The Frame Builders in Each Example and the Constructed Frame
The first frame builder was the news media. Notably, the media tried to frame the NUS demonstration event in many ways, which included the human interest frame, conflict frame, and attribution of responsibility (An & Gower 2009). First, the media portrayed the human interest frame by creating an emotional angle to the problem that the students were facing. Notably, the media echoed the impact of the government’s behavior on increasing students’ tuition fees, citing that it would limit the students’ ability to pay the debts amidst the prevailing economic problems. Airing the news created an emotional impact on the audience that would listen to the students’ plight, making the audience sympathize with the story. Thus, the audience would be inclined to think negatively about the government’s behavior on the same.
The second frame was the conflict frame. The media applied this framework to show that the government and students were not in agreement; the two parties conflicted. One way that the media did this was by stating that the government had increased student fees. In response, the student body had called for a demonstration.
The last frame that the media applied was the attribution frame. The framework was used to show that both the government and the student body were to blame for the situation that had ensued. First, the government was blamed for poor diligence in matters of apportioning students’ school fees, despite the hard economic times that caused an uproar. Secondly, the students were blamed for their misbehaving during the demonstrations, which were termed as chaotic and violent. Notably, both the pro and anti-NUS factions were not able to cooperate towards the cause, leading to an unsuccessful event.
The second frame builder is the NUS student body. The NUS student body applies the economic frame to gain emotional support for its cause. Notably, the students argue that an increase in tuition fees affects the less advantaged students (‘NUS survey reveals parents’ fears’ 2012). The student body further says that an increase in these costs means that the students will be plunged into more debts, with no possible payment alternative due to the current unemployment situation.
The Intention behind Each Constructed Frame
The three frames, as applied by the media, fulfilled different intentions. First, the human interest frame was meant to create a sense of responsibility in the government so that the government could take the blame for the crisis. Secondly, the conflict frame was applied to show disagreement between the two parties involved in the students’ fees issue, while the attribution framework was meant to distribute the responsibility of blame to the individuals involved in causing the situation.
The Frame Devices and Mechanisms Used to Build the Frame
Two key mechanisms that were applied in enforcing the actions of the demonstration were news sources and news values. Some news sources were used in explaining the build-up to the event. Extensive use of these news sources showed the degree of prominence that the media sources accorded to the demonstration to gain the desired attention of its audience. The media included YouTube videos, press releases, tweets, and news coverage. On the 27th of June, Liam Burns used YouTube to announce the potential date for the student demonstration following UK’s legislation to increase fees and reduce students’ grants. The NUS also gave a press release on the issue with the same agenda. Later, on the 16th of November, tweets started circulating concerning the dissatisfaction of the students with grants issues. This raised so much noise that the news was published by the Guardian and the Daily Mail on the 18th and 19th of November 2012.
The publicity that the demonstration had attained made it become a tweeter issue for the day. The Guardian continued to focus on this news even on Tuesday. On the same day, a blog post purporting that the NUS vice president was encouraging students to use certain chants during the demonstration was released. Several other blogs citing the negativity of the march started to come up. Meanwhile, the subject continued to trend on Twitter. On Wednesday 21st, which was also the same day scheduled for the demonstrations, the Guardian offered an analysis of the event; from when it began to when it was concluded. Also, one blog by Londonist.com took to explain the events of the day. Meanwhile, the subject was also on Twitter, with several people writing about the demonstration. On the next day, 22nd November, the Telegraph and the Guardian newspapers published the events of the protest, with both newspapers citing that the demonstrations ended with chaos. Overall, these news sources acted as platforms through which people would be informed about the event, create a build-up to the event, and analyze whether the event was successful.
An analysis of the above frames shows that they all had the intention of shaping their audiences’ inferences about the intended message. In effect, these frames were a reflection of the judgments created by frame builders (Chong & Druckman 2007). One essential mechanism that was applied in building these frames was balancing. Valence framing refers to the construction of information in either a positive or negative format to gain a particular solicited reaction from the audience (Chong & Druckman 2007). Notably, the human frame, conflict frame, attribution frame, and economic frame are all meant to reflect the negative aspect of the issue in context.
Agenda Setting
What agenda is being set? By whom? What are we being invited to understand is important? By whom?
Agenda setting is the process through which the media influences public opinion about an issue through repeated news coverage of the issue and creating awareness on the importance of the issue (Scheufele & Tewksbury 2007). The first agenda that the media set was that of high school fees, increasing debt, and prevalent employment among the youth. This was a core agenda of the NUS rally, as the media also highlighted. The media aimed to show that the high costs of living due to the prolonged effects of the 2008 crisis had negatively impacted the economic development of the youth (‘NUS survey reveals parents’ fears’ 2012). Thus, the youth were disgruntled with the government’s present idea to increase the school fees, despite the massive debts they were incurred to pay their tuition. Moreover, the students would still be unable to pay the debts after they cleared school for lack of jobs. In this case, the media was trying to make the audience understand the long-term effects of the 2008 economic crisis and the prevailing effects the crisis had on government legislation.
The other agenda that the media used was that of chaos and violence. One of the ways through which the media constructed the events of the NUS demonstration was that the protests that took place in the South of London were chaotic (‘Demo 2012: student rally disrupted’ 2012). Primarily, citing that the march was conducted amidst tensions between the pro and the anti-NUS groups meant that it was not going to be a peaceful event. Here, the media was trying to enforce the dangers of conflict and the need for parties to collaborate.
The Likely Consequences of Each Agenda for the Audiences and How the Audiences May Be Primed
The possible result of reporting that the event was chaotic and violent was to show that the demonstration was hardly a success. Citing that the event was marred by violence and the two different groups did not agree with each other implied that there was little cooperation and collaboration to foster success (‘Demo 2012: student rally disrupted’ 2012). In this case, the intended audience, who were the students facing the crisis and their well-wishers, were negatively influenced to lose their confidence in the NUS. Thus, the media was negatively affecting their perception of the NUS.
The second consequence, as a possible result of the first agenda, was that more students, even those oblivious of what was taking place, would be more informed of the present occurrence. It is possible that some students would not react to the government’s actions of increasing fees. However, through the news media airing this story, those who had not reacted to the news would possibly get agitated when they learned that the fee increase was an issue of concern for other students as well. The intended audience, in this case, was the student population and the general taxpayers (‘NUS survey reveals parents’ fears’ 2012). In effect, this agenda sought to inform the target audience of the current legislation and its possible effects on economic development. In return, the general students’ body would realize the need to come together to oppose the government’s action.
How Priming and Agenda setting is Done and Through Which Frames?
One of the ways through which priming was done is transmitting negative news about the demonstration. For instance, the news media continued to frame the rally using violent and chaotic themes. Thus, the media had an impact on the success of the demonstration by showing that the NUS had limited powers in putting forth its motive.
The second way that the media was setting its agenda was by using the injustice framework. The injustice frame targeted the government by stating that the government was acting unfairly by increasing students’ tuition fees, despite the prolonged effects of the economic crisis. For the students, this meant that they would be plunged into debt for the inability to pay their arrears due to unemployment after their graduation (‘Demo 2012: student rally disrupted’ 2012). The agenda was targeted at all taxpayers and citizens of the country. The kind of reaction that the media was soliciting, in this case, was the creation of a bias on government legislations, purporting to show that the policies are not beneficial to the ordinary and struggling citizens.
Organizations Involved in Framing the Story and In What Way?
The two organizations that were involved in framing the story were the media and the student bodies. The media played a critical role in relaying information to the audience. First, the media framed the government’s behavior as unjust. Secondly, the media framed the students’ actions to this behavior as violent and chaotic (‘Demo 2012: student rally disrupted’ 2012). This was evident through the media reports of the unjust need to raise fees, despite the hard-lining economic times. The media also reported how the event was unsuccessful as it was marred by violence and chaos due to the two conflicting factions.
The second organization was the NUS student body, which first applied the injustice framework to show that the government was not acting reasonably by passing legislation that was hitting hard on students. One way the student body tried to create this frame was through stating that it was imperative to put pressure against the government for removing funding for the disadvantaged students while increasing fees amidst high unemployment (‘Demo 2012: student rally disrupted’ 2012). Using the line of an extremely privileged government and an impoverished student body, the NUS implied that the government was treating the students unfairly.
Also, the NUS attempted to win the chaotic, violent construct by reframing its position. One of the ways that the NUS was able to win over the chaotic framework constructed against it by the media was by using an emotional response. The NUS student leader, Liam Burns, stated that people should start drumming up support for the NUS as a political organization that was out to defend, promote, and assert the rights of the students. He further stated that it would be the government’s pre-occupation to react to the plight of students in the new year.
Frame Devices and Mechanisms Identified and who is Behind These?
One frame mechanism identified was valence framing. This mechanism of framing involves the construction of information in either positive or negative contexts (Weaver 2007). Ideally, valence framing was applied by both the news media and the NUS student body responsible for the demonstration. Both parties negatively constructed a given context to suit their needs.
The second mechanism applied was priming. Priming is the process through which the use of the media affects the person’s interpretation and judgment of the content they get from the media (Weaver 2007). Both the student body and the news media applied the context of priming to elicit a reaction from their intended audiences.
Reference List
An, SK, & Gower, KK 2009, ‘How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage’, Public Relations Review, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 107-112.
Chong, D, & Druckman, JN 2007, ‘Framing theory’, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 10, pp. 103-126.
‘Demo 2012: student rally disrupted by hecklers’ 2012, The Guardian, Web.
‘NUS survey reveals parents’ fears for young people’ 2012, The Guardian, Web.
Scheufele, DA, & Tewksbury, D 2007, ‘Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models’, Journal of Communication, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 9-20.
Weaver, DH 2007, ‘Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming’, Journal of Communication, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 142-147.