When the Press Fails

This week's readings provide theoretical accounts of the media in the United States -- they offer theoretical explanations for why the press operates as it does as well as empirical studies to support those theoretical positions. In general, I view this week's readings as posing questions about how to define and study the press.

Timothy Cook's characterization of the press as an institution is helpful in that, in one respect, he expands on the obvious. It may be obvious, that is, that the press is an institution but applying a rigorous definition of the press as an institution leads to asking and answering different questions about the press. Thinking of the press as an institution involves asking questions about how the press as an institution formed, what is rules or norms of operation are, and traces patterns of convergence or divergence with the "norm." Bennett, Lawrence, and Livingston apply this principle in When the Press Fails. In this book, they define and document what it is that the press does and how the press, as an institution, interacts and relates to other institutions.

On a side note, I found Bennett et al's discussion of the semi-independent press to be a good model for thinking about how to describe the federal judiciary -- the federal courts are also "semi-independent" in that they have the capacity in certain situations and in response to certain conditions to make independent decisions, but in the many other situations and circumstances, the judiciary acts only semi-independently.

Bennett et al seem to follow Zaller's (1992) theoretical and empirical discussion of the relationship between public opinion and consensus among elites. In brief, Zaller writes that if there is consensus among elites, public opinion is more likely to reflect elite consensus. When elites disagree and their disagreement is apparent, public opinion is also likely to reflect this disagreement.

The press, according to Bennett et al are better situated to notice elite disagreement even when opposition is not strong, but often has trouble sustain any meaningful opposition against a strongly coordinated official position. As a result, if initial opposition exists it may be quickly minimized and subsequently ignored. Additionally, institutional norms seem to push the press to report not on the actual content of news, but on the power plays behind them, or to avoid reporting on oppositional positions when they are not officially sanctioned. The Iraq War example shows how this is so: the press both reported on the power plays behind the "selling" of the war and reported on the Bush Administration's official position on the rationale for war while avoiding reporting of alternative positions. This entire characterization raises the question of what if opposition never forms?

Moments for press independence emerge mainly from, according to Bennett et al, exogenous events such as natural disasters, scandals, elections, or the emergence of within government opposition that can sustain its own message. Sometimes independence comes endogenously through the press picking up on stories directly -- often through technological advances -- without having to wait for an official line (think of Hurricane Katrina). What is interesting about this is that it seems as if large exogenous shocks are needed for error-correction. What if these shocks never come?

In thinking about potential research projects this book presents the empirical question of what young people view as the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq. As reported by Bennett et al, the Bush Administration was successful in convincing, at various times, a majority of Americans that such a link existed. Given what is known about disengagement on the part of young people with the media and with politics, what should their level of political knowledge on this issue be? Given what is known about the role of the media in indexing the position of those in power, what can be expected for those who do not engage with the media?

Public opinion

This week's reading proves, I think, the old statement that there is nothing new under the sun. Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion, first published in 1922, describes crises of democracy that could easily describe the present day. I'm going to sketch here some broad themes of the book.

Lippmann challenges the idea that there is such a thing as Public Opinion. He argues that referring to a concept of public opinion assumes that disparate human beings are able to or actually do view and understand the world in the same way as one another. Furthermore, it requires the assumption that human beings are able to or actually view the world objectively -- or, at least with all the facts. Rather, Lippmann argues that we are separated from knowing a good deal of what is going on by limitations that impose upon comprehension -- limitations that stem from lack of time, from the filtering by stereotypes and interests, and from basic lack of information. (Stereotypes also are shortcuts for comprehension, for better or for worse). While everyone may be subject to these limitations in one way or another, they are not subject to similar enough interpretations of the world to form a comprehensive and specific enough viewpoint on public affairs to constitute public opinion. This is not to argue that we are not able to understand that is what is local to us, that which is interesting to us, and that which is brought to our attention. Public Opinion can also be formed around, as described by Lippmann, broad symbols.

Following his description of human nature, Lippmann turns to a discussion of democracy and of the role of the media. He provides an insightful and illuminating description of the disconnect between democratic theory and what he sees as the reality of democracy in the United States. Those who construct an ideal of democracy depend upon assumptions similar to assumptions behind an idea of Public Opinion -- namely, assumptions regarding ideal forms of democracy, of ideal democratic citizens, and of the relationship between ourselves and our government. Lippmann's most devastating critique, and most true, I think, is his description of the United States Constitution as established to separate the governed from the government. This is a second big question -- What is the role of the public in government? (With the first question being -- What is Public Opinion?) Contrary to the mythology of democracy in which the common person is conceived of as having the knowledge, the morality, and the will to participate in government, Lippmann first describes the common person as ill-equipped and uninterested in such a project and then describes government as not necessarily needing the input of the common person. In his description, the United States Constitution established a form of government that excluded the common person from all but one government (though this of course has changed most notably after the 17th Amendment).

As a corollary, Lippmann tackles the myth of the independent press, and its role in democracy. He chastises against viewing the press as having the ability to cut through limitations on perception and against viewing the press as presenting accurate descriptions of the world. Not only are members of the press subject to the same limitations as the rest of us, they are not motivated to perform their function out of commitment to democratic principles but rather for economic gain (Habermas writes on this subject -- more on this later). We should not assume, then, that the press are necessarily providing us with a certain democratic function.

Finally, Lippmann prescribes his solution to the challenges faced by society: expert, unfiltered information. He suggests increasing the capacity of government agencies to collect and share information, and argues for institutional independence to allow experts to do their work free from interference. Lippmann seems to be arguing that we must strive to really know the world.

In the next day or so, I'll revisit some of these points and offer some more thoughts on Lippmann's work. Here is an outline of some thoughts:

• Lippmann is arguing for a role for increased information in democracy
• There are obvious challenges to collecting information, including time and cost
• There are also challenges posed by collecting objective information
• Even if the information is objective fact, it still needs interpretation

• Lippmann seems to argue in part that information costs are low (despite the technological limitations imposed on the dissemination of information at the time he was writing) and that most of the problem stems not from high cost of information, but from lack of use of that information by consumers (I'll try to find the page number for this one)
• This suggests that a challenge to deliberative democracy is not lack of information
• One could argue, that is, that there have always been costs to gaining information and that access to information has ebbed and flowed over time
• Rather, it seems that a challenge to deliberative democracy is related to how information is used
• Are people accessing information? Under what conditions will they access information?
• Are people learning from what they access? Under what conditions will they learn or not learn? (What does learning mean?)

• Lippmann cites some statistics regarding the consumption of news and concludes that most people are probably reading the newspaper for 30 minutes a day
• During the height of mass media, when the 3 networks dominated, what was the average length of time for consumption of purely news items. It would be interesting to see how, during this time, how people's media habits were divided.

Graduate school

Inspired by a recent conversation with a first year graduate student about graduate school, I want to get down on paper my own advice and advice I've received from others.

First, I try to treat graduate school like a 9-5 job. This has two aspects: first, I give myself the structure of working everyday (and a couple of hours on some weekends) but I also can stop working at 5:00 PM knowing that I have put in 8 or so hours. That way, I can safely get out of my office and devote attention to Mike, the dogs, and the other things that make life interesting.

Second, I try to maintain a work-life balance in which I work on graduate school stuff when I am at work and (try) to not work on graduate school stuff when I am not at work. I know that there is always another book or paper to be read, but there is also tomorrow.

Third, I miss at most one seminar per quarter. Though not every quarter and not every seminar. Sometimes, you just can't make it and that is OK. Don't miss more than one, unless you really can't help it!

Fourth, no matter what my other commitments are, I try to devote time each week to work on projects that are entirely of my own choosing. No RA work, no TA work, no seminar work -- just exploring scholarship that I want to explore for my own interests.

Fifth, I drink a lot of coffee. But, I also exercise fairly regularly.

Sixth, and finally for now, I try to maintain a sense of humor about myself, my colleagues, my professors, and -- when I am working with them -- undergraduates.

Snowball and Juneau

The long promised pictures of the dogs are here, on my Facebook page.

Civic Engagement

I've posted a response to comments on my earlier Civic Engagement post. I look forward to continuing on- and off-line discussions about my theory building.

Our reading for this week was the manuscript for The Internet and Democratic Citizenship by Stephen Coleman and Jay G. Blumer. The authors explore the "crisis of disengagement" in which citizens are disengaged and disenchanted with government and government is is seen as remote and insensitive. Responses to this crisis range from nostalgia for a by-gone (perhaps mythical) time in which things were better to unease about being unacknowledged and disrespected. The authors explicitly avoid speaking of the Internet as a cure-all for democracy's ills, but rather first explore the nature of citizenship, communication, and deliberative democracy, and then discuss the potential of the Internet as a site for civic engagement. In essence, the authors are arguing that the problems associated with the crisis of disengagement did not appear overnight and are not simple. Therefore, they can not be meaningfully addressed with simple fixes, including through imposition from above. The authors propose the idea of a civic commons -- fully aware of the ideas' limitations and challenges to implementation -- to provide a forum through which citizens are able to communicate with government and to potentially influence the direction of public policy (outside of the voting booth). This is a book chock full of theory -- on ideas of citizenship, deliberative democracy, and communication -- and a book chock full of applications of that theory.

I have a couple of thoughts after reading this book. First, when discussing their idea for a civic space on the internet (as well as some pilot projects that attempted to link citizens to policy formation), the authors write that people want to be involved, but do not necessarily know how to be involved or what to do first. I have experienced this many times after seeing a clip on the YouTubes of a television host going off on a homophobic tirade (the latest was this reaction to Thomas Beatie). Second, the authors make the point that it is not enough for people to be involved in the process, but there also must be some tangible outcomes to their involvement. I think the authors are realistic about the challenge of the promise of participation, or of heightened expectations. So, there is both the need for a forum in which citizens can engage in meaningful dialog with election officials (or others) and the need for translation of citizen wants into public policy outcomes.

Above all else, this book made me think of the differences between the Bush (II) Administration and the Clinton Administration. Clinton was very popular, in part because of his practice of supporting policies that 6 out of 10 Americans also supported. While he also took a lot of heat for this practice of "triangulation," which involved governing from the center (where the majority of Americans seem to be, anyway), he was nonetheless in touch with what the public seemed to want. Bush on the other hand consistently ignores and downplays public opinion (as does Dick "So?" Cheney).

Street of Dreams?

In March of this year, the 2007 Seattle Street of Dreams was the target of arson in which a number of the multi-million dollar homes were destroyed by fire. My partner Mike and I visited the 2007 Street of Dreams last year. Reading about the fires in the Seattle Times, I was struck by these two paragraphs:

The Quinn's Crossing project had drawn opposition from neighbors who said its septic systems could damage critical wetlands needed to protect an aquifer used by about 20,000 people in the area and could harm streams used by chinook salmon. The Snohomish County Council approved the project in March 2007.

The luxury homes were built using septic systems with drain fields ending near these critical areas. Residents said the natural system would be overloaded by the septic arrangement. They also feared the system would further endanger chinook salmon.

The full text of the article can be found at the blog SkyDrive, by following this link .

What struck me is that I was unaware of any controversy surround this particular Street of Dreams. It was entirely absent from the Street of Dreams promotional materials, though this is not surprising. While I can find some reporting on the opposition to the project similar to that posted above, the majority of the coverage of the Street of Dreams highlighted that it was green! green! green!. The Seattle Time's coverage of opening day seems to be fairly typical to me (full text here ).

Organizers say this show will be unlike any other because, for the first time, the homes are built with environmentally sensitive construction and design practices. Covenants require that each home is Built-Green certified (www.builtgreen.net) with a minimum three-star rating.

I am not condoning arson, but it seems to me that this could be a learning moment for the Street of Dreams. At the very least, what the organizers of the event are doing moving forward to address the universe of issues raised by the arson (other than hiring security guards or taking out more insurance)?

Let's Start Theorizing!

Lance's challenge to the seminar was to start theorizing about civic engagement in the late modern period.

Foundational theories of civic engagement start with a model of citizenship in which citizens are socialized as citizens through strong organizations (such as family, church, school, and social clubs); who participate in face-to-face activities with peers and leaders; and who discuss the issues important to them and their peers. These associations in which people interact are a crucial link between citizens and their elected officials as organizations translate these issues into actionable political topics. Behaviors characteristic of civic engagement, such as participating in associations and voting, should be viewed as a function of socialization as citizens.

This sets up a basic causal relationship between socialization as a citizen and political behavior, the typical provenance of political science.

We can read the relationship in a number of ways, including:

Citizenship leads to voting; or
If people aren't voting it is because of a breakdown of citizenship.

We can theorize about each piece of these equations and can ask a host of questions about both the inputs and outputs of our basic civic engagement equation:

Inputs:

1. What is citizenship?
2. What has the historical role of strong associations been in fostering citizenship?
3. What is the impact on citizenship if associations are no longer central to socialization?
4. If not through associations, how are people socialized as citizens?

Outputs:

1. What is the impact on civic engagement of changing socialization into citizenship?
2. What does civic engagement look like in the present day?

One thought that has piqued my interest is related to this story from the Daily Kos. According to the accounting of events in the Daily Kos (and I've not yet looked at other sources to "confirm " this story, though I am uncertain what my responsibility is), a student asked Senator John McCain (R-AZ) point-blank why she and her classmates were being forced to take part in what was obviously a political event, especially when it was her understanding that the event was to be free from political content. The reaction from both Senator McCain and the media was to ridicule her question and to make her the target of inquiry, rather than Senator's McCain's actions. This in turn made me think of the recent Supreme Court decision in the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case which was related to student free speech activities. In both cases, student's speech (setting aside the question of whether it was "appropriate" or not") was subject to investigation and control.

In the model of civic engagement I briefly sketched above, the ability to have discussions with other people -- be they peers or elected officials -- and to have one's opinions be given due weight seems to be necessary to fostering the willingness to participate. It seems instead that participation in public discussions are increasingly monitored and sanctioned -- and I am NOT referring here to political correctness, which I think is a red herring. I refer instead to active efforts [on behalf of whom?] to silence speakers, both through informal means such as ridicule and through the law.

Civic Engagement: Discussion Journal 1

I. Overview of readings

This week's readings are the book Is Voting for Young People? by Martin P. Wattenberg and the article "Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age" by W. Lance Bennett (available free online at Civic Life Online under the Open Access Edition link). Wattenberg provides an accessible account of how young people are less informed about politics and public affairs and are correspondingly less likely to vote, as compared to older Americans. Wattenberg examines voting trends among young persons in other countries, which provides a useful comparison of the challenges faced by democracies across the world. Finally, he discusses numerous potential problems that may result from the lack of civic engagement, including continued and increasing lack of responsiveness on the part of government towards the policies of importance to young people. The author links lack of civic engagement to lack of political knowledge; as young people are less likely to read newspapers or even to watch television news, they are less likely to participate in public life through voting. After discussing a number of potential solutions to the problem of non-voting among young people in the United States, Wattenberg proposes the adoption of a compulsory voting system in which citizens would be required to vote in U.S. elections or be subject to the penalty of a monetary fine.

While this book has a number of strengths, there are many points at which it gave me pause. Most importantly, Wattenberg never examines his most important assumptions regarding the nature of civic engagement and, separately, the nature of the activity of voting. That is, Wattenberg seems to define civic engagement primarily as voting and, in turn, defines voting as the most important form of civic engagement, one that has the greatest implications for American politics. In other words, he suggests that young people should participate in politics through voting and it is through voting that young people will have the greatest impact on politics. Second, Wattenberg devotes the first three chapters to a discussion of the lack of political knowledge among young people in the United States (and across the world). He writes that "[m]any young people don't vote simply because they don't follow politics" (4). He then moves on to a discussion of decreasing newspaper readership, the impact of "narrowcasting" (as opposed to broadcasting), and the corresponding decrease in political knowledge. For example, Wattenberg takes the position that "newspapers are by far the best source of learning about politics" (4). If we have less people reading newspapers, we have less political knowledge. While the survey data Wattenberg provides supports his conclusions about decreasing political knowledge, I am not convinced on the potential relationship between decreasing newspaper readership, decreasing political knowledge, and decreasing voting. Finally, Wattenberg does not discuss other reasons for civic engagement including lack of responsiveness on the part of government, government corruption, and changing economic circumstances, for example.

Bennett's article provides a needed lens through which to evaluate various accounts of civic engagement, including Wattenberg's. Most importantly, Bennett provides a definitional distinction between two understandings of citizenship. The "dutiful citizen" model looks like our classical understanding of who a citizen is and what he or she does; the dutiful citizen feels obligated to government, sees voting as a core democratic act, looks to government and traditional media as information sources, and joins traditional organizations such as political parties. The "actualizing citizen" feels less obligated towards government, sees voting as less meaningful as compared to other forms of civic engagement, uses alternative forms of media for information, and is involved in less formal organizations (14). In this light, Wattenberg's account of voting trends among young people emerges as characteristic of a model of civic behavior that may not be descriptive of how young people engage with government and media today. It is important to note, as Bennett cautiously does, the danger of adopting one paradigm of citizenship over another. When paradigms are involved, one's world view quickly becomes subsumed in the definitions required of the paradigm. With respect to citizenship and other concepts, Bennett suggests, in general, a middle road.

Bennett additionally provides a useful description of what civic engagement may be but again is cautious about coming down on one side or another. With civic engagement, as with citizenship, what is at stake with adopting definitions is the loss of some of the foundations provided by older understandings as well as the danger of leaving out too much of how civic engagement and notions of citizenship have evolved. Thus, civic engagement may have come to include more than mere voting (and may include activities such as participating in on-line petitions) but in order to be be meaningful as civic and engagement must it not have some attachment to existing political institutions?

II. Political dilemmas

What political dilemmas may emerge (or have emerge) from disconnects between the electorate (not necessarily just young people) and their government?

As the electorate gets smaller and smaller and power becomes more centralized among certain groups, public policy may become more skewed away from that which a majority of Americans would actually want and it becomes more difficult to right the wrongs. If this is the case, government would be paying attention to the needs and wants of a small, unrepresentative group of people. Error correction can take place -- either through events such as elections, revolutions, or even response to major events such as Hurricane Katrina -- but it seems that the magnitude of the events must be very large in order to get government's attention. (Of course, this may have a silver lining as large public policy problems might get the attention of more people who may be more likely to participate in politics in order to correct what they see as glaring problems.) Overall, my point here is that government would be better served by paying better attention to what the people want and would be more responsive if it incrementally responded to the public's concerns rather than having to rush to put out large fires.

Some organizational comments

After thinking about the advantages of using a web log for various projects and interests, I've decided to give it another try. The advantages are many: access to the blog from multiple locations (including my iPhone) with the ability to store vast amounts of information on Google's server and the potential for interaction with others with similar interests, to name a few.

The first project I'll be pursuing here is a cataloguing of federal (and perhaps state) administrative agencies. This is a somewhat obscure topic, but is strongly related to my research interests -- the agendas of the federal courts. Administrative law is an important, albeit often overlooked, component of what the federal courts do and a comprehensive accounting of the landscape of how administrative agencies are organized will be of benefit not only to me but others interested in this topic. I also hope to expand this into a running commentary on the politics of administrative law similar to SCOTUSblog which is quickly becoming one of my favorite blogs for its depth and quality of coverage. Entries on this topic will be generally filed under "administrative law" with more specific labels for the agency involved.

The second project is more specific to a seminar I am enrolled in this quarter (one of the final few seminars I'll be taking as I move into the post-course work phase of my PhD experience). A requirement for Communication and Civic Engagement is to maintain a journal motivated in part by our class discussions and readings. It will be interesting to see how this project will grow, especially after these ten weeks are over. Entries on this topic will be generally filed under "civic engagement" with more specific labels as needed.

Expect as well many many pictures of our dogs, Snowball and Juneau.