U. Frames used,
5.2 Qualitative data presentation: Thematic coding
5.2.4 Qualitative thematic coding of online reports on the killing of Eudy Simelane
173 (referring to a subject [pseudonym used to protect anonymity] who had been subjected to homophobia in Khayelitsha), as stated in a News24 report (Verwoerd, 2016). Lastly, 25% of the reports occupied a human-interest frame (U1) which can be observed in the second report by Verwoerd (2016), who wrote about a young lesbian and her perspective of homophobia in a township with reference to violence perpetrated against Swelindawo, while the other 75% of the reports used the morality frame (U3).
174 Table 5.9: Qualitative data collected on four selected online reports on the killing of Eudy Simelane
Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article 4 TOTAL
K1: "Homosexual"
(clinical) or "gay"
(colloquial)
X X 50%
K2: "Lesbian" X X 50%
K7: Other X 25%
L: Gendered, or non- binary/ neutral pronouns of victim(s); or
no use of pronouns (specific)
L1: Binary: Gendered pronouns used when referring to the victim;
"she", "her", "herself"
X X X X 100%
M2: Conflict X X X X 100%
M3: Reference to elite persons (celebrity or high-
status person (from Jewkes, 2004))
X X X X 100%
M4: Sex X 25%
M5: Conservative ideology or political
diversion
X X 50%
N2: Emotive X X X X 100%
N3: Includes a nutgraph (that is, telling the story in
a nutshell to entise reading, like a blurb)
X 25%
O: "Comments"
whenever they appear on each online report is
also seen by audiences and contribute to the context of the report (see "social plugin" from Almgren & Olsson, 2016)
O8: No "Comments"
feature X X X X 100%
P1: No "Share" feature X X X 75%
P3: "Share" feature f t X 25%
Q: Accuracy of the
online report Q1: No inaccuracy found X X X X 100%
R1: Non-secularist
(reference to religion) X 25%
R2: Secularist/ Neutral
(no reference to religion) X X X 75%
S1: Descriptor(s) indemnifying the accused
of the crime against the victim
X 25%
S2: No reference to culpability of the accused
of the crime against the victim observed
X 25%
S3: Descriptor(s) of culpability of accused for
the crime against the victim(s)
X 25%
S4: No reference to
accused X X 50%
T1: No sources consulted X 25%
T2: Source(s) has objective epistemic
perspective
X X 50%
T3: Source(s) has subjective epistemic
perspective
X X 50%
U2: Conflict X 25%
U3: Morality X X X 75%
S: Reference to the accused
T: The nature of sources consulted
U: Frames used, according to Entman
(1991)
R: Ideological approach clearly identifiable in the
online report; online writing contextualised
by religion K: Moniker used to refer
to lesbians in online reports (general)
M. Conditions for news evident in online reports, as described by
Galtung & Ruge (1965) and Jewkes (2004)
N: Headlines of online reports
P: "Share" feature whenever they appear on each online report is
also seen by audiences and contribute to the context of the report
175 In 50% of the selected online reports the term “gay” was used (De Waal, 2008; Van den Berg, 2008) (K1), while 50% used “lesbian” (Kelly, 2008; De Waal, 2008) as a moniker (K2), and 25% used “former Banyana Banyana soccer player…” as another K7 label to refer to the subject. All the reports (100%) used female gendered binary pronouns (L1), for example “…her brutal murder…” (Kelly, 2009). The reports also referred to physical conflict (M2) (100%), for example “…gang-raping and brutally slaying former Banyana Banyana soccer player Eudy Simelane in an apparent hate crime…” (Fuphe, 2008),
“…she was stabbed, 25 holes in her…” (Kelly, 2008), and “…stabbed to death…” (Van den Berg, 2008). There was also reference to elite persons (M3), for example “…former Banyana Banyana midfielder…” (Van den Berg, 2008). Conditions for news were observed in all the reports (100%), while 25% included references to sex (M4), for example “…gang-raped…” (Van den Berg, 2008), while 50% of the reports included a conservative ideology or political diversion (M5) condition for news, for example “The rights of gay and lesbian people are protected under South Africa’s Constitution, yet Jon Qwelane can also blather in the Sunday Sun about how wicked and perverted it is to be gay or lesbian…” (De Waal, 2008).
Emotive language (N2) was used in all the reports (100%), for example “Raped and killed for being a lesbian: South Africa ignores ‘corrective’ attacks” (Kelly, 2009), “Against hate, in favour of humour”
(De Waal, 2008), “Time to saddle up” (Van den Berg, 2008), and “Shape up, court is told” (Fuphe, 2008).The first report by Kelly (2009) was the only report (25%) of all the case studies to include a nutgraph (N3). None of the reports included a “Comments” feature (O8). Also, 75% did not have a
“Share” feature (P1) while 25% included a “Share” feature for Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and email (P3). None of the online reports (100%) included any inaccuracies (Q1) that could be observed. In 25%
of the reports there were non-secularist references (R1), for example “…if you see Jesus and Robert Whitehead as icons…” (De Waal, 2008), while 75% of the reports did not refer to religion (R2). One of the reports (25%) included a reference to the innocence of the accused of a hate crime (S1) by stating
“…the judge said that Simelane’s sexual orientation had ‘no significance’ in her killing” (Kelly, 2009).
It was found that 25% of the reports made no reference to the culpability of the accused (S2), but one report (25%) referred to the culpability of the accused of the crime against the victim (S3), for example
“Why did they do this horrible thing?” (Kelly, 2009). In 50% of the reports no reference was made to the accused at all (S4). For the construction of 25% of the reports, no sources had been consulted (T1), while 50% of the reports included sources with an objective epistemic perspective (T2), for example
“…Triangle, South Africa’s leading gay rights organisation…” (Kelly, 2009) and “…Magistrate Lesufi…” (Fuphe, 2008). Moreover, 50% of the reporters had consulted sources with a subjective epistemic interest (T3), for example “Her mother, Mally Simelane…” (Kelly, 2009). Lastly, in 25% of the reports, external conflict (U2) was used as a frame, for example “The adjournment was caused by a delay in the arrival of Thato Mphiti, 22, who is being tried separately…”, which described the failings of the judiciary to prosecute the accused, while 75% of the reports used the morality (U3) frame,
176 according to Entman (1991). For example, Kelly’s (2009) report was concerned with South African civil society’s responsibility to not ignore crimes against its LGBTIQ citizens, De Waal’s (2008) report called for better understanding of gay and lesbian issues, and Van den Berg’s (2008) report commented on how awful people can be.
In terms of the comparability of the themes that emerged from the case studies, some codes were mutually exclusive (that is, the codes for themes N, O, Q and R), but most were not (that is, the codes for themes K, L, M, P, S, T and U). This means that, in some of the selected online reports, multiple codes were evident in one theme. The data were translated into a Pie-chart for each code and theme and compared against the other case studies. The following illustration presents an example of this process:
Figure 5.2: Qualitative data articulated into a Pie-chart for comparability
By translating the data from unique percentages, such as the results for the moniker used to refer to lesbians in online reporting (general), theme (K) in Case 1 presented 100% (K2), 50% (K6) and 50%
(K7), resulting in a 200% scoring, whereas Case 2 presented 25% (K2), 75% (K5), 50% (K6) and 75%
(K7), resulting in a 225% scoring, thereby creating an imbalance for comparison.
The data were therefore further tabulated (see below) for a robust description of the ideological frames that had been used in the selected online articles on ‘queercide’:
K1:
"Homosexual"
(clinical) or
"gay"
(colloquial) 40%
K2: "Lesbian"
40%
K7: Other 20%
MONIKER USED TO REFER TO LESBIANS IN ONLINE REPORTS (GENERAL)“CASE 4”
K2:
"Lesbian"
K6: 50%
"Victim(s)"
25%
K7: Other 25%
MONIKER USED TO REFER TO LESBIANS IN ONLINE REPORTS (GENERAL) "CASE 1"
K2: "Lesbian"
11%
K5: "Women" OR
"Woman" OR Female"
34%
K6: "Victims"
22%
K7: Other 33%
MONIKER USED TO REFER TO LESBIANS IN ONLINE REPORTS (GENERAL) “CASE 2”
K2: "Lesbian"
80%
K7: Other 20%
MONIKER USED TO REFER TO LESBIANS IN ONLINE REPORTS (GENERAL)“CASE 3”
177 Table 5.10: Results from the Pie-charts for each case study and theme tabulated for comparative descriptions
The tabulation of the different case studies and themes after standardisation, such as the results for the moniker used to refer to lesbians in online reporting (general) theme (K), for Case 1 now presented 50% (K2), 25% (K6) and 25% (K7), resulting in a 100% scoring, whereas Case 2 now presented 11%
(K2), 34% (K5), 22% (K6) and 33% (K7), also resulting in a 100% scoring. This therefore created an imbalance for comparison which eradicated the possibility of describing a pattern. The translation process could also have affected accuracy, as in a qualitative investigation the mere presentation of emerging trends is of significance in order to address the broader research problem (Du Plooy-Cilliers et al., 2014).