Media Coverage and Public Approval of the U.S. Supreme Court

Hitt, Matthew P.; Searles, Kathleen

doi:10.1080/10584609.2018.1467517

Cited by 58 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Conveying selective ideological narratives heightened the conflict frame and negative emotional frame, which in turn contributed to polarizing audiences. Hitt and Searles (2018) suggested that such framing effects were "unlikely to return to a baseline" (p. 15). Thus, we suggest that with the populist discourse Trump's campaign used on social media, particularly Twitter, similar kinds of aggressive populist discourses may recur in future elections, posing potential harms of dividing public sentiment and upending democratic norms.…”

Section: Frame Building: Generic and Emotional Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Media for Political Campaigns: An Examination of Trump’s and Clinton’s Frame Building and Its Effect on Audience Engagement

Sahly

Shao

Kwon

2019

Social Media + Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates cross-platform differences in social media by analyzing the contending candidates who represent different political ideology during the 2016 presidential election. Borrowing the frame-building and frame-effect perspectives, it examines the ways in which the two contending candidates (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) built their message frames in two different social platforms-Twitter (N = 3,805) and Facebook (N = 655)-and how the frame differences affected audience engagement in each platform. The results showed that Trump's messages presented more variety in frame selection than Clinton's, focusing on conflict and negative emotional frames on Twitter while displaying frequent positive emotional frames on Facebook. Clinton's strategy relied heavily on conflict and positive emotional frames on both Twitter and Facebook. The results also suggested that for both Trump and Clinton followers on Twitter, conflict and morality frames consistently attracted retweeting behaviors and emotional frames attracted favoriting behaviors. However, Facebook engagement behaviors did not show a consistent pattern between the followers of the two candidates.

show abstract

Section: Frame Building: Generic and Emotional Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Media for Political Campaigns: An Examination of Trump’s and Clinton’s Frame Building and Its Effect on Audience Engagement

Sahly

Shao

Kwon

2019

Social Media + Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other recent research has investigated the content and character of media coverage, connecting it to public perceptions of the Court. Hitt and Searles () show how more “game frame,” as opposed to principled, media coverage can inhibit the public's agreement with decisions and undermine support for the institution. And, in the study most proximate to our own, Solberg and Waltenburg () argue that contemporary media incentives often lead reporters to define newsworthiness in a way that reflects a “cult of personality,” which can significantly affect how the public views the Court.…”

Section: National News Coverage Of the Supreme Court As An Institutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Systematic, large-scale empirical studies on media coverage of the Court have, to date, been somewhat limited, especially those that connect coverage of the Court to media incentives that shape coverage (though see Hitt and Searles, 2018;Solberg and Waltenburg, 2014). Some studies have demonstrated that the central issue in a case is an important determinant of whether the Court receives press attention (Haider-Markel, Allen, and Johansen, 2006;Johnson and Socker, 2012;Slotnick and Segal, 1998;Ura, 2009;Vining and Marcin, 2014).…”

Section: National News Coverage Of the Supreme Court As An Institutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars have considered how media devote attention to the Supreme Court relative to other national institutions such as Congress (Cook, 1998), the case attributes that enhance coverage (Hitt and Searles, 2018;Sill, Metzgar, and Rouse, 2013), and the particular legal issues that are likely to attract more media attention (Johnson and Socker, 2012;Slotnick and Segal, 1998). This research also suggests that the Court may have significant agenda-setting effects that can influence both media and the public (Hitt and Searles, 2018;Sill, Metzgar, and Rouse, 2013). Yet, existing research has generally viewed media attention to the Court solely at the macro level of the institution as a whole, with little consideration of media incentives shaping the nature of coverage and attention concentrated on particular justices on the Court.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Personalizing the U.S. Supreme Court Through Attention to Individual Justices

Fogarty

Qadri

Wohlfarth

2020

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives We examine media incentives shaping the nature of U.S. Supreme Court justices’ news coverage and, in particular, how those incentives often lead news outlets to concentrate coverage on particular justices on the Court. Methods First, we examine and model aggregate, over time patterns of news attention devoted to individual justices in the New York Times over the past four decades. Second, we compare and model temporal variation in individual justice coverage relative to generic coverage of the Supreme Court. Findings The results suggest that particular justices receive disproportionate attention from the national news media. Further, we demonstrate how individual justices have received a greater proportion of print media coverage over time and in a way that is shaped by internal division among the justices. Conclusion The findings provide a more complete and nuanced understanding of how national media utilize resources to maximize journalistic impact and personalize the Court as an institution.

show abstract

“…Prior studies of on the dynamics of specific support for the Supreme Court identifies two principal factors associated with the changes in the public's view of the Supreme Court's performance (Durr, Martin, and Wolbrecht 2000;Hitt and Searles 2018;Sinozich 2017; see also Caldeira 1986, 1991, Mondak 1992, Mondak and Grosskopf 1997, Ura and Merill 2017 . The first is the public's disposition toward the federal government as a whole, especially attitudes toward Congress.…”

Section: Accounting For Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideology and Public Support for the Supreme Court

Haglin¹,

Jordan²,

Merrill³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An extensive literature spanning political science, law, and other fields recognizes that public support for judicial authority insulates courts from political pressures and catalyzes compliance with judicial decisions. The nexus between public sentiment and judicial power is especially salient for the Supreme Court of the United States, whose unelected members exercise judicial review of federal and state laws and executive actions. Yet, a variety of data indicate declining public support for the United States Supreme Court over the last decade or more. Here, we develop and assess an account of ideological asymmetries in public support for the Supreme Court. We find that specific support for the Supreme Court is more strongly negatively related to perceptions that the Court is overly liberal than perceptions that the Court is overly conservative.

show abstract

Media Coverage and Public Approval of the U.S. Supreme Court

Cited by 58 publications

References 60 publications

Social Media for Political Campaigns: An Examination of Trump’s and Clinton’s Frame Building and Its Effect on Audience Engagement

Social Media for Political Campaigns: An Examination of Trump’s and Clinton’s Frame Building and Its Effect on Audience Engagement

Personalizing the U.S. Supreme Court Through Attention to Individual Justices

Ideology and Public Support for the Supreme Court

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About