Who Sets the Agenda: Media or Parliament?: A panel data study to the agenda setting effects on attention to migration and integration - Panel data

874 views

Published on

Who Sets the Agenda: Media or Parliament?: A panel data study to the agenda setting effects on attention to migration and integration
Panel data

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
874
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Who Sets the Agenda: Media or Parliament?: A panel data study to the agenda setting effects on attention to migration and integration - Panel data

  1. 1. Who Sets the Agenda: Media or Parliament?A panel data study to the agenda setting effects on attention to migration and integration Panel data Assignment 7 Mark Boukes (markboukes@Hotmail.com) 5616298 1st semester 2010/2011 Dynamic Data Analysis Lecturer: Dr. R. Vliegenthart January 12, 2010 Communication Science (Research MSc) Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences University of Amsterdam
  2. 2. Table of contentsINTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................1METHOD........................................................................................................................................................1RESULTS........................................................................................................................................................2 FIXED EFFECTS ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................................................3 RANDOM EFFECTS ANALYSES...........................................................................................................................................4 WHICH ANALYSIS TO USE?............................................................................................................................................4CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................5REFERENCE....................................................................................................................................................5DO FILE..........................................................................................................................................................6
  3. 3. IntroductionIn this study I aim to investigate the influence that news coverage about issues of migrationand integration has on parliamentary attention to this topic; the agenda setting power of themedia on politics will investigated. However, it is also logical to expect a agenda settingeffect in the contrary direction. Therefore, I will also investigate if parliamentary attention forissues of migration and integration stimulates the attention of newspapers for such topics.Therefore, my two research questions are: • Is parliamentary attention to issues of migration and integration caused by media attention to this topic? • Is media attention to issues of migration and integration caused by parliamentary attention to this topic?MethodTo answer these questions panel data will be used. Because of the time components in therepeated measures, it is possible to see if an change in the independent variable precedeschanges in the dependent variable. Consequently, we can be more sure that there is a causalrelation and not a third variable that influences both variables at the same time. In order toinvestigate whether changes in media attention to issues of migration and integration have aninfluence on parliamentary attention, data was gathered for both of these processes. Roggebandand Vliegenthart (2007) have already done this, and their data was used for this study. The data for media attention was gathered via a computer-assisted content analysis,which was conducted using the digital archive of the Web-based version of LexisNexis. Theysearched for articles in the five most-read Dutch national newspapers (De Telegraaf,Algemeen Dagblad de Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblad and Trouw) between 1995 and 2004,the period in which they were interested. The search engine Parlando was used to obtain datafor parliamentary attention. Parlando contains all documents discussed in and presented toParliament and Senate, and allows it thus to create the variable for parliamentary attention toissues of migration and integration. For both variables a monthly basis was chosen byRoggeband and Vliegenthart for the period from 1995 to 2004. Furthermore, they split theirvariables up into five issues. Those are frames by which media or politicians spoke or wroteabout migration and integration: a multicultural frame, an emancipation frame, a restrictionframe, a victimisation of women frame and an Islam-as-threat frame. A total of 5,376 frameswere found in the sample for parliamentary attention, and a total of 14,972 articles were foundabout migration and integration, which contained on average 1.11 frames per article(Roggeband & Vliegenthart, 2007). Next to the two variables for media and parliamentary 1
  4. 4. attention a dummy variable was included in the dataset for the terrorist attacks in New Yorkon September 11, 2001, to control for a possible increased attention at that moment for theimmigrants, Islam, etc. To analyse the effects of attention in the media for the five issues of migration andintegration on parliamentary attention to those issues, a multilevel regression analysis isconducted using Stata 10.1 for the time series of these variables, with issue as a level-2variable in which observations are nested. Monthly observations are thus cross-classified inboth time and issue. Analyzing this in a multilevel way thus controls for bias caused byunobserved heterogeneity; in this case recurrent differences in attention for the differentissues, unobserved effects.ResultsIn this results section, I specify how the analysis was conducted and discuss the results thatwere found. First, a fixed-effects analysis was conducted, which removes cross-sectionalvariation; it eliminates the unobserved effect. This fixed-effects regression is a method tocontrol for omitted variables, when those are constant over time but differ across entities (hereissues) (Stock & Watson, 2003). The fixed effects model gives the same results as conductingan ordinary least squares regression with dummy variables for the issues. Thereafter, arandom-effects analysis was conducted in which the unobserved effect was subsumed to be adisturbance term. This analysis is more efficient as the model has less parameters (in this casefour: five dummies minus one, to avoid perfect multicollinearity) (Rabe-Hesketh & Skrondal,2005). However, two conditions need to be satisfied. First, each observation should berandomly drawn from a population. The data used for this study uses a sample that constitutesthe whole population of all news articles in the newspapers of interest and all debates andpresentations in Parliament; therefore, it is not a biased sample, and the first condition issatisfied. The second condition is that unobserved variables are distributed independentlyfrom observed independent variables. This condition will be tested later on with the Hausmanspecification test. The dataset is strongly balanced as there is an observation for every unit (issue) forevery time period. Furthermore, Fisher tests for panel unit root using an augmented Dickey-Fuller test reject the null hypothesis of the presence of non-stationarity for both the mediaattention variable (χ2 = 123.22, p < 0.001) and the parliament attention variable (χ2 = 138.63,p < 0.001). Thus, it was not necessary to integrate the data. 2
  5. 5. Fixed effects analysisThe fixed effects analysis was conducted two times: once with media attention as dependentvariable and once with parliamentary attention as dependent variable, the independentvariable was the lagged value of the variable that was not used as dependent variable (mediaor parliament attention), and finally the control variables were the 9/11-dummy, time and timesquared. The last two should control for differences as a consequence of time, either linear orquadratic. The results of both fixed effects regression models can be found in Table 1.Table 1. Fixed effects models for either media or parliamentary attention for migration and integration Parliamentary attention Media attentionConstant 72.433 (35.036)* -847.487 (386.823)*Media attention(t - 1) 0.015 (0.004)**Parliamentary attention (t - 1) 2.056 (0.451)**9/11-dummy -1.878 (0.640)** 47.256 (6.904)**Month -0.330 (0.150)* 3.763 (1.657)*Month2 0.000 (.000)* -0.004 (0.002)*Note. Unstandardized coefficients. Standard errors in parentheses. Month starts in January 1995.** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05It seems that parliamentary attention to issues of migration and integration is affectedsignificantly in a positive way by media attention (F(1, 586) = 17.34, p < 0.001); on averageand holding other variables constant, a one article increase in the number of articles in the fivenewspapers, would lead in the next month to 0.015 more discussions in Parliament. To makeit clearer, when the media attention increases with 66 articles in a month; that is about 2articles a day and 0.4 per newspaper a day, one extra discussion about migration orintegration will take place in the upcoming month. On the other hand, media attention seemsalso to be caused by parliamentary attention in a significant and positive way (F(1, 586) =20.79, p < 0.001); as in one month the attention in Parliament goes up with one discussion orpresentation, the newspapers will on average publish two more articles about migration orintegration in the next month; that is about 0.06 article a day. Thus, when both effects arecompared it seems that the effect of the media on Parliament seems relatively to be stronger. Remarkable is that the effect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has a positive effect on mediaattention, but a negative effect on parliamentary attention. After the attacks about 47 morearticles are published per month about migration and integration, while the number of debatesin Parliament reduced with almost two per month. A similar result was found for the timevariable. It seems thus that the terrorist attacks stimulated the debate about migration and 3
  6. 6. integration in the media, but not in Parliament, and that this debate got more media attentionin the course time, while for politicians it became less important over time.Random effects analysesAs written above, the analyses are repeated here with a random effects analysis, because thisis a more efficient way (less degrees of freedom are lost). The same variables are used as inthe fixed effects models. The result of the random effects analyses are shown in Table 2.Table 2. Random effects models for either media or parliamentary attention to migration and integration Parliamentary attention Media attentionConstant 71.998 (35.098)* -844.873 (387.360)*Media attention(t - 1) 0.015 (0.004)**Parliamentary attention (t - 1) 2.018 (0.451)**9/11-dummy -1.846 (0.641)** 47.194 (6.911)**Month -0.328 (0.150)* 3.751 (1.659)*Month2 .000 (.000)* -0.004 (0.002)*The results of the random effects analyses are almost the same as the ones obtained via the fixedeffects analysis. Media attention to the issues of integration and migration still has a positiveand significant effect on the parliamentary attention in the next month (F(1, 586) = 15.78, p <0.001) and also the effect of parliamentary attention to issues of migration and integration onmedia attention to this topic stays similar (F(1, 586) = 20.05, p < 0.001). Because these effectsare so similar to the ones found in the fixed effects analysis just as the effects of the 9/11terrorist attacks and time-effects, it is not necessary to specify them here again.Which analysis to use?To find out if it is possible to use the estimates of the random effects analyses, the two abovespecified conditions need to be specified. It was already explained that the first condition,observations are randomly drawn from a given population, does not pose any problems. Thesecond condition is whether the unobserved effect is distributed independently of theindependent variables in the model. To check whether this is true, Hausman specification testsare conducted. The null hypothesis of both regression models cannot be rejected. This meansthat the unobserved heterogeneity is distributed independently of the independent variables inthe model, for the model with parliamentary attention as dependent variable (χ2 = 3.68, p =0.298) and for the model with media attention as dependent variable (χ2 = 5.77, p = 0.123).Differences in estimates between the two models are thus not systematic and fixed effects arefor that reason inefficient; random effects estimates will not be subject to unobserved 4
  7. 7. heterogeneity bias. Therefore we can use the estimates of the random effects analysis, whichis preferred, because constant characteristics for each unit (issue in this case) are retained inthat regression model contrary to the fixed effects model. To check if the even more simple OLS regression could be used in stead of the randomeffects analysis, the Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test was conducted for bothmodels to check if there are unobserved effects at all, which the random effects analysis willtake into account. For the model with parliamentary attention as dependent variable (χ2 =725.75, p < 0.001) as well as for the model with media attention as dependent variable (χ2 =2818.33, p < 0.001) the presence of random effects was found. Random effects analyses seemthus the right way to estimate our models. The results of those estimates lead to the two following models1:Parliamentary attention = 71.998 + 0.015*Media attention(t - 1) ─ 1.846*9/11-dummy ─ 0.328*Month + 0.000*Month2Media attention = -844.873+ 2.018*Parliamentary attention(t - 1) + 47.194*9/11-dummy + 3.751*Month ─ 0.004*Month2ConclusionThis study has found that increases in the number of articles about issues of migration andintegration in the newspapers De Telegraaf, Algemeen Dagblad de Volkskrant, NRCHandelsblad and Trouw results in increased parliamentary attention to this topic in the nextmonth. An agenda setting effect of media on politics was thus found. However, also an effectin the contrary direction was found: an agenda setting effect of politics on media. When thepoliticians in parliament spent more attention to migration and integration, also an increase inmedia attention to this topic is expected. These conclusions are based on analyses of paneldata with random effects analyses, so both cross-sectional and time series dimension could betaken into account.ReferenceRabe-Hesketh, S. & Skrondal, A. (2005). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. College Station (TX): Stata Press.Roggeband, C., & Vliegenthart, R. (2007). Divergent framing: The evolution of the public debate on migration and integration in the Dutch Parliament and media, 1995-2004. West European Politics, 30(3), 524-548.Stock, J. W., & Watson, M. W. (2003). Introduction to Econometrics. Boston (MA): Addison Wesley.1 The exact value for the coefficients belonging to Month2 are respectively 0.000391 and -0.0041199 5
  8. 8. Do Fileuse H:DDAframes_pooledfindit xtfishercodebook frametsset frame nr, monthlygen ny=0replace ny=1 if nr>499gen n_sq=nr*nrtwoway (tsline media, lcolor(red)) (tsline politics, lcolor(green)lpattern(dash) lwidth(medthick)) if frame==1twoway (tsline media, lcolor(red)) (tsline politics, lcolor(green)lpattern(dash) lwidth(medthick)) if frame==2twoway (tsline media, lcolor(red)) (tsline politics, lcolor(green)lpattern(dash) lwidth(medthick)) if frame==3twoway (tsline media, lcolor(red)) (tsline politics, lcolor(green)lpattern(dash) lwidth(medthick)) if frame==4twoway (tsline media, lcolor(red)) (tsline politics, lcolor(green)lpattern(dash) lwidth(medthick)) if frame==5xtfisher mediaxtfisher politicsxtserial politics media ny nr n_sqxtserial media politics ny nr n_sq***Fixed effects***xtreg politics l.media ny nr n_sq, fetest l.mediaxtreg media l.politics ny nr n_sq, fetest l.politicsxi: regress politics l.media nr n_sq i.framextreg politics l.media ny nr n_sq, fepredict politicsfe, eestimates stor fixed_effects_pxtreg media l.politics ny nr n_sq, fepredict mediafe, eestimates stor fixed_effects_m***Random effects***xtreg politics l.media ny nr n_sq, retest l.mediaxtreg media l.politics ny nr n_sq, retest l.politicsxtreg politics l.media ny nr n_sq, repredict politicsre, eestimates stor random_effects_pxtreg media l.politics ny nr n_sq, repredict mediare, e 6
  9. 9. estimates stor random_effects_mhausman fixed_effects_p random_effects_phausman fixed_effects_m random_effects_mxtreg politics l.media ny nr n_sq, rexttest0xtreg media l.politics ny nr n_sq, rexttest0 7

×