Skip to main content
Log in

Conduit or contributor? The role of media in policy change theory

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The policy change literature is contradictory about the role the media plays in policy change: a conduit for policy participants, with media accounts transmitting multiple policy beliefs of those involved in policy debates or a contributor in the policy process, with media accounts supplying consistent policy beliefs with congruent narrative framing strategies to construct a policy story. The purpose of this study is to empirically test whether the role of the media is that of a conduit or contributor in the policy change process. This study tests whether there are differences in policy beliefs and narrative framing strategies between local and national print media coverage of two contentious policy issues in the Greater Yellowstone Area between 1986 and 2006, that of snowmobile access and wolf reintroduction. In the Greater Yellowstone Area policy arena, local media accounts are believed to be aligned with the Old West Advocacy Coalition, whereas the national media accounts are thought to be part of the New West Advocacy Coalition. With a methodology informed by narrative policy analysis, one hundred seventy five local and national print newspaper accounts were content analyzed to determine whether these media accounts were policy narratives, with embedded policy beliefs and narrative framing strategies. The results indicate that there are statistical differences between local and national media coverage for five of the seven hypotheses. Media accounts are generally policy stories, suggesting that the media’s role is more of a contributor than a conduit in the policy change process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Nationalism theory supports the notion that decisions should be made at the federal level; compact theory supports decisions being made locally.

  2. Conservation science is characterized by natural management, habitat and ecosystem protection, and biodiversity; technical fix centered science is characterized by management of the environment through technological innovation and the productive capacity of natural resources.

  3. The biocentric view of the human–nature relationship means that nature has an intrinsic value, on par with humans; the anthropocentric view of this relationship means that human concerns/wellbeing take precedence over concerns/wellbeing of nature.

  4. The scale from −1.00 to +1.00 representing Old West to New West policy orientation does not apply to the variable ‘Framing Format.’

References

  • Anderson, J. (1995). Wolf pack kills three calves near Whitehall. West Yellowstone News, September 21, 2.

  • Anonymous. (1992). No-wolf keeps up information Blitz, Cody Enterprise, April 1: A-3.

  • Anonymous. (1995). Bring back the wolf, USA Today, January 9: 10-A. Accessed through LexisNexis on May 19, 2006.

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagne, M. (1991). Cody group fights wolves. Cody Enterprise, February 4, A-1.

  • Brunner, R. D. (1991). The policy movement as a policy problem. Policy Sciences, 24, 65–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D. (1997). Introduction to policy sciences. Policy Sciences, 30, 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D., Colburn, C. H., Cromley, C. M., & Klein, R. A. (2002). Finding common ground: Governance and natural resources in the American West. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpini, M. X. D. (2005). News from somewhere: Journalistic frames and debate over "Public Journalism". In K. Callaghan & F. Schnell (Eds.), Framing American politics (pp. 21–53). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P. A., Abelson, J., Pyman, H., & Lavis, J. N. (2006). Are we expecting too much from print media? An analysis of newspaper coverage of the 2002 Canadian Healthcare Reform Debate. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, T. (1994). Ranchers Balk at U.S. Plans to Return Wolf Back to the West, New York Times, December 11, section 1: 1. Accessed through LexisNexis on May 18, 2006.

  • Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, H. (1995). Wolf wars: The remarkable inside story of the restoration of wolves to Yellowstone. Helena, MT: Falcon Press Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. G. Braungart & M. M. Braungart (Eds.), Research in political sociology (pp. 137–177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graber, D. (Ed.). (1990). Media power in politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graber, D., McQuail, D., & Norris, P. (Eds.). (1998). The politics of news the news of politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harden, B. (2002). Snowmobilers favoring access to Yellowstone have found an Ally in Bush, New York Times: A-16. Accessed through LexisNexis on May 23, 2006.

  • Howland, D., Becker, M. L., & Prelli, L. J. (2006). Merging content analysis and the policy sciences: A system to discern policy-specific trends from news media reports. Policy Sciences, 39, 205–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. (1990). The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. (1997). Overview. In S. Iyengar & R. Reeves (Eds.), Do the media govern? Politicians, voters, and reporters in America (pp. 211–216). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1993). News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion. Communication Research, 20, 365–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1997). News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda setting, priming, and framing. In S. Iyengar & R. Reeves (Eds.), Do the media govern? Politicians, voters, and reporters in America (pp. 248–257). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janowitz, M. (1968). Harold D. Lasswells contribution to content analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 646–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. B., & Reynolds, H. T. (2005). Political science research methods (5th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanamine, L. (1993). Emotions high in wolf-plan debate, USA Today, March 4: 10-A. Accessed through LexisNexis on May 19, 2006.

  • Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R. A. (2002). Wolf recovery in the Northern Rockies. In Finding common ground: Governance and natural resources in the American West (pp. 88–125). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and method. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A preview of policy sciences. New York, NY: American Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, W. (1990). Newspapers. In D. Graber (Ed.), Media power in politics (pp. 37–44). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBeth, M. K., & Shanahan, E. A. (2004). Public opinion for sale: The role of policy marketers in Greater Yellowstone Policy Conflict. Policy Sciences, 37, 319–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Arnell, R. J., & Hathaway, P. L. (2007). The intersection of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory. Policy Studies Journal, 35, 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., & Jones, M. D. (2005). The science of storytelling: Measuring policy beliefs in Greater Yellowstone. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 413–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, M. (1997). Building consensus: The news medias agenda-setting role. Political Communication, 14, 433–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. M., & McBeth, M. K. (2003). The new west in the context of extractive commodity theory: The case of Bison-brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park. Social Science Journal, 40, 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nie, M. A. (2003). Beyond wolves: The politics of wolf recovery and management. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paletz, D. L. (1998). The media and public policy. In D. Graber, D. McQuail, & P. Norris (Eds.), The politics of news the news of politics (pp. 218–237). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, M. K., & Smith, D. W. (1996). The wolves of Yellowstone. Stillwater, MN: Voyageur Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridenour, S. (1987). Wolf Impact too Great. Cody Enterprise, June 17, A-2.

  • Roe, E. (1998). Narrative policy analysis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Roskos-Ewoldsen B., & Carpenter, F. R. D. (2002). Media priming: A synthesis. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 97–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Brasher, A. M. (1993). From vague consensus to clearly differentiated coalitions: Environmental policy at Lake Tahoe, 1964–1985. In P. A. Sabatier & H. C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 177–208). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (revised edition). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takeshita, T. (2005). Current critical problems in agenda-setting research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 274–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terkildsen, N., Schnell, F. I., & Ling, C. (1998). Interest groups, the media, and policy debate formation: An analysis of message structure, rhetoric, and source cues. Political Communication, 15, 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, J., & Frasure, W. (1998). Culture wars on the frontier: Interests, values and policy narratives in public land politics. In A. J. Cigler & B. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics (pp. 303–326). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. A. (1997). The wolf in Yellowstone: Science, symbol, or politics? Deconstructing the conflict between environmentalism and wise use. Society and Natural Resources, 10, 453–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Shanahan.

Appendices

Appendix A: Codebook

  1. 1.

    List the source cues by the characteristics; include line/paragraph citation; record each source cue once.

     

     

    Interest group

    Elected official or judge

    Governmental agency

    Science

    Individual or business

    Local (inside ID, MT, WY)

    N=_____

    reconcile= _______

    NEW WEST

    pro-wolf

    anti-snowmobile

       

    Technical:

    n=___

    reconcile=___

     

    N=_________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    Conservation:

    n=___

    reconcile=___

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    OLD WEST

    anti-wolf

    pro-snowmobile

       

    Technical:

    n=________ reconcile=_____

     

    N=_________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    Conservation:

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    National

    (outside ID, MT, WY)

    N=_____

    reconcile= _______

    NEW WEST

    pro-wolf anti-snowmobile

       

    Technical:

    n=________ reconcile=_____

     

    N=_________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    Conservation:

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    OLD WEST

    anti-wolf

    pro-snowmobile

       

    Technical: n=________ reconcile=_____

     

    N=_________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    Conservation:

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

    n=________

    reconcile=_____

  2. 2.

    List the descriptors used in the article (symbols, adjectives, or metaphors used to describe wolves, snowmobiles, the GYA, or the issue) and evaluate their usage to be for or against the issue. Include line/paragraph citation(s).

     

    NEW WEST

    (pro wolf; anti snowmobile) n=_____ reconcile = _____

    OLD WEST

    (anti wolf; pro-snowmobile) n=_____ reconcile = _____

    by the journalist

    n=___; reconcile=___

      

    in a quotation

    n=___; reconcile=___

      
  3. 3.

    Is/are victim(s) identified in the article? _____ YES ______ NO RECONCILE = ______ If YES, who are the victims in the article (include line/paragraph citations)?

     

    Specific Victim (episodic, e.g., Joe’s snowmobile rental business)

    n=_____ reconcile = _____

    General references to victims (thematic, e.g., democracy)

    n=_____ reconcile = _____

    anthropocentric

    n=___; reconcile=___

      

    biocentric

    n=___; reconcile=___

      
  4. 4.

    How is the problem defined (e.g., environmental issue, economic issue)? RECONCILE:

Appendix B: Inter-coder reliability

 

Exact coding match

Missed by one coding entry

Missed by two coding entries

Missed by three coding entries

Total articles

Q1: Local source cue

160 (91%)

13 (7%)

1 (1%)

1 (1%)

175

Q1: National source cue

158 (90%)

12 (7%)

3 (2%)

2 (1%)

175

Q2: Journalist source

141 (81%)

21 (12%)

5 (3%)

8 (5%)

175

Q2: Quotation

141 (81%)

25 (14%)

6 (3%)

3 (2%)

175

Q3: Anthropocentric

78 (80%)

14 (14%)

3 (3%)

2 (2%)

97

Q3: Biocentric

72 (81%)

12 (14%)

2 (2%)

3 (3%)

89

Q4: Problem definition

92 (53%)

75 (43%)

7 (4%)

1 (0%)

175

 

Agree

Disagree

 

Q3: Victim

153 (87%)

22 (13%)

175

Total

995 (80%)

172 (14%)

69 (6%)

 

Grand total number of codings

1236 (100%)

 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shanahan, E.A., McBeth, M.K., Hathaway, P.L. et al. Conduit or contributor? The role of media in policy change theory. Policy Sci 41, 115–138 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-008-9058-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-008-9058-y

Keywords

Navigation