Search

In this interdisciplinary roundtable discussion, five scholars interested in political communication work through the democratic dilemmas created when privately owned social media platforms are used as digital public squares by elected officials in the United States. This conversation unfolds in the context of ongoing legal cases that challenge politicians' efforts to block select interlocutors and bar them from participation. We grapple with the tension between politicians' use of social media to broadcast their own messages as a form of publicity with the desire by some members of the public that politicians be transparent online by allowing the electorate to question or even criticize them. Through this discussion, we weigh the importance of the right to criticize the government and its leaders alongside the realities of contentious content on social media platforms that are rife with abusive content, in a cultural context marked by social inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the divides between political communication and social movement research. Topics include electoral politics, communication as internal interpretive work, sociological approach to communication and American Political Science Association (APSA) and social activism and political campaigns.

Resistance to women’s public voice and visibility via street harassment and workplace sexual harassment have long constrained women’s use of and comfort in physical public spaces; this gender-based resistance now extends into digital arenas. Women face extreme hostility in the form of digital sexism in discussion rooms, comment sections, gaming communities, and on social media platforms. Reflecting on two years of in-depth interviews with women who have been on the receiving end of gender-based digital abuse (n = 38), conversations with industry professionals working in content moderation and digital safety, the extant literature, and news stories about digital attacks against women, I offer a lens to think through the prominent patterns in digital sexism, showing (1) that aggressors draw upon three overlapping strategies - intimidating, shaming, and discrediting - to limit women’s impact in digital publics, (2) the way femininity and femaleness are used to undermine women’s contributions, and (3) men call attention to women’s physicality as a way to pull gender - and the male advantage that comes with it - to the fore in digital exchanges. Finally, I argue that when digital sexism succeeds in pressing women out of digital spaces, constrains the topics they address publicly, or limits the ways they address them, we must consider the democratic costs of gender-based harassment, in addition to the personal ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] Outrage-based political shows programs are thriving because they meet critical social needs. [•] Shows provide a safe alternative to high risk face-to-face political discussion. [•] Programs offer fans community, validation & confidence that they are in the right. [•] Especially valuable to conservatives, who are more fearful of public political talk. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Most research on incivility in American politics focuses on its effects on citizens' political attitudes and behaviors, in spite of remarkably little data on the extent to which political discourse is actually uncivil. Those studies that do examine content focus on negative campaign advertisements, overlooking more egregious forms of political incivility that penetrate the broader media landscape. In this study, we attempt to conceptualize and measure more dramatic types of political incivility, which we term 'outrage.' Outrage discourse involves efforts to provoke a visceral response from the audience, usually in the form of anger, fear, or moral righteousness through the use of overgeneralizations, sensationalism, misleading or patently inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks, and partial truths about opponents. Scrutinizing 10 weeks of data from political blogs, talk radio, and cable news analysis programs, we demonstrate that outrage discourse is extensive, takes many different forms (we examine 13 different types), and spans media formats. We also show that while outrage tactics are largely the same for liberal and conservative media, conservative media use significantly more outrage speech than liberal media. It is our hope that introducing more concrete information about the actual content of political media will render existing research on potential effects more meaningful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an examination into the political and media climate of non-mainstream activists in the United States. Details are given outlining how the mainstream journalism outlets hold to two differing standards of interest when covering established political officials and citizen activists. Discussion is then provided noting how activists often seek coverage but fail due to their accidental elimination of traits which are enticing to journalists because they seek to conform too much to the conventions of elected officials.

This article develops a theory about the narrative foundations of public policy. Politicians draw on specific types of narratives in order to connect the policies they are proposing, the needs of the public, and their own needs for legitimacy. In particular, politicians are drawn to policy narratives in which they themselves occupy the central and heroic character position, and where they are able to protect the scope of their jurisdictional authority. We demonstrate how this works through a historical analysis of congressional debate about the nonprofit sector in the United States. Two competing narratives framed these debates: (1) a selfless charity narrative, in which politicians try to empower heroic charity workers and philanthropists, and then stay out of the way; and (2) a masquerade narrative, in which fake charities are taking advantage of the nonprofit tax exemption, in order to pursue a variety of noncivic and dangerous activities. Members of Congress quickly adopted the masquerade narrative as the dominant framework for discussing the nonprofit sector because it provided a more powerful and flexible rhetoric for reproducing their political legitimacy. By developing innovative elaborations of the masquerade narrative (i.e., identifying new categories of “false heroes”), while remaining faithful to its underlying narrative format, politicians were able to increase the persuasive impact of their legislative agendas. We argue that the narrative aspects of political debate are a central component of the policy-making process because they link cultural and political interests in a way that involves the mastery of cultural structure as well as the creativity of cultural performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews the prominent historical changes in American associational life (increasingly diffuse organizational attachments, professionalization of the voluntary sector, and the proliferation of “mailing-list” citizen groups), and turns to cross-sectional data on contemporary voluntary associations and their activities during the key campaign events of the 2000 presidential election to evaluate the impact of these changes on associations’ ability to live up to the normative visions of civic engagement. Data on 29 diverse voluntary associations were gathered through unobtrusive observations at association events on location during the two national nominating conventions and the three televised presidential debates, 61 subsequent in-depth interviews with association representatives, literature distributed at association events, and a variety of supplemental sources. This article argues that although this new terrain is marked by significant limitations (as critics have suggested), especially in terms of associations’ ability to provide opportunities for members to develop civic skills, these changes in associational life also offer important opportunities, particularly in terms of contributing to a vital democratic process by promoting public political discourse. Implications for social solidarity are also addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has shown that participation in voluntary associations, including those labeled nonpolitical, increases political participation. Using data gathered from 2,517 interviews for the American Citizen Participation Study, we complicate this understanding by exploring the relationship between voluntary association involvement and political activity in a more nuanced manner-separating association involvements according to the level of exposure to political dialogue and information, even within organizations typically considered apolitical. We find that the extent to which association involvement predicts political participation is dependent upon the level of political activity that transpires within these otherwise nonpolitical organizations. In order for participation in voluntary associations to lead to increases in political participation, participants must have exposure to political discourse. It is not the generic act of participation that supports political life but rather the opportunity to engage with politics that serves as an impetus for political activity. In light of this, we offer a critical exploration of existing federal tax policies governing nonprofit organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study traces elite interlocks between the economic, political, and civil sectors of the United States in the late 1990s. We assess integration and fragmentation through analyzing patterns of overlap and interaction among influential organizations and leaders in these sectors. Network analyses are conducted with UCINET 5 on the Elite Directors Database, a new data set composed of the directors/trustees for the largest organizations in the business and nonprofit sectors in addition to individuals holding positions on federal advisory committees. The complete data set contains individuals holding 3,976 seats from 100 businesses, 109 nonprofit organizations, and 98 government committees. The network structure reveals substantial linkages between organizations and elites within and across the three sectors. Major corporations and their directors are the best integrated in the intersectoral networks. In spite of the tremendous growth of the nonprofit sector, nonprofit organization linkages rail to offer compelling evidence of elite pluralism in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]