INFORMATION ABOUT THE WORKING GROUPS
Movements as Collective Challenges to Authority Structures
University of Notre Dame August 14-15, 2002
Meets: Wednesday, August 14th, 10:30 am - 12:15 pm
&
Thursday, August 15th, 10:30 am - 12:15 pmPost a Message to this Workgroup Listserv
View this Workgroup's Listserv ArchivesWorking Group 5: Mass Media. Deana Rohlinger, University of California, Irvine
Should we regard mass media as an opportunity, an obstacle, or both? Currently, there is a dualism about mass media. On the one hand, mass media are regarded as a vehicle for social movement messages. In this way, mass media provide social movements an opportunity to get their messages to a larger public and to mobilize a sympathetic audience. On the other hand, mass media reflect corporate capitalism and therefore are regarded as an obstacle that social movements must overcome. As more and more research examines how and why social movements use mass media, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical and empirical issues as they relate to this line of inquiry. A few of the issues are:
1. How should we conceptualize mass media? Research has a tendency to treat mass media as though it were a unitary actor and thus focuses on mainstream mass media. In reality, mass media constitute a “field” with different media outlets, networks, audiences, and niches. Media outlets target different audiences and this affects how social and political issues are presented. The conceptualization of mass media as a unitary actor is especially problematic in the age of the internet in which social movement organizations create their own venues in order to reach sympathetic audiences without the “distortion” associated with more mainstream outlets. How we answer this question has implications for discussions on the public sphere. In the United States, scholars tend to argue that 1) the public sphere is undemocratic because media outlets are beholden to market forces and therefore alternative voices that challenge status quo cannot gain access to the media agenda or 2) the public sphere is democratic because media outlets are open to “legitimate” voices that express the concerns of the mainstream. Clearly, the waters are much more muddied than either of these lines of argument suggest. However, this discussion highlights the need of scholars to more directly address how various types of outlets “carry” social movement messages.
2. Are mass media the target of social movement efforts or the mediator of social movement activities and messages? While in both cases, social movement activists must understand the “rules of the game” in order to garner media attention, getting media coverage may mean something different in each of these instances. In the former, social movement activists regard getting media coverage as an end in and of itself. In the latter, social movement activists attempt to “use” mass media to get their messages out to a larger, sympathetic audience. Clearly, the two are not mutually exclusive. Social movement activists may conceptualize media as both a target and a mediator of movement messages. However, are there cases, causes, or organizations that regard getting media as their sole target? What factors account for this focus (revolutionary goals, lack of resources, etc.)?
3. How do we measure media effects on institutional arenas? The current research posits that social movements that garner mainstream media attention may send ripples of change through other institutional political arenas by affecting policy debates (Gamson and Wolfsfeld 1993; McCarthy and Zald 1994; Meyer 1995; McCarthy, Smith and Zald 1996; Walgrave and Manssens 2000). However, given the number of complex factors that affect policy processes how do we conceptualize and measure the relative influence of social movements using mass media on these processes? How do internet petitions and mass e-mails by movement sympathizers fit into this discussion? Is using the internet more effective than mainstream media outlets in affecting policy debates?
4. How do we measure media effects on cultural arenas? Social movements also seek to affect cultural change by altering how a society thinks about a given issue. In his book, Thomas Rochon (1998) argued that mass media is critical to spreading social movement ideas beyond the boundaries of the critical communities that spawned them and through mainstream society. However, as the social movement succeeds in expanding its understanding of an issue to a broader audience, its influence and ability to claim influence wanes. Proponents of the constructionist perspective take a much more interactive approach to explanations of cultural influence. While a social movement may frame an issue and affect how a population thinks about an issue, this is done relative to a larger audience and in response to a larger political environment. As the political context and cultural beliefs change, so do movement frames. Is one of these accounts more plausible than another? How can we measure the role of mass media in affecting cultural beliefs?
5. How should we conceptualize and operationalize media success, especially in the case of the internet? Do these definitions reflect our perceptions of success or activists' perceptions of success? Does it make a difference?