Suchergebnisse

Distortion in the Gun Policy Debate -- Framing in Gun Policy -- Interest Groups in Gun Policy -- Narrative Strategies -- Victims -- Perpetrators -- Settings -- Policy and Political Implications -- Beyond Gun Policy: Practical and Theoretical Implications.

"The blowout of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent underground oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 is considered by many to be the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. Interest groups, public officials, and media organizations have spent considerable time documenting the economic and ecological impacts of this spill as well as the causes of the spill, ostensibly to prevent future disasters of this magnitude. However, rather than an unbiased search for answers, such investigations involve strategic efforts by a variety of political actors to define the spill and its causes in ways that lead to their preferred policy solutions. Framing Environmental Disaster evaluates the causal stories that environmental groups tell about the spill and develops theoretical propositions about the role of such stories in the policy process. Which actors do groups hold responsible, and how do groups use blame attributions to advance their policy agendas? Constructing a creative methodological approach which includes content analysis drawn from blog posts, emails, press releases, and testimony before Congress and insights and quotations drawn from interviews with environmental group representatives, Melissa K. Merry argues that interest groups construct causal explanations long before investigations of policy problems are complete and use focusing events to cast blame for a wide range of harms not directly tied to the events themselves. In doing so, groups seek to take full advantage of "windows of opportunity" resulting from crises"--

"The blowout of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent underground oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 is considered by many to be the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. Interest groups, public officials, and media organizations have spent considerable time documenting the economic and ecological impacts of this spill as well as the causes of the spill, ostensibly to prevent future disasters of this magnitude. However, rather than an unbiased search for answers, such investigations involve strategic efforts by a variety of political actors to define the spill and its causes in ways that lead to their preferred policy solutions. Framing Environmental Disaster evaluates the causal stories that environmental groups tell about the spill and develops theoretical propositions about the role of such stories in the policy process. Which actors do groups hold responsible, and how do groups use blame attributions to advance their policy agendas? Constructing a creative methodological approach which includes content analysis drawn from blog posts, emails, press releases, and testimony before Congress and insights and quotations drawn from interviews with environmental group representatives, Melissa K. Merry argues that interest groups construct causal explanations long before investigations of policy problems are complete and use focusing events to cast blame for a wide range of harms not directly tied to the events themselves. In doing so, groups seek to take full advantage of "windows of opportunity" resulting from crises"--

AbstractThe mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas in May 2022 prompted Congress to enact the first significant federal gun legislation since the 1990s. While many commentators have framed this policy change as a remarkable break from the long‐standing pattern of inaction on gun violence, I argue that political actors perceived and responded to the problem in familiar ways. Drawing on agenda setting and information processing theories, I highlight factors that suggest no fundamental alteration in how the U.S. political system responds to gun injury and death. I also point to changes in public opinion and in the interest group landscape that have the potential (in the long term) to transform the politics of gun policy. Finally, I conclude with some near‐term expectations for policy making and its effects on the issue.Related ArticlesCagle, M. Christine, and J. Michael Martinez. 2004. "Have Gun, Will Travel: The Dispute between the CDC and the NRA on Firearm Violence as a Public Health Problem."Politics & Policy32(2): 278–310.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2004.tb00185.x.Joslyn, Mark R., and Donald P. Haider‐Markel. 2018. "Motivated Innumeracy: Estimating the Size of the Gun Owner Population and its Consequences for Opposition to Gun Restrictions."Politics & Policy46(6): 827–50.https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12276.Schwartz, Noah S. 2021. "Guns in the North: Assessing the Impact of Social Identity on Firearms Advocacy in Canada."Politics & Policy49(3): 715–818.https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12412.

AbstractThis study uses the Narrative Policy Framework to examine President Trump's tweets about immigration policy from 2011 to 2020. Based on a content analysis of 1733 tweets, I show that Trump's policy narratives centered on the villain character type, though the actual villains varied over time, and that the hero character became increasingly prominent throughout Trump's administration. While the characters, settings, and solutions in Trump's immigration policy tweets fluctuated, they were consistent with a narrative strategy of conflict expansion, focusing on threats from dangerous "outsiders" and the neutralization of those threats by Trump and his allies in the Republican Party and law enforcement. I demonstrate that tweets featuring villains and victims were positively associated with retweets and replies, while tweets featuring heroes were negatively associated with retweets and replies. This research suggests that Trump's immigration policy tweets were strategic, though his efforts to shape immigration policy may have been secondary to his political goals of securing electoral victories and amassing power.Related ArticlesChang, Katherine T., and Elizabeth A. Koebele. 2020. "What Drives Coalitions' Narrative Strategy? Exploring Policy Narratives around School Choice." Politics & Policy 48(4): 618–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12367.Garrett, Terence Michael. 2020. "The Security Apparatus, Federal Magistrate Courts, and Detention Centers as Simulacra: The Effects of Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy on Migrants and Refugees in the Rio Grande Valley." Politics & Policy 48(2): 372–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12348.Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Mark K. McBeth, and Paul L. Hathaway. 2011. "Narrative Policy Framework: The Influence of Media Policy Narrative on Public Opinion." Politics & Policy 39(3): 373–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2011.00295.x.

While much scholarship has explored the framing of gun policy, the bulk of that work has focused on general themes or arguments made in support or opposition to gun control. This study offers a more nuanced examination of the framing in the gun policy debate, utilizing the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to identify rhetorical and political strategies of gun control and gun rights organizations. Drawing on a data set of more than 58,000 Facebook posts by 15 gun policy organizations, I examine how groups portray the victims of gun violence, particularly with respect to the race and age of victims. I also examine the types of gun violence that groups emphasize on social media. The findings suggest that gun control organizations seek to broaden the scope of debate by focusing on child victims and on mass shootings. Gun rights organizations pursue a similar strategy, but with a focus on self‐defense shootings. Despite the fact that gun violence primarily affects minorities, both types of organizations rarely mentioned race. I attribute this to groups' efforts to emphasize proximate and positively constructed characters. This research suggests that both types of organizations systematically distort the nature of the gun policy problem.

This research examines the role of the devil shift and angel shift in interest group rhetoric using the case of gun policy. The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) suggests that the devil shift—whereby political actors characterize their opponents as more malicious and powerful than they actually are—is common in intractable policy debates. Through an analysis of e‐mails and press releases by two gun control organizations and two gun rights organizations, I examine how groups portray themselves and their opponents. I identify two dimensions relevant to these portrayals: (1) whether a character in a policy narrative is portrayed as good or evil, and (2) whether a character is portrayed as strong or weak. The findings indicate that while the devil shift is present, the angel shift—that is, the glorification of one's own coalition—is more common in gun policy groups' communications. Two alternative characterizations, which I call the angel in distress and the devil diminished, are also present. The use of these character portrayals varies significantly across political coalitions and as a function of communication purposes. The results suggest a need to reconceptualize character portrayals to better understand how they operate as narrative strategies in the NPF.

This study examines interest groups' framing of gun policy issues via an analysis of nearly 10,000 tweets by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association spanning from 2009 to 2014. Utilizing the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), I investigate the extent to which interest groups use social media to construct policy narratives. This research shows that much can be conveyed in 140 characters; both gun control and gun rights organizations used Twitter to identify victims, blame "villains," commend "heroes," and offer policy solutions. This research sheds light on the politics of gun control by revealing trends over time in groups' framing and suggests refinements for hypotheses of the NPF. Finally, this work underscores the importance of social media for public policy scholarship.