friend or foe? the media coverage of chicago's public housing transformation
TRANSCRIPT
i
Friend or Foe? The Media Coverage of Chicago’s Public Housing Transformation
Matthew Schoene
The Ohio State University
Department of Sociology 238 Townshend Hall
1885 Neil Avenue Mall Columbus, Ohio, 43210
Keywords: Public Housing, Social Movements, Media, Urban Redevelopment.
Direct Correspondence to: Matthew Schoene, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall, 238 Townshend Hall, Columbus, OH, 43210 ([email protected]). I thank Rachel Dwyer, Andrew Martin, Claudia Buchmann, Dana Haynie and Martin Kosla for insightful comments on previous versions of this paper. I also thank my three research assistants, Thomas Alzo, Denisha Jackson and Zachary Lewis, for their hard work. A previous version of this paper was presented at the American Sociological Association 2012 Annual Meeting in Denver, Colorado.
ii
Friend or Foe? The Media Coverage of Chicago’s Public Housing Transformation
Abstract
How do grassroots social movement actors gain media attention against powerful elite interests?
Social movement theory highlights media coverage as a powerful resource for non-institutional
actors, but it remains unclear exactly how successful these actors are in gaining media standing
relative to their institutionalized opponents and what factors attract the attention of the media in
the first place. This study examines Chicago’s Plan for Transformation, a landmark effort to
reform the city’s crumbling public housing system. Theory expects institutionalized,
bureaucratic elites to capture a greater share of the media’s coverage of the debate, thus allowing
them more opportunities to frame the rhetoric along positive lines. To test this, I perform a
content analysis of 2,151 direct quotes drawn from 554 articles published in the Chicago Tribune
from 1997-2009. Results indicate that while local elites indeed achieved greater media standing,
the neighborhood opposition was by no means ignored. Second, negative binomial regression
models indicates that a dialogue emerges in the pages of the newspaper that is drive by a conflict
and a need for journalists to balance their stories with supportive and unsupportive quotes.
Implications for urban theory, social movement tactics and future research are then discussed.
1
Friend or Foe? Local Newspaper Coverage of Chicago’s Plan for Transformation
INTRODUCTION
How do local newspapers cover urban redevelopment disputes? Contemporary American
cities often lack undeveloped land on which to build, so the redevelopment of existing land is an
attractive strategy to local urban elites anxious to reverse years of central city decay. While
major redevelopment projects usually have the support of those in power, these proposals bring
political, business and real estate elites into intense conflict with the city’s residents over the
future of their neighborhoods. Due to the contentious nature of this process, growth machine
theory emerged in the late 1970s as a highly influential framework for understanding the
redevelopment process and the conflict it often entails (Molotch 1976; Logan & Molotch 1987).
This theory posits that because political, business and real estate actors all stand to benefit from
increases in land values, they join into a local growth coalition that actively pursues
redevelopment. This growth coalition uses their power to transform the city into a growth
machine that serves their interests (Molotch 1976). In contrast, middle, working and lower class
residents are best served by growth control, so they typically oppose the coalition’s
redevelopment plans.
In addition to the traditional members of the growth coalition, early conceptions of this
theory speculated that the coalition has a powerful ally in these disputes: the local media,
especially the newspaper (Logan & Molotch 1987; Molotch & Lester 1979; Logan et al. 1997).
The media’s status as a corporate entity gives it a natural stake in urban growth, so they are
expected to act as a “statesman” and take an active role in promoting redevelopment proposals.
In recent years, however, a more nuanced view of how the local media covers urban
redevelopment has emerged. Specifically, research shows that while the newspaper does indeed
2
have a vested interest in redevelopment, they cannot support these proposals as enthusiastically
as originally thought (Kaniss 1991; Parisi & Holcomb 1994; Roth & Vander Haar 2006; Rodgers
2013). Journalists work in a profession with expectations of objectivity, and reporters who
display extreme bias in any one direction should not be able to keep their jobs very long.
Furthermore, growth machine theory assumes that the media will always oppose the
neighborhood based opposition, but evidence from the social movement literature suggests that
the local media can actually be a crucial resource for oppositional social movement organizations
(SMOs) (McAdam 1986; Gamson & Meyer 1996; Rohlinger 2002). In the case of contentious
urban redevelopment disputes, two important research questions remain unexplored. First, who
is more successful at getting media coverage, the resident opposition or local elites? Second,
what contextual factors drive the positive and negative coverage afforded to redevelopment?
This study advances past research by making use of Gamson’s concept of media standing
(Gamson 1998), more recently refined and applied by Roth & Vander Haar (2006). Media
standing refers to who is deemed worthy of participating in a public debate. Everybody has the
right to speak, but not everyone’s opinion is taken seriously. Grassroots social movements need
coverage, and journalists need sources. However, the process by which journalists find their
sources can lead to stories that skew in favor of one particular viewpoint, a process that often
disadvantages grassroots SMOs relative to local elites (Tuchman 1972; Gans 1979; Gamson
1998). Journalists tend to favor those with institutional, bureaucratic standing. They are seen as
legitimate voices and are quoted more frequently, so the resulting stories are skewed in favor of
elite interests (Gamson 1998; Entman & Paletz 1980; Kaniss 1991; Roth & Vander Haar 2006).
In this study, I apply the concept of media standing to a recent example of urban
redevelopment conflict: Chicago’s Plan for Transformation, the most ambitious attempt at public
3
housing reform in the United States to date. Announced in 1999, the Chicago Housing Authority
(CHA) claimed that the 10 year, $1.6 billion project would end the isolation and poverty
endemic to public housing residents by replacing the decaying, poverty-stricken high-rises with
vibrant mixed-income communities.1 Despite enthusiastic support from the Mayor, Governor,
most local politicians and the real estate sector, the plan generated immediate pushback from the
CHA residents. Residents saw it as an attempt to forcibly expel them from the city’s near-north
and near-south sides, clearing the way for residents who could pay market rates. While groups
like the Local Advisory Council and the Coalition to Protect Public Housing tried to advocate for
CHA resident interests, their grassroots nature put them at a severe disadvantage in both
resources and social legitimacy when compared to the Plan’s advocates (Venkatesh 2000).
In this situation, the media becomes a potentially crucial forum in which to advocate for
resident interests, but two important factors remain unexplored. First, to what extent were both
the growth coalition and the CHA resident opposition able to achieve media standing in the
pages of the local newspaper? Second, what factors influence the ability of both sides of the
debate to gain media standing? To answer these questions, I perform a content analysis of 2,151
quotes drawn from a sample of 554 Chicago Tribune newspaper articles, following the example
of Tuchmann (1972) and Roth & Vander Haar (2006). For each article, I document who was
quoted, how often, and the slant of each statement to assess the level of media standing achieved
by each side of the debate. Then, I construct negative binomial regression models to predict the
count of total, positive and negative quotes of the Plan for Transformation and evaluate what
factors influenced the ability of both the local growth coalition and neighborhood residents to
achieve media standing. Finally, I conclude with implications for social movement tactics.
1 This sentence is paraphrased from the CHA’s website section for the Plan for Transformation, and reflects the CHA’s own rhetoric on the Plan: http://www.thecha.org/pages/the_plan_for_transformation/22.php.
4
CASE BACKGROUND: THE PLAN FOR TRANSFORMATION2
Chicago’s Plan for Transformation represents the most ambitious and expensive of all
efforts to reform the public housing system in the United States. This institution has a long and
largely shameful history in Chicago3. Reform efforts began in 1996, when the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) concluded that nearly all of Chicago’s high-rises had
failed structural viability tests. A complete overhaul of the system was required. At the time,
however, the CHA was in receivership and under control of a federally appointed chair, Joseph
Schuldiner. Upon regaining control of the CHA on May 28, 1999, Mayor Richard M. Daley
inserted Philip Jackson to run the Authority. This happened amidst mounting discontent from
CHA residents against the city’s voucher-based relocation plan. Not long after, Daley and
Jackson announced the Plan for Transformation. Estimated to cost $1.6 billion and span 10
years, the CHA claimed the Plan would break the cycle of poverty endemic to public housing
and help integrate residents back into the economic and social fabric of Chicago.
In contrast to CHA rhetoric, the residents of public housing feared displacement from
their neighborhoods just as these long-blighted areas appeared poised for a brighter future.
Chicago’s public housing was traditionally located on the near-south side, land that offered high
potential rents and convenient access to the central business district. Groups like the Local
Advisory Council and Coalition to Protect Public Housing saw the city’s plan as little more than
slum clearance, arguing that redevelopment would cause large scale displacement and intense
segregation in the city’s inner suburbs (Venkatesh 2000). They filed several class-action
lawsuits to halt demolition until appropriate replacements could be built and guarantee a right-of-
2 I draw this brief account of the case’s history from two sources: The Chicago Tribune articles and Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing (Hunt 2009). 3 For a qualitative account of life in a Chicago housing project prior to the Plan for Transformation, see There are no Children Here (Kotlowitz 1992).
5
return to the neighborhoods they had always called home. Philip Jackson ran the CHA for only
about two years, and he quickly offered his resignation right after Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) gave the CHA the green light to proceed. Jackson was replaced by Terry
Peterson, who would lead the Authority for the next six years. During this time, the residents
and their leaders were active in protesting the demolition of their buildings and the CHA’s policy
changes, but their efforts were largely unsuccessful. They were also supported by the efforts of
several lawyers, experts and analysts, only some of whom worked directly for formal
organizations.
It soon became clear that the city was demolishing far faster than they were constructing.
Sharon Gist Gilliam replaced Terry Peterson in September of 2006, but by this time there
remained few buildings left for the residents to protect. Gilliam’s tenure lasted only one year,
and Lewis A. Jordan replaced her as the Housing Authority’s leader. By this point, however,
most of the high-rises had already been demolished and most residents never made it back to
their former neighborhoods. 15 years later, it seems that the resident concerns were quite
prescient. Litigation efforts to halt demolitions failed and building after building fell to the
wrecking ball. Most lawsuits settled on terms favorable to the city.
Previous research has examined the Plan’s outcomes, and it would be remiss to ignore the
benefits CHA residents have enjoyed. For instance, evidence shows that a majority of residents
who moved into a subsidized apartment felt safer in their new environment and lived in cleaner,
better-maintained homes (Popkin & Price 2010). The process was far from smooth, however.
Residents who received job training by the CHA or assistance in navigating the private rental
market tended to fare better, but the distribution of these services was spotty at best (Venkatesh
& Celimli 2004). Over 40% of relocated residents moved to isolated, segregated and highly
6
distressed neighborhoods (Oakley & Burchfield 2009). In spite of the guaranteed right-of-return,
the level of displacement in Chicago has been far higher than rates observed by other Housing
Authorities undergoing a restructuring (Joseph 2008). While the CHA residents had certain
organizations advocating on their behalf, they generally lacked the bureaucratic standing
necessary to work through institutional channels. The media may be a valuable ally in
circumstances such as this, but it is unclear what role the local media played in mediating this
dispute between residents and local elites.
While this study focuses on Chicago specifically, this is truly a national issue and worthy
of increased scholarly attention. Seattle, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Los Angeles,
Washington DC, St. Louis, Cincinnati, New Orleans, Oakland and others have all received
federal housing grants, in addition to Chicago (Joseph 2008). I chose to focus on the Plan for
Transformation because it represents the most radical efforts to restructure public housing into
mixed-income communities to date. The Plan for Transformation can be understood as
representative of a broader national and even international trend away from concentrated public
housing towards mixed-income communities. Many Housing Authorities still face similar
problems today, and as the national low-income housing stock continues to decay, the lessons
from Chicago have implications for the poor all across the country. I do not argue in favor of the
outdated high-rise system, which clearly needed restructuring. However, this national
restructuring is reducing the stock of low-income housing on a yearly basis, raising important
questions about where the urban poor will live going forward. Public housing still represents a
viable option for the country’s most vulnerable urban residents. How successful were these
people in gaining media standing, and what factors influence their ability to gain it?
URBAN REDEVELOPMENT, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, AND THE LOCAL MEDIA
7
Molotch’s landmark conception of the growth machine theorizes that political, business
and real estate elites do more than just benefit from local redevelopment projects; it argues that
land-based redevelopment is the greatest of all their concerns (Molotch 1976; Logan & Molotch
1987). Because these powerful actors have many of their investments tied to local land values
(Cox & Mair 1988; Davis 1991), they become a growth coalition that pushes for redevelopment
that makes their investments more lucrative. From the perspective of the growth coalition, low
income areas offer the biggest differential between current and potential values, and thus the
greatest profit. The residents of these areas are the people least equipped to cope with rising
rents, so they organize in resistance to the coalition’s plans (Cox 1999; Freeman 2006).
In spite of neighborhood opposition, the growth coalition maintains an impressive win-
loss record. Construction cranes have been a fixture of urban skylines for quite some time now.
Early conceptions of this theory also speculated that the local media, specifically the newspaper,
had the same vested interests as the growth coalition, making them natural allies (Molotch 1976).
Since the news represents not just a retelling of events but also reflects the practices and
preferences of those who report it, how events are framed can influence public opinion (Molotch
& Lester 1974; Kaniss 1991). The local newspaper, then, is expected to support growth and
redevelopment for two reasons. First, newspapers are locally bounded and cannot move in
search of a better financial arrangement (Cox & Mair 1988). Secondly, the newspaper generates
profit through the sale of advertising space, so a growing city with more affluent residents (and
more newspaper readers) means higher profit margins (Logan & Molotch 1987). The local
newspaper thus acts as a “statesman” that takes a leading role in promoting development and
growth while downplaying oppositional concerns (Boyle 1999; Short 1999). To illustrate this
point, when explaining why he supported plans to replace San Jose’s orchards with freeways and
8
business offices, the lead publisher of the San Jose Mercury News famously said: “Trees do not
read newspapers” (Downie 1974: 112, as cited in Domhoff, 1983:168).
Newspapers indeed have a great deal of agenda setting power (Kiousis 2004). The media
decides what stories to cover and how to report them, and there is evidence in the literature that
suggests that media coverage of contentious issues often skews in favor of elite interests
(McCarthy et al. 1999; Gitlin 1980; Ryan 1991). Even stories that appear free of moral judgment
often favor one viewpoint over the other (Rohlinger 2002; Budner & Krauss 1995). Kaniss, who
specifically studied redevelopment conflicts, found that the local newspaper indeed tends to
promote urban growth due to their vested economic interests in such outcomes (1991). Fulton’s
study of Los Angeles also highlights the role of the newspaper as an important advocate of
growth (2001). Studies of publicly subsidized sports stadiums, a popular downtown
revitalization method, find that in the presence of a strong local growth coalition, the media tends
to support the project and downplay oppositional concerns (Delaney & Eckstein 2003; 2008;
Buist & Mason 2010).
But even as the above evidence seems to corroborate Logan & Molotch’s view of
newspapers as allies of elite interests, students of social movements have found that media
coverage is not always biased against grassroots organizations and actors. In fact, it is an
absolutely crucial resource for SMOs (Rohlinger 2002; Andrews & Caren 2010). Gamson calls
this media standing, which is defined as a measure of who is deemed worthy of participating in
the public debate (1998; 2001). So how to SMOs achieve media standing? Journalists and
editors are gatekeepers, and there simply is not enough time or space to cover all social issues
equally (Shoemaker & Reese 1996). Editors thus act as gatekeepers, and the groups that receive
coverage are elevated in the public eye. It also allows SMOs to reach the bystander public, who
9
may not even be fully aware of the issue (Jenkins & Perrow 1977; McAdam 1983; Gamson &
Modigliani 1989). This presents SMOs with a unique opportunity to frame the issue in their own
preferred rhetoric (Cress & Snow 1996). When groups fail to attract media attention, they often
struggle to accomplish anything of value (Koopmans 2004).
Roth & Vander Haar rightly point out that “elites do not have a monopoly on media
standing” (2006: p. 135). Nevertheless, their study of successful community opposition to
industrial development in Los Angeles parklands also finds that coverage was skewed in favor of
elite voices. Where does this bias come from? They argue that this bias comes not from the
newspaper’s alliance with local elites, but due to the practices and routines of journalists
themselves. Journalists are expected to be objective, but they also face constant deadlines
(Tuchmann 1972). This environment leads reporters to favor established, familiar, often
bureaucratic sources (Tuchman 1972; Ryan 1999). Indirectly, this bestows media standing upon
institutionalized sources to the detriment of grassroots SMOs (Gamson 2001; Kaniss 1991; Ryan
1999; Roth & Vander Haar 2006). Applying this to the case at hand, I anticipate that
institutional, bureaucratic sources will often come from the local growth coalition (Logan et al.
1997). This includes politicians, CHA officials, real estate developers and local business
owners, all of whom hold a degree of institutional legitimacy. They should thus be more
accessible to journalists than the primary opposition to the Plan for Transformation: the residents
themselves. The CHA residents and their leaders, while not entirely informal, were loosely
organized and certainly lacked the kind of bureaucratic affiliations that would lead to media
standing and potentially better outcomes.
However, another key piece of the puzzle demands examination. It is known that media
standing is important to SMOs, so what factors attract the media’s attention? The way in which
10
the media’s gatekeepers choose stories often marginalizes or excludes grassroots SMOs
(McCarthy et al. 1999). Furthermore, factors like event size (McCarthy et al. 1996), presence of
violent confrontation (Oliver & Myers 1999), organizational sponsorship (Oliver & Maney
2000), political importance (Myers & Caniglia 2000) and geographical location (Ferree et al.
2002) can all affect the amount of media attention granted to a social movement. Downs shows
that increased public interest in sustainability led environmental groups to be covered more
intensely, showing that the media can be influenced by the hot social issue of the day (1972).
Conversely, Gamson & Modigliani show that SMOs not seen as being publically interesting are
ignored, as happened to the anti-nuclear movement (1989). In either case, fluctuations in media
coverage cannot be fully explained by media bias (Andrews & Caren 2010).
In fact, evidence shows that media coverage can be influenced through the tactics of the
SMO itself. Rohlinger, studying the abortion debate, shows that some groups have staff
members who interact with the media and work to increase the organization’s public profile
(2002). Many studies also highlight the role of protest and conflict in attracting news coverage
(Lipsky 1968, McAdam 1983; Oliver & Myers 1999). By encouraging conflict, SMOs enter the
limelight, if only momentarily. Despite the fact that the number of total protest events far
outpaces what actually makes the newspaper, public demonstrations are one of the key predictors
of media coverage (McCarthy et al. 1996). However, in a study of political SMOs, Sobieraj
finds that there is a real mismatch between how organizations try to attract media coverage and
what journalists actually see as newsworthy (2011). The SMOs wanted legitimacy while
reporters valued authenticity in the groups they covered.
What is the best way to measure media standing? In this study, I make use of quotes as
my unit of analysis (Tuchmann 1972; Roth & Vander Haar 2006). Journalists bestow legitimacy
11
upon the voices of those who they choose to quote directly, which makes quotes an excellent
measure of who matters in a social debate. They identify who is to be taken seriously, an
argument advanced by Ferree and colleagues:
Commentary on the issue is an attempt to convey a preferred way of framing it and to increase the relative prominence of the preferred frames in the mass media arena. Those who are quoted are overwhelmingly spokespersons for collective actors – government ministries, political parties, or organizations that claim to represent the interests or values of some constituency, speaking on behalf of them. (2002: 11-12).
I use quotes as a measure of both aggregate coverage devoted to each side of the Plan for
Transformation, and to determine the slant of the coverage surrounding public housing reform.
Similar studies often try to code an entire news piece as pro-issue, anti-issue or neutral
(Delaney & Eckstein 2008), or use a five-point scale (Buist & Mason 2010). This approach is
limiting, as many articles will not display a noticeable bias. Because quotes are a smaller unit of
analysis, they allow researchers to better isolate the slant of each statement. I use these quotes to
ask two questions. First, did institutional, bureaucratic actors achieve greater media standing
relative to their less formal neighborhood-based opposition? This does not imply that the
residents and their leaders will be ignored, but I do expect that the aggregate coverage will be
slanted towards growth coalition actors. The battle for coverage is fought by groups with
unequal resources, and I expect that the established, bureaucratic actors will be more effective at
getting their rhetoric in print than the more informal opposition. Second, what factors influence
the coverage afforded to this case? Were the participants in this conflict able to influence the
amount and type of coverage they received? The answer to this question has implications for the
tactical repertoires of other similar social movements across the country.
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
Data
12
Data for this project comes from the ProQuest Newspapers search engine, which I used
to access the Chicago Tribune archives.4 I focus solely on the Chicago Tribune for two reasons.
First, the Tribune is the most widely circulated newspaper in the Chicago metropolitan area,
which means their articles reach more people than any other source. Secondly, the Tribune is by
far the most respected newspaper among other local options. A 1999 Columbia Journalism
Review survey ranked the Tribune as the sixth most respected newspaper in the country (Teitz
1999). The second most circulated paper in Chicago, the Sun-Times, does not even appear on
this list. My singular focus on one media source is certainly limiting, and a content analysis that
compares media coverage across multiple media sources and platforms would be very
interesting. However, the main research question of this paper is not how media representations
differ across sources, but how elites and grassroots actors achieve media standing. Thus, I focus
only on the most respected source in Chicago, which I conceptualize as the highest level of
media standing among local options. I performed multiple searches in the database, deliberately
using broad search terms to ensure I found all articles which mention the case. 5 By casting such
a broad net, my search returned several articles that were not relevant to the Plan for
Transformation. So, I carefully read each article before decided whether to include or remove it
from the sample. I began my search two years prior to the Plan’s unveiling, on January 1, 1997,
and ended on December 31, 2009. The final sample includes 554 articles over 13 years.
Three research assistants extracted all quotes from this sample of articles and coded them
for relevant information, submitting them to me for review and approval. My sample of 554
4 Newspapers always carry the risk of description and selection bias. Earl et al. (2004) find that the “hard news” tends to be reported accurately, so description bias is not of major concern. Ortiz et al. (2005) are less optimistic about using newspaper articles as a source of data, but also note that if the outcome of interest is media bias, then any possible selection bias is not a problem. 5 When searching electronic reserves, the results can differ dramatically depending on what search terms are used. My main search terms were “CHA,” “public housing,” “Plan for Transformation,” and the names of some of Chicago’s high-rise buildings, like “Cabrini-Green,” “Stateway Gardens,” “Henry Horner Homes” and “ABLA.”
13
articles included 2,151 quotes. For each quote, I assigned the source one of 10 possible
institutional affiliations: (1) politicians, (2) CHA/HUD officials, (3) developers, real estate actors
and bankers, (4) public housing residents, (5) public housing resident leaders (6) relocated public
housing residents (7), non-CHA community residents, (8) experts and analysts, (9) random
respondents6 and (10) other.7 Of course, I had to make several judgment calls regarding
institutional affiliation. First, I classify individuals as public housing resident leaders only if they
are elected leadership from the buildings or those working with organizations like the Local
Advisory Council or Coalition to Protect Public Housing. Other individuals were clearly aligned
with the residents, but worked for organizations that were only tangentially related to the case,
such as the Shriver Center. These individuals were coded as experts and analysts, since they are
not directly affiliated with the CHA residents. After coding for affiliation, I assigned each quote
a slant based on its position taken towards the Plan for Transformation: anti-plan (0), pro-plan
(1), or neutral/no stand taken/unclear (2). My research assistants and I made coding decisions
based on how each statement made us feel about the Plan for Transformation. Of course, several
quotes do not take a moral stand, and “neutral or no stand taken” does not imply apathy or
ignorance about the case.8 Rather, it is a quote that does not pass judgment on the CHA’s
actions. Some statements, referring to different aspects of the redevelopment, express both pro-
plan and anti-plan sentiments in the very same quote. Such statements fall into this neutral
category. Taken together, these categories measure how often readership was exposed to pro-
development rhetoric as opposed to anti-development rhetoric.
6 Random respondents are individuals where it was impossible to know who they were or what their relation to the case was. There simply was not enough information to fit them in any of my other categories, and they generally refer to “man on the street” respondents. 7 “Other” refers to individuals identified by the newspaper, but who did not fit into any of the other categories. 8 Many of these quotes are descriptive in nature, such as a developer explaining the timeframe of a new project.
14
I first use these descriptive statistics on affiliation and slant to evaluate the totality of the
Tribune’s coverage of the Plan for Transformation. Next, I create three dependent variables by
aggregating the data on each individual quote to the monthly level. Monthly Quotes is the total
number of quotes gathered from each newspaper article per month, Pro-Plan Quotes refers to
only statements supportive of the Plan per month, and Anti-Plan quotes references only quotes
critical of the Plan per month. In my regression models, I use these three variables as my main
outcomes of interest. I next turn my attention to my independent variables.
Independent Variables
Protest. What is the effect of protest on media coverage? I searched the newspaper articles for
mentions of protest and include a dummy variable for the months in which a protest event
occurred (1=protest occurred).
CHA Plans. Next, I include a dummy variable to isolate the months in which the CHA made an
announcement regarding the construction of new communities, the demolition of older buildings,
or the approval of a new contract with a developer (1=announcement occurred). These moments
represent the growth coalition engaging the media and informing the public of their plans. I use
this variable to isolate the effect of these announcements.
Policy Change. Additionally, I include a dummy variable to isolate the times in which the
CHA made alterations to their resident policies. The effect of this variable may be positive or
negative in direction: the CHA can use them to highlight progress, or the residents may use them
to call attention to the problems that still remain. This variable takes on a value of 1 during
months where the policy change was announced, and also in the month after. 9 By including the
9 I also created a lagged variable for policy changes that takes on a value of 1 only in the months after a policy change, not the month of the change and the month after. This slightly changed the coefficients but did not affect the direction or significance of any variables in the models. These additional analyses are available upon request.
15
following month in this variable, I can check for any lingering effects of this specific type of
announcement.10
Demolition. I also make use of a dummy variable to test the effect of the demolition of a CHA
building on media coverage (1=demolition occurred in that month). These moments offer the
neighborhood groups an opportunity to criticize the process at a high-profile event. Conversely,
the growth coalition can use these moments to highlight they progress being made and praise
their own work.
Breaking Ground. Another crucial moment in the Plan for Transformation’s progress is the
breaking of ground on new structures. These ceremonies, usually accompanied by great
celebration and fanfare, also allow the growth coalition to frame their work in a positive light.
Conversely, the opposition can also make use of this moment to harshly critique the CHA. This
variable takes on a value of 1 in months where the CHA broke ground on a new structure.
Controls.
I include dummy variables to control for the CEO of the Chicago Housing Authority.
Throughout the case, 5 individuals served as the head of the CHA, so I omit Philip Jackson as the
reference and include variables to account for the tenures of Joseph Schuldiner, Terry Peterson,
Sharon Gist Gilliam and Lewis A. Jordan. I choose Philip Jackson as a reference because his
tenure coincided with the announcement of the Plan for Transformation, so I expect a flurry of
coverage during his time as CEO. The other four variables correspond to the change in the
outcome as compared the coverage under Philip Jackson. Finally, I create control variables to
account for the ongoing dialogue that takes place in the pages of the newspaper. When one side
makes a claim, the others may respond through the press, which creates a dialogue centered on
10I lag the policy change variable, and not others, because the effect of a policy change may take extra time to become readily apparent to people. In contrast, a protest event or a demolition is sudden, immediate and the effects obvious to everyone involved.
16
conflict. To account for this, I control for the other side’s quotes in my regressions. When
predicting pro-plan quotes, I control for anti-plan quotes in that month, and vice-versa.
Analytical Strategy
I first evaluate how successful the growth coalition and the neighborhood resistance were
at achieving media standing by presenting a cross-tabulation of the number of quotes for each
affiliation, separated into the three categories: pro-plan, anti-plan and neutral. How successful
were both neighborhood and institutional sources at achieving media standing and getting their
rhetoric into the newspaper? Secondly, to determine the factors that influenced media coverage,
I construct negative binomial regression models to predict the number of total, pro-plan and anti-
plan quotes per month. For all three outcomes, I regress independent and control variables on
the count of quotes in each category per month.11 Model 1 includes monthly count of quotes as a
measure of total media coverage. Models 2 and 3, respectively, predict the total number of pro-
plan and anti-plan quotes in each month. The coefficients displayed in my results refer to the
expected change in the log count of the outcome per a one unit change in the predictor, with
standard errors presented in parentheses. The most intuitive way to interpret negative binomial
regression coefficients is by transforming them into predicted percent change in the outcome
using the formula: ((e^bx) – 1)*100 (Long 1997). The percentages I display underneath each
coefficient in table 4 correspond to the percent increase or decrease in the predicted count of the
outcome per a one unit change in the predictor. In my discussion of each model, I refer to these
transformed coefficients for interpretation. Table 1 display the name, mean, standard deviation
and source of each variable, while table 2 displays the bivariate correlations of all variables
included in each regression. Nothing stands out as being particularly troubling for the analysis.
11 I utilize negative binomial regression instead of a Poisson model because of my small sample size (n=156). Poisson models are not recommended for small N’s (Long 1997). Statistical tests confirmed that negative binomial models fit the data better than either Poisson or zero-inflated models. All analyses were performed in STATA.
17
[Insert Table 1 Here]
[Insert Table 2 Here]
RESULTS
Table 3 displays the total number of quotes for each institutional affiliation and then
separates each quote by its slant. I first discuss the total number of quotes for each group,
contrasting institutional and non-institutional sources. I expect that bureaucratic,
institutionalized voices will be disproportionately quoted by the local media. In this case study,
the most institutional sources include government officials, CHA officials and developers, and
real estate actors. As table 3 shows, these three affiliations account for 14.1%, 21.2% and 14.6%
of all quotes, respectively. This is nearly half of all quotes in the sample. In contrast, the voices
of the community receive less attention, although it would be inappropriate to say the residents
and their leaders were ignored. CHA residents, resident leaders and relocated public housing
residents account for 11.4%, 10.1%, and 4.7% of the total coverage, respectively. Taken
together, those most influenced by public housing reform encompass about 26% of total
coverage. These numbers indicate that the newspaper’s readership was exposed to the words of
institutionalized sources more often than neighborhood-based actors. This holds true even in the
case of community voices. Public housing resident leaders are certainly more institutionalized
and bureaucratic than the rank-and-file residents. It is therefore interesting to see that this subset
of residents received much more attention. The resident leaders appear as a more official source,
and thus, they receive more media attention.
[Insert Table 3 Here]
Table 3 also displays the total quotes for each affiliation, organizing them into anti-plan,
pro-plan and neutral. Theory expects government officials, housing authority officials and
18
private developers to support redevelopment, due to their vested interests in these projects. The
results of my content analysis are consistent with this idea. Politicians supported the Plan for
Transformation more than two times as often as they criticized it, 52.5% to 18.5%. CHA
officials, not surprisingly, spoke positively about the plan 63.4% of the time, compared to critical
comments only 4.4% of the time. Private developers also follow the expected trend, expressing
viewpoints favorable to the redevelopment plans nearly 60% of the time, while expressing
critical views in only 6.7% of their quotes.
On the other side, an interesting picture emerges. Resident leaders are much more
staunchly opposed to the Plan for Transformation then the residents outside of leadership
positions. CHA residents were critical of redevelopment in 41.5% of their quotes and supportive
29.3% of the time. Their leaders, in contrast, supported the Plan for Transformation in 21.7% of
their statements and critiqued it 60.4% of the time. Relocated public housing residents do not
display a noticeable trend, expressing pro-plan sentiments 36.6% of the time while offering anti-
plan rhetoric in 32.7% of their quotes. As far as the community opposition is concerned, the
resident leaders qualify as by far the most institutionalized and formalized of the relevant
affiliations. Their level of unity is much higher than other members of the CHA community.
Meanwhile, the opinions of the average residents and relocated residents are much more diverse.
Non-public housing residents of the surrounding community are also split, reflecting the reality
that some of them perceive benefits from redevelopment (higher property values, safer
neighborhoods) and others perceive problems (displacement).
Interestingly, experts and analysts are one of the most stanchly critical groups in the
sample. Their rhetoric was 54.7% critical and only 12.7% supportive. In summary, table 3
demonstrates two things. First, the Tribune’s coverage of the plan for transformation was indeed
19
dominated by bureaucratic, institutional sources that were in a better position to achieve media
standing and contribute to the debate. Second, while the slant of each quote is linked to the
individual’s affiliation, these groups are not robotic. There are numerous examples of
individuals breaking from the script their institutional affiliation expects them to follow.
Nevertheless, it seems that the greater one’s institutional legitimacy, the more homogenous their
statements become. CHA officials rarely critique the Plan, while CHA resident leaders are
strongly opposed to redevelopment. Resident leaders are in a better position to interact with the
media, but they do not always reflect the opinions of their constituency. The same can be said
for the experts asked to comment on the matter, who are typically lawyers, professors and
analysts. They have greater legitimacy and accessibility to the media, but are much more critical
of public housing reform than the residents themselves.
Events and Media Coverage
The second part of my analysis explores what factors influenced the amount of coverage
given to each side of the debate. First, I display the total number of quotes by month in figure 1.
[Insert Figure 1 Here]
As this chart demonstrates, there is a broad variation in the amount of coverage afforded to the
Plan for Transformation from month to month, ranging from a low of 0 to a high of 54. What
explains this variation? In count models, a high prevalence of zeros can be problematic for
regression coefficients, but in my sample, only 18 months out of 156 have 0 quotes12.
[Insert Table 4 Here]
First, I find a strong effect of protest on both total and anti-plan coverage. Protest events
increase total coverage by about 65% (p<.05) and anti-plan quotes by 74.5% (p<.05). These
12 Furthermore, a comparison of BIC and AIC statistics drawn from zero-inflated vs. standard negative binomial regression models indicates the standard negative binomial models best fit the data.
20
protest events generate intense conflict between interest groups, and thus the media is compelled
to cover them. There is no significant effect of protest on the number of pro-plan quotes.
Protest, always a strong SMO tactic, helps not just attract media attention but also helps them get
their preferred rhetoric into the pages of the local newspaper. This is demonstrated by the
increase in anti-plan quotes without a subsequent increase in pro-plan quotes. Concurrently, the
public housing residents can also use the moments where the CHA announces a policy change
and frame it negatively, as the count of anti-plan quotes is 123.7% (p<.05) higher in these
months when compared to months without a policy change. I find no significant effect of
demolitions or the CHA holding a breaking ground ceremony on a new structure. These results
indicate that far from being a passive recipient of coverage, the opposition to the Plan for
Transformation was actively involved in shaping the rhetoric in this debate. However, the local
growth coalition can also use events to influence media coverage. I find a 38.3% (p<.05)
increase in pro-plan quotes during the months where the CHA announced new plans, but no
effect on the other two outcomes. The CHA is able to hold press conferences, issue press
releases and write letters to the local newspaper that positively frame their action.
But ultimately, what really drove the media coverage of Chicago’s public housing reform
was the presence of dialogue and conflict. In models 2 and 3, when controlling for the opposite
slant, I find that each anti-plan quote increases the count of pro-plan quotes by 12.2% (p<.001)
and each pro-plan quote increases the predicted count of anti-plan quotes by 9.9% (p<.001).
These coefficients show that there is a dialogue taking place in the pages of the local newspaper.
This is a dialogue that both sides are able to participate in. However, given the greater ability of
the local growth coalition to obtain media standing, the readership of the Tribune will be exposed
to more pro-plan rhetoric. This has important consequences for public opinion.
21
DISCUSSION
I draw three conclusions from this analysis. First, regarding the competition for media
standing during the Plan for Transformation, the ability to achieve media standing and participate
in the social debate is heavily linked to one’s institutional standing. I find strong support for the
theory that the local media tends to favor more bureaucratic, institutional voices, which
corroborates the ideas of Gamson (2001) and Roth & Vander Haar (2006). The individuals in
my sample with more bureaucratic legitimacy receive a disproportionate amount of attention
from the local media. Given the fact that the supporters of the Plan for Transformation hold
greater institutional legitimacy, the readership of the Tribune is thus exposed to a higher
proportion of pro-plan over anti-plan rhetoric. This is likely to be a significant hindrance to
social movement groups, but it does not imply that the media is biased against grassroots efforts.
While this study finds that the neighborhood opposition achieved a lower level of media
standing, they still managed to impact not just the amount of coverage the case received but also
the type of coverage. However, their non-institutional affiliations make them less available to
reporters and the aggregate coverage is disproportionally skewed in favor of pro-development
voices. This is an impediment to social movement groups but their situation is not hopeless.
Even within the opposition, experts, analysts and public housing resident leaders received much
greater attention than those most heavily affected by the Plan for Transformation: the residents
themselves. The leaders and allied experts have much greater institutional legitimacy than the
average residents, and they achieve better media standing as a result. For grassroots social
movement groups hoping to compete in the local media, then, the lesson is clear: formal
organization and institutional legitimacy has major advantages for media standing.
22
However, this media standing comes at the cost of authenticity of opinion. While the
leaders of an SMO have to be the public face of the movement, they do not necessarily speak for
the rank-and-file. It is interesting that among the community opposition, the CHA resident
leaders were much more strongly against the Plan for Transformation than either regular
residents or relocated residents. Media coverage is absolutely crucial to social movement
organizations, and part of that is having strong, well-known leaders or cadre of leaders that
journalists can easily find and ask for a quote. I find that in addition to bureaucratic legitimacy
offering greater media standing, it also constrains the diversity of opinion expressed by these
actors. The leaders of a social movement are fighting for specific goals, so they can little afford
to praise the CHA or the Plan for Transformation even when it may be justified. I also see this at
the level of the growth coalition, who despite their broad diversity of affiliation, were all strongly
supportive of a redevelopment process that was far from smooth. This is in keeping with
Sobieraj’s finding that SMOs put a great deal of effort into keeping their members on message,
as if they do not trust the membership to get in front of a microphone (2011). Bureaucratic
legitimacy leads to greater media standing but also exposes cracks in the formation of social
movement organizations. Journalists want to quote the most important people involved in a
social debate, but they also want to give voice to the “man on the street.” This harms social
movement groups, who ideally want to present themselves as united in a common cause. Reality
is more complicated than that, however.
For social movements, then, what really attracts media attention? Previous studies have
found that SMOs try to attract attention using what journalists see as entirely the wrong methods
(Sobieraj 2011). My results indicate that the strongest factor is conflict, which journalists will
value due to its authentic appearance and nature. While I do not find support for the perspective
23
that the media is biased in favor of elite interests due to advertising constraints, the local
newspaper is certainly motivated by circulation concerns. It naturally lends itself to pro/con
articles that are both easy to write and interesting to the readership. There is an ongoing dialogue
in the pages of the local newspaper, and this dialogue is drive by conflict and opposing
statements. My regression models demonstrate that increases in pro-plan rhetoric also increased
anti-plan rhetoric, and vice-versa. Just the simple act of side-taking helps catch the media’s
attention. SMOs can encourage this through their actions, as I find that protest events were the
strongest predictors of media coverage and offered the CHA residents an excellent opportunity to
make their voices heard. In addition, at moments where the CHA announced a policy change, I
observe an explosion in anti-plan quotes. Again, this is a moment of conflict in which the
residents and their leaders were able to frame the debate according to their preferred rhetoric. If
conflict drives news coverage, then, encouraging this conflict remains one of the best tactics
available to social movement groups.
The media represents a contested battleground in which elites and grassroots actors
compete for attention, coverage and support, but this is not a battle fought on equal footing, nor
will it ever be. The CHA residents in this case have some degree of agency in attracting media
coverage, but it was far easier for the growth coalition to achieve media standing. Over time, the
pro-development voices got their voice and preferred rhetoric into the pages of the Tribune far
more often than their opponents. All is not lost for grassroots SMOs, however. Well timed
protest events attracted the media’s attention. This decision is entirely under a group’s control.
They can also influence coverage by responding to events out of their control, such as when the
CHA pushed for a policy change. The local media absolutely can be a valuable resource that
SMOs must continue to engage with. This is no guarantee of success, however. SMOs cannot
24
forget that their opponents can influence coverage as well. Ultimately, the resident opposition to
the Plan for Transformation was unsuccessful. Residents won some important battles but
unquestionably lost the war. So, while media standing is both available and important to SMOs,
it is far from the only factor needed to wage a successful social movement campaign.
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows the Tribune’s coverage of the city’s public housing reform to be
skewed in favor of the pro-development voices, but also finds that neighborhood actors can
achieve some level of media standing and influence the coverage afforded to them. Protest
events and CHA policy changes serve to increase the amount of critical attention given to the
case, while CHA announcements help increase the amount of positive coverage. The media does
not seem to be a consistent ally of elite actors, simply a resource available to both sides that is
utilized far more effectively by institutionalized sources. It must be pointed out, however, that
this study is limited in a few ways. First, I do not study public housing reform in other cities, so
caution needs to be taken in how these results are applied outside of Chicago. The situation in
various other cities may be different in important ways. Urban redevelopment and public
housing reform is always locally motivated and has unique political issues, constraints and
actors. These stories are all different from what happened in Chicago. Future research into this
topic should to compare and contrast media strategies implemented by urban SMOs in different
geographical locations.
Additionally, while my coding strategy allows me to study the slant of each quote, it does
not shed any light on the specific way each statement was framed. For example, opponents of
the Plan for Transformation may have stressed the displacement likely to occur, or spoken about
how the city and CHA were moving forward without including the residents in the process. I
25
cannot speak to how the coalition or the public housing residents framed their arguments, or if
certain frames were more effective than others. Future research could combine quotes and
frames for a more complete picture of media discourse surrounding this case. Finally, as
discussed in my data and methodology section, it is important to note that my data speaks only to
the Chicago Tribune and not to any other media platform or source in the area. Future research
should consider comparing and contrasting media coverage of a social movement conflict to
determine which outlets offer the best opportunity to achieve media standing.
Finally, the world of the news media is constantly changing. Many newspapers are
reducing their circulation, moving more towards online content, owned by large conglomerates
instead of local actors, or even absentee owned. There are currently more news sources than
ever before. It remains to be seen exactly how the reporter–source relationship will change
based on the major shake-ups going on in journalism. It is possible that the expansion of new
forms of media will open up new opportunities for grassroots organizations and allow them to
access a far greater audience, and this is deserving of more attention from researchers. Or, it
may turn out that people will get their news from increasingly specialized sources, limiting the
amount of exposure to the bystander public.
Despite these limitations, this study illuminates an often ignored factor within urban
redevelopment disputes. Chicago’s Plan for Transformation stands as the most radical example
of public housing reform in the United States, and is a path that other housing authorities are
likely to explore in the future. Those who would advocate on behalf of a marginalized people
need to know exactly how to achieve media standing and engage with reporters once standing
has been achieved. The media still represents a crucial forum for social movements, even in this
ever-changing world.
26
REFERENCS
Andrews, Kenneth T. & Neal Caren. 2010. “Making the News. Movement Organizations, Media Attention, and the Public Agenda.” American Sociological Review 75(6): 841-866
Boyle Mark. 1999. “Growth Machines and Propaganda Projects: A Review of Readings of the Role of Civic Boosterism in the Politics of Local Economic Development.” Pp. 55-72 in The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later, Eds. Andrew E.G. Jonas & David Wilson. Albany, NY: SUNY Press
Budner, Stanley J. & Ellis S. Krauss. 1995. “Newspaper Coverage of U.S.–Japan Frictions: Balance and Objectivity.” Asian Survey 35(4): 336-356
Buist, Ernest A. & Daniel S. Mason. 2010. “Newspaper Framing and Stadium Subsidization.” American Behavioral Scientist 53(10): 1492-1510
Cress, Daniel M. and David A. Snow. 1996. “Mobilization at the Margins: Resources, Benefactors, and the Viability of Homeless Social Movement Organizations.” American Sociological Review 61(6):1089-1109.
Cox, Kevin R. & Andrew Mair. 1988. “Locality and Community in the Politics of Local Economic Development.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 78(2): 307-325
Cox, Kevin R. 1999. “Ideology and the Growth Coalition.” Pp. 21-36 in The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later. Eds. Andrew E.G. Jonas & David Wilson.
Davis, John Emmaus. 1991. Contested Ground: Collective Action and the Urban Neighborhood. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press
Delaney, Kevin J. & Eckstein, Rick. 2003. Public Dollars, Private Stadiums. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Delaney, Kevin J. & Rick Eckstein. 2008. “Local Media Coverage of Sports Stadium Issues.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 32(1):72-93
Domhoff, G. William. 1983. Who Rules America Now? A View from the 80s. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Downie, Leonard, Jr. 1974. Mortgage on America. New York: NY: Praeger
Downs, Anthony. 1972. “Up and Down with Ecology: The ‘Issue Attention Cycle.’” Public Interest 28: 38-50
Earl, Jennifer, Andrew Martin, John D. McCarthy & Sarah A. Soule. 2004. “The Use of Newspaper Data in the Study of Collective Action.” Annual Review of Sociology 30:65-80
Entman, R, M. & D. L. Paletz. 1980. “Media and the Conservative Myth.” Journal of Communication 30(4): 54-165.
Ferree, Myra Max, William A. Gamson, Jurgen Gerhards & Dieter Rucht. 2002. Shaping Abortion Discourse. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
27
Freeman, Lance. 2006. There Goes the Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press
Fulton, William. 2001. The Reluctant Metropolis: The Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gamson, William & Antonio Modigliani. 1989. “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power.” American Journal of Sociology 95: 1-37
Gamson, William A. and David S. Meyer. 1996. “Framing Political Opportunity.” Pp. 275–290 in Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gamson, William A. 1998. “Social Movements and Cultural Change.” Pp. 57-77 in From Contention to Democracy. Eds. M.G. Giugni, D. McAdam & C. Tilly. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gamson, William A. 2001. “Media and Social Movements.” Pp. 9468-9472 in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Eds. N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Gans, Herbert. 1979. Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. New York, NY: Vintage
Gitlin, Todd. 1980. The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
Hunt, D. Bradford. 2009. Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Jenkins, J. Craig & Charles Perrow. 1977. “Insurgency of the Powerless: Farm Workers Movements (1946-1972).” American Sociological Review 42: 249-268
Joseph, Mark L. 2008. “Early Resident Experiences at a New Mixed-Income Development in Chicago.” Journal of Urban Affairs 30(3): 229-257
Kaniss, Phyllis. 1991. Making Local News. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Kiousis, Spiro. 2004. “Explicating Media Salience: A Factor Analysis of New York Times Issue Coverage during the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election.” Journal of Communication 54(1): 71-87.
Koopmans, Ruud. 2004. “Movements and Media: Selection Process and Evolutionary Dynamics in the Public Sphere.” Theory and Society 33: 367-91
Kotlowitz, Alex. 1992. There Are no Children Here: The Story of Two Boys Growing Up in the Other America. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Lipsky, Michael. 1968. “Protest as a Political Resource.” American Political Science Review 62:1144-1158
28
Logan, John R., Rachel Bridges Whaley & Kyle Crowder. 1997. “The Character and Consequences of Growth Regimes: An Assessment of 20 Years of Research.” Urban Affairs Review 32(5): 603-630
Logan, John R. & Harvey Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
McAdam, Douglas. 1983. “Tactical Innovation and the Pace of Insurgency.” American Sociological Review 48(6): 735-754
McAdam, Doug. 1986. “Recruitment to High-Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom Summer.” American Journal of Sociology 92: 64-90.
McCarthy, John D., Clark McPhail & Jackie Smith. 1996. “Images of Protest: Dimensions of Selection Bias in Media Coverage of Washington Demonstrations, 1982 and 1991.” American Sociological Review 61: 478-499
McCarthy, John D., Clark McPhail & Jackie Smith. 1999. “Images of Protest: Selection Bias in Media coverage of Washington, D.C. Demonstrations.” American Sociological Review 61: 478-499
Molotch, Harvey. 1976. “The City as a Growth Machine: Towards a Political Economy of Place.” American Journal of Sociology 82(2): 309-332.
Molotch, Harvey & Marilyn Lester. 1974. “News as Purposive Behavior: On the Strategic Use of Routine Events, Accidents and Scandals.” American Sociological Review 39(1): 101-112
Molotch, Harvey & Marilyn Lester. 1979. “Media and Movements” in The Dynamics of Social Movements, (ed.) Zald, McCarthy, pp. 71-93. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Myers, Daniel J. & Beth S. Caniglia. 2004. “All the Rioting that’s Fit to Print: Selection Effects in National Newspaper Coverage of Civil Disorders, 1968-1969.” American Sociological Review 69(4): 519-543
Oakley, Dierdre & Keri Burchfield. 2009. “Out of the Projects, Still in the Hood? The Spatial Constraints on Public Housing Residents’ Relocation in Chicago.” Journal of Urban Affairs 31(5): 589-614
Oliver, Pamela E. & Gregory Maney. 2000. “Political Processes and Local Newspaper Coverage of Protest Events: From Selection Bias to Triadic Interactions.” American Journal of Sociology 106(2): 463-505
Oliver, Pamela E. & Daniel J. 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
Ortiz, David G, Daniel J. Myers, N. Eugene Walls & Maria-Elena D. Diaz. 2005. “Where do We Stand with Newspaper Data?” Mobilization: An International Journal 10(3): 397-419
Parisi, Peter & Briavel Holcomb. 1994. “Symbolizing Place: Journalistic Narratives of the City.” Urban Geography 15(4): 376-394
29
Popkin, Susan J & David J. Price. 2010. “Escaping the Hidden War: Safety in the Biggest Gain for CHA Families.” Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development vol. 3, August 2010
Rodgers, Scott. 2013. “The Journalistic Field and the City: Some Practical and Organizational Tales about the Toronto Star’s New Deal for Cities.” City & Community 12(1): 56-77
Rohlinger, Deana A. 2002. “Framing the Abortion Debate: Organizational Resources, Media Strategies, and Movement-Countermovement Dynamics.” Sociological Quarterly 43(4): 479-507
Roth, Andrew L. & Emilie L. Vander Haar. 2006. “Media Standing of Urban Parkland Movements: The Case of Los Angeles’ Taylor Yard, 1985-2001.” City & Community 5(2): 129-151
Ryan, Charlotte. 1999. Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grassroots Organizing. Cambridge, MA: South End Press
Shoemaker, Pamela J. & Stephen D. Reese. 1996. Mediating the Message: Theories of Influence on Mass Media Content. White Plains, NY: Longman Books
Short, John Rennie. 1999. “Urban Imagineers: Boosterism and the Representation of Cities.” Pp. 37-54 in The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later. Eds. Andrew E.G. Jonas & David Wilson.
Sobieraj, Sarah. 2011. Soundbitten: The Perils of Media-Centered Political Activism. New York: New York University Press.
Teitz, S. 1999. “America’s Best Newspapers.” Columbia Journalism Review 38(4): 14.
Tuchman, Gaye. 1972. “Objectivity as Strategic Ritual.” American Journal of Sociology 77: 660-79
Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. 2000. An American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press
Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi & Isil Celimli. 2004. “Tearing Down the Community.” Shelterforce November/December (138).
30
APPENDIX A: TABLES & FIGURES Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Dependent, Independent and Control Variables Used in Negative Binomial Regression Models
Variables Mean Std. Dev. Data Source
Dependent Variables Monthly Quotes 13.78 12.19 Newspaper Pro-Plan Quotes 5.63 5.84 Newspaper Anti-Plan Quotes 3.55 3.89 Newspaper Independent Variables Protest 0.11 0.31 Newspaper CHA Plans 0.14 0.36 Newspaper CHA Policy Change 0.05 0.22 Newspaper Demolition 0.05 0.22 Newspaper Breaking Ground 0.04 0.19 Newspaper CHA's CEO Joseph Schuldiner 0.19 0.39 CHA Terry Peterson 0.07 0.25 CHA Sharon Gist Gilliam 0.10 0.29 CHA
Lewis Jordan 0.16 0.37 CHA
31
Table 2: Bivariate Correlation Matrix of All Dependent, Independent and Control Variables
Variable1
23
45
67
89
1011
(1) Monthly Quotes
1
(2) Pro‐Plan Quotes0.8464
1
(3) Anti‐Plan Quotes0.7631
0.49351
(4) Protest0.2636
0.18770.2954
1
(5) CHA Plans Announced0.1311
0.17590.0241
‐0.151
(6) CHA Policy Change0.0186
‐0.00540.1394
‐0.09670.0409
1
(7) Demolition
0.0210.0745
0.01190.1492
‐0.0866‐0.0541
1
(8) Breaking Ground‐0.0896
‐0.0734‐0.1059
‐0.0832‐0.1293
‐0.0465‐0.0465
1
(9) Joseph Schuldiner0.0766
0.14320.0213
0.1266‐0.1645
‐0.11110.1877
‐0.09561
(10) Philip Jackson0.2276
0.26680.2064
0.30920.0964
0.0495‐0.064
‐0.0551‐0.1316
1
(11) Terry Peterson0.0465
‐0.027‐0.0228
‐0.15210.2978
0.006‐0.0522
0.1385‐0.4658
‐0.26851
(12) Sharon Gist Gilliam‐0.1353
‐0.1178‐0.0408
‐0.0743‐0.1155
‐0.0758‐0.0758
0.0478‐0.1559
‐0.0898‐0.317
(13) Lewis Jordan
‐0.1947‐0.2068
‐0.1027‐0.0831
‐0.20590.1361
‐0.0223‐0.0874
‐0.2088‐0.1203
‐0.425
32
Table 3: Cross Tabulation: Slant of Quote by Institutional Affiliation
Affiliation Anti-Plan Pro-Plan Neutral Total
Institutional Actors
Politician/ Government Official 18.5% 52.5% 29% 14.1%(56) (159) (88) (303)
CHA/HUD Official 4.4% 65.9% 29.7% 21.2%(20) (300) (135) (455)
Developer/Real Estate/ Banker 6.7% 59.9% 33.4% 14.6%(21) (188) (105) (314)
Community
Public Housing Resident 41.5% 29.3% 29.3% 11.4%(102) (72) (72) (246)
Public Housing Leader/Official 60.4% 21.7% 17.9% 10.1%
(131) (47) (39) (217)
Relocated Public Housing Resident 32.7% 36.6% 30.7% 4.7%(33) (37) (31) (101)
Non-Public Housing Resident 28.3% 42.4% 29.3% 9.2%(56) (84) (58) (198)
Other
Random Respondent 20% 30% 50% 0.5%(2) (3) (5) (10)
Expert/Analyst/Lawyer 54.7% 12.7% 32.6% 8.4%(99) (23) (59) (181)
Other Respondents 31% 30.1% 38.8% 5.9% (39) (38) (49) (126)
Total 25.8% 40.9% 33.3% 100% (559) (951) (641) (2151)
33
Table 4: Untransformed and Transformed Coefficients from Negative Binomial Regression of Independent and Control Variables on Media Coverage
Variables
Model 1: Monthly Quotes (s.e.)
Model 2: Pro-Plan Quotes (s.e.)
Model 3: Anti-Plan
Quotes (s.e.)
Independent Variables Protest (a) 0.5* (0.23) -0.023 (0.21) 0.557* (0.25)
64.9% -2.3% 74.5% CHA Plans Announced (b) 0.193 (0.18) 0.324* (0.16) -0.089 (0.20)
21.2% 38.3% -8.5% CHA Policy Change (c) 0.32 (0.35) -0.007 (0.32) 0.805* (0.38)
37.8% -0.7% 123.7% Demolition (d) -0.145 (0.36) 0.202 (0.31) -0.144 (0.41)
-13.5% 22.4% -13.4% Breaking Ground (e) -0.373 (0.41) 0.056 (0.38) -0.525 (0.52)
-31.2% 5.8% -40.9% Anti-Plan Quotes -- 0.115*** (0.02) --
12.2% Pro-Plan Quotes -- -- 0.094** (0.02)
9.9% Controls Joseph Schuldiner (f) -0.143 (0.35) -0.109 (0.31) -0.198 (0.38)
-13.3% -10.3% -18% Terry Peterson (f) -0.221 (0.31) -0.403 (0.27) 0.108 (0.35)
-19.8% -33.1% 11.4% Sharon Gist Gilliam (f) -0.641 (0.39) -0.696* (0.36) 0.225 (0.44)
-47.3% -50.2% 25.3% Lewis Jordan (f) -0.785* (0.36) -0.910** (0.33) -0.138 (0.41)
-54.4% -59.7% -12.9%
Constant 2.759 (0.33) 1.479 (0.30) 0.473 (0.38) N 156 156 156 Log Likelihood -557.633 -406.7 -350.647 BIC 1185.267 889.15 777.04
*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001, two-tailed test. Standard errors presented in parentheses. Transformed coefficients presented as percentages under untransformed coefficients. a = reference groups is months with no protest event. b = reference group is months with no CHA plan announcements. c = reference group is months with no CHA policy change. d = reference group is months with no demolition. e = reference group is months where CHA did not break ground on a new building. f = reference group is tenure of Philip Jackson.
34
Appendix B: Figures