前嶋 和弘

This paper examines how political talk radio programs have played important roles in American politics. A political talk radio (politically-oriented talk radio) program is a radio format that features discussions of political issues. Most programs are regularly hosted by a single individual and typically include "call-in" (live conversations between the host and listeners) elements. Political talk radio programs have become popular partly because of the federal government's deregulation of political broadcasting since the 1980s and partly because radio stations discovered the niche demands of listeners whose needs are not met by music-only programming. While talk radio has been dominated by conservatives since Rush Limbaugh's success beginning in the early 1990s, liberal talk radio programs such as the Ed Schultz Show have emerged over the past ten years. As liberal talk radio programs gain popularity, both conservative and liberal talk radio has helped fostering respective political movements and encourage political participation.

This paper discusses the issue of teen courts (youth courts, peer courts) in the United States. Specifically, this study focuses on teen court's uniqueness as public policy programs. Teen court programs are very diverse: each court has its own way of management, and its organization is quite different from others. Financial and funding situation of a court literally depends on each organization. Those differences come from the fact that each is created by its own regions with sets of needs from the citizens. This work exemplifies the teen court of Washington, D.C. (D.C. Time Dolalr Court) and articulates how the organization is unique.

This study examines the role of so-called media watchdog groups in American politics. Specifically, this paper focuses on activities of several major media watchdog groups (both on the left and right politically, as well as groups that specialize in certain topics) and analyzes how they frame political issues and influence citizens. Media watchdog groups claim that they analyze the news content of major news organizations and point out their inaccuracies and bias. Media watch groups' activities are crucial in setting the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage and also in promoting open dialogues in public. However, media watch groups themselves are not free from political bias; some groups appear to present data in a way that promotes their own political agenda; some are more conscious of the group's political leanings and attempt to collaborate with like-minded interest groups in order to press their policy priorities. This work concludes that media watch groups' "objective" data may sometimes present certain views on controversial political issues.

This paper examines the notion of the "Americanization" of political campaigns. The Americanization hypothesis describes an ongoing process of: (1) media-centered campaign practices, (2) the weakened role of parties in recruiting and selecting candidates, (3) candidate-centered campaigns, (4) professionalization of electioneering, and (5) increasing cynicism among voters. This paper extensively surveys the literature focusing on Americanization in European countries. It also explores Americanization in Japanese elections. At the end, several criticism of the hypothesis are analyzed.

This paper discusses the issue of political leanings in American media organizations. Specifically, there are four components of this work. First, I examine the definition of "liberal" in political traditions in the United States. Second, the discussion of "liberal bias" in U.S. media is examined. Serious arguments that the media in the U.S. lean toward the political left have initiated since the publication of The Media Elite (Lichter,Rothman, and Lichter 1986). This book suggests that American journalists have prominently progressive views on social issues and are more likely than averages U.S. citizens to vote for candidates from the Democratic Party. According to the book, those journalists are elites in society, graduates of the Ivy League or equally learned universities. Since its publication, the "liberal bias" of the media has arguably become a conventional wisdom in theories of political communications. Thirdly, however, a strong conservative backlash was launched by hawkish new media outlets in the mid-1990s, namely talk radio shows and cable news networks. Finally, the liberal camp has also begun unequivocally advocating left-of-center policies ideas and attacking their conservative counterparts. While studies claim that the public seeks the middle ground on political and social issues, the battle between the left and right of the American media spectrum has been increasingly articulated.

米大統領選テレビ討論会が有権者に与える影響を論ずるのが本稿の目的である。各候補者らが自らの主張をぶつけ合う米大統領選テレビ討論会は、政治参加を促す重要な機会として知られている。これは、候補者の政治家としての能力や政策を対立候補と比較しながら知ることができるためである。さらに、政治教育的な効果もあり、特に政治的に対する知識が十分でない層に対しては、政治に対する理解を深める効果も実証的に検証されている。また、討論形式にも工夫があり、2008年選挙では司会者だけではなく、インターネットサイトから一般の有権者が候補者に質問することができる「CNN・ユーチューブ大統領選討論会」も導入され、大きな話題となった。しかし、大統領選テレビ討論会が有権者の実際の投票行動に与える影響についっては、次の4点において、大きく疑問視されている。第1点目は、討論の準備や内容に起因する。予備選はともかく総選挙の場合、特に候補者は何度も事前にリハーサルしていることもあり、自分の得意な政策を知り尽くしており、自分の失点になるような争点については、討論会では直接的な対立を避けようとする傾向にある。そのため、候補者の政治家としての実際の能力を討論会のやり取りで見極めることは、有権者にとって難しい。第2点目は、討論会内で各候補者に与えられている個々の質問に対する回答時間が非常に限られている点である。わずか数分間で、政策についての深い論議まで論ずることは至難の業である。第3点目は討論会の参加資格である。これまでの大統領選討論会では、1996年選挙では有力だったロス・ペローでさえも、一部の討論会にしか参加を認められなかった。このように、共和・民主両党以外の第三政党の候補者が討論会から排除されるなど、民主主義的な観点からの疑問も提示されている。第4点目は、討論会直後にメディアが行う世論調査の結果に視聴者が影響されてしまう点である。視聴者は実際の討論の内容ではなく、メディアが伝える「勝ち負け」の世論調査のデータをみて、候補者を判断する傾向にある。このように、大統領選テレビ討論会については、討論会視聴者の政治参加を促す重要な機会ではあるものの、有権者の投票行動に対する実際的な効果は比較的限定されており、討論会の重要度が一人歩きしている感がある。