2. Literature Review
2.2 Framing Theory
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
COP members also negotiated adaptation measures. These measures sought to reduce vulnerability and exposure to a climate-altered world (de Coninck et al., 2018; Rogelj et al., 2018; Roy et al., 2018). The 2001 Marrakech Accord elaborated on the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) as well as the Least Developed Countries Fund for adaptation purposes (Dupont & Pearman, 2006; National Research Council, 2012). As a result, both funds
contributed to the preparation and implementation of national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs). These funds have since been used to push for water-source diversification, vulnerable population relocation programmes, improved disaster response systems, and infrastructure development (Mace, 2005; Roy et al., 2018). The Poznan Strategic Programme on Technology Transfer also supplemented the financial mechanisms with technology transfers (Dupont & Pearman, 2006; Martinot, Sinton, & Haddad, 1997).
2.2 Framing Theory
As international and national pressure mounted, organisational actors are increasingly communicating their positions on climate change. Framing theory, which has a
well-established history of applications in economics, anthropology, political science, sociology, communication and psychology, is well suited to study these organisational communications (Bateson, 1972; Cacciatore et al., 2016; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; D. A. Scheufele &
Tewksbury, 2007; Tannen, 1993; Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). In his 1974 sociological seminal, Erving Goffman (1974) defined the frame as a synthesis of composite information and experiences that enabled individuals ‘to locate, perceive, identify, and label’ (p. 21) and thereby to construct a shared understanding of reality. Various researchers have since expanded on its applications.
The frame has been conceptualised as both an independent and a dependent variable (B. T. Scheufele & Scheufele, 2010; Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). As an independent variable, researchers focused on the frame’s ability to generate cognitive effects that result in
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the construction of individual’s reality (for more on cognitive framing, see: Kunreuther &
Weber, 2014; Lakoff, 2010; Reese, 2007; Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). As a dependent variable, researchers focused more on the framing process. Tewksbury and Scheufele (2009) defined framing processes as ‘the creation and social negotiation of frames in at least three related areas: journalistic norms, political actors, and cultural contexts’ (p. 22). In relation to the present study, the following literature review focused on the frame as a dependent variable.
2.2.1 Framing in news production. The earlier efforts to define framing theory
revolved around differentiating it from agenda-setting and priming in especially the production of news. McCombs, Shaw, and Weaver (1997) proposed that framing acts as a second level of agenda-setting. Agenda setting argued that the emphasis by mass media was correlated to the importance that the public assigns to the same issue (Entman, 2007;
McCombs & Shaw, 1972; McLeod, Dietram, & Moy, 1999; Nisbet, 2009; Scheufele, 1999;
Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). Framing extends on this by selectively forwarding a specific aspect of the reality set in play by agenda-setting. This extension is done either through strategic highlighting or strategic omission to create a selective view or perception. Bryant and Oliver (2009: p.2) argued that this ‘concept of selective perception…locates central influence within the individual and stratifies media content according to its compatibility with an individual's existing attitudes and opinions.’ Thus, framing came to be understood as a process through which framers may, intentionally or not, aim to influence human behaviour by selectively choosing the information that reflects existing beliefs and values.
A considerable body of research has investigated the role of journalists in the frame building process. A commonly shared view was that journalists developed frames through a convenient, selective packaging of complex information that drew on frames of reference familiar to the target audiences (Cacciatore et al., 2016; Entman, 2007; D. A. Scheufele &
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Tewksbury, 2007; Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009; van Gorp, 2007). Researchers generally agreed that the primary reason for doing so was to enable readers, mostly non-specialists, to understand complex issues. Furthermore, in this framing process, internal and external sources often influence frames.
Internal organisational factors affecting frames. Internally, researchers found that
reporters’ preconceptions, beliefs, and values enabled bias (Chong & Druckman, 2007;
Entman, 2007). Political affiliation, for example, may introduce a news slant. Entman (2007) defined news slant as the tendency of a news report to be inclined more positively or
negatively to one side or the other. If a slant persisted over time, it could give way to bias.
This bias, in turn, may distort reality (distortion bias) and cause the unequal treatment of sides (content bias). It may also affect the mindsets or motivations of the reporters (decision-making bias).
A well-cited example occurred after the 2001 terror attacks on the US. News reporting following the attacks consisted of a mix of anger and patriotism (Reese, 2007). Researchers found that the news reports covering the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were often episodic and emphasised the bravery, sacrifice and patriotism of individual American soldiers. The individual focus came at the cost of the bigger picture and detracted from the effect of the US war on the Middle East. When the bigger picture was reported, it was limited to Iraqi
sponsorship of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (B. T. Scheufele & Scheufele, 2010; van Gorp, 2007, 2010).
External organisational factors affecting frames. Externally, reporters habitually
rely on sourced information. Corporate, scientific and political representatives routinely serve as such sources through interviews, news releases and press conferences (D'Angelo, 2002;
Entman, 1993; Nisbet, 2009; Nisbet, Brossard, & Kroepsch, 2003; B. T. Scheufele &
Scheufele, 2010; D. A. Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007; van Gorp, 2007). As a result, these
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
external actors exert influences, either intentionally or unintentionally, over the reporters’
frames. Some researchers argued that it turns the news media into channels through which external actors vie for frame dominance (Antilla, 2005; Entman, 2007; Nisbet et al., 2003;
Price, Tewksbury, & Powers, 1997; Reese, 2007; van Gorp, 2007). Within this context, Kuypers (2009) defined framing as a targeted and strategic rhetorical process through which organisations seek ‘to influence our personal and collective behaviours through having us voluntarily agreeing with the speaker that a certain action or policy is better’ (p. 6).
A typical example can be found in governments such as China that have exerted top-down influences through censorship (Han, Sun, & Lu, 2017; Leonard, 2012; T. Yang &
Zhang, 2011). Researchers investigating government interference in the South African media also noted this. Before democratisation, offending newspapers had their licenses withdrawn by the Apartheid government for criticising policies (Fourie, 2010). In post-apartheid South Africa, Fourie (2010) cited an example where former South African President, Nelson
Mandela, met with the editors of leading newspapers. Mandela intended to ask them for more positive coverage of the ANC’s efforts to reform the nation. Other efforts in democratic societies tended to be more indirect. For example, the US Republican and Democratic candidates tended to use repetitions, labels, symbols and other rhetorical devices in their speeches (Dunlap et al., 2016; Fletcher, 2009; Trent & Friedenberg, 2011). Republicans repeated the term uncertain concerning climate science, and Democrats did that using terms such as green jobs (Nisbet, 2009; Nisbet & Myers, 2007). Corporate actors also participated.
Anderson (2009) noted that organisations have an increasing number of public relations tools through which to affect public discourse.
Episodic and thematic frames. Researchers, studying news framing, distinguished between episodic and thematic framing. Iyengar (1996) identified episodic framing as the depiction of public issues in the form of concrete instances or specific events while thematic
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
newscasts do so on a more abstract level. Thus, thematic newscasts focus on specific events.
Therefore, the bigger picture would get lost, and the episodic frame could be made to fit a more catered narrative. Other research found that western news networks often relied exclusively on episodic framing (Iyengar, 1996; Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002; Pfau et al., 2005) (Iyengar & Simon, 1993). By comparison, eastern news networks such as Al-Jazeera often preferred a thematic focus (Kolmer & Semetko, 2009).
Scheufele & Tewksbury (2007) demonstrated how episodic framing was used to support the dominant agenda. In their study regarding news reporting on the Iraqi War, they found that CNN reports highlighted the bravery, sacrifice and patriotism of the individual US-soldier. Other studies confirmed this finding and added that news reports also framed anti-war protestors as unpatriotic and the enemy as terrorists (Kolmer & Semetko, 2009; Pfau et al., 2005). This focus served the national agenda of creating emotional and patriotic
support for the war in Iraq and lost the bigger political narrative, including the hunt for chemical weapons. By contrast, Jazeera was found to emphasise the big picture. Al-Jazeera showed the general extent of human suffering caused by the invasion and the search for weapons of mass destruction, which were never found (Kolmer & Semetko, 2009).
2.2.2 Framing in social contexts. Outside the news industry, B. T. Scheufele and
Scheufele (2010) defined framing as a ‘competition among policymakers, interest groups, NGOs, journalists, and other groups over establishing dominant frames to influence public attitudes or policy outcomes’ (p. 113) to ‘promote specific frames to gain public support for their interests, positions, and concerns’ (p. 111). From this perspective, Researchers
contended that the success of the frame depends on the degree to which an organisation can align its framing efforts to the dominant social issues in the target audience’s cultural context (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Reese, 2007; B. T. Scheufele & Scheufele, 2010; Tewksbury
& Scheufele, 2009; van Gorp, 2007, 2010).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
From this perspective, framing has also been defined as a rhetorical process. Goffman (1974) first argued that frames were not static but subject to keying and rekeying. By this, he meant that frames could change often and be clarified to manufacture consensus. Kuypers (2009) explained that the intent was often to persuade an audience and get their support on trending issues, a widespread practice in political speeches and corporate communications.
The following examples elaborate.
Corporate framing on mining and oil spills. Heberlein (2012) offers another example
from a corporate perspective. In the 1970s, ExxonMobil, then Exxon Minerals, identified a concentrated minerals deposit in Wisconsin. Deciding that they wanted to develop it, they initiated the application procedures but encountered public resistance. To garner public support, Exxon Minerals initiated a detailed public relations campaign that drew heavily on emotional and rhetorical framing. In one advertising campaign, Heberlein described the range of metaphors whereby Exxon Minerals ‘tied mining to farms, state history, our flag, the badger, small towns, and community identity’ (p. 77). This combination of metaphors, he admitted, instilled even in him ‘warm, fuzzy feelings about mines’ (p. 77). This campaign was supplemented with press releases of new jobs and other benefits to the community. That effort, however, failed as it did not account for locals’ attachment to the recently restored Wisconsin river, which would have been contaminated by mining runoffs.
A more recent study contemplated the corporate rhetorical framing of a 2010 British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Wickman (2014) investigated BP’s use of traditional media to characterise their efforts to clean-up the oil spill. The study found that BP made active use of various PR strategies to stabilise their clean-up activities. Most notably, BP would actively communicate positive developments to affected communities and work with them. Wickman (2014) found that BP built a narrative of successful disaster
management by placing itself as an innovative and conscientious environmental actor and a
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
friend to the affected community. These efforts were also picked up by the local news organisations who further contributed to the narrative.
Political and social organisations framing of nuclear energy. Another case is the
framing of nuclear energy. Gamson and Modigliani (1989) discussed the historical case of nuclear energy, which debuted in the Second World War as a feared weapon of mass death and destruction. However, when the war subsided, social movements rallied around the slogan Atoms for Peace and reframed nuclear power as a means of peaceful development.
This movement gave rise to the social progress frame. Using various framing devices, proponents highlighted the problem of social development and the nearly limitless positive consequences of implementing nuclear energy as a cleaner and cheaper source of electricity (Entman & Rojecki, 1993; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Snow, 2007; van Gorp, 2007).
Gamson and Modigliani (1989) found that this positive interpretation of nuclear power dominated US media discourse even during the 1966 Fermi nuclear reactor crisis in Detroit.3
It was not until the more publicised Three Mile Island incident4 that a rival perspective emerged. The runaway science frame arose as a counter-frame to the social progress frame. It shifted the nuclear debate through media labels such as Pandora’s box and a Frankenstein’s monster (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). Central to the argument was the fear that nuclear energy posed an immediate threat to human and environmental safety. In their research on anti-nuclear social movements, Snow and Benford (1988) identified three types of framing. First, they demonstrated that social movements often engaged in diagnostic
3 The Fermi reactor, located outside Detroit, experienced a partial meltdown on October 5, 1966. The automatic shutdown system also failed, requiring a manual shutdown. While the radiation leak was contained, the investigation phase held serious risk of further contamination. The fault was later attributed to a component that had loosened due to vibrations before blocking the flow of reactor coolant. While there was discussion of mass evacuations of up to 1 million residents, eventual action was not required (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989;
Union of Concerned Scientists, n.d.).
4 The Three Mile Island incident is the most serious nuclear incident in the US. The incident started because of a technical failure in a secondary system and a human operated valve that got stuck on open. Human error compounded the issue as operators misread warning messages and mistakenly reduced the coolant to the reactor.
A partial reactor meltdown resulted (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Union of Concerned Scientists, n.d. ).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
framing. During this stage, movements would often identify a problem, focus on its causality and attribute blame. This phase was followed by prognostic framing. During a number of NGO meetings that they were able to attend, they noted that these solutions varied between more reserved actions such as education and awareness campaigns, while but did
occasionally call for more extreme efforts such as sabotage (D. A. Snow, 2007; David A.
Snow, Soule, & Kriesi, 2007). They considered this motivation framing as the decisive step before motivating people to action.
It is during this last step that Snow and Benford (1986) explained why framing efforts sometimes fail. In a concept they identified as frame alignment, they argued that unless social movements could align their positions to the existing beliefs, values and attitudes in their target group, they would be unlikely to motivate a favourable action. They suggested that alignment could be achieved through frame bridging, linking the frames with related
ideological structures, or by bridging the gap between distinct groups by emphasising shared interests, beliefs and values (Snow et al., 1986).
The nuclear debate has more recently resurged with the Fukushima nuclear incident.
International media had wasted no time in associating the incident with existing nuclear fears.
For instance, all nuclear reactors in Germany were immediately shut in response to the public outcry (Thomas, 2012; Wittneben, 2012). Another example could be seen in Taiwan. Social movements with an anti-nuclear sentiment saw an opportunity to bridge the events in Japan to existing ideological perspectives and shared values to gather public and political support (Ho, 2014; Ming-Sho, 2003; Wei, 2016). The significant safety concerns of nuclear plants in geologically active regions gave a resurgence to the anti-nuclear movement, a mass mobilisation of protestors and political support.
Political framing on climate change. There have also been efforts by political
candidates to frame climate change, much of it in the US. In the US, researchers have pointed
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
to a deeply divisive political climate (Dunlap & McCright, 2008; Dunlap & McCright, 2012;
Dunlap et al., 2016; McCright & Dunlap, 2011; Nisbet, 2009, 2016; Nisbet & Kotcher, 2009). Nisbet (2009: p.14) referred to this phenomenon as the ‘Two Americas of Climate Perceptions.’ Speeches by Republican and Democratic political candidates were found to reflect this division often.
A prominent instance has been that of climate change denial. Researchers found that Republican candidates used labels, symbols and other rhetorical devices to deny climate change and to raise doubts about climate science and the anthropogenic connection (Dunlap et al., 2016; Fletcher, 2009; Nisbet, 2008, 2009, 2016; Nisbet & Kotcher, 2009; Nisbet &
Myers, 2007; Trent & Friedenberg, 2011). Democrats have actively opposed. Earlier attempts relied on emphasising the consequences of climate change. Statements were found to often repeated terms severe weather, rising sea-levels, floods and others (Dunlap & McCright, 2012; Goldenberg, 2013; Nisbet, 2016). However, the exaggerated nature of the claims tended to add to Republican labels of alarmism. This framing approach came to be known as the scientific and technical uncertainty frame.
In the 2008 elections, Democratic candidates adopted a new counter-frame strategy.
The new strategy evolved from a published book that called the Republican position a war on science (Dunlap, 2008; Mooney, 2007; Nisbet, 2009}. This label evolved in a call by Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama for more scientific certainty in the making of policy and for corporate and public officials to be held accountable for their decisions (Davenport, 2014;
Dunlap et al., 2016; Nisbet, 2009). This frame came to be known as the public accountability and governance frame and promoted terms such as transparency, participation,
responsiveness to climate change, and taking ownership. Their argument was based on the appropriate use of science in policymaking.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Republicans soon responded by increasing their emphasis on economic arguments. Dr Frank Luntz (2007), a principal advisor to Republicans, admitted in his book that he had advised the Republican on this approach. His studies had shown that the mere suggestion to Americans of rising costs would be enough to dampen political support for climate change.
While the frame does have earlier roots, it was most notable during the 2016 US Presidential campaign of Donald Trump (Liptak & Acosta, 2017; Nisbet, 2016). President Trump
extensively argued and implied that climate action was an expensive and unnecessary burden to the US economy and that it unfairly disadvantaged US market competitiveness (Nisbet, 2016; Shankleman, 2016; White House, 2017a, 2017b). When withdrawing from the Paris Accord, President Trump explicitly cited the need for a better deal (White House, 2017a, 2017b). More recently, President Trump offered financial and job creation arguments in support of his decision to repeal the EPA emission guidelines on the energy industry (Trump, 2019; White House, 2018).
Democrats made extensive efforts at countering this frame. Both Senator Hillary Clinton and former US President Obama referenced economic opportunities and job gains as positive outcomes. In speeches and reports, they proposed that new, greener industries would emerge in the US and provide an overall benefit to the economy (Mathews & Tan, 2014;
White House, 2014). In the final year of Obama’s presidency, the White House (2014) released a report arguing that the economic costs of inaction would be of far greater concern.
On land, severe weather events, disruptions to agriculture, and constrained water supplies would lead to more significant financial damage (Hossain & Selvanathan, 2011; White House, 2014). White House (2014) data showed that for every ten-year delay in action, mitigation costs would increase by about 41%. A report by the US Department of Defense (2019) further added that climate change would cause an unbearable mass-immigration from poor to rich countries which could strain and collapse critical infrastructure.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.2.3 The importance of context to framing. A recurring finding in the literature has
been the importance of context. In studies on news framing, the literature noted that a successful frame tended to draw on the existing societal values and beliefs (Cacciatore,
been the importance of context. In studies on news framing, the literature noted that a successful frame tended to draw on the existing societal values and beliefs (Cacciatore,