The Myth of the Outside Strategy: Mass Media News Coverage of Interest Groups

Changing the Face of Advocacy? Explaining Interest Organizations’ Use of Social Media Strategies

“…van der Graaf and colleagues (2013), controlling for groups' membership structure and level of mobilization, find that groups with more staff also tend to use a larger number of social media tools. Similar observations have been made with regard to earlier research on interest groups' news media strategies, where only large, well-funded private interests were found to have the ability to effectively play a role in public debates (Danielian & Page, 1994;Thrall, 2006). Indeed, for Iosifidis (2011, p. 619), rather than serving NGOs and citizen groups, "the Internet has become a major instrument for corporate activity" supplementing other so-called inside lobbying strategies like the provision of expert information via policy reports and analyses.…”

“…Studies have examined how organizations seek out media coverage and attention, attempt to influence decision makers and policy outcomes by making headlines, and work to shape policy options through their interactions with reporters and news outlets (Beyers, 2004;Binderkrantz, 2012;Kollman, 1998;Mahoney, 2008;Thrall, 2006). Binderkrantz (2012, p. 121) links these new trends to an increasing "mediatization" of politics, "leading all political actors to focus more on making a presence in the media."…”

“…For interest group scholars the tendency is to therefore label social media as a "weapon of the weak." Along with demonstrations and protests, social media are typically categorized as an "outside strategy," providing so-called diffuse interest groups (like nongovernmental organizations [NGOs] and citizen groups) with a form of indirect contact to decision makers (Edwards & Hoefer, 2010;Thrall, 2006). Skepticism about the democratizing and empowering potential of social media not only dismisses the leveling ability of these new technologies, but also suggests that they play into the hands of those already in power.…”

More Bang for the Buck: Media Freedom and Organizational Strategies in the Agenda-Setting of Human Rights Groups

“…A number of studies investigate the drivers of media attention to groups (e.g., Andrews & Caren, 2010;Binderkrantz, 2012;Binderkrantz, Bonafont, & Halpin, 2017;Binderkrantz, Christiansen, & Pedersen, 2015;Danielian & Page, 1994;De Bruycker & Beyers, 2015;Elliott, Amenta, & Caren, 2016;Rohlinger, Kail, Taylor, & Conn, 2012;Seguin, 2016;Thrall, 2006;Thrall, Stecula, & Sweet, 2014). Yet scholars disagree on both the prospect of groups garnering attention, and the factors that help them in that quest.…”

“…Some point to the remarkable agenda-building successes of public interest groups in a range of issue spaces (Baumgartner, De Boef, & Boydstun, 2008;Berry, 1999). Others, however, regard the prospect of outside voices gaining media prominence, let alone political influence, as exceedingly low (Danielian & Page, 1994;Schlozman, Verba, & Brady, 2012;Thrall, 2006). In such studies, it is the differing level of organizational resources that is seen as a key reason for skewed media access (Andrews & Caren, 2010;Binderkrantz et al, 2015;Thrall, 2006).…”