words:1350 (just need to write part 2,the student have writtern part1,please check the"research proposal)deadline: 12 th Jan

Dissertationlectureanalysingmedia.ppt

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help > words:1350 (just need to write part 2,the student have writtern part1,please check the"research proposal)deadline: 12 th Jan

The Framing Paradigm

Prof. Piers Robinson

Piers.robinson@sheffield.ac.uk

Overview

Section One

1) From Content analysis to Discourse and Framing Analysis

2) Detecting frames within media texts and key methods/approaches

3) Example in depth:- Entman‘s seminal study of the KAL and Iran Air shootdowns

Overview

Section Two

1) Framing and the exercise of power: Entman‘s Cascading activation model/political contest model/Propaganda Model

2) Other key studies

3) Nuts and bolts issues and criticisms of the concept of framing

4) Conclusions ... back to truth and objectivity?

From content analysis to framing analysis

Content analysis: ‘A research technique for the objective, systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication’ (Berelson)

Bias vs. Objectivity

From content analysis to framing analysis

1) Discourse analysis: ‘In order to expose the subtle workings of power relationships expressed through language, discourse analysis undertakes systematic exploration of the patternings of language across larger bodies of text to identify common representations and messages that may be missed in more isolated reading.’ (Conboy)

2) Framing analysis: ‘specific properties of a narrative that encourage those perceiving and thinking about events to develop particular understandings of them’ (Entman)

Shift away from emphasis on objectivity (truth) vs. bias and toward relativism. Reflecting the post modern turn.

Textual elements that help to build frames

1) Language/discourse (e.g. terrorist vs. Freedom fighter, collateral damage vs. Civilian deaths, surgical strikes vs. bombing)

2) subject matter (military successes vs. Military failures: procedural vs. substantive issues: events vs. structural conditions)

3) visuals ...

4) ‚Event Importance‘ ... scale of attention ... Column inches and airtime

5) dominant voices/sources

Subject matter

Subject matter (from RT)

Visual elements

Entman‘s influential study

1) Comparison of two like events: KAL shootdown and the Iran Air shootdowns

2) comparable message potential

Entman‘s influential study

1) Conceptual framework for framing analysis:

Problem definition

Causal interpretation

Moral evaluation

Treatment recommendation

Entman‘s influential study

Problem definition/event importance

1) Scale of attention to KAL shootdown vs Iran Air shootdown

Entman‘s influential study

Moral responsibility

1) Evil Empire (Soviets) vs military personnel and their honest errors (US)

2) Highlighting relatives of victims (KAL), ignoring those from Iran Air

Entman‘s influential study

Treatment Recommendation

1) Reinforce the Cold War struggle against USSR

2) No change needed to US policy in the ME/Iran

Entman’s Conclusions

Technical fault frame (Iran Air)

moral outrage frame (KAL)

Section 2: Framing and the exercise of power

Cascading Activation Model (Entman)

The Propaganda Model (Herman and Chomsky)

Size, concentration, ownership, profit-orientated.

Advertising as primary funding.

Sourcing and “specialists” … propaganda campaigns

Flak as a disciplinary tool.

Anti-Radicalism: “Anti-communism” as a national religion.

Wolfsfeld’s Political Contest Model

Approaches/Methods

1) Purely interpretive

2) structured approaches: quantitative and qualitative

3) automated computer-based analysis (e.g. cluster analysis)

4) Combined approaches

‘Nuts and Bolts‘

1) Sample selection issues

2) reliability and validity issues

3) intercoder reliability testing

4) comparative approach vs. Clearly defined criteria

5) THE IMPORTANCE OF TRANSPARENCY AND A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH SO AS TO AVOID SELECTIVITY AND BIAS ON THE PART OF THE RESEARCHER.

Further interesting/useful studies ...

1) Herman and Chomsky Worthy and Unworthy Victims in Manufacturing consent

2) Myers et al on Rwanda and the Inscription of Difference

3) Bennett et al Non Dare Call it Torture

Criticisms/Conclusions

1) Researcher bias

2) audience reception

3) New media environment

4) too qualitative/interpretive (lacking objectivity?

5) Avoiding substantive issues about truth and reality