A new study reveals that voicing support for police can be a “dog whistle” politicians use to appeal to voters threatened by challenges to America’s racial status quo. Donald Trump’s expressions of support for police, researchers find, served as coded language that mobilized voters who were anxious about the social and economic status of white Americans in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.
Your Thoughts Matter
Democratic presidential candidates who try to appeal to Latino voters risk losing support from white Democrats, according to experimental research published recently in Political Behavior.
In one hypothetical scenario, some white Democrats responded to these outreach efforts by supporting a Republican candidate, the study finds.
Irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert ReportSource: JournalistsResource.org
Political humor has a long tradition in America, but ironical “fake news” is a phenomenon that distinguishes the current cultural moment. Indeed, in recent years a whole body of scholarly literature has focused on this field of political entertainment and its effects. A 2011 study from scholars at Ohio State University adds to this literature by examining how precisely such satire registers differently among liberals and conservatives — how humor is filtered through certain predispositions.
This article was first published by Harvard Business Review. Minor edits were made in accordance with Journalist’s Resource’s editorial style.
Molly Ball is a national political correspondent for TIME. Before that, she covered politics for The Atlantic and Politico.
New research contradicts claims media organizations and political commentators have made about unusually high levels of political involvement among the public during the 2016 presidential election.
The study finds that public interest and voter engagement in 2016 closely matched that of previous elections.
A new online course from First Draft helps journalists use free tools to track down, source and verify information they find online.
A video appears to show regime planes bombing civilians in Syria; someone who looks much like a beloved professor appears holding a torch at a neo-Nazi rally. If credible, these are leads. But how do we know if they are credible?