Search results

This Element develops an analytical framework for understanding the role of ideas in political life and communication. Power in Ideas argues that the empirical study of ideas should combine interpretive approaches to derive meaning and understand influence with quantitative analysis to help determine the reach, spread, and impact of ideas. This Element illustrates this approach through three case studies: the idea of reparations in Ta-Nehisi Coates's "The Case for Reparations," the idea of free expression in Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook policy speech at Georgetown University, and the idea of universal basic income in Andrew Yang's "Freedom Dividend." Power in Ideas traces the landscapes and spheres within which these ideas emerged and were articulated, the ways they were encoded in discourse, the fields they traveled across, and how they became powerful.

This study develops a new normative and analytical framework of "democracy-framed electoral coverage" grounded in literatures that stress the role of governmental and communicative institutions in protecting democracies from threats. We define "democracy-framed electoral coverage" as journalism that embraces fairly contested elections as an established norm and political ideal, and clearly alerts the public to threats to the peaceful transfer of power. Using the U.S. as a case study of a consolidated democracy facing autocratization threats, the study applies the framework to analyze a comprehensive dataset of 708 articles encompassing twenty one races during the 2022 U.S. midterm elections when candidates who denied the results of the 2020 presidential election were on the ballot. Additionally, we conducted interviews with twelve journalists to evaluate their perspectives and practices regarding election denying candidates. We find that journalists routinely failed to alert the public to the threat posed by candidates unwilling to embrace the legitimacy of U.S. elections. This paper demonstrates the necessity of a normative framework for pro-democracy election coverage, and the findings underscore the electoral fragility of the U.S.—a case of a democracy undergoing autocratization processes and facing threats to the legitimacy of its elections and the peaceful transfer of power.

This article offers the first systematic study of the hiring patterns and career experiences of women working on U.S. presidential campaigns in the new field of political technology. We paired the quantitative analysis of a dataset of 995 staffers active in technology, digital media, data, and analytics across four presidential election cycles (2004–2016) with data from 45 in-depth interviews with women active on 12 presidential campaigns. We find that women are systematically under-represented, they do not ascend to leadership positions at the same rates as men, and they do not have the same entrepreneurial opportunities. When women do get hired, many find it challenging to be heard, are judged according to different standards than men, and have few ways of holding people accountable for inappropriate behavior or arbitrary exercises of power. The findings likely have implications for other fields that have been reshaped by technology, from journalism to entertainment media.

This paper presents two case studies of Facebook's rapid changes relating to international electoral politics: the "I'm a Voter" affordance and the platform's data and targeting capabilities. The article shows how Facebook changed with respect to its policies, procedures, and affordances, especially given the normative pressure exerted by journalists. Drawing from these case studies, we conceptualise continual and rapid change as "platform transience" and argue that it often arises from external pressure and economic considerations. Platform transience has significant implications for the ability of stakeholders to hold platforms accountable, raises significant issues for electoral fairness, and increases the potential for unequal political information environments.