No abstract

No abstract

This article draws upon 134 in-depth interviews with activists and journalists in an effort to reconcile the extensive activism taking place in the shadows of presidential campaigns with its near invisibility in the news. In his classic work, Todd Gitlin (1980) demonstrated that activists become newsworthy only by submitting to the "implicit rules of news making" (p. 3). This research supports his finding, but demonstrates that unbeknownst to activists, coverage of political outsiders is governed by a set of rules quite different from (and often diametrically opposed to) those employed in routine news-gathering. Taking cues from news creation practices that go on daily between journalists, parajournalists, and subjects, activist groups work assiduously to prepare members to fit the needs of political reporters. They bend over backwards to be media-friendly, which they perceive as professional, quotable, and credible, but ironically these studied attempts to conform to the norms of routine political reporting make them less appealing to journalists. While journalists may attend eagerly to elected officials' press conferences and official statements, they demand authenticity, particularly in the form of emotion and spontaneity, from outsiders-the very attributes activists work to erase in their media trainings. In the end, the activist groups fail to obtain coverage, not because they can't conform to the rules of news making, but because they are following the wrong rules. This article maps the contradictory sets of norms at play in the negotiation over news, and shows how they work together to create nearly insurmountable cultural boundaries for political outsiders.

This study traces elite interlocks between the economic, political, and civil sectors of the United States in the late 1990s. We assess integration and fragmentation through analyzing patterns of overlap and interaction among influential organizations and leaders in these sectors. Network analyses are conducted with UCINET 5 on the Elite Directors Database, a new data set composed of the directors/trustees for the largest organizations in the business and nonprofit sectors in addition to individuals holding positions on federal advisory committees. The complete data set contains individuals holding 3,976 seats from 100 businesses, 109 nonprofit organizations, and 98 government committees. The network structure reveals substantial linkages between organizations and elites within and across the three sectors. Major corporations and their directors are the best integrated in the intersectoral networks. In spite of the tremendous growth of the nonprofit sector, nonprofit organization linkages fail to offer compelling evidence of elite pluralism in the United States.

This article develops a theory about the narrative foundations of public policy. Politicians draw on specific types of narratives in order to connect the policies they are proposing, the needs of the public, and their own needs for legitimacy. In particular, politicians are drawn to policy narratives in which they themselves occupy the central and heroic character position, and where they are able to protect the scope of their jurisdictional authority. We demonstrate how this works through a historical analysis of congressional debate about the nonprofit sector in the United States. Two competing narratives framed these debates: (1) a selfless charity narrative, in which politicians try to empower heroic charity workers and philanthropists, and then stay out of the way; and (2) a masquerade narrative, in which fake charities are taking advantage of the nonprofit tax exemption, in order to pursue a variety of noncivic and dangerous activities. Members of Congress quickly adopted the masquerade narrative as the dominant framework for discussing the nonprofit sector because it provided a more powerful and flexible rhetoric for reproducing their political legitimacy. By developing innovative elaborations of the masquerade narrative (i.e., identifying new categories of "false heroes"), while remaining faithful to its underlying narrative format, politicians were able to increase the persuasive impact of their legislative agendas. We argue that the narrative aspects of political debate are a central component of the policy-making process because they link cultural and political interests in a way that involves the mastery of cultural structure as well as the creativity of cultural performance.