In February 2009, the Tea Party Movement (TPM) burst onto the political scene in the USA. Emerging out of popular unrest over the economic downturn of 2008 and the perceived radical agenda of President Barack Obama, the Tea Party quickly captured the imagination of disenchanted conservatives. Media coverage of the movement was abundant, with a frame contest between the TPM and its political opponents swiftly surfacing. Media frames bracketed discussions over the authenticity of the Tea Party, the composition of its members, the movement's message, and whether the TPM was poised for a long-term impact. This study systematically analyzes the predominant media frames that materialized in 882 news packets from nine major print and television news sources between in order to better understand the role the US media played in defining the Tea Party, and to determine whether Tea Party perceptions of its media coverage were accurate. Four sets of diametric frames appeared in the media-the Everyday American vs. Non-Mainstream, Grassroots vs. Establishment-Affiliated, Fiscal-Federal Frustrations vs. Amalgam of Grievances, and Election Impact vs. Flash in the Pan. Overall, the TPM succeeded in mobilizing symbolic media representations to advance their goals, achieving politically propitious coverage. US media depicted the TPM with supportive frames more than twice as often as the deprecatory characterizations the activists opposed. This study investigates how the media used these frames and discusses implications of Tea Party coverage as it relates to journalistic norms, social activism, and overarching framing processes.

Social movements struggle to gain acceptance as legitimate actors so that they can raise money, recruit members, and convince politicians to meet their demands. We know little, however, about how this legitimacy is granted by various political authorities, in part because legitimacy is often poorly operationalized. To operationalize legitimacy, I revise Charles Tilly's () classic concept of WUNC displays (i.e., public presentations of worthiness, unity, numbers, commitment) to assess how political authorities legitimize social movements. I analyze original data on the coverage the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street received from 20 elite political blogs during a critical event early in each movement's development. I find that liberal and conservative blogs both use the same aspects of worthiness (and not unity, numbers, or commitment) to endorse their preferred movement but different aspects of unworthiness to denounce the movement they opposed. Conservative outlets were more partisan on both accounts. This suggests that these blogs' shared status as distinctly partisan political outsiders produces a similar, but not identical, relationship with social movements. While both sets of blogs legitimize and delegitimize a movement based on its specific strengths and weaknesses, conservative blogs act more as a partisan bullhorn and liberal blogs act more as a forum for debate.

This chapter explores how social movements have influenced institutional politics—with particular reference to dissent—in America. The chapter looks at the process of political institutionalization offered by the American political system to various claimants. It considers how American politics helped perpetrate inclusion and influence, and how historic movements have responded to those opportunities. It then describes four distinct social movements in America: feminism and women’s rights, civil rights and abolition of slavery, labor movement, and environmentalism. It argues that these movements are not self-contained and insular, but interconnected in the way they affect one another, American political institutions, and other social movement challenges. It also discusses five interrelated ways through which the process of institutionalization takes place: individuals, ideas, laws, new bureaucratic institutions, and formal recognition as nongovernmental organizations. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the ongoing development of social movements as a recurrent feature in American politics.

Movement-countermovement pairs develop in opposition to one another as they battle for position, influence, and survival in a shifting political and cultural context. While theoretical work on countermovements and the political context posits a rough symmetry between opposing movements, our analysis demonstrates significant asymmetries in the fight over gun policy in the United States. Drawing on news accounts, government records, public opinion polls, and organizational-capacity data for twenty-six gun control and twenty-nine gun rights groups, we show that both sides grow during policy fights and after focusing events, but the side with more stable revenue sustains growth longer. The gun rights movement’s financial advantages made it far less dependent on attention-grabbing moments. This imbalance reflects resource differences that affect each side’s capacity for responding to political opportunities and threats. Our findings highlight the need for more research on the implications of resource and power imbalances for effective organizing.

No abstract