ANNETTE ERIKSEN: Framing Media Research Paper: Lit Review Section

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Framing in Media
When reporting on a topic, whether it is a crisis, a political update, or just important
public information, the news uses a tool called framing. Framing has many different elements
and can be used in many different ways; it can be what the reporter talks about, how s/he relates
the news to the audience, or what s/he deems important. Framing can be defined as the
development of the audiences perceived reality combined with a narrative highlighting specific
points to create a particular interpretation (Entman, 2007). In result, framing becomes a key tool
in bridging the gap between the news and its audiences.
According to the research from Dimitrova and Lee (2009), Liao (2010), and Wu (2006),
there are different types of frames correlating with certain events in order to create the outcome
necessary. The first and most general frame is the one that is created for its local audience. When
controversial issues arise, it provides the national media with the opportunity to report the issue
in a specified way according to their local audiences (Dimitrova et al., 2009). An event, such as
Saddam Husseins death, be perceived differently depending on where a person is in the world. If
the death was framed the same in Iraq as it was in the United States, it would not have the
intended effect. Along with local frames, Dimitrova et al., (2009) said frames can also be
described as distributive and procedural. Distributive justice framing emphasizes the perceived
fairness of the outcome, while procedural justice framing would explain the perceived fairness of
the procedure. Depending on the locals perceptions on the event, it translates into which frame
would be appropriate to use. Other types of framing come from the producers and the receivers
of news. According to Liao (2010), there are two major frames that are always present;
Journalistic/media framing and audience framing. Journalistic framing, which comes from the
producing end of frames, creates frames for the audience framers to consume and react to. The

audience framing occurs when an audience consumes media and news content in order to make
sense of the world around them (Wu, 2006).
Making sense of the world is a very important aspect of framing, making it ubiquitous.
Frames are everywhere; they are so engraved in culture that no one knows where they begin and
end. Therefore, the meaning of frames cannot be linked directly to an individual, but within the
culture itself (Van Gorp, 2007). Culture is essentially something greater than any individual.
Thus, if frames stem from the surrounding culture and the individual cannot produce a frame, it
is produced for them. Because frames are created from within a culture, depending on how
immersed an individual is within that culture, correlates with how much the frames affect them.
The connection between culture and frames becomes stronger the more involved and attentive an
individual is with the message and message cues delivered. Individuals who do not respond to
messages or message cues are not affected by framing (Chang, 2010). It goes on to explain the
involvement between an individual, the culture and its frames: Whether or not frames bring
about individual effects depends on several factors, such as interests, beliefs, experiences, and
attitudes. In that respect, a frame is an invitation or an incentive to read a news story in a
particular way, (Van Gorp, 2007, p. 4). The beginnings of frames start within culture and grow
from there. Ending in the way an issue is framed, attributed, and reported on, affects how the
issue is defined overall (Coleman & Banning, 2006).
To have a better understanding of how framing works within media, one needs to look at
how it correlates with the Agenda-Setting Theory. Framing is the construction of an agenda with
a restricted number of thematically related attributes in order to create a coherent picture of a
particular object, (Muschert & Carr, 2006, p. 2). Agenda-setting is the strong correlation
between the amount of times media reports on specific issues and the prominence given to these
issues (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). When media uses agenda-setting, they are highlighting and

adding prominence to a few specific issues, which leads to the promotion of frames. Framing is a
more specific and advanced version of agenda-setting. Framing within agenda-setting gives
issues more salience, leading to a shift in peoples attitudes and thoughts towards the issues
presented (McCombs, 2004). In essence, the purpose of agenda-setting and framing is to pick
specific issues to report on, find out the audiences perceived reality, and create a message with a
certain influence. Depending on the individuals perceived reality and the amount of news s/he
processes, and how s/he processes it, interprets the amount of specific influence the news had on
the individual. For example, Kosicki and McLeod (1990) identified three specific dimensions of
news processing. The first dimension refers to an individuals inclination to only pay attention to
the specific news that interest her or him, and disregards other stories. The other two dimensions
refer to the individuals attempt to look for other reports on a specific issue to find the real story.
Depending on the amount of news content and frames an individual reflects on, it determines the
level of influence the frames have on that individual (Scheufele, 2000). Therefore, individuals
who pay less attention to media and news stories around them are most affected by agendasetting, and therefore framing. Those who give a lot of attention to media and its frames are less
affected or influenced by its effects.
Overall, framing is used to create specific effects through messages based on the topic
reported, the audience for which the message is aimed toward, and where geographically and
culturally the message is reported.
The short history of framing as a communication concept has followed that path
backwards. It began as a means of understanding reception and storage. Later it was
examination of messages for frames, and finally it became a begrudging admiration of the
propagandists, politicians, and public relations practitioners who understood the process
and constructed messages to maximum effect using it (Harmon & Muenchen, 2009, p. 3).

This cause and effect process not only succeeds within media frames, it became a wellrounded process in media censorship and bias, too.
Censorship in Media
The First Amendment in the Constitution of the United States says: Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, (The contemporary first
amendment, 1969, p. 4). There have been many discussions about what exactly this means. Does
it give media a right to print what they want? Is there some kind of restraint? Just as one would
expect, there are limits to this constitutional right causing many to question just how free their
freedoms are (A new statement on access, 1969).
Another specific time the constitutional right has been stripped to its essentials is at a
time of war. This became evident in the story of an on base military newspaper pushing those
boundaries. The military had established The Pacific Stars and Stripes as a newspaper to support
the war effort during the Vietnam War, which was run by a civilian staff. Censorship occurred in
an atmosphere described by a former staff member as, one of fear and suspicion, in which
deskmen and editors were constantly shifted from job to job, (Berger, 1972, p. 49).
It was not until there was a liberal colonel instituted to the paper that they truly decided to
push the boundaries. The military tried to act on this, but they were restricted by law and the
paper continued to print the truth (Berger, 1972). Today censorship during wartime can be very
tricky, especially during live broadcasts overseas. ABC News, highly regarded as being fair and
balanced, censored out any unnecessary gore during their overseas coverage of the troops in Iraq.
It should also be known that it is a lot more difficult to censor media with how accessible the
Internet has become to everyone. However there are many instances of censorship still being
used on the home front. Editing, self-censorship, institutional censorship, and governmental

censorship are the four listed as most prominent (Klotzer, 2003). Governmental censorship is the
most invasive because of the power it holds. Included in this power is the ability to keep
information hidden, which only appears as lawful during a time of crisis, and a time of war
(Klotzer, 2003).
Although there has been a large amount of censorship used throughout wartime
journalism, there have been instances of improved accuracy in reporting. Journalists were
allowed access to operational missions and the interviews were allowed to be on record (Johnson
& Fahmey, 2009). During the current era of wartime reporting, there is an absence of pictures
that used to be prominent in the years past. Images of casualties have been found in many
instances during the history of the world. Nowadays a person would be lucky to find one because
of new rules instated by the Department of Defense saying there can be no evidence of casualties
in photos released by media (Arnow, 2007).
Media censorship is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it is necessary with sensitive
topics. For instance, when a victim is raped, media does not release the information that would
normally be released for a criminal. There is also an instance where censorship has been used
against terrorists to prevent their ability to access media (Hackett, 2007).
Bias in Media
Along with censorship comes media bias. Bias is a reductive way of categorizing
interpretations of reality into black and white when reality is often grey. Forcing content into
categories of positive, negative, and neutral has been a traditional social science research method
of determining bias in media coverage, (Ibrahim, 2008, p. 283). Some have described it as not
useful because language is neutral and one cannot separate values and viewpoints (Tan &
Weaver, 2010).
Distrust is more likely to be a situational response stemming from involvement with
issues and groups, (Gunther, 1992, p. 147). Since the confidence in news is at an all-time low in
the United States, people are turning towards entertainment programs, such as cable-talk shows.

These programs interview politicians, public officials, and celebrities as much as possible to keep
their show entertaining (Hoffman, 2013). These types of programs are able to be bias without it
being so obvious because celebrities are people they are already in favor of, and it does not seem
like they are being bias.
Corporate media considers themselves as the leaders in accuracy however; the idea of
news is celebrity coverage and official government business. Every now and then one comes
across a story that does not get covered. For one reason or another, the story gets swept under the
rug. This is a prime example of how media bias goes hand in hand with censorship (Phillips,
2008).
One corporate media network that has been guilty of this is FOX News. FOX is a strong
supporter of the Republican Party and always reports from that side of the spectrum (Loffredo,
Harrington & Eubanks, 2013). Even the most neutral news report is seen as biased toward
democrats in the eyes of republicans, and vice versa for republicans (Hansen & Kim, 2011).
FOX is not the only corporate media network guilty of bias. CBS and NBC during the Clinton
years leaned more democratically bias (Groeling, 2008). No one really knows how long the
political parties of democrats and republicans remain in office (Schiffer, 2006).
Framing, agenda-setting, censorship, and bias are key components used to help report on
sensitive topics. Two major issues have played a role using these tools; the Columbine Massacre
and the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Columbine
There are always devastating topics that get brought up in media in a negative or positive
way. These topics can range anywhere from a small crime story, to a detrimental massacre that
had happened somewhere around the world. When tragedies occur around the globe, the first
step a news company takes is reporting the specific information they were given. One particular
event brought up assertively in media was the Columbine High School shooting in Littleton,

Colorado. On April 20, 1991, two students from the school murdered 12 students and one
teacher, and then proceeded to commit suicide directly after (Plaisance & Deppa, 2006).
The massacre at Columbine High School injured 24 students and faculty members from
the incident and many damages to the high school from some of the explosive devices that went
off. The two boys had several homemade bombs, many different kinds of guns, and over eight
different knives in their possession; these were not used during the disaster. The two young
males had planned this massacre for about a year; precautionary tactics could have been
completed if someone would have known about it (Larkin, 2007). Media looked very far into this
because something else had to have caused the actions of these two students.
The Columbine carnage was not only the worst high school shooting in history (Hsiang &
McCombs, 2004), but it also caused uproar throughout media for quite awhile. The greater the
need and consequently the stronger the dependency in such matter, the greater the likelihood the
information supplied alters various forms of audience cognitions, feelings, and behavior, (BallRokeach & DeFleur, 1976, p. 5). Because of this, many citizens were questioning their feelings
and beliefs toward gun control privileges. Legal rights were put to question about how violence
and having the right to carry a gun was the causation of this attack. There also existed an
extensive history of blaming violent films for such behavior like the two young males who
caused the whole massacre (Scharrer, Weidman & Bissell, 2003). Television violence also started
to become controversial in media because of the way it made people feel after such tragedies had
occurred. Media even formed a blame for recorded music. All of these violent forms of media led
reporters to believe they can cause a change in beliefs such as racism, depression, and becoming
suicidal. Aggression increases inside the body when a human watches a fierce television show,
listens to recorded music, or watches a violent movie (Scharrer et al., 2003). All of these new
beliefs became a major concern because of media uproar and the citizens reliance on the

information, leading to increased dependency. This relates to Media Dependency Theory

(Rokeach & DeFleur, 1976), which can be defined as the more dependent and individual is on
media, the more important media will be to that person (Lin, 2008). Viewers of the massacre
became participants in media dependency theory because of how frequently they relied on media
throughout the issue.
When disasters like Columbine occur, media tends to use framing when they report
different stories to the public. According to Hsiang and McCombs (2004), a total of 170 articles
accepted different kinds of frames on the space and time dimensions, keeping the story of the
Columbine in media for longer than a month. Framing was very important at this point as the use
of lengthy frames needed further explanation. The study researchers completed was pulling
coverage on Columbine from The New York Times, to apply framing as a process in journalistic
preparation (Hsiang & McCombs, 2004). There was a framing struggle created from the shooting
at Columbine because there were so many extensive views of the event. Bloodshed during the
1990s was not common, and due to the fact Columbine was on television for the public to see
live coverage thoroughly, people were living vicariously through it. Because of the way media
framed the occurring events at Columbine led people to have many different interpretations of
the event (Birkland & Lawrence, 2009).
Pandemonium in media about Columbine reviewed violence through entertainment and
gun control discussions. This massacre at Columbine also correlates with the fear and terrorism
in the United States. Terrorism started to connect with school shootings in many ways. First
being the correlation with guns and violence. Second, terrorism is linked to promoting fear and
holding hostages. Another relating point to terrorism, and the shooting, was how there is a
common relation between the accessibility of guns to terrorists and young teens. This is
something that continues to remain a huge conflict around the world (Altheide, 2009). All of

these issues brought media to believe the Columbine relates to terrorism. A couple years after the
Columbine massacre, the United States underwent one of the most tragic terrorist attacks in
history.
September 11, 2001
Media tends to use framing and bias when reporting different stories to the public. These
stories can range from all different types of events that occur in the United States and throughout
the world. Media has framed and used bias toward the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
and the War on Terror designated by the George W. Bush Administration. On September 11,
2001 (Galea, Ahern, Resnick, Kilpatrick, Bucuvalas, Gold & Vlahov, 2002, p. 1), Islamic
terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon, and
Stonycreek Township, Pennsylvania. The 9/11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people (Kleinfield,
2007). Media framed and held certain biases about the attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001. U.S. media played an especially critical role in amplifying the effects of the 9/11 attack.
For example, literature suggests television viewing of repetitive and rebroadcast visuals of 9/11
increased fear and anxiety after the terrorist attack, (Fahmy, Cho, Wanta & Song, 2006, p. 6).
According to Chang and Chang (2013) the framing of September 11, 2001 has directly
affected the way media frames other sensitive topics. Because of the events that Americans saw
and heard on the news during September 11, it is believed media reports and withholds certain
aspects of the news from us. Frames often constrain the public, which leads to shaping the
publics opinion. The news media plays a very crucial part in accepting and conveying different
frames. Our world is often framed through reporters lenses, which often privileges the prevailing
different views of politics (Lewis & Reese, 2009). Newspapers and television networks differed
in their framing of different events (Li & Izard, 2003).When media broadcasted and printed
certain stories and visuals during the attacks and the aftermath of the attacks of September 11,
these news sources were strictly critiqued. Images such as the plane crashing into the second

tower, and individuals jumping from the burning buildings were shown repeatedly. These visuals
were so outrageous that networks were criticized for showing them (Fahmy et al., 2006).
Newspapers, magazines, and images can completely change the views of a story (DroriAvraham, 2006). The War on Terror, which people believe is a result of the September 11, 2001
attacks on the United States, are reasons to believe certain things are biased and framed toward
the public. Nine days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, United States President George W. Bush in
his State of the Union address announced his intention to declare a global War on Terror,
(Shaw, 2012, p. 29). Media tends to withhold pictures of wounded or killed soldiers, along with
other types of information they feel would need to be censored. The George W. Bush
Administration framed how they went about the war in Iraq as an extension of the War on Terror.
Journalists had expressed their frustration and disappointment with the way media had defined
the War on Terror (Lewis & Reese, 2009). This phrase has become a convenient and shorthand
name for the George W. Bush Administration since September 11. Everything talked about since
the George W. Bush Administration issued the War on Terror has been associated to them.
When media frames events for the public, the public often takes their views and stance of
what that specific media source says. Media frames certain issues to affect the way people think
about them, which then influence public opinion (Chang & Chang, 2013). The public takes pride
in what reporters tell them and the way they depict their stories. These types of situations make
framing and bias much more valuable and powerful to media and the public eye. Mass media
often provides a lot of information individuals use to form their opinions. During wartime media
coverage has an important role for public opinion because the amount of conflict (Hayes &
Reineke, 2007). Powell (2011) did an analysis of episodic news frames on the 9/11 terrorist
events. These events demonstrated how the coverage of terrorism has since developed from
common themes, and frames that are composed of labels. When media framed September 11,

2001, they not only framed the events we saw the day of and days following, but forever
changed our views and opinions about the event.
Religion started to play a huge role of framing in media. Media began to sway our views
of the Muslim religion by associating religion with acts of terror. This caused people to believe
all Muslim Americans, or Muslims in general, were associated with terrorism. Media framed our
opinions that all Muslims who live in the United States are somehow connected with people
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Coverage of terrorism highlights difference in religion, demonizing
Muslims and humanizing Christians. Terrorism, labeled as Muslim, is attacking all that is good in
America. By continually placing innocent U.S. victims at the hands of depersonalized Muslim
terrorists, (Powell, 2011, p. 5).
Since media told Americans the terrorists who planned the attacks were of the Muslim
religion. They have ultimately framed our minds that all Muslims are terrorists. Because of the
constant and consistent coverage of these events, one starts to believe all people associated with
the Muslim religion are bad. These dominant frames are persistent, making the view of the
information are one-dimensional. U.S. media are largely from a similar perspective, having been
emotionally affected by 9/11 and having themselves absorbed the framing of fellow journalists,
(Powell, 2011, p. 5). Journalists expressed their mere frustration and disappointment with the
way media defined the War on Terror (Lewis & Reese, 2009). Some journalists get frustrated
because when they are faced with certain issues, like terrorist attacks; they are prompted to make
moral judgments (Papacharissi & Oliveira, 2008). Those judgments do not always remain ethical
and true. When a journalist reports they are suppose to remain objective and honest; they should
not show favoritism toward one side rather than the other. This is explains the frustration of
journalists because if they choose one frame over another it impacts a story, positively or
negatively.

Since the terrorist attacks led to the War on Terror, it left more room for biased opinions
by certain mediums, the terrorist attacks affected the population of the United States and
everyone had an opinion. Their stories were framed and showed bias toward their feelings of the
George W. Bush Administration prompting this war, just a few days after the terrorist attacks.
They found that during the war one U.S. news organization. Fox News Channel, displayed clear
bias in support of the U.S., led war effort. All the American networks showed a war without
much blood, dissent, or diplomacy, (Harmon & Muenchen, 2009 p. 16).
When relating Agenda-Setting Theory (McCombs & Shaw, 1972) cited by (Weiss, 2009)
to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, one sees there is a strong correlation media places a
huge emphasis on certain aspects of the attacks that led to the War on Terror. Media is a very
dominant element of culture and has the ability to set an agenda. When the agenda remains
consistent within media outlets, media then has power to create different associations for race,
religions, people, and culture (Powell, 2011). Agenda-setting was a huge part in medias
contribution to how the public felt about the terrorist attacks following the War on Terror. People
recalled different emotions and images that they felt during 9/11. This can be used to evaluate
ones level of concern with terrorism. These different memories can have an agenda-setting
effect on news (Fahmy et. al, 2006). Agenda-setting helped media pick the most heartfelt
moments of September 11. They knew they were topics and situations that would affect the
public the most. Media used agenda-setting to frame peoples emotions to these events making
one individual process the information different than the news sources reported. Therefore, using
such a heartfelt situation like 9/11 and the War on Terror, media was able to reach the audience in
a way that they would not have been able to without Agenda-Setting Theory (McCombs & Shaw,
1972). Framing took agenda-setting beyond audience salience, media coverage indicated how
that subject was to be approached by the audience. Many scholars use the terms framing and

second-level agenda-setting, (Harmon & Munchen, 2009 p. 13). Agenda-Setting Theory

(McCombs & Shaw, 1972) therefore is directly connected to framing. The terrorist attacks of
9/11 and the War on Terror is forever a victim of agenda-setting and framing by media.
Uses and Gratification Theory (Blumler & Katz, 1974) cited by (Pearce, 2009), is an
important aspect associated with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the War on Terror.
Uses and Gratification Theory (Blumler & Katz, 1974) cited by (Pearce, 2009) predicts that
audiences mainly rely on media to gratify ones specific needs in order to develop a dependency
on that specific medium. The more a person relies or depends on a certain medium to fulfill their
needs, the more important it becomes. Therefore, the more a person relies on, for example Fox
News, the more a person starts to depend on them for information. Even if Fox News falsely
reports an issue on the September 11th attacks or the War on Terror, the person still believes the
specified medium.
News stations tend to be biased towards certain news topics. Some stations tend to be
more conservative or liberal on a certain issue, leading them to bias on a certain issue. Viewers
perceive ideological bias in television news with CNN representing the liberal viewpoint and
Fox News Channel (FNC) representing the conservative viewpoint, (Loffredo et al., 2013, p. 2).
A specific example of this is the War on Terror. Because the War of Terror was a result of the
George W. Bush Administration, it makes a conservative station more bias towards them because
they favor the Republican Party, and a liberal station would look more negatively toward that
issue since they tend to be more liberal in their decisions.
Media uses three main communication tools when reporting on sensitive topics.
These tools: framing, censorship, and bias, are used in order to create specific effects on their
audience. In the research conducted, these components were evident in the 9/11 terrorist attacks
and the Columbine Massacre. Due to the prevalence of these events in media, the tools were able
to influence the audience.