APPENDIX A
SEARCHES AND CODING OF FRAMES FOR FOUR CAUSES
All searches were conducted using the LexisNexis Academic search-templates
provided prior to 2006.
1. Sampling Tobacco Articles
A. Litigation
In \General News” and \Major Papers” libraries, we entered in the first search-term box
the expression “tobacco or cigarette” and the “Headline, Lead Paragraph(s), Terms” in
the box to the right; we used “AND” to connect to the second search-term box, into
which we inserted “lawsuit or litig! or sue! or suit” while leaving “Headline, Lead
Paragraph(s), Terms” in the box on the right as above. We searched only in the New
York Times.
To get a total litigation sample of approximately 300, we sought 60 relevant articles from
each of the 5 periods. We anticipated irrelevant articles, so we saved 75 articles from
each period after LexisNexis Academic sorted hits by relevance to our search terms. We
nonetheless fell short of 60 relevant articles for period one. Articles for each period were
coded up until at least 60 relevant articles were found (in the order in which they were
presented in Lexis Nexis after sorting for relevancy). In some cases, this means not all 75
articles were coded. In other periods, coders coded all 75 articles but fewer than 60
relevant articles were found.
B. Non-Litigation
In “General News” and \Major Papers” libraries, we entered in the first search-term box
the expression “tobacco or cigarette” alongside “Headline, Lead Paragraph(s), Terms” in
the box to the right; used an “AND” to connect to the second search-term box, then
entered “health or cancer or risk” in “Headline, Lead Paragraph(s), Terms;" and we
connected to next search-term box with an “AND NOT” into which we inserted “lawsuit
or litig! or sue! or suit” alongside “Full Text." We searched only in the New York Times
and within periods to achieve some temporal balance. To approximate a total litigation
sample N of 300, we aimed for 60 relevant articles from each of five periods. To
anticipate irrelevant articles, we saved 75 articles from each period after sorting by
LexisNexis Academic relevance.
2. Sampling Firearms Articles
A. Litigation
In the “General News” and “Major Papers” libraries, we entered in the first search-term
box the expression (gun or arm or weapon or firearm or handgun) w/1 (maker or
Political Advances amid Litigational Defeats: The Indirect Effects of Crimtort Causes
William Haltom and Michael McCann
Western Political Science Association 2011
manufacturer or industry) and clicked “Headline, Lead Paragraph(s), Terms” in the box
to the right; we used an “AND” to connect to the second search-term box, into which we
inserted the expression “lawsuit or litig! or sue! or suit” alongside “Headline, Lead
Paragraph(s), Terms” as above.
B. Non-Litigation
In “Lexis-Nexis Academic,” in the ”General News” and ”Major Papers” libraries, enter in
the first search-term box the expression (gun or arm or weapon or firearm or handgun)
w/1 (maker or manufacturer or industry) and click “Headline, Lead Paragraph(s), Terms”
in the box to the right; use an “AND” to connect to the second search-term box, into
which insert the expression (gun or arm or weapon or firearm or handgun) w/1 (control or
regulation or law! or legislation) and leave “Headline, Lead Paragraph(s), Terms” as
above; use an “AND NOT” to connect to the third search-term box, litigation or suits or
lawsuits in “Full Text”.
Have “LexisNexis Academic” sort the hits by “relevance” within each period and select
the appropriate number of articles to sum to 350. Excluding 48 articles from nondomestic newspapers, 303 domestic NON-litigation articles remained.
3. Sampling Silicone Implant Articles
A. Litigation
In ”General News” and ”Major Papers” libraries, we entered in the first search-term box
the expression (breast) w/1 (implant or surgery or augment!) and selected “Headline,
Lead Paragraph(s), Terms” in the box to the right; we used an “AND” to connect to the
second search-term box, into which we inserted the expression “lawsuit or litig! or sue!
or suit” alongside “Headline, Lead Paragraph(s), Terms” as above.
B. Non-Litigation
In ”General News” and ”Major Papers” libraries, we entered in the first search-term box
the expression (breast) w/1 (implant or surgery or augment!) alongside “Headline, Lead
Paragraph(s), Terms” in the box to the right; we used an “AND NOT” to connect to the
second search-term box, into which we inserted the expression “lawsuit or lawsuits or
litig! or sue! or suit!” alongside “Full Text” as above.
4. Sampling Food-Related Articles
A. Litigation
In ”General News” and ”Major Papers” libraries, we deployed the search string “(obesity
OR obese) AND (fast food) AND (litig! OR lawsuit OR sue!) alongside ‘Headlines, First
1
Political Advances amid Litigational Defeats: The Indirect Effects of Crimtort Causes
William Haltom and Michael McCann
Western Political Science Association 2011
Paragraphs, Terms.’ ” Please note that we did not search for those key terms in the entire
texts of newspaper articles.
B. Non-Litigation
In ”General News” and ”Major Papers” libraries, we entered “(obesity OR obese) AND
(fast food)” alongside “Headlines, First Paragraphs, Terms.” However, we qualified the
search with the third condition “AND NOT (litig! OR lawsuit OR sue!)” alongside ‘Full
Text’ rather than ‘Headlines, First Paragraphs, Terms.”
5. Tobacco-Frame Protocol:
Code
IR
Frame
Individual/User
Responsibility
CR
Corporate Responsibility
GR
Government
Responsibility
CD
Corporate
Duplicity/Disclosure
SR
Shared Responsibility
Description
Tobacco users and cigarette smokers are
responsible for their own health. Smoking is a
personal choice and people have been aware of
the possible harmful effects for a long time now.
Tobacco/cigarette manufacturers and sellers are
responsible for properly warning consumers,
providing accurate information, producing safer
products, educating the public about addiction
and quitting.
May appear in multiple forms. Government has a
duty to protect citizens from and inform citizens
about harmful substances. Or government has a
duty to protect manufacturers from frivolous
lawsuits. Or simply that government has a duty
to do something about tobacco.
Tobacco/cigarette manufacturers knowingly
concealed information regarding the potential
risks associated with tobacco and cigarettes.
Tobacco companies purposefully misled the
public in order to addict people to their product.
Shared responsibility mixed in one claim –
manufacturer and sellers responsible for
informing the public, safety, and distribution;
consumer (smoker) responsible for their own
health and personal choices. This frame
emphasizes both Individual Responsibility and
Corporate Responsibility.
2
Political Advances amid Litigational Defeats: The Indirect Effects of Crimtort Causes
William Haltom and Michael McCann
Western Political Science Association 2011
AF
Attorney’s Fees and
Motives
Includes the belief that monetary gain for
lawyers is the driving force behind litigation..
This frame puts the focus on attorneys rather
than tobacco and cigarette makers.
JS
Junk Science
GS
Good Science
PR
Parental Responsibility
PC
Public Costs
Allegations that the science/research associated
with tobacco, smoking, and second-hand smoke
and their potential health effects is questionable,
untrustworthy, unscientific, invalid, and so forth.
Can be in reference to either “side” of the debate
or a particular case.
The opposite view of junk science claims.
Allegations that the science/research associated
with tobacco, smoking, second-hand smoke and
the associated potential health effects is sound,
valid, trustworthy, and so forth.
Parents have the responsibility to teach their
children healthy habits and about the health risks
associated with smoking. This frame includes
assertions that kids today are smoking because
parents don’t do a good job, or because parents
are irresponsible.
Public costs of tobacco, cigarettes, and smoking.
Public costs of smoking in medical bills and
insurance must be paid by state or national
government; may be raised positively or
negatively.
6. Firearms-Frame Protocol:
Code
IR
Frame
Individual/User
Responsibility
CR
Corporate Responsibility
GR
Government
Responsibility
Description
Gun owners are responsible for safe gun
handling and proper use; individual negligence
and carelessness are to blame for accidents;
criminals to blame for violent actions; “guns
don’t shoot people, people shoot people”
Firearm manufacturers and retailers are
responsible for ensuring the safety, accuracy,
reliability of their products; for controlling the
distribution of firearms; for making/selling
products suitable only for “legitimate” purposes.
May appear in multiple forms. Government has
a duty to protect citizens from crime and gun
violence. Or government has a duty to protect
manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Or
3
Political Advances amid Litigational Defeats: The Indirect Effects of Crimtort Causes
William Haltom and Michael McCann
Western Political Science Association 2011
simply that government has a duty to do
something about guns.
CD
Corporate
Duplicity/Disclosure
Firearm manufacturers/retailers knowingly
engage in lax or negligent sales practices.
SR
Shared Responsibility
AF
Attorney’s Fees and
Motives
Shared responsibility mixed in one claim –
manufacturer/retailer responsible for safety and
distribution, gun owner responsible for safe
handling and proper use, both at once. This
frame emphasizes both Individual Responsibility
and Corporate Responsibility.
Includes the belief that the real problems come
from lawyers or/and money. This frame puts the
focus on attorneys rather than gun manufacturers
and retailers.
PC
Public Costs
Public costs of gun violence, treating gunshot
victims . . . “nation riddled by gun violence”
RE
Racial causes or
implications of harm by
guns
Indirect or direct efforts to distinguish
responsible users of guns (white) from unsafe
users (minority, inner city, crimogenic). Will
often go with the IR frame at top.
7. Silicone-Implant Frame Protocol:
Code
IR
Frame
Individual Responsibility
CR
Corporate (or
Professional)
Responsibility
GR
Government
Responsibility
Description
Emphases on the elective nature of breast
implant surgery. Claims that women enjoy
freedom of choice and are responsible for
decisions they make regarding their bodies.
Manufacturers are responsible for testing
products, performing clinical follow-ups on
product trials, and generally ensuring the safety
of products before releasing them for mass use.
Also includes belief that doctors who conduct
implant surgery are responsible for ensuring the
safety of the procedures and products they use.
May appear in multiple forms. Includes the
belief that breast implants is a public health issue
and that it is the government’s responsibility to
facilitate research, ensure the safety of medical
4
Political Advances amid Litigational Defeats: The Indirect Effects of Crimtort Causes
William Haltom and Michael McCann
Western Political Science Association 2011
CD
Corporate
Duplicity/Disclosure
SR
Shared Responsibility
AF
Attorney’s Fees and
Motives
PC
Public Costs
JS
Junk Science
GS
Good Science
F
Femininity
B
Bankruptcy
devices and products, monitor the complications
and illnesses women have suffered following
implant surgery, and so on.
Implant manufacturers/makers and doctors who
perform implant surgery are responsible for full
disclosure of accurate information about
products (often in connection to idea of corporate
duplicity) – this is often a key issue. Look for
allegations that implant manufacturers concealed
information about potential risks associated with
implants or knew (or should have known) that
implants were potentially harmful and let them
be used (or operated) anyways.
Shared responsibility mixed in one claim –
producer responsible for full disclosure, and
women responsible for informed decision
making, both at once. This frame emphasizes
both Individual Responsibility and Corporate
Responsibility.
Includes the belief that the real problems come
from lawyers and money. This frame puts the
focus on attorneys rather than implant
manufacturers/makers and plastic surgeons.
Claims that breast implants are a public health
issue.
Allegations that the science/research associated
with breast implants and their potential health
effects is questionable, untrustworthy,
unscientific, invalid, and so forth. Can be in
reference to either “side” of the debate or a
particular case. (Include a special place to mark
whether the “Daubert” case is mentioned.)
The opposite view of junk science claims.
Allegations that the science/research associated
with breast implants and their potential health
effects is sound, valid, trustworthy, and so forth.
Appeals to ideals of femininity, particularly as
justifications for implants. Equating femininity
and what it means to be female with “real” or
“natural” looking breasts of a particular
size/shape.
References to the financial burden imposed on
implant manufacturers (Dow, for example) by
the implant lawsuits.
5
Political Advances amid Litigational Defeats: The Indirect Effects of Crimtort Causes
William Haltom and Michael McCann
Western Political Science Association 2011
8. Food-Frame Protocol:
IR—Individual responsibility of specific plaintiff or consumers generally
(consumers are responsible for what they eat; enjoy freedom of choice; should
blame themselves for conditions they might have anticipated; tend to eat too
much; usually take responsibility for their own decisions; sometimes litigate to
avoid responsibility for outcome)
CR—Corporate responsibility to consumer/plaintiff for healthy food, or
offering healthy food choices/options (watch out – not the same as
CORPORATE DUPLICITY below)
CD—Corporate producer responsible for full disclosure of accurate
information about products (often in connection to fact of corporate duplicity) –
this is often the key issue for lawsuits, not unhealthy food but deception
SR—Shared responsibility mixed in one claim – producer responsible for full
disclosure, and consumer responsible for smart choice, both at once
AF—Attorneys’ fees and motives – real issue is the lawyers or/and money
PC—Public costs in medical bills and insurance must be paid by state or national
government
6
Political Advances amid Litigational Defeats: The Indirect Effects of Crimtort Causes
William Haltom and Michael McCann
Western Political Science Association 2011
APPENDIX D
ALL FRAMES BY LITIGATION-HEAVY & LITIGATION-LIGHT SAMPLES
Tobacco
Attorneys’ Fees
Corporate Deceit/Disclosures
Corporate Responsibility
Good Science
Governmental Responsibility
Individual Responsibility
Junk Science
Public Costs
Parental Responsibility
Shared Responsibility
Uncoded or Uncodable
Total
Firearms
Attorneys’ Fees
Corporate Deceit/Disclosures
Corporate Responsibility
Governmental Responsibility
Individual Responsibility
Public Costs
Racial Elements
Shared Responsibility
Uncoded or Uncodable
Total
Silicone Breast Implants
Attorneys’ Fees
Bankruptcy
Corporate Deceit/Disclosures
Corporate Responsibility
Femininity
Governmental Responsibility
Good Science
Individual Responsibility
Junk Science
Public Costs
Shared Responsibility
Uncoded or Uncodable
Total
Fast, Fatty, Junk Foods
Litigation-Light
Sample
n
col %
0
0%
86
8%
101
10%
355
34%
167
16%
85
8%
58
6%
103
10%
11
1%
12
1%
69
7%
1047
101%
Litigation-Light
Sample
n
col %
1
0%
49
8%
143
23%
152
25%
93
15%
61
10%
1
0%
20
3%
95
15%
615
99%
Litigation-Light
Sample
n
col %
14
2%
18
2%
61
7%
51
6%
131
16%
30
4%
195
23%
73
9%
189
23%
18
2%
12
1%
48
6%
840
101%
Litigation-Light
Sample
n
col %
7
Litigation-Heavy
Sample
n
col %
81
6%
364
28%
379
29%
38
3%
68
5%
186
14%
25
2%
108
8%
0
0%
19
1%
35
3%
1303
99%
Litigation-Heavy
Sample
N
col %
78
4%
446
25%
540
31%
112
6%
252
14%
273
16%
5
0%
17
1%
34
2%
1757
99%
Litigation-Heavy
Sample
N
col %
82
8%
168
15%
142
13%
203
19%
18
2%
1
0%
262
24%
25
2%
129
12%
8
1%
6
1%
49
4%
1093
101%
Litigation-Heavy
Sample
N
col %
Both Samples
n
col %
81
3%
450
19%
480
20%
393
17%
235
10%
271
12%
83
4%
211
9%
11
0%
31
1%
104
4%
2350
99%
Both Samples
n
col %
79
3%
495
21%
683
29%
264
11%
345
15%
334
14%
6
0%
37
2%
129
5%
2372
100%
Both Samples
n
col %
96
5%
186
10%
203
11%
254
13%
149
8%
31
2%
457
24%
98
5%
318
16%
26
1%
18
1%
97
5%
1933
101%
Both Samples
n
col %
Political Advances amid Litigational Defeats: The Indirect Effects of Crimtort Causes
William Haltom and Michael McCann
Western Political Science Association 2011
Attorneys’ Fees
Corporate Deceit/Disclosures
Corporate Responsibility
Governmental Responsibility
Individual Responsibility
Public Costs
Parental Responsibility
Shared Responsibility
Uncoded or Uncodable
Total
1
93
475
288
767
69
275
130
27
2125
0%
4%
22%
14%
36%
3%
13%
6%
1%
99%
8
98
193
463
62
588
17
59
63
8
1551
6%
12%
30%
4%
38%
1%
4%
4%
1%
100%
99
286
938
350
1355
86
334
193
35
3676
3%
8%
26%
10%
37%
2%
9%
5%
1%
101%