Media Framing and Public Opinion toward the Court
Towner, Terri L., and Rosalee A. Clawson. “A Wise Latina or a Baffled Rookie? Media Coverage of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s Ascent to the Bench.” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1554477X.2016.1188600.
We examine newspaper coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation process to investigate whether Sonia Sotomayor received different coverage than other nominees due to her status as a minority woman. Sotomayor was the only justice seated over the last three decades who received extensive attention to her race and gender, and her coverage was more negatively toned than that received by other nominees. Compared to her counterparts, the press downplayed her intellectual abilities, devoted more negative attention to her judicial temperament, and suggested she would struggle to adjust to her new role. We examine explanations for why Sotomayor received different coverage and conclude that
the intersectionality of ethnicity and gender best explains the media’s characterization of her.
We examine newspaper coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation process to investigate whether Sonia Sotomayor received different coverage than other nominees due to her status as a minority woman. Sotomayor was the only justice seated over the last three decades who received extensive attention to her race and gender, and her coverage was more negatively toned than that received by other nominees. Compared to her counterparts, the press downplayed her intellectual abilities, devoted more negative attention to her judicial temperament, and suggested she would struggle to adjust to her new role. We examine explanations for why Sotomayor received different coverage and conclude that
the intersectionality of ethnicity and gender best explains the media’s characterization of her.
Clawson, Rosalee A., and Eric N. Waltenburg. 2009. Legacy and Legitimacy: Black Americans and the Supreme Court. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Thoroughly grounded in the latest scholarly literature, theoretical sources, and experimental results, Legacy and Legitimacy substantially advances understanding of Black Americans’ attitudes toward the Supreme Court, the Court’s ability to influence Blacks’ opinions about the legitimacy of public institutions and policies, and the role of media in shaping Blacks’ judgments.
Drawing on legitimacy theory—which explains the acceptance of or tolerance for controversial policies—the authors begin by reexamining the significance of “diffuse support” in establishing legitimacy. They provide a useful overview of the literature on legitimacy and a concise history of the special relationship between Blacks and the Court. They investigate the influences of group attitudes and media “framing.” And they employ data from large-scale surveys to show that Blacks with greater levels of diffuse support for the Court are more likely to
adopt positions consistent with Court rulings.
With its broad scope and inclusion of new experimental findings, Legacy and Legitimacy will
interest students and scholars of judicial politics, racial politics, media and politics, black studies and public opinion.
Thoroughly grounded in the latest scholarly literature, theoretical sources, and experimental results, Legacy and Legitimacy substantially advances understanding of Black Americans’ attitudes toward the Supreme Court, the Court’s ability to influence Blacks’ opinions about the legitimacy of public institutions and policies, and the role of media in shaping Blacks’ judgments.
Drawing on legitimacy theory—which explains the acceptance of or tolerance for controversial policies—the authors begin by reexamining the significance of “diffuse support” in establishing legitimacy. They provide a useful overview of the literature on legitimacy and a concise history of the special relationship between Blacks and the Court. They investigate the influences of group attitudes and media “framing.” And they employ data from large-scale surveys to show that Blacks with greater levels of diffuse support for the Court are more likely to
adopt positions consistent with Court rulings.
With its broad scope and inclusion of new experimental findings, Legacy and Legitimacy will
interest students and scholars of judicial politics, racial politics, media and politics, black studies and public opinion.
Nishikawa, Katsuo A., Terri L. Towner, Rosalee A. Clawson, and Eric N. Waltenburg. 2009. "Interviewing the Interviewers: Journalistic Norms and Racial Diversity in the Newsroom." The Howard Journal of Communications 20(3): 242-259.
Many mainstream newspapers have diversified their organizations—at least to some extent—by hiring minority journalists. Some scholars argue that a diversified newsroom will improve media coverage of minority communities and issues; others think that the power of journalistic norms will constrain minority journalists so that they will be unable or unwilling to enhance the news coverage of minorities. In this article, the authors examine journalistic norms and racial diversity in mainstream newsrooms by conducting face-to-face interviews with African American and Latino journalists working at mainstream papers. They investigate journalists' perceptions of how norms influence their behavior and their attitudes about advocacy. They also examine their perceptions of audience characteristics and how they choose sources, and conclude that journalistic norms do shape the behavior of African American and Latino journalists; nevertheless, many of these journalists are still able to bring a unique perspective to the table.
Many mainstream newspapers have diversified their organizations—at least to some extent—by hiring minority journalists. Some scholars argue that a diversified newsroom will improve media coverage of minority communities and issues; others think that the power of journalistic norms will constrain minority journalists so that they will be unable or unwilling to enhance the news coverage of minorities. In this article, the authors examine journalistic norms and racial diversity in mainstream newsrooms by conducting face-to-face interviews with African American and Latino journalists working at mainstream papers. They investigate journalists' perceptions of how norms influence their behavior and their attitudes about advocacy. They also examine their perceptions of audience characteristics and how they choose sources, and conclude that journalistic norms do shape the behavior of African American and Latino journalists; nevertheless, many of these journalists are still able to bring a unique perspective to the table.
Clawson, Rosalee A., Elizabeth R. Kegler, and Eric N. Waltenburg. 2003. “Supreme Court Legitimacy and Group-Centric Forces: Black Support for Capital Punishment and Affirmative Action.” Political
Behavior 25(4):289-311.
The Supreme Court has addressed capital punishment and affirmative action many times and, as a result,
has had sweeping policymaking effects. For that reason, we argue that black opinion on capital punishment and affirmative action will be shaped by diffuse support for the Court. We also recognize the important role of group-centric forces in shaping black opinion. We find that diffuse support for the Court leads blacks with lower levels of race consciousness to be more supportive of capital punishment and less supportive of affirmative action, positions in line with the Court's decisions on these issues but contrary to black interests. The Court, however, is not able to throw its cloak of legitimacy around its policy position for blacks with the highest levels of group consciousness.
Behavior 25(4):289-311.
The Supreme Court has addressed capital punishment and affirmative action many times and, as a result,
has had sweeping policymaking effects. For that reason, we argue that black opinion on capital punishment and affirmative action will be shaped by diffuse support for the Court. We also recognize the important role of group-centric forces in shaping black opinion. We find that diffuse support for the Court leads blacks with lower levels of race consciousness to be more supportive of capital punishment and less supportive of affirmative action, positions in line with the Court's decisions on these issues but contrary to black interests. The Court, however, is not able to throw its cloak of legitimacy around its policy position for blacks with the highest levels of group consciousness.
Clawson, Rosalee A., Harry C. “Neil” Strine IV, and Eric N. Waltenburg. 2003. “Framing Supreme Court Decisions: The Mainstream Versus the Black Press." Journal of Black Studies 33(6):784-800.
The Supreme Court regularly makes decisions with profound policy implications, but it largely leaves it to others to shape public opinion regarding those policies. The media play an important role in framing the Court's decisions, yet few studies have examined media coverage of the Court. It is quite possible that not all media frame the Court's decisions in the same way. We analyze the Black and mainstream presses' coverage of the Court's 1995 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation, et al. decision on affirmative action and find systematic differences between the two types of newspapers.
The Supreme Court regularly makes decisions with profound policy implications, but it largely leaves it to others to shape public opinion regarding those policies. The media play an important role in framing the Court's decisions, yet few studies have examined media coverage of the Court. It is quite possible that not all media frame the Court's decisions in the same way. We analyze the Black and mainstream presses' coverage of the Court's 1995 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation, et al. decision on affirmative action and find systematic differences between the two types of newspapers.
Clawson, Rosalee A., and Eric N. Waltenburg. 2003. “Support for a Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision: A Story in Black and White.” American Politics Research 31(3):251-279.
Unlike other policy-making institutions that actively attempt to shape public opinion, the Supreme Court is largely dependent upon others to disseminate its policy pronouncements to the public. One consequence: How the media frame the Court’s actions can affect public support for Court policies. This article presents the results of an experiment designed to take soundings on the effect of different media frames on White and Black support for a controversial affirmative action ruling. Using stimuli we created based on coverage of the Adarand v. Pena (1995) decision in the Black press and the mainstream press, we find that media framing has a significant effect on agreement with the Court’s policy among White subjects. For Blacks, the impact of the media framing is moderated by ideological predispositions. In addition, both White and Black support for the Court’s ruling is influenced by the media portrayal of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Unlike other policy-making institutions that actively attempt to shape public opinion, the Supreme Court is largely dependent upon others to disseminate its policy pronouncements to the public. One consequence: How the media frame the Court’s actions can affect public support for Court policies. This article presents the results of an experiment designed to take soundings on the effect of different media frames on White and Black support for a controversial affirmative action ruling. Using stimuli we created based on coverage of the Adarand v. Pena (1995) decision in the Black press and the mainstream press, we find that media framing has a significant effect on agreement with the Court’s policy among White subjects. For Blacks, the impact of the media framing is moderated by ideological predispositions. In addition, both White and Black support for the Court’s ruling is influenced by the media portrayal of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Clawson, Rosalee A., Elizabeth Kegler, and Eric N. Waltenburg. 2001. “The Legitimacy-Conferring Authority of the U.S. Supreme Court: An Experimental Design.” American Politics Research 29(6): 566-591.
Convention holds that the Supreme Court, because of its special constitutional role, can confer an element of legitimacy on a policy simply by endorsing it. In this study, we conducted an experiment to test the legitimacy-conferring effect of Court rulings on public opinion in two policy areas—affirmative action and regulation of phone rates. We found that in both cases, the Supreme Court had an impact on policy agreement and behavioral intentions that was moderated by other important variables. We conclude that the Supreme Court plays an important role in shaping public opinion and political behavior.
Convention holds that the Supreme Court, because of its special constitutional role, can confer an element of legitimacy on a policy simply by endorsing it. In this study, we conducted an experiment to test the legitimacy-conferring effect of Court rulings on public opinion in two policy areas—affirmative action and regulation of phone rates. We found that in both cases, the Supreme Court had an impact on policy agreement and behavioral intentions that was moderated by other important variables. We conclude that the Supreme Court plays an important role in shaping public opinion and political behavior.