The presence of civil society organizations in advisory bodies and television news] Res Publica, 57, 159–183.
28.
GaltungJ.RugeM. (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.
29.
GamsonW.WolfsfeldG. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 114–125.
30.
GrömpingM. (2019). More bang for the buck: Media freedom and organizational strategies in the agenda-setting of human rights groups. Political Communication, 36, 452–475.
31.
HallinD.ManciniP. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press.
32.
HalpinD. (2006). The participatory and democratic potential and practice of interest groups: Between solidarity and representation. Public Administration, 84, 919–940.
33.
HanegraaffM.BeyersJ.De BruyckerI. (2016). Balancing inside and outside lobbying: The political strategies of lobbyists at global diplomatic conferences. European Journal of Political Research, 55, 568–588.
34.
HarcupT.O’NeillD. (2001). What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism Studies, 2, 261–280.
35.
HopmannD.Van AelstP.LegnanteG. (2012). Political balance in the news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13, 240–257.
36.
HumprechtE.BüchelF. (2013). More of the same or marketplace of opinions? A cross-national comparison of diversity in online news reporting. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18, 436–461.
37.
JensenC.SeebergH. (2020). On the enemy’s turf: Exploring the link between macro-and micro-framing in interest group communication. Journal of European Public Policy, 27, 1054–1073.
38.
JungherrA.WuttkeA.MaderM.SchoenH. (2021). A source like any other? Field and survey experiment evidence on how interest groups shape public opinion. Journal of Communication, 71, 276–304.
39.
KastnerL. (2018). Business lobbying under salience: Financial industry mobilization against the European financial transaction tax. Journal of European Public Policy, 25, 1648–1666.
40.
KollmanK. (1998). Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton University Press.
41.
KoopmansR.StathamP. (1999). Political claims analysis: Integrating protest event and political discourse approaches. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 4, 203–221.
42.
KriesiH.TreschA.JochumM. (2007). Going public in the European Union: Action repertoires of Western European collective political actors. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 48–73.
43.
LesschaeveC. (2017). The predictive power of the left-right self-placement scale for the policy positions of voters and parties. West European Politics, 40, 357–377.
44.
MasiniA.Van AelstP.ZerbackT.ReinemannC.ManciniP.MazzoniM.DamianiM.CoenS. (2018). Measuring and explaining the diversity of voices and viewpoints in the news: A comparative study on the determinants of content diversity of immigration news. Journalism Studies, 19, 2324–2343.
45.
MeyerT.HaselmayerM.WagnerM. (2017). Who gets into the papers? Party campaign messages and the media. British Journal of Political Science, 50, 281–302.
46.
RasmussenA.MäderL.ReherS. (2018). With a little help from the people? The role of public opinion in advocacy success. Comparative Political Studies, 51, 139–164.
47.
SchattschneiderE. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
48.
SchmittH.HoboltS.PopaS.TeperoglouE. (2015). European Parliament Election Study 2014, voter study. GESIS Data Archive.
49.
ShoemakerP.VosT.ReeseS. (2009). Journalists as gatekeepers. In Wahl-JorgensenK.HanitzschT. (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 93–107). Routledge.
50.
SoontjensK.Van RemoortereA.WalgraveS. (2021). The hostile media: Politicians’ perceptions of coverage bias. West European Politics, 44(4), 991–1002.
51.
ThrallA. (2006). The myth of the outside strategy: Mass media news coverage of interest groups. Political Communication, 23, 407–420.
52.
TreschA.FischerM. (2015). In search of political influence: Outside lobbying behaviour and media coverage of social movements, interest groups and political parties in six Western European countries. International Political Science Review, 36, 355–372.
53.
VliegenthartR.OegemaD.KlandermansB. (2005). Media coverage and organizational support in the Dutch environmental movement. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 10, 365–381.
54.
WillemsE. (2020). Politicized policy access: The effect of politicization on interest group access to advisory councils. Public Administration, 98, 856–872.
55.
WolfsfeldG.SheaferT. (2006). Competing actors and the construction of political news: The contest over waves in Israel. Political Communication, 23, 333–354.
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.
