This study explores the dynamics among media, public opinion, and presidents regarding environmental issues in the U.S. over several decades. The study finds reciprocal influences among these groups in shaping the environmental discourse. It finds that presidential agenda influences media agenda, and public agenda influences public attitudes. However, the relationships are complex rather than linear. The study also finds that changes in media and public agendas influence attitudes more than the reverse. This suggests media effects should be analyzed at different levels of impact.

1. Exploring the Social Dynamics in the
U.S. Democracy: Presidential and Public
Opinions about, and Media Coverage of,
Environmental Issues
Qingjiang Yao, Ph.D.
July 13, 2010

2. Abstract
 This study explores the dynamics among the U.S.
media, public and presidents on environmental issues.
Using data collected from polls and federal outlays in
43 years and a content analysis of news coverage and
presidential documents in 28 years, the study partially
tests a model that integrates agenda-setting, priming
and framing. The study finds reciprocal influences
among the media, the public and the presidents in the
environmental discourse. It also suggests that media
effects should be analyzed at different levels, from
attention to behavior.

3. I. Environment as a Political Topic
 Two theoretical explanation of environmentalism:
Cultural theory and postmaterialism
 Three major forces that shapes environmental
politics
1. The presidents: Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr.,
Clinton, Bush Jr.
2. The media.
3. The public: three peaks: 1970, 1985, 1990.

4. II. An Integrated Model
1. Understanding Media Effects

5. 2. Agenda-Setting and Framing
Second-level agenda-setting
cannot cover framing setting
because their variables are
different.
The concept of framing is actually
the assumption of agenda-setting
research.

6. 3. The Integrated Model of Mass
Communication Processes

7. 4. Hs & the RQ
 H1: Media agenda Granger-causes public agenda.
 H2: Public agenda Granger-causes public attitude.
 H3: Media attitude Granger-causes public attitude.
 H4: Presidential agenda Granger-causes media agenda.
 H5: Presidential attitude Granger-causes media attitude.
 H6: Public attitude Granger-causes policy-making.
 RQ1: What are the multi-way causal interactions among the
media, the public, and the presidents?

8. III. Method
1. Data Sources
 Presidential Documents (476)

9.  Media News Pieces (858)

10.  Public Opinion Poll (47 series questions) and Federal Outlays in
the Natural Resources and the Environment
The historical federal
outlays is available
from the historical
tables attached to
the federal budget.
Usually Table 3.1.

11. 2. Measurements
 Content analysis (quarterly):
*Tone: from -2 (highly supportive) to 2 (highly unsupportive)
*Time
Agenda: amount of pieces appearing in a period.
Attitude: sum tone of the pieces appearing in a period.
Note: Intercoder reliability: Hosti’ formula, 0.90; Scott’ phi, 0.836.
Media attitude is also produced at yearly level.
 Policy-making (yearly):
The actual value of the federal outlays in the natural resources
and the environment.

12.  Public Opinion (yearly):
* 31 series questions asking to rate the importance of
the environment, N ranging from 3 to 150.
* 16 series questions asking whether environmental
spending should increase. N ranging from 2 to 28.
 Latent series are drawn with WCalc.
Recent citations using WCalc:
Frank R. Baumgartner, Suzanna L De Boef., and Ambert E. Boydstun,
The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Erik Voeten and Paul R. Brewer, “Public Opinion, the War in Iraq, and
Presidential Accountability,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (5
2006), 809-830.
Jennifer Jerit, “Issue Framing and Engagement: Rhetorical Strategy in
Public Policy Debates,” Political Behavior (12 September 2007 ).
Available from:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/92242q2656430278/fulltext.html.

13.  Using WCalc to draw latent series
Note: Latent series of public agenda are drawn at both yearly level (1965-2007) and quarterly
level (1980-2007). Items having correlation with the latent series lower than 0.50 are deleted
when drawing the latent series.

14. 3. Analysis
 Vector Autoregression Modeling (VAR) and the
following Granger Causality test (Chi-square test)
 Bivariate Granger Causality test
1. Chi-square test.
2. F test.

15. IV. Results:
 Public Agenda on the Environment

16.  Public Attitude and Media Attitude (yearly)

17.  Environmental Policy-Making (federal outlays)
0
10000200003000040000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Time
Note: Policy-making is measured by federal outlays in the environment, in million of dollars.
Figure 4.3 The Environmental Policy-Making

18.  Media Agenda and Presidential Agenda
0
10203040
1980q1 1985q1 1990q1 1995q1 2000q1 2005q1
Time
Media Agenda Presidential Agenda
Note: Agenda is measured by the amount of the pieces appearing in the time unit.
Figure 4.4 Media Agenda and Presidential Agenda

19.  Media Attitude and Presidential Attitude
0
10203040
1980q1 1985q1 1990q1 1995q1 2000q1 2005q1
Time
Media Attitude Presidential Attitude
Note: Attitude is measured by the sum tone of the pieces appearing in the time unit.
Figure 4.5 Media Attitude and Presidential Attitude

20.  The Social Dynamics

21. V. Conclusions and Suggestions
 Summary:
1. The causal relationships between the media
and the presidents, between the media and the
public are recursive. And the nature of the
relationships are complex rather than a linear
transformation process. The finding that the
media are influenced by the public confirms their
“mirror function.”

22. 2. Stronger evidence supports that the presidents
influence the media and the public. However, the
influences are also complex. Since the coefficient
are usually negative first and then positive, we
can say that the media and the public are on
guard against the presidents in short term, but
follow them in the long run.

23. 3. Stronger evidence shows that changes in
agenda, which is at the lower level, cause
changes in attitude, which is at the higher level.
Evidence for the other way around is not as
strong. This shows that media effects should be
analyzed at different levels.

24.  Social Implications
In a “media society”, the media system is at the
center of political communications. This exerts
more responsibilities to the media professionals.
For environmentalists, the suggestion from this
study is using the media well, because they can
influence the presidents. Since the media system
is always subject to elites manipulation, readers
needs to be vigilant in consuming information
from the media.