Search results

The social movement literature is replete with review essays of the various theoretical formulations (i.e., Buechler 1993; Jenkins 1983; Tarrow 1989). Frequently, these intellectual histories contain descriptions of how one cohort of sociologists glamorized or debunked the favored theories of earlier generations (i.e., before the “resource mobilizers” were supplanted by the “framing” crowd, there was a supposed “collective behaviorist” heyday). While these theoretical depictions flourished, the number of methodological overviews remains small (see Crist and McCarthy 1996; Diani and Eyerman 1992; Morris and Herring 1987; Olzak 1989; Rucht, Koopmans, and Neidhardt 1998). To augment these methodological essays, this paper explores the problematic choice of using newspapers for protest information. In doing so, this inquiry initially compares some media and researcher impressions of a local protest mobilization (i.e., demonstrations against the Persian Gulf War in San Diego). Later, this paper chronicles a content analysis of 20 national, regional, and alternative news organizations. In the end, this investigation shows that every newspaper missed most of the protests and that coverage rate varied by newspaper. Furthermore, the widely praised New York Times fared badly and none of the papers displayed consistent coverage rates throughout time. With these warnings in hand, the discussion section provides some techniques that might offset these newspaper deficiencies.