S. policy and framing

The refugee and migration crisis is much more than a humanitarian drama; it is also a strategic challenge for the United States. Since 1945, Europe has been America’s major strategic ally and most important trading partner. Furthermore, American engagement and support has helped Europe consolidate peace and prosperity on the continent. Thus, the United States will be weakened if Europe comes out of the refugee crisis weakened and divided (Ignatieff, 2016).

Emphasis on this fact is evident in the New York Times framing of the Refugee Crisis from June-December 2016. While Europe is straining under the crisis, America remains a bystander as well as a critic.

In general, as is illustrated by this comparative study of news framing, United States policy and attitudes towards the Syrian conflict and Refugee Crisis are quite different from those of China. The U.S. government has directly accused President Assad of responsibility for

widespread atrocities and demands he must step down. As seen in the attribution of

responsibility frame, NYT has also called out the Assad regime for creating the terrible crisis.

However, U.S. policy also recognizes the need for a negotiated settlement to end the war and the formation of a transitional administration. Thus, NYT focuses most on the policy topic, using the conflict frame to emphasize the difficulties of agreement and negotiation on finding a settlement with policy.

The U.S. supports Syria's main opposition alliance, the National Coalition, and provides limited military assistance to "moderate" rebels. Since September 2014, the U.S. has been

conducting air strikes on IS and other jihadist groups in Syria as part of an international coalition against the jihadist group. But it has avoided attacks that might benefit Assad's forces or

91 intervening in battles between them and the rebels. A program to train and arm 5,000 Syrian rebels to take the fight to IS on the ground has suffered embarrassing setbacks, with few having even reached the frontline (BBC, Syria crisis).

There has been heavy criticism of the Obama administration’s policy toward Syria ever since fighting between the Assad regime and its opponents began in 2011. Many have argued that strong Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah support for the Assad regime, while the United States has done little for its opponents, has allowed Assad’s regime to remain in power and continue oppressing the Sunni Arab majority as well as other communities in Syria. Additionally, some have argued, U.S. unwillingness to aid the moderate Syrian opposition has only served to strengthen the radical jihadist opposition, thus reducing the prospects for a cooperative, much less democratic, government to arise if and when the Assad regime does fall.

Accordingly, NYT’s use of the attribution of responsibility frame also reflects this criticism of the U.S. for its role and lack of initiative in dealing with the Crisis, by attributing responsibility to the U.S. and putting the blame on U.S. passivity and inactivity. Meanwhile, the governments of France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have all sought to persuade Washington to play a more forceful role in Syria, and have been disappointed at Obama’s unwillingness to do so. There is reason to believe, though, that the costs of disappointing them may be limited. The Saudi and Qatari governments have been especially eager for a greater U.S. military role in Syria, and were offended when Obama announced this would be forthcoming but then called it off. Indeed, this appears to have resulted in even more voices than usual in the Gulf Arab states talking about how disappointment with American foreign policy will lead them to seek other allies. However, the NYT articles featuring the responsibility frame also takes a somewhat defensive stance, focusing on other countries in Europe who must deal with the crisis, as well as wealthy Middle Eastern nations that are offering minimal aid.

92 The NYT use of the morality frame, however, suggests that the morality of Obama’s policy of non-intervention in Syria might be judged. Indeed, through editorials and letters, readers use the morality frame to express their criticism of the Obama administration as well as other politicians’ negative responses to the crisis. On the other hand, it is certainly a rational, pragmatic one that responds both to the domestic political constraints as well as the international situation that the Obama administration faces. Yet, while it is understandable that the Obama administration does not want to intervene in Syria and either get bogged down in a quagmire or bring about the violent downfall of the Assad regime in a way that provides an opportunity for Sunni jihadists to seize control of much or all of Syria, the prolonged continuation of the war is neither in the interests of America nor any other concerned government (whether pro- or anti-Assad)—especially Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, which are experiencing serious difficulties in caring for the increasing number of refugees flooding across their common borders with Syria (Katz, 2013).

As for solutions to the crisis, NYT echoes PD’s stance that the international community should identify an increasing number of appropriate channels to include all players in managing global security. Otherwise nations will unilaterally initiate and foster parallel security structures

— making it even more complicated to reach diplomatic solutions in international conflicts.

Research Limitations Time

In examining the media coverage of the refugee crisis, frames may have changed over time as the unfolding crisis has brought attention to new issues and external news events occurred, creating a ripple effect. For example, the Paris bombing on November 11, 2015, perpetrated by Islamic State members, created a fresh wave of fear of the Middle East and concern about the thousands of Middle Easterners entering European soil. Furthermore, the

93 violent rape of a German woman by a gang of Syrian refugees changed the media sentiment from sympathetic to hostile, in December/ January 2016. Thus, this study will only focus on a limited time period of 6 months of media coverage, using the photograph of Aylan Kurdi as the midpoint, as it is a key event that influenced the narrative framing of the crisis in the news. Future research may examine the coverage of the crisis over a larger timeline.

Effects

This study does not examine the influence of the media on public attitudes or the attitudes and decisions of policy makers. It is exceedingly difficult to do so in a reliable manner. However, the effects on the audiences of NYT in the U.S. and PD in China would provide fascinating insights into how crisis communication and newspaper framing of humanitarian crisis may move people to action or change readers’ minds about the issue. This would be an interesting path for future study.

Sources

Another limitation to this study is that it only focuses on two newspapers, one for the U.S. and one for China. For a more balanced, well-rounded examination of newspaper framing in the two countries, future studies may consider adding more newspaper sources to the sample. In this study, the NYT was selected as a source instead of other U.S. newspapers such as the Washington Post. While the Washington Post may be more closely in-tune with U.S. government policy, NYT posted more frequently on the topic and presented a more diverse scope of views, thus it was selected as the source for this study. Additionally, there are many other countries to compare with the U.S. news coverage of the conflict that would provide fascinating insights into the international management of the Refugee Crisis. This study picked China due to the interesting tension inherent between the two; in that U.S.

94 blames China for its passive role, and China blames U.S. for its hyperactive role. However, future studies may consider examining other countries’ news coverage of the Crisis,

especially Russia, as it may provide more salient insights into how international policy and media framing are related.

Placement

Other insightful variables would have been examining the position placement of

articles about refugees, as well as the placement of key facts and information within the article.

Because article placement in People’s Daily equates to visibility and power, it will be relevant for future studies to examine the specific placements of articles concerning Syria within the selected newspapers.

Framing

The variables included in this study were not able to measure some interesting points related to coverage of the Middle East and Syrian conflict, including positive or negative portrayal and positive or negative reactions. Future research may contribute to the existing body of literature on how Western media in particular portrays the Middle East, often in a critical or negative way, by measuring the negativity and positivity of the coverage on the Syrian Refugee Crisis. Furthermore, future studies may include a stronger focus on political events and political contexts, as well as an analysis of the images that accompany the news articles. Because images play an increasingly important role in news coverage, and the

photographs of the Syrian Refugee Crisis are particularly heart-wrenching, this study suggests that future research also incorporate an analysis of these images in the variables examined alongside media framing or news coverage of the Crisis.

95

Chapter Six