Framing of marijuana legalization in American press after the legalization in the state of Colorado

Framing of marijuana legalization in American press after the

legalization in the state of Colorado.

Master Thesis

By:

Pedro Andrés Pérez

10915818

Graduate School of Communication – Track Political

Communication

Supervisor: Dr. Magdalena Wojcieszak

Abstract

This thesis conducted a quantitative content analysis in order to see how American newspapers framed marihuana legalization. The thesis used the passing of the Colorado amendment 64 in November 2012, which legalized the consume of recreational marihuana in the state of Colorado, as a point of reference to see how the portrayal of legalization changed after such an important reform took place. The study also examined how the political leaning of the newspaper influenced the portrayal of legalization. It studied the tone and prominence of several frames on two mayor American newspapers: the New York Times (liberal), and the New York Post (conservative). The frames studied by this research were: public health, public policy, crime, economy, and moral panic. Findings suggest that the crime and moral panic frames became less prominent across American media after the legalization took place. Moreover, the crime and economic frames were portrayed with a more positive tone after the event. It also suggests that the New York Times portrayed the frames of public health, crime, and economy with a much positive tone than its conservative counterpart, the New York Post.

1. Introduction.

In November 2012, the state of Colorado passed the Colorado Amendment 64, a popular initiative that intended to implement a State legislation of cannabis use; in other words, the state of Colorado legalized marihuana by a democratic way. The drug discourse, led by the United States during the XX century, has been of a changing nature (Del Olmo, 1992; Saín, 2009). It has been changing since the criminalization of drug use in the first half of the century, to the “war on drugs” during the Regan administration; the political agenda that deals with drugs has changed according to the political and cultural contexts (Saín, 2009; Jenner, 2011). Due to the ramifications and potential

impact on media coverage of this political shift, is important for researchers in the field of communications to pay attention to how media uses framing when such events occur.

So far, most research has focused on how non-democratic disruptive events have, over time, changed the framing of some issues i.e. how 9/11 has changed the framing of Muslim population in western media (Brinson & Stohl, 2010; Matthews, 2015). There exists some research that talks about how democratic events (reforms, laws etc.) regarding sensible issues are framed by media, i.e. how media frames reforms on abortion, or immigration (Chang, 2015; Dudová, 2010). There are also some research that studies how the framing of marijuana has changed over time, however, this research tends to be qualitative and most of it tends to focus only on the moral framing of drugs (Ferriaolo, 2014; Haines-Saah et al. 2014). Therefore, there exists a gap on quantitative research that addresses how changes in the political approach (e.g. reforms or new laws) to a controversial issue also changes the way media frames it over time.

Given this gap, this thesis wants to study how changes in the political sphere, can also lead to a change in the media approach to the issue over time. This research will focus on comparing the framing that legalization of marihuana received before and after it took place in Colorado. The second contribution of this study is attending to how different outlets from different ideological sides frame the drug legalization issue, and to see if this interacts with the event. This is important because the political leaning of the newspaper can also influence the frame that an issue receives (Pan, Meng, Zhou; 2010).

This paper will conduct a content analysis comparing liberal and conservative media outlets before and after the event in Colorado. With that been said, the main interest of this research is how the U.S media has changed the framing of marihuana legalization in the news they present

since the Colorado amendment passed in 2012. In other words, the research questions is:

Did the framing of marihuana legalization in the United States press changed since the Colorado amendment 64 passed in 2012, and to what extend does the ideological leaning of the newspaper influences this change?

Is important to see if the decisions taken in the political arena (e.g. such as the legalization of marihuana) have an impact on the way that media frames a particular issue, because of several different reasons. It is of theoretical importance because it adds a new perspective to framing literature that addresses how the democratic process, and the changing nature of society, can have a determinant impact on how mass media approach some controversial issues over time. It is also of societal importance because the way media frames an issue has effects, and it can change the perception of the public opinion on the matter in question (Eilder & Lüter, 2000; Entman, 2004; Gamson, 1992). Moreover, studying how partisan media frames a controversial issues after a democratic event takes place can be of societal importance because, as some research suggests, modern ways of media consumption lead to high levels of polarization (Levendusky, 2013; Prior 2012).

2. Theory

This paper will focus on how media changes the way it frames an issue after a democratic event takes place. Gamson & Modigliani (1987) state that a “frame is a central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events, weaving a connection among them. The frame suggests what the controversy is about, the essence of the issue” (p. 143). Thus, framing is the way in which media chooses to present an issue to the public. This involves perceived notions, moral judgments and pre conceived consequences of the issue or event in question. Is important to mention that framing research has been wildly done in the field of communications;

however, there are two main ways in which framing research have been conducted, one derives from psychology, and the other comes from a more sociological perspective (Scheufele & Iyengar 2012). The first, studies framing based on psychological research. This perspective assumes two things: that framing refers to how the exact piece of information can be presented on different ways (Scheufele & Iyengar, 2012), and that framing can lead to a suppression of ambiguity in the perception of what is being presented among those who receive the information (Kanheman, 2003).

The second approach to framing comes from a more sociological scope. It assumes that frames are developed in a sociological and political context; it also assumes that frames depend on journalistic values and routines (Gamson, 1992; Gamson & Modigliani, 1987). This approach suggests that frames in media coverage have to: identify a problem and its causes, give it a moral scope, and offer solutions (Entman, 2004). This research will use this framing approach. This approach was chosen because this paper intends to study if the frames of controversial issues can be influenced by larger sociological and political events. Is important to stress that due to the approach that we are taking to frame theory, we argue that sociological and political events (e.g. marihuana legalization) will influence the aspects that media prioritize when reporting on the issue.

Events can have an influence on how media decides to portray an issue, however, not all events have the same characteristics. Some studies try to look into how media frames some controversial and polarizing socio-political issues that are not product of a democratic process, terrorism being one of the most salient. There exist some literature that addresses how the framing of terrorism has changed since major events like 9/11 and the London attacks (Brinson & Stohl, 2010; Matthews, 2015). These studies show that there is indeed a change in how media portrays terrorism after major events, as one may expect. The coverage that media gave to the events helped

to build new frames and concepts like the framing of terrorism as an “internal threat” right after the London attacks (Brinson & Stohl, 2010). Moreover, there are research that addresses how, after major terrorists attacks, the framing of civil liberties of Muslim population were treated different by the media (Brinson & Stohl, 2012). Overall, this studies stress the importance of the changing nature of frames and how they change over time. Nevertheless terrorist’s attacks are not political events driven by democratic will; they are an aggression caused by an external/internal enemy that threatens the stability of a state. This unexpected events tend to trigger a negative and fear-based response from the media that might use negative frames to approach the issues related to the event; meanwhile, democratic and legislative events are product of a discursive nature that implies some kind of agreement, this thesis expects that the media approach would be more positive after democratic events take place. With that being said, it is important to build research that studies how frames evolve when events that take place within a democratic landscape, occur. Therefore, this thesis intends to study how the legalization of marihuana in the state of Colorado (a democratic event) influences the framing of the issue.

Is important to mention that to study how political events influence framing, controversial issues are good cases to take into account due to their highly polarizing potential and their tendency towards moralization (Ferriaolo, 2014). Some scholars have studied the framing of controversial issues that are related to a democratic process, i.e. abortion (Dudová, 2010), gay marriage (Pan, et al.; 2010) or immigration (Chang, 2015), and how media has portrayed them. However, these studies usually don’t study how the frames change over time. Chang (2015) makes an approach to how the frames regarding immigration changed right after the 2006 immigration reform in the U.S. This particular study relies on the existing frames of immigrants as “beneficial” and as “harmful” depending on the social context; it does not question which frames were prominent on the media

after the reform. Pan et al. (2010), approaches gay marriage from an over time perspective, but it only takes a look at the tone and use of sources of different media outlets. This thesis also intends to study which frames became more or less prominent after the legalization, and how the legalization influenced the tone when referring to each frame.

Is important to mention that there exist research that approaches how, over time, the framing and wording of laws concerning “drug consumption” and “gambling” have shifted from a moral perspective, to a more secular one (Euchner, Heichel, Nebel & Raschzok; 2013). This particular study makes an analysis over time of the framing of the legislation itself. However, they find that over time, the words used to write laws, are more secular and appeal less to morals. This goes along with the argument of this thesis that states that over time, the portrayal of such issues will be more positive. The frames studied by this research are presented further in the theory section.

Partisanship

The second contribution of this paper is to see if the ideological leaning of the media outlet can have a sort of impact on the way it frames drug legalization. Some scholars have found that partisanship also has an influence on the way that certain issues are covered. Pan (2010) argues that the political leaning of a newspaper will have an effect on the tone that it will use when reporting about gay marriage, conservative media outlets will tend to use more negative tone, and use morals and traditional values as an argument against same sex marriage, while liberal will be more open and positive towards it. Some other evidence has suggested that the political leaning of media also follows this logic in other issues like universal heath care in the United States (Kiernicki, Pollock, & Lavery, 2013), the 2006 immigration reform (Chang, 2015) or occupy Wall Street movement

(Pollock, 2013). Is important to look into this dynamic because, as some scholars have suggested, the ways in which people tend to select the media they consume leads to a polarized society (Levendusky, 2013; Prior, 2012). Moreover, controversial issues like drugs in the United States are polarizing by nature, and due to the recent political turn towards legalization in several states, it represents an opportunity to monitor the behavior of the press and the influence of their political leaning.

Framing of drugs.

The frames that the literature identifies in media are: public health, public policy, economy, crime, and moral panic. This thesis will focus on those frames.

First, a common frame used by media to portray drugs is from a public health perspective. This frame makes a reference to how the use of drugs can have an impact on the public health of the society in question. Noto et al. (2003), make an extensive study on Brazilian press and how they frame dugs and drug use, they find that the drugs as a public health issue is used by referencing to addiction, dependency, public health infrastructure and AIDS. Euchner et al. (2013), also compare how law framing tends to use health as a way of emphasizing the health and well being of the community. This thesis is interested in the prominence of this frame before and after the legalization and on partisan media. The tone will be also taken into account.

Another frame used by media to cover drugs, is the frame of public policy, this frame makes reference to drugs from a political perspective, it focuses on the legislative issues and legal processes that drugs can involve. Some scholars identify this frame when the news focus the drug issue from a public debate perspective; political procedures, debates in the senate or congress, and political leaders that take part on the issue are common examples of this type of frame (Hughes &

Spicer, 2011; Noto et al. 2003). It is important to take the prominence and tone of this frame into account because it can give nuance of the effects of the influence of the change of framing the laws (Euchner et al., 2013) on what the media portrays drugs.

Another frame that this thesis approaches is the economic frame. This frame has not been studied much by scholars in communication, but studies that make analysis of framing of laws make reference to this frame when references are made to damage in the economy, tax income or revenues (Euchner et al., 2013). Is important to study this approach, because after the legalization took place in Colorado, is probable that the debate regarding taxation and the opening for a new market (marihuana business) became more relevant in the media.

Another important frame that this research is going to take into account is the crime/security frame. This frame usually relates drugs to crime and security; it assumes that drugs go hand in hand with gang violence and insecurity because crimes are usually perpetrated by addicts/users/distributers/cartels (Euchner et al., 2013). Research has found that this is one of the most prominent frames to approach drug legalization, and of the most influential and strong when delivered to the public opinion. (Hughes & Spicer, 2011; Noto et al. 2003). Thus, is important to study this frame and its prominence and tone on media before and after the legalization; to see it its influence and dominant discourse increases or decreases after a democratic step like this takes place.

The last frame hat this study takes into account is the moral panic frame. Words like “moral crisis” or “epidemic” sometimes intend to trigger a “moral panic” (Becket, 1994; Denham, 2008; Blood et al., 2003). This frame also appeals to “core values” and morals as an argument against drugs use and its legalization (Euchner et al., 2013). It is noticed that this frame is commonly used after major events that relate to drugs take place, i.e. the dramatic death of punk rock artist Kurt

Cobain; this particular event made media frame the issue as a “moral panic”, the disastrous consequences of drug use and how it threatens young people (Denham, 2008). This research intends to see whether this frame became more or less prominent after the legalization of marihuana. The tone is not taken into account for this frame because it usually “identifies drugs and its use as an inherently bad behavior” (Euchner et al., 2013, p. 337)

This research will focus on how the legalization of marihuana in Colorado and ideological leaning of the newspaper influenced the prominence and tone of each frame. Regarding the frame prominence, this thesis expects that:

1. The use of the public health policy frame increased after the legalization in Colorado (H1a), especially among liberal outlets compared to conservative. (H1b)

2. The use of the public policy frame increased after Legalization in Colorado (H2a). Especially among liberal outlets (H2b)

3. The use of the economic frame increased after the event (H3a). Specially among liberal outlets (H3b)

4. The use of the crime frame decreased after the legalization in Colorado (H4a) Especially among liberal outlets (H4b)

5. The use of the moral panic frame decreased after the Legalization in Colorado (H5a) specially among liberal outlets (H5b)

Regarding the tone of each frame, this thesis wants to see if it became more positive/negative after the event. We also want to see if overall the tone of the frame differed among liberal and conservative media. Finally, we want to see if there was interplay between the event and the ideology of the frame. With that been said, this thesis expects that:

6. The tone of media regarding marihuana legalization is more positive after the event for the public heath frame (H6a). The tone of liberal media is more positive for the public health frame (H6b). There is no interaction between the ideology and the event for the pubic health frame (H6c). 7. The tone of media regarding marihuana legalization is higher after the event for the public policy frame (H7a). The tone of liberal media is in average more positive for the policy frame (H7b). There is no interaction between the ideology and the event for the pubic policy frame (H7c).

8. The tone of media regarding marihuana legalization is higher after the event for the economic frame (H8a). The tone of liberal media is in average more positive for the economic frame (H8b). There is no interaction between the ideology and the event for the economic frame (H8c).

9. The tone of media regarding marihuana legalization is higher after the event for the crime frame (H9a). The tone of liberal media is in average more positive for the crime frame (H9b). There is no interaction between the ideology and the event for the crime frame (H9c).

3. Method.

To test the proposed hypotheses on this paper, a content analysis was conducted. In order to look for changes in the way the media portrayed marihuana legalization, two periods of time were selected, before and after the passing of the Colorado Amendment 64. The time frames were: two year after the event; and, with a two-year gap, two years before the event. The reason not to take a time frame of two years just before the legalization was that the on-going discussion of the marihuana issue in Colorado in the media had a build-up since its proposal was made in November 2012. During those previous months, the media was covering the issue and this could somehow have an effect on the sample. This thesis wanted to look how the media portrayed the issue in a

“normal” period, and selecting a time frame that contained news where the legalization in Colorado was being discussed, could have interfered with this aim. With that being said, the time frames that this research took into account for media items that were published after the legalization spanned from the 1st of January 2013 to 31 of December 2015; and the time frame studied before the event went from the 1st of January 2009 to 31 of December 2011.

The news items that were taken into account were those that made somehow a reference to marihuana legalization. The search terms used in Lexis Nexis were: Legal!1

AND Marijuana OR marihuana OR cannabis OR weed OR pot. The term “drugs” was not included in the search because the results were usually mixed with pharmaceutical drug products, and this would affect the focus and coherence of the sample.

Sample.

The method of sampling that this research used was: Systematic Sampling method. The population from which the final sample of articles for content analysis extracted articles published within the two time frames (before and after the event), as explained above. In order to look also the differences between different media outlets, two different newspapers with two different political leanings were selected. The two newspapers selected for the construction of this sample were: The New York Times and The New York Post. The main reason these newspapers were selected was the fact that both outlets are in the 10 most read newspapers in the country (Russell, 1998; Alliance For Audited Media, 2012). The New York Times has an average daily circulation of 1,865,318; and The New York Post has one of 500,521 (Alliance For Audited Media, 2012). Each one of these

newspapers represents a particular political leaning. The New York Times is usually known for its liberal/progressive style (Ju, 2005), while the New York Post tends to have a more conservative tone regarding the way it portrays issues (Russell, 1998).

To avoid the over representation of liberal/conservative or before/after the event items, the sample collection was divided in four parts: 1) before the event for conservative media, 2) before the event for liberal media, 3) after the event for conservative media, and 4) after the event for liberal media.

The main aim of the sampling process was to get around 50 articles from each period/outlet in order to get a healthy sample of around 200 items in total. The population of articles published in the New York Times before the event, that made references to the legalization of marihuana, was: 475 items, with the systematic sampling method, selecting 1 item every 9th

; 51 items were selected. The population of articles published in the New York Post before the event, that made references to the legalization of marihuana, was: 123 items, with the systematic sampling method, selecting 1 item every 3rd

; 49 items were selected. The population of articles published in the New York Times after the event, that made references to the legalization of marihuana, was: 659 items, with the systematic sampling method, selecting 1 item every 13th

; 51 items were selected. The population of articles published in the New York Post before the event, that made references to the legalization of marihuana, was: 475 items, with the systematic sampling method, selecting 1 item every 4th

; 51 items were selected. This gave as a result, a sample of 202 news items that addressed the issue. The systematic sampling was done by organizing the population of each period/outlet by date of publication (oldest to newest). Then, 50 divided the total number of articles of the population. This way, the number of articles that had to be systematically skipped from the sample, was known.

Inter-coder reliability.

In order to test and ensure the quality of the codebook, two coders were required. The second coder coded an extract of 5 articles for each time frame and newspaper of the sample. This means, that of the full sample (N = 202), a 10% (N=20) of the articles were extracted to confirm if the two coders gave the same values to the data that they coded and confirm the inter coder reliability. The variables that were taken into account for this procedure were the ones that respond to the presence of each frame on the article (Binary variables), and those who respond to the tone that the article uses on the frame in question (ordinal variables). To test the reliability, we compared both coders with Kirppendorff’s Alpha (Kalpha) across 20 different articles from the sample. The results are showed on the next section, were the coding of each frame and are explained in detail. Overall, all the Kirppendorff’s Alpha scored above α= .75, this means that the codebook and coding process can be considered reliable.

Frames.

Tone: In almost all the frames exposed, except the moral panic frame, the tone was taken into account when gathering the information for the research; the tone was coded for all the other frames when present in a news item. The coding categories for each one of the frames were: positive (1), negative (-1) and neutral (0).

Public health: This frame approaches drug legalization from a public health scope. Articles that use this frame make the use of terms like: addiction, public health infrastructure, overdose and painkiller. It can also make references to medical marihuana, and to how drug legalization can bring new horizons on medical research and the pharmaceutical industry. An example of an item that fit this frame would be an article that addresses the possible risks of legalizing marihuana on current

addiction levels among the population. Kirppendorff’s Alpha for the prominence of this frame scored α= .77. For the tone of this frame it scored α= .75.

Public policy: This frame portrays the drug issue mainly from a political scope. It is usually concerned with how the political scenario is behaving around marihuana legalization. It usually makes reference to terms like: parliament, senate, Supreme Court, bill, law and/or constitution. Its important to stress that this frame is usually concerned with the legal procedures so it would be mostly descriptive; however, sometimes this frame could include (in the Unites State case) how federal and state laws have a disagreement. An example of an item that fit this frame would be an article that addresses how federal law enforcers have concerns about tourists going in and out of Colorado State after the legalization took place. . Kirppendorff’s Alpha for the prominence of this frame scored α= .90. For the tone α= .76.

Crime: This frame relates drugs and its legalization with crime and security issues. This particular frame tends to make references to gangs, iligal drug traffic, crime violence, and security. However, it also tends to portray how the legalization would have (positive and/or Negative) an impact on those activities. In order to give a broader scope to this frame, tone was also taken into account. An example of an item that fit this frame would be an article that addresses the possibility of crime rates going down after the legalization in Colorado and other states. . Kirppendorff’s Alpha for the prominence of this frame scored α= .79. For the tone α= .88.

Economy: This frame makes explicit reference to the economic and financial matters that surround drug legalization. This is a relative new frame in media; it tends to evaluate the economic consequences for society when considering the legalization of drugs. It can make reference to terms

and taxation. It’s important to clarify that this frame does not overlap with the crime frame, sometimes news make references on how legalization would damage the drug cartels economy. Nevertheless, this frame only makes reference to drugs from a legal and/or bureaucratic perspective; it does not involve the illegal activities and its economy. An example of an item that fit this frame would be an article that addresses how the taxation of new marihuana selling points in Colorado has being invested on pre-scholar education. . Kirppendorff’s Alpha for the prominnce of this frame scored α= .78. For the tone it scored α= .77.

Moral panic: This frame makes reference to drug legalization as a moral issue. It usually appeals to morals and traditional values to argue against drugs, this frame tends to perceive drugs as a threat to society. It also sees drugs consumption as an inherently negative behavior and portrays it as something that needs to be avoided. An example of an item that fit this frame would be an article that addresses how legalization would “glamourize” drug consumption among young people. Another common example of this frame use in media involves celebrities, an article using an artist/athlete involved in some scandal that involves drugs, using his/her case against the legalization of marihuana. . Kirppendorff’s Alpha for the prominence of this frame scored α= .79.

4. Results.

Overall the results show that the most prominent frames before the legalization were the public policy frame (44%) and the moral panic frame (38%). The public policy frame was the most prominent after the legalization as well (58%), along with the economy frame (27,5%). The most prominent frames on the New York Times were the policy frame (59,5%) and the economy frame (34%). The New York post tended to portray more the policy frame (43,6%) and the moral panic frame (38,6%).

The first 5 hypotheses of this research were designed to see if the legalization of marihuana in the state of Colorado was somehow related with the prominence of each frame after it took place. They also aimed to see if the ideological leaning of the media outlet had an influence on whether the frame was present or not. In order to test these hypotheses, a series of crosstab tests with each frame, event was conducted. A series of crosstab test taking partisanship as a constant were also conducted in order to see if the political leaning of the newspaper interacted with the legalization and the prominence of each frame.

The crosstab results showed that the legalization of marihuana is not significantly related to the prominence of the public health (λ= .02, p= .60), public policy (λ= .13, p= .14.), and the economy

(λ= .05, p= .52) frames. This means that H1 (a), H2 (a), and H3 (a) are rejected. The crosstab tests

that took ideology as a constant also showed that there is not significant relationship between these variables. Findings suggest that, for the public health frame, the New York Times (λ= .02, p= .69),

and for the New York post (λ= .03, p= .29); the public policy frame, the NYT (λ= .02, p= .79), and

the NYP (λ= .18, p= .17); and the economy frame, the NYT (λ= .08, p= .23) and the NYP (λ= .01,

p= .90); there was not a significant relation between the legalization, the political leaning of the

outlet, and the use of those frames. This means that H1 (b), H2 (b) and H2 (b) are rejected as well. In order to see the percentages and frequencies, see tables 1, 2 and 3.

Table 1. Prominence of public health frame before and after the legalization of marihuana in Colorado.

Health frame

Presence Before Legalization After legalization

Present 31 31.0 27 26.5 Not present 69 69.0 75 73.5 Total 100 100 102 100

Table 2. Prominence of public policy frame before and after the legalization of marihuana in Colorado.

Public Policy frame

Presence Before Legalization After legalization

Freq % Freq %

Present 44 44.0 60 58,8 Not present 56 56.0 42 42,2 Total 100 100 102 100

Table 3. Prominence of economy frame before and after the legalization of marihuana in Colorado.

Economy frame

Presence Before Legalization After legalization

Freq % Freq %

Present 18 18.0 28 27,5 Not present 82 82.0 74 72.5

Total 100 100 102 100

However, the tests also showed that for the crime (λ= .09, p= .06), and the moral panic (λ= .13, p < .05) frames, there is a significant relationship between the legalization of marihuana, and

the prominence of those frames. H4 (a) and H5 (a) are accepted. Tables 4 and 5 show that the legalization has a significant but weak effect on lowering the prominence of both, the crime and the moral panic frames. Nevertheless, when ideology was taken as a constant, the results showed no

significant relation for none of the frames. For the crime frame, the NYT (λ= .06, p= .66) and The

NYP (λ= .09, p= .16); and for the moral frame, the NYT (λ= .11, p= .45) and NYP (λ= .20, p=

.13); there is no significant relation between the legalization, the political leaning of the outlet, and

the use of those frames. H4 (b) and H5 (b) were rejected.

Table 4. Prominence of crime frame before and after the legalization of marihuana in Colorado.

Crime frame

Presence Before Legalization After legalization Freq % Freq % Present 31 31.0 18 17,6 Not present 69 69.0 84 82.4 Total 100 100 102 100  

Table 5. Prominence of moral panic frame before and after the legalization of marihuana in Colorado.

Moral panic frame

Presence Before Legalization After legalization Freq % Freq % Present 38 38.0 14 13.7 Not present 62 62.0 88 86.3 Total 100 100 102 100   The last 5 hypotheses were designed to see if the legalization of marihuana in Colorado, and the ideological leaning of the outlet had an influence on the tone that these newspapers used when each one of the frames were preset. In order to test these hypotheses, a series of Two-way ANOVA test were conducted.

A two-way ANOVA test was conducted in order to see if the legalization of marihuana (H6a), and the ideology of the outlet (H6b) had an effect on the tone that was used when the public health frame was present, the test was also conducted in order to see if there was an interaction effect between the event and partisanship on the tone of this frame (H6c). The test found no significant effect of the event on the tone used when the public health frame was present F (1, 54)= .65, p= .80, η2 = .001. However, there was a significant but very weak effect of the political leaning of the newspaper on the tone of this particular frame F (1, 54)= 5.509, p= .02, η2 = .093; the New York Times (M= .23, SD= .76) portrayed drug legalization more positively than the New York Post (M= –.25, SD= .80) when the health frame was present. There was also no significant interaction between the legalization and the political leaning of the outlet F (1, 54)= 2.05, p= .15, η2 = .010.

The assumption of equal variances was significant F (3,198)= 3.390, p= .01. This suggests that the partisanship of the newspaper has an influence on the tone that it uses when the public health frame is used; therefore H6b is accepted. However, there is no evidence to say that the event itself has an influence on the tone (H6a), neither to say that there is an interaction effect (H6c). H6a is rejected, and due to the lack of interaction, H6(c) is accepted.

Table 6. Tone of public health frame

n M SD Legalization in Colorado Before 31 –.03 .79 After 27 –.04 .85 Ideological leaning Liberal (NYT)* 26 .23 .76 Conservative (NYP)* 32 –.25 .80 * p< .05

Another two-way ANOVA test was conducted in order to see if the legalization of marihuana (H7a), and the ideology of the outlet (H7b) had an effect on the tone that was used when the public policy frame was present, the test was also conducted in order to see if there was an interaction effect between the event and partisanship on the tone of this frame (H7c). The test found no significant effect of the event on the tone used when the public policy frame was present F (1, 103)= .401, p= .53, η2 = .004. Also, no significant effect of the political leaning of the newspaper on the tone of this particular frame was found F (1, 103)= 2.818, p= .10, η2 = .027. There was also no significant interaction between the legalization and the political leaning of the outlet F (1, 103)= .048, p= .83, η2 = .000. It should be noted that the assumption of equal variances was violated,

(H7b) had an effect on the tone of the public policy frame. It also suggests that there is not an interaction effect for this frame (H7c). H7 (a), H7(b) are rejected, and because there is no intecaction, H7(c) is accepted.

A third two-way ANOVA test was conducted in order to see if the legalization of marihuana (H8a), and the ideology of the outlet (H8b) had an effect on the tone that was used when the economy frame was present, the test was also conducted in order to see if there was an interaction effect between the event and partisanship on the tone of this frame (H8c). The test found a significant but weak effect of the legalization on the tone used when the economy frame was present F (1, 44)= 7.00, p= .46, η2 = .137; before the legalization in Colorado (M= .10, SD= .94) newspapers portrayed in a more negative tone the economy frame than after it (M= .69, SD= .60). A significant but very weak effect of the political leaning of the newspaper on the tone of this particular frame was also found F (1, 44)= 4.29, p= .53, η2 = .089; the New York Times (M= .58, SD= .73) portrayed drug legalization more positively than the New York Post (M= .08, SD= .90) when the economy frame was present. There was no significant interaction between the legalization and the political leaning of the outlet F (1, 44)= .254, p= .15, η2 = .011. The assumption of equal variances was significant F (3,44)= 4.824, p= .005. These findings suggest that there is indeed a positive effect of the event (H8a), and the political leaning of the newspaper (H8b) on the tone that legalization received when the economy frame was used. However, an interaction effect (H9c) was not found. Thus, (H8a) and (H8b) are accepted, (H8c) is accepted as well.

Table 7. Tone of economy frame

n M SD

Colorado Before* 19 .10 .94 After* 29 .60 .60 Ideological leaning Liberal (NYT)* 36 .58 .73 Conservative (NYP)* 12 .08 .90 * p< .05

A final two way ANOVA test was conducted in order to see if the legalization of marihuana (H9a), and the ideology of the outlet (H9b) had an effect on the tone that was used when the economy frame was present, the test was also conducted in order to see if there was an interaction effect between the event and partisanship on the tone of this frame (H9c). The test found a significant but weak effect of the legalization on the tone used when the crime frame was present F (1, 48)= 3.998, p= .05, η2 = .077; before the legalization in Colorado (M= –.68, SD= .70) newspapers portrayed in a more negative tone the crime frame than after it (M= –.05, SD= .20). A significant but very weak effect of the political leaning of the newspaper on the tone of this particular frame was also found F (1, 48)= 8.253, p= .005, η2 = .147; the New York Times (M= .20, SD= .23) portrayed drug legalization more positively than the New York Post (M= .81, SD= .53) when the crime frame was present. There was no significant interaction between the legalization and the political leaning of the outlet F (1, 48)= 3.309, p= .08, η2 = .064. The assumption of equal variances was significant F (3,48)= 5.503, p= .002. These findings suggest that there is indeed a positive effect of the event (H9a), and the political leaning of the newspaper (H9b) on the tone that legalization received when the crime frame was used. However, an interaction effect (H9c) between those two variables was not found. Given these results, H9a and H9b are accepted, H9c is also accepted.

Table 4. Crime frame tone n M SD Legalization in Colorado Before* 31 –.68 .70 After* 21 –.05 .20 Ideological leaning Liberal (NYT)* 20 .20 .23 Conservative (NYP)* 32 .81 .53 *p< .05 5. Discussion

This research aimed to see if there was a difference on the portray of marihuana legalization on the American printed media after the legalization on Colorado state took place; it also aimed to see if the ideological leaning of the newspaper influenced how printed media portrayed this particular issue. Regarding the prominence of all the different frames that this research studied, only the crime (H4a) and moral panic (H5a) frames were affected somehow by the legalization of marihuana in the state of Colorado, none of the other frames prominence–public policy, public health, and economy– were affected by this event. Is crucial that the frames that were significantly less prominent after the legalization of marijuana in Colorado–crime and moral panic– are frames that have a tendency towards more negative connotations because of what they usually involve, violence on the case of the crime frame, and ethical distress on the case of the moral panic frame. These findings suggest, that a democratic event such as the legalization of marihuana can have an impact on diminishing the use of frames that involve negative notions of marihuana legalization

rather than favoring frames that give chances to more positive interpretations. Is also important to point out that the political leaning of the newspaper did not have a significant effect on the prominence of any of the frames that this research studied. This contradicts some previous findings that suggest that, on this kind of polemic issues like gay marriage (Pan et al., 2010), or the Wall Street occupy movement (Pollock, 2013); the political ideology of the outlet influences the prominence and portrayal of the issue. This discrepancy can be due to the fact that drug legalization has many scopes, and different newspapers from different ideologies will pick the scopes that better serves their political leaning. Even though, in the New York Times and in the New York Post, the most prominent frame was the public policy one; the fact that the moral panic was the second most prominent in the NYP and the economic frame the second most prominent in the NYT, gives an idea of how newspaper tend to choose frames. Conservative media will tend to pick frames that can be easily lead to a negative focus (moral distress that legalization can imply); and Liberal media will have the tendency make more prominent frames that can be easily portrayed as positive (potential economic benefits of legalizing marijuana).

However, regarding the tone of each frame, this research found that there were several significant relations between the legalization of marihuana, the political leaning of the outlet, and the tone that media used on some of the frames studied. There was sufficient evidence to say that the New York Times had a more positive tone when referencing to public health matters of drug legalization than its conservative counterpart, the New York Post. This finding suggest that even if the prominence of the public health frame was not affected by the ideological leaning of the newspaper, the tone that each newspaper used when referring to the impact of drug legalization differed significantly. This supports previous findings that suggest the important role of the ideology behind the newspaper (Pan et al., 2010; Pollock, 2013). However, it is also worth

mention, that the event did not have a significant relationship with the tone on this particular frame.

Moreover, the tone of the crime and economic frame did have a significant relation with both, the event, and the partisanship of the media. It was found that both frames were positively affected by the legalization of marihuana, this means that; in one hand, good aspects of legalization on reducing drug and gang violence were been highlighted by the media, and on the other, that the emergence of a new marihuana business and its profitable outcome was also having a spot on American media. However, it was also found that the New York Times had a more positive tone on those two frames than the New York Post. That adds up to what Pan et al. (2010) suggest, that conservative media will tend to be less receptive to portray positive outcomes of issues that disrupt traditional values, and that liberal media, will have a more positive outlook on the same matters. Is important to stress, that there were not significant evidence to say that the event and partisanship had an interaction effect on any of the frames studied by this research.

Nevertheless, even though this study demonstrated that disruptive democratic events and the political leaning of a media outlet have an impact on how media portrays a particularly controversial issue, several limitations were found. First, It is known that, due to many reasons, television has a more interesting, appealing and direct approach to controversial issues like gay marriage, immigration, or legalization of marijuana. This research focused on the tone and prominence of frames, but only on printed media, it would be relevant to carry future research that takes these variables into account extrapolated to TV; television has to deal with airtime as a constraint to present issues, it would be relevant see which frames become more relevant with this factor. Second, even though the legalization of marihuana in Colorado is an unprecedented and very interesting event to study how media approaches controversial issues when a democratic event takes

place; it was evident that there was still a development in the media discourse regarding the frames and lenses that are used to refer to this particular issue. Perhaps in the future, new frames and approaches will surge, e.g. marijuana tourism inside the United States. It would be interesting to carry more studies after this one to see how the framing keeps evolving. Third, due to the fact that this is such an event without precedents, there was not much research on how an event would affect the portray of this particular issue, this research may also serve as an input to this body of academic literature. Finally, the United States is a big country with a wide variety of perspectives and media influences, It would be interesting to see future research that compares more than two newspapers from New York City. Perhaps, a comparison between local and national outlets would give a wider perspective on how American media present this issue.

Even though the event studied in this thesis had an impact on the prominence and tone on some of the frames portrayed by American newspapers, it was not as radical as the change of issues that were affected by non-democratic events like terrorism. Is important for researches in the field of communication to study how democratic events affect the way media portrays issues. These changes occur in a process of discussion and debate that is vital for any democracy; researches have to study how democratic events and media interact. Moreover, is important to carry this kind of research on sensible and controversial topics due to the polarizing effect that they can have among the audience, taking into account political leaning of the outlets is of vital importance to understand how media behaves when this type of events occur. This thesis helped to build framing literature regarding polarizing issues and how they get portrayed in media after major democratic events take place. Finally, the Colorado Amendment 64 is an event without precedents in the United States, and with more states (Washington and Alaska) and countries (Uruguay) taking the path of legalization; studying how this events interact with media can give politicians, researchers, activists and

journalist vital tools and concepts to handle the shifts that are to come regarding drug policy around the world.

References

Alliance for Audited Media. (2012). Top 25 U.S. newspapers for September 2012. Retrieved December 14, 2012, from http://www.auditedmedia.com/news/researchand-data/top-25-us-newspapers-for-september-2012.aspx

Beckett,K.(1994).Setting the public agenda:‘street crime’and drug use in American politics. Social Problems, 41(3), 425–447.

Blood,R.W.,Williams,J.,& Mc Callum,K.(2003).Representations of public risk: Illegal drugs in the Australian Press. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture & Policy, 108, 82–100

Brinson, M., & Stohl, M. (2012). Media Framing of Terrorism: Implications for Public Opinion, Civil Liberties, and Counterterrorism Policies. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5(4), 270-290.

Brinson, M., & Stohl, M. (2010). From 7/7 to 8/10: Media framing of terrorist incidents in the United States and United Kingdom. In D. Canter (Ed.), The faces of terrorism: Cross

disciplinary explorations (pp. 227-245). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Chang, Y. (2015). Framing of the Immigration Reform in 2006. 92(4), 839-856.

Del Olmo, R (1992) ¿Prohibir o domesticar? Políticas de drogas en América Latina. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad

Denham,B.E. (2008). Folk devils, news i consand the construction of moral panics. Journalism Studies, 9(6), 945–96

Dudová. (2010). The Framing of Abortion in the Czech Republic: How the Continuity of Discourse Prevents Institutional Change. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, (06), 945-975.

Eilder, C., & Lüter, A. (2000). Germany at war: Competing framing strategies in German publicdiscourse. European Journal of Communication, 15, 415-428.

Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Euchner, E., Heichel, S., Nebel, K., & Raschzok, A. (2013). From ‘morality’ policy to ‘normal’ policy: Framing of drug consumption and gambling in Germany and the

Netherlands and their regulatory consequences. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 372-389.

Fan,D.(1996).News media framing sets public opinión that drugs is the country’s most important problem. Substance Use & Misuse, 31(10), 1413– 1421.

Ferraiolo, K. (2014). Morality Framing in U.S. Drug Control Policy: An Example From Marijuana Decriminalization. World Medical & Health Policy, 6(4), 347-374.

Gamson, W. A. 1992. Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gamson, W. A., and A. Modigliani. 1987. The changing culture of affirmative action. In Research in political sociology, edited by R. G. Braungart and M. M. Braungart.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Haines-Saah, R., Johnson, J., Repta, R., Ostry, A., Young, M., Shoveller, J., . . . Ratner, P. (2014). The privileged normalization of marijuana use – an analysis of Canadian newspaper reporting, 1997–2007. Critical Public Health, 24(1), 47-61.

Hughes, Lancaster, & Spicer. (2011). How do Australian news media depict illicit drug issues? An analysis of print media reporting across and between illicit drugs, 2003– 2008. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(4), 285-291.

Jenner, M (2011) International Drug Trafficking: A Global Problem with a Domestic Solution. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 901-927

Ju, Y. (2005). The bipolar liberalism reflected in the New York Times coverage of gay marriage. Paper presented at annual meeting of international communication association.

Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics †. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449-1475.

Kiernicki, K., Pollock, J. C., & Lavery, P. (2013). Nationwide newspaper coverage of universal healthcare: A community structure approach. In J. C. Pollock (Ed.), Media and social inequality: Innovations in community structure research (pp. 117-135). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers?. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611-623

Matthews, J. (2015). Framing alleged Islamist plots: A case study of British press coverage since 9/11. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 8(2), 266-283.

Noto, A., Baptista, M., Faria, S., Nappo, S., Galduróz, J., & Carlini, E. (2003). Drugs and health in the Brazilian press: An analysis of articles published in newspapers and magazines. Cadernos De Saúde Pública, 19(1), 69-79.

Pan, Meng, & Zhou. (2010). Morality or equality? Ideological framing in news coverage of gay marriage legitimization. The Social Science Journal, 47(3), 630-645.

Pollock, J. C. (2013). Introduction: Social inequality and media. In J. C. Pollock (Ed.), Media and social inequality: Innovations in community structure research (pp. 1-33). New York, NY: Routledge.

Prior, M. (2012). Media and Political Polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16.

Russell, Keith. (1998). Rating the top 10, left and right.(conservative and liberal newspapers). Insight on the News, 14(19), 14.

Saín, M. (2009) El fracaso del control de las drogas ilegales en Argentina. Nueva Sociedad, 222, 132-146.

Scheufele & Iyengar (2012). The State of Framing Research: A Call For New Directions. In K. Kenski & K. Hall Jamieson (Eds.),The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication Theories. New York: Oxford University Press

Voth, J., R. Sawatzky, P. A. Ratner, M. L. Young, R. Repta, R. Haines-Saah, and J. L. Johnson. 2013. “A Computer-Assisted Approach to Filtering Large Numbers of Documents for Media Analyses.” The International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16 (1): 13–30.

APENDIX I. CODEBOOK.

Codebook: content analysis on marihuana legalization in the state of Colorado and its impact on print media.

Coding. 1. Id of the article (1, 2, 3…) 2. Coder. 1- Pedro Pérez 2- Andrea Spaziani. 3. Date. (dd-mm-yyyy)

4. Correspondent time frame.

1 – First time frame, before the event (1st of January 2009 to 31 of December 2011)

2 – Second time frame, after the event (1st of January 2013 to 31 of December 2015)

5. Newspaper.

01 – New York Times (liberal) 02 – New York Post (conservative) 6. What genre is the article?

2 – News Analysis (Evaluation/historical material) 3 – Editorial (official paper statement)

4 – Column/opinion 5 – Interview

6 – Letters to the editor 7. Length of the article.

1 – Less than 500 words (short)

2 – between 500 and 899 words (medium) 3 – more than 900 words. (Large)

8. Depth. On a scale of 1-5 (Where 1 is not at all extensive and 5 is very extensive), is the article extensive? Depth means that it is gone far on background information, it is a large text with a lot of factual information, but also personal background information. Use a lot of resources also counts. (Explain better)

9. Level of focus of the article on “drug legalization” as an issue. Place the news item on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is very weak focus on drug legalization and 5 is very strong focus on the issue.

10. In what tone does the article approaches “drug legalization”? (-1) Negative.

(0) Neutral. (1) Positive.

11. In what tone does the article approaches the “drug issue” overall? (-1) Negative.

(0) Neutral. (1) Positive. PUBLIC HEALTH FRAME.

12. Does the article make references to health issues? (Treatment, health infrastructure, dependency, rehabilitation, addiction and public health). If so, continue to 20, if don’t, continue on 21.

0 – No

1 – Yes

13. Does the article imply that drug legalization has positive, negative, or neutral impact on the national public health? (I.e. if it mentions that legalization

will low the rates of addicts, it will be positive. Meanwhile, if it mentions something like “the health infrastructure is not capable of handling the consequences of legalizing marihuana”, it will be negative. If it doesn’t take a position, or shows both perspectives, it will be neutral.)

(-1) Negative. (0) Neutral. (1) Positive.

PUBLIC POLICY FRAME

14. Does the article make references to public policy issues? (Congress, senate, president, debate, legalization,and law project.) If so, continue to 22, if

don’t, continue to 23.

0 – No

1 – Yes

15. Does the article imply that drug legalization is positive, negative, or neutral to public policy? (I.e. if the piece mentions that is a “step forward” in American law, it would be positive. Meanwhile, if it mentions that this measures are “anti-constitutional” or “against the federal government”, it will be negative. If it doesn’t take a position, or shows both perspectives, it will be neutral.)

(-1) Negative. (0) Neutral. (1) Positive. ECONOMIC FRAME

16. Does the article approach drug legalization from an economic perspective? (Drug business, profit, employment, tax revenue and economic growth) If so, continue with 24. If don’t, continue with 25.

0 – No 1 – Yes

17. Does the article imply that drug legalization is something positive, negative, or neutral to the economy? (i.e. if it mentions that legalization will be detrimental to the economy, it would be negative. Meanwhile, if it mentions the benefits of taxation of marihuana, it would be positive. If it doesn’t take a position, or shows both perspectives, it will be neutral.)

(-1) Negative. (0) Neutral.

(1) Positive.

CRIME FRAME.

18. Does the article mention crime related issues? (Crime, gang, drug dealers, narcotrafic) If so, continue with 26. If doesn’t, go to 27.

0 – No 1 – Yes

19. Does the article imply that drug legalization is something positive, negative, or neutral in relation to crime? (I.e. if it mentions that legalization will help to decrease drug related violence, it will be positive. Meanwhile, if it mentions that legalization will increase drug related crimes, it will be negative. If it doesn’t take part, or shows both perspectives, it will be neutral.)

(-1) Negative. (0) Neutral. (1) Positive. MORAL PANIC FRAME.

20. Do the article approach drugs as a “moral panic” (appeals to morals, values or traditions as an argument against drugs)

0 – No 1– Yes

21. Do they mention any state of the Unite States in the piece? 22. If so, which one is mentioned?

Alabama 1 Montana 26

Alaska 2 Nebraska 27

Arizona 3 Nevada 28

Arkansas 4 New Hampshire 29

California 5 New Jersey 30

Colorado 6 New Mexico 31

Connecticut 7 New York 32

Florida 9 North Dakota 34

Georgia 10 Ohio 35

Hawaii 11 Oklahoma 36

Idaho 12 Oregon 37

Illinois 13 Pennsylvania 38

Indiana 14 Rhode Island 39

Iowa 15 South Carolina 40

Kansas 16 South Dakota 41

Kentucky 17 Tennessee 42 Louisiana 18 Texas 43 Maine 19 Utah 44 Maryland 20 Vermont 45 Massachusetts 21 Virginia 46 Michigan 22 Washington 47

Minnesota 23 West Virginia 48

Mississippi 24 Wisconsin 49