The Tea Party Movement, Framing, and the US Media

Abstract

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.

Progressive and Conservative “Freedom” Through the Lens of FOX and MSNBC

“…In a study by Weaver and Scacco (2013) on the Tea Party movement, findings indicated that MSNBC program hosts were more likely to marginalize the Tea Party than CNN or FOX hosts, calling its members "idiots" and questioning the grassroots nature of Tea Party membership. Boykoff and Laschever (2011) similarly found that a "non-mainstream frame" was used more frequently by MSNBC news sources than an "everyday American frame" to describe Tea Party members.…”

Political Rhetoric Through the Lens of Non-Parametric Statistics: are Our Legislators that Different?

“…This phenomenon, which shapes Congressmen's behaviour, is what is known as Fenno's paradox-voters generally disapprove of Congress as a whole but support the Congressmen from their own district (Fenno, 2002). Anti-establishment politics are not new (Horwitz, 2013;Barr, 2009) and can currently be observed both in the conservative right with the Tea Party members (Boykoff and Laschever, 2011;Skocpol and Williamson, 2012), as well as in the liberal left (Bolton, 2016). However, members of Congress become institutionalized and their behaviour is shaped by their institution (Binder, 2015;Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, 1995;Canon, 1989) even as they campaign as outsiders (Herrnson, 2007;Burden, 2004).…”

Protest Movements and Citizen Discontent: Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party

“…Sparked by a call by a conservative commentator for a “Chicago Tea Party” in response to the Obama administration's plans for a mortgage assistance program, Tea Party websites and organizations sprouted up like mushrooms. In particular, the large grassroots component of Tea Party groups flowed together with large, national funding sources and the conservative media—and making use of rhetorical formations previously developed by conservatives (Williamson, Skocpol, and Coggin ; Zernike )—to focus on the contestation of Republican primaries, especially in the 2010 midterm elections (Boykoff and Laschever ; Fetner and King ; Miller and Walling ; Perrin et al. ).…”

“…In some cases, such realignments can take place comfortably within the existing party system. An important example here involved the realignment of the American South in the twentieth century (Black and Black 2002;Kawato 1987;Petrocik 1987;Shafer and Johnston 2006 later, in local ones), presumably because the latter appeared less supportive of continued civil rights legislation. But in other cases, we expect that there is a time when, for some citizens, there is no party that they believe can represent their ideological positions.…”