Olivia Bridges
SMPA 6202.10: Media Effects, Public Opinion and Persuasion
February 26, 2021
Abstract: This paper operationalizes the media concepts of framing, agenda setting, priming and connects those concepts to current events in relation to social constructionism. Through the analyzation of media effects, this paper grapples with the question of what constitutes a cross-cutting issue.
Politics is about power, but even more so, politics is about how to stay in power. The conservative dilemma posits that right-wing parties do not have not have the numbers to remain in power based on their economic policies alone. So, the question thus arose: how does the political elite persuade average citizens to vote against their own economic interests? Daniel Ziblat attempted to answer this question; he claimed that through the use of cross-cutting issues, right wing parties would be able to garner enough support to maintain an electoral majority.[1] Within the Republican Party, Ziblat’s observation appears to be reflected in their approach to politics. Republicans habitually promote the cross-cutting issues of racism, xenophobia and hypermasculinity. From up close, it would seem that cross-cutting issues have a commonality: they appeal to people’s perceived fears and incite a visceral reaction of hate. However, that is an oversimplification that fails to recognize the balanced nature of cross-cutting issues. The United States is a two-party system and like the U.S., there are two sides of an issue, if not more. The assumption that cross-cutting issues are hateful is problematic because it aligns with the inaccurate beliefs that feminism is anti-men or that BLM is anti-white. The only commonality that cross-cutting issues share is that they stem from contested, socially constructed issues.[2] Cross-cutting issues cannot be inherently hateful because of the ambiguous nature of social constructionism; rather the qualities of a cross-cutting issue is determined by the intentions of the surrogate organization or political party that incorporates the issue into their agenda.
Social Constructionism and Cross-Cutting Issues
The Republican Party has a history of using race to win elections. For example, former President Nixon’s Southern Strategy weaponized the issue of race to gain support from disillusioned, white working-class voters.[3] More recently, Trump managed to win the 2016 presidency on the issue of race and immigration. He played on his follower’s fear of the “other.” But what exactly constitutes the “other” is unclear. According to Hiebert, the social world is not entirely determined; it is made-up and transmitted by people. The realities of the world are understood through interactions with others. Normative facts, such as race are entirely dependent on humans.[4] Scientifically, race is an ill-suited proxy for genetic differences, “the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning.”[5] Culture determines the parameters of race.[6] Race is not a natural or brute fact because it does not need to be explained through other facts. If an individual were to try to explain the concept of race, they would have to go down the rabbit hole of slavery, colonialism and even geographical boarders between nations. Race is tied to hard constructionism because soft constructivism implies that there are actually factual realties. Race simply is not a factual reality; it is a social one.[7]
Whiteness is an entirely made-up concept to subdue certain people into subservienthood and cast others as superior. The consequences due to the lack of a salient definition of race is evident today and throughout history. The “one drop rule” dominated the southern states during Jim Crow. The rule fed into racist concepts of blackness in order to strip former slaves of their voting rights. It was an attempt to define race according to white cultural values.[8] Additionally, as a byproduct of the vague definition of race, U.S. culture favors people of color with lighter skin. Colorism divides BIPOC communities and confuses the boundaries between in and out-groups. The lack of a clear definition of race can only worsen systematic racism because Republicans and others are able to exacerbate people’s race-related anxieties by prodding at the already ill-defined, socially constructed issue of race. The cross-cutting issue of race, however, is not owned by the Republican Party. Democrats and other liberal leaning parties and organizations attach race to their agenda as a matter of social justice. Race, as a cross-cutting issue, can be framed to either spark hate or encourage empathy. This signals the various ways in which a group can deploy a cross-cutting issue to serve their own political needs.
The Framing and Defining of Gender as a Social Construct
Gender identification, like race, is also a cross-cutting issue that has been adopted by both parties. Recently, the Equality Act (H.R. 5) passed in the House. The bill, if enacted, would prohibit discrimination and segregation based on sex, sexual orientation and gender identification.[9] Following the passage of the bill, Democrat Rep. Marie Newman, posted a video to Twitter that features her hanging the transgender flag outside her office. The video is intended to signal her support for the LGBTQ+ community. Newman, who has a transgender daughter, claimed that her decision was motivated by the actions of Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene:
Our neighbor, @RepMTG, tried to block the Equality Act because she believes
prohibiting discrimination against trans Americans is “disgusting, immoral, and evil.”
Thought we’d put up our Transgender flag so she can look at it every time she opens her door.[10]
In retribution to Newman’s Tweet, Greene subsequently posted a video of herself hanging a sign that states there are only two genders and to “trust the science.” Along with the video, Greene wrote that she believed the act would “destroy women’s rights and religious freedoms.”[11]The feud between Newman and Greene exemplifies the role of social constructionism and how it relates to framing. Robert Entman claims that framing involves the selection of a perceived reality and amplifying its salience. Any given frame would “promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation.”[12] Gender is currently undergoing a social redefining. Republicans and Democrats have attached two differing problem definitions to gender. Greene and her colleagues define gender as either male or female, while Newman defines gender as a spectrum. According to Entman’s framing models, the way in which a problem is defined can be deterministic of the alleged solution.[13] In the case of gender, the solution is either to support or oppose the Equality Act.
Additionally, Entman’s model can be applied to the perceived morality of the two conflicting frames of gender.[14] Newman’s tweet evidently indicated that she disagreed with Greene’s stance. This signaled to her followers that not only is gender discrimination unacceptable, the alleged problem is not one’s gender identification. The problem is the way in which the members of the LGBTQ+ community are treated or discriminated against. Counter to Newman’s framing, Greene’s tweet reaffirmed the belief that prohibiting discrimination is immoral. She also framed it as a matter of women’s rights and religious freedom. This frame aligns with the Republican stance that gender identification is a problem and treats the issue as a threat to traditional gender norms and religious beliefs. Moreover, Greene’s tweet highlights the animosity and cognitive dissonance that can arise as a result of ill defined, socially constructed, cross-cutting issues. The sign stated that there are two genders and that people need to “trust the science.”[15] However, that statement contradicts itself. Unbeknownst to most, gender and sex are two different concepts. Gender is socially and legally defined, while sex refers to one’s biology.[16] Despite popular belief, there are more than two sexes. Specifically, there are more than two chromosomal orders; there are those who have XXX chromosomes[17] and XXY chromosomes.[18] Beyond chromosomes, a number of factors contribute to biological sex, including internal and external genitalia and hormone levels.[19] Greene’s framing mislead her followers because she blurred the lines between sex and gender. The constant jabbing at the socially constructed definition of gender is just one of many examples as to how a socially contested, cross-cutting issue can be framed to invoke a desired response.
Gender, Cascade Activation and Social Media
The two conflicting gender identification frames both emerged on Twitter and subsequently received attention from the news media. Social media has transformed traditional relationships between the political elite, media and public. Specifically, social media calls for Entman’s model of cascade activation to be updated. The model acts as a waterfall metaphor to explain how certain news frames and counter frames are activated. Entman argued that frames are typically activated at the top of the executive branch and cascade down to Congress, then the news media and eventually the public. Executive branch frames are classified as the most effective. The model implies that the public has limited power to produce news frames. Although Entman notes that there is a feedback loop that allows those on lower levels to activate a frame and push it up the hierarchy if there is elite descensus. The cascade model can be applied to Newman and Greene’s Twitter dispute.[20]
The two frames emerged at the elite level and cascaded down to the news media. Entman theorizes that frames become weaker and less representative of the “real” situation as an idea travel down the hierarchy.[21] The news coverage of the Twitter feud seemingly shifted to either empathize Newman or Greene’s frame. Several networks covered the escalating situation, among those networks were CNN and Fox News. CNN coverage mirrored Newman’s frame. The article tilted in Newman’s favor and included quotes from Republicans who voted in favor of the Equality Act, largely omitting Greene’s narrative.[22] Conversely, Fox News, a far-right news organization, included more quotes from Greene that were inherently anti-LGBTQ+.[23] In both cases, the original frames were slightly diminished and represented the alleged “real” situation as a matter of feuding neighbors.
While the cascade activation model can still be applied to the coverage of the Newman-Greene social media confrontation, the model needs to be reimaged to account for the increase in public power. Social media has significantly increased the public’s ability to activate frames.[24] Those frames include #MeToo and #BLM, both of which resulted in either policy change or elite attention. Social media has essentially strengthened the feedback loop. Notably, the most effective public frames are ones of social justice. This aligns with the Entman’s idea of cultural congruence. Social justice is a cross-cutting issue that is culturally congruent with liberals. The parameters of what justifies “justice” in relation to #MeToo and #BLM is established by the public as opposed to the political elite. This diverts from traditional media effects. The public and media normally take cues from the political elite, but increasingly, the elite and media are taking cues from the public. Arguably though, social media has also amplified the framing power of the White House. The events of January 6, 2021, exemplifies how a president can use social media to promote a cross-cutting issue. In Trump’s case, the issue was election fraud coupled with racism. The insurrection loosely followed the cascade model. Trump activated the frame at the top, but unlike the cascade model, he was able to go directly to the public. He was able to do so without needing to go through the media to reach his desired audience. Regardless, the cascade activation model needs to be adjusted to reflect the shift in media, elite, public relations.[25]
Social Media as a Boundary Space
The conflict between Newman and Greene illustrates the complexities of social media culture. The Twitter battle supports the classification of social media as a boundary space. Cultural boundary spaces, as defined by Livingston, are spaces “where collective meaning and shared experience often fail to be communicated or understood…. Boundary spaces are often contested and experienced with apprehension and fear, or at least confusion.”[26] Livingston explains that class differences constitute a boundary space. One that is approached with confusion and aversion. Instead, people habitually discuss the issue of race as a proxy for class. Unlike class, social media is not an issue that people evade. However, social media exemplifies a cultural boundary space because communication between Democrat and Republican culture is often misunderstood. The two opposing cultures often violate the other’s norms and shared experiences.[27]
The Twitter feud symbolizes the clashing of pro and anti-LGBTQ+ cultural norms. Both Newman and Greene appointed themselves as guardians of the cultural boundaries. Livingston states that “When one approaches boundaries, guardians are there to remind the potential transgressor of the proper expectations associated with his or her role.”[28]When Greene opposed the Equality Act, Newman attempted to remind Greene of her role according to the norms of liberal culture. Greene then reciprocated the same sentiment by reminding Newman of her role in conservative culture. Livingston also notes that culture and boundary spaces are policed. Cancel culture, for example, acts as a liberal cultural police or guardian. While social media may be an imperfect boundary space due to its scope, within American politics, it appears to satiate Livingston’s definition. Additionally, by defining social media as a boundary space, conflicts due to ill-defined, socially constructed, cross-cutting issues can be better understood as is the case with Newman and Greene.
How The Media Reports Socially Contested Cross-Cutting Issues (And Priming)[1]
The media’s role as an agenda setter is interrelated to social constructionism and the shaping of political reality. McCombs and Shaw note that “Most of what people know comes to them “second” or “third” hand from the mass media or from other people.”[29] The definition of political reality is strikingly similar to Hiebert’s definition of social constructionism. This juxtaposition indicates that the media’s agenda setting function ties to how constituents perceive the world. McCombs and Shaw conducted a study to understand if the media’s agenda setting power affected the salience of the public’s attitude towards an issue. The study focused on the 1968 presidential election. The researchers attempted to discern the relationship between what Chapel Hill voters perceived as key issues and media coverage. While the study could not conclusively rule out alternative explanations to the media’s agenda setting function, it did discover a correlation. The correlation suggested that the media has the ability to influence the public’s perception of the importance of specific campaign issues.[30]
Iyengar and Kinder were able to rectify the experimental challenges in McCombs and Shaw’s study. They also agreed with the notion that the news shapes people’s conceptions of political reality. Their experiment discovered that agenda setting effects remain persistent and can last at least one week, if not longer. The overall conclusion of the study was that “By attending to some problems and ignoring others, television news shapes the American public’s political priorities.”[31] The agenda setting power of the press has implications for cross-cutting issues. Given the level of media attention, certain cross-cutting issues may be perceived as more important than others. The media can be categorized as a surrogate organization and has the ability to utilize cross-cutting issues to fulfill their own political needs.[32] Fox in particular weaponizes cross-cutting issues and their ability to set the agenda. That combination can be a tool to manipulate the public’s perception of issues like election fraud. The team up of Fox News and Trump was detrimental to liberal democracy. The consequences were evident on January 6. They managed to exaggerate the reality of election fraud and diminish right wing follower’s support for liberal democracy.
Agenda setting is not the media’s only mechanism for affecting the public’s perception of an issue. The public is not an expert on any given topic, especially in regards to politics, “Attention is highly selective; people notice only particular features of special consequence.”[33] Attention and accessibility are tied together because they impact people’s political realities. Such realities are based on selective information that is readily available as a form of availability heuristics–a mental shortcut. The media has control over what information is worthwhile for the public to focus their attention on and aids in the formation of those mental shortcuts.[34] According to Iyengar, Peters and Kinder, priming is a form of agenda setting, “By attending to some problems and ignoring others, the media may also alter the standards by which people evaluate government.”[35] Take January 6 again as an example. During the insurrection, media coverage was solely focused on the events underway at the Capitol. In the subsequent days, news organizations repeatedly played clips of the insurrection and attempted to identify certain key players. The continual coverage of the insurrection signaled to the public that it was an important issue and became readily available. According to Iyengar, Petters and Kinder’s model of priming, the media coverage primed the public to filter their political beliefs through the insurrection. A Pew poll found a sharp decline in support for Trump in the month of January. His overall approval rate was 29 percent, compared to his August approval rate of 38 percent. The decline in support was mainly among Republicans. Pew surmised that 25 percent of those who approved Trump’s job performance later disapproved in January.[36] Although, additional research would need to be conducted to understand the priming effects of the insurrection. Media priming has the ability to structure the public’s political reality, and therefore, has the ability to impact which cross-cutting issues the public’s uses to understand such reality.[37]
Conclusion: How the Concepts Intersect
Agenda setting, framing and priming can all be tied back to social constructionism and the attempts of surrogate organizations and the political elite to manipulate cross-cutting issues. Social constructionism impacts the salience of cross-cutting issues. Issues that are contested and ill-defined can be particularly effective because people cling to issue definitions that they deem crucial to their identity. The constant pushback against alleged socially constructed definitions can be interpreted as a threat to a person’s cultural reality. The conflicting Democrat-Republican framing of cross-cutting issues is representative of the flimsy nature of American culture. While the framing of cross-cutting issues may defer in intention–whether hateful or empathetic–it can become an integral part of someone’s front-stage persona.
Front stage behavior reflects internalized norms and expectations for
behavior shaped partly by the setting, the particular role one plays in it,
and by one’s physical appearance.[38]
The media, political elite and public all partake in front-stage performances to either reaffirm or contest socially constructed, political realities. The social ambiguity of cross-cutting issues can account for individual level, media effects. Media news reports can be connected to the front stage personas that people adopt. On January 6, the cross-cutting issue of nationalism divided the country. The media’s reporting of the insurrection signaled to the public that it was an important issue and should be integrated into one’s front-stage performance. As such, numerous Trump supporters interpreted neo-nationalism as vital to preserving their Trumpian identity. They broadcasted their front-stage extremist persona on the national stage. Those who disapproved of the insurrection felt that their national identity was threatened by the diminishment of the Capital as a pillar of liberal democracy.[39] The deferring public reactions to any issue can be related back to the various media tools employed to promote a cross-cutting issue that probes at the inherent weaknesses of social constructionism.
Bibliography
Ainsworth, Claire. “Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic.” Scientific
American. Scientific American, October 22, 2018.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/.
Brown, Sydney. “Social Constructionism.” YouTube. YouTube, August 3, 2013.
Cole, Nicki Lisa. “The Difference Between Front Stage and Back Stage Behavior.”
ThoughtCo.
https://www.thoughtco.com/goffmans-front-stage-and-back-stage-behavior-4087971.
Davis, F. James. “Mixed Race America – Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition | Jefferson’s
Blood FRONTLINE.” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service. Accessed April 2, 2021. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html.
Duster, Chandelis. “Marjorie Taylor Greene Posts Anti-Transgender Sign across Hall from
Lawmaker with Transgender Child.” CNN. Cable News Network, February 25, 2021. https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-anti-transgender-sign/index.html.
Entman, M. Robert, “Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame After 9/11,”
Political Communication.
Entman, M. Robert, “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm,” Journal of
Communication, 43, 4, Autumn 1993.
FOX 5 Atlanta. “Marjorie Taylor Greene Puts up Anti-Transgender Sign Outside Office in
Feud with Illinois Congresswoman.” FOX 5 Atlanta. FOX 5 Atlanta, February 25,
Gannon, Megan. “Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue.” Scientific American.
Scientific American, February 5, 2016. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/.
Greene, Marjorie Taylor. “Our Neighbor, @RepMarieNewman, Wants to Pass the so-Called
‘Equality’ Act to Destroy Women’s Rights and Religious Freedoms. Thought We’d Put u Ours so She Can Look at It Every Time She Opens Her Door 😉🇺🇸 https://T.co/7joKpTh6Dc Pic.twitter.com/aBGRSiIF6X.” Twitter. Twitter, February 24, 2021. https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1364719403498164226?s=20.
“H.R.5 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act.” Congress.gov, March 17, 2021.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5.
Hiebert, Dennis. “What Does ‘The Social Construction of Reality’ Mean? – by Dr. Dennis
Hiebert,” December 19, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqFhd-Igs6w.
Keeter, Scott. “How We Know the Drop in Trump’s Approval Rating in January Reflected a
Real Shift in Public Opinion.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, January 20, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/20/how-we-know-the-drop-in-trumps-approval-rating-in-january-reflected-a-real-shift-in-public-opinion/.
“Klinefelter Syndrome: MedlinePlus Genetics.” MedlinePlus. U.S. National Library of
Medicine, September 8, 2020. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/klinefelter-syndrome/.
Newman, Marie. “Our Neighbor, @RepMTG, Tried to Block the Equality Act Because She
Believes Prohibiting Discrimination against Trans Americans Is ‘Disgusting, Immoral, and Evil.” Thought We’d Put up Our Transgender Flag so She Can Look at It Every Time She Opens Her Door 😉🏳️⚧️ Pic.twitter.com/dV8FatQFnx.” Twitter. Twitter, February 24, 2021. https://twitter.com/RepMarieNewman/status/1364658561809346564?s=20.
McCombs, Maxwell and Shaw, Donald, “The Agenda-Setting Function of the Mass Media,”
The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2 (summer, 1972), pp. 176-187.
Parenthood, Planned. “Sex and Gender Identity.” Planned Parenthood. Accessed April 2,
2021. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity.
Shanto Iyengar, Mark D. Peters, Donald R. Kinder (Dec., 1982), “Experimental
Demonstrations of the Not-So-Minimal Consequences of Television News Programs,”
The American Political Science Review, Vol. 76, No. 4 pp. 848-858.
Shanto Iyengar and Donald Kinder, News That Matters. Distributed selections.
Steven Livingston, “Crossing Borders: Culture, Identity, and Access to Higher Education,”
Cultural Values in Political Economy, JP Singh (ed). (Distributed PDF)
“Triple X Syndrome: MedlinePlus Genetics.” MedlinePlus. U.S. National Library of
Medicine, September 8, 2020. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/triple-x-syndrome/.
[1] Jacob S. Hacker, Let Them Eat Tweets: How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme Inequality (S.l.: Liveright Publishing Corp, 2021), pp. 25-29.
[2] Dennis Hiebert, “What Does ‘The Social Construction of Reality’ Mean? – by Dr. Dennis Hiebert,” December 19, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqFhd-Igs6w.
[3] Jacob S. Hacker, Let Them Eat Tweets: How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme Inequality.
[4] Sydney Brown, “Social Constructionism,” YouTube (YouTube, August 3, 2013), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVCkJ7jLnz0.
[5] Megan Gannon, “Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue,” Scientific American (Scientific American, February 5, 2016), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/.
[6] ibid.
[7] Sydney Brown, “Social Constructionism,” YouTube.
[8] F. James Davis, “Mixed Race America – Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition | Jefferson’s Blood | FRONTLINE,” PBS (Public Broadcasting Service), accessed April 2, 2021, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html.
[9] “H.R.5 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act,” Congress.gov, March 17, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5.
[10] Marie Newman, Twitter (Twitter, February 24, 2021), https://twitter.com/RepMarieNewman/status/1364658561809346564?s=20.
[11]Marjorie Taylor Greene, Twitter (Twitter, February 24, 2021), https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1364719403498164226?s=20.
[12] Robert M. Entman, “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm,” Journal of Communication, 43, 4, Autumn 1993.
[13] ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Marjorie Taylor Greene, Twitter (Twitter, February 24, 2021),
[16] Planned Parenthood, “Sex and Gender Identity,” Planned Parenthood, accessed April 2, 2021, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity.
[17] “Triple X Syndrome: MedlinePlus Genetics,” MedlinePlus (U.S. National Library of Medicine, September 8, 2020), https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/triple-x-syndrome/.
[18]“ Klinefelter Syndrome: MedlinePlus Genetics,” MedlinePlus (U.S. National Library of Medicine, September 8, 2020), https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/klinefelter-syndrome/.
[19] Claire Ainsworth, “Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic,” Scientific American (Scientific American, October 22, 2018), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/.
[20] Robert M. Entman, “Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame After 9/11,” Political Communication.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Chandelis Duster, “Marjorie Taylor Greene Posts Anti-Transgender Sign across Hall from Lawmaker with Transgender Child,” CNN (Cable News Network, February 25, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-anti-transgender-sign/index.html.
[23] FOX 5 Atlanta, “Marjorie Taylor Greene Puts up Anti-Transgender Sign Outside Office in Feud with Illinois Congresswoman,” FOX 5 Atlanta (FOX 5 Atlanta, February 25, 2021), https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/marjorie-taylor-greene-anti-trans-sign-feud-illinois-congresswoman-equality-act.
[24] Robert M. Entman, “Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame After 9/11,” Political Communication.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Steven Livingston, “Crossing Borders: Culture, Identity, and Access to Higher Education,” Cultural Values in Political Economy, JP Singh (ed). (Distributed PDF), pp. 119.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid, pp. 120.
[29] Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, “The Agenda-Setting Function of the Mass Media,” The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2 (summer, 1972), pp. 176.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Shanto Iyengar and Donald Kinder, News That Matters. Distributed selections.
[32] Jacob S. Hacker, Let Them Eat Tweets: How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme Inequality.
[33] Shanto Iyengar and Donald Kinder, News That Matters. Distributed selections.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Shanto Iyengar, Mark D. Peters, Donald R. Kinder (Dec., 1982), “Experimental Demonstrations of the Not-So-Minimal Consequences of Television News Programs,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 76, No. 4 pp. 849.
[36] Scott Keeter, “How We Know the Drop in Trump’s Approval Rating in January Reflected a Real Shift in Public Opinion,” Pew Research Center (Pew Research Center, January 20, 2021), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/20/how-we-know-the-drop-in-trumps-approval-rating-in-january-reflected-a-real-shift-in-public-opinion/.
[37] Shanto Iyengar, Mark D. Peters, Donald R. Kinder (Dec., 1982), “Experimental Demonstrations of the Not-So-Minimal Consequences of Television News Programs,” The American Political Science Review, pp. 848-858.
[38] Nicki Lisa Cole, “The Difference Between Front Stage and Back Stage Behavior,” ThoughtCo, accessed April 2, 2021, https://www.thoughtco.com/goffmans-front-stage-and-back-stage-behavior-4087971.
[39] Ibid.
By Olivia Bridges 