Accusations of partisan bias in Presidential election coverage are suspect at best and self-serving at worst. They are generally supported by the methodology of instance confirmation, tainted by the hostile media effect, and based on simplistic visions of how the news media are organized. Media Bias in Presidential Election Coverage 1948-2008 by Dave D'Alessio, is a revealing analysis that shows the news media have four essential natures: as journalistic entities, businesses, political actors, and property, all of which can act to create news coverage biases, in some cases in opposing directions. By meta-analyzing the results of 99 previous examinations of media coverage of Presidential elections from 1948 to 2008, D'Alessio reveals that coverage has no aggregate partisan bias either way, even though there are small biases in specific realms that are generally insubstantial. Furthermore, while publishers used to control coverage preferences, this practice has become negligible in recent years. Media Bias proves that, at least in terms of Presidential election coverage, The New York Times is not the most liberal paper in America and the Fox News channel is substantially more conservative in news coverage than the broadcast networks. Finally, Media Bias in Presidential Election Coverage 1948-2008 predicts that no amount of evidence will cause political candidates to cease complaining about bias because such accusations have both strategic potential in campaigns and an undeniable utility in ego defense.

The democratic ideal demands that the citizenry think critically about matters of public import. Yet many Democrats and Republicans in the United States have fallen short of that standard because political tribalism motivates them to acquire, perceive and evaluate political information in a biased manner. The result is an electorate that is more extreme, hostile and willing to reject unfavorable democratic outcomes. In this work, the author provides a host of actionable strategies that are designed to reduce the influence of political tribalism in our lives. The text includes instructions for plumbing the depths of political views; evaluating sources of political information; engaging in difficult political conversations; appraising political data; and assessing political arguments. The first of its kind, this how-to guide is a must-read for partisans who want to become more critical political thinkers.

Media bias has been a hot-button issue for several decades and it features prominently in the post-2016 political conversation. Yet, it receives only spotty treatment in existing materials aimed at political communication or introductory American politics courses. Evaluating Media Bias is a brief, supplemental resource that provides an academically informed but broadly accessible overview of the major concepts and controversies involving media bias. Adam Schiffer explores the contours of the partisan-bias debate before pivoting to real biases: the patterns, constraints, and shortcomings plaguing American political news. Media bias is more relevant than ever in the aftermath of the presidential election, which launched a flurry of media criticism from scholars, commentators, and thoughtful news professionals. Engaging and informative, this text reviews what we know about media bias, offers timely case studies as illustration, and introduces an original framework for unifying diverse conversations about this topic that is the subject of so much ire in our country. Evaluating Media Bias allows students of American politics, and politically aware citizens alike, the means of detecting and evaluating bias for themselves, and thus join the national conversation about the state of American news media.

Tracking the effects of media content on the public is a difficult endeavor, and media effects vary on a subject-to-subject basis. To address this challenge, The Politics of Persuasion employs a multifaceted, mixed method approach to studying mass media and public attitudes. Anthony R. DiMaggio analyzes more than a dozen case studies covering US domestic economic policy and examines a wide range of theories of how bias operates in mass media with regard to coverage of these issues. While some research claims that journalists are overly negative and biased against government officials, some reveals that journalists favor citizens groups. Still other studies contend there is a liberal bias in the media, a progovernment bias, or a bias in favor of advertisers and business interests. Through his analysis, DiMaggio is the first to systematically examine all of these competing interpretations. He concludes that reporters tailor stories to corporate and government interests, but argues that the ability to "manufacture consent" from the public in favor of these elite views is far from guaranteed. According to DiMaggio, citizens often make use of their own personal experiences and prior attitudes to challenge official narratives.

This completely new edition of The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky surveys Chomsky's contributions to the science of language, to socioeconomic-political analysis and criticism, and to the study of the human mind. The first section focuses on the aims of Chomsky's recent 'biological-minimalist' turn in the science of language, and shows how Chomsky's view of the nature of language and its introduction to the human species has recently developed. The second section focuses on Chomsky's view of the mind and its parts - and how to study them. Finally, the third section examines some of Chomsky's many contributions to socio-political history and critique. This new edition examines Chomsky's views on a wide range of issues, from his views of the lexicon, language's evolution, and the study of mind to the status of capitalism and the Palestine-Israel conflict. It will be essential reading for anyone with an interest in Chomsky's ideas.

Political debates are an important facet of modern election campaigns. How politicians frame an argument, how the audience perceives it, and how the media decides to display it are key components in analyzing the outcome of a political debate, and ultimately, an election. Drawing mainly on the functional theory of political campaign discourse, William L. Benoit examines a wide variety of debates not only in the United States but across the globe. Because each phase of election offers new challenges, specific attention is paid to how primary versus general and incumbency influence the content of political leaders’ debate practices. Specifically, the book delves into the history and nature of debates in various United States elections, including presidential, vice presidential, senatorial, gubernatorial, and mayoral candidates. Also examined are debates ranging from the United Kingdom to South Korea to Australia. Benoit also employs the issues ownership theory and functional federalism theory as a deeper part of the analysis. This book offers a critical examination and comprehensive overview of election debate theory.

Political observers routinely lament that American democracy is broken, and many of them blame electoral malfunction. But is the system really broken? Panagopoulos and Weinschenk make the case that citizens are empowered to fix what’s wrong with electoral politics and renew democracy in America, all within the institutional setup and framework of the existing system. Put simply, much of what is broken can be fixed if people stop throwing up their arms and start rolling up their sleeves to do the hard work of building our democracy. This book provides an overview of the basic features that characterize contemporary elections in the United States and includes discussions about voter participation and decision-making patterns, money in elections, and the role of parties and the media in presidential, congressional and state and local races. It also outlines some of the most important trends and challenges in the current system. As a call to action, each chapter features potential solutions to the challenges that exist in U.S. elections.