What gets covered? An examination of media coverage of the environmental movement in Canada.

Corrigall-Brown, Catherine

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS COVET media attention. Two minutes on the evening news or a front-page story on an Internet news site can make or break the success of a specific action. The publicity this coverage bestows can help legitimize a movement's cause and is vital to reaching a much larger and more diverse audience than is possible through a movement organization's own outreach capability. This coverage helps a movement organization promote a particular framing of an issue in the public discourse (Young and Dugas 2012). In addition, media attention can enable organizations to mobilize public support for a specific action in the short term and bring new supporters into the fold, strengthening the movement's base and increasing its capacity for future action.

Despite the obvious importance of media coverage for social movements, getting this attention is no small feat for activists. Past work estimates that only between 15 and 44 percent of protest events, even those conducted by large and well-organized groups, are covered in the media (Gottlieb 2015; McCarthy, McPhail, and Smith 1996; Oliver and Myers 1999; Wouters 2015). In this study, I examine when and how social movement organizations (SMOs) receive media coverage. To some degree, SMOs are at the mercy of media decision makers, especially television, newspaper, and Internet news editors, who select what to cover. However, SMOs also have agency in this process, and, indeed, I argue that social movement leaders' choice of different tactics and frames plays a critical role in determining whether they receive coverage. Specifically, I examine how the choice of tactics and frames shapes the coverage that Greenpeace (GP) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) receive in the two largest Canadian newspapers, The Globe and Mail and the National Post. Drawing on the organizations' own press releases, I assess what types of tactics and frames offered by these groups get covered in the media. I argue that, while there are certain types of frames and tactics that are most likely to result in media coverage, not all groups are equally well situated to receive media coverage or to use these tactics and frames. Through the analysis of organizational press releases, I can see all the frames and tactics used by each group and examine which ones lead to media coverage. Most work on the success of frames and tactics analyzes only media coverage, which, by nature, already implies a certain level of success (except see Davidson, Hunt, and Kitzinger 2003; Ramos, Ron, and Thoms 2007; Ron, Ramos, and Rodgers 2005). Using press releases as data allows me to examine frames and tactics that received media attention as well as those that did not.

Through a comparison of the WWF, which has a more mainstream identity and ideology, and GP, which has an identity and ideology that is more contentious, I show that a group's ideology and identity shape the relationship between their tactics/frames and the media coverage they receive. Past research has shown the link between group ideology and tactical choices, however, there has not been a systematic investigation of how these elements combine to create media coverage for an organization. I examine the following three main research questions. First, how do SMO tactics affect the amount of media coverage a group receives? Second, how do SMO frames affect the amount of media coverage a group receives? Finally, how do features of the SMO (e.g., more or less mainstream identity and ideology) affect the relationship between group tactics/frames and media coverage?

THE MEDIA AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

The media are central to modern social movements. As most people are not members of a SMO and do not attend protest events, much of what the public learns about social movements and their causes is distilled through the media. The media is also important because it can help social movements mobilize constituencies and validate their importance as collective actors (Carroll and Ratner 1999; Cottle 2008; Holmes Cooper 2002; Walgrave and Manssens 2005). Gamson and Wolsfeld (1993) argue that the relationship between the media and movements is one of asymmetrical dependency. The media have many options to "make the news," while movements have few options beyond the mass media for getting their message to the public. Some argue that this is less of a concern in the modern media environment, where social movement actors can use alternative media or their own media (such as organizational Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and their own Web sites) to distribute their message. For example, past work (Stoddart and MacDonald 2011; Stoddart, Ramos, and Tindall 2015) shows that environmental group Web sites discuss a greater range of environmental risks and provide more detailed discussion of core issues than traditional media. However, these alternative avenues deliver messages primarily to those who are already sympathetic (as they are already on the group's email list, Facebook page, or Twitter feed) and not to the general public, who are exposed to social movement messages only through the mainstream media. For this reason, traditional media still remains the way that the general public learns about social movement issues and an important focus of research.

Despite the importance of the media for social movements, it is clear that not all activities of social movements are equally likely to receive media coverage. In fact, research consistently shows that activities that are either outside the normal routines of politics or that threaten the status quo tend to receive very little media attention (Boyle et al. 2004). As such, only a small proportion of all protest events and social movement activities receive any news coverage (Smith et al. 2001). McCarthy et al. (1996) estimate that less than 15 percent of the permitted protests in Washington, DC receive any coverage in major media outlets. This number might underrepresent coverage as it does not include coverage in smaller news outlets. Work examining local news coverage in Madison, WI, for example, finds that 44 percent of permitted protest events received coverage (Oliver and Myers 1999). However, these numbers might inflate coverage rates as they are only looking at permitted events, which are generally larger, better organized, and planned in advance. In addition, Washington, DC is a large urban center and Washington, DC and Madison are capital cities. In sum, these studies highlight the generally low rate of media coverage that protest events and other social movements events receive.

While most social movement events do not receive media coverage, many do. What accounts for which events get covered in the mass media, with all the benefits and attention that this coverage can bring? Work by Smith et al. (2001) finds that the media selects which events to report, independent of characteristics of the events themselves. These scholars argue that, with the exception of event size, objective factors such as the form of the action or its timing are not related to media coverage (Smith et al. 2001; see also Wilkes, Corrigall-Brown, and Myers 2010; Wouters 2013). Media gatekeepers, particularly editors, select a very small number of protest events to report from a much larger pool of events on which there could be coverage. This selection process can be explained with three overarching theories: organizational, structural, and ideological. I examine how each of these theories understands the relationship between the tactical and framing choices of social movement actors and the resulting media coverage they receive.

EXPLAINING MEDIA COVERAGE

Organizational Theories

Organizational models of media coverage emphasize the importance of news routines in shaping media coverage. Media companies, like all large-scale bureaucracies, tend to efficient and established patterns of decisionmaking behavior. To this end, media companies follow a set of news routines that lead them to select and feature certain types of stories and events. News routines are the day-to-day arrangements of news production. In general, routines of news collection require reporters to work under intense time pressures and report about topics on which they are not experts (Myers and Caniglia 2004; Oliver and Myers 1999; Ryan 1991; Wouters 2013). Because reporters work under strict timelines and are constantly moving from one topic area to another, they come to rely on official sources who can be easily contacted on many different issues. This enables reporters to gather quotes and information on a range of topics quickly.

There are a number of specific routines that can illustrate these processes. For example, because newspapers still have to be published irrespective of whether any newsworthy events have occurred on a given day, and there is only a limited amount of space even if there are many newsworthy events, events occurring before slow news days (usually Mondays) are more likely to be covered than those occurring on busier news days (Gibson 2011; Myers and Caniglia 2004; Oliver and Myers 1999). In addition, some reporters have regular newsbeats, either locations (such as city hall) or issues for which they are regularly responsible, making these issues more likely to be reported over time (see, e.g., Oliver and Myers 1999; Ryan 1991). These aspects of news routines have real consequences for the amount and nature of coverage allotted to different issues and actors. A result of these routines is the (sometimes) unintended consequence that certain voices are privileged over others. These routines lead us to expect that social movements would rarely be covered in the media, unless they are fulfilling some sort of niche function that is useful for the media in the collection of news stories. For example, some SMOs engage in research, which could be useful for journalists in search of information on particular issues.

Structural Theories

The second theoretical lens used to understand the processes whereby the media select what to cover encourages us to look at overall structural elements of news collection. At their core, newspapers and other types of media are consumer products. In order to maintain their circulation numbers, they need to feature stories that have a perceived high news value to maintain the interest of their readers. A story is said to have news value if it has novelty and drama (Boyd 1994; Bridges 1989; Bridges and Bridges 1997; Cho, Lee, and Im 2012; Shoemaker and Reese 1996). Novelty refers to any aspect of the story that departs from the usual. Protests, marches, or demonstrations are now relatively routine and predictable ways to air grievances, therefore, these kinds of tactics tend to get less media attention than they would have in the past (McCarthy, McPhail, and Crist 1999). However, these events are still more dramatic than other social movement tactics, such as lobbying government.

In general, structural models argue that media stories about collective action work to emphasize violence, criminality, and deviance among challengers, such as SMOs (Corrigall-Brown and Wilkes 2012; Juris 2005; Smith et al. 2001). This observation is the basis of the statement if it bleeds it leads (Gitlin 1980). For example, Myers and Caniglia (2004) find that riots characterized by higher levels of violence and greater numbers of arrests are more likely to be reported in the New York Times.

The structural model also predicts that newspapers will tend to be biased in favor of the capitalist interests of their owners (Andrews and Caren 2010; Smith et al. 2001). In essence, market forces naturally marginalize dissent by crowding out ideas that are contrary to the interests of advertisers and other corporate sponsors and this perpetuates self-censorship practices in the media (Herman 1995:170). In summary, from the structural perspective, the media should tend to cover social movements when they engage in sensational and contentious actions. In addition, this theory predicts that the media would be less likely to cover social movement actors who are excessively critical of government or business interests.

Ideological Theories

Finally, the ideological perspective argues that the media select news items based on the extent to which these stories reproduce broader power relationships. This model, in comparison with the structural model discussed above, proposes a more subtle control of messages in the media by economic and political elites (see, e.g., Smith et al. 2001). From this perspective, information is used to reinforce ideas and interpretations of events that support existing power structures and is less likely to challenge those in power (Ramos et al. 2007). For example, this theory would lead to the hypotheses that movements that challenge the status quo through the use of contentious tactics are less likely to be covered and that negative portrayals of business and political leaders are less likely to lead to media coverage. In addition, coalition work should be less likely to garner attention is the media as it increases the perceived power of challenger groups and, therefore, is more problematic for those who hold political and economic power.

THE STRATEGIC CHOICE OF TACTICS AND FRAMES

While social movements clearly need the media to communicate their messages, they have choices about the types of tactics and frames that they use and they can deploy these strategically in order to garner more or less media attention (for the role of the media in shaping the work of SMOs, see Rodgers 2009). SMOs have choices about the kinds of tactics they employ, from moderate and conventional tactics, such as lobbying, petition writing, or service provision, to more extreme and contentious tactics, such as protesting, occupying buildings, or civil disobedience.

One tactic that a group can use is to work in coalition with other SMOs. Coalitions are when two or more SMOs join either formally or informally to work together on a common task. The format of a coalition can range from simple partnerships between two groups to complex networks of many SMOs (Van Dyke and McCammon 2010). Coalitions are common in social movements generally as well as in the environmental movement specifically (Lichterman 1995; Murphy 2005; Shaffer 2000). They are effective strategies to pool resources and potentially increase influence, but this cooperation comes with certain costs, such as jeopardizing group autonomy (Murphy 2005).

SMOs can also engage in research. Research activities can provide a niche for SMOs that could allow them to access more media coverage, particularly in the current media environment when reporters are often encouraged to write on issues on which they are not experts. This may be particularly true in reporting on environmental issues, where few reporters and editors have specific education or scientific background related to the environment and environmental problems (Young and Dugas 2011). If a SMO is seen as a legitimate spokesperson on an issue and is considered a reputable source of research information, conducting and reporting on research in press releases could lead to higher levels of media coverage. The role of research activities as a social movement tactic, however, has not been well understood in the literature and this article begins to address this lacuna.

In addition, groups select how they frame social issues and the framing they select could shape the amount of coverage they receive. Framing is the process of assigning meaning to and interpreting relevant events and conditions in ways that are intended to "mobilize potential adherents and constituents, to gamer bystander support, and to demobilize antagonists" (Snow and Benford 1988:198). The resulting products of this framing activity are sets of beliefs that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of SMOs (Benford and Snow 2000; Gamson 1992:7). Groups create frames that outline what they think the problem is, who is responsible for solving that problem, what the solution might be, and why people should join together to pressure power holders for change (Cormier and Tindall 2005). SMOs can choose to target a variety of power holders with these frames such as government officials or business leaders. They can also suggest a variety of different solutions, from individual level solutions, such as recycling or carpooling, to larger social solutions, such as cap and trade programs or government participation in international agreements such as the Kyoto protocol.

In theory, a group can use any tactic or frame. However, in reality, groups are limited by various factors. I argue that a group's identity and ideology are important because they impact the frames and tactics the group can use and, as a result, the type and amount of media coverage that they receive. Past work highlights the effect that an organization's structure and ideology can have in shaping the tactics they select (Brulle 2000; Dalton 1994; McAdam 1982; Tarrow 1998). However, it was not until more recently (Carmin and Balser 2002; McCammon 2012) that scholars recognized that organizations are active agents in this process, selecting tactics that reflect, as well as reinforce, their values and beliefs and their interpretations of social and political institutions. For example, large formalized organizations tend to use institutional approaches to social change (Piven and Cloward 1977; Staggenborg 1988). In addition, organizations select tactics that they believe will be effective based on personal experience and knowledge (Jasper 1997; Tarrow 1998) and core values and beliefs influence interpretations of the appropriateness of different repertoires (Schein 1985). In this project, I assess the role of organizational characteristics, particularly group ideology, as it interacts with a group's framing and tactical choices to create more or less media coverage for SMOs.

THE CASE: THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT

While this research examines the interaction between social movements and the media generally, in this paper, I focus specifically on the environmental movement as a lens to understand these processes. The environmental movement is an ideal arena for examining the research questions proposed in this project because it has been a very successful movement, and is increasingly diversified, professionalized, institutionalized, and international (Princen and Finger 1994; Staggenborg 2008; Walker 1996). It has also been effective at putting environmental issues on the political agenda and has lead to the creation of state departments dealing with the environment (Rucht 1996). Perhaps most importantly, there is broad public support for the movement both within Canada and internationally (McKenzie 2002; Rohrschneider and Dalton 2002; Stoddart and Tindall 2011; Stoddart, Tindall, and Greenfield 2012).

In this project, I focus on two large environmental groups in Canada, GP and the WWF. GP is a SMO founded in Vancouver in 1971 that aims to: protect biodiversity in all its forms; prevent pollution and abuse of the earth's ocean, land, air, and fresh water; end all nuclear threats; and promote peace, global disarmament, and nonviolence. GP, Canada has more than 89,000 supporters with a head office in Toronto (www.greenpeace.org/canada/). Internationally, GP has offices in more than 40 countries with headquarters in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (www.greenpeace.org/internationaPen/). GP has been the focus of much research, which highlights their innovative media strategies and use of dramatic tactics to draw media and public attention (Carroll and Ratner 1999; Dale 1996).

WWF, Canada is the Canadian branch of the global conservation organization founded in 1967. WWF, Canada aims to protect and restore the natural environment by: conserving the world's biological diversity; ensuring the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable; and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. WWF, Canada is headquartered in Toronto, has over 150,000 members (www.wwf.ca), and is affiliated within a global network of WWF organizations in more than 100 countries with international offices in Gland, Switzerland (www.panda.org). WWF has traditionally engaged in more institutionalized tactics, such as cooperating with businesses to raise money and engaging in lobbying.

While WWF and GP are both large, established, bureaucratic organizations focused on protecting the environment, they differ in their ideology with GP historically being more radical and focused on contentious actions. This is clear from GPs rejection of business and government funding and their historical origins engaging in civil disobedience to stop nuclear testing (Dale 1996). They have also always been focused on dramatic media displays as part of their core strategy (Doyle 2003). WWF, however, does not have these radical roots and has traditionally embraced a more mainstream ideology (Soutter et al. 2001). For example, they often have board members who were past CEOs of companies or high-level government bureaucrats, something that does not happen in GP. These differing ideologies are part of the groups' identities. And, these identities shape the choices of what types of tactics and frames to use and the extent to which they are seen as credible users of different tactics and strategies.

Using data from the press releases of GP and WWF from 2000 to 2010, I assess how changes in the tactical and framing choices of these movement organizations shape the media coverage they receive. By examining these two organizations over the same period of time, I am able to control for different political administrations, policies, and social conditions that might impact media coverage of environmental issues.

DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY

This project uses innovative data to examine the effect of group tactics and frames on media coverage. Most research within social movements that examines framing and tactical choices uses content analysis of newspaper articles. Through coding quotes or text in articles and assessing how journalists describe the organizations and their activities, scholars make assertions about the activities and goals of organizations (e.g., Ferree 2003; Snow, Vliegenthart, and Corrigall-Brown 2007; for a discussion of description bias in these media accounts, see Smith et al. 2001). There is much to be gained from this approach, but it can obscure the tactics and frames of organizations by filtering their messages through the eyes of journalists, editors, and others. These strategies also only allow us to examine the events and frames that receive coverage, not those that do not.

In this analysis, I code the press releases created by the organizations themselves. Press releases are documents prepared by SMOs that outline a specific protest activity, campaign, or issue. They are typically emailed to the media, sent to supporters, and/or posted on the organization's Web site. By examining the documents created by SMOs, in which they can produce their complete frames and outline their tactics and strategies in detail, I am better able to assess when the tactics and frames of a group lead to media coverage and when they do not. (1) Press releases have been used in a small number of previous studies, including the work of Davidson et al. (2003), Ramos et al. (2007), and Ron et al. (2005). These works have used press releases and the latter two studies have shown how press releases are related to media coverage depending on the larger national context. For example, the press releases of Amnesty International were much more likely to lead to media coverage when they discussed abuses in "lesser-noticed" countries (Ramos et al. 2007).

I collect, code, and analyze three main types of documents from the period 2000 to 2010 for this analysis. First, I code press releases from GP and WWF, Canada. The total sample is 360 press releases (GP = 152, WWF = 208). (2) I use these data to assess the frames and tactics used by each group over time. Second, I examine annual reports from each group to gauge organizational characteristics. Both of these data sources are available online or through organizational archives. Finally, I count the number of media mentions of these two groups in the Globe and Mail and the National Post over this same period by month. I selected these two newspapers as they are both national, large circulation newspapers in Canada and they represent both the center and the center-right of the political spectrum. As the online versions of these newspapers contain the same text as the paper versions, online databases were used to collect this material.

The independent variables are elements of the framing and tactical choices of the social movement groups and are derived from the press releases of the organizations. In each of the press releases, I code the following measures of tactics: if the tactics used are contentious (protest/demonstrate/march versus all other tactics), if they call to the public for action (e.g., asking the public to write a letter or sign a petition), if they describe research, and if they specifically refer to a coalition tie with another organization. (3) The framing codes are based on if the press release includes the following: a negative comment about the government, a positive comment about the government, a negative comment about business, and/or a positive comment about business. Each variable was coded as a dummy variable. These framing codes were separate because, in many press releases, the authors either said nothing negative or positive or said both negative and positive things about business, for example, in the same press release. The dependent variable is the total number of mentions of the organization in the month of the press release in the two newspapers selected for analysis: the Globe and Mail and the National Post. I control for group and year in each of the models.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

ANALYSIS

Media Coverage, by Group (2000 to 2010)

Figure 1 shows the media coverage each group received in the Globe and Mail and National Post in the period from 2000 to 2010. In general, GP received far more media coverage than WWF over this period. In addition, both groups saw a sharp decrease in their coverage in the period from 2002 to 2004 and a relatively stable yet high level of coverage after this time.

Figures 2 and 3 show the tactical choices of WWF and GP over time. Each figure displays the percentage of press releases each year that discussed contentious tactics, called to the public to engage in some type of action, used research, and/or mentioned coalitions with other groups. As seen in Figure 2, WWF increased their use of contentious tactics, from never calling for such tactics from 2000 to 2004, to a slow and steady increase in the use of contentious tactics from 2004 until 2007, with a high of 28 percent in 2007. This number declined after 2007. WWF also saw an increase in the percentage of press releases that called for the public to engage in some sort of action (including letter writing, purchasing items, boycotting, or protesting). While there were always less than 10 percent of releases that called for this type of action between 2000 and 2003, this number increased to 22 percent in 2005, dropped drastically right before the election of Harper in 2006, and then increased notably after this election to 36 percent. There has been a subsequent fall in this type of call to the public since this time.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

GP had similar low levels of calling for the public to engage in actions in the period before the 2006 election of Stephen Harper, but this number has risen sharply since this time. Since the 2006 election, they have generally increased their call to the public to address environmental problems over time reaching a high of 68 percent in 2009. GP did not, however, often call for contentious tactics, never reaching above 10 percent of the press releases.

Figures 2 and 3 also illustrate the propensity of each group to use and discuss research in their press releases over time. Using research is part of the professionalization that occurs in SMOs in a social movement society. Groups produce or use research to gain access to government officials and the policy process (Meyer and Tarrow 1998). The figures show that WWF, in general, is declining in their use of research in their press releases over time (from 60 to 90 percent in the period up to 2006 and declining to around 30 to 40 percent since that time). GP used research in around 40 to 50 percent of their press releases in the period before 2006, declined sharply after the election of Harper to around 20 percent in 2007 and 2008, then rose to between 65 and 70 percent in 2009 and 2010. GP follows a pattern that we would expect, given the increasing interest in "results based" research over time on the part of the government, particularly the recent Conservative government (Laforest and Orisini 2005).

These figures also show the use of coalition tactics by group. GP has seen an overall increase in the use of coalitions, rising from about 10 percent in 2000 to about 40 percent in 2010. WWF has declined in their use of coalition tactics in this period, from a high of 80 percent in 2002 to around 30 percent in 2010. While the WWF has generally been more likely to use coalition politics, these two groups are following different patterns in the use of coalition tactics and research over this period.

Figures 4A/B and 5A/B illustrate elements of framing and chart the percentage of press releases per year that include a positive and/or negative comment about the government and/or business. Figure 4A/B shows the wide oscillation in the framing of government and business leaders by the WWF. In general, both positive and negative comments about government reached a high in 2005. At this same time, negative comments about business were at their all-time high. After the election of Harper in 2006, these comments decreased. Government in general was less discussed (either positively or negatively) and business was less often a negative target after 2006. There was also simultaneously an increase in positive portrayals of business at this time.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

For GP, there are more clear trends in framing over time. In general, there have been less negative comments made about business and government over this period (from a high level of negative comments reaching around 70 percent in 2000 to low levels around 40 percent in 2010). Positive comments about business and government have oscillated over time, but remained mostly between 10 and 30 percent of the press releases over this time span.

Table 1 presents the results of the regression models using elements of the social movement press releases to predict media coverage. Model 1 examines the effect of tactical choices on media coverage. In this model, both calling to the public to engage in action and presenting research are significant predictors of media coverage. When the organizations explicitly calls to the public to engage in letter writing, emailing, or other means of involvement, they get, on average, 2.225 more articles written about them in that month. Mentioning research decreases the number of articles written by about one article, on average. The dummy control variable for group is also significant in this model, indicating that GP (coded 1) got, on average, 6.758 more articles written about them per month, controlling for the other factors. The dummy control for year is also significant, indicating that groups received more coverage over time.

Model 2 examines the impact of framing choices on media coverage. In this model, the only framing variable that is significantly related to media coverage is the number of positive comments about the government. Saying something positive about the government was associated with 1.110 less articles written about the organization, on average, in a given month. Model 3 combines both the tactical and framing predictors and has the same general findings as the models examining these factors separately.

Model 4 assesses the role of two interactive terms. (4) In these models, the interaction between calling to the public and group is significant. Calling for public engagement does not affect the coverage received by WWF--they get essentially the same media coverage whether or not they call for the public to be involved (5.565 versus 6.503 articles). When GP calls to the public for action, however, they get much higher media coverage (15.994 articles) than when they do not (12.834 articles).

These models also demonstrate a significant interaction between the use of research and group. The media coverage of WWF is not related to their use of research (no research = 5.565 versus research = 5.337). Although for GP, using research in their press release makes them much less likely to get media coverage (no research = 12.834 versus research = 10.871).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This paper examines the relationship between SMOs and the media. Through analysis of press releases from two large Canadian SMOs (GP and the WWF), I assess the extent to which the frames and tactics used by each group affect the media coverage they receive. I find that, in general, when a group calls to the public to engage in environmental issues, through emailing or phoning an elected official, for example, they get an average of two more articles written about them in that month. This finding lends support to the idea that the media is seeking issues that appear to have more news value and are changing over time, as structural theories would predict (Cho et al. 2012; Shoemaker and Reese 1996). With more attention and engagement from the public, a social movement can put an issue on the agenda and garner media coverage. At the same time, I find that groups that say positive things about the government are less likely to get coverage. On average, saying something positive about the government yields about one less article written about the group a month. This finding also supports structural theories of the media, which posit that the media is more interested in sensational and controversial stories than they are in simply supporting the status quo (Myers and Caniglia 2004; Smith et al. 2001). As a result, when a social movement praises the government, they get less coverage.

The significance of the two interaction effects presented in this paper highlight how the relationship between social movement tactics and frames, on the one hand, and media coverage, on the other hand, is shaped by the characteristics of the SMO itself. While WWF and GP are both large, bureaucratic, established environmental groups, they differ in their ideology and identity. These ideologies and identities are important because they shape the choices of what types of tactics and frames the group uses and the extent to which they are seen as credible users of different tactics and frames.

I find that calling for the public to engage in an environmental issue does not impact the amount of coverage received by the WWF. However, when GP calls for the public to engage in an environmental issue, they have, on average, three more articles written about them that month. There is also an interactive relationship between group and the use of research. When WWF uses research in their press releases, their media coverage does not change. However, when GP uses research in their press releases, something they are doing more often now than in the past, they receive, on average, two less articles written about them that month.

These interactions highlight how groups specialize within a social movement society. GP has traditionally been focused on direct action and has a more contentious identity. As a result, when they call for the public to engage in an environmental cause, they have credibility and can gain media attention. WWF does not have a reputation or identity that links it to collective action of this sort and so, even when it calls to the public to engage, it does not increase its media coverage.

The interaction between group and research also highlights the niches that SMOs delineate. GP has greatly increased their use and discussion of research within their press releases over time. This could be one way that GP is trying to define their identity, as a viable alternative source of information about the environment. This could be an important part of creating their niche within the Canadian environmental social movement landscape. One could argue that this is a rational response to the increasingly conflictual relationship between the Harper government and social movements. The environmental movement, in particular, has been the target of intense pressure and control from the Harper government (Goldenberg 2012). There has also been heightened government scrutiny of several well-established environmental groups in Canada, including GP, the David Suzuki foundation, and Tides Canada. In addition, there have been restrictions on access to and content in environmental research (Goldenberg 2012). GP could be reacting to these political changes by engaging in research. However, the fact that increased use of research by this organization leads to less media coverage speaks to the issue of credibility. It is not enough to simply conduct research; one must be seen as a legitimate and reliable source of research information to have that research lead to more media coverage.

The findings of this work can be usefully applied to other organizations and for activists engaged in social movement work. Much research within the social movements literature has emphasized the need for activists and organizations to innovate tactically (Edwards 2014; McAdam 1982). And, while this is certainly important for drawing and keeping media attention, the present study highlights that groups are not free to innovate as they chose. When groups are selecting tactics and frames, they need to be aware of public perceptions of their organization. For example, while calling to the public to engage in actions and conducting research are generally good tactics, they are not equally good for all groups. Groups that are known for contentious actions, such as GP, benefit more from calling to the public because this fits into general perceptions of who they are as a group. In the same way, the generally good tactic of conducting research is less useful for groups who are not known for this tactic. Both calling for public mobilization and research are expensive activities for organizations and groups should be conscious of how these activities will be perceived by the public and, as a result, if they will or will not translate into media coverage.

It is also notable that the public has certain expectations of social movements as a whole. One such expectation is that they will be critical of government action and will work to pressure governments. While it would appear to be a good strategy to note when government is doing something positive for a movement, by reporting positive news about laws and policies in group press releases, this is not what the public expects from movements and so does not lead to increased coverage. In essence, groups want to innovate, but must be forever conscious of preconceived notions on the part of the public and media about who they are and what they are seen as credibly doing.

Future work should extend these analyses by examining a wider range of groups. For example, smaller grassroots groups are differentially able to take advantage of various tactics. In addition, the role of other media sources, including Internet media and social media, must be considered in more detail (see Stoddart and MacDonald 2011). Finally, examining these relationships in other countries would enable a comparative assessment of the role of national context on these processes.

CATHERINE CORRIGALL-BROWN

University of British Columbia

References

Andrews, K.T. and N. Caren. 2010. "Making the News: Movement Organizations, Media Attention, and the Public Agenda." American Sociological Review 75(6):841-66.

Benford, R.D. and D.A. Snow. 2000. "Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment." Annual Review of Sociology 26:611-39.

Boyd, A. 1994. Broadcast Journalism, Techniques of Radio and TV News. Oxford: Focal.

Boyle, M.P., M.R. Mcluskey, N. Devanathan, S.E. Stein and D.M. McLeod. 2004. "The Influence of Level of Deviance and Protest Type on Coverage of Social Protest in Wisconsin from 1960 to 1999." Mass Communication and Society 7:43-60.

Bridges, J.A. 1989. "News Use on the Front Pages of the American Daily." Journalism Quarterly 66:332-37.

Bridges, J.A. and L. Bridges. 1997. "Changes in News Use on the Front Pages of the American Daily Newspaper, 1986-1993." Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 74:826-39.

Brulle, R.J. 2000. Agency, Democracy, and Nature: The U.S. Environmental Movement from a Critical Theory Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Carmin, J. and D.B. Balser. 2002. "Selecting Repertoires of Action in Environmental Movement Organizations: An Interpretive Approach." Organization and Environment 15(4):365-88.

Carroll, W.K. and R.S. Ratner. 1999. "Media Strategies and Political Projects: A Comparative Study of Social Movements." Canadian Journal of Sociology 24(1):1-34.

Castells, M. 2009. Communication Power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cho, M., J. Lee and J. Im. 2012. "Media Frames and Ethnic Minority Women in Korea: Expanding a Generic Frame in Minority Studies." Asian Journal of Women's Studies 18(4):108-35.

Cormier, J. and D.B. Tindall. 2005. "Wood Frames: Framing the Forest in British Columbia." Sociological Focus 38(1): 1-24.

Corrigall-Brown, C. and R. Wilkes. 2012. "Picturing Protest: The Visual Framing of Collective Action by First Nations in Canada." American Behavioral Scientist 56(2):223-43.

Cottle, S. 2008. "Reporting Demonstrations: The Changing Media Politics of Dissent." Media, Culture & Society 30:853-72.

Dale, S. 1996. McLuhan's Children: The Greenpeace Message and the Media. Toronto: Between the Lines.

Dalton, R.J. 1994. The Green Rainbow: Environmental Groups in Western Europe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Davidson, R., K. Hunt and J. Kitzinger. 2003. "'Radical Blueprint for Social Change'? Media Representations of New Labour's Policies on Public Health." Sociology of Health & Illness 25(6):532-52.

Doyle, A. 2003. Arresting Images: Crime and Policing in Front of the Television Camera. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Edwards, G. 2014. "Infectious Innovations? The Diffusion of Tactical Innovation in Social Movement Networks, the Case of Suffragette Militancy." Social Movement Studies 13(1):48-69.

Ferree, M.M. 2003. "Resonance and Radicalism: Feminist Abortion Discourses in Germany and the United States." American Journal of Sociology 109(2):304-44.

Gamson, W.A. 1992. Talking Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gamson, W.A. and G. Wolfsfeld. 1993. "Movements and Media as Interacting Systems." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528:114-25.

Gibson, D.R. 2011. "All the News that Fits to Print: Desk Competition for Front-Page Space at the New York Times." Sociological Forum 26(2):287-305.

Gitlin, T. 1980. The Whole World Is Watching: The Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Goldenberg, S. 2012. "Canada's PM Stephen Harper Faces Revolt by Scientists." The Guardian, January 8. Retrieved December 4, 2015 (http://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2012/jul/09/canada-stephen-harper-revolt-scientists).

Gottlieb, J. 2015. "Protest News Framing Cycle: How the New York Times Covered Occupy Wall Street." International Journal of Communication 9:231-53.

Herman, E. 1995. Triumph of the Market: Essays on Economic, Politics, and the Media. Boston, MA: South End Press.

Holmes Cooper, A. 2002. "Media Framing and Social Movement Mobilization: German Peace Protest against INF Missiles, the Gulf War, and NATO Peace Enforcement in Bosnia." European Journal of Political Research 41:37-80.

Jasper, J.M. 1997. The Art of Moral Protest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Juris, J.S. 2005. "The New Digital Media and Activist Networking within Anti-Corporate Globalization Movements." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 597:189-208.

Laforest, R. and M. Orsini. 2005. "Evidence Based Engagement in the Voluntary Sector: Lessons from Canada." Social Policy and Administration 39(5):481-97.

Lichterman, P. 1995. "Piecing Together Multicultural Community: Cultural Differences in Community Building among Grass-Roots Environmentalists." Social Problems 42:513-34.

McAdam, D. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

McCammon, H.J. 2012. "Explaining Frame Variation: More Moderate and Radical Demands for Women's Citizenship in the U.S. Women's Jury Movements." Social Problems 59(1):43-59.

McCarthy, J.D., C. McPhail and J. Crist. 1999. "The Emergence and Diffusion of Public Order Management Systems: Protest Cycles and Police Response." Pp. 49-69 in Globalization and Social Movements, edited by H. Kriesi, D. della Porta and D. Rucht. London: McMillan.

McCarthy, J.D., C. McPhail and J. Smith. 1996. "Images of Protest: Dimensions of Selection Bias in Media Coverage of Washington Demonstrations, 1982 to 1991." American Sociological Review 61(3):478-99.

McCurdy, P. 2010. "Breaking the Spiral of Silence: Unpacking the 'Media Debate' within Global Justice Movements: A Case Study of Dissent! And the 2005 Gleneagles G8 Summit." Interface 2(2):42-67.

McCurdy, P. 2011. "Theorizing 'Lay Theories of Media': A Case Study of the Dissent! Network at the 2005 Gleneagles G8 Summit." International Journal of Communication 5:619-38.

McKenzie, J.I. 2002. Environmental Politics in Canada: Managing the Commons into the Twenty-First Century. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Meyer, D.S. and S. Tarrow. 1998. The Social Movement Society. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Murphy, G. 2005. "Coalitions and the Development of the Global Environmental Movements: A Double-Edged Sword." Mobilization: An International Journal 10:235-50.

Myers, D. and B. Caniglia. 2004. "National Newspaper Coverage of Civil Disorders, 1968-1969." American Sociological Review 69:519-43.

Oliver, P. and D. Myers. 1999. "How Events Enter the Public Sphere: Conflict, Location, and Sponsorship in Local Newspaper Coverage of Public Events." American Journal of Sociology 105:38-87.

Piven, F.F. and R.A. Cloward. 1977. Poor Peoples Movements: How They Succeed and How They Fail. New York: Vintage.

Princen, T. and M. Finger. 1994. Environmental NGOs in World Politics. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ramos, H., J. Ron and O.N.T. Thoms. 2007. "Shaping the Northern Media's Human Rights Coverage, 1986-2000." Journal of Peace Research 44(4):385-406.

Rauch, J. 2007. "Activists as Interpretive Communities: Rituals of Consumption and Interaction in an Alternative Media Audience." Media, Culture & Society 29(6):994-1013.

Rodgers, K. 2009. "When Do Opportunities Become Trade-Offs for Social Movement Organizations? Assessing Media Impact in the Global Human Rights Movement." Canadian Journal of Sociology 34(4): 1087-114.

Rohrschneider, R. and R. J. Dalton. 2002. "A Global Network? Transnational Cooperation among Environmental Groups." Journal of Politics 64(2):510-33.

Ron, J., H. Ramos and K. Rodgers. 2005. "Transnational Information Politics: NGO Human Rights Reporting, 1986-2000." International Studies Quarterly 49:557-87.

Rucht, D. 1996. "The Impact of Environmental Movements in Western Societies." Pp. 204-24 in How Social Movements Matter, edited by M. Giugni, D. McAdam and C. Tilly. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Ryan, C. 1991. Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grassroots Organizing. Boston, MA: South End Press.

Schein, E.H. 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shaffer, M.B. 2000. "Coalition Work among Environmental Groups: Who Participates?" Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and Change 22:111-26.

Shoemaker, P.J. and S.D. Reese. 1996. Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Smith, J., J. McCarthy, C. McPhail and B. Augustin. 2001. "From Protest to Agenda-Building: Description Bias in Media Coverage of Protest Events in Washington, D.C." Social Forces 79:1397-423.

Snow, D. and R. Benford. 1988. "Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization." International Social Movement Research 1:197-217.

Snow, D.A., R. Vliegenthart and C. Corrigall-Brown. 2007. "Framing the French Riots: A Comparative Study of Frame Variation." Social Forces 86(2):385-415.

Soutter, R., B. Ullstein, B. Jeffries, E. Duncan and H. de Mattos. 2001. For a Living Planet. Gland, Switzerland: Canon Europe Print Centre.

Staggenborg, S. 1988. "The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization in the Prochoice Movement." American Sociological Review 53:585-606.

Staggenborg, S. 2008. "The Environmental Movement." Pp. 104-22 in Social Movements, edited by S. Staggenborg. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Stoddart, M.C.J. and L. MacDonald. 2011. "'Keep It Wild, Keep It Local': Comparing News Media and the Internet as Sites for Environmental Movement Activism for Jumbo Pass, British Columbia." Canadian Journal of Sociology 36(4):313-35.

Stoddart, M.C.J., H. Ramos, and D.B. Tindall. 2015. "Environmentalists' Media-Work for Jumbo Pass and the Tobeatic Wilderness, Canada: Combining Text-Centred and Activist-Centred Approaches to News Media and Social Movements." Social Movement Studies 14(1):75-91.

Stoddart, M.C.J. and D. Tindall. 2011. "Ecofeminism, Hegemonic Masculinity, and Environmental Participation in British Columbia, Canada, 1998-2007." Sociological Spectrum 31(3):342-68.

Stoddart, M.C.J., D.B. Tindall and K.L. Greenfield. 2012. "'Governments Have the Power'? Interpretations of Climate Change Responsibility and Solutions among Canadian Environmentalists." Organization and Environment 25(1):39-58.

Tarrow, S. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Van Dyke, N. and H. McCammon, eds. 2010. Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Walgrave, S. and J. Manssens. 2005. "Mobilizing the White March: Media Frames as Alternatives to Movement Organizations." Pp. 113-40 in Frames of Protest: Social Movements and the Framing Perspective, edited by H. Johnston and J.A. Noakes. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Walker, J.L., Jr. 1996. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions and Social Movements. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Wilkes, R., C. Corrigall-Brown and D.J. Myers. 2010. "Packaging Protest: Media Coverage of Indigenous People's Collective Action." Canadian Review of Sociology 47(4):327-57.

Wouters, R. 2013. "From the Street to the Screen: Characteristics of Protest Event Coverage." Mobilization 18(1):83-105.

Wouters, R. 2015. "Reporting Demonstrations: On Episodic and Thematic Coverage of Protest Events in Belgian Television News." Political Communication 32(3):475-96.

Young, N. and E. Dugas. 2011. "Representations of Climate Change in Canadian National Print Media: The Banalization of Global Warming." Canadian Review of Sociology 48(1):1-22.

Young, N. and E. Dugas. 2012. "Comparing Climate Change Coverage in Canadian English- and French-Language Print Media: Environmental Values, Media Cultures, and the Narration of Global Warming." Canadian Journal of Sociology 37(1):25-54.

I gratefully acknowledge Mabel Ho who was instrumental in the data coding for this paper and Francois Lachapelle for his translation of the abstract. I also thank Rima Wilkes and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper. This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Catherine Corrigall-Brown, University of British Columbia, Department of Sociology, 6303 NW Marine Drive, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z1. E-mail: corrigall.brown@ubc.ca

(1.) Press releases are a form of movement self-communication. Recent work has delved into how activists interpret the media and interact with it (Castells 2009; McCurdy 2010, 2011; Rauch 2007). This work highlights the nuanced ways that activists interact with "new" and "old" media and the importance of movement self-communication for shaping media coverage of social issues and causes.

(2.) I coded each third article for each group to ensure a random sample.

(3.) The codes for tactics were selected for the following reasons. First, most of the tactics engaged in by WWF and GP in this study were noncontentious (under 10 percent of GP press releases and under 30 percent of WWF press releases in all years). For this reason, I combined the protest/march/demonstration measures to ensure that the category was sufficiently large for analysis. Second, theoretically, I am interested in the distinction between contentious and noncontentious tactics based on the three theoretical models of the media presented in the literature review. The distinction between the various noncontentious tactics (such as legal work versus lobbying) is interesting but not related to the general aim of this paper to test the three theories of media coverage. Third, separate measures for the use of research, coalitions, and calling to the public were included because each of these measures was distinct from the measure of specific tactic used. For example, the use of research was present in press releases describing both contentious and noncontentious tactics. Therefore, separate measures of these elements of the press releases were required.

(4.) I also ran models with an interaction between frames and group. This interaction term was not significant and did not alter the significance or magnitude of the other variables. In order to present the most parsimonious models possible and highlight the important relationships, I have not presented these models. Results are available upon request.

Table 1
Regression Models Predicting Media Coverage
(Number of Articles per Month)

                                   Model 1                Model 2

                                B          SE          B          SE

Tactics
Contentious (0/1)            0.573       (1.721)
Call to public (0/1)         2.225 ***   (0.625)
Research (0/1)              -0.996 *     (0.452)
Coalitions (0/1)            -0.052       (0.510)

Frames
Government positive (0/1)                          -1.110 *     (0.507)
Government negative (0/1)                          -0.548       (0.510)
Business positive (0/1)                             0.442       (0.641)
Business negative (0/1)                             0.081       (0.487)

Call public * group/
(Greenpeace = 1)
Research * group
(Greenpeace = 1)

Controls
Group                        6.758 ***   (0.480)    6.933 ***   (0.512)
Year                         4.576 ***   (0.348)    4.332 ***   (0.553)

Constant                     5.558 ***   (0.852)    6.126 ***   (0.523)
[R.sup.2]                     .3859                  .3711

                                   Model 3                Model 4

                                B          SE          B          SE

Tactics
Contentious (0/1)            0.578       (1.709)    0.392       (1.741)
Call to public (0/1)         1.989 **    (0.651)    0.942       (0.852)
Research (0/1)              -0.958 *     (0.464)   -0.213       (0.634)
Coalitions (0/1)             0.061       (0.513)    0.078       (0.521)

Frames
Government positive (0/1)   -0.984 *     (0.456)   -0.753       (0.556)
Government negative (0/1)   -0.110       (0.517)   -0.048       (0.519)
Business positive (0/1)      0.462       (0.635)    0.440       (0.642)
Business negative (0/1)      0.132       (0.499)    0.241       (0.509)

Call public * group/                                2.232       (1.342)
(Greenpeace = 1)                                   ([dagger])
Research * group                                   -1.742       (0.978)
(Greenpeace = 1)                                   ([dagger])

Controls
Group                        6.952 ***   (0.532)    7.280 ***   (0.782)
Year                         4.223 ***   (0.314)    4.567 ***   (0.487)

Constant                     5.941 ***   (0.612)    5.585 ***   (0.631)
[R.sup.2]                     .3821                  .4110

Note: ([dagger]) p < .10.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.