The
media are so powerful in today’s life that some people have labeled them on an
equal footing as Parliament, Judiciary and the Executive arm of government. But
with power comes great controversy and as such, the question of media is listed
as one of the most controversial topic in political science.
There
are competing ideas as to what the role of the media is in a democracy or in
the international system and this paper will not try to join that debate, nor
will it try to pick how true and real media effects are. The paper will however
support the idea that media set the agenda and use language and other tricks to
try to influence the way people interpret the world.
It
will consider the case of priming and framing and use the currently ongoing
Ukraine Crisis as case study to show how different media houses hold different
ideologies and try to influence their audiences to think along their lines. As
it is famously said: ‘‘the media may not be successful much of the time in
telling people what to think, but is stunningly successful in telling its
readers what to think about’’ (Cohen, 1963, p. 13,).
Framing
and Priming
Liberal
Pluralists see society as a complex of competing groups and interests, none of
them predominant all of the time. Media organizations are seen as bounded
organizational systems, enjoying an important degree of autonomy from the
state, political parties and institutionalized pressure groups. Control of the
media is said to be in the hands of an autonomous managerial elite who allow a
considerable degree of flexibility to media professionals[1].
Marxists
view capitalist society as being one of class domination; the media are seen as
part of an ideological arena in which various class views are fought out,
although within the context of the dominance of certain classes; ultimate control
is increasingly concentrated in monopoly capital; media professionals, while
enjoying the illusion of autonomy, are socialized into and internalize the
norms of the dominant culture; the media taken as a whole, relay interpretive
frameworks consonant with the interests of the dominant classes, and media
audiences, while sometimes negotiating and contesting these frameworks, lack
ready access to alternative meaning systems that would enable them to reject
the definitions offered by the media in favour of consistently oppositional
definitions. (Gurevitch et
al. in Chandler 1994)
This
paper roots for the Marxist Media Theory.
The
mass media are, in classical Marxist terms, a 'means of production' which in
capitalist society are in the ownership of the ruling class. According to the
classical Marxist position, the mass media simply disseminate the ideas and
world views of the ruling class, and deny or defuse alternative ideas. This is
very much in accord with Marx's argument that:
The
class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at
the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally
speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are
subject to it. (Marx & Engels: The
German Ideology, cited in Curran et al. 1982: 22 and quoted in Chandler, 1994).
The
media, according to various Marxists, have ideological power and the messages
they send to audiences are laden with it.
For
Example, the media showing violence has been argued by scholars like Stuart
Hall as being a way ‘to legitimize the forces of law and order, build consent
for the extension of coercive state regulation and de-legitimate outsiders and
dissidents'.
The
coverage of elections has been shown as being a way of socializing the masses
to believe that they live in a representative democracy.
Elites
presumably care about what people think because they want them to behave in
certain ways, supporting or at least tolerating elite activities. Given
limitations of time, attention, and rationality, getting people to think (and
behave) in a certain way requires selecting some things to tell them about and
efficiently cueing them on how these elements mesh with their own schema
systems.
“Because
the best succinct definition of power is the ability to get others to do what
one wants (Nagel, 1975), ‘‘telling people what to think about’’ is how one
exerts political influence in noncoercive political systems (and to a lesser
extent in coercive ones). And it is through framing that political actors shape
the texts that influence or prime the agendas and considerations that people
think about[2].”
Framing
has been defined as the process of culling a few elements of perceived reality
and assembling a narrative that highlights connections among them to promote a
particular interpretation. (Entman, 2007)
Framing
works to shape and alter audience members’ interpretations and preferences
through priming.
And
Priming is when media provide a context for public discussion of an issue,
setting the stage for audience understanding.
The
amount of time and space that media devote to an issue make an audience receptive
and alert to particular themes. Likewise, audience perceptions of events are
impacted by historical context with which they are familiar (through experience
or through media).
Grounded
in cognitive psychology, the theory of media priming is derived from the
associative network model of human memory, in which an idea or concept is
stored as a node in the network and is related to other ideas or concepts by
semantic paths. Priming refers to the activation of a node in this network,
which may serve as a filter, an interpretive frame, or a premise for further
information processing or judgment formation.
As
an example media reporting may be very strong leading up to an event such as
the Olympics, or World Cup, making it almost impossible for audiences to ignore
the event. Such aggressive reporting thus creates an audience of people at
least temporarily interested in the sport, even though prior to the reporting
many (perhaps most) members of the audience were not sports fans. Rather, they
are people who get caught up in the moment. (Ron Smith, 2011)
In framing media provide a focus and environment for
reporting a story, influencing how audiences will understand or evaluate it.
Framing theory deals with social construction on two levels: Perception of a
social phenomenon by journalists presenting news and interpretation of that
phenomenon by audience.
Framing
involves the use of metaphor, spin, storytelling, jargon, word choice, and
other narrative elements.
As
an example, through initial reporting, the media may present the facts of a
story in such as way that the audience is given a particular point of view or
frame of reference and interpretation. The media may report that a political
candidate has extreme views on an issue, that a budget proposal is harmful to a
particular group, that a new medicine is of questionable safety, and so on. By
such reporting, the media thus have presented a frame through which the story
is interpreted by audiences. It also sets the baseline for future reporting on
the issue.
That
is, frames introduce or raise the salience or apparent importance of certain
ideas, activating schemas that encourage target audiences to think, feel, and
decide in a particular way.
Entman
(2004) argues that frames typically perform four functions: problem definition,
causal analysis, moral judgment, and remedy promotion.
Framing
essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of perceived reality and
make them more salient in the communicating text, in such a way as to promote a
particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or
treatment recommendation for the item described. Frames, then, define problems—determine what a
causal agent is doing and costs and benefits, usually measured in terms of
cultural values; diagnose causes—identify
the forces creating the problem; make
moral judgments—evaluate causal agents and their effects; and suggest remedies—offer and justify
treat
As
a property of a message, a frame limits
or defines the message’s meaning by shaping the inferences that individuals
make about the message. Frames reflect judgments made by message creators or framers. Some frames represent
alternative valencing of information (i.e., putting information in either a
positive or negative light, or valence
framing). Other frames involve the simple alternative phrasing of terms
(semantic framing).
The
most complex form of framing is storytelling (story framing). Story framing involves (a) selecting key themes
or ideas that are the focus of the message and (b) incorporating a variety of
storytelling or narrative.
Hallahan’s
Seven Models of Framing [3]
|
Frame
|
Description
|
|
Situations
|
Relationships between individuals in
situations found in everyday living and literature. Framing of situations provides
structure for examining communication. Applies to discourse analysis,
negotiation, and other interactions.
|
|
Attributes
|
Characteristics of objects and people
are accentuated, whereas others are ignored, thus biasing processing of
information in terms of focal attributes
|
|
Choices
|
Posing alternative decisions in either
negative (loss) or positive (gain) terms can bias choices in situations
involving uncertainty. Prospect theory suggests people will take greater
risks to avoid losses than to obtain gains.
|
|
Actions
|
In persuasive contexts, the
probability that a person will act to attain a desired goal is influenced by
whether alternatives are stated in positive or negative terms.
|
|
Issue
|
Social problems and disputes can be
explained in alternative terms by different parties who vie for their
preferred definition a problem or situation to prevail.
|
|
Responsibility
|
Individuals tend to attribute cause of
events to either internal or external factors, based on levels of stability
and control. People portray their role in events consistent with their
self-image in ways that maximize benefits and minimize culpability. People
attribute causes to personal actions rather than systemic problems in
society.
|
|
News
|
Media reports use familiar, culturally
resonating themes to relay information about events. Sources vie for their
preferred framing to be featured through frame enterprise and frame
sponsorship
|
While
covering conflict that involves multiple nations Zendberg and Neiger (2005)
found that journalists are caught between being professional and patriotism and
usually, argued the authors, the journalists try to be patriotic[4].
Ukraine
Ukraine
is Europe’s second largest country seated on top or Romania and the Black Sea
and half wedged into Russia. With a population
of 45 million people, Ukraine only got independence in 1991 after the Soviet
Union fell apart.
Demonstrations
broke out in Ukraine on the night of 21 November 2013, when protests erupted in
the capital, Kiev, after the Ukrainian government suspended preparations
for signing an Association Agreement and a Free Trade
Agreement with the European Union, in favour of closer economic
relations with Russia. On 24 November 2013 first clashes
between protesters and police began. Protesters strived to break cordon.
Police
used tear gas and batons, protesters also used tear gas and some fire crackers
(according to police protesters were first to use them). After a few days
of demonstrations an increasing number of university students joined
the protests. Despite so far unmet demands to renew Ukraine-EU
integration, the Euromaidan has been repeatedly characterized as an event of
major political symbolism for the European Union itself, particularly
as "the largest ever pro-European rally in history".
Ukraine
has since been described as a battleground for old enemies; Russia and the
West.
With
this hypothesis in mind, this paper will highlight a few news stories from The
Voice of Russia (The official Russian Broadcasting Station), RT (a Russian and
publicly funded television station), The British Broadcasting Corporation and
The Huffington Post a US independent news website.
The
analogy is simply to illustrate theory and is in no way scientific.
RT
on February 25 ran a story with a headline:
“Alarming trend in Ukraine:
Historic monuments toppled, Nazi symbols spread (PHOTOS, VIDEO)[5]”
The
headline was followed by this lead:
‘After a fortnight of violent
clashes in the name of democracy, Ukraine seems to be falling into a totally
different trend. Symbols of victories over Hitler and Napoleon are being torn
down, while those glorifying Nazi rule are multiplying.’
Voice of Russia writing
n the same went with the headline:
“Clashes in Ukraine: historical
statues destroyed while Nazi symbols remain[6]”
The
lead that followed ran as follows:
“Straight after violent clashes in
Ukraine, finally it seems that the country is on a better path. After months of
struggle, it can be seen that the symbols of victories have been torn down
while Nazi symbols are being put up.”
On the Western front
The Huffington Post ran with:
“Leninopad, Ukraine's Falling Lenin Statues,
Celebrated As Soviet Symbols Toppled Nationwide (VIDEOS, PHOTOS)[7]”
The lead for the Huffington Post ran:
“Last
week, as Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych tried to hang on to power,
opposition protesters tore down statues of Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin
across the country, according to the BBC. The symbolic gesture signaled the
protesters' desire to tear away from Ukraine's Soviet history and the country's
ongoing dependence on modern Russia.”
The BBC went with:
“Ukraine crisis: Lenin statues toppled in protest[8]”
Following
with:
“Protesters have toppled statues of
Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin in various Ukrainian cities.”
In
the South of the country in the offshoot of Crimea, a group of people who had
guns stormed the parliament ad installed a Russian flag atop the building…
For
Voice of Russia the groups were described as ‘self-defense units[9],’ Huffington
Post called them ‘armed protesters[10],’
and RT termed them “Self-defense Squads[11].”
The
Voice or Russia did not mention that a Russian flag was installed on the seized
building; RT used the very Russian flag in its headline and picture as did the
Huffington Post.
The
BBC showed the picture of the flag but said the ‘unidentified’ men ‘were
cheered by a handful of pro-Russian
demonstrators who gathered round the building[12].’
Having
considered the Marxist theory and defined framing and priming, it is easy to
see the wall in the media on the opposite sides of Ukraine.
The
BBC goes on to use phrases such as “Western nations have warned Russia…,” for
example which to an unsuspecting media consumer will trigger his brain to see
Ukraine as a wall between Russia and the West.
The
Russia media calling the armed protestors self-defense units/squads is also
another ploy to make audiences think that the men who actually stormed
parliament and threw a flash grenade at journalists are just people defending
themselves.
And
the BBC can also not explain why it uses the word handful to describe a group
of people without admitting that it meant to convey a sense that the numbers
around the Crimean parliament were very decimal.
The
fact that the Voice of Russia omits the picture of a Russian flag on the
Crimean parliament or the mention of it shows that it is trying to make
unavailable certain facts that audiences might use in making an interpretation
about the situation.
And
the leads used by RT and Voice of Russia are also laden with ideology and are
primed and framed to tilt the Ukrainian story in favour of Russia.
RT
has done more than three stories and all talk about how the statue destroyed in
town so and so signified the freeing of the Ukrainians from Napoleon…all while
not mentioning that it is a Russian statue and therefore possibly seen as a
symbol of Russian colonialism in Ukraine.
Instead
the two highlight, with both pictures and video zooming into swastikas painted
on some walls. The idea behind this priming is to emphasize and draw attention
to the neo-Nazi elements in the Ukrainian protest movements and ultimately to
discredit them in the minds of the audiences.
But
neo-Nazi units have always been part of European cities including Russia itself
and so far the majority of the protest movement has not been vocal and active
in championing racial hatred.
With
this said, the Huffington post and the BBC lack of significant mention of the
Nazi units in the Ukrainian protest movement might be a deliberate omission to
sanitize the protestors as genuine clean European loving common people.
And
the description in the western media that the Ukrainian protests were the
biggest pro-European rallies in history are for example attempts to appeal to
audiences as a gallant play by Ukrainians, and nobody wants to highlight the
fact that the protest grew because people particularly wanted to oust the
president for championing anti-protest laws.
Bibliography
BBC
(2014) West warns Russia amid rising tensions in Crimea Retrieved on 28/02/14 from URL: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26366700
BBC
(2014) Ukraine crisis: Lenin statues toppled in protest retrieved on 28/02/14 from URL: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26306737
Chandler, Daniel (1994) Marxist Media Theory
retrieved on 20/02/14 from URL: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism.html
Huffington
Post UK (2014) Ukraine Crisis: Crimean Protesters Raise Russian Flag Over
Parliament Building retrieved on
28/02/14 from URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/27/ukraine-crimea_n_4864020.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&just_reloaded=1
Huffington Post (2014) Leninopad, Ukraine's
Falling Lenin Statues, Celebrated As Soviet Symbols Toppled Nationwide (VIDEOS,
PHOTOS) retrieved on 28/02/14 from URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/leninopad-falling-lenins-statues-ukraine_n_4847364.html?utm_hp_ref=ukraine
Kirk
Hallahan (1999) Seven Models of Framing:
Implications for Public Relations in Journal
of Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205–242
Robert
M. Entman (2007) Framing Bias: Media
in the Distribution of Power in Journal of Communication Volume
57, Issue
1, pages 163–173, March 2007
RT
(2014) Russian flag over Crimea's parliament as people barricaded inside
Retrieved on 28/02/14 from URL: http://rt.com/news/crimea-parliament-building-capture-987/
Voice
of Russia (2014) Clashes in Ukraine:
historical statues destroyed while Nazi symbols remain retrieved on
28/02/14 from URL: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_02_27/Clashes-in-Ukraine-historical-statues-destroyed-while-Nazi-symbols-remain-9620/
Voice
of Russia (2014) Crimea Parliament
seized by unidentified armed men, tensions grow in Ukraine retrieved on
27/02/14 from URL: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_02_27/Crimea-Parliament-seized-by-unidentified-armed-men-tensions-grow-in-Ukraine-4512/?slide-1
Zendberg,
E i Neiger, M 2005, ‘Between the nation
and profession: journalists as members of contradicting communities’, Media,
Culture and Society, vol. 23, no. 1,str. 131—141.
[1] Chandler, Daniel (1994) Marxist Media
Theory retrieved on 20/02/14 from URL: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism.html
[2] Robert
M. Entman (2007) Framing Bias: Media
in the Distribution of Power in Journal of Communication Volume
57, Issue 1, pages 163–173, March 2007
[3]
Adapted from Kirk Hallahan (1999) Seven Models of Framing: Implications for
Public Relations in Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205–242
[4] Zendberg,
E i Neiger, M 2005, ‘Between the nation and profession: journalists as members
of contradicting communities’, Media, Culture and Society, vol. 23, no.
1,str. 131—141.
[5] RT
(2014) retrieved on 28/02/14 from URL: http://rt.com/news/ukraine-monuments-nazi-symbols-645/
[6]
Voice of Russia (2014) Clashes in
Ukraine: historical statues destroyed while Nazi symbols remain retrieved
on 28/02/14 from URL: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_02_27/Clashes-in-Ukraine-historical-statues-destroyed-while-Nazi-symbols-remain-9620/
[7]Huffington Post (2014) Leninopad,
Ukraine's Falling Lenin Statues, Celebrated As Soviet Symbols Toppled
Nationwide (VIDEOS, PHOTOS) retrieved on 28/02/14 from URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/leninopad-falling-lenins-statues-ukraine_n_4847364.html?utm_hp_ref=ukraine
[8]BBC
(2014) Ukraine crisis: Lenin statues toppled in protest retrieved on 28/02/14 from URL: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26306737
