Research
My research primarily focuses on judicial behavior and how judicial actors can influence media coverage and public opinion of their activities. Recent research projects include examinations of politicized and negative media portrayals of Supreme Court decision making, particularly cues of conflict from the bench and decision disagreement's role in creating ideological biases in coverage. Other projects involve positivity in Supreme Court imagery, the development of judicial prestige among state courts of last resort, and racial divides in perceptions of allotted civil liberties.
Published Articles:
"Negative Media Coverage of the Supreme Court: The Interactive Role of Opinion Language, Coalition Size, and Ideological Signals" With Justin Wedeking and Michael Zilis. Forthcoming. Social Science Quarterly.
When does the media use negative language to cover the Supreme Court, and what are the political consequences of this portrayal? We offer a novel consideration of how judicial behavior influences coverage of the Court. Examining over 1,000 news articles from 29 diverse outlets covering rulings from the 2014 term, and using text-based measures of both the Court and media’s negative rhetoric, we find that the Court sends an important signal of conflict through use of negative language in its decisions, leading to an increase in negativity in subsequent news coverage. We also show that this effect is conditional upon both the degree of consensus among the justices and ideological signals the Court sends when it rules. Because our findings may have important implications regarding public opinion about the Court, we propose an experiment to test how the media’s use of negative rhetoric shapes policy approval, specific support, and legitimacy.
"Using Text as Data to Measure Latent Legal Constructs: A Dictionary-Based Approach." Forthcoming. Michigan State Law Review. With Justin Wedeking.
We provide evidence as to the benefit of using a simple, straight-forward methodological approach to studying events in the legal realm: dictionary-based mining of text as data. Focusing on the notion of widespread ideological bias in news reporting of Supreme Court decisions found in the extant literature, we use a series of partisan and ideological word dictionaries to not only highlight the utility of such an approach, but also to challenge prior findings that claim such bias is ubiquitous. The application of these latent constructs of ideology and partisanship in language through a dictionary approach yields decidedly mixed findings that call into question some prior methods used to argue for systematic media bias in news reporting.
“Hitting the ‘Bullseye’ in Supreme Court Coverage: News Quality in the Court’s 2014 Term.” 2017. Elon University Law Review. With Mike Zilis and Justin Wedeking.
Many scholars argue the news media's treatment of the Supreme Court is lackluster and troubling for American knowledge of the judiciary. What constitutes quality coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court? We offer a conceptualization of decision coverage quality based on two dimensions, negativity and complexity, relative to the language of the decision opinions themselves. Our findings indicate that a great deal of media coverage falls within a "bullseye" of quality that would indicate an adequate representation of the decisions, though this adequacy is not universal. Several factors, including the alteration of precedent, individual outlet styles, and specific case coverage, often appear to push coverage out of that bullseye and toward media presentations that fail to mirror the tone of the decisions rendered.
Other Publications:
“The New (Mis)Information Environment of Advanced Democracies.” Forthcoming. The Handbook of Political Representation in Liberal Democracies. Eds. Robert Rohrschneider and Jacques Thomassen. Oxford University Press. With Mark Peffley and Travis N. Taylor.
“The Confirmation Legacy of Antonin Scalia.” 2018. The Conservative Revolution of Antonin Scalia. Eds. David A. Schultz and Howard Schweber. Lexington Books. With Justin Wedeking.
“Elena Kagan.” 2017. Encyclopedia of Civil Rights and Liberties. Eds. John Scheb and Kara Stooksbury. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. With Justin Wedeking.
Working Papers:
"Is There Ideological Bias in the Content of News Coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court?" With Justin Wedeking and Michael Zilis.
Is there identifiable ideological bias in the content of news coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court? We address the importance of this question by suggesting that prior measures of media bias are not broadly applicable to Supreme Court coverage. Due to the nature of the Supreme Court’s activities and the general structure of Supreme Court reporting, we argue that the content of Supreme Court coverage is considerably less susceptible to ideological coverage bias than has previously been thought. Yet, prior research on coverage suggests the Court is just as susceptible to ideologically biased coverage. We offer a series of proposed measures of media content bias that are based on the text of news articles surrounding the Supreme Court’s Decisions in the 2014 term. We find that media content bias regarding the Court is only weakly present and in many cases is limited to certain situations. This suggests that citizens can learn information about the Court through the media that does not damage the Court’s important role with respect to the rule of law in a democracy.
"Distorting the Court?: Politicized Language in Media Portrayals of the Supreme Court."
This paper contributes to the sparse literature on the media’s coverage of the Court by focusing on how both case characteristics (e.g., decision consensus) and media biases (e.g., both ideological and structural) contribute to more politicized coverage of the Court. Through use of computer assisted text analysis, more than 1,000 news articles covering decision making in the 2014 Supreme Court term are parsed for politicized language, revealing several systematic biases in favor of conflicts, both on the Court itself and among the various branches. Notably, greater divisions in Court opinions leads to substantially more politicized language regarding factions, inter-branch relations and conflict. Additionally, the most ideological media outlets are shown to soften their use of politicized language when in agreement with decisions, and ramp up said language when in disagreement. These findings suggest that media biases, both professional and ideological in nature, have an important impact on how the Supreme Court is portrayed.
"Perceptions of Civil Liberties Among Blacks and Whites in the U.S.”
When it comes to perceptions of liberty in the United States, a noteworthy racial divide emerges. While a sizable number of white Americans express feelings of freedom constraint when asked about the ability to engage in political activities, nearly twice as many blacks feel as though they are not capable of expression. What are the factors that lead some Americans to believe they are less free than others and what differences drive the divide between white and black perceptions of freedom constraints?This paper provides an analysis of the determinants of perceived freedom constraints, focusing on the behavioral factors that may contribute to an individual’s beliefs about their own civil liberties. We turn our attention to a theoretical discussion of why blacks and whites differ in their perceptions of freedom and posit that diversity in personal relationships is pivotal to understanding blacks’ perceptions of political freedom. This research contributes valuable insights currently unexplored in the literature on race and attitudes toward government and political participation in the United States.
“Re-Examining Judicial Prestige Among State Courts of Last Resort.”
Often, state courts look to the actions of surrounding state institutions when interpreting law and deciding on cases. How are these esteemed reputations forged among state courts of last resort? This paper re-examines the early work of Calderia (1983) on "judicial prestige," the concept that some courts' opinions are more influential to the judicial sphere than others, and utilizes new and updated measurements to analyze why some state courts of last resort are followed more than others. Introducing two new levels of judicial prestige, this evidence suggests that state population, the key predictor in early studies, has no significant impact on judicial prestige when included in models with institutional variables. Alternatively, it appears institutional rather than demographic factors are more influential in prestige, particularly courts with greater levels of professionalism and more judges to accommodate, facilitate, and duly consider the case loads presented.
More information on current projects, published work and presentations can be found on my CV.