This study examines the extent and consequences of press independence in the realm of problem definition. Beginning with an experiment, the analysis shows that many of the words and phrases used in the 1998 to 1999 Social Security reform debate were misleading in the sense that they caused citizens to draw incorrect inferences about the financial problems facing Social Security. Next, the study compares the prevalence of these same expressions in the mass media and in transcripts of political speeches and press releases. Contrary to theories of indexing, reporters and journalists exhibited considerable independence in how they described Social Security’s financial problems. Ironically, however, this meant that media accounts had more misleading rhetoric than the actual statements of government officials.
Althaus, Scott L.2003. “When News Norms Collide, Follow the Lead: New Evidence for Press Independence.”Political Communication20:381-414.
2.
Althaus, Scott L., Jill Edy, Robert M. Entman, and Patricia Phalen. 1996. “Revising the Indexing Hypothesis: Officials, Media, and the Libya Crisis.”Political Communication13(4):407-422.
3.
Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. 2003. Washington, D.C.: Social Security Administration. <http://www.ssa/gov>.
4.
Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. 2005. Washington, D.C.: Social Security Administration. <http://www.ssa/gov>.
5.
Baker, Dean, and Mark Weisbrot. 1999. Social Security: The Phony Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Barabas, Jason. 2005. “Trust Fund Politics: How Fiscal Perceptions Shape Public Support for Social Security and Medicare Reform.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C.
7.
Bennett, W. Lance. 1990. “Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States.”Journal of Communication40:103-124.
8.
Bennett, W. Lance. 1994. “The News about Foreign Policy.” In Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War, ed. W. Lance Bennett and David L. Paletz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Bennett, W. Lance. 2005. News: The Politics of Illusion. 6th ed.New York: Longman.
10.
Bennett, W. Lance, and Steven Livingston. 2003. “A Semi-independent Press: Government Control and Journalistic Autonomy in the Political Construction of News.”Political Communication20:359-362.
11.
Coughlin, Joseph F.1994.“The Tragedy of the Concrete Commons: Defining Traffic Congestion as a Public Policy Problem.” In The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda, ed. David A. Rochefort and Roger W. Cobb. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
12.
Cook, Timothy. 1989. Making Laws and Making News: Media Strategies in the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
13.
Diermeier, Daniel, and Randolph T. Stevenson. 2000. “Cabinet Terminations and Critical Events.”American Political Science Review94(3):627-640.
14.
Dorman, William A., and Steven Livingston. 1994. Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Druckman, James N.2001. “On the Limits of Framing Effects. Who Can Frame?”Journal of Politics63(4):1041-1066.
16.
Druckman, James N. Forthcoming. “Media Matter: How Newspapers and Television News Cover Campaigns and Influence Voters.”Political Communication.
17.
Eilders, Christiane, and Albrecht Luter. 2000. “Germany at War.”European Journal of Communication15(3):415-428.
18.
Entman, Robert M.2003. “Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame after 9/11.”Political Communication20:415-432.
19.
Entman, Robert M.2004. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Fico, Frederick, and Stan Soffin. 1995. “Fairness and Balance of Selected Newspaper Coverage of Controversial National, State, and Local Issues.”Journal of Mass Communication Quarterly72(autumn):621-633.
21.
Fiske, Susan T., and Shelley E. Taylor. 1991. Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
22.
Frost, Howard E.1989.“A Content Analysis of Recent Soviet Party-Military Relations.”American Journal of Political Science33(1):91-135.
23.
Gans, Herbert. 1979. Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Vintage Books.
24.
Graber, Doris A.2002. Mass Media and American Politics. 6th ed.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
25.
Graber, Doris A.2004. “Mediated Politics and Citizenship in the Twenty-First Century.”Annual Review of Psychology55(Jan.):545-571.
26.
Jacobs, Lawrence C., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Janssen, Joseph I.1991. “Postmaterialism, Cognitive Mobilization and Public Support for European Integration.”British Journal of Political Science21(4):443-468.
28.
Jerit, Jennifer, and Jason Barabas. Forthcoming. “Bankrupt Rhetoric: The Debate over Social Security Reform and Citizen Knowledge.”Public Opinion Quarterly.
Kingdon, John W.1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed.New York: Longman.
31.
Lau, Richard R., and Mark Schlesinger. 2000. “The Meaning and Measure of Policy Metaphors.”American Political Science Review94(Sept.):611-626.
32.
Lawrence, Regina G.1996. “Accidents, Icons, and Indexing: The Dynamics of News Coverage of Police Use of Force.”Political Communication13:437-454.
33.
Lawrence, Regina G.2001.“Defining Events: Problem Definition in the Media Arena.” In Politics, Discourse, and American Society, ed. Roderick P. Hart and Bartholomew H. Sparrow. Lanham, MD: Routledge.
34.
Light, Paul. 1995. Still Artful Work: The Continuing Politics of Social Security Reform. 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.
35.
Lodge, Milton, and Charles S. Taber. 2005. “The Automaticity of Affect for Political Leaders, Groups, and Issues: An Experimental Test of the Hot Cognition Hypothesis.”Political Psychology26(3):455-482.
36.
Livingston, Steven, and W. Lance Bennett. 2003. “Gatekeeping, Indexing, and Live-Event News: Is Technology Altering the Construction of News?”Political Communication20:363-380.
37.
Livingston, Steven, and Todd Eachus. 1996. “Indexing News after the Cold War: Reporting U.S. Ties To Latin American Paramilitary Organizations.”Political Communication13:423-436.
38.
Marmor, Theodore R., and Jerry Mashaw. 1988. Social Security: Beyond the Rhetoric of Crisis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
Mermin, Jonathan. 1996. “Conflict in the Sphere of Consensus? Critical Reporting on the Panama Invasion and the Gulf War.”Political Communication13:181-194.
40.
Mucciaroni, Guy. 1994.“Problem Definition and Special Interest Politics in Tax Policy and Agriculture.” In The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda, ed. David A. Rochefort and Roger W. Cobb. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
41.
Page, Benjamin I.2000.“How Public Opinion Affects Reform: Is Social Security Reform Ready for the American Public?” In Social Security and Medicare: Individual versus Collective Risk and Responsibility, ed. Shelia Burke, Eric Kingson, and Uwe Reinhardt. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Social Insurance.
42.
Pan, Zhongdang, and Gerald M. Kosicki. 1993. “Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse”Political Communication10:55-75.
43.
Paul, Ellen Frankel. 1994. “Sexual Harassment: A Defining Moment and Its Repercussions.” In The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda, ed. David A. Rochefort and Roger W. Cobb. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
44.
Peer, Limor, and Beatrice Chestnut. 1995. “Deciphering Media Independence: The Gulf War Debate in Television and Newspaper News.”Political Communication12:81-95.
45.
Rein, Martin, and Donald Schon. 1977. “Problem Setting in Policy Research.” In Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, ed. Carol Weiss. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
46.
Rochefort, David A., and Roger W. Cobb. 1994. The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
47.
Schattschneider, E.E.1960. The Semi-sovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
48.
Schudson, Michael. 2002. “The News Media as Political Institutions.”Annual Review of Political Science5:249-269.
49.
Sellers, Patrick J.2000. “Manipulating the Message in the U.S. Congress.”Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics5(1):22-31.
50.
Sigal, Leon. 1973. Reporters and Officials. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
51.
Stone, Deborah. 1997. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton.
52.
Wood, B. Dan, and Alesha Doan. 2003. “The Politics of Problem Definition: Applying and Testing Threshold Models.”American Journal of Political Science47(Oct.):640-653.
53.
Zaller, John, and Dennis Chiu. 1996. “Government’s Little Helper: U.S. Press Coverage of Foreign Policy Crises, 1945-1991.”Political Communication13:385-405.
