Protests on the Front Page: Media Salience, Institutional Dynamics, and Coverage of Collective Action in the <i>New York Times</i> , 1960-1995
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research has illuminated consistent patterns in the type of protests that receive media attention. Still, we know relatively little about the differential prominence editors assign to events deemed worthy of coverage. We argue that while media routines shape whether events are covered, mass media organizations, social institutions, and systemic changes are important factors in determinations of prominence. To examine patterns of prominence, this study analyzes the factors influencing page placement patterns of protests covered in the New York Times, 1960-1995. We find that (1) protests are less likely to appear prominently over time, but this effect is conditioned by the paper’s editorial and publishing regime; (2) regime effects were especially consequential for civil rights and peace protests; (3) effects of event size and violence weakened over time; and (4) events embedded within larger cycles of protest coverage during less constricted news cycles were more likely to be featured prominently.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it