Replication Data for: Broadening the Debate about War: the Inclusion of Foreign Critics in Media Coverage and its Potential Impact on Public opinion

In the U.S. context, scholars have demonstrated that public support for military intervention is influenced by the elite debate as presented in the national news media, and that the volume of elite criticism reported is largely determined by opposition in Congress. Because the media “index” the debate among officials in Washington, a lively and comprehensive airing of the pros and cons of a military intervention often depends upon Congressional leaders taking an oppositional stance. But sometimes American reporters will incorporate a surge of foreign leaders’ critical views, even when Congressional leaders support administration policy or when they choose to remain silent due to strategic considerations. The question addressed by this article is whether such departures from traditional indexing behavior—which bring foreign views into media coverage in a significant manner –- can be predicted based on the circumstances and journalists’ incentives. The article also explores whether high-visibility opposition by credible foreign leaders, in particular United Nations officials and European allies, can substitute for partisan cues from domestic leaders and invigorate a national debate in a manner that influences public opinion.

在美国语境下，已有学者通过研究证实，公众对军事干预的支持态度，会受到全国新闻媒体所呈现的精英辩论的影响；而媒体报道的精英批评声量，在很大程度上由国会中的反对声音所决定。由于媒体会"索引"华盛顿官员之间的辩论，一场生动且全面展现军事干预利弊的报道，往往有赖于国会领导人采取反对立场。但在部分情形中，即便国会领导人支持政府的相关政策，或是出于战略考量选择保持缄默，美国记者仍会引入大量外国领导人的批评观点。本文探讨两个核心问题：其一，这种显著将外国观点纳入媒体报道、背离传统"索引式"报道行为的现象，能否依据具体情境与记者的职业动机进行预测；其二，由可信外国领导人（尤其是联合国官员与欧洲盟友）发起的高关注度反对声，是否能够替代国内政党领袖的党派线索，并以影响公众舆论的方式激活全国性辩论。