1. BACKGROUND AND ORIENTATION TO THE STUDY 1 INTRODUCTION
1.8 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.8.2 Framing theory
24
• Shaping public opinion
The agenda setting function of the media not only defines salient issues, but also captures the attention of the public and shapes public opinion. McQuail (2010:513) argues that there is a correlation between how much emphasis the media place on a problem, and how significant the audience perceive that issue. For example, the scholar states that research has shown that the media can more greatly influence public concern about social control issues such as crime and drug use than changes in the actual reported incidence of the problem. The nature of media production means that a limited number of issues can remain newsworthy at a particular time, and the choice of what is included (or excluded) sets the agenda and defines public interest and opinion (ibid). Therefore, the agenda setting process builds consensus about what issues are most important within the community (McCombs, 2004:128).
Thus, the theory explains and supports the techniques in which tabloids’ agenda setting processes influence the manner of coverage of nyaope in the South African tabloids.
In relation to this study, the above argument refers to how concentrated media attention to illicit drugs particularly a lack of focus on the consumption of nyaope could lead to the trivialisation of the dire effects of drugs. This theory explains that the public is only aware of the news, which the media deal with and adopt the order of priority assigned to different issues covered. For instance, if the media focus their attention on topical issues such as drug trafficking and continuously play down the horrendous consequences of illicit drugs specifically the use of nyaope, the public may regard the consumption of such drugs as insignificant.
25
organising idea for news content that provides a contextualised meaning through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion and elaboration (ibid). Framing theory in this study is used to examine the coverage of news reports on nyaope in the Daily Sun and Sowetan newspapers.
• Frames in mass communication
Over the past decade, the identification of frames in communication have become the key considerations emphasized in a speech act as a virtual cottage industry.
Scholars track frames to identify trends in issue definitions, compare coverage across media outlets, and examine variations across types of media (Semetko &
Valkenburg, 2000). Although uniform measurement standards do not exist, the most compelling studies tend to take the following steps:
A frame in communication can be defined only in relation to a specific issue, event, or political actor. For example, the frames for social issues differ from the frames for social security reform. Even the same issue at different times may invoke alternative frames (Entman, 2004:23). If the goal is to understand how frames in communication affect public opinion, then the communicator needs to isolate a specific attitude. For example, one could focus on overall attitudes toward illicit drug use or, alternatively, on attributions of reasons why people use drugs. Different frames may underlie each of these attitudes. The frame defining attitudes toward drug use may include considerations of health and social effects, economic costs, and individualism (Feldman & Zaller, 2002).
Furthermore, it is integral to examine the frames produced by various drug users and organizations on both sides of the issue in editorial writings, and the publications of interest groups or social movements. This provides the set of “culturally available frames” in public discourse. These sources can be complemented by asking samples of individuals to record the considerations that come to mind on the issue of drug use, using open-ended questions (Brewer, 2003). These may include the aforementioned advocacy communications (for example; from social movements), but more typically, scholars analyse mass media sources including major newspapers, magazines, web sites, and television broadcasts. The choice of specific news outlets depends on the researcher’s intent, for example, to capture general trends in coverage or to compare specific types of coverage across media. Coders
26
then analyse a sample, identifying the presence or absence of one of the predefined frames in the story or article.
• Effects of framing on individuals
The effects of framing can be seen in many journalism applications. The "frame"
surrounding an issue can change the reader's perception without having to alter the actual facts. In the context of drug use or mass-media communication, a frame defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others. For illicit drugs purposes, framing often presents facts in such a way that implicates a problem that is in need of a solution. Members of media organisations are often perceived as attempting to frame drug related issues in a way that makes a solution to favour their own agenda and appear as the most appropriate course of action for that situation at hand (Kamalipour, 2010).
In addition, the bulk of attention in the representation of illicit drugs and communications literature, however, has been on how frames in the communication of elites (for example, drugs, media outlets, and interest groups) influence citizens’
frames and attitudes. This process is typically called a framing effect. There is disagreement about the best measure to gauge the magnitude of framing effects.
One standard is the variance in preferences produced by alternative frames on an issue. For example, in assessing tolerance of a hate group rally, a comparison would be drawn between respondents who received a free speech frame and those who received a public safety frame. A second standard is the variation in the correlation between alternative framed preferences and personal values relevant to the issue, such as freedom versus law and order on the hate group issue (Sniderman &
Theriault, 2004).
• Framing public attitudes
Framing is important because media portrayals are there to guide the audience’s interpretations and to influence the formation of new opinions. For example, Fan’s time series analysis of illicit drugs press coverage in the USA between 1985 and 1994 found that by framing drugs as a crisis, the media significantly contributed to shifts in public attitudes with 60% of the public regarding drugs as the United States’
27
most important problem (Clegg-Smith, Wakefield, Terry- McElrath, Chaloupka, Flay
& Saba, 2008:17). Based on principles of selection and salience there are many ways in which newsmakers have the power to shape the way a story is presented through framing (Clegg-Smith et al., 2002). The power is demonstrated through strategic ideological framing of not only the facts of the story itself but of the actors, leaders, affected communities, relevant arguments and proposed solutions.
For example, the selection and omission of particular sources contributes to the framing of an issue, with official sources such as politicians and government figures often dominating drug stories in the media (Teece & Makkai, 2000) whereas
‘alternative voices’ tend to be marginalised. In the same way, choice of language is important in framing problems and solutions. For example, the ‘drug war’ metaphor used in the United States drug media coverage suggests strong intervention of a military or law enforcement nature as the logical solution to a war-like problem, rather than suggesting health or economic interventions (McLeod, 2011).