Abortion Politics, Mass Media, and Social Movements in America

All press is good press, or so the adage and the balance of scholarship concerning social movements and media go. It is into this understanding of the socio-political world that Deanna A. Rohlinger steps and declares ‘‘not so’’ with her recent book, Abortion Politics, Mass Media, and Social Movements in America. The media field is far more complex. Social movement organizations face an array of media options and scenarios, and the movement groups are variably constricted and enabled by both external and internal features. These groups can thus think tactically when it comes to whether and how to pursue media exposure. With this premise, Rohlinger uses four social movement organization case studies from abortion politics to ‘‘introduce a strategic choice approach that highlights what (and how) organizations regard and use media to forward their goals’’ (p. 3). The resulting book is not only timely given the resurgence of public interest in abortion politics and the recent Planned Parenthood/Center for Medical Progress hidden video controversy, but it provides some significant offerings to scholars interested in any or all of the areas listed in the title. Impressively marshaling ‘‘tens of thousands of organizational and media documents, a content analysis of 1,424 media stories, and interviews with activists and journalists’’ (p. 10), the book’s narrative follows particular media choices from 1980 to 2000 of two prominent reproductive rights organizations—National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood Federation of America—and two similarly situated organizations from the anti-abortion movement—National Right to Life Committee and Concerned Women for America. These four case studies allow for observing how a collection of media forms and contextual dynamics combine to create the environment within which movements make strategic choices about media involvement. To this end, Rohlinger divides the media field into three types—moderated (i.e., traditionally conceived media outlets), social (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and direct (i.e., media produced and distributed by a social movement itself). The highlighted contextual dynamics are similarly divided into three categories—organizational (i.e., group structure, identity, and resource availability), institutional (i.e., the broader public political environment), and movement dynamics (i.e., the context created by intra-movement ally and opponent actions)—but their boundaries are less clear given that the latter two dynamics are combined in their introduction. Rounding out the triad of trinities, the book uses three numerically titled ‘‘media dilemmas’’ faced by social movements as the means for seeing when organizations are forced to make strategic decisions about their media exposure. The first (‘‘Dilemma 1’’) and most basic is whether or not to attract and otherwise engage external media outlets at all. The benefits of doing so include getting one’s group noticed and the potential to influence the greater debate, but the risks are rooted in not ultimately being able to control how the group, movement, and/or issue are presented. The second dilemma is whether or not to respond to negative media attention related to one’s group, the movement generally, or another group or actor within the greater movement. Engaging with such negative coverage offers organizations another opportunity for raising their profile and issues, fundraising, and correcting negative portrayals. The risks, though, include getting bogged down or tainted by a negative portrayal, or causing conflicts and fomenting tension within a movement. Dilemma Three is whether or not to publicly respond to what is recognized as a losing issue. Responding allows a group to challenge how an issue is being framed, co-opt an opponent’s frame, or reframe the issue so as to draw attention to those with more potential. Remaining silent, as with all of the dilemmas, is an 344 Reviews