Bolstering an Illusory Majority: The Effects of the Medias Portrayal of Death Penalty Support*

David Niven, Florida Atlantic University

Objective. Researchers have found a distinct difference between expressed support for the death penalty (which garners a majority of Americans) and expressed preference for the death penalty over other sentences (which attracts only a minority). Despite the strength of this finding in academic circles, the media tend to cover the death penalty as if it were indisputably favored by a majority of Americans. This article tests the effect of this disparity in coverage. Methods. Using an experimental design, respondents were placed in three groups: Condition 1 read a typical media portrayal depicting widespread support for the death penalty, Condition 2 read a realistic portrayal of the mix of preferences for the death penalty and an alternative sentence, and Condition 3 (the control group) read an article unrelated to the death penalty. Results. Compared to the control group and Condition 1, those who read a more realistic account of public opinion on the death penalty (Condition 2) were less supportive of capital punishment, more likely to think death penalty opponents would talk comfortably about their position, and believed the death penalty would become less prevalent in the future. Conclusions. These findings suggest that the unrealistic media portrayal of public opinion on the death penalty is bolstering a sense of inevitability about the issue.

In 2000, just five countries accounted for more than 90 percent of the worlds government-sanctioned executions: China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and the United States (Amnesty International, 2001). While the death penalty is slowly being eliminated as a criminal sentence in most countries of the world, in the United States it is riding a wave of public enthusiasm (Haines, 1996:3). How popular is the death penalty? Read a newspaper article on public opinion and the death penalty and one will likely be told that it is among the most popular issue positions in American politics (Bowers, Vandiver, and Dugan, 1994). Consider this unremarkable depiction from a Florida newspaper that appeared under the headline The Death Penalty is so

*Direct all correspondence to David Niven, Department of Political Science, Florida Atlantic University, P Box 3091, Boca Raton, FL 33431 <dniven@fau.edu>. Data necessary .O. for purposes of replication are available from the author. SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 83, Number 3, September 2002 2002 by the Southwestern Social Science Association

672

Social Science Quarterly

Popular in Florida that Few Elected Officials Would Dare Betray Any Opposition or Even Ambivalence:
Indeed, the death penalty is so popular in Florida that pollsters have generally stopped asking questions about it. In several statewide surveys conducted during the past decade by Florida International Universitys Institute for Public Opinion Research, about 85 percent of respondents said they favored capital punishment. It never changes, said Hugh Gladwin, the polls director. (Judd, 1997)

There have been literally thousands of newspaper articles written in this vein over the last five years. Even as death penalty support has dropped slightly from the mid-1990s to 2002, newspapers continue to assert its impressive popularity. This article assesses the effects of media coverage of the death penaltys popularity on how Americans think about the death penalty, its support, and their willingness to discuss the issue.
Public Opinion on the Death Penalty

On the surface, the death penalty is indeed one of the most popular issue positions in American politics (Ellsworth and Gross, 1994). Support for capital punishment in some polls tops 80 percent, and is quite frequently reported to be at least 70 percent (Ellsworth and Gross, 1994; Warr, 1995). The death penalty is even more popular among whites, men, southerners, and young people (Anthony, 2000; Barkan and Cohn, 1994; Borg, 1997; Stack, 2000; Lester, Maggioncalda-Aretz, and Stark, 1997; Whitehead and Blankenship, 2000). Yet, Justice Thurgood Marshall (in Furman v. Georgia, 1972) argued that public opinion polls on the death penalty were misleading because the average American was ignorant of the basic details of the death penalty debate. Indeed, scholars responded to Marshalls argument and were able to document the severe lack of information undergirding death penalty opinion (Thomas and Foster, 1976; Ellsworth and Ross, 1976, 1983; Haas and Inciardi, 1988; Sarat and Vidmar, 1976). Moreover, both opponents and proponents of the death penalty are found to be resistant to information that undercuts the premise of their support. Which is to say, when told that their reasoning for supporting or opposing the death penalty is factually inaccurate, opponents and proponents tend to attack the information rather than reconsider their positions (Ellsworth and Gross, 1994; Roberts, 1984; Lord, Ross, and Lepper, 1979). Nevertheless, for the media it seems clear that the people have not only made up their minds, but that the vast majority support the death penalty. The San Francisco Chronicle summed up the issue with the words of pollster Mervin Field, whose work is contracted for by a variety of media outlets and whose thoughts and analyses are widely covered in that state: I dont know any issue where the public opinion is so fixed and hardened as it is in favor

Media Portrayal of Death Penalty Support

673

of the death penalty now (Matier and Ross, 1998). The reality of the issue is, however, tremendously more complicated. Researchers find that despite the oft-expressed fear of victimization that many Americans voice, reaction to the death penalty is not actually driven by a fear of crime (Tyler and Boeckman, 1997). Instead, it is a symbolic commitment signifying little about the reality of the publics daily life or direct concerns. Tyler and Boeckman (1997) find that views on the death penalty reflect an anger over declining morality and therefore should not be viewed as a concrete response to a concrete problem. If that is the case, support for the death penalty is not set in proportion to any reality, such as the crime rate. Rather, it would be subject to the vicissitudes of the portrayal of the abstract notions of our morality and the death penaltys place in our culture. Support for the death penalty is not only less fixed than the media suggest, it is also less universal. In academic research, the scope of popular support for the death penalty was redefined by the inclusion of sentencing alternatives into survey questions asked on the subject. Instead of the commonly worded, Are you in favor of the death penalty for persons convicted of murder? a question used by Gallup, a number of researchers posed the question of whether the respondent supported the death penalty or life without parole for convicted murderers. Some other researchers provided further additional alternatives, including sentences of life without parole plus restitution, in which the convicted murderer would be forced to work in a prison job and the proceeds of that work would go to the victims family or to a victims fund. When alternatives were added to the question, the notion of wide majority support for the death penalty disappeared. Indeed, what appeared to be 80 percent support in some polls dropped to half that with alternatives added. In short, when asked if convicted murders should get the death penalty, 70 to 80 percent agreed. When asked if convicted murderers should get the death penalty or life without parole plus restitution (LWOP+R), less than half chose the death penalty and, in many cases, a clear majority chose LWOP+R (Bowers, Vandiver, and Dugan, 1994; Bowers and Dugan, 1994; Sandys and McGarrell, 1995; Dieter, 1993; Bowers, 1993; Bowers and Steiner, 1998; Thomas and Hutcheson, 1986). Bowers, Vandiver, and Dugan (1994) find LWOP+R is more popular than the death penalty by an average of 29 points in a series of state polls and that LWOP+R is preferred even in crime-ridden areas. Moreover, by a two to one margin, former jurors who have previously voted to impose a death penalty sentence on a defendant have reported in later surveys that they would have preferred to impose a sentence of LWOP+R if it had been available (Bowers and Steiner, 1998:37). Support for LWOP+R reflects the notion that the search for morality that triggers support for the death penalty is also capable of garnering a positive response to the thought of a lifetime of imprisonment and hard work for convicted murderers (Bowers, Vandiver, and Dugan, 1994).

674
Press Coverage of Death Penalty Support

Social Science Quarterly

The media, however, tend to cover the death penaltys popularity without caveats, limitations, or mention of support for alternative sentences. Indeed, a simple check of the more than 160 newspapers included in the LexisNexis regional newspaper database illustrates the tendency to highlight the death penaltys support. Searching for all articles published over a five-year period (May 1, 1996 to April 30, 2001) that include a reference to the death penalty in polls, surveys, or general popularity produced 4,190 articles.1 Those articles were then searched for any reference to poll results showing popular support for LWOP or LWOP+R. Among those 4,190 articles, only 302 (7.2 percent) mention popular support for LWOP while only , 13 articles (0.3 percent) mention public support for LWOP+R.2 In other words, support for LWOP+R, the plurality position of Americans, gets 1/300th of the coverage garnered by the minority position of Americans. This finding is consistent with the conclusions of Bowers, Vandiver, and Dugan (1994), who assert the media report Americans support for the death penalty as if it is without reservations or qualifications (1994:143). Interestingly, most newspaper articles that mention LWOP do so not in reference to public support for it, but rather allude to its existence merely as an aside. In fact, many mentions of LWOP were actually made in a negative light that emphasized support for the death penalty. For example, the sole mention of LWOP in a Tennessee newspaper article (Commins, 2000) was to decry it in a quote from the states attorney general (If it [the death penalty] were not a deterrent, then why do so many defendants charged with capital murder eagerly plea to life without parole?). Similarly, a Maryland newspapers (Marsh, 2001) only mention of LWOP was to quote a pollster mocking the notion that LWOP exists (I think the reason the support for the death penalty is so strong is that people dont believe there is a viable alternative, said Carol Arscott, co-owner of the polling firm. [Currently] life without parole is not really life without parole.).

1 The Lexis-Nexis regional newspaper database was first searched for articles that mentioned the phrase death penalty or capital punishment. Then, among those articles, a search for popular support phrases such as polls, surveys, support, popular, plurality, minority, or majority was conducted. Among articles that had one or more of those terms, all articles were included in the analysis if the death penalty was in the headline or lead paragraph of the story, or if the reference to the death penalty and the popularity term were in the same paragraph. Articles that did not fit either of those criteria were read by the author and added to the sample if the mention of popularity referred to the death penalty. 2 The 4,190 articles were first searched for any mention of life without parole, life imprisonment, life sentences, or sentenced to the end of natural life. Those articles were then searched for any reference to the popular support phrases (polls, surveys, support, popular, plurality, minority, or majority). The articles that fit those criteria were then read by the author to determine if any mention of LWOP or LWOP+R referred to their popularity.

Media Portrayal of Death Penalty Support

675

Is this coverage pattern a manifestation of media bias? Unlikely, according to a wide variety of studies that have found no evidence to support claims of ideological or partisan bias in coverage of politics (Cook, 1998; Dennis, 1997; Domke et al., 1997; Entman, 1996; Epstein, 1973; Graber, 1997; Hofstetter, 1976; Lemert, 1989; Niven, 1999, 2001; Squire, 1988; Weaver and Wilhoit, 1974). Instead, this pattern is likely the result of what Bennett (1990) and others see as the medias indexing its coverage around the mean of elite discussion. In short, the media tend to present the range of mainstream political elite thinking on major issues in general (Zaller and Chui, 1996), and especially on legal controversies (Lawrence, 1996; Slotnick and Segal, 1998; Newland, 1964; Grey, 1968) When those elites disagree, the story the media tell has two sides. When those elites agree, however, the story the media tell has but one side. The death penalty is an issue on which, outside of the Congressional Black Caucus, there is almost no elected opposition. Indeed, to the extent recent presidential candidates have disagreed about the death penalty, it was only in asserting who was the more radically pro-death. Studies on the state level find as much as 95 percent support among state legislators for the death penalty (Whitehead, 1998). Thus, the media face a basically united elite and an issue in which the popular majority is large enough (or appears so) that there is little need to be concerned with offending those who do not agree (Ericson, 1991). Finally, in an area with a seemingly quick and obvious truth, the media are loath to complicate the simple by attempting to insert scholarly caveats in their portrayal of a consensus issue (Gans, 1980).
The Consequences of Coverage: An Experiment

What difference does it make if the media give 300 times as much coverage to the popularity of the death penalty as they do to support for the LWOP+R alternative? What difference does it make if the media widely portray the death penalty as the overwhelming preference of Americans? There are three potentially significant implications of an exaggerated portrayal of the death penaltys popularity. First, in politics, things that are popular are often thought of as things that should be supported. Simply due to the fact of their popularity, ideas and candidates are lent a certain credibility that goes unchallenged by some (Patterson, 1994). Second, ideas that are unpopular carry with them social risks, discouraging people from sharing their contrary views, and in so doing, further isolating those who disagree with the popular sentiment (Noelle-Neumann, 1980; Glynn, Hayes, and Shanahan, 1997). Third, ideas that are popular are ideas that come to seem inevitable. We invest less thought, interest, and energy in matters that are unchangeable, and the more popular an issue, the more unchangeable it seems (Opp, 2001; Hodari, 1999).

676

Social Science Quarterly

Is media coverage of the death penaltys popularity having these effects? An experimental design was used in which respondents read a brief newspaper article that consisted either of a typical portrayal of widespread death penalty support (Condition 1), a focus on the relative popularity of LWOP+R and the death penalty (Condition 2), or a control group read an article about plans to renovate an airport (Condition 3). The text of the articles appears in the Appendix. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the three groups. Respondents were found in the waiting areas of two south Florida airports (between May 113, 2001) and were asked if they would be willing to read a brief newspaper article and answer a few questions. They were told that the purpose of the study was to assess the quality of newspaper reporting. A total of 564 people completed the four-page form, representing a response rate of approximately 6 in 10 of those asked to participate. Fiftyfour percent of respondents listed Florida as their main residence; the rest were scattered throughout the country, with a heavy concentration in the northeast. (Respondents from outside the United States were removed from the sample.) More than 9 in 10 lived in a state with the death penalty, and with the federal governments use of the death penalty in 2001, all lived under government use of the death penalty. While not a representative sample of any larger group, the respondents are a far more diverse group than would be available in any college classroom setting (see Sears, 1986), and provide a means to assess what has thus far been a largely ignored component of the death penalty discussion. A variety of questions were asked to disguise the purpose of the experiment, including a section asking for comments on the clarity, language, organization, and interest in the newspaper article. Then, a section on political beliefs of the respondent was presented under the premise that the researchers wanted to know if people with different political beliefs reacted to the article in the same fashion. Three questions gauged reaction to the death penalty. Direct support for the death penalty was asked with two different questions, each administered randomly to half the sample:
Are you in favor of the death penalty for persons convicted of murder? [Response categories: Yes, I am in favor of the death penalty; No, I am not in favor of the death penalty.] For persons convicted of murder, would you favor a sentence of the death penalty, or would you favor a sentence of life in prison without parole with a requirement that the inmate work and give any pay to the victims family? [Response categories: I would favor the death penalty; I would favor life in prison without parole with a work requirement.]

Willingness to discuss the death penalty was asked of each respondent:

Media Portrayal of Death Penalty Support

TABLE 1
Response to the Death Penalty by Experimental Condition

677

Death Penalty LWOP+R Popular Alternative Control (Condition 1) (Condition 2) (Condition 3) % support the death penalty against convicted murderers (n = 285) % support the death penalty against convicted murderers over LWOP+R alternative (n = 279) % friend would be willing to discuss opposition to death penalty (n = 564) Number of states that will have the death penalty in 20 years (mean response) (n = 564) 85 53 26* 45 62* 43* 53* 26+ 81 51 37 42

*Difference from control group statistically significant (chi-square p value < 0.01). +Difference from control group statistically significant (T-test p value < 0.01).

If you had a friend who was against the death penalty, would that friend feel comfortable talking about the issue with others who supported the death penalty? [Response categories: Friend would feel comfortable; Friend would not feel comfortable.]

Additionally, the likely future use of the death penalty was asked of each respondent:
Thirty-eight states currently sentence some convicted murderers to the death penalty. How many states do you think will be using the death penalty twenty years from now?

These questions will be used to gauge whether coverage of the death penaltys popularity affects support for the death penalty, willingness to disagree about the death penalty, and belief about the durability of the death penalty. Finally, a number of demographic questions were asked, including hometown, age, income, education, race, and sex.3
Results

The top two rows of Table 1 reveal the results for the three conditions with regard to support for the death penalty. For this question, a splitsample design was used, with half the respondents in each condition being

3 There were no statistically significant differences between the three conditions with regard to respondents home region, whether their state had the death penalty, their age, education, race, sex, or the political variables (partisanship and ideology).

678

Social Science Quarterly

asked if they supported the death penalty, and half asked if they preferred the death penalty sentence over LWOP+R. To the first question, a majority of all three groups expressed support for the death penalty (Table 1, Row 1). Those in Condition 1, who read a typical depiction of the death penaltys popularity, offered 85 percent support for the death penalty. Those in Condition 3, who read about airport renovation plans, were nearly as supportive at 81 percent. By contrast, those in Condition 2, who read of the support for life without parole plus restitution, were 62 percent in favor of the death penalty. Given the similarity of reaction between the control group and Condition 1, the implication is that the respondents have already been thoroughly exposed to positive treatment of the death penalty and are not particularly affected by reading another article about its widespread support. Conversely, reading about an alternative to the death penalty had a significant effect on the respondents in Condition 2 by producing reduced support for the death penalty. Those asked whether they preferred the death penalty overall produced a similar pattern. That is, those who read of the death penaltys support were again the most supportive of it, followed by the control group, and then by those who read of the support for LWOP+R. Again the control group is closer to those who read of the death penaltys popularity, while the LWOP+R group is most distinct, providing further support for the notion that it is the LWOP+R article that most affects respondents perceptions. Of further significance here, though, is the again dramatic difference in the apparent support for the death penalty that exists when an alternative is provided in the question. In comparing all three groups, we see a substantial reduction in the apparent agreement with the death penalty when the question is changed from one of support for the sentence to preference for the sentence. What had appeared as overwhelming support among Conditions 1 and 3 fades to just slightly more than majority support, while the majority support of Condition 2 falls to the minority position. While these results certainly point toward the potential influence of the media were it to more realistically reflect the preferences of Americans, Table 1, Row 3 suggests that not only are opinions at stake, but also the willingness to express them. Respondents were asked whether a friend who opposed the death penalty would be willing to share that view with death penalty supporters. The purpose of couching the question in terms of a friends behavior is to avoid making the question too personal, triggering a reliance on ones own death penalty opinion. The results show that the vast majority of respondents in Conditions 1 and 3 do not believe an anti-death penalty friend would be comfortable sharing that view. Conversely, in Condition 2, a majority responded that their anti-death penalty friend would discuss his or her opposition to the death penalty. This suggests the potential effect of the media in informing these respondents of what the boundaries of mainstream thinking are. A portrayal of the death penalty as a consensus issue produces little willingness

Media Portrayal of Death Penalty Support

679

to challenge it. A more realistic portrayal of the death penalty as an issue people are divided on brings forward much greater prospects for discussion on both sides, emboldening those who would otherwise stay quiet in the face of overwhelming evidence that their views are unpopular. Further, consider the difference between the control group and the LWOP+R group. A swing of 16 points exists in their responses after those in Condition 2 read one article, an article that was not anti-death penalty, but merely expressed the finding that there is a plurality who favor a different sentence. Finally, and perhaps most dramatically, Table 1, Row 4 shows the response to the question of how widespread the death penalty will be in the future. Both Conditions 1 and 3 predict that the death penalty will expand from its current 38 states. Meanwhile, Condition 2 predicts the death penalty will be less prevalent in the future, with the mean estimate of the death penalty existing in 26 states. This question gets at the very heart of whether this issue is in playIs it worth thinking about, talking about, fighting about, organizing, protesting, participating? If it is inevitable, then there is little incentive to invest yourself in it. Again the gap between the LWOP+R group and the other two groups suggests the degree of effect a more realistic portrayal of the lack of consensus on the death penalty might have on our political conclusions. Given differences in support found in previous studies for the death penalty among whites and African Americans, women and men, southerners and nonsoutherners, and the young and old, as well as the potential for an interactive effect between the condition and the death penalty question form, the results were reexamined in a logit model. The three dependent variables from Table 1 are included, with the number of states that will have the death penalty in the future converted to a binary outcome for comparability (categorizing responses into those who see an expansion of the death penalty, and those who see either a reduction or stability in the number of states with the death penalty). Independent variables include the demographic measures mentioned above, the condition in the experiment, the form of the death penalty question used (prefer the death penalty versus support the death penalty), and an interaction between condition and question form. Condition 3 (the airport article) and the support for the death penalty question form are used as the default positions for the models. The results confirm the significance of reading about the mixed level of support for the death penalty (Condition 2). In all three models, Condition 2 has a significant effect, reducing support for the death penalty, increasing willingness to discuss it, and decreasing the belief that the death penalty will expand. As was the case in the bivariate comparison, Condition 1 is associated with increased support for the death penalty, decreased willingness to discuss the issue, and a belief that the death penalty will expand. The effect of Condition 1 is, however, generally more modest than Condition 2, and it fails to reach statistical significance in the support for the death penalty model.

680
TABLE 2

Social Science Quarterly

Response to Death Penalty Models Multinominal-Logit Estimation Number of States that Will Have Friend Willing to Death Penalty in 20 Years Discuss (1 = increase, Support Death Opposition to Penalty Death Penalty 0 = decrease or (1 = yes, 0 = no) (1 = yes, 0 = no) stay the same) 1.9 3.5* 2.2* 6.0* 3.2* 5.2* 8.5* 2.1 1.9 3.2 2.8 3.1* 3.7* 4.8* 1.3 4.8* 63 85 22 146.4 0.42 1.6 1.9 2.2* 0.8 2.1 0.9 2.2* 61 78 17 98.9 0.32 1.7 1.1 1.5 1.3 2.2* 1.6 3.1* 58 70 12 81.5 0.31

Condition 1 Condition 2 Form of death penalty question (prefer) Condition 1 x form of death penalty question Condition 2 x form of death penalty question Race (1 = white, 0 = nonwhite) Sex (1 = men, 0 = women) Region (1 = south, 0 = nonsouth) Age (1 = under 40, 0 = 40 and over) Constant Null % correct Improvement Chi-square Pseudo-R2
N = 564. *p < 0.05.

Note: Odds ratios for the statistically significant variables are as follows: Support Death Penalty Model, Condition 2, 0.7; Form of Death Penalty Question, 0.6; Race, 1.2; Sex, 1.2; Region, 1.3; Friend Willing to Discuss Opposition to Death Penalty Model, Condition 1, 0.7; Condition 2, 1.7; Race, 0.9; Number of States that Will Have Death Penalty in 20 Years Model, Condition 1, 1.1; Condition 2, 0.6; Region, 1.2.

As was the case in Table 1, the form of the death penalty question powerfully influences overall support for the issue. But while those who were asked if they prefer the death penalty over LWOP+R expressed less support for the issue, that question version did not influence their responses to the other death penalty measures. Moreover, the form of death penalty question did not interact meaningfully with the condition to influence results. The effect of the demographic variables was inconsistent. Race affected support for the death penalty (higher among whites) and willingness to discuss the issue (lower among whites), but did not significantly affect the prediction on the future of the issue. Sex affected support for the death penalty (higher among men), but did not strongly influence the other two measures.

Media Portrayal of Death Penalty Support

681

Region affected support for the issue (higher among southerners) and the prediction of the future of the issue (more likely to expand according to southerners), but not willingness to discuss the issue. Finally, age was not a significant factor in any of the three models. Together, the three models support the conclusions of the bivariate comparison regarding the significance of the medias portrayal of death penalty popularity, and suggest that the potential influence of media coverage persists across demographic lines.
Discussion

To understand the implications of these patterns, we must start with the results regarding the medias actual coverage of death penalty support. The medias lack of interest in the complexity of public opinion on the death penalty means that, in reality, there are few Americans being exposed to the treatment of Condition 2. Instead, articles consistent with Condition 1 are ubiquitous. The contrast in results between these two conditions is quite clear. By asserting death penalty support to be a majoritarian position, the media are, in effect, helping to sell the issue position. Without coverage of the opposition, or without equitable coverage of the opposition, the media are sending a message, especially to those who might otherwise have no opinion, that the American people are unified on this question. By depicting the death penalty as a clear commitment of a clear majority, the media are indirectly telling us what is right. Moreover, no less an authority than the U.S. Supreme Court has asserted that what the average American believes on this issue is a determinant of whether the death penalty is constitutional.4 Justice Antonin Scalia has even argued that more important than verifiable facts on the death penalty is public perception of it.5 Beyond a sales pitch that might be attracting more support for the death penalty is the dangerous potential for a spiral of silence. In brief, most people want to appear socially acceptable to their peers and will avoid expressing ideas that will place them outside the mainstream. Importantly, when an idea gains a reputation for being outside the mainstream, fewer and fewer people will discuss it, and in the process, the apparent size of the minority shrinks to nothing. Here, by unrealistically leaving out of the story the plurality of Americans who prefer LWOP+R over the death penalty, the media
4 In Trop v. Dulles (1958) the high court wrote that the practical meaning of the Eighth Amendment exclusion of cruel and unusual punishment was to be defined by public opinions and the evolving standards of decency of the American people. Public opinion was a factor in the Furman v. Georgia (1972) decision, which halted all executions in the United States for four years (see White, 1976; Vidmar and Ellsworth, 1976; Diamond and Casper, 1994). 5 Justice Scalia (in Callins v. Collins, 1994) argued that if the people believe in deterrence, regardless of whether it actually occurs, then the death penalty is inherently legal.

682

Social Science Quarterly

are not only exaggerating the size of a majority, they are in point of fact exaggerating the size of a minority to portray it as a majority (Bowers, Vandiver, and Dugan, 1994). As Gonzenbach and Stephenson (1994) argue, the important trigger for the spiral of silence is not an idea being outside the mainstream, but appearing to be outside the mainstream. As ideas become besmirched with minority status and fewer people discuss them, debate is cut off, further intensifying the importance of media coverage. It is then not surprising to see that typical media coverage encouraged a belief that the death penalty will expand. Realistic coverage, conversely, encouraged a belief that it will contract. It is here that we see an air of inevitability associated with the issue when it receives typical coverage. It is so popular, according to the media, that a message is sent to the American people that there is little reason to think about it, discuss it, organize over it, or vote on it, because the outcome is already set. This is akin to the argument Fallows (1997) and Entman (1996) offer when they assert that modern media coverage disengages Americans from politics by continually reminding them that events are out of their control, and that rather than political activism, the appropriate response is to stay home, stop thinking about things, and watch what happens next. The implications of the popular depiction of the death penalty do not end with a compliant public, however. Legislators are watching the public, and reading about them in these same articles. They understand how few consensus issues there are in politics and the death penalty certainly appears to be one. Indeed, researchers find that legislators use the popularity of the death penalty as a justification for their support of it (Zeisel and Gallup, 1989) and that many are afraid even to express doubts about the issue (Bowers, Vandiver, and Dugan, 1994). Whitehead (1998) finds near unanimous support among surveyed legislators for the death penalty and not much interest in alternatives to it. Bowers, Vandiver, and Dugan (1994) emphasize that not only do lawmakers run on the issue, they castigate any opponent who expresses the slightest reservation about the death penaltythus producing an issue on which there is almost no candidate debate. Under the headline For a Governor, Blood Lust Helps, the Palm Beach Post asserted, The next governor of Florida must be at least 30 years old, have resided in the state for seven years and be willing to kill. The first two requirements are in the state constitution. The murderous heart is required by the electorate (Blackburn, 1997). The article went on to note that then Florida Governor Lawton Chiles, a death penalty supporter, had been attacked by an opponent for not executing enough people. Indeed, Democratic elected officials have moved so swiftly to embrace the death penalty that they are trying to outdo each other in terms of who will promise more heads rolling (Fair, 1992). News coverage points to the 1992 execution of a mentally retarded man authorized by then Arkansas Gover-

Media Portrayal of Death Penalty Support

683

nor Bill Clinton as the point at which the two parties became largely indistinguishable on capital punishment (Reaves, 2000). Despite their professional interest in understanding the polls, Bowers, Vandiver, and Dugan (1994) found that legislators analysis of death penalty support sounds as if it comes straight from the headlines. They found that legislators erroneously believed that 70 percent of their constituents favored the death penalty over LWOP+R. Ironically, in a nod to their own lack of faith in public opinion polls, the U.S. Supreme Court has also cited the legislative popularity of the death penalty as further proof that the American people support it and that it should therefore remain constitutional (Diamond and Casper, 1994).
Conclusion

Bowers, Vandiver, and Dugan (1994:142) wrote that public support for capital punishment is an illusion that has become a self-perpetuating political myth. This research suggests that that myth is in part fed by the medias willingness to ignore the complex nature of death penalty opinion and instead portray the issue as a matter of public consensus (see also Sotirovic, 2001). By showing almost no interest in support for life without parole plus restitution, in what is in point of fact the plurality opinion of Americans, the media are continually reinforcing the notion that the public demands the death penalty. The findings here suggest that this skewed coverage increases support for the death penalty, reduces discussion about the issue, and sends a message to Americans that the death penalty is inevitable and irreplaceable.
REFERENCES Amnesty International. 2001. Amnesty International Report. London: Amnesty International Publications. Anthony, Kelly. 2000. The Relationship Between Race, Racial Identity and Value Conflict and the Death Penalty Attitudes of Blacks and Whites. Ph.D. dissertation. Houston, TX: University of Houston. Barkan, Steven, and Steven Cohn. 1994. Racial Prejudice and Support for the Death Penalty by Whites. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31(2):20209. Bennett, W. Lance. 1990. Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States. Journal of Communication 40(4):10325. Blackburn, Tom. 1997. For a Governor, Blood Lust Helps. Palm Beach Post December 22:2A. Borg, Marian. 1997. The Southern Subculture of Punitiveness? Regional Variation in Support for Capital Punishment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34(1):2545. Bowers, William. 1993. Capital Punishment and Contemporary Values: Peoples Misgivings and the Courts Misperceptions. Law and Society Review 27:15775.

684

Social Science Quarterly

Bowers, William, and Patricia Dugan. 1994. Massachusetts Citizens Punishment Preferences for First Degree Murder. Unpublished manuscript. Northeastern University. Bowers, William, and Benjamin Steiner. 1998. The People Want an Alternative to the Death Penalty. In Glen Stassen, ed., Capital Punishment: A Reader. Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press. Bowers, William, Margaret Vandiver, and Patricia Dugan. 1994. A New Look at Public Opinion on Capital Punishment: What Citizens and Legislators Prefer. American Journal of Criminal Law 22:77150. Commins, John. 2000. Most Favor Capital Punishment as Deterrent to Crime. Chattanooga Times October 8:A5. Cook, Timothy. 1998. Governing with the News. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. Dennis, Everette. 1997. How Liberal Are the Media Anyway? Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 2(4):11519. Diamond, Shari Seidman, and Jonathan Casper. 1994. Empirical Evidence and the Death Penalty: Past and Future. Journal of Social Issues 50(2):17797. Dieter, R. C. 1993. Sentencing for Life: Americans Embrace Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Washington, D.C.: Death Penalty Information Center. Domke, David, David Fan, Michael Fibison, Dhavan Shah, Steven Smith, and Mark Watts. 1997. News Media, Candidates and Issues, and Public Opinion in the 1996 Presidential Campaign. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 74(4):71837. Ellsworth, Phoebe, and Samuel Gross. 1994. Hardening of the Attitudes: Americans Views of the Death Penalty. Journal of Social Issues 50(2):1952. Ellsworth, Phoebe, and Lee Ross. 1976. Public Opinion and Judicial Decision Making: An Example from Research on Capital Punishment. In Hugo Adam Bedau and Chester Pierce, eds., Capital Punishment in the United States. New York: AMS Press. . 1983. Public Opinion and Capital Punishment: A Close Examination of the Views of Abolitionists and Retentionists. Crime and Delinquency 29:11669. Entman, Robert. 1996. Reporting Environmental Policy Debate: The Real Media Bias. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 1(3):7792. Epstein, Edward. 1973. News from Nowhere. New York: Random House. Ericson, Richard. 1991. Mass Media, Crime, Law, and Justice: An Institutional Approach. British Journal of Criminology 31:21949. Fair, Kathy. 1992. Convention 92: Clinton Signing of Death Warrants May Have Derailed GOP Strategy. Houston Chronicle August 17:3B. Fallows, James. 1997. Breaking the News. New York: Vintage. Gans, Herbert. 1980. Deciding Whats News. New York: Vintage. Glynn, Carol, Andrew Hayes, and James Shanahan. 1997. A Meta-Analysis of Survey Studies on the Spiral of Silence. Public Opinion Quarterly 61:45263. Gonzenbach, William, and Robert L. Stephenson. 1994. Children with AIDS Attending Public School: An Analysis of the Spiral of Silence. Political Communication 11:318. Graber, Doris. 1997. Mass Media and American Politics. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Media Portrayal of Death Penalty Support

685

Grey, David. 1968. The Supreme Court and the News Media. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press. Haas, Kenneth, and James Inciardi. 1988. Lingering Doubts About a Popular Punishment. In Kenneth Haas and James Inciardi, eds., Challenging Capital Punishment. Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage Publications. Haines, Herbert. 1996. Against Capital Punishment: The Anti-Death Penalty Movement in America, 19721994. New York: Oxford University Press. Hodari, Askhari Johnson. 1999. Social Action and Black Women of the Protest Generation at Mid-Life: Issues of Participation, Effect Orientation, and Impact. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington, D.C.: Howard University. Hofstetter, C. Richard. 1976. Bias in the News: Network Television Coverage of the 1972 Campaign. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press. Judd, Alan. 1997. The Death Penalty is So Popular in Florida that Few Elected Officials Would Dare Betray Any Opposition or Even Ambivalence. Sarasota Herald-Tribune March 30:1B. Lawrence, Regina. 1996. Accidents, Icons, and Indexing: The Dynamics of News Coverage of Police Use of Force. Political Communication 13:43754. Lemert, James. 1989. Criticizing the Media: Empirical Approaches. Newbury, Cal.: Sage. Lester, David, Maria Maggioncalda-Aretz, and Scott Stark. 1997. Adolescents Attitudes Toward the Death Penalty. Adolescence 32:44749. Lord, C., L. Ross, and M. Lepper. 1979. Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:20982109. Marsh, Sara. 2001. Poll: More in State OK with Death Penalty Recent Survey Shows 62 Percent of Marylanders Support Capital Punishment. The Capital May 20:D1. Matier, Phillip, and Andrew Ross. 1998. 74% Support for Death Penalty and About-Face from the 50s. San Francisco Chronicle July 15:13A. Newland, Chester. 1964. Press Coverage of the United States Supreme Court. Western Political Quarterly 40:11523. Niven, David. 1999. Partisan Bias in the Media? A New Test. Social Science Quarterly 80(4):84758. . 2001. Bias in the News: Partisanship and Negativity in Coverage of Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 6:3045. Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1980. The Spiral of Silence. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. Opp, Karl. 2001. Social Networks and the Emergence of Protest Norms. In Michael Hechter and Karl Opp, eds., Social Norms. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Patterson, Thomas. 1994. Out of Order. New York: Vintage. Reaves, Jessica. 2000. Texas Execution Tests the Limits of Comprehension. Time August 9, via the web <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,52285,00.html>. Roberts, J. 1984. Public Opinion and Capital Punishment: The Effects of Attitudes upon Memory. Canadian Journal of Criminology 26:28391.

686

Social Science Quarterly

Sandys, Marla, and Edmund McGarrell. 1995. Attitudes Toward Capital Punishment: Preference for the Penalty or Mere Acceptance? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32:191213. Sarat, Austin, and Neil Vidmar. 1976. Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Eighth Amendment: Testing the Marshall Hypothesis. Wisconsin Law Review 1:171206. Sears, David. 1986. College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychologys View of Human Nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:51530. Slotnick, Elliot, and Jennifer Segal. 1998. Television News and the Supreme Court: All the News Thats Fit to Air? New York: Cambridge University Press. Sotirovic, Mira. 2001. Effects of Media Use on Complexity and Extremity of Attitudes Toward the Death Penalty and Prisoners Rehabilitation. Media Psychology 3(1):124. Squire, Peverill. 1988. Who Gets National News Coverage in the U.S. Senate? American Politics Quarterly 16(2):13956. Stack, Steven. 2000. Support for the Death Penalty: A Gender-Specific Model. Sex Roles 43(3):16379. Thomas, Charles, and Samuel Foster. 1976. A Sociological Perspective on Public Support for Capital Punishment. In Hugo Adam Bedau and Chester Pierce, eds., Capital Punishment in the United States. New York: AMS Press. Thomas, R., and J. Hutcheson. 1986. Georgia Residents Attitudes Toward the Death Penalty, the Disposition of Juvenile Offenders, and Related Issues. Paper prepared for the Clearinghouse on Georgia Prisons and Jails. Tyler, Tom, and Robert Boeckmann. 1997. Three Strikes and You Are Out, But Why? The Psychology of Public Support for Punishing Rule Breakers. Law and Society Review 31:237 65. Vidmar, Neil, and Phoebe Ellsworth. 1976. Public Opinion on the Death Penalty. In Hugo Adam Bedau and Chester Pierce, eds., Capital Punishment in the United States. New York: AMS Press. Warr, Mark. 1995. Public Opinion on Crime and Punishment. Public Opinion Quarterly 59:296310. Weaver, David, and Cleveland Wilhoit. 1974. News Magazine Visibility of Senators. Journalism Quarterly 51(1):6772. Whitehead, John. 1998. Good Ol Boys and the Chair: Death Penalty Attitudes of Policy Makers in Tennessee. Crime and Delinquency 44(2):24556. Whitehead, John, and Michael Blankenship. 2000. The Gender Gap in Capital Punishment. American Journal of Criminal Justice 25(1):113. Zaller, John, and Dennis Chiu. 1996. Governments Little Helper: U.S. Press Coverage of Foreign Policy Crises, 19451991. Political Communication 13(4):385405. Zeisel, Hans, and Alec Gallup. 1989. Death Penalty Sentiment in the United States. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 5:28596.

Media Portrayal of Death Penalty Support

Appendix

687

Condition 1 HEADLINE: DEATH-PENALTY SURVEY RESULTS SHOW STRONG SUPPORT Support for the death penalty remains solid, a new poll shows. The results of a national poll taken April 818 indicate 74 percent of Americans support the death penalty, with only 20 percent opposed and 6 percent undecided. This is about the same percentage in support of the death penalty as in 1997. There is little to suggest the public will change its mind on the issue any time soon, either. I dont know any issue where the public opinion is so fixed and hardened as it is in favor of the death penalty now, says pollster Steven Bodman. Support for the death penalty has become bi-partisan, just as likely to be embraced by Democrats as Republicans. While public support for the death penalty is obvious, it isnt so clear whether politicians who talk tough about executing murderers are sincere or are simply reacting to the polls. However, political analyst Jon Rogers said: Its hard to believe every politician is unable to read the polls. You cant have any real political career and fail to understand that people want the death penalty enforced. Opponents of the death penalty, like Susan Jones, warn that the system is unfair and prone to error, In a human system, mistakes happen. Thats just a given. Nevertheless, supporters of the death penalty tell pollsters they believe it to be a fair sentence for murderers, I believe An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and when a man takes someone elses life, he takes his own, too, said Donald Cox, a retiree.

Condition 2 HEADLINE: DEATH-PENALTY SURVEY RESULTS PROVIDE MIXED MESSAGE More people support alternative sentences to the death penalty, a new poll shows. The results of a national poll taken April 818 indicate that 48 percent of Americans think the sentence for a convicted murderer should be life in prison without parole, with the inmate required to work a prison job and send any proceeds to a victims relief fund. Forty-two percent think the sentence for a convicted murderer should be the death penalty. Ten percent

688

Social Science Quarterly

are undecided. Support for a life sentence with work requirements has remained steady since 1997. There is little to suggest the public will change its mind on the issue any time soon, either. I dont know any issue where the public opinion is so fixed and hardened as it is on this issue. People either support life in prison or the death penalty, and they seldom change their minds, says pollster Steven Bodman. Support for an alternative to the death penalty has become bi-partisan, just as likely to be embraced by Democrats as Republicans. While public support for the death penalty is decidedly mixed, it isnt so clear whether politicians understand the division between those who seek an alternative to the death penalty and death penalty supporters. However, political analyst Jon Rogers said: Its hard to believe every politician is unable to read the polls. You cant have any real political career and fail to understand that more people want an alternative to the death penalty. Supporters of life sentences without parole, like Susan Jones, warn that the system is unfair and prone to error, In a human system, mistakes happen. Thats just a given. Nevertheless, supporters of the death penalty tell pollsters they believe it to be a fair sentence for murderers, I believe An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and when a man takes someone elses life, he takes his own, too, said Donald Cox, a retiree. Condition 3 HEADLINE: RENOVATIONS FOR NATIONS BUSIEST AIRPORTS Across the United States, government and airline officials are spending tens of billions of dollars on airport expansions and improvements. Some of these projects are aimed at increasing traffic and reducing the delays that afflicted so many passengers last yearthe tardiest year in U.S. air travel history. Officials at Miami International Airport (33.9 million passengers in 1999) report no major disruptions for travelers. But anyone passing through is likely to encounter signs, inside and outside, of a major expansion. In all, $5.4 billion in construction is planned, and the work, which began in 1993, is expected to continue through 2008. When its done, the airports terminal and radiating concourses will have increased from 4.7 million square feet to 7.4 million. Additional improvements are scheduled for roadways, parking, along with added space for cargo storage and handling and the addition of a fourth runway. Construction of the new runway, which isnt expected to affect traffic on other runways, is due to be completed in July 2003.

Media Portrayal of Death Penalty Support

689

Information officer Inson Kim of the Miami-Dade Aviation Department noted that minor roadwork has been in progress around the airport, but that passengers should find no dramatic changes in the facilitys workings. The airport now features eight concourses, labeled A through H, radiating like fingers from a main terminal. The expansion will eventually connect concourses AD directly to each other, making a single superconcourse of 47 gates. A new concourse (labeled J, so that travelers dont confuse I with 1) is also planned. Its like building a new airport on top of an existing airport, said Kim.