University of Oslo
Institute for Media and Communications
MASTER’S THESIS IN POLITICAL COMMUNICATION: NORDIC PERSPECTIVES
How deviant is the deviant media?
A Qualitative Framing Analysis of the Samuel Paty murder in the mainstream and right-wing alternative media
Kristian Bjørnevåg Helgeland
December 1st, 2021
“Thus, as it is always darkest just before the day dawneth, so God useth to visit his servant with greatest afflictions when he intendeth their speedy advancement”
Thomas Fuller, 1650
© Kristian B. Helgeland 2021
How deviant is the deviant media?
Kristian B. Helgeland http://www.duo.uio.no
Abstract
The right-wing alternative media have become a growing phenomenon in the last years. The influx of these media contributes to the blurring lines between legitimate and deviant media actors. Taking a comparative approach this study analyses how these media frame the Samuel Paty murder in order to ascertain how deviant these media truly are. The study relied on a qualitative framing analysis of 209 news and opinion articles from Aftenposten, VG,
Document and HRS. Based on existing empirical data on these right-wing alternative media sources four hypotheses; related to the overall similarities and expected topics within the frames of these right-wing outlets were used to determine deviance. The study finds that there were significant similarities in the frames present in the mainstream and right-wing media coverage of the Paty murder, indicating that these media share a common logic in what elements of the case should be emphasized. The results also indicated that the major differences between these media lie in the content as the right-wing alternative outlets
frequently feature more polarizing elements in their framing of the event. Which underscores the need for further analysis into the content produced by these media to understand how they separate themselves from the mainstream.
Acknowledgements
I never expected the process of writing a master’s thesis to be a breeze. Although, I did not foresee the how humbling the experience of writing in midst of a historic pandemic would be.
There is no doubt in my mind I would not have been able to complete this project without the support of some truly great people, and for this I wish to extent my gratitude.
I would like to thank my supervisor Cristina Archetti (F19-F21) for her insight, advice, and compassion throughout this process.
I would like to thank my family, Mom, Dad, Eivind, Helene and her wife Kristin. They have stood by me through thick and thin in this period, and for this I am ever grateful.
I would like to thank my dear girlfriend Line. Through a comforting embrace, or loving words she has made a stressful period quite bearable.
I would like to thank Anders, and the rest of the “basement gang” at the institute for media and communications. The good times we have shared both at school and outside it in the last years have truly been a blast.
Lastly, I would like to thank my old friend Ask. Whom despite great distances, and busy schedules has managed to bring a sense of refuge in troubled times, through humor and a carefree embrace of the world.
Kristian B. Helgeland December 1st, 2021
Table of contents
1.0 Introduction ... 1
1.1 Academic contribution and research question ... 2
1.1.2 The case: Samuel Paty ... 4
1.1.3 Terminology and limitations ... 5
1.2 Thesis structure ... 5
2.0 Theory ... 6
2.1 Journalism, Boundary work and Hallins spheres ... 6
2.1.1 Boundary Work ... 7
2.1.2 Hallins Spheres: Defining Deviance ... 10
2.1.3 Deviance: Definitional Issues & Field Review ... 10
2.2 Mainstream media & Alternative Media ... 14
2.2.1 Mainstream Media ... 14
2.2.2 Alternative Media ... 17
2.2.3 Right-wing alternative media ... 21
2.3 Framing Theory ... 24
3.0 Methods ... 26
3.1 Research Design ... 26
3.1.1 Case study ... 26
3.2 Framing Analysis: methodological approach ... 27
3.2 Selection ... 28
3.2.1 Search Term, Period & Distribution ... 29
3.3 The Media Outlets ... 30
3.3.1 Right-Wing alternative sources ... 30
3.3.2 Mainstream sources ... 32
3.4 Framing Analysis: Execution ... 33
3.5 Methodological Evaluation & Quality ... 35
3.5.1 Qualitative Framing Analysis ... 35
3.5.2 Validity ... 35
3.5.3 Reliability ... 36
3.5.4 Generalization ... 36
4.0 Findings & Analysis ... 38
4.1 Frame Overview: A similar worldview ... 39
4.1.1 The Frames: Generic introduction ... 40
4.2 The Frames: Presence and Strength ... 41
4.2.1 How present were the frames? ... 42
4.2.2 How strong where these frames? ... 42
4.2.3 Notable Findings ... 43
4.3 Frame overview: Distinctive Frame ... 45
4.3.1 Caricature Struggle ... 46
4.3.2 Immigration/integration ... 56
4.3.3 Islam ... 63
4.4 Findings Reiteration: Testing the hypotheses ... 70
5.0 Discussion ... 71
5.1 Main Findings: how deviant was the right-wing coverage? ... 71
5.2 Determining deviance: similarities in frames ... 72
5.3 Frame topics: Immigration & Islam ... 73
5.3.1 Immigration ... 73
5.3.2 Islam ... 74
5.4 Polarizing elements & Relational Approach ... 75
5.5 Discussion Summary ... 77
6.0 Conclusion ... 78
6.1 Main findings ... 78
6.2 Contributions to the field of research ... 79
6.3 Strengths and weaknesses ... 79
6.4 Further research ... 79
Bibliography ... 81
Appendix ... 91
1.0 Introduction
On the 17th of October 2020 an editorial was published on the website Document.no detailing the shocking death of French history and geography teacher Samuel Paty the previous day. In the piece the author detailed the some of the circumstances under which the teacher had died.
The teacher who was decapitated by an 18-year-old Chechen, five miles outside Paris on Friday evening has been given a name, and thus also a face: Samuel Paty (47). Paty is not only dead, but he also suffered a gruesome death: The Chechen did not only decapitate the history teacher. He also took a picture of the decapitated head and posted it to Twitter and wrote who it was. (Rustad, 2020).
The words belong to editor-in-charge Hans Rustad (Document, 2020) and at first glance the text seems like any other editorial responding to yet another devastating terror attack in the hearth of Europe. However, Rustad and his outlet are not merely any other media outlet.
Document is part of a growing phenomenon academics have termed the right-wing alternative media (Holt, 2020). The current iteration of these outlets has emerged in the post-millennium, high-choice, technologically driven media environment (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021). With societal tensions rising around demographic changes such as the 2015 migrant crisis, and the election of right-leaning candidates such as Donald Trump Jr in 2016 scholars have noted an uptick in engagement both around and from these media outlets (Holt, 2020, p.5).
The right-wing alternative media outlets have brought together individuals who distrust the government and media establishment and perceive them, as Holt (2020) notes, as looking out for the elites at the expense of ordinary people (p.5). They largely coalesce around anti- immigrant sentiments, often with a particular skepticism towards those arriving from majority Muslim’s countries (Holt, 2020, p.5). Although the characteristics of these sites vary, they generally view the process of established journalism as a biased and deceitful endeavor, not concerned with the troubles of ordinary people (Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019, p.1222). As such many of them conduct their own reporting, particularly on the topic of immigration in an effort to counterweight the perceived ills of mainstream journalism (Nygaard, 2019).
The emergence of these right-wing alternative media has contributed to what Karoline Andrea Ihlebæk and Silje Nygaard (2021) argue is the increasingly diffuse boundaries between
amateur and professionals, and legitimate or deviant media actors (p.264). This last distinction is particularly interesting, as legitimacy is integral to the media’s place in society (Figenschou
& Thorbjørnsrud, 2017, p.944). Scholars have established that mainstream journalists guard these boundaries between them and what they perceive as quasi-journalistic actors through actions like negative evaluations and denying them validation in the topics they chose to cover (Nygaard, 2019, p.777). These and other studies indicate that from the perspective of the established media there is a clear distinction between what they do, and what these media outlets do.
However, I argue it is useful to analyze whether these distinctions created between these mainstream media actors, and their right-wing alternative counterparts, is reflected in the content they create. In other words, I find it imperative to examine whether these media actors the mainstream perceive as deviant truly are as deviant. As such I attempt to heed the call from Ihlebæk and Nygaard (2021) who have discussed the need for more research into the core characteristics of these media, i.e., the content, frames, and language used in their media production (p.269). I am particularly interested the comparison of framing between these media, as the frames they use show how these outlets structure the information they present to the audience (Kenix, 2011, p.9). As such an inquiry into differences or similarities in framing would bring insight into the logic behind the right-wing alternative media, and how the present their stories. It would arguably also be an indicator if these two types of media types truly are as different, as the label deviant would indicate.
Taking the perspective that these two media types would frame a story noticeably different I compared the mainstream and right-wing alternative framing of the 2020 murder of Samuel Paty in order to discern how deviant the coverage in the right-wing alternative media was.
1.1 Academic contribution and research question
As Nygaard (2019) and other scholars have showed there is empirical evidence to show that the established media actors guard their legitimacy against actors who they perceive as deviant to a myriad of mechanics (p.777). However, as I alluded to in the introduction the designation of deviance for media actors has generally been viewed from an establishment
centered perspective, as scholars analyze if, and how legitimacy is granted or denied for example through the use of labels (Nygaard, 2021).
This is a fixture of the framework itself, as the originator of the term deviant, as it relates to media studies, Daniel C. Hallin (1986) did not distinguish the features within a deviant media, that dictates the deviance (p.115-117). Instead, he, and contemporary studies using the
framework generally rely on the value judgments made by the established actors within a media system as the indicator for deviance (Hallin, 1986, p.115-117). The lack of these clear features has been noted by academics like Taylor (2014) who propose the need for clear definitions as to how deviance is discerned (p.41). A contribution this study hopes to make is is to assist in this effort.
In this assignment I propose a comparative approach, where deviance is determined through using the similarities between the mainstream and right-wing alternative media as benchmark, as well as testing whether the features used by the mainstream to denote deviance is present within the actual content of these media. Using the Samuel Paty murder as a case study I conducted a comparative framing analysis on the coverage of the assassination in two right- wing alternative media outlets and two mainstream media outlets in Norway. Interpreting the term deviant in a literal sense, I attempted to discern whether the framing within these two types of media outlets were truly different, e.g., if the right-wing alternative coverage truly deviated from that of the mainstream.
This thesis attempted to answer the following research question; How deviant is the right- wing alternative media coverage of Samuel Paty’s murder? Besides simply comparing how different the framing was I devised some hypotheses based on the contemporary
understanding of these media to help ascertain the deviance. These will be presented in the theoretical chapter along with the empirical studies and theories I base them on.
Using these criteria, I analyzed a total of 209 news and opinion articles within four media outlets: Aftenposten, Verdens Gang, Document and Human Rights Service.
Before I commence with the thesis the Samuel Paty case will be presented.
1.1.2 The case: Samuel Paty
On the 16th of October 2020 a French geography- and history teacher named Samuel Paty was walking home from the school he taught at in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, a suburb north- west of Paris. On his way home, he was assaulted, murdered, and decapitated by an 18-year- old man named Abdullakh Anzorov, in what was largely considered a terroristic attack (Wilsher, 2020). Anzorov then went on to post a picture of Paty’s decapitated head on the social media platform, with a caption insulting the French president Emanuel Macron (Wilsher, 2020).
A couple days prior to the attack, Paty had shown several caricatures of the Islamic prophet Muhammed to a class of students, many of them of Muslim faith. According to media reports this caused offence among several of the students’ parents, leading one of them to publish a video in which he condemned the teacher to social media (Paone, 2020). The post spread amongst the Islamic community in the country, eventually reaching Anzorov, who went on to attack the teacher. The terrorist was eventually shot and killed by French police after
appearing threatening towards them during the attempted apprehension (Wilsher, 2020).
The French teacher’s gruesome death caused a wave of reactions over the world. Occurring simultaneously to the court proceedings in the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attacks, the murder attracted a lot of comparison to the attack on the satirical magazine (Wilsher, 2020). In Norway the murder was covered extensively, by several outlets both mainstream and alternative.
The Paty murder is suitable case for several reasons. Firstly, it is a contemporary case for a contemporary phenomenon. Having occurred only a year ago, little academic research has been conducted on the attack so far. In an increasingly fast paced media environment, where the discourse changes rapidly, such a fresh event might help showcase the modern adaptation these alternative media outlets (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.264). Secondly, I find the Paty case encompasses some themes highly relevant to the right-wing alternative media.
Academics have shown how topics of free speech, immigration and Islam are frequently found and attributed to these outlets (Figenschou & Beyer, 2014; Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019; Nygaard 2021). Hence, I believe this might showcase some of the key concerns and aspects of these media, that might differentiate them from the mainstream.
It should be mentioned however, that scholars have noted a possible problem with
generalizing the findings when conducting a case study (Yin, 2018). However, with a subject matter closely related to the topical element for these right-wing alternative media, there is room for the findings to be theoretically applicable outside of the confines of this case. This be discussed more in detail in the methodological chapter.
1.1.3 Terminology and limitations
I also find it relevant to include a brief notation on some important terminological distinctions and thesis limitations moving forward with this assignment. Firstly, it should be stated that for the purposes of this thesis, when discussing the deviant media, I am referring to the right-wing alternative media. This right-wing alternative media itself refers to this type of media as it exists within the Norwegian media sphere. Important theoretical distinctions will be made as I progress to the theory chapter. However, I will note I have limited the scope of this
assignment to the Norwegian context. Although, the Paty murder happened in France, and there has been widespread coverage of the event across global media I have limited it to the Norwegian coverage on reasons of both academic and timely constraint. As this study is limited to and based on Norwegian samples this thesis will feature translations from the native language into English. The translations have been conducted in a manner that maintains their content and the intentions of the authors as best as possible.
1.2 Thesis structure
Lastly, the before moving forward into the next chapter of this thesis I wish to present a quick overview of the structure for this thesis. The introduction has reflected on academic and societal interest in the topic of this inquiry, presenting what I intend to research. In the following chapter 2, I will present the relevant scientific and theoretical framework for the thesis. Thereafter, chapter 3 will discuss the methodical approach and choices made for this assignment. Chapter 4 presents the findings and analysis from the framing analysis
conducted in this thesis. Building on this, chapter 5 conducts a discussion, discerning whether the research question and hypotheses were confirmed, also placing the findings in a larger theoretical context. Lastly, chapter 6 summarizes and concludes the thesis, presenting the main findings of this inquiry, their potential impact on the academic context and avenues for further research.
2.0 Theory
In this chapter I will present the theoretical framework for this thesis. These are the theories, concepts, and frameworks within the academic field relevant to this thesis. From these perspectives I have also devised four hypotheses which will be presented throughout this chapter with its relevant theoretical background. This chapter will first discuss theories related to the boundaries that define journalism, with a particular focus media deviance. Thereafter, I will present the concepts underlying mainstream and alternative media. Lastly, I will present the theoretical background for framing theory.
2.1 Journalism, Boundary work and Hallins spheres
In their introduction to the right-wing alternative media in Scandinavia Ihlebæk and Nygaard (2021) argued that these media are part in the increasingly diffuse borders between legitimate and deviant media actors (p.264). An integral part in assessing their statement is to understand how these boundaries between amateur and professional in news and media are shaped.
The news media has long held a privileged position in society. Former Washington Post publisher Phillip L. Graham famously called journalism a first rough draft of history (Shafer, 2010). Academic Gaye Tuchman described news making as a window to world (1987, p.1-2).
Both these perspectives hint at the important place the news media hold in disseminating information, crucial to the population of a society. Matt Carlson (2016) presents a more descriptive distillation of the news making process. The author details the process as “…the constructed accounts of events, shaped by and through a complex array of professional,
organizational, technological, political, economic, and cultural factors (Carlson, 2016, p.351).
Carlson’s definition hints at the broad array of processes journalists and news media rely on to legitimize their product, and their role as knowledge creators (2017, p.17-18). Unlike other professions, like doctors or lawyers, journalists lack what he describes as institutionalized authority (Carlson, 2017, p.18). Instead, a journalist is reliant upon certain routines and practices within the trade in order to gain legitimacy (Carlson, 2017, p.17). The news consumer has become accustomed to these routines, and practices as a representation of legitimacy in the content (Carlson, 2017, p.17).
These professional norms and practices can present themselves in several ways. One way is, through journalistic form, or what Carlson (2017) calls “…persisting visible and narrative structures of news” (p.53). These are the elements visible in news the consumer has come to expect, such as design, layout, typography, and visual pictures, extending to the tonality used in covering events (Carlson, 2017, p.53-54). An example is the normative expectation within the journalistic community that a journalist expresses the facts and information of a case, in a value neutral tone, so that the consumer is left to interpret these facts on their own (Carlson, 2017, p.54). As such practices and forms have been repeated over time, scholars argue, the news consumer have become accustomed to them, and this has in turn granted certain
legitimacy to the field of journalism (Carlson, 2017, p.55). The gradual development is a key element within this process, as traditional legitimization processes such as licensing and education requirements often found in other trades were unavailable to journalists (Carlson, 2017, p.31). The graduality of the process has also granted a certain mutability to these forms, patterns, and normative expectations in the journalistic profession meaning they change over time through internal discourse, a process often referred to as boundary work (Carlson, 2019, p.1).
2.1.1 Boundary Work
Boundary work may be defined as “…the process through which definitions of social phenomena come to be accepted or rejected” (Carlson, 2019, p.1). The central idea emerges through sustained effort to achieve solidity and define difference (Carlson, 2019, p.1). The concept was not initially born out of the academic field studying journalism, but was steadfastly adopted, due to its applicably within the field (Carlson, 2019, p.1). Originally, it has its roots from sociology; with links both to the Weberian study of professionalization, and the Foucauldian tradition of examining the power of definitional language (Lewis, 2012, p.839; Carlson & Lewis, 2020, p.124). Prominent academics within the field of journalism studies mostly point to the work of Thomas Gieryn as the originator for the current iteration of the framework (Lewis, 2012; Carlson, 2019; Carlson & Lewis, 2020). With his book Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (1999) Gieryn conceptualized boundary work as the control mechanism within scientific research for separating between faulty and proper science (1999). The basic framework for this mechanism was then adapted to journalism as a field.
When applied to journalism, the concept of boundary work posits that the journalistic forms and practices, are not immutable features of the trade, but rather products of definitional struggles over time within the journalistic community (Carlson & Lewis, 2020, p.125). This struggle so to say, is often conducted through ‘Metajournalistic discourse’ (Carlson, 2016).
This theory is closely related, and overlapping with boundary work as a framework, also positioning journalism non-stable entity, describing it as “a set of institutionalized practices embedded within a web of sometimes overlapping, sometimes conflicting discourses that generate social meanings” (Carlson, 2016, p.353). The theory proposes that through these discourses about what should be accepted form, practices, and stature within journalism, the journalist define the boundaries of their profession (Carlson, 2016, p.353). As explained by Matt Carlson (2016) who state that; “…social practices and norms are defined, boundaries are set for what is accepted over time and certain news actors legitimized” (p.359-360).
Although journalists themselves are clearly important actors in defining boundaries of the profession, it should also be noted that outside influences such as societal, ideological, and technological advances have a big influence on these boundaries (Carlson & Lewis, 2020, p.125). A material example of this is the boundary work within journalism and news media stemming from the technological advances of the internet. Matt Carlson’s (2007) paper on bloggings entrée into the political realm in 2004 US-presidential elections shows this
particularly well. In analyzing the discourse about these blogs, and their role in the coverage of the said election, Carlson shows a discourse full of competing narratives and interpretations around these new technological advancements place within the profession (2007, p.274).
Some journalists reacted with anxiety towards new phenomena, perceiving it as violating established norms of the profession (Carlson, 2007, p.274). Others saw it as a democratizing element within journalism, one which made the profession more transparent (Carlson, 2007, p.274). This dichotomy showcases the continuous struggle within the field of journalism, with some trying to demarcate the lines along previously held standards for form and process, whereas others are trying to expand what is accepted as journalism proper.
In general, some scholars argue that the advent of the world wide web, and innovations through what is often called web 2.0 has been a challenging aspect of established notions of journalism and serve as great examples of boundary struggles within the field (Lewis, 2012, p.846). Seth C. Lewis (2012) argues that modern iteration of the internet has a tendency towards participatory information creation; with for example user creation on social media,
through sharing, tagging and other such participatory information structures (p.846). This, he claims, challenges the normative structures of the news media as the technological advances created unlimited possibly for participation and dialogue between consumer and journalist (Lewis, 2012, p.849). Modern technology has blurred the lines between journalist, and non- journalist even more, with easier publishing technology empowering the citizen-journalist, with people formerly outside the profession taking advantage of the lack of formalized jurisdictional lines, and claiming the journalistic mantle (Lewis, 2012, p.850). The
technological advances within media Ihlebæk and Nygaard (2021) argue are one of the key factors as to how the right-wing alternative media have been able to excerpt more influence on the public agenda, as such underscoring the importance of examining how such advances effect media boundaries (p.264).
Boundary Work: Typology
In his initial conceptualization of Boundary Work the scholar Thomas Gieryn (1999) divided the concept into three distinct mechanisms: expansion, expulsion, and protection of autonomy (p.15-17). Academics Carlson and Lewis (2020) in their adaption of the framework to the journalism studies, borrow these three mechanisms, whilst adding three levels of examination, participants, practices, and propositions (p.126).
The expansion mechanism sees ideas and actors invited into the environment the boundaries attempt to protect (Carlson & Lewis, 2020, p.127). As such the profession may over time adapt and expand the norms and practices at its core, as exemplified with the entrée of blogs into the American news sphere (Carlson, 2007). Expulsion on the other hand seeks to cast out actors or ideas not accepted within the field, for breach of the norms and practices Carlson &
Lewis, 2020, p.127) . A pertinent example here, are journalists caught plagiarizing that are fired from their respective publication (Carlson & Lewis, 2020, p.125) Lastly, the protection of autonomy, where the standards of the profession are reiterated in an attempt to distinguish proper and un-proper actors (Carlson & Lewis, 2020, p.127).
These mechanisms detail how the profession of journalism and established media in general attempt to distinguish themselves from actors the view as unfit, or un-representative of the trade. When attempting to establish what is deviant in the modern media environment it will be useful to understand how the established medias norms, and boundaries effect this
distinction.
2.1.2 Hallins Spheres: Defining Deviance
Hallins Spheres is a theoretical framework introduced by media scholar Daniel C. Hallin in his 1986 book The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. In the book Hallin examined American journalism during the Vietnam War, with a particular focus on what he deemed a tendency among journalists to abandon preconceived notions of objectivity and become
“partisans” for the war effort (1986, p.116). His examination resulted in a framework where he distinguished between three regions of journalism: each one governed by a different journalistic standard (Hallin, 1986, p.116). The three regions are:
• The sphere of consensus
• The sphere of legitimate controversy
• The sphere of deviancy
(Hallin, 1986, p.117)
The sphere of consensus is the innermost sphere and constitutes what Hallin called the region of “motherhood and apple-pie”, i.e., a space dedicated to subjects and actors that neither journalists, nor society at-large find particularly controversial (1986, p.116). The next layer out holds the sphere of legitimate controversy. This is the “province of objectivity” where issues, and actors not necessarily agreed upon, but generally accepted as proper subjects, or participants for debate are located; matters of legislative debate are often found here (Hallin, 1986, p.116). Lastly, the uttermost region, i.e., the sphere of deviancy (Hallin, 1986, p.117).
This sphere holds those actors, ideas and perspectives journalists and the society view as so unacceptable, that they are denied having their voices heard (Hallin, 1986, p.117). Daniel C.
Hallin explains that what region, or sphere an actor, idea or subject wound up in the varies, and is contingent on the society, the cultural and historical context (1986, p.118.). He notes that these spheres have internal gradations, and that the boundaries between them are often
“fuzzy” rendering them susceptible to change over time (1986, p.117).
2.1.3 Deviance: Definitional Issues & Field Review
Hallins (1986) framework presents a nifty tool for categorization of certain actors within a media system, and it is the originator for the concept of deviance as it applies to this study.
There is however one theoretical issue that should be recognized with this framework. As noted by contemporary media scholar Ian Taylor (2014) in his paper analyzing the British anti-Iraq War movement, Hallin never presents any criteria for the features that place any given item, idea or induvial within these spheres. Taylor (2014) writes; “…the chief drawback with the model: it fails to outline the distinguishing features by which legitimacy or deviance are conferred upon the subject in the reporting” (2014, p.41). This definitional lack has
continued in subsequent academic work using the theory Taylor notes, and stresses that future research using the framework should include a clear demarcation of criteria for the research (2014, p.41).
Throughout the process of conducting the research for this thesis I have come to agree with Taylor (2014) and his assessment, as it led me to reassess how to best utilize the definition of deviance. I have concluded that the best approach combines two ideas. First, takes the original definitional work on the sphere of deviance from Hallin (1986) as a basis, he proclaims it as a
“…the realm of those political actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of the society reject as unworthy of being heard” (p.117). As such, I reason that since the deviant actors are those the journalistic and political mainstream view as unacceptable of being heard, the content of these actors can itself be used as a benchmark for legitimacy, or deviance. Put simply, I would analyze the content of the mainstream media and the deviant actors, to see how similar it is, as a way to determine deviance. This became the basis for the first of the four hypotheses I created for this assignment.
Hypothesis 1: The mainstream media will frame the murder of Samuel Paty substantially different than the right-wing alternative media
The second approach I chose was to conduct a limited review of the existing academic field utilizing the concept of deviance in the Norwegian and Nordic media environment. This allowed me to locate what media actors were considered deviant, and some of the attributions the mainstream media journalists used to designate their deviance. These examples, and the general review will now be presented.
In a qualitative study of the immigration’s news before and after the 22. July attack academics Figenschou & Beyer (2014) use the three sphered model Hallin (1986) developed to
conceptualize the positions within the Norwegian immigration debate (p.433). Through their
efforts, they located media actors that are deemed deviant within the Norwegian media system; the anti-immigration and anti-Islam media outlets (Figenschou & Beyer, 2014, p.434). These topics are important to note, as I generally, found immigration and Islamic criticism to be a consistent feature of the media actors being relegated to the sphere of deviance.
Academics Figenschou & Thorbjørnsrud (2017) interviewed Norwegian news editors in the aftermath of the 22. July terror, focusing particularly on the editorial strategy chosen
following the attack. In the paper some of the editors detailed some of the features they perceived as problematic with these media outlets, describing them as; “…xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia” (Figenschou & Thorbjørnsrud, 2017, p. 950). Throughout the study, it becomes apparent that certain editors were cautious about granting legitimacy to what they perceived as an “…expansion of radical-right critique, primarily the risk of normalizing deviant, extreme viewpoints” (Figenschou & Thorbjørnsrud, 2017, p. 951). The study did, however, find that at times certain elite members of what they describe as the “anti- Islamic, radical-right” environment was granted access to the debate, but under certain conditions and with a emphasis by the mainstream journalists on maintaining editorial norms (Figenschou & Thorbjørnsrud, 2017, p.945).
The partial inclusion of certain deviant actors in the immigration debate was also present in a study from Figenschou and Ihlebæk (2019), where the scholars examine media criticism within the far-right alternative media. In it the scholars did a qualitative analysis of over 600 news articles in these media, selected on the basis of being “…critical of immigration”
(Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019, p.1222). The paper proposes media criticism as a definitional aspect for media deviance, and the scholars present a really interesting overview of far-right alternative media sites, describing them by their level of deviance (Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019, p.1225). There, the sites Document and HRS are categorized as both bordering the sphere of legitimate controversy, and the sphere of deviance (Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019, p.1226). This is as the scholars note due to them at times being granted access to the sphere of legitimate controversy, but generally being viewed as to radical, thus showcasing the blurry lines between legitimate and deviant media actors (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.269).
Silje Nygaard (2019) conducted a study of how immigration critical alternative media reported the news. Herein she reiterated the point from Figenschou and Ihlebæk (2019) that Document sits between the border of deviance and legitimate controversy, and at times being allowed into the legitimate debate. Nygaard (2019) emphasized the focus on immigration and found that in particular when reporting on it predominantly gravitated towards crime as the major theme when covering immigration (p.1154). In a follow up study Nygaard (2020) found that there was little intermedia agenda-setting between the right-wing alternative media
outlets and the mainstream media in Norway, finding instead that the mainstream media would often portray them as “ideologically deviant” (p.779). The scholar expanded on this knowledge in a 2021 study examining the mainstream media reaction to right-wing alternative media (Nygaard, 2021). The study found that in Norway these media shifted between the sphere of “…legitimate controversy and the sphere implicit deviance” with them generally being understood as too radical for a permanent place as a legitimate actor (Nygaard, 2021, p.11). The study also found that established journalists would often use certain labels to denote deviance within these types of media. In the Norwegian media sphere, the most prevalent such was “immigration and Islam-critical” which featured in 36 of the total 101 articles surveyed (Nygaard, 2021, p.11).
Whilst going through this literature I found certain elements were reoccurring. Most prevalent were the topics of immigration and Islam criticism, as demarcations of deviance. Several scholars described them as either a feature of the content of media actors deemed deviant, or as labels to demarcate these actors as deviant (Figenschou & Thorbjørnsrud, 2017;
Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019; Nygaard, 2019; Nygaard, 2021). Based on the consensus around these topics I have devised the second and third hypotheses for this assignment, to assist in asserting the deviance of the right-wing alternative media coverage of Paty’s death.
Hypothesis 2: The right-wing alternative media will feature the topic of immigration to a greater extent than the mainstream coverage
Hypothesis 3: The right-wing alternative media will feature the topic of Islam to a greater extent than the mainstream media
The other feature I would note is some that these studies explicitly portray the right-wing alternative media as deviant, and in particular the outlets Document and HRS thus serving as
an empirical basis for why these two are chosen for this assignment (Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019, p.1226).
2.2 Mainstream media & Alternative Media
The first issue that should be addressed when describing the mainstream and alternative media is whether these terms are even appropriate in an academic thesis. As we have covered
throughout the initial part of this chapter, what constitutes media, journalism and news is a fluctuating concept. Advancements in technology continuously challenge preexisting notions and norms, for example within news journalism (Lewis, 2012). Attempting to situate such complex system, that are constantly in flux within a set of binary definitions might not be entirely productive. Academics like Linda Jean Kenix (2011) have raised a similar question.
In her book Alternative and Mainstream Media: The Converging Spectrum she argues for a modern conception of these two sets of media not as a mutually exclusive binary, but instead an evolving continuum (Kenix, 2011, p.3). In the book she details the traditional
understanding of the terms mainstream and alternative media.
…alternative media have historically been defined by their ideological difference from the mainstream, their relatively limited scale of influence in society, their reliance on citizen reporting and their connections with social movements. Mainstream media have been defined in contrasts to these points of demarcation: they are situated completely within (and concomitantly co-creating) the ideological norms of society, enjoy a widespread scale of influence, rely on professionalized reporters, and are heavily connected with other corporate and governmental entities. (Kenix, 2011, p.3)
Viewing alternative media as a binary opposite is is reductive, Kenix argues, as no media exists truly outside the ideological mainstream, instead these alternative media offer distinctive identities to the entrenched media elites (2011, p.3). Her work offers a useful historical conceptualization of these forms of media. It also introduces the continuum perspective of alternative media, which I believe will be of use as this thesis progresses.
2.2.1 Mainstream Media
A useful approach for understanding mainstream media and its conceptual relationship is to consider its etymological roots. Originally a disparaging term for media considered too close
to financial and political elites, the term was popularized through use by noted left-leaning academics, among them Noam Chomsky (Herman & Chomsky, 1988; Chomsky, 1997). The perception of the mainstream as a connected to power and societal elites has persisted into more modern definition. Kenix’s (2011) categorization details a common view of the mainstream media as favoring the ideological perspectives of the elites, and granting legitimacy to dominant forces within a society, through a constant exposure to the public (p.16). Other scholars such as Bailey et al., (2008) have noted that not all mainstream media are alike (p.34). Rather they are subject to societal the structure they exist within, viewed in tandem with the non-binary approach to media proposed by Kenix (2011) it is not beneficial to understand these mainstream media in similarly binary way, seeing how complex and area- specific they may be (p.3). A more contemporary perspective comes from Holt et al., (2019) who building on the insights from Steindl, Lauerer, and Hanitzsch define the mainstream media, and in particular its news variant as;
“… a societal system that is formed by specific legacy news media organizations which themselves are characterized by certain, often hierarchical, organizational structures and traditional publishing routines. They fulfill a societal function by enabling public discourse through the provision of topics of general interest that are oriented on facts, selected by professional actors, and published following” (p.861)
Holt et al., (2019) definition builds on some of the important notes seen with the other
scholarly insight, whilst shredding some of the ideological paint from the origin of the term. It also emphasis routines, professionalization and journalistic praxis, elements touched on in the previous sections (Holt et al., 2019, p.861). As such I find it particularly insightful and useful in relation to this thesis.
The Norwegian Context
Bailey et al., (2008) stated no mainstream media are entirely similar (p.34). Hence, it is integral to a nation specific study like this thesis is to understand some of peculiarities of the media system these mainstream media exist within. A regularly cited source for understanding the Norwegian media system is the model proposed by media scholars Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini (2004). Their book Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics divide media systems into three archetypes; the liberal model, polarized pluralistic model, and democratic corporatist model (Hallin & Mancini, 2004, p.11). The Norwegian
media system is placed within the latter, i.e., the democratic corporatist model (Hallin &
Mancini, 2004, p.143). Hallin and Mancini (2004) based these models on four distinct criteria:
(1) the development of media markets, (2) political parallelism, (3) journalistic
professionalism, and (4) the degree and nature of state intervention in the media system (p.21). Their model is widely cited and viewed as authoritative within the media studies field (Syvertsen et al., 2014, p.14). It does however have its detractors, as Syvertsen et al., (2014) points out, several scholars have noted a lack of regard for market size or strength of religious institutions within a given media market (p.14). With these possible oversights in mind, it still serves as an insightful model for describing certain nuances within the Norwegian media market, that effect the selection and understanding of the mainstream media in this assignment.
Bridging some of the criteria presented by Hallin and Mancini (2004) with the non-
ideological definition by Holt et al., (2019) particularly those focused on media legacy, and professional publishing routines, presents some noteworthy elements from the Norwegian media system. Generally, most Scandinavian countries, Norway included, have a history of a strong press system. In contemporary time, this is particularly evident when examining the readership of both physical and online news publication (Syvertsen et al., 2014, p.26, 33). The latest available data on readership, and circulation of physical newspapers show a combined total of 659.955 newspapers in circulation in Norway (Medienorge, 2021).
The most read papers are by circulation are VG (287.315), Aftenposten (257.316) and
Dagbladet (115.365) per number from 2020 (Medienorge, 2021). The online equivalent show comparatively larger numbers with VG (1.974.000), Dagbladet (1.166.000) and Aftenposten (816.000), with the latest available data from 2017 (Medienorge, 2021). In total this comes up to a collective online readership of 3.956.000 (Medienorge, 2021). For a nation of
approximately 5.367.580 inhabitants these numbers indicate a strong readership (Thorsnæs, 2021). Viewed in light of Holt and collogues (2019) definition, it indicates that there is still a strong legacy media within the country, with the ability to reach the population based on the strong readership (p.861).
Newspaper Physical Circulation Online Circulation
VG 287.315 1.974.000
Aftenposten 257.316 816.000
Dagbladet 115.365 1.166.000
(Table 1.1 The 3 most popular Norwegian newspapers by physical and online circulation)
A big definitional aspect in the model by Hallin and Mancini (2004) is the degree of
journalistic professionalism (p.21). Holt et al., (2019) focus on professionalism, and certain publishing routines an indicator for mainstream media (p.861). On a general note, the Norwegian media have a high standard for journalistic practice (Syvertsen et al., 2014).
Journalists adhere to strict standards for what and how to report, with these standards being regulated by the code of Ethics of The Norwegian Press (Norsk Presseforbund, 2021).
Breaches of the code of standards are subject to a complaint board controlled by the Norwegian Press Association that rule on cases and issue fines, making the Norwegian mainstream media highly professionalized and self-regulated (Syvertsen et al., 2014, p.52.).
Adherence to these ethical codes of standards, are arguably a constructive way to define the Norwegian mainstream media, as they are the gold standards for proper journalism within the country (Syvertsen et al, 2014, p.52). Contemporary data on media trust also indicate that adherence to these strict standards has led to a public perception in Norway of these outlets as relatively trustworthy. Polling numbers indicate 42% of the public trust VG, 60%
Aftenposten, and 83% trusting the public broadcaster NRK1 (Medietilsynet, 2020).
2.2.2 Alternative Media
There are a multitude of academic definitions of the term alternative media. Kenix (2011) writes as on the subject “…alternative media has historically been defined by their ideological differences from the mainstream, their relatively limited scale of influence in society, their reliance on citizen reporting and their connections with social movements” (p.3). Chris Atton (2004) describe it as “…a range of media projects, interventions and networks that work against, or seek to develop different forms of, the dominant expected (and broadly accepted) ways of doing media (p.xi). Coyer et al., (2007) define alternative media as …media produced by the socially, culturally and politically excluded: they are always independently run and often community-focused ranging from pirate radio to activist publications, from digital video
experiments to radical work on the web” (p.i). Although each of these definitions brings a certain nuance to the characteristics of alternative media, I find they all share a common perception of a set of media that differentiate itself to an extent from the mainstream.
What that exact difference is may vary, and not all scholars have agreed that the broad term of alternative is the most suitable description. Downing et al., (2001) argues that the term is reductive, stating “…everything is at some point alternative to something else” (2001,
p.preface). Atton (2002a) presents a few more specified alternatives to the term; underground, radical, oppositional, and even samizdat-media (p.2). Although, some of these terms specify characteristics of the media in question to a greater degree when attempting to understand these media as a collective phenomenon; that that challenge the dominant way of doing media (Atton, 2002a) the term alternative media is useful as it binds different iterations together (p.xi).
The academic interest in these alternative media has historically been centered on attempts by politically left-leaning groups and spheres at establishing alternatives to the entrenched media they perceived as being too capitalistic or elitist (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.265). In
particular there has been a historic interest by scholars in so called counter-hegemonic
structures within media systems (Downing et al., 2001, p.14). A concept originally devised by Italian Marxist think Antonio Gramsci, it details the process of using culture, and culture production as means of breaking bourgeoise dominance over society and beating the
“…strongest capitalistic economies” (Downing et al., 2001, p.15). Gramsci envisioned that over time alternative, or rather counter-hegemonic spaces would be established to counter bourgeoise influence on the culture-at-large (Downing et al., 2001, p.15).
Definitionally, Gramsci’s counter-hegemony concept functions well as a descriptor for the ways alternative media challenge existing ideals in the established media system (Downing et al., 2001, p.15). As alluded to earlier the mainstream media are often conceived of as
privileging certain elite voices in society (Kenix, 2011, p.16). As such, alternative media have historically had the function of challenging this “hierarchy of access” as Atton (2002a)
describes it, where these elite voices are privileged over less influential actors in society (p.11). Bailey et al., (2008) also stresses this representativeness as a core function of the historical definition of alternative media, with such medias challenging the language,
discourse and representation in the established media, all important morsels for constructing
reality within a society (p.17). An example of this is the alternative news media, who can challenge traditional norms of journalism through the use of citizen-journalists, breaking with the established ideals of professionalization seen in the mainstream media (Coyer et al., 2007, p.70). Although, it should be noted these alternative media have taken a variation of forms, ranging from pirate radio to film, television, and internet sites to mention a few (Coyer et al., 2007; Fountain, 2007).
Alternative Media: Towards a typology
With the understanding of the varied history of this piece of terminology scholar Chris Atton in his 2002 book Alternative Media attempted to conduct some organizational work on the many variants of the term, defining what he perceived as some key elements of the alternative media into a typology (p.27). He located six main features, of which he divided the first three into matters of product, and the rest matters of processes (Atton, 2002a, p.27). The feature are:
(1) Content (politically radical, socially/culturally radical); news values.
(2) Form – graphics, visual language; varieties of presentation and binding; aesthetics.
(3) Reprographic innovations/adaptations – use of mimeographs, IBM typesetting, offset litho, photocopiers.
(4) ‘Distribution use’ – alternative sites for distribution, clandestine/invisible distribution networks, anti-copyright.
(5) Transformed social relations, roles, and responsibilities – reader – writer, collective organization, de-professionalization of e.g., journalism, printing.
(6) Transformed commination processes – horizontal linkages, networks.
(Atton, 2002, p.27).
Although, certain of the elements listed by Atton (2002) date themselves compared to the communicative processes of the post millennial era they present a key insight. Alternative media may be categorized through examining certain facets ranging from the content they produce to the ways they distribute their media product (Atton, 2002, p.27). This insight would go to inspire a similarly structured contemporary approach to understanding the alternative by academics Holt et al., (2019).
Seen earlier in the theoretical chapter for their contribution to defining the mainstream media, these scholars proposed an updated analytical tool for understanding the alternative media (Holt et al., 2019). Their typology bases itself on a non-ideological and relational approach (Holt et al., 2019, p.862). As such they part with any ideological notions seen in earlier conceptions of the alternative media, viewing it primarily as a self-perceived correction to the mainstream (Holt et al., 2019, p.863). Borrowing from Attons (2002) insights, the authors propose four distinctive elements a researcher may evaluate the “alternativeness” of a given media (Holt et al., 2019, p.863). These elements are themselves divided by levels, i.e., a micro, meso and macro perspective, that grants a fuller insight into the whole process of a alternative media (Holt et al., 2019, p.863). The four elements are:
(1) Producer (2) Content
(3) Organizational (4) System
(Holt et al., 2019, p.863).
Alternative producers encompass citizen-journalists and other variations of non-
professionalized, or activistic news creation (Holt et al., 2019, p.863). Alternative content production relates to the formats we’ve come to expect from professional journalism, often favoring radical perspectives and stories often not found in the mainstream (Holt et al., 2019, p.863). Alternative media organizations, take a meso perspective, with these media often taking alternative approaches to structure, such as non-hierarchical organization (Holt et al., 2019, p.864). It may also relate to the skirting of traditional normative ideals, such as
objectivity, sourcing practices and adherence to news value (Holt et al., 2019, p.864) Lastly, Holt et al. (2019) take a macro approach, looking at the overall environment the media is situated within, and how these mediums distinguish themselves from the mainstream (p.864).
This framework created by Holt and his colleagues (2019) combine some of the historic foundations for understand these sets of media, updating it for a non-ideological approach void of the left-leaning focus from the origin of the term. Particularly, the focus on alternative content is interesting in relation to this thesis. As Nygaard and Ihlebæk (2021) state there is a need for a further understanding of the content in the right-wing alternative media, with a particular focus on frames, angels, and language (p.269). This bears through in the hypotheses
proposed so far with the focus on the inclusion of immigration and Islam as topics of interest to these media in their framing (Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019; Nygaard, 2021). As I move towards the specifics of the right-wing alternative media in this chapter, I will present a last hypothesis related to their content on a broader scale.
2.2.3 Right-wing alternative media
A reason Holt et al., (2019) chose a non-ideological approach in tackling the alternative media in a modern setting is connected to the growing number of politically right-leaning media outlets that have sprung up in recent years (p.862). These media often carry a distinct anti- immigration sentiment, coupled with a growing skepticism towards globalization and societal elites (Holt, 2020, p.5, 6). Another frequent characteristic with these media is a Islamophobic trait, often presenting Islam as a fundamental threat to the western civilization and democracy (Holt, 2020, p.14).
Right-leaning media is by no means a completely new phenomenon, and there are examples of these online media spheres prior to the last decade, as shown by Atton (2006) where the author examined the characteristics of these media. However, they have generally been held outside the conceptualization of the alternative media due to a perceived lack of connection to its democratization roots (Atton, 2006, p.574). Today however, these media are at the
forefront of academic interest, as contemporary social and political developments have sparked an interest in their potential influence and effect on the media environment (Holt, 2020, p.5).
The Norwegian Context
In a similar vein to the Bailey et al., (2008) stating that not all mainstream media are alike, it is important to note that right-wing alternative media are influenced and subject to the overall media system they exist within. As with the broader phenomenon, academics have
experienced a renewed interest in these media in the last decade (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.263). Particularly, following the 22. July terror attacks in Norway, these anti-Islamic online media spheres gained salience, with the public when it was discovered the perpetrator had been a frequent contributor and member of these sites (Moe, Thorbjørnsrud & Fladmoe, 2017, p.118-119). Originally, many of these outlets began as online blogs and forums, where
members were untied by a common immigration- and Islam critical perspective which they perceived as not being represented in the mainstream (Figenschou & Beyer, 2014, p.436).
Since their origin, many of these sites have morphed in style, and new ones have sprung up, but the inherent anti-immigrant sentiment has largely remained (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 20201, p.263). As covered in the section on the literary field review on deviance, these views have led them to be perceived and labeled as deviant by mainstream journalists in Norway (Nygaard, 2021, p.11). Although certain outlets such as Document and HRS, that fit this categorization have been described by academics as bordering the sphere of legitimacy, as they have at times been permitted into the public debate on topics such as immigration but are generally conceived as to radical (Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019, p.1225).
In their presentation of the Scandinavian right-wing alternative media Ihlebæk and Nygaard (2021) follow some of the levels presented by Holt et al., (2019) when they present integral features of these media in the Scandinavian context. In the Norwegian media environment, they highlight the three most read of these outlets Document, Resett and Human Rights Service (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.267). Based on the latest available readership data these outlets receive a a moderate amount of readership with Document and Resett receiving 5% of weekly readership online as of 2021 (Bjørgan & Moe, 2021, p.93). The latest available comparative data for Human Rights Service showed them receiving a 4% weekly readership (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.267).
As we have covered previously in this chapter, the content produced by these right-wing alternative media, and particular their Norwegian equivalent have often been centered on anti- Islam and immigration critical perspectives (Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019, p.1225). However, Ihlebæk and Nygaard (2021) highlight some interesting academic research on these media that highlight the content on a more general level. These media often are critical of the mainstream media, although they rely heavily on their content, which they “reframe and decontextualize” (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.271). This correlates the tendency seen in the research by Nygaard (2019) some of these tend to focus primary on negative implications, such as criminality when discussing immigration, this leaves an impression that these media might center a lot around a negative and polarizing presentation in their stories (p.1154). This impression in strengthened by the insight from Holt (2016) which found that the Swedish alternative media were characterized by a considerably more negative and critical perspective (p.169). This has led me to devise the last of the four hypotheses around the assumption that the framing of Samuel Paty’s murder in the Norwegian right-wing alternative media will feature a more negative and polarizing elements.
Hypothesis 4: The right-wing alternative media will feature more polarizing frame elements than the mainstream media.
This hypothesis incorporates the content perspective from the framework by Holt et al., (2019), as who state that alternative medias might include a more radical perspective, and it allows us to establish deviance, outside of the topic specific perspectives taken so far to the hypotheses (p.863).
Beyond content the authors also cover some of the more organizational features of these media. Whereas mainstream media within Norway often host an extensive number of
journalists, editors, and other actors important to their process, these media generally revolve around a smaller cast of characters ranging from between 2-10 people (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.274). Professionalization among these actors vary, with Norwegian outlets having some contributors with professional journalistic backgrounds from major mainstream news agencies (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.274). Financially, they rely often like their privately owned mainstream counterparts on advertisement revenue, or other consumer contributions (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.274). A notable exception within the Norwegian scene has been the outlet Human Rights Service, has received financial support from the conservative led government of around 1.8 million kroner annually (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p. 273-274).
Lastly, considering the relationship between these mainstream media and these right-wing alternative media it is important to remind ourselves of the media context. Norway has a peculiar media system, a highly professionalized set of journalists who are regulated through a series of self-regulatory agencies and mechanisms (Syvertsen et al., 2014,p. 26). Right-wing alternative media in Norway has a varying relationship with these agencies and mechanism (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.275). In later years the Norwegian Press Association changed their membership rules, only counting outlets contributing to the association as members, to strengthen boundaries between legitimate journalists and what they perceived as intrusions (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.276). The alternative outlet Document, have in later years been granted membership into the Association of Norwegian Editors (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021, p.277)
2.3 Framing Theory
Academic interest in frames has existed for a long time, and the root of this theoretical perspective is largely inter-disciplinary with ties to the fields of anthropology and social psychology (Van, 2007, p.60). The most notable example Ervin Goffman’s (1986) work within the field of sociology. The scholar first defined frames and framing as “…rendering what would otherwise be meaningless aspects of a scene into something that is meaningful”
(Goffman, 1986, p.21). Goffman took a social constructionist approach, meaning he saw these frames as integral to process in which we create meaning (Van Gorp, 2007, p.62). This constructionist approach, and the underlying interest in the creation and institutionalization of meaning has continued as the framework of framing has been used inter-disciplinary,
particularly within the field of communications study (Van Gorp, 2007, p.62).
Applied to the field of communications, framing has been applied, among other examples, to the creation of news, and how news media shape meaning (D’Angelo & Kuypers, 2010, p.1).
The application of framing, however, has not be uniform within the field (D’Angelo &
Kuypers, 2010, p.1). Media scholar Robert M. Entman voiced this reality when he decried lack of uniformity within the scholarly usage of framing, describing it as a “fractured paradigm” (1993, p.51). Entman’s description of framing as a paradigm, is itself not wholly un-controversial; scholars within the field have used a varied set of terms to describe it ranging from theory to analytical technique (D’Angelo & Kuypers, 2010, p.2).
As with the broader discussion of the concept itself, there exist multiple definitions of framing within the field. Shanto Iyengar (2017) constructs a broad definition of the concept,
describing it as; “To frame is to present information a particular manner” (p.5). Chong and Druckman (2007) view it as; “…the process by which people develop a particular
conceptualization of an issue or reorient their thinking about an issue” (p.104). Claes H. de Vreese sees framing as; “…an emphasis in salience of different aspects of a topic” (2005, p.53). Lastly, Robert M. Entman defined the concept as;
To select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Entman, 1993, p.52).
In this assignment I have chosen to rely on Entman’s (1993) conceptualization as it offers an in dept definition of the distinct elements that make up a frame, useful to the methodological approach. This will be expanded upon in the methods chapter.
3.0 Methods
This chapter will present and the discuss the methodological choices I made in this thesis.
I will present the research design, qualitative framing analysis as a method, case studies, and selection. This chapter will conclude with a discussion and evaluation of the choices made as well as the validity, reliability, and generalization of this thesis.
3.1 Research Design
A method is the approach chosen by a researcher when attempting to solve a particular question in a manner that best locates an answer, while retaining the quality of the research.
(Østbye et al., 2013, p.14). It was important that choices made in this thesis was based on what approach was most suitable for the particular research question I attempted to study.
To properly discern how deviant the framing of the Samuel Paty murder was in the right-wing alternative media I chose a qualitative framing analysis. I analyzed a total of 209 news and opinion articles from four media outlets, two from the mainstream media, and two from the right-wing alternative media. After completing the analysis, I compared the frames to find similarities and differences between these media. This comparison was rooted in four hypotheses devised based on previous empirical knowledge on the right-wing alternative media, 1 of these being related to the similarity between the types of media, and the three others related topics and element I expected to locate in the right-wing alternative media coverage. Stepwise my approach took the following design: (1) locate and gather the empirical material from the mainstream and right-wing alternative media, (2) conduct a qualitative framing analysis on the gathered source material, and (3) compare the frames, and frame elements with a focus on overall similarity in frames, and a focus on the topics of immigration, Islam, and the occurrence of polarizing elements in the frames.
3.1.1 Case study
The first methodological choice I would like to discuss is the use of a case study, and the Samuel Paty event in particular. A case study is a form of research that relies previously existing limits for what and who to include, or exclude within the research (Tjora, 2012, p.35). Robert K. Yin (2018) describes case studies as a particularly good choice when (1) a
research question revolves around a “how” or a “why”, (2) the researcher has little to no control over behavioral events and (3) the focus of the study is a contemporary event (p.32).
I found that Yin’s (2018) parameters correlate well with the reality of this thesis. Another reason I chose a case study goes to the very nature of this type of research. As framing theory revolves around the aspects of a story an outlet chose to emphasize over others, I found that limiting the actual story was a major benefactor when comparing the mainstream and the right-wing alternative media (Entman, 1993). As Aksel Tjora (2012) notes on case studies, they often involve gaining a broad knowledge of a case in its entirety (p.34). Hence on a comparative note, focusing solely on the Paty case was beneficial.
The perhaps most relevant reason I chose not only a case study, but also the Paty case in particular was topical relevance in relation to the right-wing alternative media. As I alluded to in the introduction, the case features topics related to immigration and Islam, all elements both central to the right-wing alternative media self-conception, as well as the mainstreams construction of them as deviant (Holt, 2020; Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019). This topical relevance is what Aksel Tjora (2012) notes as a case study’s ability to showcase the extremes of a phenomenon (p.35). In essence such a case study is more likely to feature some of the elements that are of interest to the study.
3.2 Framing Analysis: methodological approach
When conducting the framing analysis, I chose to rely on the definitions presented by Robert M. Entman (1993). In his 1993 paper Framing: Towards Clarification of a Fracture
Paradigm, he presents some core components of what constitutes a frame (Entman, 1993, p.52). In total he mentions four frame elements that make up a frame, these are (1) Define problem, (2) Diagnose cause, (3) Make moral judgement, and (4) Suggest remedies (Entman, 1993, p.52). Entman explains the four frame elements as such.
Frames then, define problems – determine what a causal agent is doing with what costs and benefits, usually measured in terms of common cultural values; diagnose causes – identify the forces creating the problem; make moral judgements – evaluate the causal agents and their effects; and suggest remedies – offer and justify treatments for the problems and predict their likely outcome. (Entman, 1993, p.52).
