A Comparative Analysis Of Online News Articles Media Essay

A Comparative Analysis Of Online News Articles Media EssayIn European Union citizens atomic number 18 evaluate to take office and actions to limit the threat of temper castrate as well as political science activity or corporations. However, while however 36 percentage of citizens in Lithuanian take private action, 75 percent of British do. In light of framing as media effect opening media coverage advise be considered as an explanation for various trains of personalised contribution. Based on the latter assumption the online watchword substance in Lithuania and the United Kingdom was investigated in toll of ascription of office to citizens, authorities and industry/corporations. The findings showed that the use of the same frames varies by country and political preferences of media. However, the findings were not explicit enough to prove the unrivalled directional sexual intercourseship between media glut and individual level behavior, where media is perceived as having power upon individuals. Contrary, the results showed that favorable problems guide thematic choices of editorials and consequently individuals have impact on media. As a result, findings raise concerns that the notion of framing as an synergistic process would more relevant than the assumption of framing as linear process.IntroductionToday clime change is on political, media and individual agendas all across Europe. Political and legislative efforts prove that climate change mitigation is a priority for the European Union. Furthermore, citizens are expected to take responsibility and actions to limit the threat as well. Supranational survey Eurobarometer shows, 63 percent of Europeans say they have taken personal actions to combat climate change (European Commission, 2009). However, the EU as a body of 27 share States is more diverse than one seeing aggregate level figures could think. For instance, while plainly 36 percent of citizens in Lithuanian take personal a ction, 75 percent of British do (European Commission, 2009).The outlet of climate change not only has its thematic relevance, but as well scientific. In light of framing theory media coverage can be considered as an explanation for incompatible levels of personal contribution to climate change mitigation among Lithuanians and British. To assess the influence of media portrayals of climate change on individuals, twain research questions are developedRQ1. To what extent do media frame climate change in terms of attribution of responsibility to industry and corporations, international and national authorities, and citizens themselves?RQ2. Does the attribution of responsibility to particular actor veer by country the United Kingdom and Lithuania?To be more specific, I expect to find that Lithuanian media attribute responsibility to citizens more seldom correspond to British media. Moreover, in media coverage in Lithuania attribution of responsibility to citizens should be little visible than attribution of responsibility to authorities or industry. Contrary, in British media attribution of responsibility to citizens should more or equally visible compare to authorities and industry.The next chapter will provide theoretical framework on which the root word rests. It will be followed by the sections of method, results and discussion.Literature reviewWithin the realm of social sciences, such as sociology, psychology, political science and political communication, studies of framing are common. In a way it explains why framing as a concept is rather scattered, as Entman once referred to it (Entman, 1993, p. 51). However, scientists of dissimilar disciplines share the perception that the go bad of a frame is to help people organise the complexity of the world into meaningful categories (Nickels, 2005, p. 21).Framing as theory can be conceptualized in terms of media personal effects (e.g. Scheufele, 1999 Scheufele, 2000). Generally, media effects are classifi ed into cognitive, affective and behavioural. Cognitive effects refer to the assumption that how intelligence reading is presented has influence on what people know or think about come forwards, people, and event (Glynn Jeong, 2003, p. 634). Affective effects refer to emotional reactions to media coverage. Behavioral effects can be unders in like mannerd as observable actions that are linked to media exposure (Perse, 2001, p. 3). What concerns the latter, a widely cited con of Kahneman and Tversky (1984) showed that how a particular issue is framed determines perceptions of problems and subsequent actions upon them (Vliegenthart et al., 2008, p. 419). In view of these considerations, the prominence of framing theory and framing effects studies in the field of communication flows naturally.In the field of political communication framing effects studies often focus on study the relationship between news content and individual perceptions (e.g. de Vreese, 2002). Nickels (2005) ar gues that partially this is determined by the assumption that the news is the principal means by which they i.e., people experience and ingest (p. 22) about certain issues. A frame in media is an emphasis in salience of certain aspects of a topic (De Vreese, 2002, p. 27). The frame works by omitting nigh aspects and attaching more salience and meaning to other(a)s (Entman, 1993, p. 53). The reasoning of selecting of these aspects can be determined by political, media and social context (De Vreese Semetko, 2004, p. 93). Therefore, media frames can be defined as social and cultural indicators of the particular magazine (Nickels, 2005, p. 26).Frames in media can be investigated by the presence or absence of certain key-words, stock phrases, stereotyped images, sources of information, and sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgements (Entman, 1993, p. 52). In general, two main ways to analyze frames can be identified issue-specific and generic. The former is considered to be a better approach to get newly emerging frames while the latter is based on the investigation of predefined frames in the text (Matthes Kohring, 2008). Majority of the studies of generic frames focus on the prevalence of one or several frames in media. Attribution of responsibility (e.g. Iyengar, 1987 Iyengar, 1991 Semetko Valkenburg, 2000 Valkenburg et al., 1999) fall within most commonly investigated generic frames. Valkenburg et al. (1999) defines the attribution of responsibility frame as representing an issue or problem in such a way as to attribute responsibility for causing or solving a problem to the government or to an individual or to a group (p. 552). The biggest advantage of generic approach enables to detect differences or similarities between certain media (or within it), cross-nationally and over period (Nickels, 2005, p.24). However, generic frames are not suitable to explore the new issues as they are derived from theory.Iyengar (1991 ) measured how individuals attribute responsibility for social problems after exposure to diverse content. The research proved that, when television news present issues in terms of individual, people tend to attribute responsibility to individuals rather than government. Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) investigated the presence of 5 news frames theoretically derived from prior framing studies attribution of responsibility, conflict, human interest, economic consequences, and morality. Media content was analyzed in the time period surrounding the Amsterdam meetings of European heads of state in 1997 (p. 93). The study unveiled that the attribution of responsibility frame was used the most in news. Moreover it showed that attribution of responsibility was more used in unspoilt media both press and television.Bennet and Iyengar (2008) argues that today with growing opportunities to personalize media content the way people learn about and experience the social world has changed. Theref ore, media effects theories have to be reconsidered to go in line with changing social environment. Opponents claim (e.g. Holbert, Garrett Gleason, 2010), to announce a new era of minimal media effects is too early. Another criticism addressed to framing-effect studies is the commonly used experimental design, which neglects natural environment people live in and questions generalizability of the findings (Chong Druckman, 2007, p. 102). Those trying to overcome methodological drawback by comparing media content with survey results agree that it is difficult to separate out the effects of the media from other environmental or social influences (Glynn Jeong, 2003, p. 633). On the other hand, if effects are proved to be present on individual level under experimental conditions, it is logical to expect them to be present in fraternity at large. To put it in Vliegenthart et al. (2008) words, this does not imply that all citizens are exposed to () news, but that on the aggregate level news coverage has the dominance to drive the attitudes of a substantial share of the population (p. 418). To sum up, despite changing media environment and individual habits towards media use, media still often is a primary framer and therefore has the power to set the tone and scope of the discussion about particular issue.In view of the considerations discussed in this chapter, the present empirical research was based on the assumption that frames in media influence how people think about certain problems and act upon them. To be more specific, that how media frames climate change issue in terms of frame of attribution of responsibility affects individual behavior. As in this study aggregate level public opinion surveys results will be compared with media content, I am aware that social or other influences will not be encountered.MethodThe main interest of the current study is to find out if media content are capable of explaining, why people in some countries are more likely to take personal actions to fight climate change than others. Therefore, two cases representing significant contrasts in citizens behavior were needed The United Kingdom and Lithuania appeared to comply with the condition (Eurobarometer, 2009). Consequently, the comparative design was chosen as it served the aim of the study best. As Hantrais (1996) defined, the aim of comparative cross-national research is to seek explanations for similarities and differences or to gain a greater awareness and a deeper understanding of social reality in different national contexts (Bryman, 2004, p.53). The design was realized in the form of quantitative content analysis of news websites articles in two countries.The content of news was analyzed in terms of the presence of attribution of responsibility frame. The operationalization of this generic frame was in the main based on measures developed by Semetko and Valkenburg (2000). However, as I was interested, to what extent responsibility is attribu ted to a particular actor, the frame was divided into three new frames. These are Attribution of responsibility to international and national authorities, attribution of responsibility to industry and corporations, and attribution of responsibility to citizens themselves. Clusters of quadruple yes-no framing questions were used to identify if generic frames are present in analyzed news articles (see Appendix 1).For framing analysis four news websites were chosen Guardian.co.uk and Thetimes.co.uk in the United Kingdom, and Lrytas.lt and Respublika.lt in Lithuania. All of them are websites of popular national newspapers The Guardian and The Times, and Lietuvos rytas and Respublika, respectively. As the online and tralatitious versions of newspapers share the content, it can be estimated that information reaches young and older, online and traditional newspaper readers at national level in both countries. Furthermore, it was estimated that political tip of newspapers can influence the findings. According to traditional division of newspapers by political affiliation, Guardian.co.uk. and Respublika.lt was chosen as leaning to left, and Thetimes.co.uk and Lrytas.lt as leaning to right. The period of investigation is from 2009 July 1 till 2009 August 1. The choice of the period was determined by the fact that the survey on Europeans attitudes towards climate change (Eurobarometer, 2009) was conducted in 2009 August-September. Therefore, the period had to be prior to survey fieldwork. Only articles with the main topic of climate change/climate change mitigation were selected for framing analysis. In total media sample consisted of 135 articles. However, media coverage varied by country meaningfully N=26 in Lithuania and N=109 in the United Kingdom.Although chosen research design is consistent with the aim of the study, it also has several drawbacks that must be considered. Firstly, small media sample may lead to biased results as media coverage was restricted to two news websites in each country. Secondly, the study period of month does not allow measuring the presence of frames in changing political and social environment throughout longer period of time. To put it in other words, the findings show one-time situation. As a result, I am aware that generalization of research outcomes is limited.ResultsThe results of content analysis showed that the frame of attribution of responsibility to citizens in Lithuanian media is more present than in British media (see Table 1), contrary to sign expectations. The most present frame in both countries appeared to be attribution of responsibility to international or national authorities. The Lithuanian media was more likely to use this frame and exclusively attributed responsibility to international authorities. The British media paid more financial aid to attribution of responsibility to industry and corporations than Lithuanian.Table 1. The presence of attribution of responsibility frame by countr yThe findings confirmed that political affiliation plays an important usage in presenting climate change issue. Left leaning websites (Respublika.lt and Guardian.co.uk) appeared to be more likely to attribute responsibility to citizens than left leaning (Lrytas.lt and Thetimes.co.uk). In Respublika.lt 63 percent and in Guardian.co.uk 28 percent of articles contained the latter frame, while only 17 percent in Thetimes.co.uk and none in Lrytas.lt did. Right leaning news sites substantially more discussed climate change issue in terms of attribution of responsibility to international and national authorities than left leaning.Table 2. The presence of attribution of responsibility frame by outletTo sum up, the media coverage does not seem to be directly related to behaviour In Lithuania, where citizens are less likely to combat climate change personally, the frame of attribution of responsibility was more present than in British media. In this case, the personal behaviour in relation to climate change mitigation seems to be a reason for a bigger or smaller media attention rather than a take in of citizens behaviour.DiscussionAs is evident from the last chapter, the use of frames of attribution of responsibility in news sites varied by country. However, the variation was not consistent with initial expectations. In terms of presence of attribution of responsibility frame results were opposite than expected In Lithuania the media attributed responsibility to citizens more than media in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the media cannot be considered as a main factor determining low citizens involvement in climate change mitigation in Lithuania and high involvement of people in the United Kingdom. In this case the direction of influence is likely to be from individuals to media. Low awareness of climate change mitigation at individual level in Lithuania encourages media editorials to address the problem. As the latter problem is not present in the United Kingdom, the frame of attribution of responsibility to individuals is less present in media. Furthermore, the results go in line with criticism of framing as a one way-communication model. As Nickels (2005) noted, the framing process () is more likely to be an interactive process of dialogue where political, media and public actors have different measures of framing power(p. 32). From this point of view, a relationship between media and individuals should be investigated as an interactive process of negotiation about climate change. In light of such an approach the power of framing of different actors could be assessed more accurately.Both Lithuanian and British media mainly discussed how climate change is tackled at political level while the role of citizens and industry and corporations received considerably less attention. The prominence of attribution of responsibility to authorities frame should not be surprising considering policy priorities of the EU. Firstly, the European Union is said to play an important role as the international agenda compositor in relationship to climate change mitigation (Schreurs Tiberghien, 2007, p. 19). Secondly, during the last twenty years the EU managed to turn the encouragement to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions into legislation. Furthermore, the equivalence by political preferences of news websites shows that political affiliation strongly influences the content. Climate change mitigation in terms of citizens behavior in left leaning websites was presented more often than in right leaning. The latter news sites concentrated more on attribution of responsibility to authorities. In total, right leaning news are more balanced according to the frequency of the whole three frames use. Therefore, findings prove a tight relationship between politics and media.The main limits of the study appeared to be related to methodological concerns. A short period of investigation at one particular time does not let to assess if findings can be generalized or they represent only a particular case. Another drawback is that aggregate level data on citizens behavior in relation to climate change mitigation was compared to media content of small sample. Therefore, it would be beneficial for the aim of the study to increase media sample and investigate how changes in media correspond with changes in public opinion/behavior over time. This could be considered as a future research direction in terms of methodological improvements.Besides the information related to the aim of the study, the investigation showed that Lithuanian media uses the frame of attribution of responsibility in context of international affairs The role of national or topical anaesthetic authorities was not mentioned in media once. Contrary, British media paid more attention to national governments policies related to climate change. As the EU is instrumental in climate change mitigation, it would be intriguing to explore how successful is the EU in setting c limate change issue on political agendas of new Member States, i.e. what role governments play in climate change mitigation. Furthermore, media sample of climate change related articles in the United Kingdom appeared to be five time bigger than in Lithuania. Consequently, it would be interesting to investigate to what extent the climate change issue is present compare to the total content media in different countries.In light of media frames the study to show that the use of the same frames varies by country and political preferences of media. However, in light of framing effects the empirically self-collected data was not explicit enough to shed light on connection of citizens attitudes and subsequent actions and media content. The study unfolds the need encounter cultural, economic and political differences, as well as the interactive notion of framing process participants.ReferencesBennet, W. L., Iyengar, S. (2008). A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Poli tical Communication. journal of Communication, 58, 707-731.Bryman, A. (2004). affable Research Methods (2nd ed.). New York Oxford University Press Inc.Chong, D. Druckman,J. N. (2007b). A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments. Journal of Communication, 57, 99-118.De Vreese, C. H. (2002). Framing Europe video recording News and European Integration. Amsterdam Aksant Academic Publishers.De Vreese, C. H. Semetko, H. A. (2004). Political Campaigning in Referendums Framing the Referendum Issue. Abingdon Routledge.Entman, R.M. (1993) Framing Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.European Commission (2009). special Eurobarometer 322 / Wave 72.1Glynn, C.J. Jeong, I. (2003). Public Opinion and the Media (pp. 631-640). In Encyclopaedia of International Media and Communications, Volume 3.Holbert, R., Garrett, R. Gleason L. (2010). A New Era of Minimal Effects? A Response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of C ommunication, 60(1), 15-34.Iyengar, S. (1987). Television News and citizens Explanations of National Affairs. American Political Science Review, 81, 815-831.Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago University of Chicago Press.Matthes, J. Kohring, M. (2008). The Content Analysis of Media Frames Toward Improving reliability and Validity. Journal of Communication, 58, 258-279Nickels, H.C. (2005). Framing the Refugee and Asylum Question in Luxembourg An Interactive Approach to Framing Theory. Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Amsterdam teach of Communications Research.Perse, E. M. (2001). Media Effects and Society. Mahvah Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication (Winter), 103-122.Scheufele, D.A. (2000). Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication. potentiometer Co mmunication and Society, 3(23), 297-316.Semetko, H. A. Valkenburg, P.M. (2000). Framing European Politics A Content Analysis of Press and Television News. Journal of Communication, Spring, 93-109.Schreurs, M.A. Tiberghien, Y. (2007). Multi-Level Reinforcement Explaining European Union Leadership in Climate Change Mitigation. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 19-46.Vliegenthart, R., Schuck, A., Boomgaarden, H. de Vreese, C.H. (2008). News Coverage and Support for European Integration. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(4), 415-439.Valkenburg, P., Semetko, H. de Vreese, C.H. (1999). The Effects of News Frames on Readers Thoughts and Recall. Communication Research, 26(5), 550-565.