U. Frames used,
5.1 Quantitative data presentation: Content coding
151 a brief summary is provided to highlight the key findings of that section and to explain its relevance for the subsequent segment.
The data collection processes are discussed separately from the data analysis processes and, for clarity, these discussions are then collated to illuminate the connectivity of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the research. The tables and figures are presented sequentially to expose the gaps in knowledge of how online reporters, technically and ideologically, reported on ‘queercide’ and how these findings would be significant for online journalistic practice. This chapter bridges these gaps by presenting the data in a clear and visible manner, while discussing the findings with reference to the literature that had been explored and to arrive at succinct and reliable outcomes.
152 Table 5.1: Quantitative data collected on 11 online reports of the killing of Noxolo Xakeka
The table includes each frame (from A – H) that was completed with the relevant codes in each cell.
The columns indicate each online report, for example Article 1 is titled “Lesbian, 23, stabbed to death in Strand shebeen” (Hlati, 2018), while the rows include the relevant codes assigned to the reports. For clarity, a secondary ‘summary’ set of tables is included. The length of each online report varied from the largest number (46%) that contained between 401-800 words, without “[…more]” (A4), followed by 27% that contained between 0-400 words, without “[…more]” (A2). The remaining online reports (9% each) varied between 0-400 words, with “[…more]” (A1), 401-800 words with “[…more]” (A3) and those of more than 1 000 words (A7). No online reports had 801-1 000 words with “[…more]”
(A5), nor were there any online reports of 801-1 000 words without “[…more]” (A6), therefore they were excluded from the secondary summary table. Of the online reports, 91% did not have a “Share”
feature (B2), while 9% (B1) did. A 100% of the online reports was published on news outlet websites (C2), including iol.com, ewn.co.za, and pacifictribune.com. All the online reports (100%) acknowledged either one or more sources (D1), while 82% were original reports (E1) and 18% were
Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article 4 Article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 Article 10 Article 11
A A4 A4 A1 A2 A3 A4 A2 A4 A7 A4 A2
B B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B1 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2
C C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2
D D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1
E E1 E2 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E2
F F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1
G G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2
H H2 H2 H3 H4 H4 H3 H4 H3 H3 H3 H3
A1: 0-400 words, with
"[…more]" 1 B1: Yes 1
C2: News outlet
websites 11
D1: Source(s)
acknowledged 11
A2: 0-400 words, without
"[…more]" 3 B2: No 10
A3: 401-800 words, with
"[…more]" 1 G2: No 11
H2:
Photograph of
victim 2
A4: 401-800 words, without
"[…more]" 5
E1: Seminal
work 9
H3:
Photograph relevant (LGBTIQ theme) not of
victim 6
A7: 1000+ 1
E2: Economy of scale
articles 2 F1: No 11
H4:
Photograph
irrelevant 3
153 used from other sources and duplicated on the website (E2). None of the online reports (100%) received critical, industry or any other award recognitions (F1), nor did any of the online reports (100%) have a feature where readers could report or comment on factual inaccuracies or any other form of self- regulation (G2). Of these reports, 55% included photographs that were relevant to an LGBTIQ theme but were not of the victim (H3), while 27% of the photographs were considered irrelevant to the topic of the report (H4), and 18% of the online reports included a photograph of the victim (H2).
5.1.2 Quantitative content coding of online reports on Joey and Anisha van Niekerk
The Van Niekerk couple, identified as Case 2, owned a farm in Mooinooi and were on their way to a funeral in Pretoria when they were kidnapped on 10 December 2017. Somewhere between then and when their charred bones were discovered on 28 December 2017, the couple was murdered. Eight suspects were arrested and appeared in court for the first time on 18 January 2018 (Delaney, 2018). In this period, 34 online reports appeared which fell within the population parameter of the research. The following table presents the data that were collected from these online reports while applying the parameters set by the quantitative content coding sheet:
154 Table 5.2: Quantitative data collected on 11 online reports of the killing of Joey and Anisha van Niekerk
Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article 4 Article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 Article 10 Article 11 Article 12 Article 13 Article 14 Article 15 Article 16 Article 17 Article 18 Article 19 Article 20 Article 21 Article 22 Article 23 Article 24 Article 25 Article 26 Article 27 Article 28 Article 29 Article 30 Article 31 Article 32 Article 33 Article 34
A A4 A4 A4 A2 A4 A4 A1 A4 A4 A7 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A4 A7 A2 A4 A4 A2 A2 A2 A4 A1 A1 A2 A7 A2 A4
B B2 B2 B1 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B1 B1 B1 B2 B2 B1 B2 B2 B2 B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B1 B1 B1 B1 B2 B2 B1 B2
C C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C3 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C3 C2 C3 C3
D D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D2 D1 D1 D1 D1 D2 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D2 D2 D2 D2
E E2 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E2 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E2 E1 E1 E2 E1 E2 E1 E1 E1
F F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1
G G1 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G1 G2 G2 G2 G2 G1 G2 G1 G1 G2 G2 G1 G2
H H2 H2 H2 H2 H3 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H5 H2 H5 H2 H2 H5 H2 H2 H5 H3 H2 H2 H4 H2 H5 H2 H1 H2 H2 H2 H4 H2 H3
A1: 0-400 words, with
"[…more]" 3 B1: Yes 20 C1: Blog 1
D1: Source(s) acknowledge
d 28
A2: 0-400 words, without
"[…more]" 16 B2: No 14
C2: News outlet
websites 29
D2: No source(s) acknowledge
d 6
A4: 401-800 words, without
"[…more]" 12
C3: LGBTIQ Advocacy site 4
A7: 1000+ 3
H1: No photograph(s) 1 H2:
Photograph of victim 23
E1: Seminal
work 29 F1: No 34 G1: Yes 6
H3:
Photograph relevant (LGBTIQ theme) not of
victim 3
E2: Economy
of scale 5 G2: No 28
H4:
Photograph irrelevant 2 H5:
Photograph of the
accused 5
155 The length of each online report varied from the largest number (47%) that contained between 0-400 words without “[…more]” (A2), followed by 35% containing between 401-800 words without
“[…more]” (A4). The remaining online reports (9%) varied between 0-400 words with “[…more]” (A1) and more than 1 000 words (A7). There were no online reports containing 401-800 words with
“[…more]” (A3), 801-1 000 words with “[…more]” (A5), nor 801-1 000 words without “[…more]”
(A6), therefore these ranges were excluded from the secondary summary table by default. The included reports, then, are identified within the A1, A2, A4 and A7 categories. Of the online reports, 59% had a
“Share” feature (B1) while 41% (B2) did not. The format of the online reports varied from 85%
appearing on news outlet websites (C2) such as timeslive.co.za, citizen.co.za, news24.com, enca.com and iol.com, while 12% appeared on an LGBTIQ advocacy website (C3), namely pinknews.co.uk, and 3% appeared on a weblog, namely inmemoriamlesbian.blogspot.com. In 82% of the online reports at least one source had been consulted (D1), while in 18% of the online reports no sources had been consulted in the construction of the piece (D2). It was found that 85% of the online reports were original (E1) while 15% were online reports used from other sources and duplicated on the website (E2). None of the online reports (100%) received critical, industry or any other award recognition (F1). For 82% of the online reports there were no self-regulatory features (G2). However, for 18% of the online reports there was a ‘comments’ feature where readers could report on the accuracy of the report (G1). Of these online reports, 67% included photographs of the victim or victims (H2), while 15% of the photographs were of the accused (H5), 9% were relevant to an LGBTIQ theme but not of the victim or victims (H3), 6% included irrelevant photographs (H4), and 3% had no photographs included in the report (H1).
5.1.3 Quantitative content coding of online reports on Noluvo Swelindawo
Noluvo Swelindawo, 22, was kidnapped from her home in Khayelitsha which she shared with her partner. Swelindawo was signposted as Case 3. She was assaulted and shot dead and her body dumped near the N2 highway on 4 December 2016. Her killer first appeared in court on 21 November 2017 (Daniels, 2018). During this period, 15 online reports regarding the killing were published.
156 Table 5.3: Quantitative data collected on 11 online reports of the killing of Noluvo Swelindawo
The length of each online report varied with 27% containing between 0-400 words with “[…more]”
(A1), 27% containing more than 1 000 words (A7), and 20% containing between 401-800 words without
“[…more]” (A4). Finally, 13% of these online reports contained between 0-400 words without
“[…more]” (A2), and 13% contained between 401-800 words with “[…more]” (A3). None of these online reports contained 801-1 000 words with “[…more]” (A5), nor were there any reports in the range of 801-1 000 words without “[…more]” (A6), therefore this range was excluded from the secondary
‘summary’ table. It was found that 87% of these online reports did not have a “Share” feature (B2) while 13% (B1) did. The appearance of the reports online varied as 93% appeared on news outlet websites (C2) while 7% appeared on weblogs (C1). In 60% of the online reports at least one source had been consulted (D1), while in 18% of the online reports no sources had been consulted in the construction of the piece (D2), while all the reports (100%) were considered to be original (E1). None of the online reports (100%) received critical, industry or any other award recognition (F1). For 80% of these online reports there were no self-regulatory features (G2). However, for 20% of the online reports there was a “Comments” feature that readers could use to report on the accuracy of the report (G1). It was found that 34% included no photographs (H1), while 33% of the photographs did not include
Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article 4 Article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 Article 10 Article 11 Article 12 Article 13 Article 14 Article 15
A A2 A4 A1 A7 A1 A7 A2 A1 A1 A3 A3 A7 A7 A4 A4
B B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B1 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B1
C C2 C2 C2 C2 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2
D D1 D1 D1 D2 D2 D1 D1 D1 D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 D2
E E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1
F F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1
G G2 G2 G2 G1 G2 G1 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G1 G2
H H2 H2 H4 H1 H1 H3 H2 H1 H4 H4 H4 H4 H3 H1 H1
A1: 0-400 words, with
"[…more]" 4 B1: Yes 2 C1: Blog 1
D1:
Source(s) acknowle
dged 9
H1: No photograp
h(s) 5
A2: 0-400 words, without
"[…more]" 2 B2: No 13
C2: News outlet
websites 14
D2: No source(s) acknowle
dged 6
H2:
Photograp
h of victim 3
A3: 401- 800 words, with
"[…more]" 2
H3:
Photograp h relevant (LGBTIQ theme) not of
victim 2
A4: 401- 800 words, without
"[…more]" 3 F1: No 15 G1: Yes 3
E1:
Seminal
work 15
H4:
Photograp h
irrelevant 5
A7: 1000+ 4 G2: No 12
157 photographs that were relevant to the subject not content of the report (H4), 20% of the photographs in the reports were of the victim (H2), and 13% of the photographs were relevant to an LGBTIQ theme (H3). None of the online reports included photographs of the accused (H5) and this frame was therefore excluded from the secondary summary Table.
5.1.4 Quantitative content coding of online reports on the killing of Eudy Simelane
On 28 April 2008, Banyana Banyana soccer player, Eudy Simelane, was ‘correctively’ gang-raped and stabbed over 25 times by four men. Her body was found in a ditch outside KwaTema, Gauteng. The trial of the four men suspected of the rape and killing began on 11 February 2009 in Delmas, Mpumalanga (Linder, 2019). During this period a corpus of 10 reports on this case appeared online.
Simelane’s case study is signposted as Case 4.
158 Table 5.4: Quantitative data collected on 11 online reports of the killing of Eudy Simelane
The length of the online reports ranged quite a bit as 40% contained 0-400 words without “[…more]”
(A2), and 40% contained more than 1 000 words (A7). Only 20% of the online reports contained 401- 800 words without “[…more]” (A4). There were no online reports on this case that contained as many as 801-1 000 words with “[…more]” (A5), nor were there any online reports of 801-1 000 words without
“[…more]” (A6), therefore these ranges were excluded from the secondary ‘summary’ table. Of these reports, 70% did not have a “Share” feature (B2), while 30% (B1) did. The exposure of these online reports varied as 50% appeared on news outlet websites (C2), while 20% appeared on weblogs (C1) and 30% were published by LGBTIQ advocacy websites. In 60% of the online reports at least one source had been consulted (D1), while in 40% no sources had been consulted in the construction of the piece (D2). All the reports (100%) were considered to be original (E1) from what could be observed.
None of the online reports (100%) had received critical, industry or any other award recognition (F1).
For 80% of the online reports there were no self-regulatory features (G2). However, for 20% of these
Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article 4 Article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 Article 10
A A4 A7 A7 A2 A2 A7 A2 A4 A2 A7
B B1 B2 B1 B1 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2
C C3 C2 C2 C2 C1 C2 C3 C3 C2 C1
D D1 D1 D1 D2 D2 D1 D2 D2 D1 D1
E E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1
F F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1
G G1 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G1
H H4 H1 H2 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H2
A1: 0-400 words, with
"[…more]" 0 B1: Yes 3 C1: Blog 2
D1: Source(s)
acknowledged 6
A2: 0-400 words, without
"[…more]" 4 B2: No 7
C2: News
outlet website 5
D2: No source
acknowledged 4
A3: 401-800 words, with
"[…more]" 0
C3: LGBTIQ
Advocacy site 3
A4: 401-800 words, without
"[…more]" 2 F1: No 10
H1: No
photographs 7
A7: 1000+ 4 G1: Yes 2
H2:
Photograph of
victim 2
E1: Seminal
work 10 G2: No 8
H4:
Photograph
irrelevant 1
E2: Economy of scale
reports 0
159 reports there was a “Comments” feature that readers could use to report on the accuracy of the report (G1). Of these online reports, 70% included no photographs (H1), while 10% of the photographs were considered to be irrelevant (H4), and 20% of the photographs in the reports were of the victim (H2).
None of the online reports included photographs of the LGBTIQ theme (H3) nor of the accused (H5) and these was therefore excluded from the secondary summary table.
5.1.5 Quantitative content coding of the ‘good’ online reports used for comparison
Two online reports, entitled Honour the dead − understand their last moments faced with horror and
#GuptaLeaks collateral damage: KPMG SA makes a bold attempt at clawing itself out of an ethical hole, written by Thamm (2018), were selected purposively as they complied with certain criteria as discussed by journalists and news institutions. Somdyala (2019: 4) explains that the benefit of journalistic awards as a barometer for quality online writing is important as “entrants are subjected to detailed screening before the judging process”, while Media24 (2019) insists that all quality online reports have to include a feedback mechanism for audiences to provide information. Also, the consultation of critical sources, according to Peters (2019), is of paramount importance when constructing an online report of value. The reason why only two reports in this category were used, was that identifying ‘good’ online reports (termed ‘good’ based on a wide range of themes) was not the purpose of this research; rather, the research wanted to establish, in one component of the study, a syntagmatic and paradigmatic basic comparison to provide insight into the technical construction of online reports on ‘queercide’, which a basic quantitative description of two ‘good’ online reports would provide.
160 Table 5.5: Quantitative data collected on the two ‘good’ online reports
Article 1 Article 2
A
A7 A7
B
B1 B1
C
C2 C2
D
D1 D1
C2: News outlet
websites 2
E
E1 E1
F
F3 F3 D1: Source(s)
acknowledged 2
G
G1 G1
H
H1 H2
A1: 0-400 words, with
"[…more]" B1: Yes 2
A2: 0-400 words, without
"[…more]" B2: No 0
A3: 401- 800 words, with
"[…more]"
A4: 401- 800 words, without
"[…more]" F3: Yes 2
A7: 1000+ 2
G1: Yes 2
E1:
Seminal
work 2 H1: No photographs 1
E2:
Economy of scale
articles 0
H2: Photograph of
victim 1
161 Both (100%) of the two ‘good’ online reports were more than 1 000 words in length (A7), and 100%
also included a “Share” feature (B1). Also, both these reports (100%) appeared on reputable news outlet websites (C2) and included credible sources (D1). Both were original without using any sections from other sources that could have been deemed re-appropriation (E1). Both these reports (100%) had been acknowledged by the Global Shining Light organisation (F3), had self-regulatory features where readers could comment on the accuracy of the reports (G1), but one (50%) of the reports had no photographs (H1). The other report had a photograph of the victim (H2). These two online reports were selected and analysed merely for the purpose of comparison with the 70 online reports on ‘queercide’.
5.1.6 Comparing the online reports on the four case studies of ‘queercide’ (quantitative component) with ‘good’ online reports
For the purpose of selecting online reports for the qualitative research section, quota sampling was used to select four online reports. The purpose of this research was to identify and compare the technical elements in the ‘good’ reports and the units of analysis on ‘queercide’ to select four online reports per case study for a total of 16 online reports that would be used for final analysis. The first step in the selection process was to establish the ideological similarities in the reports in order to create a collection criterion. After comparing all the data that had been collected quantitatively, the following Venn- diagram was created:
Figure 5.1: Venn-diagram presenting similarities between the ideological structure of ‘good’ and case studies of ‘queercide’ online reports to establish a collection criterion
162 Both the ‘good’ online reports (100%) included a “Share” feature in their technical construction that readers could use to share the article on various social media (for example, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp and email). They also had “Save” and “Print” options (B1). In terms of the “Share” option, Case 1 (91%), Case 2 (41%), Case 3 (87%) and Case 4 (70%) had no such option (B2). The ‘good’
online reports were selected mainly because they had been recognised in the online journalism category of a journalistic award competition (F3). Conversely, none of the online reports on ‘queercide’ had been critically recognised (F1). Although an award recognition is surely not the sole barometer for measuring whether an online report is ‘good’ or not, a selection metric, as proposed by Somdyala (2019), was required to determine how and why some online reports, and not others, had been selected for recognition.
The Venn-diagram indicates that three major ideological themes emerged that were similar for the
‘good’ and the online reports on ‘queercide’. Both the ‘good’ online reports also had a self-regulatory feature (G1) where readers had the option to respond to the article by using the ‘Comments’,
‘Reporting’, or ‘Rate the article’ features, while none of Case 1 (100%), 82% of Case 2, 80% of Case 3, and 80% of Case 4 online reports did not have self-regulatory features (G2). Of significance for the selection criteria were the similarities of the two different types of online reports. Both of ‘good’ articles (100%) as well as the online reports – 100% on Case 1, 85% on Case 2, 93% on Case 3, and 50% on Case 4 − were published on news outlets (C2). Also, in both the ‘good’ online reports (100%) sources had been consulted, while sources had also been consulted in most of the online reports on the case studies of ‘queercide’ – 100% on Case 1, 82% on Case 2, and 60% on Case 3 and Case 4 – (D1). Finally, all the ‘good’ online reports (100%) and most of the online reports on the case studies of ‘queercide’ – 82% on Case 1, 85% on Case 2, and 100% on Case 3 and Case 4 – were seminal works (E1) and not exact replications from other sources to save cost and time. These three selection criteria – that is, C2, D1, and E1 – were used to identify four units of analysis from each case study. The selection criteria for the different themes were not exact, otherwise all the ‘queercide’ case studies and the ‘good’ online reports would have reflected a 100% scoring on equal codes. However, for the purpose of sampling for the qualitative component of the research, an exact score was not required because the online reports in the qualitative research comprised a sample within the population parameters set for this research.