Prison Privatization and Public Discourse

这个项目研究了在大规模监禁的背景下关于监狱私有化的报纸报道。一些人认为，将国家的强制职能委托给私人承包商是政府性质的根本转变，而另一些人则认为这仅仅是一种效率措施。确定新闻来源是否以及如何描述这个问题对于理解公共话语和政府政策之间的关系非常重要。1985年至2005年期间，相关新闻报道位于四个州的四家“全国性”报纸的电子档案中，1995年至2005年期间，位于另外六个州的地区性报纸则保存在电子档案中。这10个州使用私人监狱的程度各不相同。新闻报道是根据监狱私有化话语的突出性（数量和可见性）、参与者用来谈论私人矫正的框架（例如，政府的性质、成本、安全）、参与者主张的价值（例如，支持或反对）以及各种类型的参与者（例如，矫正管理员、私人矫正公司、工会领导人、民选官员）在提出私人矫正主张时的地位进行编码的。分析考察了与监狱私有化程度有关的不同时间和地点的话语变化。预测了由于媒介扩散效应，新闻来源在时间上的相似性。尽管存在这些扩散效应，但由于国家在问题的政治显著性和政治行为者配置方面的差异，也预测了新闻来源之间的差异。预计将存在三种类型的国家：一种是不可能存在的国家，没有私人监狱，也没有针对私人监狱的建议，对这一问题的新闻报道也很少；无人反对，监狱私有化没有争议，新闻报道很少，只关心成本和效率；在冲突中，有人提议建立私人监狱，有人积极反对私人监狱，有人的新闻报道中包含了关键的框架。结果揭示了公共话语的演变，既是对政府责任转移的回应，也是对政府责任转移的约束。

This project examines newspaper stories about prison privatization in the context of mass incarceration. Delegating a coercive function of the state to private contractors was viewed by some as a fundamental shift in the nature of government, and by others as merely an efficiency measure. Determining whether and how this issue was portrayed in news sources is important for understanding the relation between public discourse and government policy. Relevant news stories are located in electronic archives of four "national" newspapers based in four states for 1985-2005 and regional newspapers located in an additional six states for 1995-2005. These 10 states vary in the extent to which they used private prisons. News stories are coded for the prominence (volume and visibility) of prison privatization discourse, the frames actors used to talk about private corrections (e.g., nature of government, costs, safety), the valence of actors' claims (i.e., support or opposition), and the standing of various types of actors (e.g., corrections administrators, private corrections firms, union leaders, elected officials) in making claims about private corrections. Analysis examines variation in the discourse across time and place in relation to the extent of prison privatization. Some similarities across news sources within time due to media diffusion effects are predicted. Despite these diffusion effects, differences between news sources are also predicted due to state differences in the political salience of the issue and the configuration of political actors. Three types of states are predicted to exist: non-starter, with no private prisons or proposals for them and little news coverage of the issue; unopposed, where prison privatization occurs without controversy and news coverage is scant and concerns cost and efficiency only; and conflict where there are proposals for private prisons, active opposition to them and news coverage that includes critical frames. Results shed light on the evolution of public discourse as both a response to and a constraint on shifting governmental responsibilities.