Suchergebnisse

Research indicates that U.S. news coverage of non-White political candidates tends to be race-focused and often prompts White voters to bring racial considerations to the polls. Indeed, racial considerations likely cost Barack Obama a significant percentage of White voters in the 2008 presidential election. Nonetheless, scholarship also suggests that Obama aggressively sought to transcend difference—racial or otherwise—during his 2008 campaign via explicit appeals to the national identity. Given these competing dynamics, we conducted a content analysis of both Obama's nationally televised campaign speeches and U.S. news coverage to assess the relative salience of nation- and race-related language present in this discourse. We find that Obama consistently emphasized nation over race, but that journalists overwhelmingly reprioritized race over nation.

This paper explores the circumstances under which U.S. presidents have invoked the idea of American exceptionalism in major speeches to the nation and how the invocation of this concept has culminated during the Obama presidency. To explore these dynamics, we conducted a content analysis of all major domestic presidential addresses since the end of World War II. We find that U.S. presidents have become increasingly likely to invoke American exceptionalism, particularly after the end of the Cold War, and that in times of national crises, American exceptionalism becomes most pronounced in U.S. presidential discourse. Moreover, we demonstrate the overwhelming propensity of President Obama, relative to his predecessors, to emphasize American exceptionalism in his public communications. The reason, we argue, has to do with the double-crisis nature of his presidency—two major wars and a recession—in addition to the racial bind that he has been forced to overcome throughout his presidency. We reflect on the implications of these findings for politicians, in particular racial and other minorities, as well as the broader American public.

AbstractIsrael is viewed unfavorably among wide segments of the public within several European democracies, despite being regarded itself as a Western democracy. Does drawing attention to Israel's democratic attributes improve views toward Israel? In two surveys with Dutch national samples, anti-Semitic affect, low anti-Arab/Muslim affect, and left-wing political orientation independently predicted anti-Israel sentiment. However, in experiments embedded within the surveys, making salient Israel's democratic attributes had opposite effects on Israel attitude across those on the right and the left – slightly decreasing anti-Israel sentiment among those with a right-wing orientation but slightly increasing anti-Israel sentiment among those with a left-wing orientation. We discuss potential explanations grounded in social psychological theory as well as implications for the strategic communication efforts of groups seeking to influence attitudes toward Israel.

Research on foreign news coverage suggests that journalists tend to exhibit an ethnocentric bias when reporting on issues that might reflect poorly upon their nation. This stems from the institutional, commercial and cultural pressures that tend to shape the news production process. These pressures are at odds with other professional norms and values within journalism that are seen as crucial to democracy, including the need to inform the public, hold leaders accountable and expose abuses of power. This study examines these tensions in the context of US drone warfare. The authors employ social identity theory to systematically examine the manner and extent to which civilian casualties caused by US drone strikes were reported on in news coverage in the US ( The New York Times) versus the UK ( The Guardian) from 2009–2016. The article explores whether civilian casualty mentions in these news sources led to a more critical examination of the merits and efficacy of the drone policy.

Previous research on the populist radical right (PRR) has focused exclusively on explicit measures in explaining support for these contested political players. In this study, we explore the role of implicit attitudes in predicting vote likelihood for a PRR party. We use an online survey (n = 773) among Dutch respondents in which we measured implicit attitudes towards the Dutch PRR Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) with a Single‐Target Implicit Association Test (ST‐IAT). The results show that the implicit measure predicts vote likelihood in general, as well as in ways beyond that accounted for by traditional explanations of PRR party support. Importantly, the results also show that the impact of implicit attitudes on intended vote choice is greater for less extreme voters; in other words, those voters less likely to say they would vote for the PVV are more heavily influenced at an implicit level, beyond their awareness. This suggests that implicit attitudes of the PRR party may be quite useful for explaining support among voters who would not normally self‐report it.

Scholars have widely demonstrated that the process by which officials frame their communications significantly impacts how citizens understand, evaluate, and respond to policy issues or events. This study attempts to build on existing framing research in two important ways. First, we seek to illuminate the importance of "cultural resonance" in determining whether an individual frame is likely to gain acceptance among its intended audience. Second, we assess the impact of "frame contestation" on the adoption of such frames. We explore these dynamics in the context of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Specifically, we conducted an experiment in which U.S. adults were exposed to a news story about U.S. military transgressions in Afghanistan. Our results indicate that frames, designed to appeal to and protect the national identity, broadly resonated among respondents, impacting their perceptions of the character, causes and consequences of the transgressions, as well as their broader attitudes about the nation, the U.S. military, and the war in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, when these frames were presented, and then explicitly contested within the same news story, it diminished—but not entirely—these framing effects. We reflect on the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for journalists, officials, and the broader public.

Scholars have widely demonstrated that the process by which officials frame their communications significantly impacts how citizens understand, evaluate, and respond to policy issues or events. This study attempts to build on existing framing research in two important ways. First, we seek to illuminate the importance of "cultural resonance" in determining whether an individual frame is likely to gain acceptance among its intended audience. Second, we assess the impact of "frame contestation" on the adoption of such frames. We explore these dynamics in the context of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Specifically, we conducted an experiment in which U.S. adults were exposed to a news story about U.S. military transgressions in Afghanistan. Our results indicate that frames, designed to appeal to and protect the national identity, broadly resonated among respondents, impacting their perceptions of the character, causes and consequences of the transgressions, as well as their broader attitudes about the nation, the U.S. military, and the war in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, when these frames were presented, and then explicitly contested within the same news story, it diminished—but not entirely—these framing effects. We reflect on the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for journalists, officials, and the broader public.

In recent years, the United States has significantly expanded its use of drone warfare. Experts are divided: some defend drones as a legal, effective way to target terrorists while others suggest drones are inaccurate and contribute to anti-Americanism. In addition, international public opinion differs starkly with Americans largely supportive of the program while publics across the globe condemn it. Suspecting news coverage might play a pivotal role in these differences, the authors explored the framing of the US drone program in American, British, and Arab news coverage. Consistent with research on social identity theory and ethnocentrism in news, they find that US coverage was more likely to frame the policy favorably – emphasizing its legality, strategic value and technological sophistication while downplaying civilian deaths – while British and, to a greater extent, Arab coverage was more critical. The authors discuss how these findings build on existing theory and explore the implications for US drone policy.