Radical or Reductive, Challenging or Cheerleading:
The Framing of the UN Millennium Development Goals by Press Releases and the Press
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
University of Amsterdam 2nd February 2018
Student: Barry Bracken Student number: 11390174 Supervisor: Dr Sandra Jacobs
Abstract
Organisational and news media issue framing is one of the primary interplays of corporate communication. This study focuses on the humanitarian public relations field and the topic of the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals campaign (2000-2015). It examines the predominant frames and tone of the organisation and news media in the second half of the campaign (2008-2015) through their respective press releases and news articles. It compares the extent framing and tone converge and compare longitudinally between both actors and within selected news publications. It adds to previous studies by considering specific poverty and social movement frames in the context of international development communication. Using Content Analysis, the study quantitatively analyses data of United Nation’s press releases and three international publications (The Guardian, The Financial Times, The Economist). Findings show that overtly positive organisational framing does not converge in the news media, however uncontested and broad tonal frames do. Economic framing takes precedence over ethical or human interest considerations across both organisation and media. Temporal contextual factors over a defined-length organisational campaign reveals frame changing of media messages by news media to maximise newsworthiness. Around the central issue of poverty, organisational framing is found to be more reductive than news media framing. Implications are discussed.
Introduction
The framing of international affairs fundamentally shapes our worldview: from how we think of foreign nations, to global issues of poverty, war, and taxes. Studies have shown that news frames are readily adopted by audiences and these frames influence our views of the global picture (Brewer, Graf & Willnat’s, 2003). At a basic level, international news coverage is important because it has a direct influence on public opinion (Wanta, Golan &
Lee, 2004). Yet how this influence occurs is less clear when the characteristics of
international stories are considered. They are often complex issues which lack the cultural proximity required to more keenly shape perceptions among a domestic audience (Ksiazek &
Webster, 2008). There is a further layer of complexity when we consider the difficulty all
stories have in competing for scarce on-air news space. Thus, international organisations create narratives around particular issues which offer us a more readily understandable story. One of these narratives is the success of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in reducing global poverty (Hickel, 2016).
The MDGs were the first-ever set of globally agreed international development targets. As McArthur (2013) states, “the first global framework anchored in an explicit partnership between developed and developing countries” (p. 155). Communicating the goals was arguably, thus far, the UN’s primary overarching public policy and press campaign of the 21st century. The size and scope of the campaign places importance on understanding how its primary objective was communicated to the audience receiving the message. Namely, alleviating poverty among the world’s most deprived people. The type of organisational framing and level of frame convergence by the news media would, in essence, form the lasting perception left with the audience. The very nature of the international communities’ global development legitimacy and the perception of poverty reduction efforts – particularly
in the Global North – were at stake. With the MDGs now complete, it is timely to investigate the organisational communicative outcome of the goals.
More broadly, the MDGs provide a relevant and timely example of media framing of international affairs. They illustrate the interplay of public relations and news media content (Kiousis, Popescu, & Mitrook, 2007). That interaction between organisational message framing and news media content is the primary focus of this paper. The overall aim is to contribute to further understanding of message convergence/divergence in corporate communications in the field of humanitarian public relations. Building on the approach of
Jasperson, Shah, Watts, Faber and Fan (1998), elements of framing and agenda setting will
be combined to illustrate how arguments are shaped for public consumption about the
importance of an issue (McCombs, & Ghanem, 2001). Previous research on agenda-building suggests that public relations activities are crucial to shaping those arguments through the formation of the media agenda (Kiousis, Popescu, & Mitrook, 2007). Although the process is far from one-way, with news content often the result of interaction between the two actors, recent studies show that certain news factors do increase a press release’s chance of coverage (Schafraad, van Zoonen, & Verhoeven, 2016; Tedesco, 2001). However, these studies do not address international development issues, or humanitarian public relations specifically. By examining the presenting frames of the MDGs as a series of issues shaped by both public relations activity and news media, the paper simultaneously aims to address a research gap on how the goals were framed, and make a contribution to the analysis of news discourse
generally – particularly around news media framing of international development issues (Pan
& Kosicki, 1993). The research aims to contribute to more effective humanitarian PR framing
in order to better translate common issues of concern across the international development field to the news agenda. Thus helping a broader awareness of the Global South in the Global North. This leads to the overarching research question which will be investigated through a
manual content analysis method. Hypotheses have not been formulated for this study as it wishes to explore an under-researched area of development communication
(intergovernmental organisational press releases) using a combination of exploratory and established frames. The setting and topic (MDGs) has little prior empirical research, thus it is valuable first to investigate and generate data in order that specific hypotheses can be tested in future research:
RQ: What are the predominant frames and tone of the United Nations and news
media towards the Millennium Development Goals and to what extent does the framing and tone converge over time between both actors and within selected news publications?
Theoretical Background Framing as a concept
Entman (1993) offers the classic definition of framing; to select some aspect of perceived reality and make it more salient. Yet framing is not about every aspect or attribute of an object, only its dominant characteristics (Chyi & McCombs, 2004). This can be so effective that once a term is widely accepted, using another risks the audience perceiving the communicator as lacking credibility – or even failing to understand what the communicator is talking about (Entman, 1993). Framing’s effectiveness is in its often imperceptible nature –
the implicit shaping of a reader’s perception (Joris, Puustinen, & d’Haenens, 2018). It is used
to embed meaning in public relations messages and is a key topic for organisational communication due to the reputational or legitimacy stakes involved (Kiousis, Popescu, & Mitrook, 2007). Amid the rich web of messaging in daily life, framing theory offers a useful umbrella for examining what exactly is occurring when people notice or understand the myriad messages encountered every day (Hallahan, 2009). Framing remains a central concept
in communication theory because, as Hallahan (2009) states, it helps “shape the perspective through which people see the world” (p. 207).
Public relations activity in a humanitarian context
At a fundamental level the MDGs can be seen as an example of global public
relations – superimposing an overall perspective on a campaign carried out across multiple
territories (Grunig et al., 1995). Although the goals themselves were implemented and
received at national level, the central thrust of the PR campaign was global. At a
micro-programmatic level their implementation can be understood as customised per country, while
at a macro-communication level there is more generalisation (Grunig et al., 1995). Within
this framework, the field of humanitarian communications presents a number of unique
communicative challenges. Namely, the extent of independence from donors which can
impact public communication efforts, the differentiation at field level in local
communications to distinguish humanitarian actors from private operators, and the
organisation’s ability to perceive of communications as a strategic management function
(Dijkzeul & Moke, 2005). There is also the balance between charity versus justice and whether humanitarian PR merely enables debt relief and aid commitments, rather than tackle
institutional imbalances, such as restructuring of trade arrangements (Nolan & Mikami,
2013).
Distance must also be bridged in any mediated exchanges promoting solidarity and understanding between the developing and developed world (Nash, 2008; Orgad & Seu,
2014). Central to this is the idea of “intimacy at a distance”. Coined by Orgad & Seu (2014),
they argue intimacy at a distance is embedded in humanitarian communication. In the case of the MDGs, it manifests as the need to put a human face on the tragedy of those who suffer
severe deprivations in a far-off country, while at the same time, communicating how the
globally. Low level and relatable communication comes into conflict with high level and
remote communication. Therein lies the communicative challenge of the goal’s messaging –
how much could the MDG campaign realistically achieve in bridging that gap? To that end,
the following sub-research question is posed:
SQ 1: What are the predominant frames of the MDGs used in the organisational
press releases? Framing by news media
How the news media frame issues in mass communication and how that can powerfully shape public understanding is an issue of considerable historical study (Ball &
Rokeach, 1987; Price, Tewksbury & Powers 1997; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2006; Schuck &
De Vreese, 2006). Price et. al. (1997) conceptualise it as an “applicability effect that occurs
during message understanding” (p.486). The media can emphasise particular values or traits of stories, people, and events, and this value framing points to what is relevant for issue formation and resolution (Ball & Rokeach, 1987). It is even suggested the media can
encourage particular ideas about phenomena which lead to more or less predictable outcomes (Price, Tewksbury, & Powers 1997). However, these earlier insights may be ceding relevance in the contemporary communication environment where rapid technological change and vastly increased consumer autonomy has accelerated the channels and topics people expose themselves to (Kosicki, 2006).
More recently, De Swert & Wouters (2011) looked at the impact of news media
framing of China by Belgian TV when one of the country’s news channels stationed a correspondent in Beijing permanently. This study evidenced distinctive coverage
characteristics compared to a station which had no in-country correspondent. Journalistic
One of the most recent studies by James & Boukes (2017) showed the different ways Chinese and Western media portrayed the East African Community – an intergovernmental organisation. It found that globalised economic imperatives were treated with broadly similar framing by both sides, ultimately illustrating contemporary mass media’s common interest in highlighting salient economic themes over and above national boundaries (James & Boukes, 2017). The frames used in this latter study are particular relevant as they offer practical examples that can be applied to international news topics – such as the MDGs.
Mapping news media frames also sheds insight into the narrative strategies of the
MDGs and is an important objective for continuing research to enhance our understanding of
journalism and agenda setting (Chyi & McCombs, 2004). Journalism provides a source of
information and analysis that helps shape citizen’s perspectives and views (Alexander, 2005). While development journalism has a strong normative appeal based on the responsibility of
the press to mobilise and educate the public in support of national development policies
(Odozi & Nyam, 2014). Therefore, ascertaining how the MDGs were shaped by news media,
is examined in the next sub-research question:
SQ 2: What are the predominant frames of the MDGs used in the news media?
Framing within and between news media
Examining the extent to which the press differed in its framing of a particular issue
can illustrate the subtle dimensionalities of coverage within and between each outlet.
Publications often choose a reporting angle (Joris, Puustinen, & d’Haenens, 2018). In this
case it could reveal whether some news media ‘propagandise’ or challenge the UN’s
organisational agenda more than others (Alexander, 2005). This paper’s research will address
the level of framing between three of these individual publications in order to examine how
macro customisation of micro level issues translates from strategic organisational
SQ 3: To what extent does the framing of the MDGs converge across selected news
media?
Frame convergence amid agenda setting, issue arenas
When discussing the convergence of press release and news article framing we must
consider agenda setting, issue arenas, and their interrelations. An actor can build an agenda
with a restricted number of thematically related attributes, often disseminated through press
releases, or other communication approaches, and create a picture of an object for another
actor – in this case the news media (McCombs & Ghanem, 2001). Agenda setting usually
coheres in the form of issues. Hallahan (1999) defines an issue as a basis around which
publics are organised and public opinion is formed. Issues frequently result in extensive
public discussion and can be framed in alternate ways for different interpretations of social
reality. Luoma-aho and Vos, (2010) suggest that today, issues and discussion, not public or
private actors, are at the centre of communication. The UN is part of a dynamic contemporary
global environment where organisations are expected to actively monitor and participate in
various “issue arenas” (Luoma-aho & Vos, 2010). Issue arenas are real or virtual places in which topics of shared interest are discussed (Luoma-aho & Vos, 2010).
The MDGs, at their core, are about a few central issues. Among them, poverty,
education, gender equality and child mortality – all of which have wide issue arenas with
multiple stakeholders. As Luoma-aho and Vos (2013) note, “should an organization fail to
give its point of view, other stakeholder opinions quickly dominate the arena” (p. 3). The UN
therefore must participate. One of the ways it does so is through public relations, setting the
agenda, and framing the topics through press releases.
Empirical analysis by Schafraad, van Zoonen & Verhoeven (2016) capture the complementary nature of press releases and news media in forming agendas. Through a
serve as news selection criteria (Schafraad, van Zoonen & Verhoeven, 2016). This process of evolution and convergence from public relations messaging to news presentation is directly relevant for the field of humanitarian PR. It speaks to the issues conveyed by the MDGs,
widespread in international development, the nature of their framing, selection and reception
by both wider policy makers and the public (Alexander, 2005).
Furthermore, examining these perspectives over time can shed insight by providing comparable insight into changing trends in politics, economics and culture (James & Boukes
2017). Given the MDGs long life span (2000-2015) it would be perfectly congruent for the
UN as an organisation, and the news media as a storyteller, to attempt reframing of the event by emphasising different attributes in order to keep the story fresh. Chyi and McCombs (2004) refer to this journalistic practice as “frame-changing”. It is defined as placing an emphasis on different aspects of issues or events at different points in time (Houston,
Pfefferbaum, & Rosenholtz 2012). The current study also entails a longitudinal analysis to
identify possible peaks, patterns, or amplifications of particular messages at different times. Adding a temporal dimension to the convergence between organisation and news media leads to the next research question
SQ 4: To what extent does the new framing of the MDGs converge overall and across
time between organisational press releases and news media? The MDGs as a social movement
Social movements are defined as networks of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups, or organisations, engaged in political or cultural conflicts
(Diani, 1992). This straightforward definition is augmented by McCarthy & Zald’s (1977)
earlier study of the classic constituent elements of a social movement comprising “support base”, “strategy and tactics” and “relation to larger society” (p.1216). This is further anchored through a shared set of opinions and beliefs, a preference for changing part of the
social structure and a desire for greater resource mobilisation (McCarthy & Zald, 1977).
Against this theoretical background it is pertinent to think of the MDGs as a social
movement. It exhibited mobilisation efforts targeting both government and public opinion to leverage financial resources through a communication campaign which tried to impact an individual’s awareness and generate popular support and pressure for political change
(Alexander, 2005).
Researchers concerned with social movement organisations have theorised
extensively about the importance of mobilisation framing, suggesting social movements
engage in three distinct framing processes: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Motivational
(Hallahan, 1999; Snow & Benford, 1988). Diagnostic framing concerns the identification of a problematic aspect of social life in need of alteration; Prognostic framing concerns proposing
a solution to the diagnosed problem; Motivational framing is a call to action for engaging in
ameliorative or corrective action. In Eilders and Lüter’s (2000) study relating to Germany’s
participation in the 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo, diagnostic framing showed the war was
predominantly a reaction to human rights violations and the stability of the Balkan region as a
whole. While the most frequently used prognostic frames were integrating China and Russia
into negotiations and the promotion of humanitarian support. More recently, in the field of
corporate social responsibility, social movement literature has explained how companies are
pressured into assuming responsibility for social ills through social movement framing
(Reinecke & Ansari, 2016). Incorporating these elements into this study enables more distinct
frame distinguishing of preferred interpretations between actors and within different news
outlets (Eilders & Lüter, 2000).
SQ 5: To what extent does the social movement framing of the MDGs converge
The MDGs as a radical / reductive poverty frame
At the heart of the organisational framing of the MDGs are conceptions of poverty.
Extending the concept of attribute framing (Hallahan, 1999), this study examines how the
framing of poverty can be applied. Wagstaff (2003) argues it is more useful to take a
multidimensional view of poverty, than to think of it as simply living on or below a dollar a
day – a value instituted by the World Bank when it set the first ever standardised
international poverty line in 1990. Hickel (2016) observed that for most of the twentieth
century it was understood that poverty lines are not comparable across contexts: for example,
poverty in Somalia cannot be considered equivalent to poverty in Chile. Green and Hulme
(2005) encourage us to think about poverty from a socially dynamic perspective embedded
within political institutions and economic structures, not as a natural fact.
This paper adopts their analysis into poverty frames which display particular
attributes. Namely, Poverty Characterisation; how poverty is represented, usually either
monetarily (income, economic factors) or multifaceted (emphasis on education, mortality,
health), Poverty Diversity; whether solutions to poverty are framed as homogenous or diverse
across national boundaries, and Poverty Empowerment; the capacity of the poor to have a
part addressing the poverty affecting their own lives (Green & Hulme, 2005).
Wilson (2009) provides data illustrating vastly different framing of poverty among
Europeans and Americans, with Americans focusing on it as an individual shortcoming,
while Europeans focus on it as a societal shortcoming. Green & Hulme (2005) argue progress
in poverty reduction is constrained by the narrow set of measurements through which poverty
is represented by the international development community. If the MDGs, as its final report
claims, are the “most successful anti-poverty movement in history” (The United Nations,
2015, p. 3) it seems sensible to expand on Green and Hulme’s conclusions and examine the
SQ 6: To what extent does the poverty framing of the MDGs converge between
organisational press releases and press coverage?
Tone as a related factor
Finally, considering tone as a framing attribute is helpful as its embeds ‘top-of-mind’ salience about a topic – as Hallahan (2009) notes, not so much “telling people how to think,” but “telling them what to think about” (p. 213) – in this case the positive nature of the MDGs. Previous studies have identified the effect of media coverage on public opinion and that certain tones correlate with certain frames – for example conflict framing can lead to a more negative tone towards stakeholders (Nijkrake, Gosselt & Gutteling, 2015). Valence (article tone) frames have been used in comparative studies on international affairs as way of gauging tonal observations across topics, actors and media coverage (James & Boukes, 2017).
SQ 7: What is the predominant headline and body text tone of the press releases and
news articles and to what extent does headline and body text tone converge between organisational press releases and news articles and within news articles over time?
Methodology
A manual content analysis was conducted to examine the framing of press releases by the UN of the MDGs and news press coverage of the topic. As Berelson (1952) states,
“Content analysis is a research technique for the objective, systematic, and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication” (p. 489). The period 2008-2015 was chosen as the timeframe of analysis. This covers the second half of the MDGs lifespan during which time there was more press coverage and awareness of the goals generally. Pre-2004, surveys found there was almost no awareness of the MDGs among the public and that media coverage at that stage was virtually non-existent (Alexander, 2005). By adding a longitudinal
element to the study, any frame changes can be identified over time reflecting the dynamic nature of frame characterisation (Hallahan, 1999) – and the evolving story of the MDGs. Sample
The sample consisted of two bodies of data – press releases and news articles. The press release sample was accessed from the UN MDG Database which contains all press releases, reports, summaries, fact sheets and advisories related to the MDGs from 2008 onwards ("We Can End Poverty," n.d.). For the purpose of this study, only press releases were examined. Over the course of the sample period this yielded a total of 27 press releases (see Table 1). A concentration can be seen in 2010 – a crucial marker for the MDGs as they entered their final five-year period – and in 2015, the final year of their implementation. The word count of the press releases ranged from 611 to 1520.
Table 1 Longitudinal distribution of press releases
A representative sample of MDG press coverage was constructed from three ‘prestige’ outlets known as international agenda setters with a majority readership from a professional background (Anderson, Allan, Petersen, & Wilkinson, 2005; Ross, 2003). Given the UN’s global intergovernmental cooperation and peacebuilding mandate, and the strong political element to the MDGs, it’s media messaging might seek to place emphasis on
Year Frequency Percentage
2008 2 7.4 2009 3 11.1 2010 7 25.9 2011 2 7.4 2012 2 7.4 2013 4 14.8 2014 2 7.4 2015 5 18.5 Total 27 100
reaching political elites and policy makers. One of the primary ways to engage in elite policy debates is via the prestige press (Powers, 2014). These outlets were, The Guardian; generally considered one of the world’s leading prestige newspapers, editorially liberal or “left
leaning”, it carries frequent and often in depth international development coverage and has been noted as a major gatekeeper of framing in the USA and Europe (Bantimaroudis & Ban,
2001). The Financial Times; historically focused on economic and financial news with more
business-oriented content, it often features development stories in the context of international geopolitics, the paper’s liberal free market / globalist view can reflect both centre left or right perspectives (Corcoran & Fahy, 2009; "The Observer View," 2015). The Economist; a weekly magazine newspaper with global emphasis and scope. It carries frequent coverage of aid and development affairs and describes itself as “radically centrist” (“Is The Economist left-or right-wing,” 2013).
A purposive sample was used to collect the data. This is due to two factors. The first is the niche nature of the topic itself (for example “MDGs” generated only 45 results across LexisNexis for the Financial Times during the 2008-2015-time period). The second is that MDG coverage tended to cluster around high profile UN events such as the General Assembly every September, or end of year press recaps assessing the MDGs progress over the previous twelve months. Random sampling would result in problems of typicality, as news content will not be randomly distributed over years. A random sample would therefore not have the power to produce a sufficient news article sample size to properly illustrate framing between the sources. For similar reasons, article selection was not limited to a defined time period after press release publication for two of the sources as their total individual sample populations were too small (The Financial Times and The Economist). This was done in order to guarantee adequate sample size for the study.
The news articles for the Guardian and Financial Times were accessed through the LexisNexis database by searching, first, for each outlet and, within that, using the search term “MDGs”. The Guardian yielded, n = 587, the Financial Times, n = 85. The Economist
articles were accessed from the publication’s own online archive. The same search word criteria yielded n = 100. Next, the sample was time restricted to the period of study (2008-2015). In addition, to ensure relevance of news articles, the headline and body text had to be focused on the MDGs specifically, or mention the MDGs when discussing related topics such as international development, humanitarian affairs, or overseas development aid, in any of the target countries. User-generated content concerning the MDGs (such as “Letters to the
Editor” or online reaction pages to articles) was also excluded from the sample. Due to the small initial sample size from both the Financial Times and The Economist this meant
exhausting the population and using all relevant available news articles. The Guardian’s more populous coverage allowed purposive sampling around July, September and December of each year in order to mirror the release of the MDG press releases. A total yield of 172 news articles was produced – see Table 2 (The Guardian: n = 83; Financial Times: n = 39; The Economist: n = 50). The coding units of analysis were the full press release and news article and the final sample comprised n =199.
Table 2 Longitudinal distribution of news articles Year Frequency Percentage
2008 25 14.5 2009 14 8.1 2010 27 15.7 2011 17 9.9 2012 17 9.9 2013 21 12.2 2014 17 9.9 2015 34 19.8 Total 172 100
Operationalisation
The codebook consisted of two parts to measure the framing of the MDGs by press releases and news articles (see Appendix 2). The variables necessary for coding of framing were adapted from sources described below and applied identically across both parts of the codebook. General characteristics of date, word count and source were included. Tone variables signifying the general attitude of the text towards the MDGs were also included. The Tone variables were adapted from Peng (2004) and James & Boukes (2017). The
headline and main body text tone was evaluated on a three-point scale to evaluate the general tone towards the MDGs (2 = Positive, 1 = Balanced, 0 = Negative).
The variables of each frame were dichotomously measured. For all framing variables (except poverty framing), the mean represented the ratio of a frame being present or not present. The frame with the highest mean therefore indicated the level of presence. For the poverty frames, levels of presence were indicated as follows: Poverty Characterisation was classified as monetarily (1) and multifaceted (0); Poverty Diversity as diverse (1) and uniform (0); Poverty Empowerment as empowered (1) and disempowered (0). Frames were coded
dichotomously (yes/no) on presence: 1 = present (yes) 0 = not present (no). A wide variety of frame types were included in order to capture examples of multiple frames within a text.
Their operationalisation for the content analysis was as follows (for reliability coefficient scores see Appendix 3): The Conflict, Human Interest and Economic Consequences frames, were based on the news frames identified by Semetko and Valkenburg (2000). Hallahan’s (2009) Typology of Seven Models of Framing Applicable to Public Relations were also a basis for measures relating to this study’s analysis. The Ethical and Blame frames were adapted from Hallahan’s (1999) remarks on issue framing and the way alternative
interpretations of social reality are examined. Hallahan (1999) states that issue framing can also capture attributions of responsibility (Blame) and as an examination of people’s
judgments of fairness in resource allocation (Ethical). The Diagnostic, Prognostic and Motivational frames were applied following their use in Eilders & Lüter’s (2000) study and
also informed by Hallahan’s (1999) observation of the importance of framing for social
movements in order to use as a public mobilisation device. Further framing variables of Success, Failure, Progress, Threats, Opportunity and Future are based on Hallahan’s (1999) description of how public relations communicators develop specific themes to orient the
dominant idea of a story and also, in part, on the application of James & Boukes (2017).
Further informing choice, an initial analysis of the sample of MDG press releases and news
coverage revealed certain key themes repeating – success or failure, threats to or progress of
the MDGs, and opportunity (to lessen global poverty) and future (what comes next).
Finally, the three “poverty frames” (Poverty Characterisation, Poverty Diversity and
Poverty Empowerment) were adapted from Green and Hulme (2005) in order to gain a more rounded insight into the dimensions of poverty referenced throughout the MDG campaign by
both the UN and the media. For full descriptions of how each variable qualified for coding
based on the textual references please see codebook (Appendix 2).
Reliability
Inter-coder reliability was performed with a fellow student from the University of Amsterdam’s Communication Science Master’s course who was familiar with content analysis. Krippendorff’s alpha (Riffe et al., 2014), was calculated by coding 25 randomly selected items including press releases (n = 4) and news articles (n = 21). After the first round of sample coding, only a few variables showed sufficient reliability coefficients. The
codebook was refined with some variables being adjusted or deleted. More detailed instructions and examples were added to the codebook for the Human Interest, Blame, Ethical and Poverty Diversity frames.
Due to the small sample size it was difficult to achieve sufficient reliability for all variables. Therefore, for the second round, the author and second coder coded the sample together based on the updated codebook. After the second reliability testing, Krippendorff’s alpha coefficients ranged between .60 and 1, indicating a reliability from just under sufficient (> .67) to very good (> .90) (see Appendix 3). Due to the small sample, the nature of
dichotomous variables and the percentage agreement, the intercoder reliability was found acceptable.
Analysis & Results
As mentioned, the data consisted of two separate bodies – that of press releases and news articles. A comparative analysis was carried out to discern and compare frames and tone over time between and within both sources. Descriptive calculations were run to provide an initial overview of the study’s data (see Table 3). The most common news article frames were also broken down longitudinally (see Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix 1).
Table 3 Framing of MDGs by press release and news articles
An initial overview of the data illustrates that 2010 and 2015 were pivotal points for the MDGs with press releases and news articles peaking in these years (see Tables 1 and 2). Sub-research questions (SQs) 1 and 2 examined the predominant frames of both the UN and press towards the MDGs. As Table 3 indicates, the predominant frames of the organisational press releases were Progress, Diagnostic and Success. The predominant frames of the news
Press Releases n = 27 News Articles n = 172 Frames M (SD) M (SD) Conflict .33 (.48) .48 (.50) Human Interest .04 (.19) .15 (.35) Economic Consequences .62 (.50) .68 (.47) Ethical .41 (.50) .22 (.42) Blame .26 (.45) .23 (.42) Success .81 (.40) .48 (.50) Failure .63 (.49) .45 (.50) Progress 1.00 (.00) .76 (.43) Threats .74 (.45) .58 (.49) Opportunity .70 (.47) .31 (.46) Future .41 (.50) .40 (.49) Social Movement Diagnostic .96 (.19) .97 (.18) Prognostic .63 (.49) .51 (.50) Motivational .22 (.42) .16 (.37) Poverty Characterisation .74 (.45) .48 (.50) Diversity .15 (.36) .49 (.50) Empowerment .22 (.42) .45 (.50)
articles were Diagnostic, Progress and Economic Consequences. The Future and Diagnostic frames overlapped most between the two sources with almost identical levels of presence. Therefore, Diagnostic framing (identifying social problems) appears to be predominant overall, in terms of presence, and as an overlapping frame between both sources. While Progress framing of the MDGs is the next most common frame of both sources. Strikingly, all frames have a relatively high level of presence. This indicates a willingness by both actors to touch on multiple frames across their texts while at all times packaging the MDGs within problematic aspects of social life that require alteration. Perhaps even more strikingly, Human Interest was the frame utilised least by both the organisation and the press. Given the MDG’s mission to help the world’s poorest, this reluctance to provide a personal angle, particularly by newspapers, is surprising.
Initial descriptive longitudinal data for news articles reveals Success, Threats, and Future frames differing significantly in their presence from 2008 to 2015 (Appendix 1, Tables 1 and 2). Success framing becoming steadily more present towards the latter years, Threat framing decreasing in presence in the latter years and Future framing much more present in the latter years. The need for narrative frame changing over the timeframe is most apparent in these three frames, given their relationship to temporal outcome, and the
necessity to provide narrative arc – it simply would not make as much sense to evaluate the success of the MDGs in 2008 than it would in 2014 or 2015. Interestingly, though the Failure frame also exhibited significant differences in presence over time, it was to a lesser extent, perhaps indicating an overall tendency by the press to frame the MDGs in a more positive evaluatory light as they came to a close.
Frame convergence across press publications
SQ 3 examined the extent to which the framing of the MDGs by the press converged across publications (see Table 4). A Pearson’s chi-squared tests was carried out to compare
the press releases and news articles. The assumptions were met (nominal variables and independent groups).
Table 4 Convergence of frames across press publications (n=172)
Among news frames between press publications, the following did not have
statistically significant differences: Conflict, Human Interest, Ethical, Blame, Progress and Opportunity. The Economic Consequences (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .00), Success
(Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .01), Failure (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .03), Threats (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .010) and Future (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .00) frames all exhibited
statistically significant differences. This illustrates divergence across publications on how particular frames were covered, with significantly different levels of presence between each revealing a contrast in editorial emphasis and news values. Social movement framing was not found to be significantly different for Diagnostic and Motivational framing. However
Prognostic framing was found to differ between publications at a significant level. This
Frame Chi-square DF p Conflict 0.35 2 0.982 Human Interest 5.11 2 0.081 Economic Consequences 13.51 2 0.001 Ethical 3.9 2 0.141 Blame 3.71 2 0.165 Success 10.64 2 0.005 Failure 7.23 2 0.026 Progress 1.22 2 0.543 Threats 9.19 2 0.011 Opportunity 0.73 2 0.699 Future 16.08 2 <.001 Diagnostic 1.89 2 0.392 Prognostic 10.95 2 0.004 Motivational 5.74 2 0.057 Pov. Characterisation 15.293 2 <.001 Pov. Diversity 7.34 2 0.025 Pov. Empowerment 2.69 2 0.262
indicates divergence between publications on this frame, and a willingness of some publications to offer solutions more than others. The measure of association is weak (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .19) indicating little relation between publication differences. Finally, two of the poverty frames exhibited statistically significant differences between publications – characterisation and diversity. Thus, frame divergence on levels of presence between these two frames was not homogenous across publications. The corresponding measures of association were very weak: Poverty Characterisation (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .00) and Poverty Diversity (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .02).
News Framing
SQ 4 examined the extent to which the news framing of the MDGs converged overall between organisational press releases and press coverage (see Table 5). None of the
following frames were found to have statistically significant differences: Conflict, Human Interest, Economic Consequences, Ethical, Blame, Failure, Threats and Future. The Success (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .00), Progress (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .00) and Opportunity (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .00) frames all exhibited statistically significant differences. The different levels of presence in news articles compared to press releases, indicates, primarily, a lack of convergence on these particular news frames and possible contention between
Table 5 Convergence of frames overall: press releases and news articles (n=199)
SQ 4 also examined the extent to which the framing of the MDGs converged across time between organisational press releases and news media (see Table 6).
Table 6 Convergence of frames over time: releases and news articles (n=199)
Frame Chi-square DF p Conflict 1.93 1 0.213 Human Interest 2.41 1 0.214 Economic 0.43 1 0.509 Ethical 4.29 1 0.053 Blame 0.09 1 0.808 Success 10.34 1 0.002 Failure 2.92 1 0.101 Progress 8.36 1 0.002 Threats 2.38 1 0.142 Opportunity 15.81 1 <.001 Future 0.14 1 1.000 Diagnostic 0.00 1 1.000 Prognostic 1.31 1 0.303 Motivational 0.58 1 0.419 Pov. Characterisation 6.23 1 0.013 Pov. Diversity 10.95 1 0.001 Pov. Empowerment 4.98 1 0.035 Frame p p 2008-11 2012-15 2008-11 2012-15 2008-11 2012-15 Conflict 0.015 3.77 1 1 0.903 0.052 Human Interest 1.15 1.48 1 1 0.283 0.224 Economic Consequences 0.024 0.59 1 1 0.876 0.443 Ethical 0.77 4.88 1 1 0.379 0.027 Blame 0.44 0.13 1 1 0.505 0.722 Success 7.03 5.81 1 1 0.008 0.016 Failure 3.52 0.34 1 1 0.061 0.559 Progress 2.91 5.53 1 1 0.088 0.019 Threats 0.01 3.86 1 1 0.909 0.049 Opportunity 6.48 9.61 1 1 0.011 0.002 Future 0.03 0.12 1 1 0.855 0.733 Diagnostic 0.94 0.62 1 1 0.333 0.431 Prognostic 0.15 1.45 1 1 0.701 0.228 Motivational 5.19 2.43 1 1 0.023 0.119 Poverty Characterisation 2.44 3.86 1 1 0.118 0.049 Poverty Diversity 8.31 3.16 1 1 0.004 0.075 Poverty Empowerment 3.51 1.67 1 1 0.061 0.196 Chi-square DF
The years were computed into two stand-alone variables denoting distinct phases – the penultimate phase (2008-2011) and the final phase (2012-2015). This would allow observation of framing shifts between sources over two strategic phases of the MDGs, namely, the three-quarters mark of the campaign and the end stage. None of the following frames were found to have statistically significant differences across these phases: Conflict, Human Interest, Economic Consequences, Blame, Failure, Threats, Future, Diagnostic, Prognostic and Motivational framing. Two frames displayed partially significant results for both phases but did not prove significant overall (Threats: χ2(1) = 2.38, p = .123 and
Motivational: χ2(1) = .58, p = .446). Seven frames showed a statistically significant
difference between both phases. Therefore, these frames showed signs of divergence between press releases and news articles over time. Among them were the Ethical frame, χ2(1) = 4.29, p = .038 (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .04); Success frame, χ2(1) = 10.34, p = .001 (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .00); Progress frame, χ2
(1) = 8.36, p = .004 (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .00); Opportunity frame, χ2(1) = 15.81, p = <.001 (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .00); Poverty Characterisation, χ2(1) = 6.23, p = .013 (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .01); Poverty Diversity, χ2
(1) = 10.95, p = .001 (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .00) and Poverty Empowerment, which did not prove significant in individual stages, but did overall, χ2(1) = 4.98, p = .026 (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .03). What seems apparent is that press releases and news articles engaged in frame changing on these frames between the final stages of the MDG campaign. These frames perhaps illustrate pivot points around overall message definition, as their levels of presence significantly differ between stages. As measures of association are very weak, caution must apply on assuming a relationship between the sources and frame changing over time.
Social Movement Framing
SQ 5 examined the extent to which social movement framing of the MDGs converged between the organisational press releases and press coverage. There were no statistically significant differences found between the presence of social movement frames across press releases and news articles (see Table 5).
Poverty Framing
SQ 6 examined the extent to which poverty framing of the MDGs converged between organisational press releases and news articles (see Table 5). In all three frames the
differences were found to be statistically significant. The frames, on the whole, do not converge. Portrayals of poverty, therefore, differ between organisational and news media representations. The corresponding measure of association is very weak for all frames: Poverty Characterisation (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .01), Poverty Diversity (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .00), Poverty Empowerment (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .03), indicating little to no association between the differences of the sources.
Tone
SQ7 addressed tone. Chi-squared tests were carried out comparing the tone of the headlines and main body text of news articles and publications overall, between publications, and between both across time. The assumptions were met (nominal variables and independent groups). To start, the extent to which the tone of the headline and main body text framing the articles relating to the MDGs converged between organisational press releases and news articles was examined overall (see Tables 3 and 4, Appendix 1). For the press releases and news articles on the whole, there was no statistically significant difference between levels of tone for either the headline χ2(2) = 0.69, p = .712 or the main body text χ2(2) = 0.17, p = .919.
Next, the extent to which the tone of the headline and main body text converged within the three selected press publications overall was examined. The relationship between the headline tone of the three newspapers was not significant χ2(4) = 7.38, p = .117 (see Table
5, Appendix 1). However, there was a statistically significant difference found between the main body text tone of the three newspapers χ2(4) = 15.42, p = .004 (see Table 7). Though the corresponding measure of association was very weak (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .00). It appears the extent of the difference in tone between the publication’s main articles is concentrated primarily in the Economist’s lack of negativity and in the Guardian and Economist’s balance compared to the Financial Times.
Table 7 Tone of main body text about MDGs within press publications
Next, the tone of the headline and main body of press releases over time was
examined (see Table 6, Appendix 1). The relationship between the headline of press releases and their tone over time was found not to be significant χ2
(14) = 14.83, p = .390. The
relationship between the main body of press releases and their tone over time was also found not to be significant χ2
(14) = 17.87, p = .213.
Next, the tone of the headline and main body of all news articles over time was
examined (see Table 7, Appendix 1). There was no significant relationship found between the headlines of the news articles and their tone over time χ2
(14) = 11.63, p = .636. A significant difference between the main body of news articles and their tone over time was found χ2
(14) = 26.39, p = .023. The corresponding measure of association was weak (Goodman &
Kruskal’s t = 0.24. It appeared as though the tone of the main body text of news articles diverged as the years progressed. This may have been due to more cumulative negative tone
Positive Negative Balanced Total The Guardian 14 (16.9%) 19 (22.9%) 50 (60.2%) 83 (100%) The Financial Times 12 (30.8%) 14 (35.9%) 13 (33.3%) 39 (100%) The Economist 14 (28%) 4 (8%) 32 (64%) 50 (100%)
being apparent in earlier years (2008-2010) and more cumulative positive tone being apparent in later years (2013-2015).
Finally, the tone of the headline and main body text at the level of each press publication across time was examined. In the case of press releases this analysis was not replicated due to the small sample size (n = 27) hindering any valuable year-by-year insight. As before, each individual year was computed into two stand-alone variables denoting distinct phases – the penultimate phase (2008-2011) and the final phase (2012-2015) – in order to gauge if there was a noticeable overall shift between two key overall moments of the MDG’s timeline, the three-quarters stage and end stage (see Tables 8 and 9). The relationship between the publications and their headline tone over time was found to be statistically significant in the penultimate stage χ2
(4) = 13.88, p = .008. The corresponding measure of association was very weak (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = 00.). There was no significant relationship found in the final stage χ2
(4) = 4.20, p = .380. Overall, however, there was no statistically significant difference χ2(4) = 7.38, p = .117. Thus, within press publications, the headline tone diverged significantly from 2008-2011, perhaps indicating differing editorial stances towards the MDGs in this period. But the difference was not strong enough to be significant over both stages. The relationship between publications and the tone of their main body news articles over time was also found to be significant in the penultimate stage χ2
(4) = 12.18, p = .016. The corresponding measure of association was very weak (Goodman & Kruskal’s t = .01). There was no significant relationship found in the final stage χ2
(4) = 9.06, p = .060. This time, however, there was a statistically significant difference overall χ2(4) = 15.42, p = .004. Thus, divergence within press publication’s main body text was evident in the penultimate stage, mirroring the already established difference in publication headline tone in the penultimate stage. The strength of the difference appears to be the Economist’s positivity and lack of criticism in both phases, compared to the other two publications, and is
a possible factor in the lack of consensus continuing through to final stage and proving significant overall.
Table 8 Tone of each publication’s headline over time
n = 172 G = The Guardian, FT = The Financial Times, E = The Economist
Table 9 Tone of each publication’s main body text over time
n = 172 G = The Guardian, FT = The Financial Times, E = The Economist
Discussion
The aim of this paper was to provide insight into the types of framing and extent of convergence between organisational and press communication in an international
development setting. The study shows that certain frames more than others resonate across press releases and news articles. It also shows that there are different levels of convergence between both overall and that extended time frames and the level of individual press publications can further expose framing strategies. Additionally, tone also plays a complementary role in overall message sentiment.
Indeed, tone seemed to align quite strongly between both press releases and news articles overall. There was a lack of divergence between the tone of press releases and news articles across both the headline and main body text. Thus it would appear that, following
G FT E Total G FT E Total G FT E Total
Penultimate Phase 12 11 3 26 8 11 0 19 14 11 15 40
(2008-2011) 46.20% 42.30% 11.50% 100% 42.10% 57.90% 0% 100% 35% 27.50% 37.50% 100%
Final Phase 10 3 12 25 12 1 6 19 27 2 14 43
(2012-2015) 40% 12% 48% 100% 63.20% 5.30% 31.50% 100% 62.80% 4.70% 32.50% 100%
Positive Negative Balanced
G FT E Total G FT E Total G FT E Total
Penultimate Phase 6 19 1 26 11 12 2 25 17 11 15 43
(2008-2011) 35.30% 58.80% 5.90% 100% 44% 48% 8% 100% 39.50% 25.60% 34.90% 100%
Final Phase 8 2 13 23 8 2 2 12 33 2 17 52
(2012-2015) 34.80% 8.70% 56.50% 100% 66.60% 16.70% 16.70% 100% 63.50% 3.80% 32.70% 100%
McCombs & Ghanem’s (2001) observation, thematic attributes – in this case tone –
disseminated through press releases created a quality picture of the MDGs that news media
broadly carried. Media gatekeeping in the field of humanitarian PR would appear less attuned
to overt tonal favour than other fields, such a politics, which has vastly more press releases
fighting for journalist’s attention and leads to a high newsworthiness selectivity among the
media (Haselmayer, Wagner & Meyer 2017).
Tone divergence appears at and between the level of press publications. Namely, the Economist, which was the most “cheerleading” outlet. Despite the Guardian and Economist both illustrating a more positive overall tone than the Financial Times, The Economist had by far the least number of negative articles. This chimes with Hickel (2016) who cites the
publication as being somewhat uncritical of the organisational narrative of MDG success. Headline tone divergence is also evident temporally from 2008-2011. It seems the extent of the difference in tone between all three publication’s headlines is accounted for by the Guardian and Financial Times being far more strident in their positivity and negativity than the Economist, which is mostly balanced in its MDG headlines. Main body text tone of all news articles showed greater cumulative degrees of negativity in the earlier years (2008-2010) and greater degrees of positivity and balance in the final three years (2013-2015). Inferences could be drawn on coverage bias in the Economist, with overall positive / balanced sentiment towards the MDGs being more favoured by the publication (Kaye & Johnson, 2016). However, whether this bias reveals a deeper partisan or ideological basis is unclear. While the greater tonal positivity in all news articles towards the end of the MDGs might reveal a combined macro shift among prestige publications and their news narrative evaluation of the campaign.
The tone findings set the background against which the frames are portrayed. Mirroring the tone-frame correlation noted by Nijkrake, Gosselt & Gutteling (2015), the
positive tone in the latter phase was mirrored by the Success frame’s higher presence in news articles during the latter years. The Threat frame decreased in presence year-on-year as the news agenda subtly frame changed, downplaying its importance when the MDGs had less time left to achieve their aims and threats were less relevant. The Future frame ran counter in terms of presence – increasing year-on-year as the goals neared completion and the media asked what next. Several of this study’s longitudinal findings about the framing of the MDGs are understandable in light of recent research on frame changing, convergence and issue framing. According to Houston, Pfefferbaum & Rosenholtz (2012), new issues or events receive a great deal of attention at first and then interest eventually fades, resulting in a “waxing” and “waning” news coverage cycle to specific issues or events. Given the MDGs fifteen-year time span, it seems to have exerted a journalistic communicative pressure on finding ways to re-frame the goals in order to keep them news agenda relevant. It appears the increased presence of the Success and Future frames, and decrease in Threats, were examples of frame changing and media agenda setting to facilitate relevancy concerns. This necessity to maintain a high news value over time should be considered in any humanitarian campaign communication.
Findings herein also show frames revealing some strengths and weaknesses of
humanitarian communication. In terms of frame predominance, two in particular overlap with previous literature. It is clear that across both organisational press releases and news media there was convergence on the Human Interest and Economic Consequences frame. Human Interest was least present overall – barley registering on the whole between both. The lack of human interest framing reflects a tendency for scene-based humanitarian advocacy over a focus on those actually living and experiencing their own reality (Brigham & Noland, 2014). From a press publication perspective it is perhaps unsurprising given previous studies have shown that television is a more human interest driven medium (Semetko & Valkenburg,
2000). Yet similar message absence levels between press releases and news publications on human interest framing highlights an apparent contradiction. It appears print news
publications shy away from human interest framing in spite of the great emphasis on alleviating human suffering by aid and development organisations in the field of
humanitarian communication. While the complete lack of human interest framing in press releases underscores an apparent unwillingness by intergovernmental humanitarian practitioners to relate the highly personal stories of their field in communication efforts.
This conundrum may be related to the level of presence of Economic Consequences which registered moderate to strongly across press releases and news articles and within publications. The relatively consistent use of the economic frame by both actor’s echoes James and Boukes’ (2016) comments that modern global economics and the market imperative make those priority frames across geographical settings.
Also striking by its absence, in over three-quarters of instances, was Ethical framing. The study’s findings show that this frame was not favoured by either actor when
communicating the MDGs. Its gradual decline in use by news articles as the goals neared completion suggest that once the frame changed to the more media friendly, “black and white,” “success or failure” dichotomy, ethics as a consideration was side-lined by the media. This runs counter to idealised notions of humanitarian communications, but reflects tensions between various actors in the field (government, NGOs, media) over what is considered value and instrumental rationalities when approaching humanitarian assistance (Nolan & Mikami, 2013).
The divergence across the poverty frames also provides interesting and, again, somewhat contradictory insights. Despite the ambitious aims of the global poverty reduction pledge by the UN, the more reductive poverty frames (monetarily, uniform, disempowered) were prevalent in press releases. On a fundamental level, a more multidimensional view of
poverty as a way to improve our approach to poverty reduction, advocated by Wagstaff (2003), is not evident in the organisation’s communication. The news articles show more willingness to readily adopt radical poverty frames. Therefore, the organisational MDG framing, despite maintaining a direct approach about the imperative of its mission, its progress and success, seems to have missed an opportunity to frame its communication in a way that would alter perceptions of poverty – the central subject of its campaign – beyond the archetypal.
The three frames of Progress, Success and Opportunity were all divergent and more evident in press releases than news articles, illustrating their importance as the three most used organisational frames for the MDGs. The emphasis on how well the goals were moving toward their ultimate aims, while at the same time an opportunity to improve living standards for people in developing countries, was strong for organisational communication but not as much for the press. This runs somewhat counter to Odozi and Nyam’s (2014) suggestion that
development journalism has a strong normative appeal to mobilise and educate the public in
support of development policies. The findings are more in line with critical evaluations
placing journalistic integrity as paramount and a reluctance to carry out propaganda on behalf
of organisations (Alexander, 2005). And, more broadly, aligning with Schafraad, van Zoonen
and Verhoeven (2016) who show that positive consequences – under which Progress,
Success, and Opportunity frames could all arguably be classed – is a news factor with much
less chance of transfer from corporate press releases to news media coverage.
Limitations & Future Research
This study limited analysis to the second half of the MDGs. Taking the complete 2000-2015 timeframe into account would be useful for greater generalisation purposes. Frames were measured dichotomously in terms of presence and absence. This measurement level simplified data collection, easing inter-coder reliability, but may have sacrificed detail
and variation that higher measurement levels would have revealed. The likelihood of Type I errors is also higher. This study restricted its organisational data to MDG specific press releases from the UN centrally rather than any of its constituent agencies (UNICEF, WHO, UNFPA). For future research a wider look at the framing by more organisations of the UN, all of whom worked with MDG targets, would give a more nuanced and in-depth assessment of overall framing of the MDGs from an organisational perspective. In terms of broader humanitarian communication, NGO press releases could also be included in any future research. The non-time defined nature of some news article selection reduced timeliness and corresponding story news value. In addition, the focus on a few elite publications from English language countries limits the geographic diversity. A wider sample from differing countries and more diverse publications could reveal further relevant frames. Finally, this study did not examine whether there were differences in representation of the countries mentioned in the texts. Further study could examine the framing of international development issues in terms of reputational impact and if some countries are more favourably and
frequently portrayed than others.
Conclusion
The overall objective of this paper was to illustrate the extent to which organisational and press framing of the MDGs converged. The study shows that frames in global
international development coalesce around certain key representations and diverge on others. The types of framing common to both actors were across non-challenging dimensions of international development, such as diagnosing relatively uncontested social problems, a common espousing of economic imperative, and conflict, failure, and threat framing. The degree to which tone diverged was more pronounced editorially within press publications than between press releases and news articles. Again, illustrating a broader symbiosis rather
than challenge in humanitarian communication. However, this does not quite verge into cheerleading on the behalf of organisational communication by the press in this setting. Certain dimensions of press coverage on key outcomes and topics of the MDG project, such as its overall success and how poverty is framed, diverged enough to illustrate challenge by press to organisation on these frames. This study has shown that there are differing and competing conceptions of poverty framing between organisation and news media, painting a
richer or simpler picture of the issue. Frame divergence clustered around key frames and
responded differently in different phases. The findings of this paper suggest the framing of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (2008-2015) reflected more of an organisational institutional status quo perspective than otherwise, perhaps reflecting broader press release penetration of news media, but in this case, possibly only a more ad-hoc organisational message effectiveness. A shift towards success framing near the end of the goals showed press buy-in, making a belated effort to ultimately portray the MDGs in a more positive than negative light. Perhaps this final frame-change reveals wider aspects of convergent
messaging across and within news media that both usurps and complements organisational efforts through framing over time.
References
Alexander, S. (2005). The role of the media in attaining the MDGs. Development, 48(1), 129-131
Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, C. (2005). The framing of
nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science communication, 27(2), 200-220
Ball-Rokeach, S., & Rokeach, M. (1987). The future study of public opinion: A symposium. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 184-185
Bantimaroudis, P., & Ban, H. (2001). Covering the crisis in Somalia: Framing choices by the New York Times and the Manchester Guardian. Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, 175-184
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. New York: Hafner
Brewer, P. R., Graf, J., & Willnat, L. (2003). Priming or framing: Media influence on attitudes toward foreign countries. Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands), 65(6), 493-508
Brigham, M. P., & Noland, A. K. (2014). Making Humanitarian Advocacy Less" Abstract and Remote": Kony 2012's Representation of an Agent-Centered Approach. Florida Communication Journal, 42(2)
Corcoran, F., & Fahy, D. (2009). Exploring the European elite sphere: The role of the Financial Times. Journalism Studies, 10(1), 100-113
Chyi, H. I., & McCombs, M. (2004). Media salience and the process of framing: Coverage of the Columbine school shootings. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 22-35
Dijkzeul, D., & Moke, M. (2005). Public communication strategies of international
De Swert, K., & Wouters, R. (2011). The coverage of China in Belgian television news. Chinese Journal of Communication, 4
Diani, M. (1992). The concept of social movement. The sociological review, 40(1), 1-25
Eilders, C., & Lüter, A. (2000). Research note: Germany at war: competing framing strategies in German public discourse. European Journal of Communication, 15(3), 415-428
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication, 43(4), 51-58
Green, M., & Hulme, D. (2005). From correlates and characteristics to causes: Thinking about poverty from a chronic poverty perspective. World Development, 33(6), 867-879
Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., Sriramesh, K., Huang, Y. H., & Lyra, A. (1995). Models of public relations in an international setting. Journal of public relations research, 7(3), 163-186
Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of public relations research, 11(3), 205-242
Haselmayer, M., Wagner, M., & Meyer, T. M. (2017). Partisan bias in message selection: Media gatekeeping of party press releases. Political communication, 34(3), 367-384
Hickel, J. (2016). The true extent of global poverty and hunger: questioning the good news narrative of the Millennium Development Goals. Third World Quarterly, 37(5), 749-767
Houston, J. B., Pfefferbaum, B., & Rosenholtz, C. E. (2012). Disaster news: Framing and frame changing in coverage of major US natural disasters, 2000–2010. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(4), 606-623
Is The Economist Left or Right Wing? (2013, September 3). Retrieved from
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0
James, E. K., & Boukes, M. (2017). Framing the economy of the East African Community: A decade of disparities and similarities found in Chinese and Western news media’s reporting on the East African Community. International Communication Gazette, 1748048516688130
Jasperson, A. E., Shah, D. V., Watts, M., Faber, R. J., & Fan, D. P. (1998). Framing and the public agenda: Media effects on the importance of the federal budget deficit. Political Communication, 15(2), 205-224
Joris, W., Puustinen, L., & d’Haenens, L. (2018). More news from the Euro front: How the press has been framing the Euro crisis in five EU countries. International
Communication Gazette, 1748048518754375
Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2016). Across the great divide: How partisanship and perceptions of media bias influence changes in time spent with media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(4), 604-623.
Kiousis, S., Popescu, C., & Mitrook, M. (2007). Understanding influence on corporate reputation: an examination of public relations efforts, media coverage, public opinion, and financial performance from an agenda-building and agenda-setting perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 147–165
Kosicki, G. M. (2006). Maxwell McCombs. Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 2004. 184 pp. 54.95(cloth); 26.95
Ksiazek, T. B., & Webster, J. G. (2008). Cultural proximity and audience behavior: The role of language in patterns of polarization and multicultural fluency. Journal of
Luoma-aho, V., & Vos, M. (2010). Towards a more dynamic stakeholder model:
acknowledging multiple issue arenas. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(3), 315-331
McArthur, J. W. (2013). Own the goals: What the Millennium Development Goals have accomplished. Foreign Affairs, 92(2), 152-162
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American journal of sociology, 82(6), 1212-1241
McCombs, M., & Ghanem, S. I. (2001). The convergence of agenda setting and framing. Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, 67-81
Nash, K. (2008). Global citizenship as show business: the cultural politics of Make Poverty History. Media, Culture & Society, 30(2), 167-181
Nijkrake, J., Gosselt, J. F., & Gutteling, J. M. (2015). Competing frames and tone in corporate communication versus media coverage during a crisis. Public relations review, 41(1), 80-88.
Nolan, D., & Mikami, A. (2013). ‘The things that we have to do’: Ethics and instrumentality in humanitarian communication. Global Media and Communication, 9(1), 53-70
Odozi, E., & Nyam, I. (2014). Development Journalism and Press Coverage of Millennium Development Goals in Nigeria. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(6), 20-27
Orgad, S., & Seu, B. I. (2014). ‘Intimacy at a distance’ in humanitarian communication. Media, Culture & Society, 36(7), 916-934
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political communication, 10(1), 55-75
