Journalism and Political Communication Unbound – Serie

In The Invented State, Emily Thorson argues that a problematic and understudied aspect of political misinformation reflects widespread public misperception about what the government does. Because much of public policy is invisible to the public, there is fertile ground for false beliefs to flourish, leading to the creation of what Thorson terms the "invented state": systematic misperceptions about public policy. However, people get the facts wrong not because they are lazy, stupid, or blinded by partisan loyalty. Rather, misperceptions are created when three conditions are met: when citizens have incomplete information about an issue, when their own biases color their understanding of it, and when they feel that the issue is important. In other words, the invented state is created not just by exposure to explicit misinformation, but also by individuals' cognitive errors. Correcting these policy misperceptions is highly effective at reducing false beliefs. In addition, providing people with corrective information has downstream effects on attitudes. When they learn how policies - including Social Security, refugee policy, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program - really work, their approval of these policies increases, and they also shift their policy priorities. Contrary to pundits' assumptions of a public who is largely indifferent to policy, there is a deep public desire to learn basic facts about how the government works. Thorson meets that desire with analysis on how the news media can identify and effectively correct substantive policy misperceptions. The Invented State not only sheds a new light on how Americans think about policy, but can also help to inform evidence-based interventions to improve democratic competence.

In The Invented State, Emily Thorson argues that a problematic and understudied aspect of political misinformation reflects widespread public misperception about what the government does. Because much of public policy is invisible to the public, there is fertile ground for false beliefs to flourish, leading to the creation of what Thorson terms the "invented state": systematic misperceptions about public policy. However, people get the facts wrong not because they are lazy, stupid, or blinded by partisan loyalty. Rather, misperceptions are created when three conditions are met: when citizens have incomplete information about an issue, when their own biases color their understanding of it, and when they feel that the issue is important. In other words, the invented state is created not just by exposure to explicit misinformation, but also by individuals' cognitive errors. Correcting these policy misperceptions is highly effective at reducing false beliefs. In addition, providing people with corrective information has downstream effects on attitudes. When they learn how policies - including Social Security, refugee policy, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program - really work, their approval of these policies increases, and they also shift their policy priorities. Contrary to pundits' assumptions of a public who is largely indifferent to policy, there is a deep public desire to learn basic facts about how the government works. Thorson meets that desire with analysis on how the news media can identify and effectively correct substantive policy misperceptions. The Invented State not only sheds a new light on how Americans think about policy, but can also help to inform evidence-based interventions to improve democratic competence.

It is now well-established that the long-time economic model on which the news industry has relied is no longer sustainable. Facebook, Google, and declining levels of popular trust in the media have been major contributors to this situation. Simultaneously, the closure of local media outlets across the country has left many areas without access to regional news, compounded the distance between media and publics, and further eroded civic engagement. Despite the looming crisis in journalism, a research-practice gap plagues the news industry.This book argues that an underappreciated factor in the news crisis is a potentially symbiotic relationship between journalism studies and the industry that it researches. As this book contends, scholars must think about their work in a public context, and journalists, too, need to listen to media scholars and take the research that they do seriously. Including contributions from journalists and academics, Journalism Research That Matters offers journalists a guide on what they need to know and journalism scholars a call to action for what kind of research they can do to best help the news industry reckon with disruption. The book looks at new research developments surrounding audience behavior, social networks, and journalism business models; the challenges that scholars face in making their research available to the public and to journalists; the financial survival of quality news and information; and blind spots in the way that researchers and journalists do their work, especially around race, diversity, and inequality. A final section includes contributions from journalists about how researchers can better engage on the ground with newsrooms and media professionals.

It is now well-established that the long-time economic model on which the news industry has relied is no longer sustainable. Facebook, Google, and declining levels of popular trust in the media have been major contributors to this situation. Simultaneously, the closure of local media outlets across the country has left many areas without access to regional news, compounded the distance between media and publics, and further eroded civic engagement. Despite the looming crisis in journalism, a research-practice gap plagues the news industry.This book argues that an underappreciated factor in the news crisis is a potentially symbiotic relationship between journalism studies and the industry that it researches. As this book contends, scholars must think about their work in a public context, and journalists, too, need to listen to media scholars and take the research that they do seriously. Including contributions from journalists and academics, Journalism Research That Matters offers journalists a guide on what they need to know and journalism scholars a call to action for what kind of research they can do to best help the news industry reckon with disruption. The book looks at new research developments surrounding audience behavior, social networks, and journalism business models; the challenges that scholars face in making their research available to the public and to journalists; the financial survival of quality news and information; and blind spots in the way that researchers and journalists do their work, especially around race, diversity, and inequality. A final section includes contributions from journalists about how researchers can better engage on the ground with newsrooms and media professionals.

Many believe the solution to ongoing crises in the news industry--including profound financial instability and public distrust--is for journalists to improve their relationship with their audiences. This raises important questions: How do journalists conceptualize their audiences in the first place? What is the connection between what journalists think about their audiences and what they do to reach them? Perhaps most importantly, how aligned are these "imagined" audiences with the real ones? Imagined Audiences draws on ethnographic case studies of three news organizations to reveal how journalists' assumptions about their audiences shape their approaches to their audiences. Jacob L. Nelson examines the role that audiences have traditionally played in journalism, how that role has changed, and what those changes mean for both the profession and the public. He concludes by drawing on audience studies research to compare journalism's "imagined" audiences with actual observations of news audience behavior. The result is a comprehensive study of both news production and reception at a moment when the relationship between the two has grown more important than ever before.

Many believe the solution to ongoing crises in the news industry--including profound financial instability and public distrust--is for journalists to improve their relationship with their audiences. This raises important questions: How do journalists conceptualize their audiences in the first place? What is the connection between what journalists think about their audiences and what they do to reach them? Perhaps most importantly, how aligned are these "imagined" audiences with the real ones? Imagined Audiences draws on ethnographic case studies of three news organizations to reveal how journalists' assumptions about their audiences shape their approaches to their audiences. Jacob L. Nelson examines the role that audiences have traditionally played in journalism, how that role has changed, and what those changes mean for both the profession and the public. He concludes by drawing on audience studies research to compare journalism's "imagined" audiences with actual observations of news audience behavior. The result is a comprehensive study of both news production and reception at a moment when the relationship between the two has grown more important than ever before.

Donald Trump might have been the loudest and most powerful voice maligning the integrity of news media in a generation, but his unrelenting attacks draw from a stew of resentment, wariness, cynicism, and even hatred toward the press that has been simmering for years. At one time, journalism's centrality in reporting and interpreting important events was relatively unquestioned when a limited number of channels and voices produced a consensus-based news environment. The collapse of this environment has sparked a moment of reckoning within and outside journalism, particularly as professional news outlets struggle to remain solvent. Alternative voices compete for attention with and criticize the work and motivations of journalists, even as a growing number of journalists question their core norms and practices. News After Trump considers these struggles over journalism to be about the very relevance of journalism as an institutional form of knowledge production. At the heart of this questioning is a struggle to define what truthful accounts look like and who ought to create them or determine them in a rapidly changing media culture. Through an extensive accounting of Trump's relationship with the press, and drawing on in-depth interviews with journalists and textual analysis of news events, editorials, social media, and trade-press discussions, the book rethinks the relevance of journalism by recognizing the limits of objectivity and the way in which journalism positions certain actors as authority figures while rendering the less socially powerful invisible or flawed. This ethos of detachment has staved off vital questions about how journalism connects to its audiences, how it creates enduring value in people's lives (or not), and how diversity needs to be understood jointly at the level of production, reporting, and audience in order to rebuild trust.

Donald Trump might have been the loudest and most powerful voice maligning the integrity of news media in a generation, but his unrelenting attacks draw from a stew of resentment, wariness, cynicism, and even hatred toward the press that has been simmering for years. At one time, journalism's centrality in reporting and interpreting important events was relatively unquestioned when a limited number of channels and voices produced a consensus-based news environment. The collapse of this environment has sparked a moment of reckoning within and outside journalism, particularly as professional news outlets struggle to remain solvent. Alternative voices compete for attention with and criticize the work and motivations of journalists, even as a growing number of journalists question their core norms and practices. News After Trump considers these struggles over journalism to be about the very relevance of journalism as an institutional form of knowledge production. At the heart of this questioning is a struggle to define what truthful accounts look like and who ought to create them or determine them in a rapidly changing media culture. Through an extensive accounting of Trump's relationship with the press, and drawing on in-depth interviews with journalists and textual analysis of news events, editorials, social media, and trade-press discussions, the book rethinks the relevance of journalism by recognizing the limits of objectivity and the way in which journalism positions certain actors as authority figures while rendering the less socially powerful invisible or flawed. This ethos of detachment has staved off vital questions about how journalism connects to its audiences, how it creates enduring value in people's lives (or not), and how diversity needs to be understood jointly at the level of production, reporting, and audience in order to rebuild trust.

Republicans and Democrats increasingly distrust, avoid, and wish harm upon those from the opposing party. They also increasingly reside among like-minded individuals and belong to social groups that share their political beliefs. While these factors can make it difficult to express a dissenting political opinion, digital and social media have given people new spaces for political discourse and community, and more control over who knows--and does not know--their political beliefs. In Democracy Lives in Darkness, Emily Van Duyn looks at how these changes in the political and media landscape affect democracy. Van Duyn discovers and follows a secret political organization of progressive women in a conservative community in rural Texas. Its members, a mixture of real estate agents, school teachers, business owners, and retired grandmothers, met in secret to protect themselves from social, economic, and even physical retaliation by their conservative neighbors, friends, and family. They discussed immigrant rights, women's reproductive rights, racism, and intolerance of those of different racial/ethnic and cultural backgrounds in their community. Democracy Lives in Darkness is about this group: their daily lives, their choices, and ultimately, their incubation. But it is also about what led them to meet in secret--the political prejudice and hostility that marginalizes and makes people afraid, and the growing political, social, and geographic cleavages that now make even mainstream dissent dangerous. Importantly, Van Duyn asks why mainstream partisans feel the need to hide their political beliefs from others, why they feel afraid of those from the opposite party, how they stay politically engaged in secret, and how this can transform them and their communities. The book challenges those who study democratic life to look beyond public political behavior and those who study big data and machine learning to consider the unique and meaningful qualities of studying the individual in context. Van Duyn challenges the assumption that the United States is a liberal democracy where ideas can be expressed freely and publicly. Rather, she suggests that democracy in the United States may exist in darkness, but, more optimistically, that it uses this darkness to move forward.

Republicans and Democrats increasingly distrust, avoid, and wish harm upon those from the opposing party. They also increasingly reside among like-minded individuals and belong to social groups that share their political beliefs. While these factors can make it difficult to express a dissenting political opinion, digital and social media have given people new spaces for political discourse and community, and more control over who knows--and does not know--their political beliefs. In Democracy Lives in Darkness, Emily Van Duyn looks at how these changes in the political and media landscape affect democracy. Van Duyn discovers and follows a secret political organization of progressive women in a conservative community in rural Texas. Its members, a mixture of real estate agents, school teachers, business owners, and retired grandmothers, met in secret to protect themselves from social, economic, and even physical retaliation by their conservative neighbors, friends, and family. They discussed immigrant rights, women's reproductive rights, racism, and intolerance of those of different racial/ethnic and cultural backgrounds in their community. Democracy Lives in Darkness is about this group: their daily lives, their choices, and ultimately, their incubation. But it is also about what led them to meet in secret--the political prejudice and hostility that marginalizes and makes people afraid, and the growing political, social, and geographic cleavages that now make even mainstream dissent dangerous. Importantly, Van Duyn asks why mainstream partisans feel the need to hide their political beliefs from others, why they feel afraid of those from the opposite party, how they stay politically engaged in secret, and how this can transform them and their communities. The book challenges those who study democratic life to look beyond public political behavior and those who study big data and machine learning to consider the unique and meaningful qualities of studying the individual in context. Van Duyn challenges the assumption that the United States is a liberal democracy where ideas can be expressed freely and publicly. Rather, she suggests that democracy in the United States may exist in darkness, but, more optimistically, that it uses this darkness to move forward.

What is data-driven campaigning? According to prevailing accounts, this idea describes the rise of increasingly sophisticated, highly targeted, and often invasive uses of data deployed to suppress votes, manipulate voter preferences, or boost a candidates' popularity. The power of data is seen to be transforming campaigning practice and raising democratic concerns. And yet, there is a significant problem with these ideas: we have at best a partial understanding of how data-driven campaigning is practiced, and limited clarity about its implications.Presenting data from interviews with over 300 professional campaigners in Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK and US, we provide unique insight into the components of data-driven campaigning by political parties. This book makes three key contributions. First, distinguishing between data, analytics, technology and personnel, they give unmatched descriptive insight into these four components of data-driven campaigning, revealing significant variation in its operationalization, depending on party and country context. Second, introducing a novel multi-level theoretical framework, they isolate systemic, regulatory, and party level variables that help explain the reasons for these differences. Third, they consider the implications of their findings for debates about democracy, data and technology in the 21st century.Cumulatively, these contributions reveal that data-driven campaigning is not inherently problematic. Giving voice to practitioner perspectives, through interviews and innovative vignettes, this book recasts the debate around data-driven campaigning, offering important lessons for scholars, campaigners, and policymakers alike.

What is data-driven campaigning? According to prevailing accounts, this idea describes the rise of increasingly sophisticated, highly targeted, and often invasive uses of data deployed to suppress votes, manipulate voter preferences, or boost a candidates' popularity. The power of data is seen to be transforming campaigning practice and raising democratic concerns. And yet, there is a significant problem with these ideas: we have at best a partial understanding of how data-driven campaigning is practiced, and limited clarity about its implications.Presenting data from interviews with over 300 professional campaigners in Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK and US, we provide unique insight into the components of data-driven campaigning by political parties. This book makes three key contributions. First, distinguishing between data, analytics, technology and personnel, they give unmatched descriptive insight into these four components of data-driven campaigning, revealing significant variation in its operationalization, depending on party and country context. Second, introducing a novel multi-level theoretical framework, they isolate systemic, regulatory, and party level variables that help explain the reasons for these differences. Third, they consider the implications of their findings for debates about democracy, data and technology in the 21st century.Cumulatively, these contributions reveal that data-driven campaigning is not inherently problematic. Giving voice to practitioner perspectives, through interviews and innovative vignettes, this book recasts the debate around data-driven campaigning, offering important lessons for scholars, campaigners, and policymakers alike.

Journalists working in authoritarian countries contend with competing institutional logics. This is particularly the case in post-conflict countries, where journalistic practice is simultaneously shaped by historical antagonisms, global development initiatives, and the authoritarian state. While journalism schools and professional organizations speak a Western logic of objectivity and independence, political history instills a logic of subordination, and organizational business models instill a logic of financially motivated censorship. As more countries move away from democratic models, more and more journalists will face these seemingly irreconcilable pressures.Building on months of ethnographic work, Ruth Moon looks at journalistic practice in Rwanda, a country where journalism has developed into a stable field in the two and a half decades since the nation's 1994 genocide. At the same time, its journalists, facing pressure to please the State, have lost confidence in themselves, and readers have lost faith in local media. Can the nation's news media reinvigorate itself, either from within or with assistance from global journalism actors? This book examines journalism practice in Rwanda to draw conclusions applicable to journalism fields everywhere. Moon argues that not only is the force of globalization inadequate to shift local practice, but it in fact serves to reinforce local practices and boundaries.

Journalists working in authoritarian countries contend with competing institutional logics. This is particularly the case in post-conflict countries, where journalistic practice is simultaneously shaped by historical antagonisms, global development initiatives, and the authoritarian state. While journalism schools and professional organizations speak a Western logic of objectivity and independence, political history instills a logic of subordination, and organizational business models instill a logic of financially motivated censorship. As more countries move away from democratic models, more and more journalists will face these seemingly irreconcilable pressures.Building on months of ethnographic work, Ruth Moon looks at journalistic practice in Rwanda, a country where journalism has developed into a stable field in the two and a half decades since the nation's 1994 genocide. At the same time, its journalists, facing pressure to please the State, have lost confidence in themselves, and readers have lost faith in local media. Can the nation's news media reinvigorate itself, either from within or with assistance from global journalism actors? This book examines journalism practice in Rwanda to draw conclusions applicable to journalism fields everywhere. Moon argues that not only is the force of globalization inadequate to shift local practice, but it in fact serves to reinforce local practices and boundaries.

Media scholars generally suggest that as people gain access to mass media content, they increasingly support democracy and reject authoritarian rule. Much of the scholarship classifying global media systems has overlooked the world's most developing nations, and among those that have included developing nations, there exists a misguided premise that nations develop in a linear fashion: from non-democracy to democracy, and from a restricted press to a free press. This book shows that much of what scholarship depicts about media systems of developing nations is wrong. In reality, the ebb-and-flow of political change, democratization and backsliding calls for more historically informed views of media systems that do not fit into the confines of existing theories.Using the perceptions of journalists in Rwanda, Uganda, and Kenya to examine mediascapes at varying stages of development and democracy-building, this book examines the advancement of media and press freedom at varying stages of national development. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork and a cross-national survey, this book provides an updated state of press freedom in these three countries and shows how a nation's political and cultural intricacies complicate traditional media development frameworks and notions of press freedom. A detailed set of considerations are put forth for understanding media systems outside the Western world; specifically, that each country's distance from conflict, political benchmarks, international linkages, and civil society strength are central to understanding its degree of press freedom, development and democratization.

Media scholars generally suggest that as people gain access to mass media content, they increasingly support democracy and reject authoritarian rule. Much of the scholarship classifying global media systems has overlooked the world's most developing nations, and among those that have included developing nations, there exists a misguided premise that nations develop in a linear fashion: from non-democracy to democracy, and from a restricted press to a free press. This book shows that much of what scholarship depicts about media systems of developing nations is wrong. In reality, the ebb-and-flow of political change, democratization and backsliding calls for more historically informed views of media systems that do not fit into the confines of existing theories.Using the perceptions of journalists in Rwanda, Uganda, and Kenya to examine mediascapes at varying stages of development and democracy-building, this book examines the advancement of media and press freedom at varying stages of national development. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork and a cross-national survey, this book provides an updated state of press freedom in these three countries and shows how a nation's political and cultural intricacies complicate traditional media development frameworks and notions of press freedom. A detailed set of considerations are put forth for understanding media systems outside the Western world; specifically, that each country's distance from conflict, political benchmarks, international linkages, and civil society strength are central to understanding its degree of press freedom, development and democratization.

From newsletters and zines to hashtags and social media posts, social movements frequently generate and circulate media to define political goals, build solidarity, and articulate theories of change. These acts of media-making play a crucial role in developing relationships rooted in collective political visions across racial differences. Yet, in past and present movements, building solidarity across uneven race, class, and gender differences has often been a tenuous pursuit. How do social movements use media to create and sustain solidarity? In Movement Media, Rachel Kuo assesses the possibilities and limitations of crafting solidarities across racialized differences through media-making processes and communications practices. Drawing on interviews, archival research, and ethnographic fieldwork, Kuo revisits key movements--Third World feminism, environmental justice, migrant justice, and police and prison abolition--to assess the mundane and less visible forms of movement building that help various groups navigate the politics of difference in theory and in practice. Kuo situates these movements alongside shifts in technological developments and the communication landscape, making the case that building and sustaining solidarity requires time and work to develop shared political analysis and practices. As contemporary movements organize and struggle against the challenges of NGO-ization, neoliberal identity politics, private technologies, and liberal carceral reform--all of which seek to subsume and manage the efficacy of political organizing--Movement Media tells the important story of how communities build and sustain solidarity through media.

From newsletters and zines to hashtags and social media posts, social movements frequently generate and circulate media to define political goals, build solidarity, and articulate theories of change. These acts of media-making play a crucial role in developing relationships rooted in collective political visions across racial differences. Yet, in past and present movements, building solidarity across uneven race, class, and gender differences has often been a tenuous pursuit. How do social movements use media to create and sustain solidarity? In Movement Media, Rachel Kuo assesses the possibilities and limitations of crafting solidarities across racialized differences through media-making processes and communications practices. Drawing on interviews, archival research, and ethnographic fieldwork, Kuo revisits key movements--Third World feminism, environmental justice, migrant justice, and police and prison abolition--to assess the mundane and less visible forms of movement building that help various groups navigate the politics of difference in theory and in practice. Kuo situates these movements alongside shifts in technological developments and the communication landscape, making the case that building and sustaining solidarity requires time and work to develop shared political analysis and practices. As contemporary movements organize and struggle against the challenges of NGO-ization, neoliberal identity politics, private technologies, and liberal carceral reform--all of which seek to subsume and manage the efficacy of political organizing--Movement Media tells the important story of how communities build and sustain solidarity through media.

Transgender rights have emerged as an important topic of everyday conversation across the country in recent years and become, in many ways, the flashpoint du jour of the American culture wars. During the Trump presidency in particular, transgender people were thrust onto the center stage of US politics. Faced with unrelenting hostility and an increasingly complicated media system, transgender activists crafted new communication strategies to fight for their equality, stall attempts to undermine their rights, and win the support of large swathes of the public.In Voices for Transgender Equality, Thomas J Billard offers an insider's view into transgender activism during the first two years of the Trump administration. Drawing on extensive on-the-ground observation at the National Center for Transgender Equality, Billard shows how these activists developed an unlikely blend of online and offline strategies to saturate a diverse ecology of national news outlets, local and community media outlets across the country, and both public and private conversations across multiple social media platforms with voices in support of their cause. Moreover, these activists navigated the complex flows of information and ideas among these different domains of the communication system as they worked to shape the national conversation on transgender rights. As Billard argues, this movement occurred at a very particular time in the development of the media system, with "new" media shaping the movement in important ways that are both generalizable to other social movements and unique to transgender activism. Including rich storytelling and insightful analysis, Voices for Transgender Equality makes a compelling case of what it takes to make social and political change in a world transformed by digital media. Along the way, Billard provides key insights into the new business-as-usual of mediated politics and valuable lessons for more effective activism.

Transgender rights have emerged as an important topic of everyday conversation across the country in recent years and become, in many ways, the flashpoint du jour of the American culture wars. During the Trump presidency in particular, transgender people were thrust onto the center stage of US politics. Faced with unrelenting hostility and an increasingly complicated media system, transgender activists crafted new communication strategies to fight for their equality, stall attempts to undermine their rights, and win the support of large swathes of the public.In Voices for Transgender Equality, Thomas J Billard offers an insider's view into transgender activism during the first two years of the Trump administration. Drawing on extensive on-the-ground observation at the National Center for Transgender Equality, Billard shows how these activists developed an unlikely blend of online and offline strategies to saturate a diverse ecology of national news outlets, local and community media outlets across the country, and both public and private conversations across multiple social media platforms with voices in support of their cause. Moreover, these activists navigated the complex flows of information and ideas among these different domains of the communication system as they worked to shape the national conversation on transgender rights. As Billard argues, this movement occurred at a very particular time in the development of the media system, with "new" media shaping the movement in important ways that are both generalizable to other social movements and unique to transgender activism. Including rich storytelling and insightful analysis, Voices for Transgender Equality makes a compelling case of what it takes to make social and political change in a world transformed by digital media. Along the way, Billard provides key insights into the new business-as-usual of mediated politics and valuable lessons for more effective activism.

The images cast across screens across the country on January 6, 2021, laid bare the fragility of American democracy as the steps and halls of the US Capitol were inundated by a violent band of insurrectionists. Fed by blatant lies, political anger, and racial animus, they sought to halt a procedure enshrined in the US Constitution and to overturn a freely and fairly run election. Meanwhile, efforts to obstruct, avoid, and misrepresent the subsequent investigation of the January 6th attack have continued apace.With a relative dearth of work that centers historical and contemporary racial, ethnic, and power dynamics in the context of media, our interdisciplinary field was caught flat-footed, unprepared to respond to those who actively seek to undermine American democracy. This edited volume is a first step toward remedying that situation. Media and January 6th brings together a diverse group of leading scholars to help us more clearly understand the relationship between media and the attempted coup. The volume examines why and how January 6th came to be and the centrality of media to the event. It is organized around three key questions: How should we understand January 6, 2021? What should research look like after January 6, 2021? And how can we prevent another event like this?

The images cast across screens across the country on January 6, 2021, laid bare the fragility of American democracy as the steps and halls of the US Capitol were inundated by a violent band of insurrectionists. Fed by blatant lies, political anger, and racial animus, they sought to halt a procedure enshrined in the US Constitution and to overturn a freely and fairly run election. Meanwhile, efforts to obstruct, avoid, and misrepresent the subsequent investigation of the January 6th attack have continued apace.With a relative dearth of work that centers historical and contemporary racial, ethnic, and power dynamics in the context of media, our interdisciplinary field was caught flat-footed, unprepared to respond to those who actively seek to undermine American democracy. This edited volume is a first step toward remedying that situation. Media and January 6th brings together a diverse group of leading scholars to help us more clearly understand the relationship between media and the attempted coup. The volume examines why and how January 6th came to be and the centrality of media to the event. It is organized around three key questions: How should we understand January 6, 2021? What should research look like after January 6, 2021? And how can we prevent another event like this?

The Voice of America (VOA) is the oldest and largest US government-funded international media organization. In 2020, Donald Trump nominated Michael Pack, a right-wing documentarian and close friend of Steve Bannon, to lead the US Agency for Global Media - the independent federal agency overseeing US-funded international media. During Pack's seven-month tenure, more than 30 whistleblowers filed complaints against him, and a judge ruled that he had infringed journalists' constitutional right to freedom of speech.How did such a major international public service media network become intensely politicized by government allies in such a short time, despite having its editorial independence protected by law?Capturing News, Capturing Democracy puts these events in historical and international context—and develops a new analytical framework for understanding government capture and its connection to broader processes of democratic backsliding. Drawing from in-depth interviews with network managers and journalists, and analysis of private correspondence and internal documents, Kate Wright, Martin Scott, and Mel Bunce analyze how political appointees, White House officials, and right-wing media influenced VOA— changing its reporting of the Black Lives Matter movement and the 2020 presidential election. The authors stress that leaving the VOA unprotected leaves it and other public media open to targeting by authoritarian leadership and poses serious risks to US democracy. Further, they offer practical recommendations for how to protect the network and other international public service media better in the future.

The Voice of America (VOA) is the oldest and largest US government-funded international media organization. In 2020, Donald Trump nominated Michael Pack, a right-wing documentarian and close friend of Steve Bannon, to lead the US Agency for Global Media - the independent federal agency overseeing US-funded international media. During Pack's seven-month tenure, more than thirty whistleblowers filed complaints against him, and a judge ruled that he had infringed journalists' constitutional right to freedom of speech.How did such a major international public service media network become intensely politicized by government allies in such a short time, despite having its editorial independence protected by law?Capturing News, Capturing Democracy puts these events in historical and international context—and develops a new analytical framework for understanding government capture and its connection to broader processes of democratic backsliding. Drawing from in-depth interviews with network managers and journalists, and analysis of private correspondence and internal documents, Kate Wright, Martin Scott, and Mel Bunce analyze how political appointees, White House officials, and right-wing media influenced VOA— changing its reporting of the Black Lives Matter movement and the 2020 presidential election. The authors stress that leaving the VOA unprotected leaves it and other public media open to targeting by authoritarian leadership and poses serious risks to US democracy. Further, they offer practical recommendations for how to protect the network and other international public service media better in the future.

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. It is free to read at Oxford Academic and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations.In Connective Action and the Rise of the Far-Right: Platforms, Politics, and the Crisis of Democracy, the contributors explain democratic backsliding in the 21st century through what it terms a cross-disciplinary engagement between democracy scholars and data scientists. The former describe the necessary social and economic conditions for a healthy democracy, while the latter tell us something about the role of digital platforms in the realization (or not) of these same conditions. In turn, volume editors Steven Livingston and Michael Miller bring these two broadresearch traditions together to define a new analytical framework for understanding the potential demise of contemporary democracy. The chapters argue that the current threat to democracy comes from the organization of illiberal movements, both on and offline. Put differently, democratic backsliding is the consequence of far-right connective action.In this process, "digital surrogate organizations" or networks mix with more conventional organizations aligned with conservative parties, themselves facing a uniquely precarious position in today’s democracies. Democracy scholars, or what the editors of this book call "institutionalists," emphasize the critical role of economics, elites, and organized interests and look outward into society when searching for an explanation of backsliding. The technocentric model of democratic backsliding looks to digital networks and their effects on individual-level cognitive processes. To date, despite their shared intellectual focus on democracy, there has been little overlap between these two fields of study. The chapters in the book collectively assess the effects of digitized public communication on democracy without losing sight of social and economic power structures.

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. It is free to read at Oxford Academic and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations.In Connective Action and the Rise of the Far-Right: Platforms, Politics, and the Crisis of Democracy, the contributors explain democratic backsliding in the 21st century through what it terms a cross-disciplinary engagement between democracy scholars and data scientists. The former describe the necessary social and economic conditions for a healthy democracy, while the latter tell us something about the role of digital platforms in the realization (or not) of these same conditions. In turn, volume editors Steven Livingston and Michael Miller bring these two broadresearch traditions together to define a new analytical framework for understanding the potential demise of contemporary democracy. The chapters argue that the current threat to democracy comes from the organization of illiberal movements, both on and offline. Put differently, democratic backsliding is the consequence of far-right connective action.In this process, "digital surrogate organizations" or networks mix with more conventional organizations aligned with conservative parties, themselves facing a uniquely precarious position in today’s democracies. Democracy scholars, or what the editors of this book call "institutionalists," emphasize the critical role of economics, elites, and organized interests and look outward into society when searching for an explanation of backsliding. The technocentric model of democratic backsliding looks to digital networks and their effects on individual-level cognitive processes. To date, despite their shared intellectual focus on democracy, there has been little overlap between these two fields of study. The chapters in the book collectively assess the effects of digitized public communication on democracy without losing sight of social and economic power structures.

Social media has become a key space for young people to experiment with their political voice and to hone it through interaction with others. However, authors Neta Kligler-Vilenchik and Ioana Literat argue that in order to seriously consider social media as a space for youth political expression, we need to put aside conventional expectations about the forms that political expression should take. According to longstanding criteria for evaluating good citizens, political expression should be serious, focused on facts and rationality, and detached and objective. By contrast, the authors uncover political expression that is humoristic or cynical, colorful, and frequently infused with popular culture references. It is deeply emotional and often profoundly personal. If we look at this political speech through traditional lenses, we may not only miss it, but misunderstand young people's relationship to politics.Grounded in empirical research on three case studies of youth political expression on three different social media sites, Not Your Parents' Politics offers insights into the varied ways young people engage with political issues on the social media platforms most popular with youth audiences. On a theoretical level, the book offers a conceptual framework for analyzing how different platforms shape political expression through the interaction between their affordances, norms, and contents. This empirical and theoretically-based investigation sets the stage for a normative discussion, asking how the forms of expressive citizenship identified throughout the book might bolster-or hinder-democratic engagement. Ultimately, the book considers what it means to take youth political expression on social media seriously, and what the stakes are for political socialization and democratic participation.

Social media has become a key space for young people to experiment with their political voice and to hone it through interaction with others. However, authors Neta Kligler-Vilenchik and Ioana Literat argue that in order to seriously consider social media as a space for youth political expression, we need to put aside conventional expectations about the forms that political expression should take. According to longstanding criteria for evaluating good citizens, political expression should be serious, focused on facts and rationality, and detached and objective. By contrast, the authors uncover political expression that is humoristic or cynical, colorful, and frequently infused with popular culture references. It is deeply emotional and often profoundly personal. If we look at this political speech through traditional lenses, we may not only miss it, but misunderstand young people's relationship to politics.Grounded in empirical research on three case studies of youth political expression on three different social media sites, Not Your Parents' Politics offers insights into the varied ways young people engage with political issues on the social media platforms most popular with youth audiences. On a theoretical level, the book offers a conceptual framework for analyzing how different platforms shape political expression through the interaction between their affordances, norms, and contents. This empirical and theoretically-based investigation sets the stage for a normative discussion, asking how the forms of expressive citizenship identified throughout the book might bolster-or hinder-democratic engagement. Ultimately, the book considers what it means to take youth political expression on social media seriously, and what the stakes are for political socialization and democratic participation.

As climate change brings devastation to all areas of the world, and U.S. journalists cover these threats more extensively, climate reporting needs to be evaluated. Media representations of the climate crisis are critical because they influence what responses are taken and policies enacted.In Apocalyptic Authoritarianism, media scholar Hanna E. Morris reveals how national anxieties following the 2016 presidential election have shaped American news coverage of climate change in ways that severely limit how it has come to be known, imagined, and contended with. Looking at climate change reporting across prominent and ideologically diverse U.S. newspapers and magazines over the past decade, the book traces how news media create an illusion of control in the present through nostalgic and heroic stories of the past. Morris identifies a new mode of reactionary politics called "apocalyptic authoritarianism" to describe the post-2016 alignment of historically privileged figures united by a common enemy of the "new" New Left and a shared appeal to fears of "total crisis." Their antidemocratic paradigm portends national and planetary disarray if progressive social and climate justice "warriors" are not controlled at home and if "unruly masses" of climate migrants are not contained abroad. Ultimately, Morris calls for a robust and inclusive form of climate journalism and politics to facilitate--and not impede--democratic and equitable responses to climate change.