QUALITATIVE NEWS FRAME ANALYSIS: A METHODOLOGY

Communitas
ISSN 1023-0556
2012 17: 21-38

Margaret Linström and Willemien Marais*

ABSTRACT
Framing theory has become increasingly popular in media analysis. The idea of
framing is based largely upon the book by sociologist Erving Goffman (1974)
titled Frame Analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Goffman used
the idea of frames to label “schemata of interpretation” that allow people “to
locate, perceive, identify, and label” occurrences or events. With Robert Entman’s
1993 paper, frame analysis evolved into an important methodology. Since
Goffman introduced the concept of frame analysis and Entman applied framing
to the analysis of mass media, researchers have utilised it to understand how
print and other media present information. Consequently for the last almost four
decades, leading media scholars have applied the concept of framing to explain
how the media structure their delivery of news, promoting certain interpretations
of events by selecting certain facts. Frame analysis serves four main purposes
within the context of media research – to define problems, to diagnose a course, to
make value judgments, and to suggest remedies (Entman 1993: 52). In this article,
the authors review the meaning of the concept of frame analysis, approaches to
studying news framing, and qualitative news frame analysis. After defining news
frames, we articulate a method for identifying news frames in print media.

* Margaret Linström and Willemien Marais lecture in journalism in the Department of

Communication Science at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein.

21
Margaret Linström and Willemien Marais

INTRODUCTION
Mass media have a powerful effect on the world view of society. “The entire study
of mass communication,” McQuail (1994: 327) writes, “is based on the premise
that the media have significant effects.” Mass media frame “images of reality… in
a predictable and patterned way” (McQuail 1994: 331).
The mass media have the greatest potential for powerful societal effects in:
♦♦ attracting and directing public attention;
♦♦ persuading in matters of opinion and belief;
♦♦ influencing behaviour;
♦♦ structuring definitions of reality;
♦♦ conferring status and legitimacy; and
♦♦ informing speedily and broadly (McQuail 1994: 69).

Cohen (1963: 13), almost two decades before McQuail, wrote in his famous dictum
that the press “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to
think, but it is stunningly successful in telling readers what to think about… The
world will look different to different people, depending … on the map that is
drawn for them by writers, editors, and publishers of the papers they read.”
Two media effects, known as long-term or cognitive theories, are the agenda-
setting theory and the framing theory. Fourie (2001: 298) defines cognitive as “our
faculty of knowing and understanding something in a specific way and how we
base our behaviour and thinking on such knowledge”.
Agenda-setting is often called first level agenda-setting; framing second-level
agenda-setting. According to Jasperson, Shah, Watts, Faber and Fan (1998: 206),
“the traditional agenda-setting concept attempts to explain only why one issue
becomes more important than another issue in the public’s mind; it does not
explicitly focus on the nuances of coverage within an issue”. Framing, on the
other hand, “provides a means of describing the power of communication to direct
individual cognitions towards a prescribed interpretation of a situation or object”
(Jasperson et al. 1998: 206).

WHAT ARE NEWS FRAMES?

Although there is no widely accepted definition of framing, those that have evolved
strongly resemble one another. As Gaye Tuchman writes in Making news: A study
in the construction of reality (1978: 1):

22
 Qualitative news frame analysis: a methodology

News is a window on the world, and through its frame, Americans learn
of themselves and others, of their institutions, leaders, and life styles,
and those of other nations and other peoples. The news aims to tell us
what we want to know, need to know, and should know. But, like any
frame that delineates a world, a news frame may be problematic. The
view through a window depends upon whether the window is large or
small, has many panes or few, whether the glass is opaque or clear,
whether the window faces a street or a backyard.

Goffman (1974) defines a frame as “the principles of organization which govern

events – at least social ones – and our subjective involvement in them”. This
“schemata of interpretation” helps people to “locate, perceive, identify, and label”
everyday events (Goffman 1974: 21). Journalists use “frames (to) organize strips
of the everyday world, a strip being an arbitrary slice or cut from the stream of on-
going activity” (Goffman 1974: 10-11). Similarly Tuchman (1978: 193) elucidates:
“An occurrence is transformed into an event, and an event is transformed into a
news story. The news frame organizes everyday reality and the news frame is
part and parcel of everyday reality, for the public character of news is an essential
feature of news.”
For Gamson and Modigliani (1989: 3) a frame is a “central organizing idea for
making sense of relevant events, suggesting what is at issue”, while for Gitlin
(1980: 7) frames “help journalists to process large amounts of information quickly
and routinely package the information for efficient relay to their audiences”.
Reese (in Reese, Gandy & Grant 2003: 11) provides a thorough working definition
of frames: Frames are organising principles that are socially shared and persistent
over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world:
♦♦ Organising: Framing varies in how successfully, comprehensively, or
completely it organises information.
♦♦ Principles: The frame is based on an abstract principle and is not the same
as the texts through which it manifests itself.
♦♦ Shared: The frame must be shared on some level for it to be significant
and communicable.
♦♦ Persistent: The significance of frames lies in their durability, their
persistent and routine use over time.
♦♦ Symbolically: The frame is revealed in symbolic forms of expression.
♦♦ Structure: Frames organise by providing identifiable patterns or structures,
which can vary in their complexity.

23
Margaret Linström and Willemien Marais

Cole C. Campbell on PoynterOnline (n.d.: online) puts it in more simple terms:

“Frames are efficient ways to sort information and create stories. They connect
journalists’ work to the common understandings of our communities and the
larger culture. They make facts meaningful. Frames create ‘reality’.”

WHAT IS NEWS FRAMING?

Framing has been described as a concept, an approach, a theory, a class of media
effects, a perspective, an analytical technique, a paradigm, and a multiparadigmatic
research programme (D’Angelo & Kuypers 2010: 2).
As stated by Entman (2007: 4) in his oft-cited definition, framing is “the process
of culling a few elements of perceived reality and assembling a narrative that
highlights the connections among them to promote a particular interpretation”.
“News is anything but a true reflection of reality.” This is the assertion
Oosthuizen (in Fourie 2001: 465) makes, and this is the crux of the framing
theory. Oosthuizen adds that news, rather, “is a frame or window on reality that
seeks to or can only reflect part of this reality.”
Terkildsen and Schnell (1997: 881) suggest that “framing is important whenever
an issue can be presented in multiple ways which may potentially influence how
people think about an issue”. Frames, Gamson and Modigliani (1987: 144) opine,
“imply an implicit answer as to what should be done about an issue”.
For Pan and Kosicki (1993: 53), framing highlights certain parts of an issue
allowing “the selected elements to become important in influencing individuals’
judgments”. According to Van Gorp (2007: 14), selection and construction form
the foundation of framing. Hertog and McLeod (1995: 4) assert that the “frame
used to interpret an event determines what available information is relevant (and
thereby what is irrelevant)”.
Referring to the factors that could influence how a journalist frames an issue,
Scheufele (1999: 109) names societal norms and values, organisational
constraints, pressure from interest groups, journalistic routines, and the
journalist’s ideological orientations. Van Gorp (2007: 14) suggests that “there
is an interaction between the journalist’s (un)conscious selection of a frame as
a result of the individual belief system, and the influence of additional factors
inside and outside the media organization”.
According to Fourie (2001: 305), framing “describes the influence on the public
of news angles used by journalists”. Van Gorp (2005: 485) argues similarly that
“a typical characteristic of framing is the linkage between, on the one hand,
the journalistic approach of shaping the news within a frame of reference and
according to a latent structure of meaning and, on the other hand, the stimulation

24
 Qualitative news frame analysis: a methodology

of the public to adopt these frames and to view reality from the same perspective
as journalists do”.
Qing (2000: 666) explains the framing process as follows:
News is a representation of the world mediated via the journalist. Like
every discourse, it constructively patterns that of which it speaks.
Differences in expression carry ideological distinctions and thus
differences in representation. The content of news stories therefore
represents ideas, beliefs, values, theories, and ideology. The major role
of news language as discourse is to supply the categories imposed by
the journalist on the event itself.

FRAMING AS A METHODOLOGICAL STRATEGY

Scholars employ different methodological approaches to frame analysis. Some
studies used quantitative content analysis or computer-assisted frame analysis
(such as frame mapping), while others prefer a text-based interpretative, qualitative
approach.
According to Pan and Kosicki (1993: 57), utilising framing as a methodological
strategy requires “constructing and processing discourse or characteristics of the
discourse itself”. Reese (in Reese et al. 2001: 1) adds: “The framing approach
bridges the competing tendencies of social analysis toward closure and openness
and may be regarded as one of its strengths.”
According to Reese (2007: 1), framing’s value, however, “does not hinge on its
potential as a unified research domain but as a provocative model that bridges parts
of the field that need to be in touch with each other: quantitative and qualitative,
empirical and interpretive, psychological and sociological, and academic and
professional”. Frame analysis serves the following purposes within the context of
media research: to define problems, to diagnose courses, to make value judgments,
and to suggest remedies (Entman 1993: 52).
Wimmer and Dominick (2006: 152-153) add that news frame analysis, as a form
of qualitative content analysis, could be conducted for these media research
purposes:
♦♦ Describing communication content;
♦♦ Comparing media content to the “real world”; and
♦♦ Establishing a starting point for studies of media effects.

Reese (2007: 10) states that the “qualitative approach to framing analysis helps
resist the reductionistic urge to sort media texts and discourse into containers
25
Margaret Linström and Willemien Marais

and count their size or frequency. Indeed, some define frames as an inherently
qualitative construct. In this case, one must capture the meanings embedded in the
internal relations within texts, which collapsing into reductive measures would
obscure.”
Pan and Kosicki (1993:58) argue that framing analysis differs from other
approaches to news texts in the following ways:
♦♦ First, “instead of conceiving news texts as psychological stimuli with
identifiable meanings”, it rather “views news texts as consisting of
organised symbolic devices that interact with individual agents’ memory
for meaning construction”;
♦♦ Second, “framing analysis is not constrained within a content-free
structuralist approach of news discourse”. Rather, “it accepts both the
assumption of the rule-governed nature of text formation and the multi-
dimensional conception of news texts that will allow for cognitive
shortcuts in news production and consumption”;
♦♦ Third, “the validity of framing analysis does not rest on researchers’
resourceful reading of news texts. Rather, it retains the systematic
procedures of gathering data of news texts in order to identify the signifying
elements that might be used by audience members”; and
♦♦ Finally, “it does not assume the presence of frames in news texts
independent of readers of the texts”.

Qualitative vs. quantitative frame analysis

“Not all communication can be measured quantitatively,” according to Wood
(2004: 69), “and quantitative data cannot provide substantial insight into the texture
and meaning of experiences.” Wood (ibid.) argues that “qualitative methods are
valuable when we wish not to count or measure phenomena but to understand
the character of experience, particularly how people perceive and make sense of
their communication experience. This involves interpreting meanings and other
unobservable dimensions of communication”. Kelle, Prein and Bird (1995: 3)
observe that “the central analytic task in qualitative research is understanding the
meaning of texts”.
Du Plooy (1997: 33), in similar vein, says that “qualitative inquiry is analytic
and interpretative”. Furthermore, “it attempts to examine phenomena in a holistic
manner”. Du Plooy (ibid.) states that “the nature of the data and the research
problem dictate the research methodology”.

26
 Qualitative news frame analysis: a methodology

Van Gorp (2007: 72-73) is a proponent of a mixed-methodology approach to frame

analysis. He suggests using quantitative techniques to examine overall trends in
large data sets, and qualitative techniques to examine subtle framing effects in
smaller data sets.

Qualitative frame analysis

Qualitative frame analysis, according to Reese (in D’Angelo & Kuypers 2010:
18), emphasises the cultural and political content of news frames and “how they
draw upon a shared store of social meanings”. For Gitlin (1980: 303), qualitative
analysis pursues a level of complexity that “does justice to the complexity of
media artefacts”.
Connolly-Ahern and Broadway (2008: 369) explain the concept of qualitative
frame analysis as follows: “Qualitative framing analysis involves repeated and
extensive engagement with a text and looks holistically at the material to identify
frames”. These authors (ibid.) state that this approach to frame analysis examines
the key words and metaphors in the text, identifying what was included in the
frame, as well as what was left out; recognising “that the words repeated most
often in the text may not be the most important”.

Criticism against qualitative frame analysis

Two major problems, highlighted by researchers in regards to framing research,
are reliability and validity. One threat to validity in qualitative frame analysis is
how the frames are operationally defined. According to D’Angelo and Kuypers
(2010: 46), researchers tend to “reinvent the wheel” when identifying news frames.
For Klandermans and Staggenborg (2002: 62), frame analysis poses challenges
relating to data collection, analysis and the final presentation of results. The
first challenge involves definitions and concepts, as distinctions between news
frames frequently are indistinct, while the second challenge involves verification
and proof.
Other criticism against qualitative framing analysis comes from Tankard
(in Reese et al. 2001: 98) who observes that “this approach makes frame
identification a rather subjective process” as “researchers might tend to define
frames in a stereotypical or conventional way”.
For D’Angelo and Kuypers (2010: 37) a qualitative approach can be challenging
when definite categories are not immediately obvious and “no easy coding scheme
into which textual units can be sorted is evident”. More criticism against this
approach is that it is time consuming as an inductive frame analysis needs to be
done before a list of frames can be drawn up (D’Angelo & Kuypers 2010: 104).

27
Margaret Linström and Willemien Marais

A typology of media frames

An examination of past framing research shows two main types of media
frames: issue-specific frames and generic frames. The first type of media frame
“is pertinent only to specific topics or events”, while generic frames “transcend
thematic limitations” and can be identified in relation to certain topics (De Vreese
2005: 54).
The disadvantage of an issue-specific approach says De Vreese (2005), is that it
makes “analyses difficult to generalise, compare, and use as empirical evidence
for theory building”. According to Hertog and McLeod (2001: 150, in De Vreese
2005: 55), this approach has led researchers to “too easily find evidence for what
they are looking for” and to add to “one of the most frustrating tendencies in the
study of frames and framing, the tendency for scholars to generate a unique set of
frames for every study”.
Neuman, Just and Crigler (1992: 74) identified five common frames utilised by
the media. They are human impact; powerlessness; economics; moral values;
and conflict:
♦♦ the human impact frame focuses on “descriptions of individuals and groups
affected by an issue”;
♦♦ the powerlessness frame refers to “the dominance of forces over weak
individuals or groups”;
♦♦ the economics frame reflects “the preoccupation with profit and loss”;
♦♦ the moral values frame refers to “morality and social prescriptions”; and
♦♦ the conflict frame deals with the news media’s “game interpretation of the
political world as an on-going series of contests, each with a new set of
winners and losers”.

Semetko and Valkenburg (2000, in De Vreese 2005: 56), took Neuman, Just and
Crigler’s research further. They identified five frames, namely conflict; human
interest; attribution of responsibility; morality; and economic consequences. Their
definitions for these frames are similar to those of Neuman et al.’s, apart from the
human interest frame, which they define as “bringing a human face or an emotional
angle to the presentation of an event, issue or problem”. Their conflict frame,
which is broader than Neuman et al.’s, refers to “conflict between individuals,
groups, institutions or countries”. Semetko and Valkenburg’s frame typology does
not include powerlessness. Instead their fifth frame is attribution of responsibility,
which is defined as “presenting an issue or problem in such a way as to attribute
responsibility for causing or solving to either the government or to an individual
or group” (2000, in De Vreese 2005: 56).
28
 Qualitative news frame analysis: a methodology

CONDUCTING A FRAME ANALYSIS OF NEWS MEDIA

The following section contains an explanation of how to conduct a straightforward
qualitative news frame analysis. The methodology is based on the above analysis
of the literature, a comparison of previous news frame analyses, as well as the
authors’ personal experience of conducting frame analyses. For ease of explanation
the process is set out in a series of steps, with steps 5-7 comprising the actual news
frame analysis.
As part of the formulation of the research problem (Du Plooy 2009: 55), the
following details regarding the news frame analysis should be determined
beforehand:

Step 1: Choose a medium / topic

Select the media form of choice for the study. This would obviously be informed
by the research problem, for example a comparison of the framing of a specific
event, group, action, etc. by two or more publications, or even two or more media
(e.g. radio vs. television). Newspapers are a good choice for a medium of analysis
as, according to McNair (2000: 136), they are able to “communicate more complex
ideas”, as opposed to television and radio. This does not imply that broadcast or
electronic media cannot be the focus of a news frame analysis.

Step 2: Determine a time-frame

Once a topic/medium has been selected, the researcher has to determine a time-
frame. It is important to explain why this specific period is of significance.

Step 3: Draw a sample

The time-frame forms the parameters for defining the universe from which a
sample is to be drawn.

Step 4: Identify a unit of analysis

According to Wimmer and Dominick (2006: 158), the unit of analysis is crucial.
In written content, according to these authors, “the unit of analysis might be a
single word or symbol, a theme, or an entire article or story”. The unit of analysis
in frame analysis often is individual news articles which appeared in the selected
newspaper during the selected study period.

Step 5: Selection of a frame typology

The selection of news frames is crucial to the success of a frame analysis. As
mentioned earlier, the selection of frames could be done inductively, where
frames emerge as the research progresses. The researcher selects news frames by
29
Margaret Linström and Willemien Marais

conducting a pilot study using randomly selected news articles from the sample.
Usually the stories will be selected from the articles used in the final study. In the
pilot study, each news article is read several times, while the researcher makes
thorough notes, and thereafter the news frames are decided on.
Often researchers are led by the standard news frames identified in previous
framing analyses such as the conflict frame, the attribution of responsibility frame,
the economic consequences frame, and the human interest frame (Scheufele 1999:
106; Neuman, Just & Crigler 1992: 64, Semetko & Valkenburg 2000, in De Vreese
2005: 56). This is referred to as the deductive approach.
Once a decision has been made on the process of selecting frames for the study,
the researcher can decide to identify either only a dominant frame in each of the
news articles, or a dominant and secondary frame in each of the news articles. The
dominant frame is the main theme of the news article, while the secondary frame
is a supplementary idea that supports the main theme.

Step 6: Operational definitions

The researcher has to provide operational definitions of selected news frames.
According to Wood (2004: 65), “operational definitions are precise descriptions
that specify the phenomena of interest”. If the concepts have been studied by other
researchers, it is advisable to consider their definitions. Wood says “this allows
different researchers to use concepts in the same ways, and thus their findings can
be compared and related”.
According to De Vreese (2005: 53), many researchers prefer to apply concise
operational definitions of frames, which are decided on before the study begins.
Capella and Jamieson (1997:89, in De Vreese 2005: 54) are among those who
support this approach. They suggest the following criteria for a frame:
♦♦ a frame must have identifiable conceptual and linguistic characteristics;
♦♦ it should be commonly observed in journalistic practice;
♦♦ it must be possible to distinguish the frame reliably from other frames; and
♦♦ a frame must be recognised by others and not be a figment of a researcher’s
imagination.

Step 7: Identifying news frames

The process of identifying news frames can only begin once the “groundwork”
(steps 1-6) has been laid. The identification of news frames requires the
researcher to know “how” to look for frames, as well as “what” to look for when
identifying frames.

30
 Qualitative news frame analysis: a methodology

The “how” of identifying news frames is based on Wimmer and Dominick’s

(2006: 117-118) constant comparative technique for qualitative research
analysis, which consists of four steps:
♦♦ Comparative assignment of incidents to categories (or frames);
♦♦ Elaboration and refinement of categories/frames;
♦♦ Searching for relationships and themes among categories/frames; and
♦♦ Simplifying and integrating data into a coherent theoretical structure.

Similarly, Alozie (2005: 66) suggests the following:

♦♦ Phase 1: General multiple reading of the articles while taking descriptive
notes about the content;
♦♦ Phase 2: A second reading to identify certain recurring themes, frames,
values and topic categories; and
♦♦ Phase 3: In-depth interpretation of the articles.

The “what” of identifying frames implies that the researcher analyses the text
for “symbolic devices” or “signature elements” that are located within news
stories (Gamson & Lasch 1983: 399). There are several devices used to frame a
specific event/story. The research problem will guide the researcher in terms of
whether to look for a single framing device (such as news sources) or multiple
framing devices.
For the purposes of this article, these framing devices will be divided into two
categories: rhetorical devices and technical devices.

Rhetorical devices
Rhetorical devices include word choice, metaphors, and exemplars. Other
devices that can be examined are “the presence or absence of certain keywords,
stock phrases, sources of information, and sentences that provide thematically
reinforcing clusters of facts or judgement” (Entman 1993: 52).
Gamson and Lasch (1983: 407-408) offer comment on the above-mentioned:
♦♦ Metaphors: They always has two parts – the principal subject that the
metaphor is intended to illuminate and the associated subject that the
metaphor invokes to enhance readers’ understanding;
♦♦ Exemplars: While metaphors rely on imagined events to frame the
principal subject, real events of the past or present are frequently used for
the same purpose;

31
Margaret Linström and Willemien Marais

♦♦ Catch-phrases: Commentators on events frequently try to capture them

in a single theme statement, tag-line, title or slogan that is intended to
suggest a frame. Catch-phrases are attempted summary statements about
the principal subject; and
♦♦ Depictions: News stories have certain principal subjects that they
characterise in a particular fashion. They may do this through metaphors
or exemplars or through a string of modifiers.

Pan and Kosicki (1993: 59-61) add the following:

♦♦ syntactical structures which refer to patterns in the arrangements of words
or phrases;
♦♦ script structures, referring to the fact that most news reports cover
newsworthy events and that news is expected to help link audiences with
their environment;
♦♦ thematic structures, which refer to a multilayer hierarchy with a theme
being the central core connecting various sub-themes as the major nodes
that are connected to supporting statements; and
♦♦ rhetorical structures, which describe “the stylistic choices made by
journalists in relation to their intended effects”.

Technical devices
Technical devices include various elements of news-writing, as well as
technical elements such as layout and visuals. Tankard (in Reese et al. 2003:
101) suggests the following technical framing devices:
♦♦ headlines;
♦♦ subheadings;
♦♦ photo captions;
♦♦ leads;
♦♦ source selection;
♦♦ quote selection; and
♦♦ concluding statements and paragraphs.

News sources are considered important framing devices. According to Pan and
Kosicki (1993: 60), who is quoted, how they are identified, and where the quote is
placed in the story is important.

32
 Qualitative news frame analysis: a methodology

These authors (ibid.) add that quotes are used as effective framing devices by
“quoting experts to claim empirical validity or facticity; by quoting official
sources to link certain points of view to authority; and by quoting a social deviant
to marginalise certain points of view”.
Headlines are another important indicator of the frame of a news story. As Pan and
Kosicki (1993: 59) observe, “a headline is the most salient cue to activate certain
semantically related concepts in readers’ minds: it is thus the most powerful
framing device of syntactical structure”.
Table 1 provides a checklist for framing devices:

TABLE 1: FRAMING DEVICES

Category Examples
Rhetorical and other Word choice; Metaphors; Exemplars
written/grammatical Key words (presence and/or absence)
devices
Stock phrases (presence and/or absence)
Sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts
or judgement
Concluding statements and paragraphs
Technical devices Headlines; Subheadings; Photo captions; Leads;
(elements of news-writing, Photographs; Layout (prominence of the article)
layout, visuals)
Page placement (front page, etc.)
All sources of information in article
Who is quoted
How are they identified
Where is the quote placed in the story
Quoting experts to claim empirical validity or facticity
Quoting official sources to link certain points of view to
authority
Quoting a social deviant to marginalise certain points of view

CONCLUSION
Journalists are considered “sense makers”, but it is important to acknowledge that
they may also present the news in such a way that it distorts as much as it attempts
to make sense of our world (Reese 2001: 10). News frame analysis poses pertinent
questions in this regard to those involved in the manufacturing and dissemination
of news.

33
Margaret Linström and Willemien Marais

A qualitative news frame analysis can be done to achieve various media research
purposes. These include defining problems, diagnosing courses, making value
judgments, and suggesting remedies (Entman 1993: 52). In addition, it can
describe communication content, test hypotheses of message characteristics,
compare media content to the “real world”, assess the image of particular groups
in society, and establish a point from which media effects can be studied (Wimmer
& Dominick 2006: 152-153).
Areas of concern regarding this methodology remain the subjectivity of the
process, coupled with the fact that consensus on a standard frame typology does
not exist yet. Although a combination of Neuman, Just and Crigler’s (1992:
74) five frames (human impact; powerlessness; economics; moral values; and
conflict) and Semetko and Valkenburg’s (2000, in De Vreese 2005: 56) five frames
(conflict; human interest; attribution of responsibility; morality; and economic
consequences) are often used as a “standard” typology, many variations as well
as completely new (and often surprising) frames continue to emerge from studies.
This makes it difficult to distinguish qualitative news frame analysis as a research
technique that is specifically applicable to the discipline of journalism. The aim
of this article was to provide a step in this direction by attempting to provide a
methodology for conducting a basic qualitative news frame analysis.

34
REFERENCES
Alozie, E. 2005. Sudan and South Africa – a framing analysis of Mail & Guardian
Online’s coverage of Darfur. Ecquid Novi, vol. 26 (1): 63-84.
Campbell, C.C. n.d. Framing: How journalists – and citizens – make facts
make sense. [Online]. Available at: <http://www.poynterextra.org/extra/
personalessay/images/personalessay.pdf.> [Accessed on: 12/12/2009].
Capella, J.N. & Jamieson, K.H. 1997. Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public
good. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, B.C. 1963. The press, the public, and foreign policy. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Connolly-Ahern, C. & Broadway, S.C. 2008. “To Booze or No to Booze?”
Newspaper Coverage of Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. Science
Communication 2008: 366-370
D’Angelo, P. & Kuypers, J.A. 2010. Doing News Framing Analysis. Empirical
and Theoretical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
De Vreese, C.H. 2005. News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design
Journal & Document Design (13)1.
Du Plooy, G.M. (ed.) 1997. Introduction to Communication. Course Book 2.
Communication Research. Cape Town: Juta.
Entman, R.M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.
Journal of Communication 43: 51-58.
Entman, R.M. 2007. Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution of Power. Journal of
Communications 57(1): 163 – 173.
Fourie, P.J. (ed.) 2001. Media Studies. Volume one: Institutions, Theories and
Issues. Lansdowne: Juta.
Gamson, W.A. & Lasch, K.E. 1983. The political culture of social welfare policy.
In: Spiro, S.E. & Yutchtman-Yaar, E. (eds.) Evaluating the welfare state:
Social and Political perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Gamson, W.A. & Modigliani. A. 1987. The changing culture of affirmative
action. In: Braungart, R.G. & Braungart, M.M. (eds). Research in political
sociology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Gamson, W.A. & Modigliani, A. 1989. Media Discourse and Public Opinion on
Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. The American Journal of
Sociology 95: 1-37.

35
Gitlin, T. 1980. The whole world is watching. Mass media in the making and
unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hertog, J. & McLeod, D. 2001. A multi-perspectival approach to framing analysis:
A field guide. In: Reese, S., Gandy, O. and Grant, A. (eds). Framing public
life. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jasperson, A.E., Shah, D.V., Watts, M., Faber, R.J. & Fan, D.P. 1998. Framing and
the Public Agenda: Media Effects on the Importance of the Federal Budget
Deficit. Political Communication 15: 205-224.
Joerg, M. 2007. Looking Back While Moving Forward. A Content Analysis of
Media Framing Studies in the World’s Leading Communication Journals,
1990-2005. Conference papers. International Communication Association.
Klandermans, B. & Staggenborg, S. 2002. Methods of social movement research.
Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Kelle, U., Prein, G. & Bird, K. 1995. Computer-aided qualitative date analysis:
theory, methods and practice. London: Sage.
McNair, B. 2000. Journalism and Democracy: An evaluation of the political
public sphere. London: Routledge.
McQuail, D. 1994. Mass communication: An introduction. (3rd edition). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neuman, W.R., Just, M.R. & Crigler, A.N. 1992. Common knowledge: News and
the construction of political meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Oosthuizen, L.M. 2001. A critical assessment of news. In: Fourie, P.J. (ed.) 2001.
Media Studies. Volume one: Institutions, Theories and Issues. Lansdowne:
Juta.
Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G.M. 1993. Framing analysis: an approach to news discourse.
Political Communication 10: 55-76.
Qing, C. 2000. Journalism as Politics: Reporting Hong Kong’s Handover in the
Chinese Press. Journalism Studies 1(4): 665-678.
Reese, S.D., Gandy, O.H. & Grant, A.E. (eds). 2003. Framing public life:
Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

36
Reese, S.D. 2007. The Framing Project: A Bridging Model for Media Research
Revisited. Journal of Communication 57: 148–154.
Scheufele, D.A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of
Communication Winter 1999: 103 - 122.
Semetko, H.A. & Valkenburg, P.M. 2000. Framing European politics: A content
analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication 50(2):
93 – 109.
Tankard, J.W. 2001. An empirical approach to the study of media framing. In:
Reese, S.D., Gandy, O.H. and Grants, A.E. (eds). Framing public life:
perspectives of media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Terkildsen, N. & Schnell, F. 1997. How Media Frames Move Public Opinion: An
Analysis of the Women’s Movement. Political Research Quarterly 50(4):
879-900.
Tuchman, G. 1978. Making news. A study in the construction of reality. New
York: Free Press.
Van Gorp, B. 2005. Where is the Frame? Victims and Intruders in the Belgian
Press Coverage of the Asylum Issue. European Journal of Communication
20: 484-507.
Van Gorp, B. 2007. The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture
back in. Journal of Communication 57(1).
Wimmer R.D. & Dominick J.R. 2006. Mass Media Research. An Introduction. (8th
edition). Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.
Wood, J.T. 2004. Communication Theories in Action. An Introduction. (3rd
edition). Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.

37