Prison Privatization and Public Discourse

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

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.