Tim Groeling

Crossing the Water's Edge: Elite Rhetoric, Media Coverage, and the Rally-Round-the-Flag Phenomenon

The most widely accepted explanation for the rally-round-the-flag phenomenon is a relative absence of elite criticism during the initial stages of foreign crises. In this study we argue that the nature and extent of elite debate may matter less than media coverage of any such debate, and that such coverage is heavily influenced by commonly held professional incentives and norms that lead journalists to strongly prefer certain stories over others. We also argue that not all messages in this debate matter equally for public opinion. Rather, the persuasiveness of elite messages depends on their credibility, which, in turn, arises out of an interaction between the sender, receiver, and message. Hence, only by understanding the interactions between elites, the public, and the press can we account for variations in public responses to presidential foreign policy initiatives. We test our theory by examining public opinion data and network news coverage of all major U.S. uses of military force from 1979 to 2003. We content analyze all congressional evaluations of the president and the executive branch of government from the three network evening newscasts within 60-day time periods centered on the start date of each use of force. Our results offer strong support for the theory.

Journalists’ Incentives and Media Coverage of Elite Foreign Policy Evaluations

Scholars have long recognized that public support for presidential uses of military force depends critically on elite support. Similarly, scholars have argued that the media “index” their coverage of foreign policy to reflect the responses of partisan (particularly congressional) elites. We argue that journalists’ choices also play an important role by systematically (and predictably) skewing the elite rhetoric presented to the public. In particular, we argue that criticism of the president by his own party is disproportionately likely to be broadcast—particularly in unified government—and that such criticism should be exceptionally persuasive to citizens. To separate the media’s independent effect from that of the actual tenor of elite discourse, as presented in the news, we investigate all interviews with members of Congress on network television Sunday morning political interview shows between 1980 and 2003. We then determine which comments were selected for inclusion on the evening news and compare the characteristics of such comments with those that were not selected, both during periods immediately following major US uses of military force and during “normal” periods. We find that the evening news presents a biased sample of elite rhetoric, heavily over-representing criticism of the president by his own party, while under-representing supportive rhetoric. Our findings indicate that future studies of public opinion and US foreign policy must take into account the intervening role of journalists, who function as strategic, self-interested gatekeepers of public information regarding foreign policy events.

Book Review: In-Your-Face-Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil MediaMutzDiana C.In-Your-Face-Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.263pp. ISBN: 978-0-691-16511-0

from campaigns to constituent services, and this raises significant concerns about potentials for abuse (such as an elected official being more responsive to constituents that are of the same political party.) With respect to democratic inclusion, Hersh smartly synthesizes various strains of the debate over micro-targeting, including from those scholars who argue that data can facilitate democratic representation (in terms of candidates prioritizing positions on the basis of knowing the preferences of voters and seeking to mobilize those voters to participate) and the prevalent concerns of others that micro-targeting will simply leave broad swaths of the public untouched as candidates use data to narrowly make appeals to their own particular factions. Hersh’s suggestion, which to me is entirely sensible, is to refocus the debate around public records—both because we have greater agency over them and because we can consider many different categories of public data and query whether they are good or bad from a normative democratic perspective in the context of electoral politics. Hersh urges creating a commission to oversee targeting in constituent services, before arguing that voters should have a say in the compilation and maintenance of the profiles of them compiled by campaigns, parties, and firms. This would enable voters to see how they are represented and change and update information about who they are and what they care about, and ultimately create the possibility that campaigns can perceive voters more accurately. These things may serve the ends of democratic inclusion by helping campaigns more accurately segment voters and try to reach those who may be open to their appeals. It is hard to overstate the range of theoretical and empirical insight in this relatively slim volume. I think Hersh has written the best book about data in politics in the literature, and it should be the cornerstone for all subsequent studies. It should also receive a large audience among those journalists and members of the public interested in understanding contemporary democracy. Even more, Hersh’s fundamental insight that basic categories of data have effects on how actors perceive the world and ultimately how they act in it is one that is broadly applicable to many other domains of social life. It is an important insight—and scholars can build from it in many other contexts.

Cycles of Spin: Strategic Communication in the U.S. Congress, by Patrick Sellers

Political scientists have often dismissed partisan rhetoric as “cheap talk,” preferring instead to focus their attention on votes, legislation, and other more readily quantifiable actions within the legislature. However, as the 2010 election appears to have demonstrated, even an impressive record of legislative accomplishments might be inadequate to assure reelection for members of Congress. In Cycles of Spin: Strategic Communication in the U.S. Congress, Patrick Sellers clearly argues that spin, for all of its negative connotations, is a vital part of the legislative process, and failing to manage it effectively can severely damage legislative parties. Sellers’s goal in this text is to examine the creation, promotion, and coverage of partisan spin. Specifically, his intent is to explore the entire life cycle of spin, from its origins in the strategic calculations of party leaders to its collective distribution by party members and its ultimate acceptance or rejection by journalists and the public. While others have pursued similar research goals, this book is a weighty, meticulous, and generally persuasive addition to the literature on congressional communication and strategy. Sellers argues that strategic communications campaigns begin when politicians create a message crafted to appeal to various audiences, including other politicians, the news media, and the public. Party leaders are especially drawn to messages that highlight an issue their party “owns” or that unify their own party while splitting members of the opposing party, but must also sometimes craft messages that combat appeals favoring the opposition. Once the party’s message is selected, legislators must work together to effectively promote it. Because members who did not help promote the party message can still benefit from the promotion of that message, Sellers correctly notes there will be incentives to “free ride” in these promotions. Sellers argues that party leaders fight this collective action problem by trying to choose messages that benefit both the party’s collective standing and individual members (although sometimes such messages are unavailable). According to Sellers, even if members are unwilling to promote the party’s chosen message, their concern for the party’s collective reputation should lead them to remain silent rather than promote a competing party message.

CHAPTER 5. Shot by the Messenger An Experimental Examination of the Effects of Party Cues on Public Opinion Regarding National Security and War

Cues on Public Opinion Regarding National Security and War Research has shown that messages of intra-party harmony tend to be ignored by the news media, while internal disputes, especially within the governing party, generally receive prominent coverage. We examine how messages of party conflict and cooperation affect public opinion regarding national security, as well as whether and how the reputations of media outlets matter. We develop a typology of partisan messages in the news, determining their likely effects based on the characteristics of the speaker, listener, news outlet, and message content. We hypothesize that criticism of the president by his fellow partisan elites should be exceptionally damaging (especially on a “conservative” media outlet), while opposition party praise of the president should be the most helpful (especially on a “liberal” outlet). We test our hypotheses through an experiment and a national survey on attitudes regarding the Iraq War. The results show that credible communication (i.e., “costly” rhetoric harmful to a party) is more influential than “cheap talk” in moving public opinion. Ironically, news media outlets perceived as ideologically “hostile” can actually enhance the credibility of certain messages relative to “friendly” news sources.