Understanding Variations in Media Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Given the central importance of news media in providing the public with information about court decisions,this study examines variations in local and national media coverage of the Supreme Court decision on a Texas antisodomy law known as Lawrence v. Texas.The authors use content analysis of newspaper articles to test hypotheses concerning how media coverage of the case might vary by media outlet. The authors assess bias by examining overall coverage and the tone of coverage.The analysis suggests that media outlets varied in their coverage of the case,with states that had existing sodomy laws providing more coverage,and that some outlets tended to be more biased in their tone than others. The analysis confirms the importance of local relevance,but the authors also find that media outlet size and political context may play a role in determining coverage of an issue.

[1]  Richard W. Davis.  Decisions and Images: The Supreme Court and the Press , 1993 .

[2]  C. Wilcox,et al.  The politics of gay rights , 2000 .

[3]  J. Segal,et al.  The Shepherding of Local Public Opinion: The Supreme Court and Lamb's Chapel , 1996, The Journal of Politics.

[4]  Christopher Wlezien,et al.  The courts, interest groups, and public opinion about abortion , 1993 .

[5]  Eric N. Waltenburg,et al.  Support For A Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision , 2003 .

[6]  Gregory A. Caldeira,et al.  The Eti-ology of Public Support for the Supreme Court , 1992 .

[7]  Gregory A. Caldeira.  Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court , 1986, American Political Science Review.

[8]  Robert K. Kalwinsky.  Framing Life and Death: Physician-Assisted Suicide and the New York Times from 1991 to 1996 , 1998 .

[9]  M. Joslyn,et al.  Guns in the Ballot Box , 2000 .

[10]  Daniel R. Pinello.  Gay Rights and American Law , 2003 .

[11]  K. Meier,et al.  The Politics of Gay and Lesbian Rights: Expanding the Scope of the Conflict , 1996, The Journal of Politics.

[12]  Donald P. Haider‐Markel,et al.  Tracing Issue Definition and Policy Change: An Analysis of Disability Issue Images and Policy Response , 2001 .

[13]  Valerie J. Hoekstra.  Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions , 2003 .

[14]  Dhavan V. Shah,et al.  News Coverage, Economic Cues, and the Public's Presidential Preferences, 1984-1996 , 1999, The Journal of Politics.

[15]  Richard W. Davis,et al.  The Invisible Dance: The Supreme Court and the Press , 2000 .

[16]  Elliot E. Slotnick,et al.  Television News and the Supreme Court: All the News that's Fit to Air? , 1998 .

[17]  B. Jones,et al.  Agendas and instability in American politics , 1993 .

[18]  Clifford A. Jones.  Voting From the Bench , 2003 .

[19]  John D’Emilio.  Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: Second Edition , 1998 .

[20]  K. Wald,et al.  Private Lives, Public Conflicts: Battles over Gay Rights in American Communities , 1997 .

[21]  Making the International Local: The Terrorist Attack on the USS Cole, Local Casualties, and Media Coverage , 2004 .

[22]  Valerie Hoekstra.  The Supreme Court and Local Public Opinion , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[23]  John T. Woolley.  Using Media-Based Data in Studies of Politics , 2000 .

[24]  C. Franklin,et al.  Media, Knowledge, and Public Evaluations of the Supreme Court , 1995 .

[25]  S. Iyengar.  Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. , 1991 .

[26]  Valerie J. Hoekstra.  Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions: Frontmatter , 2003 .

[27]  Charles H Franklin,et al.  Republican Schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion , 1989, American Political Science Review.