Mass media and the attribution of blame for globalization
Much is known about the domestic politics of globalization, but political scientists have largely ignored one critical link between the international economy and many individuals around the world: mass media. Considering the likely effects of mass media on public perceptions of responsibility, this article develops an argument about the effects of mass media on individuals’ blame attributions for the adjustment costs of economic globalization. The theory is tested on survey data from France in 1992–1993. The evidence suggests that mass media may shift the public’s blame attributions away from the government and toward external, international forces.
KeywordsMedia Globalization Blame Public opinion
- Bennett, W. Lance. 1990. Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. International Studies Quarterly 40 (2): 103–127.Google Scholar
- Bennett, W. Lance, Regina G. Lawrence, and Steven Livingston. 2006. None dare call it torture: Indexing and the limits of press independence in the Abu Ghraib Scandal. International Studies Quarterly 56 (3): 467–485.Google Scholar
- Chrique, Philippe. 1997. Legidoscope: Trend surveys of french public opinion and media usage, September 1992–May 1993. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) [distributor]. doi:10.3886/ICPSR06826.v1.
- Imai, Kosuke, Gary King, and Olivia Lau. 2009. Zelig: Everyone’s Statistical Software. http://gking.harvard.edu/zelig.
- Jacobson, Gary C., and Samuel Kernell. 1983. Strategy and choice in congressional elections, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Katzenstein, Peter J. 1985. Small states in world markets: Industrial policy in Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time, 2nd ed. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
- Putnam, Robert D. 1995. Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics 28 (4): 664–683.Google Scholar