News Framing – A Short Essay

international | arts and media | opinion/analysis Tuesday May 23, 2006 17:40 by Liam Ó Maoláin - Freelance Journalist/Iriseoir

The assumptions lying behind “mass communications research” have altered in the light of new evidence thrown up in a report published in 1970, entitled “Demonstrations and Communications.” (Halloran, Elliott and Murdock

The first assumption was that the media conveyed a true image of reality and that there was a “mirror-image relationship” between events and reporting. The second was that audiences picked up on facts that confirmed their beliefs. (Lazarsfeld et al., 1944; Festinger, 1957; Katz, 1968, Freedman and Sears, 1965, Sears and Freedman, 1967, Seares and Abeles, 1969).
The report that changed the way researchers think was drawn from a variety of media platforms – print, radio and tv. The report also covered an event in its entirety, including the build-up and aftermath.
Key findings were made. Paramount among them was the “consonance of reporting”, and the “opinion-leader role of certain media.” Three areas of research were pursued.
1. Reality and Media Reality – How did the media cover the “event as an event” and the “event as news.” The event studied was a London protest in October, 1968, against the Vietnam War. An attempt by radicals to change the course of the protest resulted in a small sub-section marching on the US embassy, and a photograph was captured of an assault on a police officer. The violence received notorious coverage among the “opinion-leaders”(The Times, The Guardian etc), which was out of proportion to the vast majority taking part and who marched peaceably. A difference was noted between the “event as event”, and the “event as news.”
The findings confirmed earlier conclusions drawn by Lang and Lang. A theory was further developed by Kepplinger that the media could bring about a “self-fulfilling prophecy”, in that if they believed something would happen then it probably would. (It remains to be seen if the media’s preoccupation with a flu epidemic or bird flu will happen). Media reportage would seem to suggest that it is inevitable, but the reality might be quite different.
2. The Frame of Reference of Reporting – Halloran identified certain characteristics a) the “agenda-setting phase”, b) “perspectives” on news coverage, and c) actual coverage of the event. It was noted that the mass media followed the line taken by the “opinion-leaders”. Halloran concluded that journalists had a “predisposition”, based on past experience and related to “news value.” Common findings in the report found similarities with the work of Galtung and Ruge who identified “frequency, reference to persons, reference to negativity, and consonance.” Negativity is recognised as having more “news value than positive events.”
3. Opinion-Leader Media – Television coverage followed the chain of events as set up by the print media ie.The Times and The Guardian. “Reciprocal influence” was noted. An interesting effect was observed: “TV reporters use the press as their frame of reference, and newspaper journalists use television for theirs.” Radio follows a similar line. In a study of German journalists it was noted that the best journalists had a high regard for their “opinion-leaders” – Der Speigel and Die Zelt.
It was noted that the “similarity of media content” across all media platforms could be defined as “consonance.”
It is recognised that this does not necessarily mean “conformity of opinion”, and that the slant and focus are equally important. Within political reporting it was also noted that voters were influenced by the amount of press coverage devoted to the subject.
A final finding discovered “that journalists’ attitudes and opinions were homogeneous compared to the general population.” Journalists are influenced by other journalists and editors within the media family.