Framing the National Issues Convention
For submission to the
Civic Journalism Interest Group
AEJMC
April 1, 1996
Lisa Wyatt
Graduate Student
University of Texas at Austin
Please direct inquiries to:
Lisa Wyatt
5111 Mt. Bonnell Rd.
Austin, TX 78731
(512) 452-5636
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Framing the National Issues Convention
Abstract
The deliberative poll as developed by Fishkin and
conceptualized in the National Issues Convention of 1996 presents
a
critique of the media and their relationship with the democratic
process. This paper begins by identifying these explicit and
implicit
criticisms of the media. Fishkin's assertion that the
deliberative
poll answers many of the problems with the media and his linking
of
the project with public journalism are discussed. Finally, a
qualitative content analysis identifies the dominant frames in
print
media coverage of the NIC.
Framing the National Issues Convention
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
The National Issues Convention 2
The Deliberative Poll and Media Criticism 2
Media Content 3
Media Effects 5
Audience and Relationships with the Public 6
What's Missing from Fishkin's Media Critique? 6
Public Journalism and the Deliberative Poll 7
The Deliberative Poll and News Frames 10
Predictions of Frames 11
Coverage of the NIC 13
Purpose of the Study 13
Method 14
Results 15
Predictions of Frames and Impressions from the Coverage. 16
Frames in Coverage Missing from the Predicted Frames. 24
Summary and Conclusions 24
Limitations of the Study 25
Suggestions for Further Research 26
Tables 27
Table One: Study Sample (Number of Stories by Paper) 27
Table Two: Number of Stories by Region 28
Table Three: Number of Stories by Date and NIC Events 28
Table Four: Number of Stories by Section/Page 29
Table Five: Number of Stories by Number of Paragraphs 29
Table Six: Number of Stories by Byline 29
Table Seven: Number of Stories by Type of News Item 30
Table Eight: Number of Stories by Main Topic 30
Table Nine: Mentions of Predicted Frames 31
Table Ten: Predicted Frames in Order of Frequency 32
Framing the National Issues Convention
Introduction
In January of 1996, political scientist James S. Fishkin conducted an
experiment that asked an interesting question: "Is it possible to transform the
entire country into 'Magic Town,' where citizens really care about the issues,
where they are willing to think them through, and where they are also willing to
contribute their time, resources, and labor to make their communities function?"
[1] The image of "Magic Town" is based on the Jimmy Stewart movie of the same
name. It is a symbol of a hypothetical American public that would be engaged in
public affairs and informed on issues. "Magic Town" is the ideal in contrast
with the reality of today's media "echo chamber," reverberating with sound bites
and the shouts of instant opinion polls and lacking thoughtful deliberation or
rational meaning.
The deliberative poll experiment as conceptualized in the 1996
National Issues Convention (NIC) presents both an implicit and explicit critique
of the mass media and their relationship with democratic theory and practice.
It represents a unique intersection between the fields of political science and
media studies because Fishkin presents the NIC as a solution to some of the
problems associated with media and politics. He also calls for the use of
public journalism to help reform democratic practice.
This paper begins by classifying Fishkin's media critique in terms of
a media studies perspective and how the NIC is seen as a solution. Next, the
relationship between the deliberative poll and the public journalism is
discussed. Finally, predictions of possible news frames of the event itself are
made and a qualitative content analysis of those frames is conducted on a sample
of print media coverage from Jan. 14, 1996 through Feb. 4, 1996.
The National Issues Convention
The NIC was held Jan. 18-21 at the University of Texas at Austin.
The project brought to Austin a randomly selected sample of 459 eligible voters
from across the United States. Participants were given objective, non-biased
briefing materials developed by The Kettering Foundation and Public Agenda which
discussed three issues--the state of the family, the economy and the role of the
United States in the post Cold War era. Small group discussions about these
issues were moderated by trained volunteers working with the National Issues
Forums.
All major 1996 presidential election candidates were invited to
participate in question and answer sessions with the participants; however, only
Vice President Gore and Sen. Richard Lugar appeared in person. Sen. Phil Gramm,
Gov. Lamar Alexander and publisher Steve Forbes appeared by satellite.
President Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole declined to participate.
Opinion polls were conducted on the participants before and after the
convention to measure the effects of deliberation on participants' opinions.
PBS broadcast 11 hours of coverage of the NIC, including live coverage of the
discussions with candidates and a documentary after the event. The NIC was
intended to use "television's 'public square' to bring citizens closer to the
candidates and the issues in 1996."[2]
The Deliberative Poll and Media Criticism
That the rationale for the deliberative poll even exists is itself a
criticism of the media and their relationship with democratic practice. Running
throughout Fishkin's The Voice of the People, media interviews with the
professor and newspaper editorials on the idea of the deliberative poll are
explicit statements as well as implied hints of criticism of the media. In
general, the media are seen as failing to fulfil their proper role in
facilitating the process of democracy in America. Fishkin presents the
deliberative poll as a solution to these problems. He also asserts a
relationship between the NIC and the concept of public journalism, a subject
currently debated by editors and journalists throughout the country.
Fishkin's criticisms of the media may be categorized into areas of
media content, media effects, and audience or public relationships, and then
linked with components of the NIC which Fishkin presents as solutions to these
problems.
Media Content
Elite groups manipulate media content. The strongest theme regarding
media content is that of manipulation by elites, both in politics and the media.
The idea that political spin doctors are not to be trusted and have the ability
to manipulate the media is implicit in Fishkin's discussion. He sees America as
a "society whose politics is dominated by opinion polls and elite
manipulations."[3] There is a sense of collusion between politicians and the
media: "The national party conventions have become largely media pep rallies,
orchestrated in the name of party unity. Apparently spontaneous demonstrations
are often scripted to the minute for prime-time television viewing."[4] The
media are also seen as a conduit, allowing politicians to practice the "vicious
arts" of campaigning on a mass scale. [5]
Fishkin's remedy is direct communication between individuals in the
polity and between candidates and individuals. He uses the term "face-to-face"
deliberation repeatedly, suggesting that communication without the influence of
spin doctors or filtering by the media is both possible and required. The NIC's
small group discussions and the question and answer sessions with the candidates
are designed to provide this face-to-face deliberation without the influence of
spin doctors.
Self-selected groups purport to speak for the people but don't.
Another important theme regarding the content of media is the false sense that
the real voices of the people are present in the media. Fishkin sees this
happening through statements made by media commentators, reporting
non-scientific instant opinion polls, and airing audience views on radio talk
shows and televised "town meetings." These are all self-selected groups who
purport to speak for the people but speak only for themselves. [6] This
"pseudo-representation" of the voice of the people, Fishkin asserts, is "in
effect, spin-doctoring the debate for the rest of us." [7] Because its
participants are chosen through random sampling, the NIC is presented as an
authentic voice of the people.
Media content is narrowly and selectively focused. "In terms of the
politics that counts," Fishkin states, "if something is not on television, it
hasn't happened." [8] He uses effectively the visual image of Plato's cave
dwellers, chained and watching shadows on a wall which make up their total sense
of reality. Fishkin argues that television presents "reflected images that seem
real and important" and which constitute the political world for most people.
[9] The world of politics and that of the ordinary citizen are presented as
parallel universes, bridged occasionally by communication technology. The NIC,
on the other hand, is presented as both a chance to bridge these worlds without
the filter or conduit of the media and as widening the number of issues and
perspectives within political dialogue by giving voice to "the people."
Media content contains misleading information which comes to be
believed. Fishkin disputes Popkin's assertion that television viewers can pick
up and interpret cues about candidates on the evening news and that this
restores the "rationality of the 'reasoning voter.'" [10] Fishkin illustrates
with the incident of Gerald Ford eating an unshucked tamale as an example of a
cue that might have led Mexican-American viewers to an incorrect assumption that
Ford was a less plausible supporter of their interests than Reagan. "The
production of cues," Fishkin writes, "comes from such an inevitably incomplete,
manipulated, and accidental process of media and campaign coverage that it is
hard to credit the prospects for rational analysis of the outputs when the
inputs have such limitations." [11] He puts forth deliberative polling as
"intended to facilitate the public's creating more rational cues for itself on
national television." [12]
Media Effects
Media report meaningless polls which affect public policy and
opinion. Opinion polls reported in the media represent impressions or
non-attitudes rather than firmly held beliefs arrived at through deliberation
and are therefore not worth listening to. Fishkin writes, "When the fleeting
and volatile nature of many polls is combined with the mass media, nonexistent
opinions may take on a life of their own. As the metaphor of the echo chamber
suggests, television and polling reverberate together. Poll results are
reported in the media and are bounced back by the public in further polls,
regardless of whether the initial results had any substantial thought behind
them." [13] Fishkin hopes the NIC will set a public agenda based on meaningful
opinion.
Shrinking sound bites and impressions from headlines limit public
discourse. According to Fishkin, "The decline in the length of the sound bite
reduced the effective political discourse reaching much of the public to
messages worthy of fortune cookies or bumper stickers...Nine seconds (or seven
and a half) is never enough time to say anything adequate to the complexity of
important public problems." [14] There is also a suggestion that the public
may feel informed by paying attention to sound bites and headlines but that it
works in opposition to really being informed. The in-depth study of and
deliberation on the issues in the NIC is intended to expand public discourse.
Mass nature of today's media breed the conditions for rational
ignorance. Fishkin refers to Gallup's concept of the "one large room" as an
image of a national opinion poll. For Fishkin, however, "a 'room' of millions
creates the conditions for rational ignorance." [15] It highlights the fact
that one vote in millions does not have an impact, therefore, it is not a
rational use of time to study issues in depth in order to make an informed
choice. The NIC was expected to make delegates feel they were being listened to
and empowered to participate in public life.
Audience and Relationships with the Public
The audience is both passive and active. The public, or in media
studies terms, the audience, is portrayed in Fishkin's critique in seemingly
conflicting ways. First, the audience is presented as being subject to elite
manipulations by spin doctors as outlined above. Second, the audience is
depicted as being wary of these manipulations, as when Fishkin writes about
self-selected groups who purport to speak for the people, "but the public has
learned that such people also speak for themselves." [16] Additionally, Fishkin
asserts the public has an oppositional reading to the synthesized and carefully
presented public images of politicians: "We are conscious enough of the process
by which these images are produced, however, that we often do not believe the
speakers. We have become too conscious of the packaging to accept,
unhesitatingly, the image it is meant to present." [17] Again, there is a focus
on the NIC's candidate discussions as "packaging-free."
What's Missing from Fishkin's Media Critique?
Media filters are sometimes important and necessary. In a televised
seminar on television and the presidency, NBC News national correspondent Gwen
Ifill said, "People spend days figuring out how to lie to me. They're thinking,
'What can I do to get Gwen to say this?' I like to think I'm on a constant
search for truth. They are on a constant search for spin." [18]
It is true that the media do not perform the role of watchdog as well
as many would like. Many media scholars have pointed out that the relationship
between journalists and government officials is symbiotic. As Gurevitch and
Blumler have stated, "Politicians need access to the communication channels
operated by media organizations...Nor can journalists perform their task of
political reporting without access to politicians for interviews, news and
comment. Thus the practice of addressing citizens is something of a compromise
for both groups of communicators." [19]
There are still occasions, however, when the media provide an
essential reference point on political communication. Fishkin's proposal of
face-to-face deliberation is well-intentioned and has a certain common sense
"rightness" about it. However, even though the public may be distrustful of the
media and perceive them as biased, it remains that journalists have an ethical
duty to expose lies, half-truths, and inaccuracies in political communication.
Without journalists present to report on what politicians say, even at the small
town meetings of the past, politicians are more likely to contradict themselves
by saying what each group might want to hear or to outright lie in the hope that
no one will notice. This was not a problem during the NIC, however, as
journalists had full access to all events and the candidate discussions were
nationally broadcast.
Public Journalism and the Deliberative Poll
In The Voice of the People, Fishkin argues that "reforming the media
to allow meaningful public input" is a strategy for democratic reform.[20]
Public journalism is presented as the mechanism for achieving that goal.
Because of this relationship between public journalism and the NIC, coverage of
this event may have been heavily influenced by the concept and core values of
public journalism, even in papers who have not adopted public journalism in
practice. Fishkin's critique of the media is squarely in line with the goals
and values of public journalism as they relate to increasing the voice of the
public in political discourse.
Public, or civic, journalism is a topic hotly debated by newspaper
editors and media scholars. The core value of public journalism is a belief
that newspapers "exist so that people can participate in an effective public
life." [21] Newspaper editors and reporters who have adopted public journalism
have seen themselves as community activists. They claim a role in solving local
problems through facilitating both deliberation and citizen action. Jay Rosen,
associate professor of journalism at New York University and a major force in
the public journalism movement, believes its purpose is to "engage the public in
a search for solutions" and that the media are "doing what the conscientious
citizen would do given the time and resources to do it." [22]
Critics of public journalism see it as unethical and dangerous.
Michael Gartner, publisher of the Ames, Iowa, Daily Tribune has outlined several
often-made criticisms of public journalism. Gartner believes it is morally and
philosophically wrong, that it will decrease the credibility of newspapers as it
leads to taking sides, and that it distracts from fulfilling the real needs of
readers for facts. The role of newspapers is tell to the truth, Gartner says,
not to convene community meetings, write legislation or "sooth" readers. [23]
Fishkin's support of public journalism is unwavering, however. He
credits the movement with reconceptualizing the role of the media in American
politics. "Instead of standing back from the community," he writes, "the media
situate themselves within the community, attempting to facilitate a serious
discussion of shared public programs." [24] Fishkin's only criticism of public
journalism is its reliance on "impressionistic" opinion polls rather than
deliberative polls such as the NIC.
The relationship between public journalism and the deliberative poll
would seem to be natural and obvious. The NIC, however, presented both a
challenge and an opportunity to the news media. The challenge to the media was
that a successful NIC in 1996 might have illustrated vividly how badly the media
have been "missing the boat" when it comes to the public's desire for
information. This could have contributed to a loss of influence and the
strengthening of public perceptions of the media as biased, ineffective or
controlled by elites out of touch with the ordinary citizen.
The opportunities presented by the NIC, on the other hand, were just
as interesting. It was an opportunity for self-reflection and evaluation by at
least some media practitioners on how they cover this event as well as the
democratic process itself. Two seminars for journalists were held in
conjunction with the NIC--The Project for Public Life and the Press (PPLP) held
a three day seminar on public journalism, and the Poynter Institute sponsored a
one-day workshop on covering the NIC called "Issues 96."
It is too early to assess the impact of the event, however, a likely
arena for noticeable impact is in media coverage of the political process. The
timing of the event before the election year primaries had the potential to
alter coverage of the 1996 election by focusing media attention on the issues
and questions that come out of the deliberation. Attention to the NIC may also
lead newspapers to conduct similar deliberative poll projects, either through a
demonstration of the process or through the creation of a groundswell of public
support for these types of projects. If nothing else, the NIC could serve as a
news peg for the debate on public journalism itself and as an opportunity for
newspaper editors to take a clear stand on the issue.
With regard to impact of the NIC on individuals, Fishkin believes the
deliberative poll process will make the engaged citizen more aware of the media
and therefore more likely to engage in public affairs. There is a problem with
this hypothesis, however, in terms of the critique of the media presented in The
Voice of the People. If media content is full of elite manipulations, it is
unclear how increased use of the media will help citizens become more informed
rather than more "brainwashed" and vulnerable to those elite manipulations.
This may, however, lead to at least a short-term increase in the audience for
media products if the American public becomes engaged enough to educate
themselves on the issues the NIC participants discussed.
The Deliberative Poll and News Frames
Deborah Potter of the Poynter Institute and a former NBC News
correspondent has said that much of the resonance and lasting impression of the
project depended on its media exposure. [25] Potter described the conference as
difficult for media to neatly summarize because journalistic resources are
expended either following the major candidates or covering a situation that
tells something new about the candidates. [26] The NIC did not achieve the
national media attention for which its organizers had hoped. It did, however,
get enough coverage to register on the American media's radar.
The concept of framing in news stories is an important tool for
looking at media coverage of the NIC and assessing the project's impact on the
American democratic process. Identifying which frames were dominant in the news
coverage can illustrate whose interests were best served in the coverage and
point to which news gathering routines contributed to the frames. It can
highlight core values underlying the coverage. Examining frames will help us
look at how media practitioners think about the NIC in addition to the more
visible notion of what they think.
Tankard, et al., suggest that a news frame may be visualized as a
picture frame that both organizes a "strip" of reality, as in a frame around a
photograph, and sets a particular tone for the picture much like the tone
suggested by an ornate gold frame versus a rustic wooden frame. [27] Or, it may
be visualized as a frame of a building which organizes the structure. The
authors provide a theoretical definition of framing as "a central organizing
idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is
through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration. [28]
Frames are often subtle. News stories may contain conflicting
messages. It is possible, however, to identify a preferred frame by looking at
what information is selected for inclusion and what is omitted, as well as what
is given emphasis and further elaboration.
Predictions of Frames.
Before the NIC took place, predictions were made about possible
frames that may be used in news coverage of the event. These predictions were
based on a sample of print news and editorial coverage prior to January, 1996,
Fishkin's book Voice of the People, publicity materials generated by the event's
organizers, concepts of news values in the media studies literature and
criticisms of the project itself made by political scientists and other elites.
This approach is based on a variation of the "list of frames" method
described by Tankard, et al. [29] Instead of inductively generating a list of
frames through examining a similar sample, frames were identified based on the
compelling interests of Fishkin on the one hand and critics such as Ladd on the
other. The starting point was to answer the question, "How does Fishkin want
people and the media to think about the NIC?" The next step is to turn those
interests around and ask, "What might someone like Ladd say about these ways of
thinking about the NIC?"
For clarity, predicted frames are categorized as either positive or
negative and opposing frames are listed together. This list is not intended as
an argument that there will be only two types of readings of the news coverage,
positive or negative. It is merely presented as a useful way to organize
possible frames.
Positive
Negative
The NIC is a return to the small town meeting.
The NIC presents a false feeling of the small town meeting which is impossible
in today's society.
The NIC is a grassroots movement against the inferior democratic
practices such as the state primaries.
The NIC is meddling in democracy and is a danger to the perfectly adequate
democratic practices of the state primaries.
The NIC is symbolic of the ability to reach consensus and
reconciliation in the fractured American public.
The NIC is symbolic of the conflict within the American public which is so
fractured that it cannot be repaired.
The NIC will create an informed public by showing us what the public
would think if they had studied and deliberated the issues.
The NIC is unnecessary because the competing voices already present in the media
work to educate the public and achieve a sort of balance.
The NIC will have a lasting impact on American society.
The NIC is an academic exercise that will have no impact.
The NIC empowers citizens to educate themselves and to take action.
The NIC gives citizens a false sense of power because even if they make choices
on the issues, they do not really have the power to affect policy with those
choices.
The NIC is real opportunity for face-to-face discussion between
political candidates and citizens which will provide insight into the candidates
themselves.
The NIC is disdained as yet another contrived media event with politicians and
its results should be taken with a grain of salt.
The NIC provides an authentic voice of the people.
The NIC provides a voice for a small, select group of people in an unnatural
setting.
NIC participants had the opportunity to examine issues using objective
and unbiased information, without the influence of spin doctors and special
interest groups.
NIC participants were brainwashed or at least heavily influenced by briefing
materials which cannot possibly be objective because an elite dissensus exists
even as to the facts.
The NIC is an unprecedented experiment but is based on strict
scientific research protocols.
The NIC is "dubious science" which ignores scientific research protocols.
Coverage of the NIC
Purpose of the Study
This study looks at print news coverage of the NIC by using predicted
frames to describe the nature of media coverage through a primarily qualitative
content analysis. The purpose of the study is to look at how the media thought
about the NIC in addition to what they reported as well as to determine the
efficacy of predicted frames in qualitative content analysis. The research
questions to be answered in this study are as follows:
1. Based on the predicted frames, which frames dominate the
print media coverage?
2. Are the dominant frames primarily positive or negative toward
the NIC?
3. Are these frames in line with or in opposition to the core
values shared by the NIC and public journalism?
Method
This study used a hybrid approach to content analysis to identify
dominant frames in the print media coverage of the NIC. Both qualitative and
quantitative analyses were conducted. To build the sample, news stories were
downloaded from the Nexis database using the "news" library and the "papers"
file. The dates included in the study are Jan. 14, 1996 (the Sunday before the
NIC) through Feb. 4, 1996 (the Sunday after the final documentary broadcast).
The keywords used were "national issues convention" or "national issues
conference." News items mentioning the NIC in photo captions only, sidebars,
television program listings and duplicate stories from the same newspaper were
excluded. The final sample size included 124 news items from 39 newspapers.
One paper in the Nexis database was deleted from this study. The
Austin American-Statesman carried a significantly higher number of stories than
any of the other papers in the study (42 from Jan. 14 to Jan. 28 alone) and
would be extremely atypical of general media coverage. Additionally, the
factors that would have contributed to shaping the Statesman's coverage are
different from that of other papers. Proximity as a news value, an increased
focus on the University of Texas as a news beat and the somewhat favorable
attitude of the Statesman's new editor, Rich Oppel, toward public journalism all
might have contributed to the paper's increased attention to the NIC. This
paper's coverage should be included in a separate study.
Each news item in the sample was coded by date, newspaper, region,
section/page, number of paragraphs, byline, type of news item and whether or not
the NIC was the main topic of the item. The predicted frames were coded
according to an impressionistic analysis of the strength of the frame and were
categorized as either dominate, major, secondary or not mentioned. (See Table
Nine for definitions.) Categorization of these frames was based on a
combination of number of mentions of a frame (for example, how many times the
story mentioned that delegates had become empowered by the NIC), placement of
the frames (e.g., headlines versus the middle of a story), and tone. Additional
frames not predicted in the beginning and general impressions about each story
were also noted. Reliance on this type of impressionistic, qualitative coding
was intended to give a richer picture of the coverage and may be closer to the
impressions formed by a typical reader.
Results
Quantitative Analysis. Tables which describe the more quantitative
aspects of the data are attached at the end of this paper. Table One provides a
breakdown of the number of stories by newspaper and Table Two gives number of
stories by region. Table Three shows the number of stories by date as well as
events related to the NIC. Table Four lists stories by location while Table
Five details the stories in terms of numbers of paragraphs. Stories by byline
are outlined in Table Six. Table Seven categorizes news items by type, and
Table Eight shows the number of stories with the NIC as the main topic.
Interesting results from the quantitative analysis show that, out of
the eight papers with six or more stories about the NIC, four of those papers
had journalists who attended the PPLP seminar. The greatest amount of NIC
coverage came from papers in the E. North Central region (including Ohio,
Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin), the W. South Central region (including
Missouri and Texas) and the South Atlantic region (including Virginia, North
Carolina, and Florida). The highest number of stories by date occurred during
Jan. 21 and 22, a Sunday during and a Monday immediately following the
convention. Most stories appeared inside the front section. The majority of
stories contained between 16 and 20 paragraphs. Stories were overwhelmingly
filed by staff writers, and articles were the most often used formats for news
items.
NIC as Main Topic. Out of 124 stories, 97 (78 percent) had the NIC
as the main topic and 27 (22 percent) mentioned the NIC in relation to other
topics. The main topic which most often contained references to the NIC was the
flat tax, followed by general political horse race stories. Flat tax stories
were most prevalent toward the end of the study and after poll results were
released. The most surprising mention of the NIC came during an editorial on
the topics of Kwanzaa and the O.J. Simpson trial. [30]
Qualitative Analysis. Table Nine begins to address the qualitative
aspects of the content by showing the number of mentions for each frame and
classifying the frames as either dominant, major or secondary. Table Ten shows
that the most often used frames were all positive, with "real discussion between
citizens and politicians" being the most often identified. This analysis is
continued through discussion of impressions gleaned from the coverage and
related to the predicted frames.
Predictions of Frames and Impressions from the Coverage.
Positive
Negative
Town Meeting
The NIC is a return to the small town meeting.
Not a Town Meeting
The NIC presents a false feeling of the small town meeting which is
impossible in today's society.
The symbolic linking of the NIC with the small town meeting which
runs throughout Voice of the People did not emerge as a major frame in the print
coverage. When it was mentioned, it was discussed in terms of quick, easy to
understand explanations of the event, such as "part town meeting, part coffee
klatch and part television talk show." [31] The negative frame of a false town
hall meeting was mentioned twice only but was actually presented in positive
terms for the NIC. It was used to distinguish the NIC as a representative
rather than a self-selected sample. There seems also to be a difference between
the positive nostalgic view of the "New England town meeting" and the negative
view of today's televised town meetings.
Helps Democracy
The NIC is a grassroots movement against inferior democratic practices
such as the state primaries.
Hurts Democracy
The NIC is meddling in democracy and is a danger to the perfectly
adequate democratic practices of the state primaries.
Fishkin is very clear about his intention that the NIC and the
deliberative poll become fixtures in a democratic process that needs to be
fixed. His perspectives were well-reported and often echoed in editorials. The
print media seemed to champion the NIC as a potential yet partial solution to
the problems of the democratic process, primarily through its focus on getting
citizens involved. There was a general sense that, even though it might not
work, it's better to try an experiment to help democracy function.
The negative perspective of the NIC as hurting democracy came from
two sources but was not a major factor in the coverage. At the beginning of the
coverage, Dole was portrayed as not participating in the NIC because he feared
it might "steal the thunder" from Iowa or New Hampshire. Toward the end, social
scientist Everett C. Ladd's assertions that the NIC is meddling in democracy
were given some attention.
Shows we can agree and get along
The NIC is symbolic of the ability to reach consensus and
reconciliation in the fractured American public.
Shows we can't agree or get along
The NIC is symbolic of the conflict within the American public which
is so fractured that it cannot be repaired.
The frame of the NIC as symbolic of Americans' ability to get along
and engage in civil debate was a major theme in the coverage; however, the theme
of consensus was less strong. This frame was often introduced through direct
statements by journalists as well as direct quotes from and depictions of
actions by delegates. For example, several stories described delegates hugging
and exchanging addresses before leaving.
There was some discussion of heated arguments or bickering between
delegates, but these were almost always subordinated to the theme of "we may
disagree but we can have a civil discussion and find at least some common
ground." There was a sense that our values are the same but our solutions to
problems are different.
There were no mentions of small group discussions as chaotic or
fundamentally uncivil without some moderating mention of civility. For example,
after describing a "yelling match" which ended with one delegate walking out of
the room, the reporter followed with the statement, "Afterward, though, there
were no hard feelings." [32]
One unexpected theme was of conflict as internal rather than external
and between people. Many stories focused on a theme of inner conflict, though
not necessarily opinion change, resulting from the deliberations. As one
reporter wrote, "Conversations between group members weren't the only places
conflict emerged during group sessions this weekend. Participants also clearly
grappled with their own feelings about complex issues." [33]
Shows what informed people would think
The NIC will create an informed public by showing us what the public
would think if they had studied and deliberated the issues.
People are already informed.
The NIC is unnecessary because the competing voices already present in
the media work to educate the public and achieve a sort of balance.
Fishkin's assertions about NIC delegates becoming an informed public
were uniformly reported and seldom questioned. Portrayals of "the people,"
however, varied between papers. The dominant picture that emerged was that,
although people might not have a good grasp of facts, such as the percentage of
the federal budget spent on foreign aid, they know as much as the experts
because of their life experiences with the "real" sides of public policy issues.
There was a general tone of respectfulness when discussing the delegates and
several allusions to the "common sense" or "common wisdom" of the people. There
were occasional references, however, to people as being confused, "nuts" or
uniformed, but this was not a major theme in the coverage.
The negative side of this frame did not really capture what appeared
in the coverage. Rather than focusing on people as already informed, criticism
tended to focus on the belief that people vote based on character and image of
candidates rather than issues. No mention was made of competing voices in the
media.
Lasting impact
The NIC will have a lasting impact on American society.
No impact.
The NIC is an academic exercise that will have no impact on American
society.
The frame of "no impact" was favored over "lasting impact" and was
presented in terms of criticisms from social scientists and political
consultants. Only one editorial piece suggested that the NIC would indeed have
an impact. All other mentions of impact were presented as questions yet to be
answered.
One area of future research might be to see if print media follow up
on the story later and attempt to actually assess that impact. This would most
likely occur after the publishing of an academic study because it is unlikely
that newspapers would expend the resources necessary to complete this type of
research. The media's failure to assess the impact of issues or policies
coupled with a failure to follow up might contribute to the public's lack of
understanding of key issues.
Empowers citizens
The NIC empowers citizens to educate themselves and to take action.
Falsely empowers
The NIC gives citizens a false sense of power because even if they
make choices on the issues, they do not really have the power to affect policy
with those choices.
The concept of the NIC as empowering to participants received an
important amount of attention. It came mostly toward the end and was introduced
through direct quotes from delegates. Most of the quotes were about how
delegates now felt they had a voice, that their opinions mattered, that they
planned to pay more attention to the media, and that they wanted to go home and
get involved.
The negative side of this frame was not apparent in the coverage.
There were occasional quotes from delegates expressing cynicism, and the idea
that nothing would change and the NIC wouldn't make them act any differently.
These were not nearly as prevalent, however, as the positive empowered quotes.
Real chance for discussion between citizens/politicians
The NIC is real opportunity for face-to-face discussion between
political candidates and citizens which will provide insight into the candidates
themselves.
No real discussion; a contrived event
The NIC is disdained as yet another contrived media event with
politicians and its results should be taken with a grain of salt.
This was the overwhelmingly dominant frame in contrast to the frames
predicted here. It was the chance for "real people" to talk with candidates
that seemed to capture the imaginations of the delegates and the attention of
the media. Early coverage seemed to frame the NIC as being risky to
politicians because of this direct interaction between people and candidates.
Additionally, a good deal of negative attention was given to the politicians as
"no-shows," often framed in terms of snubbing "the people."
The negative side of this frame came, however, not from disdaining
the event as contrived but from expressions of frustration with the quality of
the answers of the politicians. Delegates were often quoted expressing
disappointment at the pat answers of politicians who did not answer the
questions they were asked. It seemed as if the event was so forcefully framed
as a chance for real dialogue that when that dialogue didn't happen as expected,
journalists and participants were both disappointed.
One surprising aspect of this coverage is how several papers, many of
them aligned with public journalism or PPLP participants, used confrontational
words to frame the discussion itself. Phrases such as "[delegates] drew a bead
on Lugar," [34] "[candidates] had a high-tech face-off with a cross-section of
the nation's voters" [35] or "[delegates] went toe-to-toe with presidential
aspirants" [36] set a combative rather than civil tone. While these words might
make news writing more lively, they reflect the nature of the horse race and
emphasize conflict where conflict is not a necessary part of the political
debate. A more subtle analysis of the use of confrontational framing of
discussion and its effects would be interesting.
Another major difference between papers is in how the discussions
between delegates and candidates were portrayed. Some did a good job in
presenting them as conversations. They included direct quotes from both
candidates and delegates and preserved the back-and-forth nature of some of the
dialogue. Other papers, however, covered the discussions as they would a
debate, with very little mention of the delegates at all and no representations
of their voices. Readers who did not know the format of the NIC discussions
might see it as the typical candidate debate from the portrayal in many papers.
Voice of the People
The NIC provides an authentic voice of the people.
Voice of 459 people only
The NIC provides a voice for a small, select group of people in an
unnatural setting.
Print media accepted the NIC as presenting an authentic "voice of the
people" in spite of some apparent skepticism about the true randomness of the
sample. The idea of a "poll with a human face" captured the imagination of the
journalists who did not, for the most part, question Fishkin's assertion that
the delegates represented America. Journalists concentrated on describing
America in terms of the delegates--what they wore, how their voices sounded,
what jobs they held, where they lived, and so on. Inclusive language was often
used, as in "this is what we look like, America."
One interesting outcome of the NIC for journalists may have been a
redefining of their perspectives of the audience. Several participants in the
PPLP seminar commented that they had met types of people they would not
otherwise have met and had their perceptions about Americans changed for the
better.
Balanced briefing materials
NIC participants had the opportunity to examine issues using objective
and unbiased information, without the influence of spin doctors and special
interest groups.
Biased, inadequate briefing materials
NIC participants were brainwashed or at least heavily influenced by
briefing materials which cannot possibly be objective because an elite dissensus
exists even as to the facts.
Because of a general mistrust of political communication as
propaganda, it was expected that much attention would be paid to discussing the
quality of the briefing materials prepared by The Kettering Foundation and
Public Agenda. Charges of bias and selectivity were anticipated, however, the
print media generally seemed to accept the materials as balanced and adequate.
Some minor but negative discussion of the materials centered around lack of
information on the flat tax as well as a focus on government as a solution to
problems.
Good science
The NIC is an unprecedented experiment but is based on strict
scientific research protocols.
Bad science
The NIC is "dubious science" which ignores scientific research
protocols.
The frame of "bad science" was the most often mentioned negative
frame, however, it did not appear in large number of stories. This frame was
most often introduced in quotes from pollsters and social scientists who wrote
critiques of the NIC for The Public Perspective (January 1996), published by the
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Everett C. Ladd of the Roper Center
was the most often quoted critic. Ladd generally attacked the NIC on the basis
of scientific validity, saying it was an artificial environment and potentially
damaging to the current practice of democracy. While the print media generally
accepted the concept of the NIC as a positive experiment, the concept of
objectivity called for balance. Syndicated columnist Neal R. Pierce said of the
criticism of the NIC: "The fervor of rival social scientists' attacks on
Fishkin's 'poll with a human face' evokes images of medieval clerics searching
out the tiniest deviations from established doctrine or religious practice,
labeling them as heresy, then rushing to stamp them out." [37] Ladd's
criticisms were not ignored by the print media, but neither were they embraced.
Frames in Coverage Missing from the Predicted Frames.
NIC as just another opinion poll.
Toward the end of the study time period, the coverage was almost
uniformly about opinion change and was often tied in with the flat tax. Several
stories appeared at this time that merely reported the results of the poll as if
it were any other opinion poll with no mention of the deliberative aspects of
the project.
Links with public journalism.
A few stories drew explicit links between the NIC and public
journalism, most of which were written by PPLP participants. While this was not
a dominant frame in the coverage, it would be interesting to see how public
journalists covered the event in contrast with traditional journalists. Rosen
has suggested that explicit mentions of the disconnect between people and the
political system may be an indicator of public journalism coverage. [38] The
disconnect was mentioned explicitly twice, once by a Chicago Tribune reporter
[39] and, interestingly, once by a delegate in a first-person story. The
delegate wrote about candidates appearing by satellite: "One of our complaints
this weekend is that the politicians have distanced themselves from the people
that they represent. This is a prime example!" [40]
Summary and Conclusions
Analysis of this data shows that the NIC was framed mainly in terms
of providing real discussion between citizens and politicians and as an
authentic voice of the American people. The framing of the event was much more
positive than negative. Although it did not achieve the media attention that
Fishkin and others had hoped for, newspapers that did cover the convention
seemed to "buy into" it and adopt these two themes as positive. Both themes may
be said to underlie core values of public journalism. The NIC may indeed have
made inroads into advancing the cause of public journalism in print media even
if explicit linkages between the two were seldom drawn.
Support for the use of these particular predicted frames was not as
strong as the researcher had anticipated. If one looks at the total number of
mentions of frames as a percentage of the total possible mentions of frames, the
result is a rather low 19 percent. (See Table Ten.) This suggests an
undercurrent of framing in line with the predicted frames, but may also point to
factors that were missed. Some ways to account for this include the following:
1. Framing is less likely to occur in stories that merely
mention the NIC rather than those with the NIC as the main
topic.
Twenty-two percent of the sample included stories which had
main topics
other than the NIC.
2. Framing the NIC in terms of an opinion poll or an opinion
change mechanism was not captured by the predicted frames
and was an
important perspective.
Further data analysis on the number of frames by story and
investigating stories with a low number of frames might yield more information.
Limitations of the Study
Although the researcher believes other investigators would arrive at
similar conclusions from examining the print news coverage of the NIC, using
more coders and determining inter-coder reliability with regard to identifying
frames would strengthen the conclusions. Further, no representations may be
made as to generalizability of the results because of reliance on the Nexis
database rather than a random sample of newspapers. It is assumed, however,
that papers in the database would not be quantitatively different than papers
not in the database.
Suggestions for Further Research
As with most research projects, the data suggest several additional
research questions, including the following:
1. How did frames change over time? What were the dominant
frames before, during and after the event? What factors
contributed to the
dominance of those frames?
2. The only paper which seemed to consistently localize coverage
by focusing on delegates from that paper's area was the
Indianapolis Star.
Virtually every story mentioned "Hoosiers." Why would
localizing coverage
play such a large role for one paper and not another?
3. Did participants in the PPLP seminar cover the NIC in a
qualitatively different manner than non-participants?
4. Did papers that have aligned themselves with public
journalism cover the NIC differently than
non-public-journalism papers?
The NIC represents a wealth of data to be explored by media studies
researchers as well as political scientists.
Table One: Study Sample (Number of Stories by Paper) Tables
Code Papers State Region # of stories
02 Wisconsin State Journal * WI 04 12
03 Houston Chronicle TX 08 12
04 Dallas Morning News * TX 08 12 Dates: 1/14/96-2/4/96
06 (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot * VA 06 09
01 Indianapolis Star IN 04 08 # of Newspapers: 39
05 Dayton Daily News * OH 04 06
08 Cleveland Plain Dealer OH 04 06
09 (Minneapolis) Star Trib * MN 05 06
07 Washington Post DC 01 04
10 St. Petersburg Times FL 06 04
12 Atlanta Journal & Const. GA 06 04
13 USA Today Ntl 11 03
14 St. Louis Post-Dispatch MO 08 03
17 Chicago Tribune IL 04 03
11 New York Times NY 03 02
15 San Diego Union Tribune CA 10 02
16 Orange County Register * CA 10 02
20 Christian Science Monitor Ntl 11 02
21 Washington Times DC 01 02
25 Sacramento Bee CA 10 02
22 Times Picayune LA 08 02
18 LA Times CA 10 01
19 Cincinnati Enquirer OH 04 01
23 Seattle Times WA 10 01
24 San Francisco Chronicle CA 10 01
26 Rocky Mountain News CO 09 01
27 Richmond Times-Dispatch VA 06 01
29 Nashville Banner TN 07 01
30 Kansas City Star KA 05 01
32 Idaho Statesman ID 09 01
33 Asbury Park Press NJ 03 01
34 Herald SC 06 01
35 Hartford Courant CT 02 01
36 Detroit News MI 04 01 * PPLP Participant
37 Denver Post CO 09 01
38 Baltimore Sun MD 06 01
39 Arizona Republic AZ 09 01
40 (Nashville) Tennessean TN 07 01
41 (Memphis) Comm'l Appeal TN 07 01
TOTAL 124
Table Two: Number of Stories by Region Dates: 1/14/96 to 2/4/96
Code Region States # of Papers # of Stories
04 E. North Central OH, IL, IN, MI, WI 07 37
08 W. South Central AR, LA, MO, OK, TX 04 29
06 South Atlantic DE, MD, VA, WV, NC, SC, GA, FL 06 20
10 Pacific CA, WA, OR, AK, HI 06 09
05 W. North Central MN, ND, SD, NE, KS 02 07
01 Washington, DC DC 02 06
11 National 02 05
09 Mountain MT, ID, WY, CO, NM, AZ, UT, NV 04 04
07 E. South Central KY, TN, AL, MS 03 03
03 Middle Atlantic NY, NJ, PA 02 03
02 New England ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT 01 01
Total: 39 124
Table Three: Number of Stories by Date and NIC Events
Date # of stories Event
Jan 14 7
15 4 Project on Public Life and the Press seminar for journalists
16 0 PPLP seminar
17 1 PPLP seminar
18 3 Poynter seminar for journalists; delegates arrive in Austin
19 11 Small group sessions on foreign policy and the economy
20 9 Small group sessions on the family; live coverage of
Republicans
21 18 Live coverage of Vice President Gore; delegates leave
22 25
23 5
24 5
25 1 Poll results released
26 15 Documentary broadcast on PBS
27 6
28 6
29 3
30 2
31 1
Feb 01 0
02 0
03 0
04 2
Total: 124
Table Four: Number of Stories by Section/Page
Section # of Stories Percentage
Section A, first page 22 18%
Section A, other 58 47%
Section B, first page 10 8%
Section B, other 9 7%
Inside 16 13%
Unknown 9 7%
Totals: 124 100%
Table Five: Number of Stories by Number of Paragraphs
# of Paragraphs # of Stories
0 - 5 16
6 - 10 8
11 - 15 16
16 - 20 27
21 - 25 20
26 - 30 17
31 - 35 10
36 - 40 7
41 - 45 2
46 - 50 0
51 - 55 1
Total: 124
Table Six: Number of Stories by Byline
Byline # of Stories Percentage
Staff Writer 83 67%
Service/Syndicate 15 12%
Wire 2 2%
Freelance 4 3%
Combination 3 2%
Cannot be determined 17 14%
Totals: 124 100%
Table Seven: Number of Stories by Type of News Item
Type # of Stories Percentage
Story 26 21%
Article 63 51%
Report 15 12%
Editorial 13 10%
Column 6 5%
Guest Opinion or Op-Ed 1 1%
Cannot be determined 0 0%
Totals: 124 100%
Table Eight: Number of Stories by Main Topic
Main Topic # of Stories Percentage
NIC 97 78%
Other 27 22%
Totals: 124 100%
Topics of Other # of Stories
Flat Tax 9
Political horse race 5
Campaign Digests 3
Local citizens' forums 2
Misc. editorials/columns 2
Clinton's State of the Union address 1
Dole on MTV 1
Gramm 1
Harwood Group report on public opinion 1
PBS's Democracy Project 1
Political editorial 1
Total: 27
Table Nine: Mentions of Predicted Frames # of stories: 124
# of possible mentions: 2,480
Positive Frames
D
M
S
Total
Negative Frames
D
M
S
Total
TOWN MEETING
11
11
NOT A TOWN MEETING
2
2
HELPS DEMOCRACY
17
35
52
HURTS DEMOCRACY
3
7
10
SHOWS WE CAN AGREE AND GET ALONG
20
25
45
SHOWS WE CAN'T AGREE OR GET ALONG
2
7
9
SHOWS WHAT INFORMED PEOPLE WOULD THINK
12
36
48
PEOPLE ARE ALREADY INFORMED
1
6
7
LASTING IMPACT
1
1
NO IMPACT
3
6
9
EMPOWERS
CITIZENS
9
24
33
FALSELY EMPOWERS
0
REAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN CITIZENS AND POLITICIANS
4
28
51
83
NO REAL DISCUSSION; A CONTRIVED EVENT
4
14
18
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
30
38
68
VOICE OF 459 PEOPLE
3
10
13
BALANCED BRIEFING MATERIALS
12
12
BIASED, INADEQUATE MATERIALS
9
9
GOOD SCIENCE
2
9
11
BAD SCIENCE
5
18
23
TOTALS:
4
119
241
364
21
79
100
D Dominant: The news item focuses almost exclusively on this one
aspect with
little or no mention of other areas.
M Major: The news item contains substantial information on this
area but also
has substantial information on other areas.
S Secondary: This area is mentioned but there is little
substantive information.
N No Mention: This area is not found in news item. (Note:
These numbers are
omitted from this chart for clarity.)
Table Ten: Predicted Frames in Order of Frequency
+/- Frame # of Mentions
+ Real discussion between citizens and politicians 83
+ Voice of the people 68
+ Helps democracy 52
+ Shows what informed people would think 48
+ Shows we can get agree and get along 45
+ Empowers citizens 33
- Bad science 23
- No real discussion; a contrived media event 18
- Voice of 459 people only 13
+ Balanced briefing materials 12
+ Good science 11
+ Town meeting 11
- Hurts democracy 10
- No impact 9
- Shows we can't agree or get along 9
- Biased, inadequate briefing materials 9
- People are already informed 7
- Not a town meeting 2
+ Lasting impact 1
- Falsely empowers 0
Total: 464
Endnotes
[1] James S. Fishkin, The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and
Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 7.
[2] "National Issues Convention to Kick Off PBS Coverage of 1996
Presidential Campaign Season," PBS press release, 8 February 1995.
[3] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 7.
[4] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 68.
[5] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 52.
[6] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 3.
[7] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 39.
[8] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 14.
[9] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 14.
[10] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 84.
[11] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 85.
[12] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 86.
[13] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 84.
[14] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 42.
[15] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 80.
[16] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 3.
[17] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 13.
[18] Quotation taken from author's notes on "Television and the
Presidency: The Office of the Presidency," broadcast by the Museum of Television
and Radio, University Satellite Seminar Series, 14 November 1995.
[19] Michael Gurevitch and Jay G. Blumler, "Political Communication
Systems and Democratic Values," in Media Power in Politics (Washington: CQ
Press, 1994), 32.
[20] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 15.
[21] Arthur Charity, Doing Public Journalism (NY:Guilford, 1995),
2.
[22] Tim Miller, "Ohio Key to 1996 Election," Dayton Daily News, 19
November 1995, 1A.
[23] Mark Fitzgerald, "Decrying Public Journalism," Editor and
Publisher Magazine, 11 November 1995, 20.
[24] Fishkin, Voice of the People, 160.
[25] Christy Hoppe, "Delegates, analysts say issues conference
fell short; Efforts praised, but many fault methods, predict little change,"
Dallas Morning News, 22 January, 1996, 1A.
[26] Hoppe, "Delegates," 1A.
[27] James W. Tankard, Laura Hendrickson, Jackie Silberman, Kris
Bliss, and Salma Ghanem, "Media Frames: Approaches to Conceptualization and
Measurement" (Paper delivered at Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication Convention, Boston, MA, 1991), 5.
[28] Tankard, et. al., "Media Frames," 5.
[29] Tankard, et al, "Media Frames," 6.
[30] "On diversity...deliberation...and diversion?" Houston
Chronicle, 15 January 1996, A18.
[31] John E. Yang, "'Real People' Face Issues, Candidates in
Experiment on Citizenship," Washington Post, 21 January 1996, A06.
[32] Bill Theobald, "'Boring' Process Isn't Humdrum for Those
Trying to Find Answers," Indianapolis Star, 21 January 1996, A01.
[33] Debra Jasper and Vince McKelvey, "Discussing Tough Issues,"
Dayton Daily News, 21 January 1996, 10A.
[34] Vince McKelvey, "Lugar Loses with Citizen-Delegates in
Austin," Dayton Daily News, 22 January 1996, 2B.
[35] Mike Flaherty, "4 GOP Presidential Contenders, Gore deal with
Voters' Questions," Wisconsin State Journal, 22 January 1996, 2A.
[36] Bill Lambrecht, "Experimental Forum Allows Voters to Grill
Politicians," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 22 January 1996, 5B.
[37] Neal R. Pierce, "Issues Meet Earnest Step in Democracy,"
Houston Chronicle, 26 January 1996, A30.
[38] Personal communication.
[39] Michael Tackett, "Conference Elicits Anxiety over Economy;
Citizens Air Common Concerns in Texas," Chicago Tribune, 21 January 1996, C1.
[40] Robin Jill Wells, "A Delegate's Diary: 'It's Been Quite an
Experience,'" The Virginian-Pilot, 22 January 1996, A5.
|
