FROM DISCLOSURE TO SCANDAL: PARTISAN MORAL FRAMING AND POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Abstract

When disclosures that raise questions about the moral conduct of national political figures become public, they do not always produce scandal or political accountability. This thesis asks whether partisan media incentives shape when and how such disclosures are framed as scandals, and whether these dynamics vary across issue domains moralized differently by the two major parties. I argue that scandals are not inherent in misconduct but are constructed through media framing when a disclosure is presented as violating a party’s moralized identity, activating expectations of hypocrisy, blame, and accountability. To test this argument, I use a mixed-methods design combining a content analysis of online news coverage across six national outlets with a survey experiment that varies disclosure type and partisan moral context while holding evidentiary strength constant. I find that abortion-related disclosures receive more sustained, morally charged coverage in right-leaning outlets, while left-leaning outlets covering sexual misconduct more often adopt ambivalent framing. In the experiment, respondents are more likely to perceive identical disclosures as scandals when they conflict with co-partisan moral commitments, implying that accountability operates unevenly across issue domains in polarized media environments.