Chart 4.1 Frequency of frames in Le Monde and Le Figaro
III. Economization Frame
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
82
Le Figaro‟s 7 articles using the pro-Roma securitization, comments of the opposition party, the Socialist Party, were reported, but also comments of Prime Minister Fillon. The latter, without denying the government‟s policy, took his distances with what he called “a security drift” and a “security escalation” and asked to “stop it”. Two articles also reported Christine Boutin‟s comments, Head of the Christian-Democratic Party and ally of the UMP and Nicolas Sarkozy‟s political party. She clearly broke the alliance between both parties and argued she could “not accept the new political turn of the government”. Her comments together with the Churches‟ comments prompted the Catholic electorate to part with the UMP.
The 15 articles found in Le Monde with the against Roma securitization frame were mostly articles presenting facts and using words such as “inacceptable violence”, “facts of extreme seriousness”, and acknowledged the need to act “with firmness”. These articles like August 22 and 26 reported comments from Brice Hortefeux and François Fillon, both members of the government and from the UMP. They argued that “this summer‟s actions were legitimate” and that they “complied with both French and European legislation”. However, these interviews of government‟s members contained bias. The questions asked by the Le Monde‟s journalists in Hortefeux‟ interview of August 22 were not totally objective. They asked: “France isolates herself, do you scoff at that?” or “What are you trying to prove with the expulsions? That you are taking action?” The use of verbs “scoff at”, and “try to prove” are clearly pejorative.
III.Economization Frame
Findings showed that the economization frame was used in very few articles for both Le Monde and Le Figaro. The economic aspect of the immigration debate seems to have been undermined at the expenses of the political aspect of the issue. The same as the nationalism frame and the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
83
securitization frame, the economization frame can be understood from two differing perspectives.
The positive interpretation of the economization frame sees immigration as an opportunity for the host country to produce labor and wealth. Immigrants are seen to bring a positive outcome in the economic sphere. Their labor contributes to the economy of the host country and triggers a positive dynamic, especially in countries in need of labor forces or old countries running out of steam because of an aging population.
The negative interpretation of the economization frame considers immigration both legal and illegal as an economic burden for the host country. This interpretation is widely supported in countries where the economy is facing a downturn. Immigrants are believed to steal the locals‟
jobs away, and the local populations see them as an economic burden in terms of integration and welfare state. Illegal immigration introduces costs in terms of monetary compensation given to the immigrants when expelling them, and in terms of transportation cost to escort them back to their country. The police forces mobilized to expel them are also taken in consideration when calculating the cost of immigration for the host country.
Both dailies Le Monde and Le Figaro used the economization frame in a similar manner.
Thus, the results for both dailies will be discussed together since no daily supported one interpretation in particular while the other daily supported the other interpretation.
Table 4.3 presents the keywords used by both dailies for each of the interpretation of the economization frame. The reader will notice that in the economization frame case, the analysis found no major difference between the keywords in use by each daily.
‧
Table 4.3 Pro and Against Discourse in Economization frame in Le Monde and Le Figaro economization frame in Le Monde, and only one article in Le Figaro. And yet, this article in Le Figaro is not only about the Roma immigration but about immigration in general, with the Roma being mentioned at the beginning as triggering the debate. This article is more a defense of the benefits of a successful integration and the positive outcomes of immigration once integration has been achieved. The pro-Roma economization frame is thus quasi inexistent. Apparently neither daily could find a positive economic aspect for the Roma immigration. Since the Roma in this debate are mostly nomadic when they are out of their home country, it is hard to imagine them finding a steady labor and contributing to the economy. However, a September 16 article Le Monde article emphasizes the will of the Roma to find a job and earn money with dignity. In another Le Monde article published on August 26, Roma living in Rumania and recently expelled from France complain about the integration problems in their home country that does not allow
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
85
them find jobs, and accuse the government to stir them into begging and petty crime because the Roma community is marginalized and rejected. The terrible economic and living conditions they are faced with in their own home country stirs the Roma to seek for a better life in Western European countries like France.
The scarce appearance of the pro-Roma economization frame can be accounted for the fact that people, associations, and groups take side for the Roma on moral grounds –humanism, tolerance, and so on- but none of them actually considers them as a desirable labor force. In other immigration studies, some positive aspects on the side of economic improvement of demographic boost could be put forward, but in the Roma situation, these positive aspects were not even mentioned. Before any positive outcome could stem from the Roma immigration, the Roma need first to be well-integrated in their home country and in the host societies as the articles from Le Monde show. Next, both dailies agree on the fact that “it is a European issue”
and that “one country alone cannot bear the economic burden of nomadic populations” (Le Monde, September 17). It is thus an issue that needs to be solved “on the European level”.
Against Roma economization frame. The against Roma economization frame was used almost equally in both dailies, 8 articles in Le Monde and 9 articles in Le Figaro. Economy is usually people‟s main concern and it could be expected to find more articles with the economization frame in the analysis. After the Lehman Brothers‟ bankruptcy and the word economic crisis in September 2008, the job‟s market dropped and many people found increasing difficulties in finding work. However, France was not as affected by the crisis as other industrialized countries thanks to her strong economic stabilizers. In the mean time, these same economic stabilizers hindered the economic upturn in fall 2010. All together France is doing well on the economic aspect and ranks fifth as world economic powers, which inevitably attracts
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
86
immigrants in search of jobs. Besides, the country is known for its welfare state and “its generosity” as a Le Figaro September 20 article in argues. Despite its stable economy, France like other countries does not want to welcome all possible immigrants and opted for a “policy of chosen immigration”. Most Western European countries dread the end of the transitional regime for Rumania and Bulgaria. They are afraid it will give way to a massive immigration wave of Roma fleeing the precarious living conditions they experience in their country and create more social unrest.
The articles however did not discuss much the job‟s market issue. Both dailies usually focused on the “cost of integration” for the host country, and the cost of repatriation of the Roma. “Chartered flights were prepared” for them and a “humanitarian aid of 300 euros per adult and 100 euros per child” was given to each of the Rom expelled. The French government said it would “stop the humanitarian aid after September 2010”. The cost of the integration was heatedly debated as the European Commission “allocated 17, 5 billion” to divide among all the member states with the goal to “help with Roma‟s integration projects”. It seems that these fund had not been properly used and only little sums of this massive aid had actually benefited the Roma. The Western countries showed concerned and wondered “how these billions were being employed by Rumania”. The European Commission set a committee in charge of verifying the redistribution of the fund.
Comparing Le Monde and Le Figaro. Both dailies focused on the political aspect of the debate at the expenses of the economic aspect. However, Le Monde reported the Roma‟s hope for a better future, and the honor of the community and their wish to find labor in the host countries and send their children to school. These aspects were non-existent in Le Figaro which tackled the economic aspect merely under the “burden” perspective.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
87 IV.Sources in the News Articles
Discourse analysis of frames in the articles of Le Monde and Le Figaro, have briefly alluded to the sources or participants in reconstruction. This section presents the findings in greater detail o f the sources of the articles and who is quoted directly or indirectly. Again, to show the ideological and political polarization of the two dailies. This analysis examines which were the sources quoted in the news articles and which sources were the most quoted. The results of both dailies were compared to assess the difference between the main sources selected by each daily.
Eventually, the relation between sources and frames was examined, in order to find out if a given source was elated to one or more frames in particular. The sources analysis supported the hypothesis of Le Figaro being more supportive of the government‟s anti-Roma attitude due to its nationalist editorial stance, and Le Monde being more supportive of the Roma‟s expulsions given its xenophilist stance. Nevertheless, there were a few interesting surprises.
The sources were selected according to the following process: when quotation marks were used, and when verbs of “speaking” were used to introduce a direct or indirect quote, such as
“dire” (to say), “estimer” (to consider), “insister” (to insiste), “soutenir” (to argue) and so forth.
The sources analysis showed that both dailies quoted more or less the same sources. These were: the French government including President of the Republic Nicolas Sarkozy, Prime Minister of France François Fillon, Minister of the immigration and national identity ministry Eric Besson, Minister of Internal Affairs Brice Hortefeux, and State Secretary in charge of the European Affairs Pierre Lellouche. The main opposition party, the Socialist Party, and other smaller political parties were quoted. The European Commission was quoted, including Viviane Reding (European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship), José Manuel Barroso (President of the European Commission) and other euro-deputies. The Rumanian
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
88
government was quoted a few times, and some Roma. Associations of Roma people in France and many associations for human rights and with social purposes were quoted. There was the Catholic Church with the Pope, several Cardinal and priests, the French police, and scholars (ethnologists, historians, sociologist and so forth). These were the main stakeholders. The detail of the sources analysis will be addressed below.
Both dailies equally quoted the government and the opposition social party. The European Commission and the Parliament were also equally represented in the news of both dailies. The Catholic Church was quoted slightly more often in Le Monde. The most significant differences were found in four categories. Le Monde quoted significantly more times the Roma associations and human rights associations: quotes were found in 20 articles of Le Monde, as opposed to merely 3 found in Le Figaro‟s. Next, the Rumanian government was quoted in seven articles of Le Monde while only two quotes were found in Le Figaro. Then, scholars‟ opinions were quoted in 12 articles in Le Monde whereas Le Figaro quoted them merely in two. Last, the Roma themselves were not quoted in Le Figaro, there were not given any space to voice out their opinion in Le Figaro‟s columns, while Le Monde quoted them in ten articles. However, these articles were mostly historical retrospectives or reportages. Five of the Roma quoted in reportage articles were about their conditions back in Rumania, not in France. They were mostly narrating the misery of their lives back in their home country. The five other Roma sources were divided in two Roma living in France and testifying of the situation they were experiencing since the launch of the security policy, and the three others were artists internationally famous.
The fact that the Roma themselves, the people at the heart of the summer 2010 debate, were rarely used as sources, reveals that the social conditions of the Roma were not the main concern.
It was in fact a political debate opposing two differing political lines, and the Roma stood in the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
89
middle, mere instruments in the political struggle than divided France. This analysis of sources shows that the debate was instrumentalized by the French political parties for political purposes, and the Roma‟s fate was secondary.
The relation between frames and sources supported the idea that newspapers of differing political leanings would select differing frames and choose the sources according to their political leaning. The political leaning of each daily appeared obvious during the analysis. Le Monde is known for its xenophilist leaning: the sources it relied on were scholars and grassroots associations. The scholars took side for the Roma in the debate. In France, professors and scholars are traditionally attached to the socialist party, the same as grassroots associations. On the other hand, Le Figaro is known for its nationalist leaning and logically it used the government and the UMP (right-wing party) to support its articles. It seldom quoted grassroots associations and scholars.
The sources analysis found another difference between Le Monde and Le Figaro. The results show an equal representation of the government as source in both dailies. The reason why is that Le Monde, in an attempt to appear objective, strived to present both aspects of the debate to its readers. The results show thus a regular correlation between the government as a source and the use of the against Roma immigration nationalism fame and the against Roma immigration securitization frame in Le Monde‟s articles. In turn, Le Figaro also tried to appear objective by quoting sources with standpoints differing from the government‟s stance (the European Commission and other European governments‟ reactions). However, these sources appeared in articles using frames against the Roma immigration because Le Figaro would usually quote them in order to then take them down and discredit their sayings. When Le Figaro quoted the European Commission, it appeared in the against Roma immigration nationalism, clearly to
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
90
contradict the Commission‟s sayings and support the national sovereignty of France before the Commission. The latter was quoted not to support its sayings but, on the contrary, to undermine its position.
One surprise the sources analysis revealed was the use of the socialist party as source in two articles against the Roma immigration and where the sources did agree with the anti-Roma immigration frame. This result shows that in matters of security, if the threat is real, political leanings are of little importance in front of the people‟s well-being and security. The violent polarization of the audiences proves again that the real question under debate here was not the Roma or criminality, but the political influence of France‟s major political parties over the electorate.
Discourse analysis of the three dominant frames, nationalism, securitization and economization, in Le Monde and Le Figaro has shown that frames in the two national papers were indeed polarized in their ideologies. Their being politically instrumentalized is obvious and is achieved by their respective discourse in framing the Roma immigration issue. This will be further highlighted and discussed in the following final chapter.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
91
Chapter 5
Conclusion and Discussion
The thesis first examined the articles in the French national daily Le Monde to answer the first research question on “what are the dominant frames supporting the Roma immigration”. The thesis had assumed this daily would choose frames supporting the Roma immigration because of its leftist editorial stance and its xenophiles‟ tendencies. The results supported the hypothesis and showed that the values of the French Republic, its tradition of welcoming anyone and its ideal of everyone equal before the law was very significant.
Next, it examined the articles in Le Figaro to answer the second research question on “what are the dominant frames against the Roma immigration”. It was expected that this daily would choose frames against the Roma immigration because of its rightist editorial stance and its nationalistic tendencies. The results supported the hypothesis and showed that the security of the citizens and the national sovereignty were significant.
The third research question addressed how the analysis of the selected frames could reveal the political instrumentalization of the French media. The results of the framing analysis on the Roma immigration‟s debate in the two dailies of differing political leanings were consistent with the observations of Hallin and Mancini‟s political instrumentalization of the media to the extent of polarization in France. The daily Le Figaro used a large majority of discourse against the Roma immigration in its news frames, and the daily Le Monde used a large majority of discourse favorable to the Roma immigration in its news frames, both consistent to their political leanings.
Analysis of news discourse in the three frames, nationalism, securitization and economization, shows a visible difference in the two dailies‟ dominant frame. The “pro-Roma
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
92
immigration securitization frame” was the main focus in Le Monde‟s 68 articles, whereas the
“against Roma immigration nationalism frame” was the main focus in Le Figaro‟s 39 articles.
However, the economization frame which has been the main finding in other research on news about immigrants (Merolla and Pantoja, 2008) appeared insignificant in the two dailies. Out of the 240 articles, only 11 in Le Monde and 10 in Le Figaro had the economization frame.
Le Figaro‟s editorial stance is known to be rightist and nationalist, and to support the present government. This is supported by the findings that Le Figaro‟s dominant frame was the against Roma immigration nationalism frame with 39 articles. In the Roma debate of summer 2010, the government and the country bared multiple attacks coming from the European Commission, European member states, the United Nations, the Catholic Church and immigrants and Human Rights associations. They all accused the government of authoritarianism and called shame upon France. France‟s national sovereignty was undermined under all these attacks interfering with her internal politics. Le Figaro supported the government against these attacks, striving to restore the French national sovereignty and asserting her national identity by reminding its readers of France‟s greatness and contributions to the European Union and in the Human Rights field.
Billig (1995) called this process “flagging the nation in the dailies”. Following that process,
Billig (1995) called this process “flagging the nation in the dailies”. Following that process,