This study examines interest groups’ framing of gun policy issues via an analysis of nearly 10,000 tweets by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association spanning from 2009 to 2014. Utilizing the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), I investigate the extent to which interest groups use social media to construct policy narratives. This research shows that much can be conveyed in 140 characters; both gun control and gun rights organizations used Twitter to identify victims, blame “villains,” commend “heroes,” and offer policy solutions. This research sheds light on the politics of gun control by revealing trends over time in groups’ framing and suggests refinements for hypotheses of the NPF. Finally, this work underscores the importance of social media for public policy scholarship.

This research examines the role of the devil shift and angel shift in interest group rhetoric using the case of gun policy. The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) suggests that the devil shift-whereby political actors characterize their opponents as more malicious and powerful than they actually areis common in intractable policy debates. Through an analysis of e-mails and press releases by two gun control organizations and two gun rights organizations, I examine how groups portray themselves and their opponents. I identify two dimensions relevant to these portrayals: (1) whether a character in a policy narrative is portrayed as good or evil, and (2) whether a character is portrayed as strong or weak. The findings indicate that while the devil shift is present, the angel shift-that is, the glorification of one's own coalition-is more common in gun policy groups' communications. Two alternative characterizations, which I call the angel in distress and the devil diminished, are also present. The use of these character portrayals varies significantly across political coalitions and as a function of communication purposes. The results suggest a need to reconceptualize character portrayals to better understand how they operate as narrative strategies in the NPF.Political words and actions are often imbued with drama and emotion. As political actors vie to shape public opinion, build coalitions, and increase their ability to bs_bs_banner

While much scholarship has explored the framing of gun policy, the bulk of that work has focused on general themes or arguments made in support or opposition to gun control. This study offers a more nuanced examination of the framing in the gun policy debate, utilizing the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to identify rhetorical and political strategies of gun control and gun rights organizations. Drawing on a data set of more than 58,000 Facebook posts by 15 gun policy organizations, I examine how groups portray the victims of gun violence, particularly with respect to the race and age of victims. I also examine the types of gun violence that groups emphasize on social media. The findings suggest that gun control organizations seek to broaden the scope of debate by focusing on child victims and on mass shootings. Gun rights organizations pursue a similar strategy, but with a focus on self‐defense shootings. Despite the fact that gun violence primarily affects minorities, both types of organizations rarely mentioned race. I attribute this to groups' efforts to emphasize proximate and positively constructed characters. This research suggests that both types of organizations systematically distort the nature of the gun policy problem.

No abstract

This article examines how environmental organizations utilized the microblogging website Twitter to engage in political advocacy during the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Using a content analysis of tweets, blogs, email, and press releases, it is demonstrated that environmental groups responded more quickly to the disaster and offered more sustained attention to the spill on Twitter compared to the other media. It is also shown that groups framed the disaster differently on Twitter than in other media, emphasizing different targets of blame. While the findings indicate strong potential for Twitter as a tool for mobilization and conflict expansion, this study also suggests that interest groups have relinquished some control over the framing of focusing events on Twitter by reproducing content created by other users.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of interest groups in the formation of online echo chambers and to determine whether interest groups’ use of social media contributes to political polarization. Design/methodology/approach This study used a content analysis of nearly 10,000 tweets (from 2009 to 2014) by the Brady campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association to examine how groups engage with their political allies and opponents. Findings The results indicated that both groups engaged primarily with their supporters on Twitter while avoiding confrontation with their opponents. In particular, both groups used hashtags designed to reach their supporters, retweeted messages almost exclusively from other users with whom they agreed, and disproportionately used Twitter handles of their allies, while avoiding the use of Twitter handles of their opponents. Practical implications The findings suggest that interest groups’ use of social media accelerates the formation of online echo chambers, but does not lead to an increase in polarization beyond existing levels, given practices that maintain civility between opposing sides. Originality/value This is one of few studies to examine the role of interest groups in the formation of online echo chambers. It also uses a novel approach – the examination of both the interactions that occur among social media users and those that are explicitly avoided.

This study evaluates interest group activity on the Internet, addressing two sets of questions. First, has the Internet allowed small or poorly funded groups to compete equally with well-resourced organizations? Second, to what extent do group characteristics explain their online activities? Using a sample of 200 environmental groups, I evaluate which Web sites receive the most exposure and identify features facilitating information dissemination and public participation. The results indicate that well-resourced groups receive greater Web site traffic and inbound links and are more likely to use all Web site features. Additionally, membership organizations are more likely than nonmembership organizations to fundraise and issue action alerts.

Although emotional appeals are commonplace in political rhetoric, they are often viewed as manipulative and therefore threatening to democratic governance. Interest groups, in particular, have been blamed for relying on emotionally charged rhetoric to achieve fundraising objectives. Through a focus on 210 national-level environmental organizations, the author reevaluates this critique, postulating that groups vary the emotive content of their communications in response to different audiences and purposes of communication. Using evidence from a content analysis of group communications across several media, the author shows that groups rely much more on positive rhetoric than previous studies have indicated, especially in communications designed to encourage participation. Furthermore, negative appeals are most prevalent in groups' efforts to encourage learning through information provision. The results suggest that emotive rhetoric can be used in ways that complement reasoning processes.