Suchergebnisse

Given the intense debate surrounding the United States' policies regarding admission of refugees and immigrants into the country, this study set out to determine how the news media cover refugees and how that coverage influences news consumers. This research examines how news stories informed the public about the individuals affected by the wars in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. In particular, it explores usage of the word "refugee" as opposed to "immigrant" to determine how individuals fleeing their home countries were described by the press. A content analysis revealed that U.S. newspapers were more likely than international newspapers to conflate the term "immigrant" with "refugee." Also, when refugees were incorrectly described as "immigrants," references to terrorism were more likely. The experimental portion of this research tested how news consumers respond to this framing of "refugee" versus "immigrant" in the same war-torn situation. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who read about individuals labeled as "refugees" did not distinguish them from "immigrants" in the same situation, indicating they may have adopted the U.S. news media's conflation of these terms. Republicans, however, had more negative perceptions of both refugees and immigrants than did Democrats or Independents, reporting greater perceptions of threat and favoring more stringent policy. These results suggest that American news consumers do not distinguish between refugees and immigrants in terms of policy, which at least partially implicates U.S. news media for not providing a solid benchmark for understanding these groups of people.

This study investigates the effect of news sites' explicit online comment moderation policies on spiral of silence (SOS) outcome variables. It advances the methodological understanding of SOS research by comparing the traditional willingness-to-share variable to more direct measures of attitudes. The results of two studies show that a one-sided editorial and comments generally silenced the opposition, particularly when participants were asked to provide their own comment. This finding suggests that open-ended comments may best measure SOS effects. With the inclusion of explicit comment moderation, however, participants were less likely to agree with the editorial as evidenced by their closed-ended attitudes.

This study analyzes letters to the editor in two Oklahoma newspapers during the debate over a constitutional amendment banning judicial use of the Islamic moral code called "Shariah Law." Using Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) to operationalize the moral evaluations in media framing, three morality-based frames were identified: a Patriot frame emphasizing Shariah's harms, a Heritage frame advocating loyalty to the American Way, and a Golden Rule frame promoting equal treatment of Muslims. Each frame was related to moral foundations that align with particular political ideologies, and amendment supporters were more likely to frame their arguments in moral terms.

This study fills a gap in scholarship by exploring historical news coverage of interracial relationships. It examines coverage by The New York Times, Washington Post and Times-Herald, and Chicago Tribune of the progression of the landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court overturned Virginia's anti-miscegenation law, which prohibited marriage between any White and non-White person. An analysis of the frames and sources used in these publications' news stories about the case indicate all three publications' coverage favored the Lovings.

Immigration in the U.S. is an issue that has polarizing political implications at the national and local levels. Reoprts by the press shape how the public perceives immigration and influence public policy regarding immigrants and immigration. This study examines the stories about Mexican immigration published by four major U.S. newspapers by analizing their patterns, frequency, length, topics, and framing. This research seeks to shed light on the national print news" media coverarge of Mexican immigration to the United States as well as any of its perceived attempts to influence public opinion and public policy. ; La inmigración en Estados Unidos conlleva implicaciones políticas polarizantes en los niveles locales y nacional. Los informes de prensa moldean la percepción pública sobre el tema e influyen en las políticas locales hacia los inmigrantes y la inmigración. Este artículo examina las historias que sobre la inmigración mexicana presentan cuatro de los principales diarios estadunidenses al analizar sus patrones, frecuencia, tamaño, principales temas y contexto. Busca echar luz sobre la cobertura de las noticias impresas sobre la inmigración mexicana hacia Estados Unidos, así como los intentos de estos medios para influir en la opinión pública y en las políticas públicas.

Using two experimental studies, we examine how the selection and consumption of cable news influences news consumers' cognitive processing, attitudes, and policy preferences. As expected, participants overwhelmingly self-selected into an ideologically aligned cable news network. Then, ideologically congruent messaging from Fox News and MSNBC was likely to prompt higher levels of agreement and lower levels of disagreement for those with mid- and high levels of trust in their selected cable news network. Our findings indicate a reinforcing spiral effect among both MSNBC and Fox News consumers who have high levels of trust in the cable news network they select.

Considering that cable news has become a primary source of political information for many Americans, this article examines the role and impact of Fox News in the United States, particularly as it compares to other news outlets. We begin by offering a historical analysis of Fox News' formation and growth in popularity, including a review of existing scholarship on the network's impact on news consumers. Prior research as well as an additional nationally-representative dataset reveals that two policy areas are particularly potent among Fox News' consumers: immigration and climate change. Additionally, scholars have found initial evidence for the role of Fox News in shaping its viewers' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We then consider the cognitive processing utilized by news consumers, explaining how it may differ among individuals who opt to consume Fox News and those who get news from other sources. We conclude by reviewing why three specific areas—immigration, climate change, and COVID-19—resonate so strongly with Fox News consumers.

Guided by the reinforcing spirals model, this study examines whether exposure to cable news is associated with policy preferences, particularly those aimed at immigrants and refugees. Analyses of two sets of survey data (N = 200, N = 4,271) show that, after controlling for demographics, other news use, and political ideology, consuming Fox News has a unique relationship with Americans' policy preferences. Respondents who reported consuming Fox News (online or on TV) preferred stricter policies aimed at immigrants and refugees; however, use of MSNBC and CNN was not related to these policy preferences. A content analysis revealed that FoxNews.com published far fewer stories (N = 123) about immigrants and refugees in the time periods immediately preceding the surveys than did CNN.com (N = 211). However, these FoxNews.com stories provided a different contextualization by emphasizing authority and subversion and deemphasizing care. These findings suggest that Fox News is creating/reinforcing its consumers' migration-related policy preferences, whereas no such relationship exists for MSNBC and CNN consumers.