Pursuing Change or Pursuing Credit? Litigation & Credit Claiming on Social Media

• In Event: Courts and Judges in the News and ‘New’ Media

Abstract

Social media has become an important tool in interest groups' advocacy toolboxes because it provides an inexpensive and powerful way to communicate with large and diverse audiences. Posting on social media about protests, demonstrations, or support or opposition for legislation makes sense as a mobilization strategy. It is less clear why organizations would spend time posting about tactics that do not typically depend on public opinion or mass mobilization, such as litigation. Yet organizations do post about their judicial advocacy. This paper explores the nature and extent of these posts. It argues that there are two primary reasons interest groups post about judicial advocacy on social media. First, organizations may provide information about the courts on social media to build credibility and recognition as a trusted source of information. However, this goal is in tension with the ability to offer information as a selective benefit to gain and retain members. Therefore, we hypothesize that membership groups will be less likely to use social media in this way than non-membership public interest organizations. Second, organizations may use social media to claim credit for policy decisions made by the courts in order to increase their public and financial support. We expect that this strategy will be used consistently by interest groups involved in judicial advocacy. Using an original dataset of tweets and Facebook posts by interest groups involved in litigation, we find support for these expectations. This research provides insight into how, when, and why interest groups share information about the courts, litigation and their involvement therein.

Authors

• Kirsten Widner, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

• Maggie Macdonald, New York University

• Anna M Gunderson, Louisiana State University