This study examines how ideologically opposed social movement organizations, the National Organization for Womcn (NOW) and Concerned Women for America (CWA). get media coverage during critical moments of the abortion debate. I analyze how organizational structure and identity facilitate or constrain a social movement organization's ability to get mainstream media coverage. Specifically, 1 use the social movement framing literature to analyze how the organizations strategically construct media frames and packages in response to opposition, the tactics they use to get media coverage, and the relative succcss of each organization's efforts in mass media outlet5. The analysis suggests that an organization's media strategy matters, but that organizational structure and organizational identily color these strategies.One of the best ways to develop press relations is to know how a particular newspaper or broadcast station operates. Make friends with reporters or newscasters who are sympathetic to the issues. They can be strong allies. Remember, publicity means "information with news value" issued as a means of gaining public attention, recognition, understanding or support for a person, an organization, an institution or a cause.National Organization for Women Records (Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe lnstitute at Harvard University) Conservative groups did not understand media or its importance then [ten years ago] as much as they do now. [Now they understand that] media is the name of the game and whoever frames the issue wins the argument.

No abstract

Siever, M. D. (1994). Sexual orientation and gender as factors in socioculturally acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders.

Despite the importance of mass media to deliberative democratic processes, few scholars have focused on how market forces, occupational norms, and competition among outlets affect the quality of media discourse in mainstream and political outlets. Here, I argue that field theory, as outlined by new institutionalism and Pierre Bourdieu, provides a useful theoretical framework for assessing the quality of media discourse in different kinds of media outlets. The value of field theory is that it simultaneously highlights the importance of homogeneity and heterogeneity within a field of action, which provides a framework for discussing the roles different kinds of outlets play in deliberate democratic processes and evaluating the quality of discourse in mainstream and political venues. I illustrate the utility of this conceptualization through an analysis of 1,424 stories on abortion in nine U.S. media outlets and interviews with journalists, editors, and producers in these venues. I find that political media outlets provide higher-quality discourse than that of mainstream venues. Additionally, I find that while market pressures may heighten a focus on conflict in the abortion debate, this emphasis is exacerbated by mainstream journalists themselves, who assume that the general public is familiar with, and has taken a firm position on, abortion. I conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for deliberative democratic processes.

No abstract