Television Media and Fiscal Policymaking

This thesis investigates how U.S. television media shaped the public's understanding of the 2009 financial crisis and the legitimacy of its competing fiscal responses. While existing research has explored the role of print media in reinforcing austerity narratives, particularly in Europe, this study focuses on the under-examined case of the United States, where a significant Keynesian stimulus response provided an opportunity to assess whether media discourse facilitated or constrained the possibility of paradigmatic change. The thesis examines how cable and broadcast television networks represented actors, framed fiscal debates, and mediated the contest between stimulus and consolidation in a moment of acute economic uncertainty. Conceptually, the research integrates Peter Hall's model of policy paradigms with Mark Blyth's emphasis on authority, uncertainty, and ideational struggle. It extends this theoretical foundation by conceptualising television media as active institutional actors that participate in the construction of fiscal legitimacy. Through selective amplification of voices, symbolic appeals to "the public," and strategic framing of crisis narratives, television media shapes the discursive terrain in which policy alternatives are made possible or foreclosed. The study develops a novel categorisation methodology that maps fiscal discourse across three analytical dimensions: actor type (state vs. society), ideological orientation (Keynesian vs. neoliberal), and issue framing (spending vs. taxation). Drawing on 782 television transcripts from 2009 and 2010—spanning over 6,000 policy arguments—the analysis identifies substantial asymmetries in actor visibility, policy framing, and partisan alignment. While initial coverage in early 2009 showed notable support for expansionary measures, by 2010, media discourse had shifted sharply. Pro-stimulus coverage declined by 38%, and consolidation-oriented narratives increased by 38%. The findings reveal that television media helped reassert neoliberal fiscal norms despite the presence of Keynesian policy interventions. Institutional actors such as President Obama, the White House, and progressive economists were increasingly marginalised, while Republican elites and media hosts gained disproportionate visibility. Notably, CNN, positioned as the most ideologically centrist among the cable networks, emerged as a critical arbiter of legitimacy; its shift toward conservative framing added critical credibility to the reassertion of fiscal restraint. The thesis concludes that the failure to achieve a paradigmatic shift in the U.S. cannot be understood solely through empirical exercise, institutional inertia, or elite resistance. Instead, it reflects how televised discourse filtered and structured political and public meaning, limiting the circulation of competing ideas. By applying a novel categorisation framework grounded in theories of policy paradigms and social learning, this thesis demonstrates how U.S. television media functioned as a key intermediary in the contest for fiscal authority between state and societal actors, shaping which voices and policy alternatives gained legitimacy, and ultimately influencing the trajectory of paradigm stability and transformation during the post-crisis period.