search

Computational-Content-Analysis-2020 / Readings-Responses-Spring

Repository for organizing orienting, exemplary and fundament readings, and posting responses.
0 stars 0 forks source link

Extracting Communication Networks (E1) - Bail 2017 #17

Open HyunkuKwon opened 4 years ago

HyunkuKwon commented 4 years ago

Post questions about the following exemplary reading here:

Bail, Christopher .A. 2012. “The fringe effect: Civil society organizations and the evolution of media discourse about Islam since the September 11th attacks.” American Sociological Review 77(6):855-879.

linghui-wu commented 4 years ago

The research question of the paper is "How did anti-Muslim organizations drift from the fringe of the discursive field into the mainstream" in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. The author proposes the "fringe effect". By definition, it refers to "fringe organizations developed broad inter-organizational networks that further consolidated their capacity to influence the media and challenge the contours of the mainstream". I have no objection towards the second part of the definition but I doubt whether the origin anti-Muslim groups can be considered as "fringe organizations", or in contrast with what "mainstream"? In other words, if the first generation of anti-Muslim groups are little known to the general public but financially independent and socially influential among anti-Muslim people, can we call them a marginalized group?

Moreover, I noticed that the annotation method is applied in the research. I wonder how the author dealt with the potential bias stemming from manual coding?

Lesopil commented 4 years ago

This is an interesting paper, and I can see its methodology being applied in other areas, such as climate change denial. It seems that that is another area where there might be disproportional influence from fringe organizations. However, I have a slight problem with the conclusion. The author attempts to address the question of the state's influence over discourse, however I did not find the rebuttal satisfactory. If I remember correctly, the initial response from the white house was one of solidarity with muslims, but quickly changed to a more antagonistic tone when the invasion of Iraq was being planned. It did not seem to me that this change in tone or the influence of the president on setting national narratives was given enough acknowledgement. I wonder how it might be possible to weight the statements of important actors, such as the president, when attempting to figure out the influence of various factors on the spread and normalization of discourse?