The Mass Media and the Dynamics of American Racial Attitudes: Media Framing and the Dynamics of Racial Policy Preferences

Why are there liberal and conservative eras in Americans' policy preferences about race? In answering this question, I first develop a time-series measure of aggregate racial policy preferences by compiling multiple indicators of racial policy preferences into a single composite measure. Next, I propose a new model in which shifts in the tenor of media coverage of race-focusing on the core values of egalitarianism and individualism at different times-leads the public to prefer more or less active government policies on race. I test the model using data from Newsweek magazine and include appropriate controls for potentially confounding factors, such as generational replacement, policy mood, feedback from the policy process, and economic sentiment. hy, at some times, does the American public prefer a relatively active government to bring about racial equality, whereas at other times, the public opposes such action? Asking this question presupposes that there are periods of relative liberalism and conservatism in aggregate racial policy preferences. However, there is no scholarly consensus that such eras even exist.1 But intuition about political eras tells us that the 1960s was a time of liberalism. We note the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the election of Lyndon Johnson, the champion of both pieces of legislation, who, in homage to his assassinated predecessor, promised to make civil rights for blacks a central component of his administration. This era of liberalism on civil rights, however, did not go unchallenged. The 1968 election of Richard Nixon and the candidacy of George Wallace suggest the beginnings of a conservative backlash. Further, the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan represented a basic shift away from continued liberalism on civil rights. Reagan bemoaned the use of affirmative action and "quotas," opposed the busing of school children to achieve integration, and attacked the welfare state in general, which some perceived to be a veiled assault on civil rights.