The Relationships Between Mass Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis

Abstract

Democracy requires that citizens' opinions play some role in shaping policy outcomes, including in foreign policy. Yet, although the literature on public opinion and foreign policy has made great progress in recent decades, scholars have reached no consensus concerning what the public thinks, or thinks about, with respect to foreign policy; how it comes to hold those opinions; or whether those opinions influence (or even should influence) foreign policy. In this article, we first review the extensive gains in scholarly knowledge in the area of public opinion and foreign policy over the past several decades, emphasizing relatively recent work. We then suggest a framework, based on the concept of market equilibrium, aimed at synthesizing the disparate research programs that constitute the literature on public opinion and foreign policy. To do so, in addition to considering the relationship between leaders and the public, we incorporate a third strategic actor, the mass media, which we believe plays a critical role alongside citizens and elites in shaping the public's attitudes about, and influence on, foreign policy. Our goal is to clarify the multifaceted relationships between these actors and foreign policy outcomes.

Legitimising Emerging Power Diplomacy: an Analysis of Government and Media Discourses on Brazilian Foreign Policy under Lula

“…It was still receptive on MINUSTAH, converging considerably on Regional Relations and Promoting Peace. However, in the Iranian case, both themes were negatively interpreted along with the remainder, notably in terms of their political costs -a determining factor for popular endorsement of foreign policy (Baum and Potter 2008).…”

“…Brazil has a tradition in peacekeeping missions, so that MINUSTAH is a current phenomenon; dealings with Iran, however, are a new fact. The lack of available scripts (or 'consensual frames', according to Baum and Potter 2008) for interpreting it seems to cause a more pronounced influence by the DF on the newspapers' discourse. This is shown by the proximity between the arguments used by the FT and CC and those used by the NYT and OESP.…”

Cry Havoc: Rhetorical Mobilization and Foreign Policy Decision Making During War-threatening Crises

“…There is, however, a rich literature that addresses public opinion once war is imminent or has already been initiated. Mueller (1973) introduces two hypotheses that continue to attract scholarly attention: the casualties hypothesis (critics and contributors include Berinsky 2007;Gartner & Segura 1998;Gelpi, Feaver & Reifler 2005;Kull & Ramsay 2001;Slantchev 2004) and the rally-'round-the-flag effect (critics and contributors include: Baum and Potter 2008;Groeling & Baum 2008;Oneal, Lian, & Joyner1996;Stoll 1984).…”

“…explains variation in public support for war as a product of the public's tendency to bandwagon with their leaders in the early days of a conflict, giving the executive significant short-term autonomy (contributors and critics include Baum & Groeling 2010;Baum and Potter 2008;Oneal, Lian, & Joyner1996;Stoll 1984).…”

“…However, since domestic sanction is rarely immediate, an executive contemplating war is less concerned with a snapshot of the current mood that a public opinion poll would offer and more interested in understanding "anticipated future opinions" (Zaller 1994, 251; see also Baum & Potter 2008;Gelpi, Reifler & Feaver 2007;Hurwitz & Peffley 1987). It will, therefore, focus at least as much attention on estimating attitudes of the opinion-leading elite-the media, expert communities, senior military officers, and other political leaders-as it does gauging the opinions of the general public (Saunders 2014).…”