US Nationwide Coronavirus Newspaper Coverage of Federal/National Government Responses: Community Structure Theory and a “Violated Buffer”

IF 0.5 Q4 COMMUNICATION Tripodos Pub Date : 2021-02-05 DOI:10.51698/TRIPODOS.2020.47P27-48
J. Pollock, Suchir Govindarajan, Alexis Marta, James N. Sparano
{"title":"US Nationwide Coronavirus Newspaper Coverage of Federal/National Government Responses: Community Structure Theory and a “Violated Buffer”","authors":"J. Pollock, Suchir Govindarajan, Alexis Marta, James N. Sparano","doi":"10.51698/TRIPODOS.2020.47P27-48","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Community structure analysis (Pollock, 2007, 2013a, 2015) compared city characteristics and newspaper coverage of federal/Trump administration coro­navirus responses in 18 major US cities, sampling all 250+ word articles from 01/28/20 to 04/03/20. The resulting 123 articles were coded for “promi­nence” and “direction” (favorable/un­favorable/balanced-neutral coverage), then combined into each newspaper’s composite “Media Vector” (range= 0.3850 to -0.6433, or 1.033). Fifteen of 18 newspapers (83%) displayed negative coverage of federal COVID-19 responses. Pearson correlations and regression analysis confirmed a robust “violated buffer” pattern (higher proportions of economically/socially “buffered” privi­leged groups are associated with neg­ative coverage of “biological threats or threats to a cherished way of life”: Pollock, 2007: 101), manifest in polit­ical and religious polarization and links between health access or generational privilege and negative coverage of feder­al COVID-19 actions. Higher proportions voting Democratic or Catholic member­ship in cities were associated strongly with negative coverage of federal efforts, while voting Republican and Evangelical membership accompanied positive feder­al coverage, evoking nationwide partisan “tribalism”. Privileged healthcare access (physicians/100,000, municipal health­care spending) and economically “privi­leged” age groups 45-64 and 65+ were all connected to negative coverage of federal COVID-19 responses, illuminat­ing overall “violated” expectations that the national government is responsible for nationwide disaster protection. Keywords: COVID-19, community struc­ture theory, newspapers, government, media.","PeriodicalId":44263,"journal":{"name":"Tripodos","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tripodos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51698/TRIPODOS.2020.47P27-48","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Community structure analysis (Pollock, 2007, 2013a, 2015) compared city characteristics and newspaper coverage of federal/Trump administration coro­navirus responses in 18 major US cities, sampling all 250+ word articles from 01/28/20 to 04/03/20. The resulting 123 articles were coded for “promi­nence” and “direction” (favorable/un­favorable/balanced-neutral coverage), then combined into each newspaper’s composite “Media Vector” (range= 0.3850 to -0.6433, or 1.033). Fifteen of 18 newspapers (83%) displayed negative coverage of federal COVID-19 responses. Pearson correlations and regression analysis confirmed a robust “violated buffer” pattern (higher proportions of economically/socially “buffered” privi­leged groups are associated with neg­ative coverage of “biological threats or threats to a cherished way of life”: Pollock, 2007: 101), manifest in polit­ical and religious polarization and links between health access or generational privilege and negative coverage of feder­al COVID-19 actions. Higher proportions voting Democratic or Catholic member­ship in cities were associated strongly with negative coverage of federal efforts, while voting Republican and Evangelical membership accompanied positive feder­al coverage, evoking nationwide partisan “tribalism”. Privileged healthcare access (physicians/100,000, municipal health­care spending) and economically “privi­leged” age groups 45-64 and 65+ were all connected to negative coverage of federal COVID-19 responses, illuminat­ing overall “violated” expectations that the national government is responsible for nationwide disaster protection. Keywords: COVID-19, community struc­ture theory, newspapers, government, media.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国全国冠状病毒报纸对联邦/国家政府应对措施的报道:社区结构理论和“违反缓冲”
社区结构分析(Pollock, 2007年,2013年,2015年)比较了美国18个主要城市的城市特征和联邦/特朗普政府应对冠状病毒的报纸报道,抽样了20年1月28日至20年3月4日所有250字以上的文章。得到的123篇文章根据“前景”和“方向”(有利/不利/平衡中立的报道)进行编码,然后组合成每份报纸的复合“媒体向量”(范围= 0.3850至-0.6433,或1.033)。18家报纸中有15家(83%)对联邦政府应对COVID-19的措施进行了负面报道。Pearson相关性和回归分析证实了一种强大的“违反缓冲”模式(较高比例的经济/社会“缓冲”特权群体与“生物威胁或对珍视的生活方式的威胁”的负面报道有关:Pollock, 2007: 101),这体现在政治和宗教两极分化以及医疗服务或代际特权与联邦COVID-19行动的负面报道之间的联系。在城市中,投票给民主党或天主教的比例较高,与联邦政府努力的负面报道密切相关,而投票给共和党和福音派的比例较高,与联邦政府的积极报道密切相关,引发了全国性的党派“部落主义”。享有特权的医疗保健服务(医生/100,000,市政医疗保健支出)和经济上“享有特权”的年龄组45-64岁和65岁以上都与联邦COVID-19应对措施的负面报道有关,这说明了国家政府负责全国灾害保护的总体“违背”预期。关键词:COVID-19,社区结构理论,报纸,政府,媒体
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Tripodos
Tripodos COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence in the Social Science Area: Systematic Literature Review in Web of Science and Scopus The Influence of AI in the Media Work Force: How Companies Use an Array of Legal Remedies AI Implementation Strategies in the Spanish Press Media: Organizational Dynamics, Application Flows, Uses and Future Trends The Presence and Promotion of Foods and Beverages in the YouTube Channels of The World’s Most Influential Kid Ps: A Comparative Study Between the United States and Spain influence of personal space occupation and on the consumer’s psychological status and effective communication
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1