|
Media, Bureaucracy and the Success of Social Protest:
Media Coverage of Environmental Movement Groups
Since the rise of commercial mass media, social protest groups have
recognized the
importance of gaining access to media to take their grievances and aspirations
directly to the
mass public, helping to raise awareness for their causes and mobilize
supporters. It remains true
today that media coverage can greatly influence the nature, development and
ultimate success
of social protest.
Although media coverage may be important to protest groups, not all
groups organize
themselves in the same way to obtain such coverage. In any large-scale social
movement, the
individual groups exhibit a broad range of organizational styles, ranging from
large, formal,
bureaucratic groups to small, loosely configured ones.
The popular notion of a successful social movement group is the latter
type, or one that
sticks to the grassroots level, utilizing the energy and passion of an army of
committed
members. What a small, informal group lacks in finances or prestige it may make
up for in
spontaneity and a cadre of loyal volunteers who are passionate, enthusiastic and
able to organize
well-attended protest demonstrations or orchestrate turn-out at public hearings.
But many modern social movement groups don't fit this stereotype. For
example, many
larger groups in the national environmental movement hire in-house attorneys,
scientists and
public relations practitioners and use finely tuned direct mail campaigns to
attract massive
numbers of largely inactive "paper members." Several environmental groups
sponsor their own
credit cards and sell extensive lines of merchandise.
Whether formally organized grassroots groups are more effective in
obtaining media
coverage is a point of disagreement among social movement scholars. Some
scholars maintain
that a highly formalized structure aids a group's ability to participate in and
shape media
coverage of its issues; a large group with a separate media staff may be
perceived as a legitimate
news source and therefore more capable of sustaining the media's attention.
Other scholars have
argued that a large bureaucratic structure indicates a coopted, ineffective
group both in its issue
work and ability to secure coverage. This research investigates whether the
degree of
bureaucratization affects a group's ability to participate in and shape media
coverage of its
issues.
The social movement chosen to test the bureaucracy hypothesis was the
environmental
movement, a movement with a wide variety of groups in terms of age, size,
tactics and internal
organization. Because this movement has spanned nearly a century, it provided a
unique
opportunity to test both older, well-established groups and relatively new ones.
Public interest
in the environment has endured for more than a century in this country and has
contributed to
a long, rich involvement of environmental groups in environmental issues. The
high level of
media coverage about the environment suggests not only wide reader and viewer
appeal, but also
the media's legitimation of the environment as a serious social problem
warranting regular
coverage.
Media, Social Conflict and Social Movements
Social protest is a time-honored cultural tradition in American society,
from the Boston
Tea Party, the Agrarian Revolt of the late 1800s and the suffragettes in early
1900s to the
modern-day movements of the 1960s and 1970s. But societal institutions do not
necessarily
welcome or embrace change or the protest that may lead to it. Indeed, some
would argue that
societies are more adept at stifling change than they are at promoting or
accepting it.
The media role in the reporting of conflict is described by some scholars
as one of social
control. Media, as an integrated part of the larger social system, are
structurally dependent on
the power structure and powerful individuals within it for news. Because they
are not
independent generators of information, media must depend on the mutual
cooperation of other
institutions for news, and as such, play an important role in maintaining the
larger social system.
The mass media role is primarily one of stability and conflict control; media
don't fundamentally
challenge the dominant power structure for they are a part of it.
This is not to say the media are mere "sounding boards for the rich and
powerful." An
important part of journalistic professionalism is a belief in the autonomy of
reporting, which
includes the media's ability to criticize the powerful and apply "corrective
pressure" to notable
bad apples. But numerous studies have questioned the notion of media
independence, notably
studies documenting a reluctance of media institutions to attack important
advertisers, individuals
or institutions and a deference to the power structure by the predominate use of
authority
sources. In addition, the freedom of individual journalists is constrained in
the newsroom by
the institutions for which they work in the form of subtle "conditioned
beliefs."
Instead of a powerful "watchdog" press role, media more accurately act as
"guard-
dogs," protecting those in power and attacking those in vulnerable or weaker but
threatening
positions. When conflict surfaces, media possess the ability to selectively use
or suppress
certain kinds of information deemed potentially harmful to maintenance of the
status quo, the
so-called gatekeeping role. But media also have the discretion to distribute
information about
conflict, providing feedback and applying corrective pressures to selected
social issues or
conflicts (such as through editorial comment or continued attention), increasing
the likelihood
that the larger system will respond.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND MEDIA COVERAGE
One source of conflict surrounding social issues is social movements. A
social movement
is a more-or-less persistent and organized effort by a relatively large number
of people designed
to bring about--or resist--social change. Once a social movement has emerged
and begun to take
part in articulating and defining a social problem, messages must be brought to
members and
potential members through a variety of channels. Movement-controlled channels
are important
but limited in reach. Eventually, movement groups (often referred to as SMOs or
social
movement organizations) seek to expand their base of support and gain the
attention of policy-
makers and elites through coverage in the mass media. In modern society, media
have become
the "central battleground" for addressing social problems which challenging
protest groups
"ignore at their peril."
Mass media attention is important for SMOs whether they are large or
small, informal
or formal, but perhaps for different reasons. For informal, new or
resource-poor protest groups,
coverage is important for mobilizing, gaining legitimation and acquiring access
to a wider
audience. According to Wolfsfeld, newsworthy behavior (particularly disorder,
if it's covered)
can serve as a substitute for status and resources.
But as Zald and McCarthy noted, attracting media attention is also
extremely important
for large, established SMOs trying to hold onto members who are distant and
unconnected.
Van den Hoonaard concluded that in large groups, solidarity with distant members
must be
attained not through direct personal contact but through special publications
and mass media.
The media's reporting process has consequences for social protest and its
presentation
to the public. By deciding whether to air news of social protest, what sources
to use and how
to "frame" the issue, the media can greatly shape a protest message for a public
audience.
Media coverage may portray social protestors as deviant law-breakers threatening
the social
fabric, or as legitimate, concerned citizens alerting the public to a serious
problem deserving of
attention and action. Those who are able to participate in the articulation of
a social problem
in the mass media are more likely to have a role in how that social problem is
defined and
ultimately acted upon.
The need for media attention can affect the nature of the group itself.
Molotch stated
that "the medium becomes the movement" because media coverage pursued by a group
shapes
its leadership, its tactics and ultimately its success. Kielbowicz and Scherer
said the need for
sustained media attention can drive a movement group to change its internal
organization to
better suit the media's needs.
The Arguments: Bureaucracy and Social Movements
Although "bureaucracy" is most often associated with government, it also
refers to a type
of organization or management style found in many types of groups. Blau wrote
that despite
connotations with inefficiency and red tape, the term bureaucracy was used in
sociology
"neutrally" to refer to the administrative aspects of organizations, often
indicated by the amount
of energy devoted to organizational maintenance rather than to achieving
objectives.
Characteristics of bureaucratic organization include jurisdictional areas
ordered by rules,
a system of office hierarchy, super- and sub-ordination of positions, a
concentration of
leadership and management based on written documents. A bureaucratically
organized group
also has highly differentiated staff positions that require specialized
qualifications or training,
such as attorneys or media directors.
There are two competing arguments or models among social movement
researchers
concerning the effect of bureaucratization upon protest group success. One
model (supported
by Weber, Michels, Piven and Cloward, Gerlach and Hine, and Breines) holds that
highly
formalized and bureaucratically organized groups are less successful because
they tend to become
more conservative and ineffective, suffer from a diffusion of protest and are
alienated from a
grassroots base of support. Weber concluded that increasing bureaucratization
led inevitably
to conservatism, as charismatic leaders with radical aims were replaced by
administrative leaders
more concerned with organizational maintenance than social change. Michels held
that large-
scale social organization and democracy were fundamentally incompatible:
"Whoever says
organization says oligarchy." With increasing organization, a mass movement
became more
hierarchical and came to reflect the structural characteristics of the
surrounding social order it
was seeking to change.
Several scholars have found utility in the Weber-Michels model for
modern-day
movements. Van den Hoonaard concluded that large, formally organized groups
seemed to
show less "radicalism and decisiveness" and had subdued extreme aspirations,
"lest they offend
any element within the group." Piven and Cloward insisted that organized
movements
basically cannot protect themselves from cooptation and that formal
organizations divert the
collective energy of mobilized individuals into routine politics. Gerlach and
Hine said that a
defining element of a social movement--face-to-face recruitment at the
grassroots level--was
compromised by a hierarchical, more distant organization. Gerlach and Hine, and
Breines,
concluded that decentralized, informal movements were more likely to succeed.
The other model (based upon resource mobilization theory and supported by
Zald and
McCarthy, Gamson, Staggenborg, and Kielbowicz and Scherer) states that a
bureaucratic
organization style instead indicates the presence of a differentiated,
professional staff who
contribute to long-term maintenance and stability and who possess the
legitimation and ability
to attract continuing media attention.
Gamson found that bureaucratically organized groups were moderately more
successful
because a bureaucratic structure gave them a "higher readiness for action" and
helped with the
problem of maintenance. Gamson, using bureaucracy characteristics similar to
Weber's,
found that the larger the group, the easier it was to gain acceptance, although
size made no
difference in securing new advantages.
Staggenborg found in her study of groups in the pro-choice movement that
a formalized
structure in movement groups served to maintain the movement, especially when
issue conditions
made mobilization difficult. She concluded that it was the combination of
formalized
structure and professional leadership that facilitated organizational
maintenance.
Kielbowicz and Scherer said that bureaucratization derives in part from
the need for
sustained media attention, attention which can greatly contribute to the
movement's success in
expanding its concerns to the general public and onto the policy makers' agenda.
But the
demands of media reporting routines (among them the need for authoritative
sources who are
credible and easily located) can have a moderating and conservatizing force on
social movement
organizations.
Hypotheses: Bureaucracy and Media Coverage
PROTEST TACTICS
Researchers on both sides of the bureaucratization argument agree that
the formalization
of movement groups often signals a shift away from direct action tactics. For a
small,
informal group, dramatic direct action can serve as a substitute for status and
resources, can aid
in mobilization and attention, and has inherent, undeniable newsworthiness.
However, "disruptive" direct actions carry risks for groups engaging in
them, for they
may alienate a wide base of members or ties to the power structure and may be
marginalized
in media coverage.
Both Barkan and Vogel noted that direct action was a liability to some
organizations in the
anti-nuclear movement.
The media, as agents of social stability, may view "institutional"
protest actions as less
threatening. Professional, diversified bureaucratic groups typically have
available a much wider
range of institutional tactics, such as providing expert testimony at a hearing,
calling a news
conference or issuing a scientific report, tactics which also are more
compatible with the
working schedules of professional activists and reporters alike.
The evolution of the environmental movement itself undoubtedly has
contributed to the
institutionalization of protest tactics. Major changes in the social and
political structure, namely
the development of government regulatory agencies and the establishment of
complex
environmental laws, provided incentives for SMOs to switch their routines and
adjust their
division of labor to match the institutional structure with similarly oriented
tactics. Growing
public consensus about the need for environmental protection allowed movement
leaders to shift
attention to organizational efficiency and stability, goals better suited to
institutional protest
tactics than potentially alienating direct action. It follows that:
H1: The greater the degree of bureaucratization in an environmental
group, the
more likely it will have institutional protest strategies mentioned in
media
coverage about the group, rather than direct-action strategies.
BUREAUCRATIZATION AND AGE
Both the Weber-Michels and resource mobilization models imply that
bureaucratic
organizational structures are products of age, something that inevitably happens
to groups over
time. Indeed, age seemed to be the driving force behind bureaucratization
itself in the Weber-
Michels model; Weber envisioned that the engine of bureaucratization had a
momentum that was
irreversible. One of the consequences of age and increasing bureaucratization,
again in both
models, was a shift from direct action to "tamer," more institutionalized forms
of action.
H2: There will be positive relationship both between age and level of
bureaucracy, and
between age and reported use of institutional protest tactics.
BUREAUCRATIZATION AND MEDIA COVERAGE
Because the media have long since granted environmental issues a certain
degree of
legitimation, environmental groups do not have to strive to get brand new and
unfamiliar topics
onto the media agenda. But because problem definition surrounding environmental
issues is a
continuous and competitive process, movement groups must continue to present
their issues
(and their role in them) as serious and newsworthy. As Kielbowicz and Scherer
noted,
movement groups are in a constant need to create "newness" in their claims to
sustain media
attention until such claims are resolved.
Kielbowicz and Scherer also argued that bureaucratized groups have an
advantage in
sustaining media attention because of the legitimated status granted
organizations who establish
themselves as centralized, authoritative sources. For example, the development
of a public
relations apparatus "can make news on demand without resorting to the extreme
tactics that
might prove counterproductive."
Fishman said bureaucratic groups possess an advantage because of what he
called the
"principle of bureaucratic affinity," meaning that it takes a bureaucracy to
deal with a
bureaucracy. Fishman concluded that bureaucratic organizations can best satisfy
media demands
with reliable, predictable raw materials delivered in scheduled ways.
Staggenborg acknowledged that the work routines of bureaucratic
organizations are well-
suited to media needs. A reporter can locate more easily an authoritative
source, who works
regular business hours, in groups with hierarchical, centralized structures than
in decentralized
groups.
Based on this discussion, one may hypothesize:
H3: The greater the degree of bureaucratization in an environmental
group, the
greater the amount of media coverage it will receive.
BUREAUCRATIC ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE AGENDAS
One final consideration is the relationship between bureaucratic
organization and
influence on institutional decision-making concerning the environment. While
media coverage
given to environmental groups represents a direct influence in this regard,
groups also may have
an indirect role in shaping the issues and information the media disseminate.
If the media view
a certain group as legitimate, media attention to certain issues may be
influenced by that group's
participation in related institutional arenas (legislative bodies, courts,
regulatory agencies) and
by the information (news releases and other publications) it makes available.
Gamson and Wolfsfeld similarly argued that the greater the resources,
organization and
professionalism of a movement and the more it dedicated itself to media
strategies, the greater
its media standing and the more prominent its preferred coverage frame. One
indication of
such success is a group's ability to shape the media issue agenda to match its
own, as well as
participate in media discussion of those issues. Therefore,
H4: The greater the degree of bureaucratization in an environmental
group, the
closer the relationship between the issue agenda of the environmental
group and
issue agenda of the media.
Methods and Measures
Given the longevity of the environmental movement and media attention
given to
environmental issues, one can assume that a great deal of the problem definition
concerning the
environment takes place at a national (if not international) level. Some
scholars believe that
today's environmental movement is dominated by groups that seek a national
constituency and
that such national groups are clearly the most visible and most influential
actors for the
movement.
Today's national environmental groups represent a wide range of sizes and
organizational
styles. For example, of the 16 national groups chosen for this study, six have
over one million
members, while two have less than 25,000 members and one (Earth First!) does not
consider
itself a membership organization. Size of paid staff varies widely, from nearly
1,000 to none.
Many groups (particularly the largest ones) hire staff attorneys, lobbyists,
scientists and
marketing consultants and typify what Zald and McCarthy refer to as
"professional social
movement organizations."
Based on an extensive review of published material on the environmental
movement and
consultation with environmentalists, 16 groups were chosen to represent a broad
cross-section
of national groups in terms of size, age, tactics, location and organizational
styles. The
sample is very representative of the current movement; for the largest and most
prominent
groups in particular, the sample can be considered all-inclusive. (Groups are
listed on p. 14.)
NEWSPAPER SAMPLING
The primary media sampled were three large, prestigious newspapers
located in important
policy centers: the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.
Newspapers
from both coasts were included to provide balance to the East Coast-based and
West Coast-based
environmental groups. The Washington Post was included because that city is
considered the
center of environmental regulation and decision making. The large news-hole in
these three
newspapers ensured an adequate number of stories, particularly from smaller
groups.
The name of each environmental group was entered in a keyword search in
the
Nexis/Lexis database to locate stories. The sample time frame chosen was the
first nine
months of 1992, which yielded close to 2,000 stories. If any group was
mentioned in fewer
than 20 stories, oversampling was done and later weighted in analysis
(oversampled N=82).
Stories for all other groups were obtained through systematic random sampling.
Omitted stories
were those less than 10 words, wedding and obituary announcements, and duplicate
stories in
different editions. The final sample size was 490 stories.
In addition to coding basic story information (such as number of words,
location in
newspaper and sources), specific information was coded for mentions of the 16
groups (such as
tactics, issues and prominence of mention).
After exploratory coding, it became apparent that environmental group
participation went
beyond direct action tactics (boycotts, marches and "eco-tage") and
institutional tactics ("paper
protests" such as issuing statements, studies or reports; holding news
conferences; and
participating in legal, regulatory, business or political arenas). A
"responder" category was
added to indicate when an environmental group provided an opinion or response to
the story
topic, but no specific action or tactic of the group was mentioned.
All coding was done by the author. Two other coders helped establish
intercoder
reliability on a random sample of 25 stories for the nine key variables.
Overall reliability was
computed as 91%, and ranged from 75% to 100%.
CONSTRUCTION OF BUREAUCRACY MEASURE
To construct the independent measure of bureaucracy, telephone surveys
were conducted
with each group; questions concerned internal organization, decision making,
issues, goals,
tactics and media relations activities. Prior research guided the development
of questions
concerning internal organization, namely the work of Gamson; Staggenborg; Weber;
Blau;
McCarthy, Britt and Wolfson; and Zald and McCarthy.
Two scales were identified initially from information obtained in the
telephone survey:
degree of specialization (Cronbach's alpha=.78) and internal organization
(Cronbach's
alpha=.85). The two scales were combined to form an overall bureaucratization
scale
(Cronbach's alpha of .83), which is listed in Table 1.
The bureaucracy scale was used to assign a low, medium or high
bureaucracy level for
each group: Audubon Society (H), Citizens' Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes
(L), Earth
First! (L), Earth Island Institute (L), Environmental Defense Fund (M), Friends
of the Earth (L),
Greenpeace (M), Izaak Walton League (L), National Wildlife Federation (H),
Natural Resources
Defense Council (H), Nature Conservancy (H), Rainforest Action Network (L), Sea
Shepherd
Conservation Society (L), Sierra Club (M), Wilderness Society (M) and World
Wildlife Fund
(H).
Results
Of the 490 stories, nearly 47% were found in the Los Angeles Times, with
23% in the
Washington Post and 30% in the New York Times. There were no significant
differences
among newspapers in story length, location or story type. While the three
papers mentioned
roughly the same number of environmental groups per story, the New York Times
gave
significantly fewer mentions and prominence to groups in the medium level of
bureaucracy.
The environmental group is the unit of analysis for the four tested
hypotheses, and one-
way ANOVA means are presented with a significance level for differences between
bureaucracy
levels. Significance tests are presented despite the small number of groups
because the means
presented also represent the large random sample of newspaper stories.
H1: BUREAUCRACY AND PROTEST TACTICS
The data do not support the hypothesis that the greater the
bureaucratization in an
environmental group, the more likely institutional protest actions would be
reported about that
group. Table 2 shows that the data are in the hypothesized direction, but the
differences are not
statistically significant. All groups engaged in fairly high levels of
institutional actions, perhaps
not surprising due to the long history of the movement and the longevity of many
of the groups
within it. It may be that the current decision-making structures for
environmental issues--highly
institutionalized in agencies, laws and regulations--are a strong shaper of the
kind of action
undertaken by environmental groups. Nevertheless, this finding does not support
the notion that
bureaucracy level determines the kind of tactics with which movement groups are
associated.
H2: BUREAUCRATIZATION AND AGE
The data do not support the hypothesis; there was no relationship between
age and level
of bureaucracy; the average age of both medium and high bureaucracy groups was
about 50
years (Table 3). The age of the groups also was not significantly related to
the use of any type
of action. Older groups were more likely to use institutional actions, but the
relationship was
not significant.
H3: BUREAUCRACY AND MEDIA COVERAGE
The data suggest that the relationship between bureaucracy level and
media coverage--
hypothesized because of the advantage of resources, legitimated status and
"bureaucratic
affinity"--may not be a linear one. As Table 4 shows, both in terms of amount
and
prominence in newspaper coverage, there is a statistically significant
curvilinear relationship:
groups with a medium level of bureaucracy were most successful. Low bureaucracy
groups,
when adjusted for oversampling, received extremely little mention or prominence
in these
stories. These groups are perhaps the most needy of media coverage but are
least successful
getting it.
H4: BUREAUCRACY AND ISSUE AGENDAS
Table 5 shows that there was no relationship between bureaucracy level
and media issue
agendas, which was tested in three different ways. Information regarding
environmental groups'
issues came from the telephone survey, when respondents were asked to name the
top three
issues on which their group focused. In addition, each newspaper story was
coded with the
issue(s) with which it was concerned.
The first test was a match of issue rankings (shown in the first row of
Table 5) between
the groups' own identified issues and the rankings of the 12 most frequently
portrayed newspaper
issues. The second test (second row of Table 5) was the percentage of success
that groups had
being mentioned in stories that discussed the issues they had identified as most
important to
them. The third test (third row of Table 5) was how successful groups were in
participating in
the newspapers' issue agenda, as represented by the top three reported issues.
Medium and high bureaucracy groups did have an extremely high issue
diversity: medium
and high groups were mentioned at least once for about 10 of the 12 coded
issues. This was
statistically different from low bureaucracy groups (one-way ANOVA, between
group
significance, p=.002), which were mentioned in connection with an average of
about five issues.
The extremely high issue diversity may have contributed to lack of a
relationship between issue
agendas; groups may strive to "cover all the bases" rather than to match closely
the newspapers'
issue agendas, which may also diffuse participation success.
Summary and Discussion
This research attempted to test a dispute in the social movement
literature: are high levels
of bureaucracy associated with increased or decreased success, measured here as
prestige-
newspaper coverage an environmental group is able to secure. Contrary to the
linear
relationships predicted by both the Weber-Michels model and the resource
mobilization model,
these data suggest a curvilinear relationship between level of bureaucracy and
media success.
The much greater ability of medium bureaucracy groups to obtain media coverage
should lead
scholars to question previous assumptions about the linear relationship between
bureaucracy and
social movement success, and to investigate bureaucracy as more than a simple
dichotomous
variable.
A curvilinear relationship in many ways synthesizes these two conflicting
models. To
the extent that mass media coverage is the criterion, the Weber-Michels model
has utility: there
does appear to be a certain high level of bureaucracy beyond which groups are
less effective in
attracting media attention, a so-called "point of diminishing returns."
However, it appears that
a minimal level of bureaucracy is also necessary to garnering media coverage.
The low
bureaucracy groups were unable to compete for media space because, as Kielbowicz
and Scherer
hypothesized, they lacked an organizational structure that could establish
themselves as
professional, centralized and authoritative sources.
By equating media coverage with movement group "success," the assumption
is made that
these groups desire more coverage. Some groups may have changed their
organizational
strategies to concentrate their involvement and participation in other
institutional arenas, rather
than on obtaining media coverage. After all, media visibility represents only
one aspect of
organizational information control, and at times, groups may avoid media
visibility and actually
withhold information.
However, all the medium and high bureaucracy groups reported in the
telephone survey that
media coverage was either fairly or extremely important to group goals, and high
bureaucracy
groups had hired the largest PR staffs to carry out that mission. It is
plausible that increasing
bureaucratization brings an opportunity to expand movement strategies into other
areas, be they
legal, political or educational. But according to these group informants, such
expansion has not
taken place at the expense of also working diligently to obtain media coverage.
If high bureaucracy environmental groups are indeed striving for media
coverage, and
in very sophisticated ways, why the decreased ability to get coverage? One
could speculate that
one "cost" of increasing bureaucracy is increasing organizational rigidity. A
rigid organization
is less able to make quick adjustments in its operation and may be better
prepared for proactive
campaigns than for reactive ones (including serving as media "responders").
Organizational
rigidity can also mean an inward focus on maintenance. Therefore, a larger
media staff may
spend more time in organizational maintenance and is unable to obtain a
proportionately larger
share of media coverage.
Bureaucracy, as suggested by the resource mobilization model, has no
doubt enabled
environmental movement groups to survive adverse issue conditions and to take
advantage of
favorable conditions for over a century. Yet bureaucracy may have limited
appeal as a positive
"resource" and deserves to be further investigated.
The pessimistic predictions of Michels' "iron law of oligarchy" and
Weber's "iron cage"
of bureaucracy, while of utility for understanding movement groups and media
coverage, has
proved too rigid a scenario and is not an automatic outcome of aging movement
groups.
However, this model also predicts that social movements will eventually resemble
the
surrounding social order, which can be said of the institutionally oriented
environmental
movement. The outcome of structural resemblance, said Weber and Michels, is
accommodation
and cooptation.
COOPTATION OR ACCESS TO POWER
If higher bureaucracy groups have emulated the bureaucratic
characteristics and structures
of the "power elite," does this resemblance indicate cooptation, or instead, an
increased access
to power and less need to rely on media coverage for obtaining group goals?
Perhaps a little
of both: environmental groups have gained increasing amounts of access, but some
would argue,
not proportional increases in success.
Since the growth of the governmental environmental bureaucracy (which the
movement
worked hard to create), many environmental groups have hired their own legal
staffs and
lobbyists to better participate in political and governmental decision making.
Environmental
groups have cultivated connections with the power elite, such as corporate
donations and cross-
over appointments (from government and industry) to boards of director and paid
staff. This
degree of access to power may mean that bureaucratic environmental groups no
longer must
continually pound the pavement "giving gospel" about environmental values.
But the movement's connections with and reliance on the power structure
to protect the
environment has not achieved group goals. During the 1980s, highly professional
environmental
groups were unable to stop political and governmental institutions from undoing
or weakening
resource protection. Shabecoff's history of the environmental movement noted
that despite the
abundance of environmental laws, there have been minimal changes in basic
underlying social
and economic values that lead to environmental degradation. Even the general
public, who
now generally accepts environmentalism and environmental values, believes the
environmental
movement has stalled. All this suggests a movement coopted by the power
structure, or by
Gamson's definition a movement that has gained acceptance but not sought-after
advantages.
One might speculate that if the high bureaucracy groups in particular
have been coopted
by the power establishment, they should get more media coverage--not
less--because the media
support and uphold establishment values. These high bureaucracy groups did
receive
significantly less criticism and slightly more mobilizing information than
medium bureaucracy
groups, but not more overall coverage. It may be that their connections and
structural
similarities to the power elite have made them easier to ignore--and politely
marginalize--in the
media debate.
Herein lies the paradox: the more that environmental movement groups
resemble or try
to work with the power elite, the less attractive they may become as news
sources who can
speak in positions of authority and power for the environmental movement.
Working with
the power elite and institutions cannot be considered, however, a new or changed
organizational
strategy for the environmental movement. All of the older groups have a long
history of
participation in institutional arenas and have worked as partners with
government and business
perhaps as often as they have battled them. For example, the Audubon Society
had extremely
close ties with the White House during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency. A
coalition of
conservationists, government and business worked to establish Yellowstone
National Park. The
Sierra Club was able to secure $10,000 in 1915 from the California legislature
to build the John
Muir Trail, in honor of the club's first president. Although the groups
represent a broad
ideology that ranges from utilitarian to staunch preservation, the modern
movement differs little
from its roots in the intellectual elite who sought modest protections and not a
drastic
reformulation of the basic human-nature relationship. And modest reform groups
are a more
logical target of cooptation by the power elite.
BUREAUCRACY AND AGE
Much of the prior research has implied that formalized, bureaucratic
organizational
structures were products of age, an inevitable consequence for movement groups
over time.
This study did not find a significant relationship between age and
bureaucratization, nor between
age and group tactics. In addition, increasing group age does not signal an
abrupt abandonment
of direct action for tamer and more socially acceptable institutional actions,
suggesting that
perhaps movement groups possess a greater amount of control over the process or
outcome of
bureaucratization.
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AS MEDIA PARTICIPANTS
What is perhaps a telling indication of SMO participation in media
discussion of the
environment is the nature of the groups' involvement in media stories, as well
as their success
in participating in issues deemed important to them.
According to Goodwyn, social protest under narrow and limited conditions
is not only
permissible in a democratic society, it is also positively desirable. Goodwyn
held that protest
fortifies the popular understanding that society is functioning democratically
and working to
correct its social problems.
But engaging in social protest, even when using socially acceptable
institutional protest
tactics, does not guarantee media coverage for any protest group. And
resource-rich
bureaucratic groups in this study did not have an advantage in presenting more
group protest
tactics to the newspaper public, institutional or otherwise.
The high percentage of "no action" reported in connection with these
groups should also
be noted. As Hilgartner and Bosk maintain, problem definition of social issues
is a continuous
process, and participants continually struggle to present their issues and their
role in them.
These groups, while participating in some fashion, nevertheless often don't
succeed in getting
their group's role or actions across to the newspaper public. Whatever merit
having one's group
mentioned in the New York Times may hold, such merit is marginalized when the
reader is
given no idea if the group is doing anything regarding the issue. The actions
taken by these
SMOs may not be taken as seriously or given as much attention as actions of more
powerful
individuals and groups. Although most of these groups present a relatively mild
"threat" by the
changes they seek, as movement groups they nevertheless still challenge the
operation of
institutions in the dominant power structure.
Despite environmental group factions during the 1970s and early 1980s
that helped spawn
a new radical arm of the movement, direct action is simply not portrayed as a
frequently used
tactic in these newspapers. (The primary exceptions came from two of the seven
low
bureaucracy groups, Earth First! and Sea Shepherd, and one of the four medium
bureaucracy
groups, Greenpeace.) Some have suggested that resource-poor movement groups in
particular
must create disruptions in order to obtain coverage, but disruptions may be
ignored by
prestigious media as threatening to the status quo. What is unknown, however,
is whether these
groups (and others) actually use direct action much more frequently but which
goes unreported
by these (and perhaps other) papers.
This study suggests that none of these national environmental groups has
the ability to
dominate or even define the environmental issue agenda in these prestige
newspapers. As
hypothesized by Gamson and Wolfsfeld, the more resources and organization a
group had, the
greater its media standing and preferred coverage frame would be. Although
these simple
issue agenda measures do not attempt to quantify "preferred frames," they do
nevertheless call
into question the notion that resources help a group shape the media issue
agenda. More
resources may help groups take on more issues, but it does not mean that
high-resource groups
are necessarily able to participate more fully in any of them. Certainly, other
factors noted by
researchers play an important role in media gatekeeping decisions regarding
environmental
issues, factors such as drama, visual qualities, timing, prominence and the
nature of the
conflict. In addition, the sheer number of environmental issues makes it less
likely that a
group could hold a dominant position in relation to any one of them; this
contrasts with single-
issue movements such as abortion or gun control.
Although movement groups may sometimes influence media reporting
decisions,
journalists most often take their gatekeeping cues from the power structure of
which they are
a part. One cue may be that medium bureaucracy groups appear less coopted, more
powerful
and are better able to speak for the movement. In this study, these groups are
also ones that
possess a great deal of prestige and professionalism (most notably Sierra Club
and Greenpeace).
Such prestige may ultimately outweigh the importance of large, resource-rich
bureaucratic
structures and may matter most with media gatekeepers who are agents of power in
the social
control of conflict and change.
Individual group power and prestige notwithstanding, the environmental
issue agenda
remains the purview of the power elite in government, business and politics.
The coverage
illustrates that these newspapers have lots of news sources and potential
stories, and do not
necessarily need a strong hand from national environmental groups. As Gamson
and Wolfsfeld
aptly point out, "The fact that movements need the media far more than the media
need them
translates into greater power for the media in the transaction." But as these
scholars
acknowledge, the media are agents of power, not direct possessors of it:
"Journalists...do not
invent the rules of access [to media coverage]; these are structural, reflecting
power differences
between actors in the larger society."
N O T E S
A B S T R A C T
Media, Bureaucracy and the Success of Social Protest:
Media Coverage of Environmental Movement Groups
This study investigated a point of disagreement in the literature: does
organizational
bureaucracy help or hinder the success of social protest, measured here as
prestige
newspaper coverage given to environmental groups. Contrary to previous
research, these
data found a curvilinear relationship between level of bureaucracy and media
success;
medium bureaucracy groups were most successful at securing coverage.
Bureaucracy--and
attendant conservative protest tactics--also were not automatic consequences of
aging protest
groups; there was no relationship between bureaucracry level and either group
age or tactics.
Media, Bureaucracy and the Success of Social Protest:
Media Coverage of Environmental Movement Groups
Julia B. Corbett
University of Utah
Department of Communication
LNCO 2400, Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 581-4557
[log in to unmask]
TABLE 1
Bureaucratization Scale
22-point scale: group received one point for presence of
each item. Because of importance of size to organizational
bureaucracy, up to two points were given for staff size and
number of members.
1. staff specialization: legal
2. staff specialization: lobbyist
3. staff specialization: scientist/experts
4. staff specialization: direct mail consultants
5. staff specialization: marketing/advertising
6. staff specialization: tax/accountants
7. outside dependence on public relations consultants
8-9. staff size, full-time equivalents (0 to 2 pts)
10. cross-over appointments: staff member came from
government or industry
11. cross-over appointments: staff member serves on
government advisory group
12. cross-over appointments: board of directors member
employed by government or industry
13. cross-over appointments: staff member serves on industry
board
14. mission statement or charter
15. board of directors
16. executive committee on board of directors
17. organization chart
18. field offices
19-20. number of members (0 to 2 pts)
21. perceived degree of formalization
22. type of group tactics
Discarded items:
(very low or negative correlations and/or reliability)
outside dependence (on attorneys, lobbyists, scientists)
presence of chapters
affiliated foundation
tax status
non-profit mailing status
perceived activity level of members
presence/absence of factions
perceived concentration of decision making
TABLE 2
Mean Percent of Actions of Environmental Groups
by Level of Bureaucracy
One-Way ANOVA Means
Lo Bureauc Med Bureauc Hi Bureauc Btw. Grp
(7) (4) (5) Signif.
Type Action
direct action 11.69 6.22 0 p=.266
institutional 39.09 46.11 55.88 .227
action
"responder" 9.64 27.25 15.10 .092
no action 39.58 20.27 29.02 .141
______ ______ ______
100 % 100 % 100 %
TABLE 3
Environmental Group Age by Tactics Used
and Relationship with Bureaucracy
One-Way ANOVA Means
AGE AND TACTICS
Tactics Group Age Btw. Grp
<18 yrs 23-43 yrs 58-102 yrs Signif.
direct 1.60 2.50 0.20 p=.639
action
institutional 4.20 22.5 29.8 .198
action
responder 0.60 10.17 9.0 .122
action
no action 3.0 10.0 16.6 .158
AGE AND BUREAUCRACY
Lo Bureauc Med Bureauc Hi Bureauc Btw. Grp
Signif.
Age 23.14 52.75 49.4 p=.165
(years)
TABLE 4
Environmental Group Coverage
Amount and Prominence by Level of Bureaucracy
One-Way ANOVA Means
Lo Bureauc* Med Bureauc Hi Bureauc Btw. Grp
(7) (4) (5) Signif.
No. Mentions 3.59 71.75 47.0 p=.009
in all stories
Overall .038 .840 .544 .010
prominence in
all stories
Individual Prominence Measures
group placement .011 .240 .160 p=.013
in story
amount group .010 .220 .144 .010
mentioned
specificity .017 .380 .240 .006
of reference
* Low bureaucracy group scores weighted for oversampling.
TABLE 5
Environmental Group Issue Agendas
Compared with Newspaper Issue Agendas
by Level of Bureaucracy
One-Way ANOVA Means
Lo Bureauc Med Bureauc Hi Bureauc Btw.
(7) (4) (5) Grp.
Signif
Match of issue 7.79 6.15 8.50 p=.192
rankings
Percent success, 57.84 45.83 53.35 .594
participation in
own issues
Percent success, 32.79 46.03 43.80 .521
participation in
top newsp. issues
|
