Media framing violates the constant-effects assumption of time-series models

Evidence

Priming also carries an implication for the study of political change more generally. Most quantitative studies of this sort assume that the effects of economic and social change are constant over time—that, say, the impact of a one-percentage-point change in the unemployment rate on the incumbent’s reelection chances is invariant across history (or, less dramatically, the length of the time series). Priming collides head-on with this assumption. According to priming, shifts in news media content alter the political importance that the public attaches to the flow of events. If priming is pervasive, the assumption of constant effects seems dubious. This does not mean that the typical time series analysis of political change is worthless, only that such analysis would be enhanced by incorporating the fundamental insight of priming—that through its monopoly over the immediate telling of political history, media possess the power to influence what the public considers and what it ignores. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1626

Categorization

• XREF: The monopoly over telling political history echoes agenda-setting theory and also the hidden-in-plain-sight critique of parametric time-series assumptions.