Public opinion and the media form the foundation of the United States' representative democracy. They are the subject of enormous scrutiny by scholars, pundits, and ordinary citizens. This Oxford Handbook takes on the 'big questions' about public opinion and the media-both empirical and normative-focusing on current debates and social scientific research. Bringing together the thinking of a team of leading academic experts, its chapters provide a cutting assessment of contemporary research on public opinion, the media, and their interconnections. Emphasizing changes in the mass media and communications technology-the vast number of cable channels, websites and blogs, and the new social media, which are changing how news about political life is collected and conveyed-they describe the evolving information interdependence of the media and public opinion. In addition, the volume reviews the wide range of influences on public opinion, including the processes by which information communicated through the media can affect the public. It describes what has been learned from the latest research in psychology, genetics, and studies of the impact of gender, race and ethnicity, economic status, education and sophistication, religion, and generational change on a wide range of political attitudes and perceptions. The Handbook includes extensive discussion of how public opinion and mass media coverage are studied through survey research and increasingly through experiments using the latest technological advances. The Oxford Handbooks of American Politics are a set of reference books offering authoritative and engaging critical overviews of the state of scholarship on American politics. Each volume focuses on a particular aspect of the field. The project is under the General Editorship of George C. Edwards III, and distinguished specialists in their respective fields edit each volume. The Handbooks aim not just to report on the discipline, but also to shape it as scholars critically assess the scholarship on a topic and propose directions in which it needs to move. The series is an indispensable reference for anyone working in American politics.

Matters of Opinion offers an interesting insight into 'public opinion' as reported in the media, asking where these opinions actually come from, and how they have their effects. Drawing on the analysis of conversations from focus groups, phone-ins and broadcast interviews with members of the public, Greg Myers argues that we must go back to these encounters, asking questions such as what members of the public thought they were being asked, who they were talking as, and whom they were talking to. He reveals that people don't carry a store of opinions, ready to tell strangers; they use opinions in order to get along with other people, and how they say things is as important as what they say. Engaging and informative, this book illuminates debates on research methods, the public sphere and deliberative democracy, on broadcast talk, and on what it means to participate in public life.

For centuries it has been assumed that democracy must refer to the empowerment of the People's voice. In this pioneering book, Jeffrey Edward Green makes the case for considering the People as an ocular entity rather than a vocal one. Green argues that it is both possible and desirable to understand democracy in terms of what the People gets to see instead of the traditional focus on what it gets to say. The Eyes of the People examines democracy from the perspective of everyday citizens in their everyday lives. While it is customary to understand the citizen as a decision-maker, in fact most citizens rarely engage in decision-making and do not even have clear views on most political issues. The ordinary citizen is not a decision-maker but a spectator who watches and listens to the select few empowered to decide. Grounded on this everyday phenomenon of spectatorship, The Eyes of the People constructs a democratic theory applicable to the way democracy is actually experienced by most people most of the time. In approaching democracy from the perspective of the People's eyes, Green rediscovers and rehabilitates a forgotten "plebiscitarian" alternative within the history of democratic thought. Building off the contributions of a wide range of thinkers-including Aristotle, Shakespeare, Benjamin Constant, Max Weber, Joseph Schumpeter, and many others-Green outlines a novel democratic paradigm centered on empowering the People's gaze through forcing politicians to appear in public under conditions they do not fully control. The Eyes of the People is at once a sweeping overview of the state of democratic theory and a call to rethink the meaning of democracy within the sociological and technological conditions of the twenty-first century.

Fox News, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Rush Limbaugh Show, National Public Radio--a list of available political media sources could continue without any apparent end. Niche News investigates how people navigate these choices. It asks whether people are using media sources that express political views matching their own, a behavior known as partisan selective exposure. By looking at newspaper, cable news, news magazine, talk radio, and political website use, this book offers the most comprehensive look to-date at the extent to which partisanship influences our media selections. Using data from numerous surveys and experiments, the results provide broad evidence about the connection between partisanship and news choices. Niche News also examines who seeks out likeminded media and why they do it. Perceptions of partisan biases in the media vary--sources that seem quite biased to some don't seem so biased to others. These perceptual differences provide insight into why some people select politically likeminded media--a phenomenon that is democratically consequential. On one hand, citizens may become increasingly divided from using media that coheres with their political beliefs. In this way, partisan selective exposure may result in a more fragmented and polarized public. On the other hand, partisan selective exposure may encourage participation and understanding. Likeminded partisan information may inspire citizens to participate in politics and help them to organize their political thinking. But, ultimately, the partisan use of niche news has some troubling effects. It is vital that we think carefully about the implications both for the conduct of media research and, more broadly, for the progress of democracy.

Mothers of the Military examines the distinctive kinds of support required during an increasingly privatized war, specifically material, moral and healthcare support. Mothers are a particularly key part of the current support system for service members, and Wendy Christensen follows the mothers of U.S. service members in the War on Terrorism through the stages of recruitment, deployment, and post-deployment. Bringing to light the experiences and stories of women who are largely invisible during war-the mothers of service members. Over 2.5 million members of the U.S. military have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan during the now 16 year-long war. Each service member has loved ones-spouses, parents and children-who provide necessary emotional and physical support during deployment. This book has three goals. The first is to make mothers experiences during wartime visible. The second is to interrogate what support means during war. Finally, it examines the impact of war support on mothers' political participation. Ideally, civilians provide moral approval of war, patriotism, and extend understanding and appreciation of the sacrifice enlistees and their families are making. But, in these long wars, public and political approval has plummeted. It is not surprising this narrow slice of Americans dealing with the daily realities of war feels increasingly separate from civilians. Military families are isolated from those Americans who are able to ignore the war or offer superficial expressions of patriotic gratitude. Mothers occupy a complex gendered location during wartime. Even though women are now serving in combat positions, women have historically held down the home front, where family labor is still assigned disproportionately to women. However, the military does not treat mothers and fathers equally. The military assumes fathers will be supportive of service, and calls on them to be proud of the courageous decision their child has made. They consider mothers, on the other hand, potential impediments to service, not wanting their child in harm's way. Through each stage of service, mothers take on different kinds of support for their child, for the military, and for war policy. At each stage of war, mothers are prescribed a gendered support position. In recruitment material, the military assumes mothers will be emotional and worried about enlistment, so they appeal to mother's love and need for their child to be safe. During deployment, mothers provide supplies and moral support. Declining enlistment numbers and a long war have led to multiple deployments and unprecedented burdens on military families. These mothers step in to help with childcare and finances. Furthermore, mothers are overwhelmingly, according to military studies, the ones providing mental and physical healthcare when veterans need it. As providers of critical systems of war support, mothers bear much of the burden of the current wars. War provides mothers a way to participate in the national project, but the uneven burden of being a constant "supporter" further marginalizes their citizenship. The gendered support role the military designs for mothers is not designed to facilitate active democratic citizenship but rather to make it seem natural that they, too, fall in line with the chain of command. Mothers of the Military, as a whole, asks how the acts of supplying material, moral, and medical support end up so often marginalizing mothers as citizens from the political process and under what conditions do mothers resist?

Rupert Murdoch's multibillion-dollar purchase of the Wall Street Journal in 2007 was but one more chapter in an untold story: the rise of an integrated conservative media machine that all began with Rush Limbaugh in the 1980s. Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph Cappella-two of the nation's foremost experts on politics and communications-here offer a searching analysis of the conservative media establishment, from talk radio to Fox News to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Indeed, Echo Chamber is the first serious account of how the conservative media arose, what it consists of, and how it operates. Surprisingly, President Obama's election has only enhanced the influence of Limbaugh. As an unofficial leader of the Republican Party, he has issued marching orders to the rest of the conservative media bent on challenging President Obama's agenda. To show how this influential segment of the media works, the authors examine the uproar that followed when Senator Trent Lott seemed to endorse Strom Thurmond's segregationist past. Limbaugh called the remarks "utterly indefensible," but added that a "double standard" was in play. That signaled a broad counterattack by the conservative media establishment, charging the mainstream media with hypocrisy (yet using its reports when convenient), creating a set of facts-or allegations-for partisans to draw upon, and fostering an in-group identity. Jamieson and Cappella find that Limbaugh, Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal opinion pages create a self-protective enclave for conservatives, shielding them from other information sources, and promoting strongly negative associations with political opponents. Limbaugh in particular, they write, fuses the roles of party leader and opinion leader in a fashion reminiscent of the nineteenth century's partisan newspaper editors.

Since Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, almost all U.S. presidents have employed private polls in some capacity. This book attempts to explain how presidential polling evolved from a rarely conducted secretive enterprise to a commonplace event that is now considered an integral part of the presidency. Robert Eisinger contends that presidents opt to gain autonomy by conducting private polls. They do not trust institutions such as Congress, the media and political parties, and their measurements of opinion.

The Opinion System explores the category of opinion as a foundational concept of modernity. Terminologically indispensable in ideas like "public opinion" and "freedom of opinion," opinion assumes a central position in modern philosophy, literature, sociology, and political theory while also becoming the object of extremely contradictory valuations. Opinion's obvious centrality, combined with its widely recognized theoretical dubiousness, has produced a long-term oversight in assessing this concept and its effects. I attempt to rectify this situation by focusing on interpretative shifts begun by the Enlightenment and cemented by the French Revolution. Locke's "law of opinion," underwritten by antiquity's conceptions of nomos and fama, undergoes a largely critical reception insofar as it is inconsistent with the modern ideal of a rational political order. The contemporary dynamics of this problem have been worked out by JA1/4rgen Habermas and Reinhart Koselleck: Habermas believes that the private law of opinion can be brought under the rational control of public discourse and procedural form, whereas Koselleck views modernity as the period in which the irrational potentials of fama were unleashed by a political-conceptual language that only intensified and accelerated the upheavals of history. Within this context, modernity risked making opinions into the idols of collective representations, sacrificing opinion to ideology and individualism to totalitarianism. I argue that this transformation, though irreversible, finds its point of resistance in literary language that opposes the rigid formalism that compels individuals to identify with their opinions. Rather than forcing theinterruption of thought to represent stable opinions, modern literary forms seek to suspend this moment of closure and representation, so that held opinions do not bring all deliberative processes to a standstill.

This book describes through case studies how various factors, such as the single-party political system, traditional culture, market reform, and industrialization, shape public opinion and mass political behavior in urban China. Case studies focus on the process of conducting public opinion polls in China's political environment, regime legitimacy and reform support, media control and censorship, interpersonal trust and democratization, mass political participation, labor relations and trade unions, and the role of intellectuals in political change. The book draws most of its empirical evidence from twelve Chinese public opinion surveys conducted between the late 1980s and the late 1990s. The same questions repeated in many of these surveys provide a rare opportunity to examine the changing pattern of the Chinese public mind during this period. The book ends with the provocative conclusion that China's authoritarian political system proved to be less effective than traditional culture, marketization, and industrialization in shaping public opinion and mass political behavior. Liberal ideas and bottom-up political participation can emerge even in the absence of direct elections.

A Profile of the American Electorate takes an extensive look at the political foundations and behaviors of citizens, yesterday and today. Presenting decades of data on voter choice, voter turnout, and public opinion in a way that is clear and accessible for students of political science, the book uniquely emphasizes the importance of voting, socialization, and reform measures to enhance good citizenship. It explores how Americans become conservative or liberal, why some vote and others stay home, their knowledge of politics, how polarized the public has become, and the complex motivations behind their vote choices.

The 2000 Mexican presidential race culminated in the election of opposition candidate Vicente Fox and the end of seven decades of one-party rule. This book, which traces changes in public opinion and voter preferences over the course of the race, represents the most comprehensive treatment of campaigning and voting behavior in an emerging democracy. It challenges the "modest effects" paradigm of national election campaigns that has dominated scholarly research in the field. Chapters cover authoritarian mobilization of voters, turnout patterns, electoral cleavages, party strategies, television news coverage, candidate debates, negative campaigning, strategic voting, issue-based voting, and the role of the 2000 election in Mexico's political transition. Theoretically-oriented introductory and concluding chapters situate Mexico's 2000 election in the larger context of Mexican politics and of cross-national research on campaigns. Collectively, these contributions provide crucial insights into Mexico's new politics, with important implications for elections in other countries.

The unprecedented arrival of more than a million refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants - plus the political, public, and policy reactions to it - is redefining Europe. The repercussions will last for generations on such central issues as security, national identity, human rights, and the very structure of liberal democracies. What is the role of the news media in telling the story of the 2010s refugee crisis at a time of deepening crisis for journalism, as "fake news" ran rampant amid an increasingly distrustful public? This volume offers students, scholars, and the general reader original research and candid frontline insights to understand the intersecting influences of journalistic practices, news discourses, public opinion, and policymaking on one of the most polarizing issues of our time. Focusing on current events in Greece, Austria, and Germany - critical entry and destination countries - it introduces a groundbreaking dialogue between elite national and international media, academic institutions, and civil society organizations, revealing the complex impacts of the news media on the thorny sociopolitical dilemmas raised by the integration of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers in EU countries.

The unprecedented arrival of more than a million refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants - plus the political, public, and policy reactions to it - is redefining Europe. The repercussions will last for generations on such central issues as security, national identity, human rights, and the very structure of liberal democracies. What is the role of the news media in telling the story of the 2010s refugee crisis at a time of deepening crisis for journalism, as "fake news" ran rampant amid an increasingly distrustful public? This volume offers students, scholars, and the general reader original research and candid frontline insights to understand the intersecting influences of journalistic practices, news discourses, public opinion, and policymaking on one of the most polarizing issues of our time. Focusing on current events in Greece, Austria, and Germany - critical entry and destination countries - it introduces a groundbreaking dialogue between elite national and international media, academic institutions, and civil society organizations, revealing the complex impacts of the news media on the thorny sociopolitical dilemmas raised by the integration of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers in EU countries.

A Profile of the American Electorate takes an extensive look at the political foundations and behaviors of citizens, yesterday and today. Presenting decades of data on voter choice, voter turnout, and public opinion in a way that is clear and accessible for students of political science, the book uniquely emphasizes the importance of voting, socialization, and reform measures to enhance good citizenship. It explores how Americans become conservative or liberal, why some vote and others stay home, their knowledge of politics, how polarized the public has become, and the complex motivations behind their vote choices.

Presidents spend millions of dollars on public opinion polling while in office. Critics often point to this polling as evidence that a "permanent campaign" has taken over the White House at the expense of traditional governance. But has presidential polling truly changed the shape of presidential leadership? Diane J. Heith examines the polling practices of six presidential administrations-those of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton-dissecting the poll apparatus of each period. She contends that while White House polls significantly influence presidential messages and responses to events, they do not impact presidential decisions to the extent that observers often claim. Heith concludes that polling, and thus the campaign environment, exists in tandem with long-established governing strategies.

Presidents spend millions of dollars on public opinion polling while in office. Critics often point to this polling as evidence that a "permanent campaign" has taken over the White House at the expense of traditional governance. But has presidential polling truly changed the shape of presidential leadership? Diane J. Heith examines the polling practices of six presidential administrations-those of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton-dissecting the poll apparatus of each period. She contends that while White House polls significantly influence presidential messages and responses to events, they do not impact presidential decisions to the extent that observers often claim. Heith concludes that polling, and thus the campaign environment, exists in tandem with long-established governing strategies.

The 2000 Mexican presidential race culminated in the election of opposition candidate Vicente Fox and the end of seven decades of one-party rule. This book, which traces changes in public opinion and voter preferences over the course of the race, represents the most comprehensive treatment of campaigning and voting behavior in an emerging democracy. It challenges the "modest effects" paradigm of national election campaigns that has dominated scholarly research in the field. Chapters cover authoritarian mobilization of voters, turnout patterns, electoral cleavages, party strategies, television news coverage, candidate debates, negative campaigning, strategic voting, issue-based voting, and the role of the 2000 election in Mexico's political transition. Theoretically-oriented introductory and concluding chapters situate Mexico's 2000 election in the larger context of Mexican politics and of cross-national research on campaigns. Collectively, these contributions provide crucial insights into Mexico's new politics, with important implications for elections in other countries.

This timely book describes and explains the American people's alleged hatred of their own branch of government, the U.S. Congress. Focus group sessions held across the country and a specially designed national survey indicate that much of the negativity is generated by popular perceptions of the processes of governing visible in Congress. But Hibbing and Theiss-Morse conclude that the public's unwitting desire to reform democracy out of a democratic legislature is a cure more dangerous than the disease.

Public opinion has played a crucial role in the transitions from war to peace in Israel since the 1967 Six Day war. Security Threatened is the first major analysis of the interactions among opinion, politics and policy in that period, based on opinion surveys of thousands of adult Jews conducted between 1962 and 1994. The public divided during those years into militant hardliners and more conciliatory security positions, and power either shifted between, or was shared by, the Likud and Labour parties. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the onset of the intifada, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the American victory in the Gulf War, all segments of the Israeli public became more conciliatory. Policy initiatives reflected shifts in political power which in turn magnified changes in public opinion. Leaders were constrained by public opinion and by perceptions of threat, but they could also alter policy if they had the will because opinion was rather equally divided; since most people had their minds made up, the opposition could not block their policy.

Public opinion has played a crucial role in the transitions from war to peace in Israel since the 1967 Six Day war. Security Threatened is the first major analysis of the interactions among opinion, politics and policy in that period, based on opinion surveys of thousands of adult Jews conducted between 1962 and 1994. The public divided during those years into militant hardliners and more conciliatory security positions, and power either shifted between, or was shared by, the Likud and Labour parties. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the onset of the intifada, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the American victory in the Gulf War, all segments of the Israeli public became more conciliatory. Policy initiatives reflected shifts in political power which in turn magnified changes in public opinion. Leaders were constrained by public opinion and by perceptions of threat, but they could also alter policy if they had the will because opinion was rather equally divided; since most people had their minds made up, the opposition could not block their policy.

Over the past thirty years a wealth of statistical information about British voters and British elections has been collected by the British Election Studies research teams. The British Electorate, 1963-1992 makes these data available in a standard, easy-to-read format accessible to the non-technical user. Tables display the same data for each election, allowing the reader to compare any two elections between 1964 and 1992, or to trace trends across the whole period. The information presented covers a wide range of topics in voting and public opinion, including the vote, turnout, party membership, partisanship, and attitudes on issues such as abortion, capital punishment and nationalisation. Data on sub-groups of the electorate (men and women, young and old, trade unionists, the unemployed, Conservative and Labour voters etc) are also presented. This book will be an important reference for political and sociological researchers, both within academia and outside.

This timely book describes and explains the American people's alleged hatred of their own branch of government, the US Congress. Intensive focus group sessions held across the country and a specially designed national survey indicate that much of the negativity is generated by popular perceptions of the processes of governing visible in Congress. John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse argue that, although the public is deeply disturbed by debate, compromise, delicate pace, the presence of interest groups, and the professionalization of politics, many of these traits are actually endemic to modern democratic government. Congress is an enemy of the public partially because it is so public. Calls for reform, such as term limitations, reflect the public's desire to attack these disliked features. But the authors conclude, the public's unwitting desire to reform democracy out of a democratic legislature is a cure more dangerous than the disease.

Do politicians listen to the public? How often and when? Or are the views of the public manipulated or used strategically by political and economic elites? Navigating Public Opinion brings together leading scholars of American politics to assess and debate these questions. It describes how the relationship between opinion and policy has changed over time; how key political actors use public opinion to formulate domestic and foreign policy; and how new measurement techniques might improve our understanding of public opinion in contemporary polling and survey research.

The distinguished contributors shed new light on several long-standing controversies over policy responsiveness to public opinion. Featuring a new analysis by Robert Erikson, Michael MacKuen, and James Stimson that builds from their pathbreaking work on how public mood moves policy in a macro-model of policymaking, the volume also includes several critiques of this model by Lawrence Jacobs and Robert Shapiro, another critique by G. William Domhoff, and a rejoinder by Erikson and his coauthors. Other highlights include discussions of how political elites, including state-level policymakers, presidents, and makers of foreign policy, use (or shape) public opinion; and analyses of new methods for measuring public opinion such as survey-based experiments, probabilistic polling methods, non-survey-based measures of public opinion, and the potential and limitations of Internet polls and surveys. Introductory and concluding essays provide useful background context and offer an authoritative summary of what is known about how public opinion influences public policy.

A must-have for all students of American politics, public opinion, and polling, this state-of-the-art collection addresses issues that lie at the heart of democratic governance today.

Using decades of public opinion data from the US, UK, Australia, Germany and Canada, and distinguishing between three concepts - issue ownership, performance and generalised competence - Green and Jennings show how political parties come to gain or lose 'ownership' of issues, how they are judged on their performance in government across policy issues and how they develop a reputation for competence (or incompetence) over a period in office. Their analysis tracks the major events causing people to re-evaluate party reputations and the costs of governing which cause electorates to punish parties in power. They reveal why, when and how these movements in public opinion matter to elections. The implications are important for long-standing debates about performance and partisanship, and reveal that public opinion about party and governing competence is, to a great extent, the product of major shocks and predictable dynamics.

What do we really know about public opinion polls? Are they as flawed as conventional wisdom implies? How accurate are the polls, really? How can we spot a bad poll? Why do politicians and journalists have a love-hate relationship with polls? How do polls help us interpret history? Why has public opinion polling become so popular in other countries?In the 2000 national elections $100 million was spent on campaign polling alone. A $5 billion industry from Gallup to Zogby, public opinion polling is growing rapidly with the explosion of consumer-oriented market research, political and media polling, and controversial Internet polling. By many measures--from editorial cartoons to bumper stickers--we hate pollsters and their polls. We think of polling as hopelessly flawed, invasive of our privacy, and just plain annoying. At times we even argue that polling is illegal, unconstitutional, and downright un-American. Yet we crave the information polling provides. What do other Americans think about gun control? School vouchers? Airline performance? Or the Yankees' chances for winning another World Series? Pollsters consult with jurists on the best venue for a controversial criminal trial. They advise car manufacturers on which paint colors to use for a new model. They guide city councils in how to divide public funding across competing priorities.Ken Warren closes this book with an especially candid report card on how 13 major pollsters fared in predicting the November 2000 presidential contest and how pollsters fared in making 136 projections in congressional and gubernatorial races across the United States. Despite the wild swings of the political season most pollsters were remarkably accuratein forecasting the results. Based on extensive interviews with major pollsters and a wide examination of current polling practices and results, "In Defense of Public Opinion Polling" argues strongly that well conducted scientific polls are not only accurate, but are valuable tools in understanding society and promoting its own best interests. This book is perfectly suited for courses in communications, and political psychology.