Page 234 - Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research

9. POLITICAL COMMUNICATION EFFECTS 223

MEDIA CONTENT

Prior to considering the state of research on political communication
effects, we discuss research that seeks to understand the nature of media
content and the antecedents that shape it. There are advantages to the
usual scheme of studying content in terms of its most manifest features:
reliability of measurement, face validity, comparability, and so on (e.g.,
Berelson, 1952; Stempel, 1989). But there are several reasons to consider
alternatives. First, recent research examining more latent forms of politi-
cal content has suggested ways in which more subtle use of language may
shape audience understanding of public issues (Entman, 1993; Gamson &
Modigliani, 1989; Glasgow Media Group, 1982; Hallin, 1992; Pan &
Kosicki, 1993; van Dijk, 1988). Interest in deconstructing media content
has produced a flurry of research (e.g., Akhavan-Majid & Ramaprasad,
1998; Durham, 1998; Lee, Chan, Pan, & So, 2000; McLeod & Hertog, 1992;
Teo, 2000). Second, the results of skilled strategies that modern political
practitioners use to influence news are not likely to be captured by gross
manifest content categories. Finally, the usual categories of manifest con-
tent analysis are not readily connected with theoretical conceptions of
media effects.
We can study latent aspects of media content by analyzing the frames
used to shape the story (Gamson, 1992; Gamson & Lasch, 1983; McLeod,
Kosicki, Pan, & Allen, 1987; Pan & Kosicki, 1993; Reese, Gandy, & Grant,
2001; Tuchman, 1978). According to Gamson and Lasch, a frame suggests
a “central organizing idea for understanding events related to the issue in
question” (p. 398). As part of the “package” containing the core frame,
there are various framing devices (metaphors, exemplars, catchphrases,
depictions, and visual images) and reasoning devices (causal attributions,
consequences, and appeals to principles). Linsky (1986) distinguished five
stages of the policy process: problem identification, solution formulation,
policy adoption, implementation, and evaluation. At least early in the his-
tory of an issue, a reporter or editor may have considerable latitude to
choose among several frame packages; later the options narrow as elites
take positions and media content begins to show consensus in choosing
particular frames. Frames are clearly important to the study of effects, as
they influence how audiences understand issues and policy options.
Whereas framing refers to the organization of content contained in a
given story, the term bracketing refers to the placement of evaluative infor-
mation surrounding a story. This can be seen most clearly in instances of
reporters “disdaining the news” by commentary that casts scorn or cyni-
cal comments on news they have just delivered (Levy, 1981). Disdaining is
used when the news must be presented for competitive reasons, but the
journalist feels used because the source controls the framing of the story.