Framed? Judicialization and the Risk of Negative Episodic Media Coverage: Judicialization and Negative Episodic Media Coverage
Framed? Judicialization and the Risk of Negative Episodic Media Coverage: Judicialization and Negative Episodic Media Coverage
复制标题
陷害？
DOI：
10.1111/lsi.12346
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hevron, Parker
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barnes, Jeb;Hevron, Parker
左翼和右翼的活动人士越来越多地求助于法院来制定政策，这引发了人们对司法化潜在风险的质疑。一种可能性是，诉讼比其他政策制定模式更容易受到媒体的负面报道。使用跨和政策领域内的比较故事的联邦黑肺计划，集体石棉诉讼策略，和个人石棉侵权诉讼，我们发现，覆盖面变得越来越多的情节和关键，因为它专注于政策制度，功能越来越多的对抗性法律主义。此外，即使是石棉诉讼的最广泛的覆盖范围也无法解释为什么石棉受害者转向法院，强大的利益如何限制他们的政策选择，或者法官如何敦促国会采取行动。这种有限的和相对关键的轶事报道意味着，诉讼可能会产生不利的媒体报道比它的替代品，活动家应该权衡这种风险时，决定提起诉讼。
Activists on the left and right have increasingly turned to the courts to make policy, raising questions about the potential risks of judicialization. One possibility is that litigation is more prone to negative episodic media coverage than alternative modes of policymaking. Using across- and within-policy area comparisons of stories about the Federal Black Lung Program, collective asbestos litigation strategies, and individual asbestos tort suits, we find that coverage becomes steadily more episodic and critical as it focuses on policy regimes that feature increasing amounts of adversarial legalism. Moreover, even the broadest coverage of asbestos litigation fails to explain why victims of asbestos turned to the courts, how powerful interests constrained their policy options, or how judges urged Congress to act. This limited and relatively critical anecdotal reporting implies that litigation may engender less favorable media coverage than its alternatives and that activists should weigh this risk when deciding to litigate.