Stenger, Katherine / 2
religious news in many media outlets. Contrary to the claims of some activists, many observers of
politics complain that there is too much religion in the public square.
The presence or absence of religious voices in public debates is primarily based on
impressions. Like claims of other forms of media bias—that the media is too liberal, too conservative,
racially discriminatory—people’s conclusion regarding the inclusion of religious voices seems to
depend on their position. Instead of relying on impressionistic assessments of the extent to which
religious voices are included in public debates, I systematically study questions of access through a
content analysis of two major American newspapers across a sample of five major political issue
deliberations.
In this paper I ask what factors explain differences in group access. Are interest groups
blocked from access to mediated deliberations because of their religious beliefs? Or, does access to
the media depend more on group resources or journalistic considerations. To answer this question, I
test three competing hypotheses related to interest group access to mediated deliberations using
newspaper articles and interest group data collected from a variety of sources. My hypothesis is that
the way an issue is framed will have a greater impact on the inclusion of religious voices than the level
of group resources, facilitation of media access or direct journalistic bias based on ideology or
religion.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The question what kinds of voices are present in public debates is important because of the
normative requirements of democracy and because of the potential for policy influence that arises
from media access. It is through the process of deliberation, the discussion of public policies, values
and ideas, that citizens are exposed to new and diverse viewpoints and are able to make decisions
based on more complete information. Democratic theorists argue that deliberation is an essential
component of a healthy democracy (Fishkin, 1991, 1995; Gamson, 1992; Gastil, 2000; Habermas,
1989; Page, 1996). Deliberation works to both legitimize the democratic process and to facilitate
representation and it may have additional effects on both participation and civic engagement.
In modern American politics this discussion occurs primarily through the media (Page, 1996).
The limited carrying capacity of media means that mediated deliberation necessarily excludes some
voices from the deliberation and is often dominated by government officials. This tendency towards
bias, especially bias towards official sources, is well documented (Bennett, 1996; Cook, 1998; Graber,
1997; Page, 1996). However journalists also operate under strong norms of fairness and objectivity
(Bennett, 1996; Blumler & Gurevitch, 1981). While scholars and citizens alike may debate the extent
to which journalists produce fair and objective news, most journalists still subscribe to an ideal of
objectivity. In the pursuit of “balance,” journalists have an increased incentive to turn to voices
Convention