Determining the speakers and arguments that dominate the news has long been a core task of media sociology. Yet systematic evidence linking the two-who says what or nothing at all-is lacking in news analysis, especially on the important issue of immigration. In this article, we analyze quoted sources and issue frames in U.S., French, and Norwegian news coverage of unauthorized immigration during 2011 and 2012. Supporting claims of transnational media homogenization, we find most quotes are "frameless," that is, do not contain any substantial arguments addressing the problems, causes, or solutions associated with immigration. Of those quotes that do offer frames, problem frames are far more common than causes and solutions. Across nations and media types, government sources dominate the news, focusing on problems for society, while pro-immigration associations and unaffiliated individuals help account for overall greater attention to problems for immigrants. On the other hand, providing limited support for structural variation, less narrative-driven French media featured fewer frameless quotes and also tended to offer more cause and solution frames than U.S. or Norwegian media; dominant frames varied notably across nations; and elite right newspapers were more likely to quote anti-immigration speakers and emphasize problems for society than other types of outlets. We also find that the mediated immigration "debate" is often only a series of opposed monologues; even ideologically diverse groups Behavioral ScientistBenson and Wood research-article2015Benson and Wood 803 such as unaffiliated citizens tend to be linked to a small range of frames, suggesting that "who says what" is not a reflection of society, but rather the outcome of journalistic practices and sources' rhetorical tactics.

Publicity and transparency are two foundational ideas about the proper structure of democratic communication. In a context of utterly transformed public discourse, it is time to rethink the value of these concepts and especially their relationship to one another. This special issue aims to test prevailing assumptions about these terms as they are reshaped in the present era of organized promotional culture. To begin, the present introduction recasts the concepts of publicity and transparency as tools for analyzing and organizing communicative power rather than as normative ideals in their own right. To this end, we present three core arguments for rethinking transparency and publicity today. First, all acts of transparency entail a redistribution of communicative power but not an inherently egalitarian or democratic one. Second, publicity is the central means by which transparency distributes communicative power. And third, scholars must analyze transparency, like publicity, as a professionalized and industrialized field. By centering questions of power and practice, this special issue aims to animate a research agenda attentive to the relational character of both transparency and publicity in hopes of foregrounding the ways the concepts might be used in service of more equitable political alignments.

Corporations rarely enter political battles alone. They have long partnered with trade associations to articulate industry views, and more recently have begun routinely creating their own activist organizations to act as allies. Amid this turn toward grassroots corporate organizing, how is the voice – or perhaps voices – of business articulated in the news? Using the case study of coverage of the Keystone bitumen pipeline, I offer a framing analysis of 480 news items from six outlets in the United States and Canada, showing which voices and frames dominate the debate. My data demonstrate that while corporations have a robust voice in news, trade associations participate only sparingly, and corporately funded grassroots campaigns are almost wholly omitted. Furthermore, key silences characterize corporations’ mediated voice, with companies neglecting to comment on issues such as climate change; anti-pipeline activists, meanwhile, maintain their own forms of strategic silence. Proponents and detractors alike promote their ‘owned issues’, offering discourse more akin to a shouting match than a debate.

No abstract

No abstract