MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336099677 · doi:10.1177/1077699014554765a

Book Review: Review Essay: Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: <i>Through a Screen Darkly: Popular Culture, Public Diplomacy, and America’s Image Abroad</i> , by Martha Bayles and <i>Public Opinion &amp; International Intervention: Lessons from the Iraq War</i> , edited by Richard Sobel, Peter Furia, and Bethany Barratt

2014· article· en· W2336099677 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giovanna Dell’Orto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic opinionPoliticsPublic diplomacyForeign policyMedia studiesPolitical scienceSociologyMass mediaPopular cultureLawDiplomacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Review Essay: Public Opinion and Foreign Policy Through a Screen Darkly: Popular Culture, Public Diplomacy, and America's Image Abroad. Martha Bayles. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014. 336 pp. $30 hbk. Public Opinion & International Intervention: Lessons from the Iraq War. Richard Sobel, Peter Furia, and Bethany Barratt, eds. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2012. 322 pp. $23.96 pbk.These two books take diametrically opposed approaches to a common and critical subject: The role of public opinion in helping, or hindering, the making of foreign policies. While Martha Bayles' book focuses on the impact of American popular culture- from Friends to American Idol-on the ability of the United States to project an appealing image of its ethos abroad, the many authors in Public Opinion & International Intervention zero in on one issue-debates in twelve countries, from the United States to India, over the 2003 war in Iraq.While not specifically targeting media studies, the books pose important questions and intriguing arguments about an implicit issue at the core of communication: How much does the public (often represented or informed by mass media) matter in governance? Both, however, also illustrate the difficulties of providing empirical answers to that question, even though they try to tackle it from entirely different perspectives- social scientific opinion surveys and cultural criticism-that share only the extensive use of interviews.The edited collection by Richard Sobel, Peter Furia, and Bethany Barratt-students of political science, politics, and public opinion-uses twelve case studies of decision making over the Iraq War as a of the theory that public opinion constrains foreign policymaking. The result of that test is a depressing probably-not (but we cannot be sure). The case studies are well chosen, focusing on democracies-where the popular will should matter-and evenly split between the countries that did intervene in Iraq on some level (from the leading United States to Japan, which contributed to the humanitarian and reconstruction missions nearly a year after the invasion) and those that did not (from Germany, which came to symbolize the transatlantic drift, to Canada).Each case provides a brief, useful explanation of the general context in a particular country (such as the process of foreign policy making and relations with the United States and Iraq). Then it asks whether the domestic public's position on the war, amply documented in polls, affected political decisions and, where the latter went against the former, if a price was paid during elections. With an early exception of the United States, virtually all publics were against the war as it happened, or at least against their country's participation in it, so the most interesting cases are those where leaders such as the United Kingdom's Tony Blair went ahead in the coalition of the willing despite adamant opposition. In the other cases, where public opinion and the government's decision to stay out of the conflict coincided over time, as the chapter on Canada points out, it is very much a chicken-and-egg proposition that can only rely on hypothetical counterfactuals.While each context is a bit different, the cases appear to confirm that geopolitical, partisan, cultural and personal factors played a stronger role than public opposition in the decisions to participate in the war. The public in those countries almost always rallied around the flag once the decision was made, and did not punish decision makers in subsequent elections, often because the Iraq issue had ceased to be prominent. A few authors suggest that the public might have constrained the justification and sometimes the kind of commitment governments made, for example, in Australia-but as the authors of that chapter argue, simple poll following is impossible in foreign policy making, and they lack empirical evidence to show the directionality of causality even in these modest effects. …

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.025

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournalism & Mass Communication QuarterlySame topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207