Search results

In a multichannel era of fragmented and contested political communication, both misinformation and fact checking have taken on new significance. The rise of Twitter as a key venue for political journalists would seem to support their fact-checking activities. Through a content analysis of political journalists' Twitter discourse surrounding the 2012 presidential debates, this study examines the degree to which fact-checking techniques were used on Twitter and the ways in which journalists on Twitter adhered to the practices of either "professional" or "scientific" objectivity—the mode that underlies the fact-checking enterprise—or disregarded objectivity altogether. A typology of tweets indicates that fact checking played a notable but secondary role in journalists' Twitter discourse. Professional objectivity, especially simple stenography, dominated reporting practices on Twitter, and opinion and commentary were also prevalent. We determine that Twitter is indeed conducive to some elements of fact checking. But taken as a whole, our data suggest that journalists and commentators posted opinionated tweets about the candidates' claims more often than they fact checked those claims.

A sobering look at the intimate relationship between political power and the news media, When the Press Fails argues the dependence of reporters on official sources disastrously thwarts coverage of dissenting voices from outside the Beltway. The result is both an indictment of official spin and an urgent call to action that questions why the mainstream press failed to challenge the Bush administration?s arguments for an invasion of Iraq or to illuminate administration policies underlying the Abu Ghraib controversy. Drawing on revealing interviews with Washington insiders and analysis of conten.

In December 1966 through January 1967, Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times wrote dispatches based on a visit to Hanoi that disputed the administration's claims that its highly accurate bombing did not hit civilian targets in North Vietnam. Administration officials, other journalists, and even his own paper challenged his reporting. Deemed unpatriotic, Salisbury was denied a Pulitzer Prize. This case study employs documents from the files of the New York Times , the CIA, and the Harrison Salisbury Papers at Columbia University, as well as content analysis of his coverage of Vietnam compared with other reporting by him that won a Pulitzer. The study shows how editorial standards of news sourcing become higher when correspondents challenge the official line. While illustrating factors that lead newspapers and reporters to index foreign news to the prevailing political consensus, it also demonstrates the limits of indexing and the conditions under which journalists may effectively challenge the official line.

As female candidates may face greater challenges in establishing their "qualifications" for office, coverage of their personal traits may be pernicious, because it tends to de-emphasize substantive qualifications. This study focuses on relative amounts of trait and issue coverage of contests with and without women candidates. We find that races with female candidates yield more coverage of traits than male versus male contests and races with female candidates are less likely to generate issue coverage than trait coverage. Candidate gender and office interact; female gubernatorial candidates are most likely to garner trait coverage and least likely to engender issue coverage.

Based on computerized and manual content analyses, we examined the theories, methods, topics, and authors' backgrounds of the empirical articles revolving around politics and media published by Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly (JMCQ) in its 100 years ( N = 424). The most common theories are agenda-setting, framing, and selective exposure, and quantitative methods prevail with single-country studies being more prevalent than comparative analyses. A considerable portion of research has focused on political news, particularly during campaigns. Male, U.S.-based authors dominate, but female-authored work has increased in the past decade. Challenges remain to make the research on politics and media in JMCQ more generalizable globally.

In a multichannel era of fragmented and contested political communication, both misinformation and fact checking have taken on new significance. The rise of Twitter as a key venue for political journalists would seem to support their fact-checking activities. Through a content analysis of political journalists' Twitter discourse surrounding the 2012 presidential debates, this study examines the degree to which fact-checking techniques were used on Twitter and the ways in which journalists on Twitter adhered to the practices of either "professional" or "scientific" objectivity—the mode that underlies the fact-checking enterprise—or disregarded objectivity altogether. A typology of tweets indicates that fact checking played a notable but secondary role in journalists' Twitter discourse. Professional objectivity, especially simple stenography, dominated reporting practices on Twitter, and opinion and commentary were also prevalent. We determine that Twitter is indeed conducive to some elements of fact checking. But taken as a whole, our data suggest that journalists and commentators posted opinionated tweets about the candidates' claims more often than they fact checked those claims. ; Klein College of Media and Communication ; Journalism

Choice Outstanding Academic Title of 2016From the presidential race to the battle for the office of New York City mayor, American political candidates' approach to new media strategy is increasingly what makes or breaks their campaign. Targeted outreach on Facebook and Twitter, placement of a well-timed viral ad, and the ability to roll with the memes, flame wars, and downvotes that might spring from ordinary citizens' engagement with the issues—these skills are heralded as crucial for anyone hoping to get their views heard in a chaotic election cycle. But just how effective are the kinds of media strategies that American politicians employ? And what effect, if any, do citizen-created political media have on the tide of public opinion? In Controlling the Message, Farrar-Myers and Vaughn curate a series of case studies that use real-time original research from the 2012 election season to explore how politicians and ordinary citizens use and consume new media during political campaigns. Broken down into sections that examine new media strategy from the highest echelons of campaign management all the way down to passive citizen engagement with campaign issues in places like online comment forums, the book ultimately reveals that political messaging in today's diverse new media landscape is a fragile, unpredictable, and sometimes futile process. The result is a collection that both interprets important historical data from a watershed campaign season and also explains myriad approaches to political campaign media scholarship—an ideal volume for students, scholars, and political analysts alike