Draw upon the lecture and readings to describe how some prominent event or issue have been framed in the media. Specifically, what frames have been used in which media outlets? What do the frames draw attention to and what do they divert attention from? What reframings have occurred?
70 thoughts on “Framing in the Media”
Comments are closed.
Media framing analysis helps us understand how a media outlet represents a specific topic by drawing attention to specific aspects of the issues at the expense of other aspects. The media framing is in fact a selection process that influences the perceptions and actions of the audience on the issue. A recent study from Zhang (2015) investigates the media coverage of CNN and Al-Jazeera English (AJE) on ISIS threat from July 2014 to December 2014. His research findings show how these two media outlets frame the ISIS threat in different ways.
180 pieces of news from CNN and 140 pieces of news from AJE on the topic of ISIS threat are analyzed and categorized into eight different frames. The most dominant frame in two media outlets’ online coverage was the “strategic game” frame (28.9% in CNN and 26.4% in AJE). However, the proportion of the “political opportunism” frame in CNN (19.4%) was much higher than that in AJE (3.6%). This reflected that CNN emphasized political debates and unifications a lot in covering the issue (Zhang, 2015). In comparison, AJE was barely concerned about political parties’ debates but, instead, focused on the “human rights crisis” frame. In addition, CNN also more frequently used the “ISIS propaganda” frame (15%) than AJE does (3.6%). While AJE emphasized on the “failing state” frame (13.6%), only 2.2% of the news pieces from CNN fit in this frame.
AJE also framed more news pieces into the “ISIS prowess” and “geopolitical alignment” frames (17.9% and 12.1%, respectively) compared to CNN (9.4% and 6.1%, respectively). Zhang (2015) concludes that AJE is a pro-Arab transnational news outlet and frequently reported news from the Arab nations’ perspective and intended to demonstrate how different Arab nations faced to ISIS.
For the frames discussed above, some of them are generic frames that can be used in the context of almost any issue, for example, the “political opportunism,” “geopolitical alignment” and “human rights crisis” frames, while others such as the “ISIS prowess,” “ISIS propaganda” frames are issue specific. This example also illustrates how different media outlets reframe a political event into different categories based on their political stances.
Reference:
Zhang, X. (2015). Media coverage of the ISIS threat: Transnational media and global journalism. Retrieved from https://repositories.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/63649/ZHANG-THESIS-2015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Shawn, I think it’s really important that you recognize the statistical differences between CNN and AJE. I think it’s interesting to see how two media outlets (that one would hope have the same outcome-informing the public on an issue) would take two very different approaches to discussing the same issue. For instance, CNN taking an approach to discuss ISIS in regards to political parties, while AJE focuses on ISIS as a “human rights crisis”. To me, this has a lot to say about the true intentions of the network are versus what the public is told the network’s intentions are expected to be.
I agree Kayla having statistical evidence would be helpful to differeniate between CNN and AJE. Shawn I like your example and I think its great that you discuss ISIS and how its frame.
I totally understand framing a topic so that it has a theme and the reader has an idea about the given material. The use of framing to push a political agenda seems to be so commonplance I sometimes have to read very carefully so I am able to formulate my own opinion. In the on-line lecture Professor Hoffman stated that studies revealed that two competing frames can actually diminish the potency of both frames themselves. I believe that apathy sets in when people are assaulted with contrasting mixed messages that cloud the actual issue. As we have disussed on previous blogs CNN is specifically geared toward pushing Republican rhetoric. I think that your comparison of the two media networks was a good example of how framing can mold the opinion of the viewer if they only use one source for their information.
Media outlets tend to use multiple frame works, depending on the issue or news story at hand. An example of the “thematic framing” is Vox.com’s coverage of the recent Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado. It might seem appropriate to cover this news story in the “episodic frame”, as it is a single shooing incident. However, Vox covers it in an overall theme in which there has been a history of violent behavior towards planned parenthood clinics across the country. The writer, Sarah Kliff, also places this incident in a recent historical context with regards to Planned Parenthood services such as the controversial videos by the Center for Medical Progress in which they allege that Planned Parenthood tries to sell fetal tissue for money. This style of framework puts this single incident and tries to place it in a historical context, so as to better understand why this shooting may have happened or what history there is with Planned Parenthood clinics and violence.
Source: http://www.vox.com/2015/11/30/9816870/planned-parenthood-violence-controversy/in/9582415
A second example of a framing is the “Issue Specific” frame used by Fox News in a news article about the refugee crisis and security concerns in Germany, as the country will take in over a million refugees from across the globe. The article outlines the concern of terrorists entering the country with refugees, or refugees who may become terrorists once inside Germany’s borders. The most telling quote of this issue specific frame is “Germany is expected to take in between 1 million and 1.5 million refugees from the Middle East, Africa and Asia this year, far more than in previous years. Several organizations have warned that even if most or all of the new arrivals have no interest in terrorism, they may pose a threat to public order due to their views on Israel and the West, as well as other ethnic and religious tensions. ” Fox News, with this angel, tries to frame the refugee issue in Germany in a specific, security issue light while the article does not discuss other issues pertaining to the influx of refugees such as why they are fleeing their homeland. It is very effective is displaying one specific angel of this international issue. However, it ignores how complex the issue of the current refugee crisis actually is.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/30/german-officials-warn-homegrown-islamists-trying-to-radicalize-refugees/?intcmp=hpbt2
Corbin, I think you’ve posted two great examples of framing in the media. I really like the first one, on thematic framing. I believe the historical interpretation Vox.com has provided to highlight the longevity of this issue of violent behavior, especially for Planned Parenthood. Some people may identify the recent shooting as a time incident, if they have like to no prior knowledge of the past events. Therefore, this article provides a successful, holistic approach to issue of violence and Planned Parenthood.
I enjoy reading your examples. Its great that you explain Issue specific of framing. “Fox News, with this angel, tries to frame the refugee issue in Germany in a specific, security issue light while the article does not discuss other issues pertaining to the influx of refugees such as why they are fleeing their homeland”. This is a great example of framing. Although it explains refugee issue in Germany it stills did not talk about the causes of high volume of refugees or the seriousness of the problem.
The example of Vox’s article about the Planned Parenthood shooting is an excellent example of thematic framing. Mass shootings are becoming more frequent, more publicized and it’s important that media outlets give context for the public to understand the causes and motives. Had the article simply focused on the single incident of the shooting, it could have been regarded as an isolated incident. Framing the incident in the context of the history of Planned Parenthood and the current situations surrounding the organization highlights the motives of the shooting and the severity of the situation.
One barrier for many people to well-written, thematically framed articles is their length. As shown in the Vox article you supplied here, these stories tend to be “long form” since they are providing so much history and background. While lengthy articles are great source for understanding the full spectrum of an issue, they are time consuming and therefore do not attract as wide of an audience as shorter, issue specific articles. News magazines like the NY Times Magazines and Politico Magazine also produce very lengthy thematic articles, but one often has to dedicate a half hour to read them.
CNN uses two major frames in practically all of its news stories. The first frame is the episodic frame, whenever there is “breaking news”, CNN attempts to isolate the incident and cover every minute detail about the story. After the episodic frame CNN switches gears into the thematic frame, here CNN attempts to put the news event into some greater context. This is the standard CNN format and nearly all of its news stories can be broken down this way. Examples include terrorism, gun violence, police brutality, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and natural disasters
For example, the initial reporting of the terrorist attack in Paris took the form of the episodic frame; in the ensuing days, CNN covered terrorism in general through the thematic frame, with an emphasis on fear and the possibility that we are all targets at any time. Whenever there is a gun tragedy, CNN once again provides detail account of the incident at first, followed by a broader focus on gun violence in America, sometimes there is even a special, to remind us of how many people die from gun violence, and it can even to happen to us. Natural disasters fall in the same category, with an initial story about a tragic event, usually followed by a discussion on the increasing number of natural disasters that may be related to global warming. If CNN does not have any of this “breaking News” their default is to report the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because something is always going on over there, and once again, they use the same frames. It is quite repetitive, and I still do not know why people watch CNN.
It seems as though the format CNN takes when covering threatening situations can be greatly harmful to the public’s opinion on crucial issues. For example, if CNN covers the Paris attacks in the way yo had mentioned, it seems as though relating terrorism generally would instill fear in the minds of many and lead to discrimination and assumption towards certain groups of people. In this context, CNN and similarly formatted media outlets are doing more harm than good, hindering public perception and creating negative views throughout our society.
People watch CNN out of habit. They are usually the first to cover major issues. They are usually at the frontline of major issues and i think people like that. People want to be kept informed every minute. Then again, no body really studies the strategies any of the news media outlet uses to report issues. Even if they do, i think it wouldn’t in anyway affect them from watching the news.
Jake, your review of CNN’s general news coverage is very accurate from my experiences as well. CNN generally covers “breaking news” as an episodic frame. They do this as they gather more information in regards to certain events, such as the shootings in Paris. After most of the information has been gathered, it switches gears to a thematic frame. In this case, CNN looked a terrorism as a whole, the role of ISIS, and even distorted into issues of refugees and Islam. As knowledge and information changes, so does CNN’s framing of an issue.
You couldn’t be more right with the way CNN reports news. They go from being episodic with “breaking news” and then switch gears to view it in the larger context when the conflict dies down. Episodic news coverage seems to be what grabs people’s attention, and once they’re hooked in then they can be invited to view the issue as part of a greater theme. It would be interesting to consider the positive and negative implications of CNN reporting news in this format.
I agree with your assessment of CNN. In regards to the Paris attacks I do believe that some news has to be reported thematically. In this pariticular example Paris was attacked twice in one year. I think that correlation was strong enough to go back in the history of terrorism in Paris.
That’s all very true. Much has especially been made in recent years of CNN’s use of “Breaking News.” I know some critics have linked CNN’s proclivity for breaking news with a large number of reporting errors. If that’s true, it’s the biggest indictment of CNN’s practices as their drive to be the first on the air with story clearly causes them to jettison critical facts and details, or at least skip important steps in the journalistic process. I think that’s a flaw with 24 hour news stations.
I have not watched CNN for many years but I think the reason people watch CNN is because they are seen as neutral. MSNBC is to the left and Fox to the right and CNN is objective and presents both sides of the arguments and coverage which is certainly not true, but that’s how they market their brand. Excellent explanation of how CNN uses these two frames.
After reviewing various sources, I found two examples of frame at the local and international level. The first is an article from a local news source (ABC7 NY) about the cancellation of a holiday tree lighting ceremony in the Bronx, which was a long standing tradition for the community. However, this year it was cancelled due to an increase in the neighborhood’s homeless population. After my classmates’ presentation on homelessness in New York City, I know this problem is a vast issue throughout the city and it is not solely an issue restricted to the neighborhood of Belmont. Yet, from my understanding of framing, the issue seems to be an example of episodic framing. I say this because reporters are only mentioning homelessness in relation to this neighborhood (specifically three individuals), with no acknowledgment of the larger homeless epidemic within the city. Although this may be a one-time event, I think this would have been a great opportunity to further deliberate on an issue that is concerning many New Yorkers.
Source: http://abc7ny.com/news/homeless-spike-forces-cancellation-of-bronx-neighborhoods-annual-tree-lighting/1104211/
My second article focuses on the issue of climate change, which can be initially seen as issue specific framing. However, for me, the issue has been reframed to be a thematic issue. For example, the article listed below (from the New York Times) looks at the long term, international effort to combat climate change. As the article mentions, political leaders will be meeting in Paris over the next few weeks to develop an action plan to finance and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For me, this is a good example of thematic framing. Climate change began as an issue specific frame, but it has transitioned to thematic approach. As of recently, these countries (and the media outlets, by extension) are specifically working to diminish the effects of climate change for society as a whole, rather than their individual locations.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/science/beyond-paris-climate-change-talks.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
I think it’s great that you highlighted one of the positive aspects of framing. I agree that it can have a negative impact but can also help us understand issues more broadly. We, for instance, don’t see as much of the effects of pollution and may not first hand understand why so much change needs to be made. However, if you’re walking around Beijing you can almost feel the cancer growing as you breathe in the air! Global warming is something that has to be addressed on a global scale and thematic framing is one way to ensure that this happens.
Kayla, I like both of your examples for both the episodic and thematic frames. As you pointed out, any news organization can likely use multiple frames when explaining a story. In the case of the homelessness issue, it was framed in a strictly episodic frame while the issue of climate change was framed in a thematic frame, while one can point to individual cases of natural disaster’s such as California’s current drought as evidence of Climate Change.
I like how you described international topic: climate change issue and refereed it to thematic framing. Furthermore, your another example New York’s homelessness issue is very strong point to refer episodic framing.
Kayla, I like how you described international topic: climate change issue and refereed it to thematic framing. Furthermore, your another example New York’s homelessness issue is very strong point to refer episodic framing.
I agree with you, that the media does report in a biased ways that affects how we look at the issue. The homeless crisis is a good example of how the media framed this issue as something that was only affecting this neighborhood, without looking at the larger picture. To address any problem, we have to look at it from a thematic frame due to the complexity of the problem and not look at it in an episodic frame.
I read the article last week on the the cancellation of the tree lighting in the Bronx and I immediately thought something similar. I had initially thought that the article would address homelessness in the Bronx (and within the city) as a issue surrounding the lighting, but instead the article focused on how homelessness affected a single incident. The article could have been had more of an impact on how the rise of homelessness is affecting city events as a whole and framed the incident within the larger issue of homelessness in the city.
Hey Kayla, I like both of your articles. In my understanding of framing, reporters frame their news in different ways. If they aim to focus on local news and just report what is going on in the local community, they choose not to broaden the frame to cover all citizens. There are commentary articles in which the authors investigate the homelessness problem in a larger scale and also give their own opinions on homelessness as well as this event, but for news reporting, I seldom find deliberation as professional reporters want to be unbiased and just present the event in the minimum number of words.
The media outlets are very biased when it comes to reporting issues. By using specific framing strategies, they are able to control what they want the public to see and focus on. The most common ones that the media outlets use are issue specific and thematic framing in my opinion. Again, depending on what position the media outlets stand, they are able to divert the public’s attention on an issue in the direction that they want by using these framing strategies.
Take the recent Paris terrorist attack. Depending what mainstream media you watch, there is going to be different opinions about how the U.S are handling the situation. In this article below, Sean Hannity and Mark Steyn used the Paris terrorist attack to point out that President Obama is still not able to call the terrorist for who they are. Therefore, stating that Obama is very weak leader.
Source: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/11/18/mark-steyn-hannity-slam-obama-syrian-refugees-paris-terror-response
Another example is the recent Colorado shooting. CNN called attention to gun violence as well as a focus on Women’s health by using the recent Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting incident. Using this to emphasis the need for a striker gun control policy as well as a focus on women’s health. CNN placed this incident in a much broader context then just simple shootings. Media often uses issues as a lead way to discuss other issues that are important to them.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/28/politics/democrats-gun-control-colorado-shootings-planned-parenthood/
I completely agree with your points. We consistently see framing in media reports, especially surrounding issues that threaten safety and security. Similarly, the same type of framing can be observed when health crises occur. Instead of simply reporting the facts, media sources often inflate or put a spin on the issues causing panic among society and redirecting attention. While this can be beneficial, calling to question greater issues as you had explained with the Colorado shooting, it can also distract us from what we need to know.
I thought your two examples exemplified framing very well. I would say that the media recognizes that during tragic events, audiences will be more susceptible to framing. Unfortunately, some may view moments of fear and uncertainty as an opportune time to project certain agendas.
I think your point that the media can work to exploit fear for moving an agenda forward is an important one. Often times after a tragedy or major event there is a quick push to find a solution that would have prevented it. These answers are often rushed and not fully thought out with longstanding consequences. In the moment though, the media and politicians can frame the tragedy in a way that allows them to tell others to follow them to safety and that they will provide protection as long as we put our trust in them.
Jocelyn, I like your point about Paris terrorist attack. Your Colorado shooting is also another good example of showing U.S. domestic level situation . I strongly agree that our mainstream media is hiding many true facts and our media do not show the actual situation to us. This practices is harmful for our generation and society.
Exactly this! I highly doubt that Fox News would use the Colorado shooting as a discussion for gun control because their viewership is quite conservative and I am betting that they probably called the shooter a lone gunman instead of a domestic terrorist. Calling someone a domestic terrorist would then cause people to think that the attacks that we are seeing more and more on US soil was a problem whereas by calling the shooter a “lone gunman” the public is supposed to think that the situation was just a random occurrence and that no problem exists.
Although framing is mostly used by the media for their own gain, like increased rating of the report for more revenue, political influence or satisfying allies, Framing itself is not a bad thing. A classic study on framing called “Democratic Debate and Real Opinions” by Donald R. Kinder & Thomas E. Nelson, shows framing is good for deliberation. Because whenever an issue is framed or presented into a broader context, people are more likely to express their opinion which is good deliberation. On the other hand, if the news is presented in a raw format, people are most likely act indifferent towards the subject matter. On that note, i believe Framing is a necessary tool for good deliberation, but only when it is used as an impartial manner.
I agree with you Jocelyn, the lifting of the issue to a broader perspective is what the media often do to reframe the news. As the media market is so competitive, the media want to explore the news stories in more depth and report them in new angles, otherwise they would not be able to stand out and attract readers.
Sometimes the reframing can help us understand what the target audience of a media outlet is. One more reason of reframing is to present the stories in the way its main readers hope to see.
An example of framing can be observed in one of society and pop cultures most talked about events this year; In June of 2015, formerly Bruce Jenner reveled to the world that he had forever identified and would now be known as Caitlyn. Over time the Olympian, father and pop culture icon would go on to receive much criticism and praise for her transition as media and individuals alike began to understand this issue-specific topic. Taking an either pro or against stance on Jenner’s transition and the work she was doing in her role as an icon, media outlets began reframing Jenner as either a progressive advocate or monster.
Jenner made her first appearance on the cover of Vanity Fair in June of 2015. The icon was glamorized for her strength and courage throughout her difficult transition and for the message she had to share with the world. Just a few weeks later, she would go on to accept the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the ESPYS among her peers, fans, family and the LGBTQ community. Throughout the earliest stages of her transition, Jenner would receive much praise for her courage and strength; highlighted in her reality TV series “I AM Cait.” Networks and media outlets such as E, ESPN, CNN and Vanity Fair framed Jenner and her story as one of courage and strength, taking a positive stance with Jenner through her transition and as an activist and role model.
Although many support Caitlyn and feel that her stance in society allows her a platform for awareness, critics believe Caitlyn is doing more harm than good and attack her transition and experience as a woman. Jenner’s celebration and praise over the past few months has been equally met with criticism over her female experience as well as her advocacy for the transgender community; media outlets and transgender advocacy groups have gone on record stating “You are an insult to trans people “you are an insult to women!”
Despite the differing opinions on Caitlyn Jenner’s personal decisions and how she has utilized her fame to promote advocacy, media outlets and individuals have reframed the issue to meet their view points; leaving out pieces of information that may tell a different story.
This is a actually a very interesting way of looking at framing strategies. We normally focus on news media outlets. However, the pop culture media also uses these strategies to either stir controversies or show something positive. In Caitlyn Jenner’s case, the media portrayed her in a positive way, even a role model. using her show and her openness to the transition, the pop culture media opened up a even broader context, which is the struggles that the transgender community goes through.
This was an interesting post! I think that one of the criticisms of Caitlyn is that her story is essentially one of “episodic framing.” While it’s wonderful that she is representing the transgender community and pushing for awareness, her story is very different from that of many other transgender people. Highlighting one story and one person’s struggle some may say does not do justice to the greater community and the myriad of issues that they face.
I think that this was a great topic to choose to illustrate framing. There were so many articles and news stories that seemed to frame the story in a different way. These different frames illustrated how divided people were with their opinions. Some saw her as a brave advocate and others thought she couldn’t be further from that. I think that everyone has been exposed to media from all sides and it would be interesting to see how that affected people’s perception.
I enjoyed your use of a more pop-culture reference–using this type of reference helps demonstrate that the news is not just about [unfortunate] wars, shootings, and attacks, but that framing goes on with every topic in the media. It has been somewhat shocking (although I guess at this point, it should not be surprising) to see the vast array of responses by the media, public advocates, and the general public. I also find it interesting that even though this is more of a pop-culture/social topic, almost every type of new source has been following her transition and the public’s response.
I thought that the readings this week were interesting in that they showed two different viewpoints of framing – one negative and one positive. We can see how framing can distort a story and persuade people to see and support only one side. However, we can also see how framing adds a new context and allows us to understand multiple viewpoints.
One of the most recent issues that has undergone framing has been the shooting at Planned Parenthood. Many news articles have isolated it with episodic framing and shown it as a single event when in reality there have been many attacks on Planned Parenthood institutions. It is clearly portrayed in issue specific frames regarding pro-life and pro-choice. Some people have even gone on to say that while the shooting was horrible, we can look on the positive side that the shooter prevented loss of lives from abortions (what?!). This viewpoint has been reframed to show how this attack is in essence domestic terrorism. This reframing is especially smart as we are still thinking about the terrorist attacks in Paris – possibly making this thematic framing?
I think the most important thing with framing is to have exposure to multiple frames. It is essential to understand how the world around us understands and processes events. Framing is not just in the news – we run into it in our daily lives constantly and are somewhat wired to listen to the frames that we identify with. It’s essential that people try to examine ourselves to understand why we think the way we do and respond the way we do to events and news stories, as well as understand different perspectives and how we may not be seeing the entire story at first glance. It pushes us to look at the world with a more critical lens.
I think your point about the Planned Parenthood shooting and terrorism is an example of the media not creating a theme that it should. It seems as though whenever there is a mass shooting on American soil it is not deemed an act of terrorism if the shooter is a white male. Headlines from the shootings in Columbine, Sandy Hook, or Aurora use words like , “massacre”, “unthinkable”, or “horrific” which are accurate but underscore the truth. These shootings are designed to make people think twice before going about their daily lives and are all domestic acts of terror. By treating these as episodic events the media is not accurately portraying where the real threat of violence against Americans is coming from.
I think you make some great points about planned parenthood and the recent coverage making it seem as if this is an isolated or episodic incident. While it is one of the greater tragedies involving planned parenthood, it is not in fact the first time someone or some group has “terrorized” the organization (and unfortunately it will probably not be the last). I think this demonstrates our need to be more proactive at looking at trends and past incidents’ to then be able to better understand the situation at hand and to be more prepared to understand the issue as a whole.
The reading on framing political issues in American politics by Karen Callaghan and Frauke Schnell did a great job of showing how political actors can influence the media, which in turn influences the public. I believe Senator Ted Cruz, used his platform during the Republican debates to frame the issue of discrimination within the Syrian Refugee crises. The Senator tried to claim that the Obama administration was only letting in Muslim refugees and ignoring Christian refugees fleeing Syria. His argument was built on the statistic that only 3 percent of the refugees that entered the United States were Christian. He attributed this to Obama’s “selection process”. Senator Cruz decided to use specific statistics but omit essential information. One important fact missing from Senator Cruz’s claim was that the U.S does not select which refugees enter the United States. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees ultimately decides who gains entry, so the lack of Christian refugees’ would not be Obama’s fault. Also, only 10% of the Syrian population is Christian and those Christians are predominately living in safer areas. Therefore, many Christians are not applying for refugee status to begin with.
I also noticed an example of Long Term Ends framing when Obamacare was first coming into action. President Obama and many news articles briefly mentioned the difficulties and expenses associated with the plans unveiling. What was stressed however, was the long term savings of preventative care, as well as the increased positive health comes for families with children. The article harped on the benefits of the future, once the plan is able to operate smoothly.
It really is ridiculous how much damage can be done through just a simple omission, not even a lie, of a fact. How scary that a huge proportion of Americans just blindly accepted Ted Cruz’s statements regarding Obama’s role in deciding which refugees may gain entry into the United States. This is a great example of an instance where political framing could have damaging negative effects on society as a whole.
I think this is a great example of framing. Though you cannot say what Cruz said was a lie, you also cant say that what was stated was a truth either. Cruz bent truths and didn’t paint a full picture so that the situation coincides with his beliefs and mission. Though I wouldn’t say that only one party does this, most do, but lies like these tend to not get enough media attention and can often be taken by the public as whole truths.
As we have learned, the way an issue is framed can greatly change how we perceive and think about it, and this can have both positive and negative consequences. In the media, we are exposed to a variety of different frames. I believe that many issues, terrorism being one of them, are framed episodically more often than not. We become informed about one specific incident, but are not prompted to consider it as part of a larger context.
The issue of terrorism has recently taken over our media outlets, and the issue has been framed in a very episodic way. We hear about what happened in Paris, Beirut, and Mali. However, we hear about them as being separate from one another. This frame prompts us to think about what happened as an isolated incident and only that. These articles do not invite us to see how the events in these places are connected, and what the greater issue at hand is. I think that this type of framing, while effective in giving us news about a specific event, is ineffective for deliberation because we are not invited to think about the bigger picture. It is very important that people are able to connect all these events and realize that terrorism is a major global problem. It is not an unfortunate event that occurred in one city, but part of something bigger that concerns us all.
Another way to frame the issue is through a thematic frame. This frame focuses on the bigger picture and the real problem at hand. This would take a story regarding the Paris attacks and illustrate how it is a part of the larger issue of terrorism. It shows that this event was not one isolated incident, but one of many incidents occurring due to the issue. I believe that this type of framing is important to have because it enables people to consider the real issue at hand. It will use an incident as an example of a problem that society is facing. I believe that these types of articles encourage deliberation because they invite people to really consider an issue and prompt them to form an opinion.
I completely agree that if these acts of terrorism were portrayed by the media in a more thematic framework, it would have a more beneficial effect on society as a whole because people would be better able to understand how important of a role each individual instances plays in the greater, arguably much more internationally relevant and relatable issue of safety. Your post brought to mind the hashtag #prayforParis that everyone was sharing on social media after the attacks in Paris, and how almost immediately there was backlash for it because nobody was posting hashtags for the multitude of other locations that had been victims of terrorist attacks right around the same time. Viewing events in such a confined framework clearly has significant drawbacks.
I disagree with your assessment on how terrorism is framed in the media. There is no question that news outlets first use the episodic frame when a terrorist attack occurs, but in the ensuing days there is a lot of talk about the rise of terrorism around the world. This is especially true of the recent tragedy is Paris, even local news stations discussed the “heightened threat levels” that NYC and other major cities are facing. Quite frankly, I never understood what this meant, considering the chances of dying in a terrorist attack are as likely as winning the lotto. The notion that a terrorist attack is going to increase the chances of more is also puzzling to me, considering if the odds are already so low, if it has occurred recently, then it would follow the odds would even be lower in the immediate aftermath. Either way, my experience with the news media is that they go overboard in the aftermath of a terrorist attack in thematic framing, often inciting fear. I think the underlying reason they do this, is because fear produces better ratings. After the terrorist attacks in Paris, there was subsequent news stories of possible attacks at stadiums and other areas, that turned out to be false; but the media seized on these stories, as if they were gold, even though they turned out to be false alarms. I have come to believe the reason the media is so quick to report these stories without the full facts, is because they produce fear and garner ratings. There is no doubt in my mind that terrorism is over reported in the news when compared to other tragedies that result in more deaths.
According to a recent study done by the Pew Research Center, as presented in an article Business Insider, the most trusted news outlets in America are BBC and The Economist, whereas the least trusted outlets are Buzzfeed and The Rush Limbaugh Show. So I decided to pick one outlet from each end of this spectrum and compare how differently they frame the same issue.
Both Buzzfeed and BBC had an article about the Chicago Police Chief being fired due to the fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald, and both these news outlets presented the issue in almost identical ways. I felt that both used episodic framing as a means of bringing the focus to this one specific offender being “brought to justice” as a means to appease the public. It feels as though this is just another bandaid solution being placed over the real big-picture issue of the racism that runs rampant throughout law enforcement agencies all across the country. Through both these news outlets’ usage of episodic framing, this event will likely be received positively by the general public because both articles have conveniently forgotten to present the broader context of the true national issue at hand.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/chicago-mayor-announces-police-accountability-task-force#.ueqDYWbA6
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34977968
http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2014-10
Interesting how the both frame the incident in the same way yet one is considered more credible than the other. Why aren’t stripped frameworks preferred even in our most “trusted” news sources? Without intentionally trying to slander the press, its probably because they both published their articles after reading Reuters or the Associated Press.
I do agree that they should have reported the incident under the broader framework of the national issue of police brutality against minorities. I don’t think we can deny that media attention using those key words will be important in validating what civil liberties groups have been arguing. So, with an issue like this, how do we make the media more accountable to people? How can we encourage them to stick to the thematic framework to validate a cause as opposed to taking the episodic framework to dismiss claims? And should we expect the media to do so?
Very interesting approach Michelle. I agree that depending on how much people trust a news organization, they tend to believe that the manner in which the news is presented is not skewed when in actuality, there isn’t much of a difference in how the outlets report the news. The presentation and framing is based on their audience and clicks.
Jerin Choudhury
Media outlet provides news and feature stories to the public through numerous distribution channels. Framing is a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies organize, perceive, and communicate about reality. Framing communication can be observed in negative or positive way. It depend on the viewers and what information is being shared. In the Journalism area, framing has many implications. Furthermore, Journalist norms, political actors, and cultural contexts are related to frame building. .Framing explains how news media coverage shapes mass opinion. When people hear any news in the media, their mind automaticity response to that news. Sometimes they construct their mindset about the incident because we all have schema for any issue. When new frames published in the media, it invites people to apply their existing schema to that issue. Frames are more powerful when the audience have prior knowledge about the issue. Media framing research can be divided into two roots: sociological and psychological. Sociological framing emphasized on the words, images, phrases, and presentation styles and the psychological root depicts the effects of media frames on the recipient of who experienced the issue. For example, During Bush administration, after the 9/11 attack, the press media supported the war as an action against terrorism. Eight weeks after 9/11, the news media did not clearly express what is happening in the war. Applying to psychological root , in this political issue, continuous episodic news frame diverted citizen’s perception about the war. People were confused that moment as a result they were not conscious about the war issue.
Source:
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
I think the refugee example is one of the best to come up because of the various frameworks that come up, especially during times of war: human rights, civil liberties, national security, immigration reform, war against Christianity.
I took a moment to look back at another example of decisions being made in consideration of similar frameworks: the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII as the result of an executive order issued in Feb. of 1942. I found this amazing site that has headlines and various complete articles published at the time regarding the decision for internment:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/japanese_internment/newspaper_headlines.cfm
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/japanese_internment/newspaper_articles.cfm
The article “New Order on Aliens Awaited” opens with this line: “evacuation order may affect 200,000 Pacific Coast enemy aliens and their American-born children.” I think this is a great example of the two sources of frames – political elites and the newspaper – working in tandem to create a framework that supported this executive action irrespective of the Constitutional rights afforded to every citizen and in opposition to the civil liberties and human rights frameworks that today would be more prominent in discussing such actions. In my limited search, I could not find any article from a major publication (not to say that none exist) opposing the executive order on the basis of these frameworks. In fact, there were some political elites that spoke out against internment on the basis of the frameworks, such as Col. Governor Ralph Carr:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/12/the_lone_politician_who_stood_against_japanese_internment.html
However, the frameworks that do come up in these articles (wartime enemies; race war; national security; wholesale where “everything must go”; etc.), they were all used in ways to support the executive order. Even more interesting is how one article – “Jap Ban to Force Farm Adjustments” – discussed how the internment would lead to crop failure and how certain policies – including closing schools early to provide a source of labor – were being considered to ameliorate the effects. This goes to show that without competing frameworks being presented in the media, there is no real deliberation on policy and speaks profoundly to the effect of media coverage on polarizing issues.
You make an excellent point, it is sad to say but your analogy proves that history does indeed repeat itself. While the internment of Japaneses Americans is considerably worse considering they were law abiding citizens, the media in both cases played a crucial role in framing the issues. Fortunately today, there are media outlets that are more sympathetic and practical to the Syrian refugee crisis;however, there are still media outlets which portray the majority of refugees as terrorists. There is no question it is a complex issue, but a major problem arises when the media frames the situation in a certain way which preys on emotions and terrorist fears. The deliberative process also suffers because people tend to listen to media which frames the issues in accordance to their view. This had created an atmosphere of extreme polarization, where there is little regard for the facts.
I think your example is extremely relevant. Mark Twain once said, “History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” I agree that this example of framing is very similar to the framing currently taking place against Syrian refugees. Labeling a group of people as the enemy is very powerful, especially if there is little evidence. It seems as if this example of framing largely plays into the audiences fear and vulnerability.
When it comes to framing I think that the sports media has become well versed at transitioning daily episodic events into thematic pieces. The recent announcement of Kobe Bryant that he will retire at the end of the season has brought this to light even more. The majority of this season has focused on Bryant’s inability to play at the level he once did and how far he has fallen. Daily highlight packages of the Lakers focused on how poorly Bryant shot, how his defense was sub par, and how he was actively hurting the team. After the announcement though, the media has taken a reflective approach and have softened their stance on Bryant and his current abilities. Retrospective pieces are written or broadcast about his lasting legacy and where he ranks on the list of all time greats. It seems that all it took was the realization that Bryant would not be around to be a topical punchline in order to shift the framing to make him a sympathetic figure.
Sports in general lends itself well to transitioning framing because it is both episodic and thematic at the same time. Each game, or broken down into halves or quarters, is in itself an isolated episodic incident, but there is more to it. These episodic events build over the course of a season to provide a thematic framing to the overall success or failure of a season or even a career.
In regards to framing issues and stories by the media, I often see a blending of the episodic and thematic frames. To take the example of gun violence in the United States for example, when a mass shooting or similar incident would occur, outlets like CNN would report on the immediate story, providing viewers with information from the ground and coming in with “breaking news” alerts soon after to bring up anything new.
In the immediate aftermath of an incident, after presenting a story through the episodic frame, the outlet would devote some time looking at the story in question in the context of a broader theme. Here, they might spend some time talking about a mass shooting incident in the broader context of gun violence and the gun culture in the United States, inviting guest to appear on the news outlet to discuss and debate what should be done in such a context. Often times, however, not too much time is devoted to focusing on stories through a thematic frame, and they will only focus on something for a maximum of roughly a month or two.
Danny, great point.
Washington Post just published a piece that only briefly mentioned today’s shooting in San Bernardino in which 14 were killed as a jumping point to talk about mass shootings/gun violence in the US. One of the points mentioned in this article – and many others (Tenzing had a political cartoon about this in his presentation) – is that idea that despite the frequency with which these events are occurring, we have yet to take responsible national stance on gun control and that people are starting to get jaded to these incidents. This article takes advantage of the figures “336 days, 355 mass shootings” to create this narrative of more than one a day. But context for these numbers is not provided.
If you take a look at the first incident in the referenced mass shooting tracker, you’ll see that it wasn’t a random act of violence as we see with school shootings and some of the other more media hyped incidents, but the result of an altercation at a night club that resulted in a drive by shooting. The second from a domestic situation. The third from a breaking-and-entering situation in a residence. Its interesting that the statistics are not contextualized but brought up to almost make it appear that these “random” mass shootings in schools and theaters can happen at any moment when the figure is calculated by looking at any shooting incident in which 4 or more people were injured.
Washington Post Article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/
Reddit Tracker
https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/wiki/2015massshootings#wiki_number_1.3A_1.2F1.2F2015.2C_unknown.2C_5_injured.2C_memphis.2C_tn
I think a good example of framing would be how CNN covered the first Democratic debate. They initially had an online poll where the public could vote on who won the debate. After the debate, CNN’s poll showed that the public thought that Bernie Sanders had won the debate however this online poll magically disappeared shortly there after.
That night CNN then aired and wrote articles on how Hilary Clinton had won the debate and beat Bernie Sanders. Many begun to speculate that because Turner Broadcasting owns CNN and has donated to Hilary’s Super PAC that they had the poll removed in order to sway public opinion. If the news outlet stated that Hilary won the debate then the public would think that she would be the best democratic candidate.
CNN used framing to not show information that could hurt their “cause” but wrote how the person they favored won in their opinion, leaving the public out of the debate.
I agree with you the way CNN used generic framing in picking Hillary Clinton as the winner even though on social media, Bernie Sanders had won and CNN choose not to show that result. CNN has always had a bias and it show through their coverage of the stories that they cover. This story brings up an interesting point as to should media take sides during elections or be neutral.
The media tends to use multiple frames when framing an issue. One of the big examples of the framing used by the media is climate change. While the science community supports the fact the average temperature is getting warmer, media outlets present this issue as something that is open to debate. They tend to frame the issue as something the American public can decide on if climate change is taking place or not and present the views of the two sides as equal. whenever they have debates on climate change, they frame the issue as an issue specific frame and not in the broader context. This framing leaves viewers to feel that the issue is up for debate, when it should not be.
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/23/greg_gutfelds_demented_opposition_to_bill_nye_and_climate_change_its_the_strawpocalypse/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx
Interesting points. Arguably, though, the media’s framing of climate change has, at the very least, brought attention to an issue that was not debated before. Hence, maybe the media’s role has had the positive effect of eliciting a debate about non-scientific issues, such as how companies or citizens should cut their energy consumption.
In November, 13th, 2015, there were 6 bombings and massive shootings in different parts of Paris, Italy. There were 130 casualties and 368 people were severely critically injured. Later on all the terrorists were killed by the local special force. Later on, the responsibility of the attack was taken by the ISIS or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Syria. The entire massacre was very badly criticized by the media. Several heads of the different countries all over the world also criticized it and expressed their support with the country. They also said that it is a high time to raise the voice against terrorism (BBC, 2015).
But majority of media failed to acknowledge another unfortunate incident that took place within few days of the Paris bombings. The France air force bombed Raqqa, which is considered as the head of the ISIS for two days. The bombings are considered as an act of revenge of the original bombings. On the first day, 12 of the aircrafts dropped 20 bombs and on the second day, 24 bombs were dropped. The media keep on mourning for France but failed to acknowledge that this Syria bombings killed hundreds of innocent citizens along with a few numbers of terrorists. The French media keeps on saying that no innocent casualties took place and all of the total 44 bombings killed only terrorists without hurting the innocents. The entire event is wrongly framed by media who keeps on showing sympathy towards France (Brumfield, 2015). This is how such issues are framed in a way that they support the developed countries and completely ignore the developing nations.
The media likes to use the frame that shows the sympathy and supports the developed nations as their majority of the readers belong there. They try to portray the developed nations as victim. The attention has been diverted from Syria just because it has been involved in the recent many terrorist events. It has been tagged as a terrorist country. What they do not realize is that due to some small number of people living in Syria, entire country have to suffer. If the media is completely just and impartial then it must show the plea of the innocent people of Syria and raise questions to France about the bombings. Actions taken in revenge as this proves that they are no different from the terrorists. So, the frames like a strong support for the developed nations and ignorance of the developing nations draw attention from the air attacks on Syria by France is ignored. This way, it is not wrong to say that a massive reframing has been occurred and the media failed to be impartial.
BBC. (2015, November 16). Paris attacks: What happened on the night. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from bbc.com: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34818994
Brumfield, B. (2015, November 16). French jets bomb ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria; few may have been killed. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from cnn.com: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/middleeast/france-raqqa-airstrikes-on-isis/
I completely agree with your opinion. I like when u said, “The media likes to use the frame that shows the sympathy and supports the developed nations as their majority of the readers belong there.” Its all about good business. Syria, the whole country is presented to be a terrorist country just because a small proportion of the population are engaged in the heinous crime. I was wondering what would be the image of the ongoing Syrian situation if the news was broadcasted by the Syrian Media who would be as strong and influential as the western media? Like the african provern, “Until the lion learns to write, every story will always glorify the hunter” !
As official definition Framing is use of words or images to strategically draw attention to one aspect of an object or event and divert attention from other aspects of the same entity like the simple classical example of dilemma whether to call the Glass half empty or half full. The view point is very important which decided how a situation will be framed. I am always curious, why media frame things? This becomes more interesting with the facts when the media house possesses all the experts and resource needed to present a situation in any way, by any frame they want. Media can present a positive issue in a negative way and vice versa. Or they can convert an isolated event by thematic framing to a broader aspect. But how it is decided to present a particular situation by a particular framing? What are the factors that play role for this? From a business point of view, it can be said that, most motivating factor to use a particular framing to present a situation would be to increased view by the audience which will generate more revenue for the media house. If presenting a positive situation in a negative manner increase the rating 10 times, in my opinion, media will frame the good into a bad perception. Other motivational factors could be political influence, mutual interest and serving to a particular interest group etc.
Now, the obvious question remains whether framing is completely a bad unnecessary thing? As mentioned in the video lecture, a classic study on framing called “Democratic Debate and Real Opinions” by Donald R. Kinder & Thomas E. Nelson, shows framing is good for deliberation. Because whenever an issue is framed or presented into a broader context, people are more likely to express their opinion which is good deliberation.
“Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide” is an example of Issue specific framing and you can see the positive vibe presented in the following news link,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
The news started by framing the news by a long fought war and a final victory. They have mentioned quotation of the Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, “No longer may this liberty be denied”.
The same news is presented as a negative manner using the same Issue specific framing in “Gay marriage: Why Supreme Court got it wrong”, can be found in the following link,
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/26/gay-marriage-why-supreme-court-got-it-wrong.html
First presented here how people will be a target of legal violation who has a different opinion against gay marriage. Religion is brought into the scenario, and people who oppose against Gay marriage, is made justified by their religious beliefs which is somewhat an example of thematic framing. The following quotation is a good example of the motivation behind this report,
“Friday’s Supreme Court decision represents a collective shaking of our fists in God’s face saying, ‘We don’t care what You say about life’s most important relationship. We know best.’”
When researching for my policy paper on the need to de-militarize the police, I came across many articles discussing the “war on terror” and its role in driving the militarization of the police. I found that many authors believe using the phrase “war on terror” has brought the war in Iraq (and more recently, ISIS) to US soil thereby creating a “need” for militarized police.
This type of framing is considered issue specific; this is because it is a type of framing that is used in the context of one particular issue. Using this type of framing on a topic such as the war on terror drives home the seriousness of the problem and directs the public’s attention to the main issue, rather than the broader topic or “war” or “police.”
The framing and usage of the phrase “war on terror” has somewhat changed over time. When it was first created by the Bush administration, it directly related to September 11th; now, we have a president unwilling to use the phrase “war on terror,” and news outlets controlling the context in which it is used. Also, when the phrase first started being used, it was one of the first times we associated “war” occurring on American land. Nowadays, the phrase is used almost colloquially to address a broad range of incidents, both occurring on US soil and abroad.
https://journalism.utexas.edu/sites/journalism.utexas.edu/files/attachments/reese/framing-war-on-terror-sagepub.pdf
A very good read. Indeed, the war on terror has been framed through a specific issue lens. However, one could also argue that the issue has also been framed through the Intrinsic and Extrinsic goals lens. That is, the media has generally used the war on terror rhetoric to show politicians’ extrinsic goal to militarize the problem on U.S. and foreign soil. This framing also reinforces the specific issue frame.
Much of the media and the President have framed the Syrian refugee issue thematically. The theme they’re adhering to is by no means all inclusive, rather it bolsters the White House’s position on the issue, that the current refugee processing system works, and that the UNHCR camps are dependable source of the neediest refugees. They repeat soundbites about refugee women and children, and attempt to ridicule those who question the system. The President even attacked Sen. Cruz as being “un-American” for raising the question of Syrian and Iraqi Christians. This article from the NY Times is an example of fitting the refugee question into this one theme by making a comparison to the Japanese internment camps during WWII. It is hard to disagree with such a heart touching framework: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/us/for-japanese-americans-resistance-to-syrian-refugees-recalls-long-ago-fears.html?ref=topics.
In reality there are two important questions that must be asked about the Syrian refugees. Firstly, is the process really secure? Yes there are numerous security checks but as the recent bipartisan House bill pointed out, why won’t US security agencies certify each refugee? The common response has been that those agencies don’t want the burden of responsibility in case an error is made. The second question we should be asking is about the point of origin of refugees, do the UNHCR camps really work?
There is a security question with respect to these camps, as we know ISIS cells have operated within the camps, but more importantly there’s a question about whether or not we’re receiving the most at risk refugees. Christians and other religious minorities are facing genocide and otherwise horrific conditions at the hands of ISIS, and yet we place no particular priority on rescuing them? The UNHCR camps don’t have many Christians in them because Christians are afraid to enter them as they have been attacked and persecuted within the camps themselves. As a result they prefer to take their chances living off the land. This should absolutely cause us to question the entire refugee process, and wonder if UN camps are sufficient or if we should establish our own refugee intake points in Syria. So far, the President and much of the media refuses to even acknowledge the particular plight of Christians, or acknowledge these very real problems with the system, but if you raise questions you’re quickly labelled “un-American” or alarmist. This article is an example of the alternative thematic frame that the White House refuses to discuss: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/17/refugee-resettlement-process-leaves-syrian-christians-in-cold/
In 2013 Jorge Borgoglio was elected into office as Pope Francis I, the 266th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Since his election, Pope Francis has been framed as a powerful, reformist force in the Church. Arguably, media outlets have framed the Pope’s actions as both intrinsically and extrinsically good. For instance, the New York Times has repeatedly touted the Pope’s activities with the needy, as a man with “no-frills” (NYT 12/5/2015) and a critic of capitalism. Similarly, BBC has recognized the Pope’s efforts towards putting “the Vatican more in line with international standards” (BBC 12/5/2015). Most recently, the Pope made it to several media news sites’ front page because of his demand for the external auditing of the Vatican’s assets (Reuters 12/5/2015). From the media’s perspective, not only are the Pope’s actions benevolent, they also achieve good ends.
Such framing “primes” (Callaghan and Schnell, 15) compels readers to believe that the Pope is exceptional and good. They draw attention to the notable actions of the Pope that make him stand out, especially in his attempt to liberalize and reform the image of the Roman Catholic Church. Simultaneously, the effect of using such frames draws readers’ attention from the everyday, common efforts of people who do similar work for the Church. This idolization of the Pope and his legacy epitomizes the role of the Papacy, despite—plausibly–his effort to appear as the common man. The positive effect of such framing is that it has reframed the Pope’s role as a positive aspect of the Church. Typically, both the Vatican and Popes in the past have been framed as corrupt. New light has been shed on the religion by pitting the Pope as a reformist of the Church.
Sources
BBC 12/5/2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35018430
NYT 12/5/2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/world/europe/pope-francis-film-chiamatemi-francesco.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FFrancis&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection
Reuters 12/5/2015. http://www.reuters.com/subjects/pope#MSfSFf0f9vEcQ4Cu.97
One of my favorite shows is Al Jazeera’s Listening Post that looks at how the media frames issues. Richard Gizbert examines media stories from around the world to discuss how the media discusses issues. When it comes to framing in the media, it is not unique to one country but very universal. It is used as a way to get people interested in the topic and increase ratings and subscription sales. I think that when it comes mass shootings around the world, the media is very quick to call it a terrorist attack and if it is a Muslim, then it is immediately labeled as such without all the facts analysed. For example, the mass shooting in Norway in 2011 was immediately framed as a terrorist attack by a Muslim. Usually, there is a rush to create a narrative because 24 hours is really needs to keep viewers interested.
The mainstream media focuses very heavily on issue specific and thematic framing techniques and I think this has evolved as news media consumption moves more online over in print. Where newspapers printed articles on priority or genre category (Arts, sports, world news), today news articles are categorized by events such as “ISIS Coverage” or “Election 2016.” These new categorizations instantly put an article into the issue specific or a thematic frame. An article may be focused on a specific incident within a larger topic (Trump’s remarks on ISIS at a campaign rally), or they may be used to highlight several issues within an issue (such as an article about a mass shooting also discussing gun control regulation). I think media today is created more on theme first and content second. Instead of prioritizing the news that should be shared (ie/ news that would be on the front page of a newspaper), news is created that will fit into a broader category of information.