Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Session Type
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Access for All
Exhibit Hall
Hotels
WiFi
Search Tips
Annual Meeting App
Onsite Guide
When journalists decide whose voices to amplify in protest coverage, they exercise significant power over movement perception and legitimacy. This study reveals how media organizations strategically deploy quotes as gatekeeping mechanisms that either elevate or marginalize social movements. We propose a “selective modulation” framework that identifies how journalists systematically filter and frame activist voices based on observable protest characteristics. Using computational analysis of over 12,000 media reports on U.S. protests (2022-2024) and a conjoint survey experiment, we demonstrate that five key factors—protest size, tactical choices, organizational capacity, issue focus, and target selection—directly influence how protest voices appear in news coverage. Our findings reveal that while protesters receive quotes in nearly three-quarters of articles (72.79%), the substance and framing of these quotes vary systematically. Organizational capacity consistently increases substantive quote inclusion, while direct action tactics substantially reduce favorable coverage across all protest types. Notably, racial justice protests receive more participation-focused but fewer issue-substantive quotes than other movements, while protests targeting government entities generate more policy-focused coverage. Our experimental results confirm that issue-focused quotes significantly enhance perceived protest legitimacy compared to participation-focused statements. This research extends protest paradigm scholarship by identifying quotes as specific textual mechanisms through which legitimacy is granted or withheld, offering both theoretical insights for media scholars and practical guidance for movements seeking more effective public communication strategies.