Network Centrality and Social Movement Media Coverage: A Two-mode Network Analytic Approach

(1)

SocialNetworksxxx (2011) xxx–xxx

ContentslistsavailableatSciVerseScienceDirect

Social

Networks

j o u r n al hom ep a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / s o c n e t

Network

centrality

and

social

movement

media

coverage:

A

two-mode

network

analytic

approach

夽

Todd

E. Malinick

a

_,

_D.B.

_Tindall

b,∗

_,

_Mario

_Diani

c

a_Energy_Market_Innovations,_Inc.,_United_States

b_Department_of_Sociology,_and_Department_of_Forest_Resources_Management,_University_of_British_Columbia,_Canada c_{ICREA-Universitat}_Pompeu_Fabra,_Barcelona,_Spain

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Keywords: Socialmovements Networks Two-mode Media Framing Environmentalactivism

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thisarticleexaminestherelationshipbetweenstructurallocation(namely,degreecentrality)andnews mediacoverage.Ourcentralhypothesisisthatthenetworkcentralityofsocialmovementactorsis pos-itivelyassociatedwiththeprevalenceofactorsbeingcitedintheprintnewsmedia.Thispaperuses two-modedatafromacommunicationnetworkofenvironmentalistsinBritishColumbia,andexamines therelationshipbetweentheirstructurallocationandthefrequencybywhichtheyarecitedinnewsprint mediawithregardtoparticularframes(aboutforestconservation,environmentalprotest,andrelated issues).Weaskedasampleofsocialmovementparticipantsabouttheirtiestoatargetlistofrelatively highproﬁleactors(environmentalactivists).Weturnedtheresultingnetworkmatrixintoabipartite graphthatexaminedtherelationshipsamongstthetargetactorsvisavistherespondents.Nextwe calculatedpointin-degreeforthetargetactors.Forthetargetactorswealsohavedatafroma represen-tativesampleof957printnewsarticlesaboutforestryandconservationofoldgrowthforestsinBritish Columbia.Wecomparetheeffectsofnetworkcentralityofthetargetactorversusseveralattributesof thetargetactors(gender,levelofradicalism,leadershipstatus)ontheamountofmediacoveragethat eachofthetargetactorsreceives.Weﬁndthatnetworkcentralityisassociatedwithmediacoverage con-trollingforactorattributes.Wediscusstheoreticalimplicationsofthisresearch.Finally,wealsodiscuss themethodologicalprosandconsofusinga“targetnameroster”toconstructtwo-modedataonsocial movementactivists.

1. Introduction

Therelationshipbetweensocialmovementsandmediahaslong beenviewedasacomplexanddynamicinteraction.Social move-mentsrelyonnewscoveragetodrawcriticallyneededattention totheircause;thenewsindustryvaluestheattentionthat vocif-erousandcontentiousmovementactivitiesandeventscanattract (GamsonandWolfsfeld,1993:115).Anarrayofdifferentfactors can affectwhat movement messages actually make it intothe

夽 ThisresearchwassupportedbyaResearchDevelopmentInitiativesGrantfrom theSocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncilofCanada(#820-2005-1033). AnearlierversionofthispaperwaspresentedattheSunbeltSocialNetwork Confer-enceinCorfu,Greece,inMay2007.Wewouldliketothankthefollowingpeoplefor theircontributionstothisresearchatvariousstages:JeffCormier,RimaWilkes,Sean Lauer,BobBrulle,BonnieErickson,BarryWellman,AaronDoyle,ChantelleMarlor, KamaljitKaurInman-Bates,JohnNunan,andMarkStoddart.Wewouldalsoliketo thanktheanonymousreviewersofthisarticle.

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Sociology, University of British Columbia,6303N.W.MarineDrive,Vancouver,BC,CanadaV6T1Z1.

Tel.:+16048222363;fax:+16048226161. E-mailaddress:tindall@mail.ubc.ca(D.B.Tindall).

news. These include structural (social, political, and economic) opportunitiesandconstraints;strugglesovermeaningand mes-sageconstruction;andthepersonalvalues,ideologies,andnews reportingpracticesofindividualjournalists(seee.g.Gamsonand Modigliani,1989;GamsonandWolfsfeld,1993).

Inthispaperwecontributetothisdiscussionfroma distinc-tiveangle,askingwhethermediacoverageofsocialmovementsis affectedbythepropertiesoftheactivistsmobilizingwithinthem. We conceptualize suchproperties under two broad categories. Onetheonehand,welookatsomeindividualattributesthatare oftentreatedintheliteratureaspredictorsofdifferentialaccess tothemedia.Theseincludetheassumptionofformalleadership roleswithinspeciﬁcorganizations,levelsofradicalism,andgender. Ontheotherhand,weintroduceanexplicitrelationaldimension toanalysis,byexploringthecorrelationbetweenmediacoverage andthepositionthatactivistsoccupywithinmovementnetworks. Buildingonearliercontributions(Diani,2003),weaskinparticular whethermediaattentiontospeciﬁcactivistsispositivelyrelatedto theircentralityinmovementnetworks.

Ourempiricalevidencecomesfrommultipledatasetsrelated totheconﬂictoverpreservingtheoldgrowthforestsof coastal BritishColumbiainthehighlycontentious1990s.Weevaluatehow 0378-8733/$–seefrontmatter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

(2)

2 T.E.Malinicketal./SocialNetworksxxx (2011) xxx–xxx

environmentalactivists’individualattributesandtheircentralityin theenvironmentalmovement’scommunicationnetworkrelateto thefrequencywithwhichactivistsarecitedinprint-newsmedia. Inordertobuildthemovementnetworkweusea2-modestrategy, namely,weincludeintheenvironmentalnetworkallthe environ-mentalactivistsmentionedonanamerosterbyasmallernumber ofinformants.

2. Literature

2.1. Mediaandsocialmovements’impact

Inorder tobeinfluential, whetheronthepolicyprocess,on culturalmodels,oronboth,socialmovementsneedtoattractthe supportofthegeneralpublic,mobilizeadherents,andexert pres-sureontheiropponents(SnowandBenford,1988;Gamsonand Modigliani,1989;Cohnetal.,2003).Interactionwiththemedia isoneofthemainwaystoaccomplishthesetasks(Gamsonand Wolfsfeld,1993;OliverandMeyer,2003;Ryan,1991).Newsmedia significantlyinfluencecitizens’interestin,opinionsof,and,maybe mostimportantly,exposureto,variouscontentiousissues, includ-ingenvironmentalthreats(HutchinsandLester,2006:434).They mayalsoalertgovernmentalinstitutionstopublicinterestin spe-cificissues,thuspushingthemupthepoliticalagenda(Cracknell, 1993;Brulle,1996;DispensaandBrulle,2003;Noy,2009).Since socialmovementsusuallyneitherhavewidespread,directtiesto thepublicnortodecisionmakers,theyoftenrelyonmediato dis-seminatetheirmessage(Noy,2009).

Amajorproblemis,ofcourse,whatfactorsmayaffectthe rela-tionshipbetweenmediaandmovements,andmorespeciﬁcally, theformer’sattentiontothelatter’sstancesandactions.Onthis ground,anumber ofinterpretationshave beenproposed.Some havepointedattheroleofframes(Goffman,1974),namely, inter-pretivepackagesthatcondenseand summarizethefactsofthe world‘outthere’inawaythateasesourunderstandingofthem (Benford, 1993a,b;Gamson,1992; Snowetal.,1986; Snowand Benford,1988).Collectiveactionframesmaybeintentionallyand strategicallyformulatedbysocialmovements–andanalogouslyby theiropponents–togarnergeneralpublicsupportfortheircause andtoattractandmobilizepotentialconstituents(Gamsonand Modigliani,1989;Noy,2009;Scheufele,1999;Snowetal.,1986; SnowandBenford,1988).Framesarealsosimultaneouslyusedby mediatosimplifypresentationofcomplicatedissuesinthecourse ofreportingthenews(Anderson,1997;DispensaandBrulle,2003; Gamsonetal.,1992;Ryan,1991;Scheufele,1999;Tuchman,1978). Otherobservers havestressedtheasymmetricaldependency betweensocialmovementsandmedia,withtheformermuchmore dependentonthelatterthantheotherwayaround(Entmanand Rojecki,1993;Gitlin,1980;McCarthyetal.,1996;Baylor,1996; KlandermansandGoslinga,1996;GamsonandModigliani,1989; CarrollandHackett,2006).Stillothershavefocusedonthe pecu-liaritiesofnewsreportingasaprofession,emphasizingthetensions betweenthetheoreticalidealofobjectivecoverageemphasizedin academicjournalismprogramsandthemore‘managed’demands of therealworld (Croteauand Hoynes,2003; Scheufele, 1999; ShoemakerandReese,1996;Tuchman,1978;Ericson,1991;Gitlin, 1980;seealsoCarrollandHackett,2006).Theinherenttendency forthemediatopromotehegemonicgroupsandthestatus-quo hasalsobeenconsidered(Gitlin,1980;Marchak,1983;Croteauand Hoynes,2003);sohavetherelativeweightofprofessionalnorms andvalues,journalisticroutines,andideologicalorpolitical orien-tationsofjournalists(Anderson,1997;Scheufele,1999;Tuchman, 1978;Ryan,1991;ShoemakerandReese,1996).

However,foralltheirrichness,theinterpretationsmentioned abovehavepaidscarceattentiontothepropertiesofthe‘sources’

ofinformation,namely,movementactivists.Wetrytoremedythis omissionhere.We are indeedconvinced that taking theminto accountmaygenerateimportantinsightsaboutwhatactuallygets intothenews.

2.2. Attributesversusrelationalproperties

Fourspeciﬁcsourcecharacteristicsareconsideredinthisstudy. Threeofthemrefertostandardindividualattributes,namely:(1) whetherornotthesourceisradical;(2)thesource’sgender;and (3)whetherornotthesourceholdsaformalleadershippositionin somemovementorganization.Thefourthpropertyis,incontrast, arelationalproperty,asitconsistsofthesource’scentralityinthe movement’scommunicationnetwork.

2.3. Radicalism

Opinionsvaryastohowradicalsgetintegrated(orfailtoget integrated)intotheframingdiscourseandthenews.Asalready mentioned,somebelievethatmediaselectscontentbasedonthe dualobjectivesofmaximizingproﬁtandmarket share(Croteau andHoynes,2003;McAdametal.,1996),andmosttypicallythese objectivesaremetbycoveringissues inacontentious,exciting, orsensationalizedway.Inthisway,someproposethatsince rad-icalstypicallypresentratherextremeviews,orcommitdramatic actions,theyprovideidealcontentandtheyarevaluedbyreporters (Killian,1972;McCarthyetal.,1996;Mueller,1997;Snyderand Kelly,1977).Thisperspectivesuggeststhatradicalswould com-monlybecitedusingdiagnosticframes,becausetheyneedtodeﬁne theirownperceptionsoftheproblem–thefurther‘outthere’their perceptions,thebetterasfarasthemediaisconcerned–andalso thattheywouldgetcitedusingmotivationalframes,becauseof theiremotionalvalue.Intermsofprognosticframes,however,this perspectiveimplies thatcitations fromradicalsshouldbefairly fewinnumber,simplybecausetheshockvaluediminishesonce reasonablesolutionsandpathsofactionaresuggested.

Others,however,suggestthatradicalviewsandbehavioursare toofaroutside thenormand actuallyserve toconfuse matters (FitzgeraldandRodgers,2000;Rootes,2007;SnowandBenford, 1992).Instead,reportersoptforbalanceandobjectivity,and gen-erallysteerawayfromthesetypesofcitationsastheyonlyserveto muddythewatersanddirectattentionawayfromtherealissues. Underthis perspectivetheywillopt formoreauthoritativeand acceptedsources.Thus,radicalswilltendnottogetcitedas fre-quentlyacrossalltypesofcoreframingtasks.

2.4. Gender

CarolynMerchant (1997)estimatesthat globally,roughly 80 percentofgrassrootsenvironmentalactivistsarefemale.Thereis asubstantialamountofliteraturethatﬁndswomenaregenerally moreenvironmentallyconcernedthanmenandmorelikelyto par-ticipateinenvironmentalorganizations(Blakeetal.,1996;Steger andWitt,1989;Zeleznyetal.,2000).However,Merchant(1997) alsonotesthat adistinct minorityofthesewomen areactually formalleaders.

Nevertheless, many researchers have found that it is more likelythatmaleswillbeleadersofsocialmovementsthanfemales (see Brinton, 1952; Flacks, 1971; Merchant, 1997; Morris and Staggenborg,2004;Oberschall,1973;Paxtonetal.,2007).Morris andStaggenborg(2004:180)statethat“insofarasmenhave tradi-tionallyoccupiedpositionsofauthorityanddominatedmixed-sex interaction,thegenderedcharacterofleadershipinmany move-mentsisnotsurprising.”

Workhasalsobeendoneonthenetworkingrolesthatfemales playinsocialmovements.Robnett(1997:191),inherdetailedstudy

(3)

T.E.Malinicketal./SocialNetworksxxx (2011) xxx–xxx 3 oftheroleofAfrican-AmericanintheU.S.civilrightsmovement,

arguesthatwhilefemalesgenerallydidnotholdformalleadership roles,theydidoftenfunctionasan“intermediatelayerof leader-ship,”bridgingtheformalleaderswiththemovementconstituents. Inasimilarsense,Wilson(1998:50),whendiscussingthe environ-mentalmovementofBritishColumbia,says:

Althoughmencontinueholdadisproportionateshareof lead-ershippositionsinthemovement,womenarewellrepresented at theactivist level, with women such as ColleenMcCrory, VickyHusband,TzeporahBerman,SharonChow,RosemaryFox, ValerieLanger,andAdrianneCarrexertingastronginﬂuence onthemovements’prioritiesandstrategies,itseemsfairtosay thatwomenareclosertoattainingequalityherethantheyare inpoliticalpartiesormostotherinterestgroups.

2.5. Formalleadershiproles

Formal social movement organization leaders have certain responsibilitiesandtackleanarrayofdifferenttasks:“Theyinspire commitment,mobilizeresources,createand recognize opportu-nities,devisestrategies,framedemands,andinﬂuenceoutcomes” (MorrisandStaggenborg,2004:171).Insum,leadersstriveto gar-nergeneralpublicsupportforthemovement’scauseandpromote mobilizationofconstituents(SnowandBenford,1988).Morrisand Staggenborg(2004:186)clearlyargue:

Socialmovementleaders,asactorsmostcentrallyengagedin movementframing, devise media strategy, make judgments regardinginformationprovidedtomedia,conductpress con-ferences, and are usually sought out by media to serve as movementspokespersons.

2.6. Socialnetworkcentrality

Thecorrespondencebetweenformalleadershiprolesand sub-stantialinfluenceis,however,farfromobvious.Accordingtosome observers, “thereis aningrained tendency in social movement organizations to question leadership positions” (Klandermans, 1989:217),and torejectbureaucratic,hierarchical structuresin favouroflesscentralized,moreegalitarianorganizationalforms, inwhichtherelativeinfluenceandimportanceofparticular indi-vidualstendtobedownplayedinfavouroftheintentionsofthe movementasawhole(MorrisandStaggenborg,2004).‘Leaders’ aredefinedintermsoffactorssuchasinfluence,authority,and sta-tus,ratherthanformalroles(Diani,1995,2003;NepstadandBob, 2006).Thisisconsistentwithinsightsfromsocialnetworktheory, accordingtowhichactorsthataremorecentralintheirnetworks possessgreaterinfluence,authority,and/orstatus(Bonacich,1987; Cooketal.,1983;Faust,1997;Freeman,1979;Knoke,1994;Knoke andBurt,1983;Marsden,1983;WassermanandFaust,1994).As Freeman(1979:219) states:“With respecttocommunication, a point[actor]withrelativelyhighdegree[centrality]issomehow‘in thethickofthings’.”(SeealsoFreeman’s1979discussionofwork byBavelas,1948;CohnandMarriott,1958;Shaw,1954;Shimbel, 1953).

Actors’ centrality in a movement’s communication network would thengrant them controlover theflow andtransmission ofinformation.Mostcentralactivistsnotonlywouldhavedirect linkswithmultipleothersinsidethemovement,affecting intra-movement flow, but because of their unique central location mightalsoprovideindirectpathsthroughwhichtheyaffect inter-movement information exchange with otherwise unconnected individualsorgroups(Diani,1995,2003;Friedkin,1982).Available –if limited –evidence suggeststhatcentrality withina move-mentnetworksomehowcorrelateswithstrongertiestoexternal actors,includingpoliticalrepresentativesand–mostsignificantly

here–themedia:“Themostcentralactorswere,inotherwords, morelikelytobeperceivedbymediaandexternalobserversasthe actorsentitledtospeakuponbehalfofthemovementasawhole” (Diani,2003:110;contra:Diani,forthcoming,chapter8).1_This_is consistentwithclaimsthatstatusplaysasigniﬁcantrolein decid-ingwhomajournalistwillgotoasasource(BenfordandSnow, 2000),andthatjournalistswouldratherengagewitha“responsible spokesman”thanwithaformal,yetnoncredible,leader(Tuchman, 1978:112;alsoseeMorrisandStaggenborg,2004).

2.7. Analyticstrategyandhypotheses

Theoverallobjectiveofthisstudyistoinvestigatehow radical-ism,gender,formalleadershiproles,andsocialnetworkposition interactaspredictorsofmediacoverage.Tothispurpose,aseries ofhypothesesweredevelopedandaretested.First,correlational analysesareutilizedtoexploreparticularbivariaterelationships. Second,multipleregressionanalysesareusedtoexplore hypothe-sesregardingtherelationshipsbetweenthreeoftheindependent variables(socialnetwork centrality,leadership,genderand rad-icalism) and the dependent variable. Finally, interviews with print-newsmedia-workerswhowerekeyplayersincoveringthe BritishColumbiaforestryconﬂictareusedtosupplementﬁndings, addingfurtherinsighttotheinterpretationoftheresults.

Theﬁrstissueexaminedisthebivariaterelationshipbetween leadershipandsocialnetworkcentrality.Thoughithasnot empir-icallybeentestedinearlierresearch,animportantquestionis:Are theformalmovementgroupleadersalsothemostnetwork-central actors?Toexplorethisissue,thefollowinghypothesisistested:

H1. Formal leaders will have higher communication-network centralityscoresthannon-leaders.

Researchersalsoarguethatoneoftheirprimary responsibili-tiesofformalleadersisthetaskofcommunicatingwiththepublic, andthistypicallyoccursviathemedia(MorrisandStaggenborg, 2004;SnowandBenford,1998).Toexaminethisissue,the follow-inghypothesisisexplored:

H2. Formalleadershipwillbepositivelyassociatedwithmedia coverage.

Theliteraturesuggeststhatactorswhoaremorecentraltotheir movement’scommunicationnetworkwillhaveinﬂuenceoverthe ﬂowanddisseminationofinformation(Bavelas,1948;Cohnand Marriott,1958;Freeman,1979;Shaw,1954;Shimbel,1953),and thisshoulddirectlyrelatetowhomjournalistsapproachfor infor-mation.Thus:

H3. Networkcentralitywillbepositivelyassociatedwithmedia coverage.

Somescholarssuggestthatmalestendtobeleadersofsocial movementgroups(Brinton,1952;Flacks,1971;Merchant,1997; Morris and Staggenborg, 2004; Oberschall, 1973; Paxtonet al., 2007).Hencethefollowingbivariatehypothesisistested:

H4. Maleswillbemorelikelytobeleadersthanfemales WorkbyRobnett(1997)andotherssuggeststhatwomenmay holdmorecentralrolesinthemovementoutsideofformal leader-shippositions,andWilson(1998)hassuggestedthatwomenheld keypositionsintheBritishColumbiaenvironmentalmovement. Thus:

1_Diani_is_speaking_{speciﬁcally}_about_social_movement_{organizations,}_there_is_little

reasontobelieveasimilarprocessdoesnotoperateattheleveloftheindividual activist.

(4)

H5. Womenwill have relatively higher centralityscores than males.

Finally,somescholarssuggestthatthemediaselectscontent based its ability to attract market share, and tendsto be dra-maticandsensationalized(CroteauandHoynes,2003;McAdam etal.,1996).Inthisway,wecouldexpectthatradicalswouldbe morecoveredintheprint-newsmedia.Others,however,suggest thatradicalstendtobemarginalizedinthemediabecauseofthe extremenessoftheirviews(FitzgeraldandRodgers,2000;Rootes, 2007;SnowandBenford,1992).Inthisway,radicalsshouldbeless coveredthantheirmoremoderatecounterparts.Inthisstudy,the latterisusedasthebasisforthehypothesis:

H6. Radicalswillbelesscoveredthanmoderates.

3. Thestudy

3.1. Theforestryconﬂictandtheenvironmentalmovementin BritishColumbia

ThedebateoverwildernesspreservationinBritishColumbiahas generallybeencenteredinthewesternpartoftheprovince, primar-ilyontherural,coastalmainlandandadjoiningVancouverIsland. Thisvastareacontainssomeofthelargestremainingintacttracts ofoldgrowthtemperaterainforestintheworld,butalsocontains someofthelargestandmostproductiveindustrialforestsonthe globe.

Formany,thebattletopreserveoldgrowthforestsincoastal BritishColumbiawasbest symbolizedbythesummer of1993, whenlocal,national,andinternationalnewscoveredthearrests ofover850protestersthroughout thesummerwhocollectively blockadedloggingaccesstoforestlandsinClayoquotSound, Van-couverIsland–aneventthatbecameknownasthesinglelargest actofcivildisobedienceinCanadianhistory.However,whilethis summerof1993isfamiliartomany,theforestryconﬂictinthe provincehasamuchlongerhistory.

InBritish Columbia,theforestindustry hasbeenone ofthe greatestcontributorstotheprovincial economyformostofthe province’s history (Barnes and Hayter, 1997; Drushka, 1999; Drushka et al., 1993; Hayter, 2000; Marchak, 1983; Marchak etal.,1999;Markeyetal.,2005).2_This_economic_dependency_has resultedin acomplicated setof relationshipsbetweenthe var-iousstakeholders, including theforest industry, forest workers andruralcommunities,thegovernment,andtheprovince’s citi-zenry.Historically–andinmanyinstancesandareasstilltoday– substantialprimaryandsecondaryemploymentwasprovidedby theindustryand,thus,supportforitswell-beinghasbeenfairly widespread(Marchak,1983).Lawsandregulationsweretypically draftedgreatlyfavouringindustryaccesstotimber(Drushka,1999), whileprovidingfewenforceableenvironmentalprotections.

Decreasingamounts ofold growthand therelated damages totheenvironmentbywidespreadandoftenuncheckedlogging becamewidelyrecognizedascriticalissuesbytheprovincial cit-izenryandbecameanimportantpoliticalissueinthelate1980s and1990s(Wilson, 1998).Asaresult,anenvironmental move-mentactiveinﬁghtingforgreaterrestrictionsontheforestindustry arose.AmongstCanadianprovinces,theenvironmentalmovement ismostprominentin BritishColumbia.Indeedsupportfor, and participationinthemovementisquitesubstantial.Forinstance, basedonsurveyresearchconductedinthe1990s,Blakeetal.(1996)

2 _Note_that_the_province_has_been_home_to_aboriginal,_or_First_Nation,_peoples_for

manythousandsofyears.Thoughtheyhaveextensivelyusedforestresourcesfor subsistencethroughouthistory,theforestindustrydescribedheredidnotbecome relevantuntilafterwhitesettlersarrivedfromEuropeinthelate18thcentury.

estimatedthatabout13%ofBritishColumbiaresidentshave mem-bershipinatleastoneenvironmentalorganization.

4. Thedata

Inthispaperwecombineevidencefromtwoinitiallyunrelated datasets.Thefirstconsistsofrelational(andsomeattribute)data for34individualsactiveintheenvironmentalmovementinthe VancouverandVictoria,BritishColumbiaregionsinthelate1980s andearly1990s.3 _Their_media_coverage_is_measured_by_drawing upon a database containing records of print-news media cita-tionsrelatingtotheforestryconflictinwesternBritishColumbia between1986and1992.Inaddition,qualitativedatafrom face-to-faceinterviewsheldwithkeynews-workersoperatinginthe fieldduringthe1980sand1990sarealsousedtosupplementthe findingsanddiscussion.

4.1. Socialnetworkdata

Thesocialnetworkdatawerecollectedforpriorstudiesofthe underlyingstructureandfunctioningofenvironmentalmovement groupsactiveintheBritishColumbiaforestryconﬂict(seeTindall, 1994,2002; Tindall et al.,2003).In that context, a survey was conducted of 28 activists who were partof the environmental movement.Amongstotherquestions,theywereaskedtoindicate whethertheyhadtiestoapredeterminedlistofindividualsactive intheforestryconﬂict.

Regardingsamplingoftherespondentsforthisanalysis,an ini-tialstudy(Tindall,1994,2002;Tindalletal.,2003)focusedontwo adjacentgeographicareasonVancouverIsland,BritishColumbia: theCarmanahValley,and theWalbranValley.Theseareas con-tainlargelyuntouchedoldgrowthrainforests,andwerecontested by a number of environmentalsocial movement organizations (seeTindallandBegoray,1993).Foraninitialsetofinterviews,a purposive/quotasamplingapproachwasemployedtoidentify sev-eralcoreorganizationmembers(leaders,coreactivists,andstaff members)fromeachofﬁveformalandnon-formalorganizations (the Carmanah Forestry Society, Friends of Carmanah/Walbran, theEnvironmentalYouthAlliance,theSierraClub,andthe West-ern CanadaWilderness Committee) that had mobilized around preservingtheCarmanahandWalbranValleys.Astheresearch pro-gressed,anewwaveofmobilizationdevelopedaroundtryingto protecttheClayoquotSoundareaonVancouverIsland,thusthe samplingandinterviewswereexpandedtoincludecore organi-zationmembersfromseveraladditionalorganizations(Friendsof ClayoquotSound,andGreenpeace)thatwerehighlyinvolvedin theClayoquotcampaign.Werefertothepeoplewhowere inter-viewedasthe“respondents”.Interms oforganizationalsizefor thegroupstherespondentsweresampledfrom,theformal orga-nizationstendedtohavelargermemberships(hundredstotens ofthousands),while theinformalorganizations tendedtohave smallermemberships(inthedozensorfewer).

Thequestionnaireallowedthe28respondents(egos)to indi-cateties toa widerangeofactors(targets)who participatedin theforestrydebates,includingmembersofenvironmentalgroups, individualactivists,representativesofbusiness,politicians,union leaders,andFirst Nationrepresentatives.Sincethefocus ofthis paperisonhowthemediainteractedspeciﬁcallywiththesocial movementorganizationsinterms ofselectingsources,onlythe relationaldataforthe34targetsthatweremembersof environ-mentalmovementorganizationsareretained.

3_The_matrix_used_for_collecting_the_social_network_data_is_presented_in_Appendix

(5)

T.E.Malinicketal./SocialNetworksxxx (2011) xxx–xxx 5 Thetargetswereidentiﬁedthroughseveralmeans,including

knowledgeobtainedthroughﬁeldresearch,priorreviewsofmedia coverage,andmembershiplists.Twelveofthe34 environmental-istswhowerelistedas“targets”werealso“respondents”.4 _There weretargetsfromalloftheorganizationsthattherespondents weresampledfrom(except Greenpeace),and inaddition there weretwoadditionalorganizationsrepresentedinthetargets(the SeaShepherdSociety,andSistersforNon-Violentaction)asthere wereprominentBritishColumbianenvironmentalactivists associ-atedwiththeseorganizations.

Respondentswereaskedaboutseveraldifferenttypesofsocial ties,thoughonlydataindicatingwhetherornottherespondent evercommunicatedwiththetargetisexaminedinthispaper.5_The resultingdatasetconsistedofatwo-mode(28egos×34targets), single-relationsociomatrix,whereeachcellxijequalled1ifegoi

hadatietotargetj;otherwisethecellvaluewas0.

Thiscommunicationtiedatawasusedtocalculatethesocial net-workindegreecentralityscoreforeachofthe34targets.6_This_score wascalculated bysummingthetotalnumber ofsurvey respon-dentsiwho communicatedwithtargetj.For example, if23 of the28surveyrespondentsindicatedthattheyhadcommunicated withaTargetX, theindegreecentralityscoreforTargetXis23. Hence,thosetargetswitha higherindegreescorearerelatively morecentraltotheBritishColumbiaenvironmentalmovement’s communicationnetwork.

4.2. Citationdata

Asanindicatorofmediacoverageweadoptedthenumberof timesthatthe34environmentalmovementactivists(‘targets’)we justmentionedwerecitedinthepress.Thedatabasefromwhich weelicitedcitationswaspreviouslycompiledforastudyofmedia coverageoftheforestryconﬂictinBritishColumbiaovertheperiod 1986–1992(seeCormierandTindall,2005).Thisdatabasecontains anarrayofinformationoncitationsfrom957print-newsarticles collectedoverthetimeperiodthatmentionedcertainplacenames, topics,orphrases.7_Amongst_this_information_is_a_tally_of_the num-berof19particularkeywordstatementsusedineachindividual article,alongwiththenameofthesourcethatprovidedit.8

The collection of keywords was derived by the original researcherinconjunctionwithanextensivereviewoftheforestry conflict and personal experience. Newspaper articles, social movementorganizationpublications(posters,flyers,andreports), broadcast-news reports, and discussions withsocial movement organizationmembersandothersactiveintheconflictwereall consideredwhencompilingthekeywordlist.Subsequently,each ofthe19keywordswaslaterclassifiedasillustrationsofoneof thecoreframingtasksidentifiedbySnowandBenford(1988)in

4_Further,_we_also_interviewed_several_additional_targets_–_but,_for_varying_reasons,

wewereunablehavethemcompletethenetworkquestionnaire.

5_In_addition_to_the_tie_types_presented_in_survey_but_not_included_in_the_analyses

inthispaperwere:“I’veneverheardofthisperson”;“I’veheardofthispersonbut havenocontactwithhim/her”;“I’veworkedwiththisperson”;“Thispersonisaclose friend”;“Ilikethisperson”,and;“Idislikethisperson”.Inthispaperweanalyzeonly “communication”networksinordertoprovidefocus,andalsobecauseframingis essentiallyacommunicativetypeofaction.

6_The_two-mode_data_were_then_converted_into_a_bipartite_graph_of_targets_by

egos,andvariouscentralitymeasuressuchasEigenvector,farness,andcloseness werecalculated.However,allofthesemeasureswererathersimilar,andweopted forthesimpleindegreeaswefeelitistheeasiesttoexplainandunderstand.

7_The_following_places,_topics,_and_phrases_were_used_to_select_articles

“Car-manah,”“Walbran,”“Clayoquot,”“loggingandBC”(BritishColumbia),“forestryand BC,”“timberandBC,”“environment$andBC,”“conservationandBC,”“park$and BC”(‘$’isawildcardcharacter).

8_The_database_also_contains_information_on₃₀_general_{‘themes’,}_but_because_of_a

muchhigherdegreeofinter-coderreliability,onlythe19morespeciﬁc‘keywords’ areusedforthisstudy.

Table1

Keywordframebycoreframingtask. Diagnostic Biologicaldiversity Clearcutting Ecosystems MarbledMurrelet SpottedOwl PaciﬁcYew Wilderness Prognostic Civildisobedience Conservation Preservation Selectivecutting/harvesting Sustainability Motivational

Ancientforests/oldgrowth Giants

Gandhi Naturalcathedral Sacred

MartinLutherkingand/orUScivilrightsmovement BraziloftheNorth

theirseminalcontributions:diagnosticframes,involvingnotonly identifyingtheproblem,but alsoattributionofcause,blame,or culpabilityforthesituationtosomeoneorsomegroup;prognostic frames,consistingofstatementsmeanttoexploreanddeﬁne possi-blesolutionstotheproblemandstrategiesmeanttoresolvethem; and motivational frames, consisting of what Benford and Snow (2000:617)quitesimplydescribedasamoral“calltoarms.”Table1 providestheclassiﬁcationschemeforthesekeywordframes.

Reference to these framing codes is important because we didnotincludeinourcitationsdatasetanyreferencetospeciﬁc environmentalactivistsregardlessofitscontext.Instead,weonly counted citations of activists as sources of information on the natureandcausesoftheforestryconﬂict(diagnosticrole),onits possiblesolutions(prognosticrole),oronthereasonswhythe pub-licandauthoritiesshouldactontheforestryissued(motivational role).Althoughwearenotgoingtoexploredifferencesbetween differenttypesofcitationsinthepresentpaper,takingtheminto accountwillenableustoconductfurtherexplorationsoftheissue.9 Dataentryandcodingofthesearticlesweredonebyfourcoders. Eachwasgivenacodingdictionarycontainingthekeywordsframes (andthemes)andasubsampleofarticlestoevaluate.Forall,the entire article was read and the relevant data entered into the database.Intercoderreliabilitywasassessedbyselecting20 arti-clesatrandomfromeachcoder,andthenhavingtheotherthree codersalsoenterthem.Theproportionoftimesthreeofthefour codersagreedoneachkeywordframeineacharticlewascalculated. Overall,themeanintercoderreliabilitywas0.86andthemedian was0.93.

Twotypesofsamplingwereusedtocollectthiscitationdata withtheintentbeingthebestpossiblerepresentationofnational, regional,andlocalcoverageof theissues, aswellasideological orientations(liberalversusconservative).Theﬁrstsample– rep-resentativeofthenationalandregionalcoverage–wasactuallya census,andcamefromsearchesofCanadianBusinessandCurrent AffairsIndexusingtheplacenames,topics,andphrasesmentioned infootnote7.Abroadrangeofprint-newssourcesweresampled including theVancouver Sun, the Globeand Mail(National Edi-tion),MacLean’s,andWestern/B.C.Report.Thissamplerepresents themorenationalandregionalcoverageofforestryissues.Four

9_We_include_ﬁndings_for_each_of_these_broad_frame_types_in_the_tables_for

(6)

Table2

Descriptivestatistics.

Variable Mean Std.dev. Minimum Maximum Description

Totalcitations 6.18 8.325 0 35 Totalnumberofcitationsappearinginprint-news mediaattributedtoaparticularactivist

Diagnosticframes 2.79 3.715 0 16 Numberofdiagnostickeywordframesappearingin print-newsmediaattributedtoparticularactivist Prognosticframes 1.76 2.893 0 13 Numberofprognostickeywordframesappearingin

print-newsmediaattributedtoparticularactivist Motivationalframes 1.82 2.747 0 13 Numberofmotivationalkeywordframesappearingin

print-newsmediaattributedtoparticularactivist Socialnetworkcentrality 13.00 5.810 3 23 Communicationnetworkindegreecentralityscore Leadership 0.26 0.448 0 1 Indicatorofformalleadershiprole(1=yes)

Radicalism 0.32 0.475 0 1 Indicatorofradicalism(1=yes)

Gender 0.68 0.475 0 1 Indicatorofgender(1=male)

n=34.

hundredandseven(407)articleswerelocatedforthetimeperiod January1986toDecember1992.

The second sample, representing the more local coverage, thoughnotstrictlyprobability-based,wascollectedusingthesame criteriaastheﬁrstsample.Thissamplewasalsocollectedpriorto theformulationofthekeywordframecodingscheme,and,thus, thereislittlereasontobelieveanybiasexistsintermsoftheactual framesanalyzed in this paper.Sources includedMonday Maga-zineandtheVictoriaTimesColonistfortheperiodMarch1990to December1992.10_This_sample_contains₅₅₀_articles.

4.3. Datamanagementanddataﬁlecreation

The957newsarticlescontainedinthecitationdatabaseaccount foratotalof22,004totalcitations.Mostrelevanttothisstudy, how-ever,isthat210ofthesecitationswerefromenvironmentalsocial movementorganizationmembersthatwerelistedastargetsinthe socialnetworkinstrument.Consequently,foreachofthe34targets (nowthecasesinanewdataﬁle),inadditiontotheirsocialnetwork indegreecentralityscore,dataonthenumberoftimestheywere citedintheprint-newsmediamentioningeachofthe19different keywordframes(andthus,thenumberoftimestheywerecited usingeachofthethreecoreframingtasks)wasderived.In addi-tion,for eachofthe34casesthreedichotomousvariableswere createdindicating:(1)whetherornottheactivistheldaformal leadershippositioninthemovement(1=yes);(2)whetherornot theactivistwasamemberoftheradicalcontingentofthe move-ment(1=yes);and(3)theindividuals’gender(1=male).Allofthis informationwascompiledinasingleSPSSdataﬁleusedforthe analysesinthispaper.Table2showsthedescriptivestatisticsand briefdescriptionsforeachofthemeasures.

4.4. Qualitativenews-workerinterviews

Informationusedtosupplementtheﬁndingsanddiscussionin thispaperistakenfrominterviewsheldwithkeynews-workers whowereactiveincoveringtheBritishColumbiaforestryconﬂict between1996and2000.Thecontentanalysisdatasetwasusedto identifyapurposesampleofmediaworkers.Thesampleis com-prisedofmostoftheprimarybeatwriters(plusonenewspaper editor)whocoveredtheforestry/environmentbeatforthe news-papersincludedinthesampleforthecontentanalysis.In total,

10 _It_is_worth_noting_that_the_time_periods_covered_are_not_identical:_the_ﬁrst_sample

coveredthefulltimeperiodJanuary1986toDecember1992,whilethesecond repre-sentedatruncatedperiodfromMarch1990toDecember1992.Note,however,that thefocusofthisstudy(theunitofanalysis)isnotthearticle,butthecitedactivist.The informationofprimaryinterestisthefrequencythatcertainenvironmentalsocial movementorganizationmemberswerecitedusingcertaincollectiveactionframes. Thus,thisdivergencebetweenthetimeframesisnotaseriousmethodologicalissue.

interviewswith10news-workers,includingoneeditorandnine journalistsare evaluated.Theinterview participantsworkedfor avarietyofBritishColumbiaprint-newsmediaoutlets,including regionalandlocalnewspapers,aswellas‘alternative’publications (asnoted,coveringallofthenewspapersincludedinthesample). Alloftheparticipantsworkedextensivelyeitherinforestryor envi-ronmentalnews.Asemistructuredinterviewschedulewasused, consistingofopen-endedquestions.Thequestionscoveredabroad rangeoftopicsrelatedtonewswork:hownews-workers estab-lished newstory ideas,howmuch freedomtheyhad tochoose theirown stories,whethertheyhad beenpressured byeditors becauseoftheircoverageoftheenvironmentalmovement,andso on.Thenews-workerswerealsoaskedabouttheirrelationships withdifferenttypesofnewssources(government,forestindustry, environmentalists),whichtacticswereparticularlyusefulfor gain-ingaccesstothenewsmedia,andtheirperceptionsofthequality ofmediacoverageofforestryconﬂicts.

5. Results

LetusstartbylookingatthePearsoncorrelationcoefficientsfor allthevariablesanalyzedinthisstudy(Table3).11_The_first hypoth-esis,H1,insupportofawidearrayofpublishedwork,hypothesizes a positive relationship between leadership and communication networkcentrality.However,fromTable3weseethatthe leader-shipmeasurethoughsomewhatsizable(r=.29)isnotsignificantly associatedwiththecentrality score,thus failingtosupportH1. Thisfindingisnoteworthyasitimpliesthatformalleadershipand socialnetworkcentralitymaybedifferentphenomena–atleast withthismovement,leadersarenotthemostcentralactorsinthe environmentalmovement’scommunicationnetwork.

Likewise,withregardtoH2,weseefromTable3thattheformal leadershipindicatorisnotstatisticallysigniﬁcantlyrelatedto cita-tions.Hence,thosewhowereformalleaderswerenotcitedmore thannon-leaders.Thissuggeststhatformalofﬁcenotbenecessarily apredictorofpreferentialattentionfromthepress.

FromTable3wealsoseesupportforH3whenwenotethatthe networkcentralityscoreisverysigniﬁcantly,positivelyassociated withcitations.Thus,thosewhoweremorecentraltothe move-ment’scommunicationnetworkactuallygotmoreattentionfrom thepress–aﬁndingthatpersistswhensimultaneouslymodelling alltheindependentvariablesinthenextsection.Thisrelationship betweennetworkcentralityandmediacoverageisgraphically rep-resentedinFig.1.Here,thesquaresrepresentthenodesforthe

11_Note_that_in_the_tables,_for_media_data_we_provide_results_for_total_citations,

diag-nosticframes,prognosticframes,andmotivationalframes.Inthetext,however,we focusmorenarrowlyontheresultsfortotalcitations.Thisishowweoperationalize mediacoverageinthispaper.Theframedataisprovidedasadditionalinformation.

(7)

T.E.Malinicketal./SocialNetworksxxx (2011) xxx–xxx 7

Table3

Intercorrelations.

TotalCitations Diagnostic Prognostic Motivational Network centrality (indegree) Leader Radical Totalcitations – Diagnostic .89*** _– Prognostic .95*** _.74*** _– Motivational .87*** _.57*** _.84*** _–

Networkcentrality(indegree) .65*** _.58*** _.59*** _.59*** _–

Leader(1=yes) .29 .18 .28 .34* _.29 _– Radical(1=yes) −.35* _−.32 _−.36* _−.24 _−.11 _.44** _– Gender(1=male) −.02 .03 −.08 −.03 .10 −.16 −.46** n=34. *_p_≤_.05. **_p_≤_.01. ***_p_≤_.001.

Fig.1.Two-modeenvironmentalistcommunicationnetwork,andmediacoverage.

respondents,whilethecirclesrepresentthenodesforthetargets. Thelinesrepresenttiesfromtherespondentstothetargets.Thesize ofthecirclesrepresentstheamountofmediacoverage(numberof citations)thattargetsreceived.

Theseresultsraiseaninterestingissue.Sofar,wefoundthat formalleaderswerenotthemostcentralactorsinthemovement’s communicationnetwork, norweretheysignificantly associated withratesofcitation,whilethemostcentralactorswereactually citedthemost.Is itpossiblethat communicationnetwork cen-tralityandformalleadershiparedifferentphenomena?Toassess this, the first order partial correlation was calculated for total citations and centrality controllingfor leadership. Ifthe partial correlationcoefficientsubstantiallydecreasesascomparedtothe zeroordercorrelationbetweentotalcitationsandcentrality,we haveevidencetosuggestthatleadership,atleastinpart, under-liescentrality;ifthecorrelationcoefficientdoesnotsubstantially change,thiswouldsupporttheideathatcentralityandleadership areindeeddifferentthings.Itturnsoutthatthecorrelationof cita-tionsandcentralitycontrollingforleadershipis.62,whichisnot notablydifferentfromthezeroordercorrelationof.65.Thus,there isevidencetosuggestthatleadershipandcommunicationnetwork centralityintheBCwildernesspreservationmovementareindeed differentphenomena.12

12 _It_is_important_to_note_here_that_we_explore_only_the_{communication}_network_for

thismovement.Thus,whileweclaimthatleadershipappearstobedifferentfrom

Thenexttwohypothesesexaminetheroleofgender.Firstnote thatthecorrelationbetweengenderandformalleadershipisnot signiﬁcant,thusfailingtosupportH4.Hence,thegeneralclaimthat malesaremorelikelytobesocialmovementorganizationleadersis notsupportedbythesedata.Second,alsonoticethatgenderisnot associatedwithsocialnetworkcentrality,thusfailingtosupport H5.Hence,itappearsthatwomendidnottendtohavemorecentral rolesintheenvironmentalmovement’scommunicationnetwork. Itisalsoworthnotingthat,accordingtoTable3,therelationship betweenradicalismandgenderissigniﬁcant,butwithanegative correlation,suggestingthat,allelsebeingequal,womenweremore likelytoberadicalthanmen.

How do thedifferent variables combinein a more complex explanatorymodel?Table4shows theresultsforan individual quasi-Poissongeneralizedlinearmodel,13_where_media_coverage (numberoftotalcitations)isevaluatedasfunctionofnetwork cen-trality,plus thefouractorattributes.14 _First,_note_that _a_higher levelofcentralityintheenvironmentalmovement’s communica-tionnetworkisassociatedwithhigherratesofcitation(supporting H3).Table4alsoshowsthatmoderatesaremorelikelytobecited inthepress(supportingH6).Formalleadershipisnotsigniﬁcant (failingtosupportH2),showingthatleadersarenottheindividuals whoarecommunicatingmostoftenwiththemedia.Also,gender isnotsigniﬁcant,suggestingthatneithermalesnorfemalesarea preferredsource.15

Our resultspartiallysupportearlierﬁndings, butalsodepart fromconventionalwisdominnonnegligibleways.Ontheonehand,

centralityhere,thisrefersspeciﬁcallytothecommunicationnetwork,whichmaybe differentfromothertypesofnetworksexistingwithinthemovement.

13_Note_that_the_models_analyzed_in_this_section_were_not_derived_{speciﬁcally}_for

theestimationofcoefﬁcientvaluesandthesemodelsarenotintendedtobe gen-eralizable.Thisstudyismeanttodescribeanhistoricalphenomenon,notpredict futureevents.Thedynamicnatureofsocialeventssuggeststhatﬁndingsherewill applytothismovementatthispointintime–toomanyfactorsaffectthestructure andfunctioningofthismovement(aswithothermovements)andusingtheresults foundheretopredictoutcomesofothermovementsrequirescarefulthought.We aremoreinterestedintherelationshipbetweenvariablesmorethantheaccuracyof thepointestimates.Furthertherelativelysmallsamplesizemakesanyprediction orgeneralizationhazardous.

14_Generalized_linear_modelling_procedures_were_used_instead_of_more_familiar

ordinaryleastsquares(OLS)regressionsbecausethedependentvariablesarecounts. Further,quasi-Poissondistributionfunctionswerechosenbecauseallthedependent variables,inadditiontobeingconstrainedonlytononnegativevalues,presented notableover-dispersion(i.e.thestandarddeviationssigniﬁcantlyexceededthe meansvalues–seeTable2).Thisapproachresultsinmoreconservativeandmore accurateestimatesthanOLSprocedures(Agresti,2002).

15_We_ran_the_same_regressions_on_dependent_variables_consisting_of_citations

associatedwithdiagnostic,prognostic,ormotivationalframing.Wefounda con-sistentpatternofrelationshipswiththeindependentvariables.Onlyhigherlevels ofsocialnetworkcentralityandnon-radicalismprovedusefulforpredictingtherate ofcitationusingthesedifferentframetypes.

(8)

Table4

Quasi-Poissongeneralizedlinearmodelregressionresultsformodelsexamininghowsourcecharacteristicscontributetogettingcitedinprint-newsmediausingthethree coreframingtasksandtotalcitations.

Totalcitations Diagnostic Prognostic Motivational

Networkcentrality(indegree) .14(.032)*** _.13_(.042)** _.15_(.036)*** _.16_(.042)***

Formalleader(yes=1) .51(.303) .28(.431) .64(.325) .70(.385)

Radicalgroup(yes=1) −1.46(.416)** _−1.22_(.559)* _−2.37_(.617)*** _−1.17_(.474)*

Gender(male=1) −.23(.272) −.13(.393) −.42(.284) −.17(.342)

Intercept −.14(.604) −.71(.807) −1.40(.686) −1.963(.901)*

Note:n=34forall.Standarderrorsinparentheses.

* _p_≤_.05. ** _p_≤_.01. ***_p_≤_.001.

thefactthatactivistswhoweremorecentralinthemovement com-municationnetworkwerealsomorecitedinthepressisconsistent withstudieslikeDiani’s(2003).Admittedly,Dianilookedatthe correlationbetweennetworkcentralityandthepresenceof collab-orationswithlocalandnationalmedia,whilewefocusonmedia coverage.Still,bothstudiesfoundapositiverelationbetween occu-pyingacentralpositionwithininformalmovementnetworksand strongercontactswiththemedia,howeverdeﬁned.

Ontheotherhand,thefactthatmoderatesgetstronger cov-eragethan radicalsmight beatleastpartiallyat oddswiththe factthathighlycontentious,possiblyviolentprotesteventshave muchbetterchancesofbeingreportedthanmoremoderateones (KoopmansandRucht,2002,246–251).Toaddfurtherinsightto thisﬁndingwenowturntothequalitativeinterviewsconducted withnews-workerswhowereactiveinreportingontheforestry conﬂictinBritishColumbiaduringthistime.Whilethe quantita-tiveresultsindicatethatradicalsarenotcitedmost,theydidcome upinconversationswithreporters.

Reportersindicatethat coveringdramaadmittedlyhassome initialappeal,andisoftennecessarygiventhescaleandscopeof certainprotesteventssuchastheeventssurroundingClayoquot Sound.Moreimportant,however,thesereportersalsostatethat whencovering ongoingconﬂicts,atsomepoint ashiftmustbe madetowardsreportingontheunderlyingissues.Often,thiswill quicklysteercoverageawayfrommoreradicalgroupswho typi-callyparticipateinthedramaandreorientcoveragetowardsthe moremoderategroupswhoareabletoprovidemorecredibleand reliableinformation.Thispointwasrepeatedthroughoutthe news-workerinterviewswhen theywere askedwhatfactorsaffected theirselectionofstoriesandsources:

...afterawhilecertainreportersgettoapointinabeat,you’re notlookingatcoveringanotherdemonstration.You’relooking atsourceswhocanpointyoutogoodinformation(Interview #4).

...what I wasalways looking for wasthe reliability of the information...therearesomegroupswhicharequitereliable andthereareotherswhoaren’t(Interview#2).

Credibilitywasthebigfactor(Interview#5).

Ingeneral,theseworkersindicated thattheytendedtoﬁlter sources,preferringthosethat“tendedtobelesszealous”(Interview #3) – thus countering the general claim that media automati-callyfavourssensationalizationanddrama.Instead,theypreferred sourceswhotheypersonallyfeltweremorereliableandcredible.

6. Discussionandconclusion

Wewillstartoutbybrieﬂydiscussingsomeofthechallenges facedbyscholarsofsocialmovementsandsocialnetworks,and byreviewingoursomewhatnovelapproachtotwo-modenetwork

analysis.Followingthisdiscussion,wewillturntosubstantiveand theoreticalissuesraisedbythisresearch.

Arguablythemostusefulandmostfrequentlyuseddata gath-eringtechniquefor social networkresearchis thenameroster. However,formostsocialmovementresearchthistechniqueisnot practicaltouse. First,someIRBEthicsBoardswillnot allowits usebecausethosenamed onthelisthave notgiven prior con-sent.Second,mostsocial movementorganizationswillnotpass membershiplists over toresearchers. Third,in western, liberal democracies,mostsocialmovementactivityiscomprisedoflarge formalsocialmovementorganizationswhosemembershiplistsare toolargetousewithoutnetworksampling.

Anotherfrequentlyusedsocial networkdatagathering tech-niqueisthenamegenerator.However,namegeneratorstendto notbepractical withverylargeorganizations(wheremembers mightonlyknowthenamesofarelativelysmallnumberofother members).Thistypeoftechniqueisusefulforconstructing ego-networkdata,butmuchmoredifﬁcultunderthesecircumstances forconstructingmodelsofwholenetworks.

Acommonlyusedapproachinsocialnetworksandsocial move-mentresearchistoexaminetheextenttowhichindividualsare tiedthroughorganizations.Thisistheclassictwo-modeapproach describedbyBreiger,1974;Brieger(1974;seealsoDiani,2002). Thisisusefulforavarietyofpurposes,butitonlygivesalimited viewofhowindividualsareconnectedtooneanother.

Inthepresentstudyweadoptanapproachthatovercomesa numberofthesechallenges.Becausethetargetindividualsonthe networkinstrumentwereidentiﬁedthroughpublicsources,this avoidstheIRBproblemofneedingconsenttoidentifythese indi-vidualsonthenetworkinstrument.Wethenutilizedasampleof movementmembers,andexaminedtheirrelationshipswiththe targetindividuals(asubsetofwhom,wereincludedinthe sam-ple).Thisgaveusameasureoftheindegreeofthetargetindividuals. Thus,throughthisprocedure,weobtainednetworkmeasureson prominentcoreactivists,andwewereabletocorrelatetheir struc-turalposition(asindicatedbycentrality)withtheirprominence (inofferingparticularsocialmovementframes)intheprintnews media.

Thepurposeofthisstudywastoevaluatetherolethatthe struc-turallocationofactors,andtheirattributes,playindetermining whatgetsreportedintheprint-newsmediacoverageoftheBritish Columbiaforestryconﬂict. Anarrayofhypotheseswastested– somesupported,somenot–andadditionalinsightsweregarnered fromobservingunexpectedﬁndings.

Noteworthyfindingsarosewithrelationtogender.First,the analysisdidnot showthat menweremore likely tobeformal leaders(failingtosupportH4)–anotionthatpreviouslyhad sig-nificantsupportintheliterature(butthatsaid,atthesametime, womenwerenotmorelikelytobeleaderseither).Another find-ingwasthatwomenwerenotmorelikelytobecentralplayersin theenvironmentalmovement’scommunicationnetwork (failing tosupportH5)(butneitherweremen).Robnett(1997)suggests

(9)

T.E.Malinicketal./SocialNetworksxxx (2011) xxx–xxx 9 thatwomenoftentakeonkey,centralrolesinsocialmovementsas

theyattendtotheday-to-dayoperationsofthemovementgroup, butthiswasnotsupportedhere.For themostpart,genderwas insignificantthroughouttheseanalyses(theonlyexceptionbeing thatfemalesweremorelikelytobemembersofradicalgroups). Wilson(1998)suggeststhatwomenhaveplayedamore signifi-cantroleintheBritishColumbiaenvironmentalmovementthanin manyothermovements,andtheseresultsmaywellpointtothe significanceofwomen(oratleasthigherdegreeofgenderequity) inthisparticularmovement.

Oneofthemostsurprisingresultswasfoundintermsofthe relationshipbetweensocialnetworkcentralityandformal move-mentgroupleadership.Morespecifically,itwastheactuallackof asignificantrelationshipbetweenthetwovariablesthatwasmost interesting(failuretosupportH1),indicatingthesearetwo differ-entphenomena.Somehavegeneralized,proclaimingthatthemain taskofmovementleadersistoforwardthemovement’smessage (usuallyintheformofcollectiveactionframes)byinteractingwith media,andfurther,thatthemediaseekstheseleadersouttoact asspokespeople(MorrisandStaggenborg,2004).Others,however, havearguedthatinsteadofformalleaders,otheruniquelyplaced individualscarrytheresponsibilityofcommunicatingwithmedia (Diani,1995,2003).Whenwenotethatwithoutexception,social networkcentralityissignificantlyrelatedtoallthreeofthecore framingtasks(supportingH3),whileformalleadershipisrelated tonone(failingtosupportH2),wehaveclearsupportforthelatter, butnottheformer.

Intermsofnetworkcentrality,awidearrayofliteraturecitesthe factthatindividualswhoaremostcentraltothemovement’s com-municationnetworksalsoeffectivelyhavecontrolovertheflowand transmissionofinformation(seeBavelas,1948;CohnandMarriott, 1958;Freeman, 1979;Shaw,1954; Shimbel,1953).Thisshould alsotranslatetoratesofcommunicationwiththemedia.However, thenatureofthisrelationshipiscomplexandisanavenueripe forfurtherresearch.Isitaprocessinternaltoamovementthat affectswhoiselevatedtopositionsofstatusandinfluence(and thus,networkcentrality),oristhatjournalistsseekoutcredibleand reliable‘spokespeople’,regardlessoftheactivists’structural posi-tion?Thoughitcannotbedetermineddefinitivelyfromthedata examinedinthispaper,bothinternalandexternalprocessesare likelyatwork.Ontheonehand,internalfactorssuchacharismatic appeal,popularity,levelofoverallinvolvementinthemovement, andresponsibilitieslikelyaffectnetworkcentrality;ontheother hand,journalistsdohavepreferencesandhaveestablished rela-tionshipsthat theycontinuallyturntofor information. Finding legitimateandpublishablesourcesisatimeconsumingactivity, andwithoftentightdeadlines,reporterstypicallyreturn tothe samesourcestimeaftertime.Inthisway,thecollectionofsources ajournalistbuildsthroughouttheircareerisoneofthemost valu-abletoolstheypossessintheirtrade–perhapsaformofsocial capital.

Signiﬁcanttheorizinghasalsobeendonewithregardstothe role that radicalismplays in media.As mentioned earlier, one commonlyheldviewpositsthatjournalistssearchoutdramatic, confrontational,andexcitingmaterialandindividualstoreporton

(CarrollandHackett,2006;Gitlin,1980).Thebasicclaimisthat sinceeconomicconcernsgoverneditorialdecisionmaking, sensa-tionalnewsispreferredbecauseittendstomaximizereadership and,thus,amassthegreatestproportionofmarketshare. Success-fulreporterswillbethosewhoareabletopresentthenewsinthe mostdramaticwaypossible.Consequently,underthisview, sensa-tionalizedcoverageoftheradicalcontingentofamovementshould frequentlyappearinthenews.Theotherpopularviewportraysthe newsindustryasbeingessentiallygovernedbytheoperational val-uesofobjectivityandbalance.Underthisperspective,whilecertain socialandorganizationalconstraintscertainlyexist,theyare medi-atedbytheoverarchinggoalofpresentingthenewsinanunbiased manner.Themultipleregressionresultsshowthatthereislittle supportfortheformer,byshowingthatnon-radicalsareactually citedmore.

Insummary,thispapershowsthatonlytwoofthequantitatively evaluatedmeasuresareassociatedwithratesofcitation: communi-cationnetworkcentralityandradicalism.Butthisisnotthewhole story.Inaddition,thenews-workerinterviewsrevealthat cred-ibilityisacriticalcharacteristic ofanenvironmentalmovement source.However,somequalificationsaboutthefindingsneedtobe offered.Thesamplesizeusedinthequantitativeanalysisis some-whatsmall(n=34),andthesamplingtechniqueemployeddoesnot allowgeneralizationtoalargerpopulation(beyondthecasestudied here).Nevertheless,thefindingsreportedherearetheoretically andempiricallyinteresting,andontheoreticalgroundswemight expecttoseesimilarprocesses inothersocialmovementswith similarcontexts(suchasmodernliberaldemocracies).Whilewe cannotgeneralizeempirically,theprocessesdescribedheremerit furtherinvestigationbyfutureresearchers.

Thisworkopensthedoorforawiderangeoffuturework look-ingatthemovement-mediarelationship.Whatotherattributesof activistsaffecttheratesatwhichtheyarecitedinthenews?Who ismoreresponsibleforinﬂuencingnewscontent,socialmovement actorsorjournalists?Dotheresultsmentionedinthispapercarry overtootherformats,suchasradioortelevision?Thesequestions andanarrayofothersneedtobeansweredbeforewecansaywe reallyhaveaholdonthemovement-mediarelationship.

Inthepresentpaperwehaveprovidedananalysisofthe rela-tionshipbetweennetworkcentrality(basedonacommunication networkofenvironmentalactivists)andmediacoverage(how fre-quentlytheactivistsarecitedendorsingparticularframesinthe printmedia). Whilewehaveutilized “frames”tooperationalize mediacoverage,wehavenotprovidedatheoreticalanalysisofthe relationshipofnetworkstructuretothedifferentialsuccessof dif-ferentframes.Ourempiricalresultsshowthatcentralityappears tohavesimilarcorrelationswithframecitationforthedifferent typesofframesexploredhere.Butthedevelopmentofafuller the-oreticalaccountoftherelationshipbetweennetworkstructureand differentialframingisanavenueforpotentialfutureresearch.

AppendixA.

(10)

TableA1

Socialnetworkmatrix(names-removed). Names I’venever

heardofthis person

I’veheardof thispersonbut havenocontact withhim/her

I’vetalkedto thispersonat leastonce

Italktothisperson atleastafewtimes ayear,butless thanonceamonth

Italktothis personatleast onceamonth I’veworked withthis person Thispersonis aclosefriend ofmine Ilike this person Idislike this person Person1 Person2 Person3 Person4 ... ... ... References

Agresti,A.,2002.CategoricalDataAnalysis,2nded.Wiley-Interscience,Hoboken. Anderson,A.,1997.Media,Culture,andtheEnvironment.RutgersUniversityPress,

NewBrunswick.

Barnes,T.J.,Hayter,R.,1997.Troublesintherainforest:BritishColumbia’s for-esteconomyintransition.CanadianWesternGeographicalSeries#33,vol.33. WesternGeographicalPress,Victoria.

Bavelas,A.,1948.Amathematicalmodelforgroupstructures.HumanOrganization 7,16–30.

Baylor,T.,1996.Mediaframingofmovementprotest:thecaseoftheAmericanIndian protest.SocialScienceJournal33,241–255.

Benford,R.D.,1993a.Framedisputeswithinthenucleardisarmamentmovement. SocialForces71,677–701.

Benford,R.D.,1993b.Youcouldbethehundredthmonkey:collectiveactionframes andvocabulariesofmotivewithinthenucleardisarmamentmovement.The SociologicalQuarterly34,195–216.

Benford,R.D., Snow, D., 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview.AnnualReviewofSociology26,611–639.

Blake,D.E.,Guppy,N.,Urmetzer,P.,1996.BeinggreeninBC:publicattitudestowards environmentalissues.BCStudies112,42–61.

Bonacich,P.,1987.Powerandcentrality:afamilyofmeasures.AmericanJournalof Sociology92,1170–1182.

Breiger,R.L.,1974.Thedualityofpersonsandgroups.SocialForces53,181–190. Brinton,C.,1952.TheAnatomyofRevolution.Vintage,NewYork.

Brulle,R.J.,1996.Environmentaldiscourseandsocialmovementorganizations:a historicalandrhetoricalperspectiveonthedevelopmentofU.S.Environmental Organizations.SociologicalInquiry66,58–83.

Carroll,W.K.,Hackett,R.A.,2006.Democraticmediaactivismthroughthelensof socialmovementtheory.Media,Culture&Society28,83–104.

Cohn,B.S.,Marriott,M.,1958.NetworksandcentersofintegrationinIndian civiliza-tion.JournalofSocialResearch1,1–9.

Cohn, S.F., Barkan, S.E., Halteman, W.A., 2003. Dimensions of participation in a professional social-movement organization. Sociological Inquiry 73, 311–337.

Cook,K.,Emerson,R.M.,Gillmore,M.R.,Yamagishi,T.,1983.Thedistributionof powerinexchangenetworks:theoryandexperimentalresults.AnnualJournal ofSociology89,275–305.

Cormier,J.,Tindall,D.B.,2005.Woodframes:framingtheforestsinBritishColumbia. SociologicalFocus31,1–24.

Cracknell,J.,1993.Issues,arenas,pressuregroupsandenvironmentalagendas.In: Hansen,A.(Ed.),TheMassMediaandEnvironmentalIssues.LeicesterUniversity Press,London.

Croteau,D.,Hoynes,W.,2003.MediaSociety:Industries,Images,andAudiences. PineForgePress,ThousandOaks.

Diani,M.,1995.GreenNetworks:AStructuralAnalysisoftheItalianEnvironmental Movement.EdinburghUniversityPress,Edinburgh.

Diani,M.,2002.Networkanalysis.In:Klandermans,B.,Staggebborg,S.(Eds.), Meth-odsofSocialMovementResearch.UniversityofMinnesotaPress,Minneapolis, Minnesota,pp.173–200.

Diani,M.,2003.‘Leaders’orbrokers?Positionsandinﬂuenceinsocialmovement net-works.In:Diani,M.,McAdam,D.(Eds.),SocialMovementsandSocialNetworks: RelationalApproachestoCollectiveAction.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,pp. 105–122.

Diani,M.TheCementofCivilSociety:CivicNetworksinLocalSetting.Unpublished bookmanuscript,forthcoming.

Dispensa,J.M.,Brulle,R.J.,2003.Media’ssocialconstructionofenvironmentalissues: focusonglobalwarming–acomparativestudy.TheInternationalJournalof SociologyandSocialPolicy23,74–105.

Drushka,K.,1999.IntheBight:TheB.C.ForestIndustryToday.HarbourPublishing, MadeiraPark.

Drushka,K.,Nixon,B.,Travers,R.,1993.TouchWood:BCForestsattheCrossroads. HarbourPublishing,MadeiraPark.

Entman,R.M.,Rojecki,A.,1993.Freezingoutthepublic:eliteandmediaframingof theUSanti-nuclearmovement.PoliticalCommunication10,155–173. Ericson,R.V.,1991.Massmedia,crime,lawandjustice.TheBritishJournalof

Crim-inology31,219–249.

Faust,K.,1997.Centralityinafﬁliationnetworks.SocialNetworks19,157–191.

Fitzgerald,K.J.,Rodgers,D.M.,2000.Radicalsocialmovementorganizations:a the-oreticalmodel.TheSociologicalQuarterly41,573–592.

Flacks,R.,1971.YouthandSocialChange.Markham,Chicago.

Freeman,L.C.,1979.Centralityinsocialnetworks:conceptualclariﬁcation.Social Networks1,215–239.

Friedkin,N.E.,1982.Informationﬂowthroughstrongandweaktiesin intraorgani-zationalsocialnetworks.SocialNetworks3,273–285.

Gamson,W.,1992.TalkingPolitics.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge. Gamson,W.,Croteau,D.,Hoynes,W.,Sasson,T.,1992.Mediaimagesandthesocial

constructionofreality.AnnualReviewofSociology18,373–393.

Gamson, W., Modigliani, A., 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclearpower:aconstructionistapproach.AmericanJournalofSociology95, 1–37.

Gamson,W.,Wolfsfeld,G.,1993.Movementsandmediaasinteractingsystems. Annals,AAPSS528,114–125.

Gitlin,T.,1980.TheWholeWorldisWatching:MassMediaandtheUnmakingof theNewLeft.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley.

Goffman,E.,1974.FrameAnalysis:AnEssayontheOrganizationofExperience. NortheasternUniversityPress,Boston.

Hayter,R.,2000.FlexibleCrossroads:TheRestructuringofBritishColumbia’sForest Economy.UBCPress,Vancouver.

Hutchins,B.,Lester,L.,2006.Environmentalprotestandtap-dancingwiththemedia intheinformationage.Media,CultureandSociety28,433–451.

Killian,L.M.,1972.Thesigniﬁcanceofextremismintheblackrevolution.Social Problems20,41–48.

Klandermans,B.,Goslinga,S.,1996.Mediadiscourse,movementpublicity,andthe generationofcollectiveactionframes:theoreticalandempiricalexercisesin meaningconstruction.In:McAdam,D.,McCarthy,J.D.,Zald,M.N.(Eds.), Com-parativePerspectivesonSocialMovementOpportunities,Mobilizing,Structures andFraming.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,pp.312–337.

Klandermans,B.,1989.Introduction:leadershipindecisionmaking.International SocialMovementResearch2,2154–2224.

Knoke,D.,1994.Networksofelitestructureanddecisionmaking.In:Wasserman, S.,Galaskiewicz,J.(Eds.),AdvancesinSocialNetworkAnalysis.Sage,Thousand Oaks.

Knoke,D.,Burt,R.,1983.Prominence.In:Burt,R.S.,Minor,M.J.(Eds.),Applied Net-workAnalysis.Sage,BeverlyHills.

Koopmans,R.,Rucht,R.,2002.Protesteventanalysis.In:Klandermans,B., Staggeb-borg,S.(Eds.),MethodsofSocialMovementResearch.UniversityofMinnesota Press,Minneapolis,Minnesota,pp.231–259.

Marchak,M.P.,1983.GreenGold:TheForestIndustryinBritishColumbia.UBCPress, Vancouver.

Marchak,P.M.,Aycock,S.L.,Herbert,D.M.,1999.Falldown:ForestPolicyinBritish Columbia.DavidSuzukiFoundation/EcotrustCanada,Vancouver.

Markey,S.,Pierce,J.T.,Vodden,K.,Roseland,M.,2005.SecondGrowth:Community EconomicDevelopmentinRuralBritishColumbia.UBCPress,Vancouver. Marsden,P.V.,1983.Restrictedaccessinnetworksandmodelsofpower.American

JournalofSociology88,686–717.

McAdam,D.,McCarthy,J.,Zald,M.,1996.ComparativePerspectivesonSocial Move-ments:PoliticalOpportunities,MobilizingStructures,andCulturalFraming. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

McCarthy,J.D.,Smith,J.,Zald,M.N.,1996.Assessingpublic,media,electoraland governmentagendas.In:McAdam,D.,McCarthy,J.D.,Zald,M.N.(Eds.), Com-parativePerspectivesonSocialMovementOpportunities,MobilizingStructures andFraming.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,pp.291–311.

Merchant,C.,1997.Earthcare:WomenandtheGlobalEnvironmentalMovement. Routledge,NewYork.

Morris,A.D.,Staggenborg,S.,2004.Leadershipinsocialmovements.In:Snow,D., Soule,S.A.,Kriesi,H.(Eds.),TheBlackwellCompaniontoSociology.Blackwell Publishing,Malden,pp.171–196.

Mueller,C.M.,1997.InternationalpresscoverageofEastGermanprotestevents: 1989.AmericanSociologicalReview62,820–832.

Nepstad,S.E.,Bob,C.,2006.Whendoleadersmatter?Hypothesesonleadership dynamicsinsocialmovements.Mobilization11,1–22.

Noy,D.,2009.Whenframingfails:ideas,inﬂuence,andresourcesinSanFrancisco’s homelesspolicyﬁeld.SocialProblems56,223–242.

Oberschall,A.,1973.SocialConﬂictandSocialMovements.Prentice-Hall,Inc., Engle-woodCliffs.

(11)

T.E.Malinicketal./SocialNetworksxxx (2011) xxx–xxx 11 Oliver,P.E.,Meyer,D.J.,2003.Networks,diffusion,andcyclesofcollectiveaction.In:

Diani,M.,McAdam,D.(Eds.),SocialMovementsandSocialNetworks:Relational ApproachestoCollectiveAction.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,pp.173–203. Paxton,P.,Kunovich,S.,Hughes,M.M.,2007.Genderinpolitics.AnnualReviewof

Sociology33,263–284.

Robnett,B.,1997.HowLong?HowLong?African-AmericanWomenintheStruggle forCivilRights.OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork.

Rootes,C.,2007.Actinglocally:thecharacter,contexts,andsigniﬁcanceoflocal environmentalmobilisations.EnvironmentalPolitics16,722–741.

Ryan,C.,1991.PrimeTimeActivism:MediaStrategiesforGrassrootsOrganizing. SouthEndPress,Boston.

Scheufele,D.A.,1999.Framingasatheoryofmediaeffects.Journalof Communica-tion49,103–122.

Shaw,M.E.,1954.Groupstructureandthebehaviorofindividualsinsmallgroups. JournalofPsychology38,139–149.

Shimbel,A.,1953.Structuralparametersofcommunicationnetworks.Bulletinof MathematicalBiophysics15,501–507.

Shoemaker,P.J.,Reese,S.D.,1996.MediatingtheMessage,2nded.Longman,White Plains.

Snow,D.A.,Benford,R.D.,1988.Ideology,frameresonance,andparticipant mobi-lization.InternationalSocialMovementResearch1,197–218.

Snow,D.A.,Benford,R.D.,1992.Masterframesandcyclesofprotest.In:Morris,A.D., Mueller,C.M.(Eds.),FrontiersinSocialMovementTheory.YaleUniversityPress, NewHaven.

Snow,D.A.,RochfordJr.,E.B.,Worden,S.K.,Benford,R.D.,1986.Framealignment pro-cesses,micromobilization,andmovementparticipation.AmericanSociological Review51,464–481.

Snow,D.,Benford,R.D.,1998.Ideology,frameresonanceandparticipant mobiliza-tion.InternationalSocialMovementResearch1,197–218.

Snyder,D.,Kelly,W.R.,1977.Conﬂictintensity,mediasensitivityandthevalidityof newspaperdata.AmericanSociologicalReview42,105–123.

Steger,M.A.E.,Witt,S.L.,1989.Genderdifferencesinenvironmentalorientations: acomparisonofpublicsandactivistsinCanadaandtheUS.WesternPolitical Quarterly42,627–649.

Tindall,D.,1994.CollectiveActionintheRainforest:ASociologicalAnalysisof Participationin theVancouver IslandWildernessPreservationMovement. UnpublishedPaperPresentedInPosterSessionof:SocialSciencesandthe Envi-ronmentConference.Ottawa,Canada.

Tindall,D.B.,2002.Socialnetworks,identiﬁcationandparticipationinan envi-ronmentalmovement:low-mediumcostactivismwithintheBritishColumbia wildernesspreservationmovement.CanadianReviewofSociologyand Anthro-pology39,413–452.

Tindall,D.B.,Begoray,N.,1993.OldGrowthDefenders:TheBattleforthe Car-manahValley.In:Lerner,S.(Ed.),EnvironmentalStewardship:StudiesinActive Earthkeeping.UniversityofWaterlooGeographySeries,Waterloo,Ontario,pp. 269–322.

Tindall,D.B.,Davies,S.,Mauboulès,C.,2003.Activismandconservationbehaviorin anenvironmentalmovement:thecontradictoryeffectsofgender.Societyand NaturalResources16(10),909–932.

Tuchman,G.,1978.MakingNews.FreePress,NewYork.

Wasserman,S.,Faust,K.,1994.SocialNetworkAnalysis:MethodsandApplications. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

Wilson,J.,1998.TalkandLog:WildernessPoliticsinBritishColumbia.UBCPress, Vancouver.

Zelezny,L.C.,Chua,P.-P.,Aldrich,C.,2000.Elaboratingongenderdifferencesin environmentalism.JournalofSocialIssues56,443–457.