Political Communication Journalism & Mass Communication 829 Cross-listed with Political Science Spring 2013 Mondays, 1:20-3:20 5013 Vilas Communications Hall Chris Wells Assistant Professor, School of Journalism & Mass Communication 5004 Vilas Communications Hall [email protected] Office hours: Tuesdays, 2:30-4:30 Course description Political communication is an interdisciplinary field found at the intersections of communication, media and journalism studies, political science and sociology. Its theoretical foundations and empirical approaches are diverse, drawn as they are from those different fields. And as one of the field of communication’s primary subfields, it is characterized with its focus on developing and answering research questions rather than the development of unified intellectual traditions. Given this, the course is designed to introduce students to major works and topics in this interdisciplinary field. Its reading list is designed to include both ‘classics’ in the field and stateof-the-field work. Political communication’s breadth and diversity makes it difficult to claim comprehensiveness in such a survey, and the choices made here necessarily reflect the interests and expertise of the instructor. The course’s overarching structure follows three major themes: the role of media in society, with particular focus on journalism and news media, how their work is done, and relationships to citizens; the media effects tradition, and what it has contributed to our understanding of media’s impacts on public opinion; and the place of political communications in civic life, with particular concern for media’s role in larger social structures, political communication outside of the media, and the future of citizenship and civic engagement in new media. Assignments1 *Research paper (40%) *Discussion leadership (20%) *State of the field presentation (10%) *Comment papers (20%) *Participation (10%)

1

Note: Concept and text in some assignments borrowed and developed from Dhavan Shah, Syllabus for Political Communication seminar, Spring 2011

1

Research paper The major requirement for this course is an original research paper written individually by each student and presented to other seminar participants. The paper should grow out of one of the topics or theories covered in the course and contain the following sections: (1) brief introduction, (2) literature review, (3) statement of hypothesis or research model, (4) actual or proposed methodology, (5) results or proposed analysis, (6) concluding discussion about what was or will be learned. The methodology may be quantitative or qualitative. The goal of the paper is to contribute, however modestly, to research in the area of political communication. The paper can present findings based on existing and available data sets (e.g., National Election Study, General Social Survey, DDB Life Style Archive, The Pew Internet and American Life Project, the National Annenberg Election Study, the Mass Communication Research Center Archive, etc.) or the collection of original data. Some of you may wish to extend projects you have developed elsewhere or to refine ideas toward completion of Master’s or Doctoral theses; please consult with me if this is the case. Your paper will be evaluated on whether it integrates the concepts encountered in class into coherent and testable propositions that have implications for theory in political communication. Your research paper should reflect an original extension of the ideas we have encountered in class, not a simple recapitulation of past work. A two-page prospectus for your seminar paper is due on April 15. Seminar presentations, in the form of 12-minute conference presentations, will be held during the last class period and one out-of-class session. The final paper is due Monday, May 13th by 4:00 P.M. and should be between 15-20 pages of text, not including cover, references, tables, and figures. Discussion leadership Every student will serve as a discussant for two class sessions. Discussants will write a 6 to 8 page summary and critique of the week’s readings (including recommended readings) and provide a brief list of questions to facilitate discussion. As a discussant, you will be responsible for spurring but not necessarily leading rstudent discussion of the readings by pointing out what you believe are the strengths and weaknesses of the readings and encouraging debate about your reflections. Ideally, you will choose a week that coincides with your broader interests. That way, your review of the reading materials will be useful to you when preparing your paper. Review reports will be sent to the class listserv as an .rtf or .pdf at least 6 hours before class. State of the field presentation Each student, during one of the sessions in which they are a discussion leader, will conclude the class by offering a state of the field presentation. This presentation should present to the class a very recent article (published in last 24 months) not on the syllabus that builds on the literature and ideas of the week’s readings. The student will have 12 minutes to present the article, which will be followed by questions—like a conference presentation, but presenting another’s work. A powerpoint or other visual presentation would be appropriate, including key charts or data presented in the article. In their presentation, students should present the theoretical and 2

empirical advancements made in the article, with particular focus on the ideas in the week’s readings and the discussion that has just taken place. They also should critique the argument and method of the article. Comment papers Every week, with the exception of the weeks you prepare review reports, you will produce a brief set of written comments on the readings. You may miss 4 weekly comment papers (that is, you will complete six comment papers, omitting the two weeks you will be producing review reports). These comment papers should be 1-2 pages in length. Papers do not need to follow any particular format or necessarily cover all the readings, as long as they illustrate that you made an effort to process that week’s reading and have reflected on the research you encountered. Some of you may use these comment papers to summarize the key points of each of the readings into notes for their own future use. Others may organize their comments into critical essays or critiques on the general themes of the week. Yet others may focus on detailed reviews of a few readings or even a single reading, digging deeply into a topic of particular interest. Bring your comment papers to class and turn them in to me at the end. If you do not complete your comment paper for a particular week, do not avoid class. Come to seminar, listen and learn, and comment when you can. Participation The final 10% of the course grade is based on seminar participation. Students are expected to attend class every week prepared to discuss the readings. There will be many opportunities for participation—from responding to the instructor’s lectures, to attempting to answer discussant’s questions, to asking questions of the presenter of the state of the field report. This portion of the grade will based on engagement with class readings and discussion. Readings Readings consist of required books, listed below, and articles, listed in the schedule. Students should buy the books; articles will be made available by the instructor at a secure web location. All readings should be considered ‘required’ and should be completed before class. That said, in weeks with many readings the instructor will highlight some readings to read thoroughly and others to skim. Books Lippmann, Public Opinion Delli Carpini & Keeter, What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters Putnam, Bowling Alone Gamson, Talking Politics Eliasoph, Avoiding Politics Bimber, Information and American Democracy Karpf, The MoveOn Effect 3

Schedule Week 1, January 21 (NO CLASS) Week 2, January 28 Introductions Week 3, February 4 Foundations, continuity and transformation * * * * *

Lippmann, Public Opinion Chaffee, S. H., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). The end of mass communication? Mass Communication and Society, 4(4), 365–380. Blumler, J. & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication. Political Communication, 16, 209-230. Bennett, W. L. & Iyengar, S. (2008) A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication, Journal of Communication, 58, 707-731 Graber, D. A., & Smith, J. M. (2005). Political communication faces the 21st century. Journal of Communication, 55(3), 479–507. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02682.x

Week 4, February 11 Communication and the citizen: Who learns? When? * *

*

Delli Carpini & Keeter, What Americans Know About Politics Neuman, W. R., Bimber, B., & Hindman, M. (2011). The internet and four dimensions of citizenship. In R. Y. Shapiro and L. R. Jacobs (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media (pp. 21-58). New York: Oxford University Press. Xenos, M. A., & Moy, P. (2007). Direct and differential effects of the Internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication, 57, 704-718.

Week 5, February 18 The news—and how it got that way * * * * *

Entman, R. (2005). Nature and sources of news. In Overholser, G. & Jamieson, K.H., The Press. Hanitzsch, T. (2007). Deconstructing Journalism Culture: Toward a Universal Theory. Communication Theory, 17(4), 367–385. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00303.x Edelman, M. J. (1993). Contestable categories and public opinion. Political Communication, 10, 231-242. Bennett, W. L. (1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication, 40, 103-125. Stocking, S. H., & Holstein, L. W. (2009). Manufacturing doubt: journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 18(1), 23–42. doi:10.1177/0963662507079373

4

Week 6, February 25 Agenda setting and priming * * * *

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. McCombs, M. (2005). A Look at Agenda-setting: past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6(4), 543–557. doi:10.1080/14616700500250438 Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication, 43, 100-127. Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00326.x

Week 7, March 4 Framing Individual-level * Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. * Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122. * Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., Schmierbach, M. & Zubric, J. (2004). The interplay of news frames on cognitive complexity, Human Communication Research, 30, 102-128. * Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567-583. Media-level * Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10, 55-75. * Entman, R. E. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(1), 6–27. * Druckman, J. N (2004). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066. * Entman, R. (2007). Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution of Power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173.

Week 8, March 11 Information processing and biases * * *

Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns (pp. 72-95). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections. The American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63– 76. doi:10.2307/2944882 Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements 5

* *

of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality (p. 182). Cambridge University Press. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. Reedy, J., Wells, C., & Gastil, J. (under review). How voters become misinformed: An investigation of the emergence and consequences of false factual beliefs. Social Science Quarterly.

Week 9, March 18 Polarization and contentious politics * * *

* *

*

Mutz, D. C., & Martin, P. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95, 97–114. Scheufele, D.A. & Nisbet, M.C. (2012). Online news and the demise of political disagreement. Communication Yearbook. Cappella, J. N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000, Political Communication, 19:73–93. Prior, M. (2005). News Versus Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577–592. Shaw, A., & Benkler, Y. (2012). A Tale of Two Blogospheres Discursive Practices on the Left and Right. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), 459–487. doi:10.1177/0002764211433793 Further reading TBA

Week 10, March 25 Spring break Week 11, April 1 Media in the social fabric * * *

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Skocpol, T. (2004). Voice and Inequality: The Transformation of American Civic Democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 2(01), 3–20. Schudson, M. (2006). The Varieties of Civic Experience. Citizenship Studies, 10(5), 591. doi:10.1080/13621020600955033

Week 12, April 8 Political communication beyond media: Discourse * *

Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.

6

Week 13, April 15 The network society and what it means for political communication * * * *

Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of political power. Cambridge UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. Wellman, B. (2001). Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Personalized Networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227–252. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. (Chapters 1, 6, 7; available online) Chadwick, A. (2011). The Political Information Cycle in a Hybrid News System: The British Prime Minister and the “Bullygate” Affair. International Journal of Press-Politics, 16(1), 3– 29. doi:10.1177/1940161210384730

Week 14, April 22 Communicating in an era of changing civic norms *

* * *

Bennett, W. L., Wells, C., & Rank, A. (2009). Young citizens and civic learning: two paradigms of citizenship in the digital age. Citizenship Studies, 13(2), 105–120. doi:10.1080/13621020902731116 Wells TBA Thorson TBA Schudson, M. (2010). Political observatories, databases & news in the emerging ecology of public information. Daedalus, 139(2), 100–109. doi:10.1162/daed.2010.139.2.100

Week 15, April 29 Communicating collective action * *

* * *

*

Karpf, D. (2012). The MoveOn Effect: The Unexpected Transformation of American Political Advocacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Bimber, B., Stohl, C., & Flanagin, A. J. (2009). Technological change and the shifting nature of political organization. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. London: Routledge. Chadwick, A. (2007). Digital network repertoires and organizational hybridity. Political Communication, 24(3), 283–301. doi:10.1080/10584600701471666 Kreiss, D., Finn, M., & Turner, F. (2010). The limits of peer production: Some reminders from Max Weber for the network society. New Media & Society, 20(10), 1–17. Kreiss, D., & Tufekci, Z. (2013). Occupying the political: Occupy Wall Street,collective action and the rediscovery of pragmatic politics. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 13(3). Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661

Week 16, May 6 Presentations

7