Nothing to celebrate: Comparative framing analysis on
the commemoration of “the discovery of America” in
Spain, Argentina, and the United States
Catalina Andrea Gaete Salgado Student ID-card nr: 11171014
MASTER THESIS
Graduate School of Communications
Erasmus Mundus Master’s in Journalism, Media and Globalization
Supervisor: Knut De Swert
[2]
Nothing to celebrate: Comparative framing analysis on the
commemoration of “the discovery of America” in Spain, Argentina,
and the United States
1ABSTRACT
October 12 is marked in red in the calendar of Spain and many American countries. Multiple historical and political events have converged to praise this date as a commemoration, celebrating the birth of a transnational identity uniting two continents across the Atlantic Ocean. This international festivity is observing the arrival of the Admiral Christopher Columbus to the “New World” in 1492, which changed European cartography, history, and economy, providing natural resources and workforce to build up modernity in the “Old World”. Nevertheless, such Europeanized celebration is not the same in every country. With the aim of exploring the unassessed representation of colonialism in the press, and the complexity of a transnational community united by a common historical event, this study addresses a comparative approach to analyse how media outlets from Spain, Argentina, and the US differ in covering the commemoration of October 12, to then compare how this
representation differs over a period of ten years. This paper embraces media and journalism as a platform for the negotiation of collective memory, where different stories and actors, such as indigenous communities and government officials, compete to win the interpretation of history. Deductive content analyses looking for issue-specific frames were deployed, to then analyse and compare these results statistically between countries and periods. Findings indicate that, in spite of having one historical event in common, commemorative media coverage can vary significantly, adapting to the socio-political needs of different national communities.
Keywords: Media framing, Media Memory, comparative study, October 12, colonialism.
1 Due to the necessity to include sufficient historical background, related to the comparative and historical character of this study, my supervisor agreed in extending moderately the thesis length. Thus, the number of words is 8.610.
[3] INTRODUCTION
It was October 1492. The three caravels that had sailed from a port in Southern Spain on August the same year were about to reach an island in the Bahamas, peacefully resting on The Caribbean Sea. The avid sailor Christopher Columbus was commanding the expedition with the absolute conviction that the land they were seeing in the horizon was the continent already known as Asia.
What happened on the 12th of that month certainly changed the history of Europe. Although Columbus did not know it at that time because it was only confirmed by Amerigo Vespucci in 1502, this voyage made an entirely new continent appear on the maps of the time,
expanding the dimensions of the globe, and opening up a gigantic provider of natural resources, precious metals, spices, and servants much needed for the development of the nascent capitalist economy (Herrero, 1992; Mignolo, 2009). Nevertheless, this Eurocentric historical narrative has persistently disregarded the other side of the coin. Long before the arrival of the Europeans, the continent was inhabited by highly heterogeneous indigenous societies and civilizations, whose millenary history has been relegated to official oblivion (Zerubavel, 1998). According to Zerubavel (1998), such forgetfulness can even be perceived in the conceptualization of the Pre-Columbian era, or everything that happened in America before Columbus, which is splitting the American timeline into two recognizable periods, and relegating the history of Native Americans to a single and supposedly homogenous
prehistoric era. Therefore, October 12, 1492, marks the birth of American history.
Yet the colonization process has been interpreted from different lenses, many of which are challenging the Europeanized version of the “discovery”. Among these divergent historical accounts, which are mainly focusing on the indigenous side of the coin, scholars have devoted their work to accurately describe the intense process of depopulation that affected the continent after the first contact with Western civilizations, describing a harmful history of slavery, cultural subordination, exploitation, and even extermination. In spite of the rather
[4]
unclear estimations, due to the time frame when it took place, this process is considered to have been of genocidal scales (Maybury-Lewis, 2002). Herrero (1992), for instance, dwell on the dramatic decrease in the indigenous population of the Hispaniola Island2 (today’s Haiti
and Dominican Republic), which went from 3.770.000 in 1496 to 125 in 1570. Likewise, Denevan (1976) estimates that the indigenous population from what we know today as Latin American countries was reduced by 90% in 130 years. The causes of this marked
demographic decline have traditionally been associated with the introduction of European diseases into a non-immune population. Notwithstanding, scholars have also agreed in the complex and mixed causes of the annihilation, where disease infestation was one factor among many other traumatic circumstances. The military superiority of European conquerors and the regimes of forced labour introduced into native communities succeeded in provoking the collapse of ancestral societal structures, which in combination with European diseases caused famine and mass mortality (Maybury-Lewis, 2002; Del Popolo & Jaspers, 2014). Against this background, the fate of millions of native inhabitants in the Americas was severely disrupted by biocultural factors, and October 12 stands as the starting date of such detrimental period.
How did this day make it to become a moment of celebration? Rodríguez (2004) described October 12 as the first milestone in the construction of a unique transcontinental community, merging the coexistence of multiple identities such as Iberoamerican, Hispanic, American, national, and ethnic. Due to complex processes of resistance and syncretism (Herrero, 1992), the installation of this festivity is earnestly engaging with the conceptualization of collective identity, or the “shared sense of we” (Snow, 2001), which involves the idea of “collective agency” as actions in pursuit of common interests. While apprehending it from this perspective, October 12 can be described as the platform where clashing and interrelated identity-formation processes are taking place, through the active remembering of a historic
2 Isla La Española. It is considered as the first European settlement in America, where Columbus and
[5]
event which has been used as a political mean and a diplomatic tool (Sebastiani, 2016a). Therefore, the study of such platform of transnational commemoration turns out to be highly appealing for social sciences, for merging different issues concerning identity-building and the driving forces of globalization. Within this framework, this paper suggests that the expression and maintenance of such interrelated senses of belonging, as well as particular historical interpretations, can be studied from journalistic productions.
In order to undertake this challenge, this study embraced a two-ways comparative approach, aimed at measuring not only transnational differences but also across-time transformations. A comprehensive review of the celebration’s history, which has been installed in Spain and America for over a century, suggest that its character is eminently transformative, adapting to the different socio-political needs of the participating communities (Kubal, 2008;
Rodríguez, 2004; Sebastiani, 2016a). With this in mind, this study firstly provides brief historical accounts to understand the rise of this festivity within three different national contexts -Spain, Argentina, and the US- in order to support its metamorphic character. Secondly, it discusses the main developments within Media Memory studies regarding the journalistic uses of the past and commemorative journalism, to then explain the suitability of framing analysis to answering the research questions. Findings contribute with providing empirical data of the memory-making process that is taking place within commemorative media coverage, where journalists engage with historical accounts and definitions. Thus, who was Columbus and what happened more than 500 years ago can be read in today’s newspapers. But, was he the main character in a marvellous discovery or did he mark the beginning of an indigenous genocide? This study suggests that, beyond pure facts, this definition is transforming according to different contexts and times.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
On October 12, 1919, Christopher Columbus finally managed to appear on a cover page. Contradicting the most basic assumptions about journalism, which is supposed to be
[6]
focused on novelty and up-to-date information (Deuze, 2005), the Spanish newspaper ABC opened its edition on that day with a news event that took place 427 years before, portraying the painting of Dioscoro Puebla picturing the arrival of the first European cortege in America (see cover in Appendix A). The captions of the picture leave no doubts of the reason for such a daring cover: “landing of Christopher Columbus in America, a fact that is
commemorated today in the Day of the race” (own translation). This journalistic production is providing an interesting study case where traditional news values such as novelty,
geographical proximity, or continuity would hardly be identified. Therefore, which were the factors driving the media coverage of such moment in history?
The answer to this question might come from a nascent study field, which is addressing the ways by which the past is taking part in the news. The challenge of understanding the many interactions between journalism and collective memory (Olick, 2014) has led scholars to propose theories to refresh, or even overcome, the rather clichéd “first draft of history”3
approach (Conboy, 2011), by which journalism is merely providing accounts to be held in the treasury of history. Beyond such statement, Media Memory scholars have proposed that the implications are way more complex, and that collective memory is not only an outcome of media coverage (Kligler-Vilenchik, Tsfati & Meyers, 2014), but that news-making is also influenced by memory (Kaiser, 2014; Zelizer & Tenenboim-Weinblatt, 2014). Thus, the process of social remembering and social forgetting is taking place in newsrooms in many shapes, from the set-up of the newsworthiness criteria (Olick, 2014, p.25) to the different uses of the past in journalistic reporting (Edy, 1999; Neiger, Zandberg & Meyers, 2014; Schudson, 1997, 2014).
Among these journalistic uses of the past, scholars such as Edy (1999) and Neiger et al. (2014) have identified and developed the category of commemorative journalism, by which the past is brought to the present in the shape of social events. Anniversaries, obituaries,
[7]
observances, naming, and monuments are typical examples of such kind of mnemonic vehicles, which “are usually sanctioned by some social authority” (Edy, 1999, p.74). The cultural resonance of these events is highly prominent because while history makes the past an object of analysis, commemoration makes it “an object of commitment” (Schwartz, 2015, p.236). Consequently, commemoration requires the active self-conscious process of
remembering (Schudson, 1997), thus producing symbols in order to promote values and aspirations. The process, thoroughly described by Schwartz (2015), consists in selecting a historical event which meaning and interpretation are created by the community; then, its moral rather than factual aspects are emphasized, to finally make it tangible and widely accessible. While covering these events, news media act as institutions of commemoration, because journalists do not only report on the story of the commemorative event, but also the story of the event that is commemorated (Edy, 1999). While doing this, journalists provide historical accounts, which are shaping, reinforcing or renewing cultural memory (Schudson, 2014).
In light of these theoretical guidelines, the aforementioned cover page of the Spanish newspaper ABC could be analysed from the outlook of Media Memory studies, focusing not only in the specific words and images used to portray an historical event, but also in the social relevance of the commemoration and the celebration of the “Day of the race”. Harcup and O’Neill (2017) called “relevance” to the newsworthiness criterion that is stressing the feature of a story “perceived to be influential with, or culturally or historically familiar to, the audience” (p.1482). Although celebrity and magnitude seem to be also related to the achievement of getting to know a whole new continent, the cultural resonance of such distant moment in history seems to be used as a mean of identity-formation. Accordingly, such newspaper edition was not an isolated event. It was the outcome of a longstanding process that was taking place in Spain and in many American countries, when the arrival of Christopher Columbus to the “New World” started to be commemorated as a transnational festivity.
[8] Origins and transformations of October 12
According to Rodríguez (2004), the first record of mass celebrations of the “discovery of America” can be found at both sides of the Atlantic at the end of the XIX century, for the fourth centenary of the deed in 1892.
While the Spanish Empire started to disintegrate at the beginning of the XIX century, with the loss of almost all its overseas territories, it found in Americanism the solution for its decay (Rodríguez, 2004). In a context of European expansionism, Spain resorted to the
foundational moment of its imperial power to regain influence in the continent that once was owned, turning October 12 not only into a diplomatic tool, but also into the founding myth required to build-up the new Spanish national identity (Rodríguez, 2004; Sebastiani, 2016a). The celebration embraced a Hispano-American approach and gained roots for praising a supposedly universal attainment, thus conferring to Columbus the highest human values and moral standards. With the advent of the World War I, where Spain remained neutral, this Americanist foreign policy was strengthened, installing the idea of a peaceful Hispano-American race, young, civilized and, solidary as opposed to the barbarism of the “Old World” (Rodríguez, 2004). Therefore, the concept of Hispanic race expanded quickly, and the celebration of October 12 as the “Day of the race” did it as well. It was officialised as such by King Alfonso XIII in 1918, who proclaimed the “Day of the race” as a national holiday. The dictator Francisco Franco changed the denomination of the celebration to “Hispanic Day”, articulating a new national identity with a sort of nostalgia for the empire (Rodríguez, 2004), where the values of Catholicism where the bedrock of the Hispanic international community (Aguilar Fernández & Humlebaek, 2002; Sebastiani, 2016a). Lately, on 1987, the celebration was renamed as the “National Day”, by which the country celebrates how the Spanish
Kingdom “begins a period of linguistic and cultural projection beyond European limits” (Ley 18/1987, 1987, own translation).
[9]
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, the consequences of 300 years of imperial domination could be perceived in the advent and rise of this celebration. As the original inhabitants of the continent were either decimated or miscegenated through complex biological and cultural factors, the colonized peoples adapted culturally and ideologically to the European motherland, embracing Western values while marginalizing indigenous or aboriginal origins (Klor de Alba, 1995). Because of this complex process of mestizaje4, the independence struggles that took place during the XIX century were not intending to break up culturally or socially with the metropolis, but rather administratively and economically (Klor de Alba, 1995). Therefore, the recently independent American countries resorted to already known Western backgrounds to erect their own national identities, embracing Christian values and applauding the achievement of the discovery (Rodríguez, 2004). According to Rodríguez (2004), these are the main causes of the proliferation of the
celebration of October 12 during the first half of the XX century, which started unofficially for the fourth centenary within Spanish immigrant’s communities, and then expanded to official holidays in almost every American nation.
Argentina: an emblematic case of the Latin American October 12
Although the celebration found good reception in Latin America, Argentina represents an exemplary case, as it was the first country where the celebration was officially declared. Even shortly before the definitive law enacted in Spain by King Alfonso XIII, the Argentinian president Hipólito Yrigoyen executed an official decree in 1917, to commemorate the “Day of the race” as a national holiday. This celebration played an important role in the
“argentinization” process that took place at the beginning of the XX century when numerous civic rituals emerged to promote Argentinian identity (Rodriguez, 2004; Sebastiani, 2016b).
4 Mestizaje is the concept used to refer to the process that took place in Meso and South America,
during Spanish and Portuguese colonial expansion. This concept refers to an intense and large-scale racial and cultural exchange between European settlers and native Indians, producing new cultural forms different from the two originals. According to Ashcroft, Griffiths & Tiffin (2000), this term has not been widely used outside America, and it has developed in a “positive national cultural sign” for the inhabitants of the American continent (p.136).
[10]
In this identity-formation process, the Spanish component5 was pivotal since according to
the foundational narrative the criollos6 were those who build up the independent nation,
while the original inhabitants of Argentinian lands were rarely mentioned7 (Rodríguez, 2004;
Zaidenwerg, 2013). The “Day of the race” was the official name of the celebration until 2010, when the Argentinian president Cristina Fernández changed it for the “Day of respect for cultural diversity” (Día del Respeto a la Diversidad Cultural), according to the Human Rights treaties ratified by the Argentinian state in favour of the ethnic diversity of all peoples
(Decreto 1584/2010, 2010). Similar thing has happened all across Latin America. October 12 has transformed from the “Day of the race” to different country-specific interpretations and names, most of them incorporating a recognition to indigenous peoples, who are also among the poorest and more marginalized social groups in Latin American societies (Freire et al., 2015, p.57-77). Even though these transformations might have been influenced by
ideological components as well, especially in context of the Latin America’s left turn during the 2000s (Beasley-Murray, Cameron & Hershberg, 2009), changes to the “Day of the race” also emerged previously in moderate countries such as Costa Rica (1994) and Chile (2000), suggesting that its motivations were varied and not solely driven by political affiliations.
United States: the unexpected tribute to Columbus
Up north in the American continent, the commemoration of October 12 in the United States represents an interesting study case. Even though Columbus never set a foot on today’s US territory, the figure of the explorer made it to the memory of the nation, inspiring monuments,
5 Rodríguez (2004) also mentioned the relevant role that played the alleged Italian nationality of
Columbus in the quick installation of October 12 in Argentina. Italian migrants represent an important source of Argentinian nationality; therefore, the figure of Columbus was widely legitimized for
combining both, Spanish and Italian roots.
6 “Criollo” is the name conferred to Spanish descendants in South or Central America. It involves the
purity of the Spanish origin and America as the place of birth.
7 Due to this diminished role of the indigenous component, the Argentinean celebration of October 12
differs significantly from other Latin American countries, especially Mexico. According to Rodríguez (2004), in Mexico the ideology of mestizaje was more prominent than the idea of the criollo culture, and therefore the indigenous ancestor was highly relevant during the commemoration of October 12. Thus, prominent pre-Columbian civilizations such as the Aztecs had an important place in the Mexican identity-formation process, as their figures were vindicated together with the Spanish colonizers.
[11]
and even the naming of important cities and institutions, such as the District of Columbia and Columbia University. The first record of the active remembering of Columbus dates from the third centenary of the discovery in 1792, when the United States has recently achieved its independence. The speech, delivered by a reverend in Boston, Massachusetts, praised the figure of Columbus as the tool of the providence to open up the way for Protestantism. Subsequent manifestations of high esteem towards Columbus proliferated in the United States during the XIX century. Biographers, historians, and intellectuals acclaimed him as a hero, who fought against the adversity of his time and then unfairly went to oblivion
(Rodríguez, 2004; Schuman, Schwartz & d’Arcy, 2005).
Columbus became and has remained as a central figure in the US national origin myth (Kubal, 2008). President Benjamin Harrison promoted the celebration of Columbus’ landing on the Americas for the fourth centenary, matching with the advent of the observance in Spain and other Latin American countries. The intention to honour him on the second Monday of October was firstly officialised as a state holiday in Colorado, and it became a federal holiday in 1950. But as Kubal (2008) described, the myth of Columbus has been rewritten to serve many purposes, such as religion, patriotism, and different ethnic
compositions. Hispanic-Americans, Italian-Americans, and American-Indians have embraced the commemoration of Columbus Day from different lenses, providing an interesting platform to analyse the social appropriation of history to create partisan memories (Kubal, 2008, p.3). Therefore, even though the name of the commemoration has not changed as in Latin
America, its interpretation has fluctuated in light of social movements and cultural changes.
The most recent development surrounding the celebration is the rise of revisionist approaches. Schuman et al. (2005) studied this phenomenon empirically by conducting surveys and content analyses over history books and newspapers. They concluded that even though revisionist ideas have succeeded in installing a critical discourse towards Columbus’s prowess, the “inertia” of his long-standing reputation lowered the impact of revisionism outside elite groups. “The predominant public belief is the traditional one that
[12]
Columbus merits admiration as the ‘discoverer of America’” (p.23), albeit the glorification of Columbus as a hero is lower among younger cohorts. Due to such development, many cities in the US have decided not to observe Columbus Day and step aside the day off.
As a final remark, it is worth mentioning the prominent role of education in the embodiment of the commemoration throughout the American continent. Rodriguez (2004) describes how the tribute to a European empire found some contradictions among the recently independent nations, and therefore the meaning of the commemoration needed to be taught and
transmitted through traditional socialization. By performing different activities in primary schools, such as poems, plays, or songs, children in America learn by hard the justification of the date and the transcendence of the discovery led by Christopher Columbus. “The school fulfils the role of indicating the right interpretation: nobody will forget nor its motive nor its main figure, thanks to school ceremonies” (Rodríguez, 2004, p.177, own translation).
Framing the discovery
This rather brief explanation of the origins and transformations of October 12 acknowledges that the celebration has one common origin, but dissimilar country-specific meanings and interpretations. Thus, the nature of this festivity is metamorphic for the three countries under study, being used as a political instrument not only for their foreign policy but also for their politics of identity (Sebastiani, 2016b). Embracing the symbolic function of journalism and the media in establishing and maintaining communities (Carey, 1989, as cited in Conboy, 2011), the media coverage of the commemoration is expected to differ as well among
countries. But will they differ regarding the original historical event that is common for all? As aforementioned, when the past is brought back to the present in the form of commemoration, journalists do not only report about the event of the present but also engage with the past, describing and explaining the historical developments that made it a relevant moment for the community. Therefore, while covering the commemoration of October 12, journalists select
[13]
certain aspects of the arrival of Columbus to America, highlighting some passages of history while overlooking others.
The antiqueness of the event -more than 500 years- and the involvement of other powerful mnemonic agents, such as formal education and state-ran ceremonies, would suggest that the historical accounts provided by journalists will not differ significantly from traditional or institutional memories (Schuman et al., 2005), thus configuring what Kitzinger (2000) called “media templates”. Kitzinger (2000) states that these are key reference points in the past routinely used by reporters as a shorthand, presuming certain knowledge from the audience and reproducing hegemonic interpretations of history. Therefore, in order to compare three country-specific interpretations of October 12, and to find evidence of media templates within the news coverage, the conceptualization of framing turns out to be highly pertinent.
According to Entman (1993), frames can be defined as those aspects of reality highlighted to make them more salient, proposing to the audience particular definitions, interpretations, evaluations, and recommendations. Thus, the country-specific meanings of the
commemoration could be identified by resorting to framing analysis, looking for dissimilar emphasis for the same historical event, varied attention to actors, and disparate temper or attitudes towards the commemoration. This leads to the first research question:
RQ1: How does the media coverage on the commemoration of October 12 differ across countries?
In order to answer this question, this study will look for the prevalence of three specific frames: actors, historical references, and approval or disapproval. In terms of actors, this study will resort to the definition drafted by Zandberg (2010), who stated that newspapers act as a platform of “cultural negotiation” where different stories and actors vie for a place in history. The dissimilar composition of Spanish, Argentinian, and US societies suggests that different actors will join this negotiation, gaining more prominence in one country than in the other. For instance, Spain commemorates October 12 with a military march led by the royal
[14]
family and the highest officials of the state, while in the US the festivity is celebrated with street parades organized by civil society organizations. Therefore, as the social relevance of the festivity is different in the three countries under study, the prominence of certain social figures is expected to differ. This leads to the first hypothesis:
H1: Official, royal, and political actors are more prominent in Spain than in Argentina and the US
The second frame is an issue-specific frame developed for the purposes of the present study, aimed at identifying prevailing historical accounts within media coverage. As
Schuman et al. (2005) already identified revisionist ideas regarding the figure of Christopher Columbus in the US, while Argentina changed the name of the commemoration in 2010 to acknowledge cultural and ethnic diversity, the second hypothesis states the following:
H2: Critical (not-neutral) historical references are more frequent in Argentina and the US than in Spain.
The social prominence of the celebration in Spain, and the rather positive temper imprinted to the decree by which the “National Day” was enacted –highlighting the “expansion” of Spanish culture and language “beyond European limits” (Ley 18/1987, 1987, own
translation)- suggests that the celebration has a better appreciation in this country than in Argentina and the US. Therefore, this leads to the third hypothesis:
H3: Mentions to the feeling of pride or approval towards the celebration, as well as arguments favouring the festivity, are more prominent in Spain than in Argentina and the US.
Even though country differences are expected, the metamorphic nature of the celebration suggest that changes will be perceived across time as well. Schuman et al. (2005) indicated that the advent of revisionist ideas in the US took place during the Quincentenary, yet the same critical concepts were not identified before. Similarly, the naming and the meaning of
[15]
the celebration has changed within the three countries under study, adapting to political and cultural needs of different time periods (Kubal, 2008; Sebastiani, 2016a). This leads to the second research question:
RQ2: How does media coverage on the commemoration of October 12 differ across-time?
In order to answer this question, this study looked for changes in the prominence of
indigenous actors within two time periods with 10 years in between. As aforementioned, the name of the commemoration has changed in almost every Latin American country,
incorporating a recognition to American original inhabitants. In spite of the discussed nuances of this development, related to ideological components, it is also worth noting that the naming change came along with the permanent resistance of indigenous communities, who have prevailed in maintaining their culture and language despite the impediments posed now by independent republics (Del Popolo & Jaspers, 2014). Changes also took place within a greater international acknowledgment of indigenous’ people’s rights, with two main
milestones: The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention-No.169 (1989) from the International Labour Organization; and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). Coupled with that, in the field of media studies, Cottle (2000) identified a positive impact of the industry’s new trends in indigenous communities and ethnic minorities. In spite of enduring under-representation and stereotyping from
mainstream media, fragmentation and the outreach of technology has helped them to create their own platforms, enhancing their coordination, political participation, and visibility.
Therefore, the fourth hypothesis states:
H4: Indigenous actors are more prominent in Period I than Period II.
But not only actors are expected to change across time. The already described transformational character of the celebration suggests opposed conceptualizations to approaching October 12. In Spain, for instance, parliamentary debates have proposed
[16]
alternative dates to commemorate the “National Day” (Vernet i Llobet, 2003), while Schuman et al. (2005) identified a contested reputation of Columbus among US elites. Therefore, this study resorted to the identification of controversies or disapprovals towards the celebration. This leads to the fifth hypothesis:
H5: References of October 12 as a contested event, the feeling of shame or
disapproval, and arguments against the celebration are more prominent in Period II than Period I.
Finally, this study acknowledges that awareness of history has increased since the 80s onwards (Olick, 2014). “Today, we see that the future has lost much of its power to integrate, while the past is becoming increasingly important in the formation of identity” (Assmann, 2007, p.11), thus history is expected to have a more prominent position in most recent periods than before. Furthermore, regarding journalism studies, Schudson (2014) referred to an increased media attention towards history across-time, explaining that historical context is helping journalists to “not just to report the latest happenings but to fit them into some kind of coherent framework for the audience” (Schudson, 2014, p.88). Therefore, the sixth
hypothesis states:
H6: Historical frames are more prominent in Period II than in Period I
METHODS
This study established a two-way comparative approach, in order to compare the media coverage of the commemoration of October 12 across-countries and across-time. Cross-national comparisons in the field of media and communications studies expanded since the 70s onwards, recognizing the challenges of understanding the complexity of global and interconnected media systems (Reese, 2001). Among the main developments in this methodological approach, it is possible to find the work of Hallin and Mancini (2004) and Reese and Shoemaker (2016), who created models to be applicable in comparative
[17]
transnational studies. These models have been thoroughly revised and updated, facing the challenge of comparing media systems beyond the Western world (Hallin & Mancini, 2011), and discussing the projection of global phenomena, such as convergence or homogenization (Hallin & Mancini, 2017). Even though comparative designs are still in a developing stage within the field of communications, the same method is remarkably underdeveloped in the field of Memory Studies, which research is often based on a single case study approach (Wolfgram, 2015). In order to address the methodological concerns surrounding the field, Kansteiner (2002) even proposed the suitability of adopting the methods of media and journalism studies, as a mean to overcome the difficulties in comprehending the sociological base of historical representations. Therefore, in order to apply this comparative approach, framing analysis is the most suitable methodology to merge both study fields, deploying quantitative content analyses on mainstream quality media from Spain, Argentina, and the US while covering the commemoration of October 12.
Two quality newspapers in each country were selected, following two exclusionary criteria aimed at considering the outreach of the media outlet: a) newspapers addressing national audiences instead of local, due to the broad character of the festivity, and b) newspapers located among the leaders in readership, whether online visits or print purchase8. The
socio-political resonance of the commemoration is expected to be thoroughly reported in quality newspapers instead of popular, due to the importance that these outlets devote to objectivity and conflictive perspectives (Boukes & Vliegenthart, 2017). Therefore, broadsheets instead of tabloids were preferred. The newspaper’s political affiliation was disregarded as a
8 Different sources were used to build up this selection criteria, whether country-specific reports from advertising agencies or general statistics developed by private organizations or governmental
agencies. For instance, the provider of market and consumer data Statista supplied circulation data of daily newspapers in the US and Spain as September 2017, while ComScore provided data of digital consumption in Argentina as May 2013. Additional sources, such as news stories, were also used to confirm that the six selected newspapers where among the leading publications in their own national contexts.
[18]
selection criterion, for being located out of the limits of the research interest pursued by this study. Accordingly, the following six media outlets compose the data:
Table 1. Newspapers under study per country.
Spain Argentina United States
El País ABC
El Clarín La Nación
The Washington Post The New York Times
The sampling method considered two time-periods to be compared: Period I (2004, 2005, 2006) and Period II (2014, 2015, 2016). The selection of these periods, with three years each, was done in order to control the probable happening of specific national events distracting media attention from the coverage of the commemoration. Particularly in the timeframe selected for this study, significant happenings shivered the three national contexts, such as the terrorist attack of March 2004 in Madrid, the death of the prosecutor Alberto Nisman in 2015 in Argentina, and the election of Donald Trump in 2016 in the US. Therefore, three years –instead of one- were selected for each period in order to avoid “contaminated sample”. Two weeks were selected per year, from 5 October to 19 October (both dates included), considering one week before and one week after October 12. The selection of this timeframe allowed the inclusion of possible in-depth journalistic pieces produced on dates distant from the main news event, whether before or after this commemoration takes place.
From that period of time, all the articles containing the keyword “October 12” or “12 de octubre” (in Spanish) were considered for the analysis. Country-specific keywords related to the socio-political context of the country were also included in combination with “October 12” in order to ensure that all the pieces dealing with this news event are being considered. For instance, as Kubal (2008) described, the alleged Genovese origins of Columbus has served as a catalyst for the Italian-American community in the US, who are currently organizing street parades in the cities where the celebration is still taking place. Thus the word “Italian”
[19]
was incorporated in the keywords for the US (see country-specific keywords in Table 2). The search was carried out through LexisNexis in the cases of The Washington Post and The New York Times, while for Spain and Argentina the digital archive of the four media outlets was used to search for news articles on a day-by-day basis. All formats of journalistic pieces were considered for this study, having news articles, reportages, interviews, opinion pieces, and editorials, in print and online format. Only letters to the editor were left out of the sample, for being such an eminently variable section in any newspaper devoted to public discussion (Wahl-Jorgensen, 2001). The final sample has the following distribution: Spain (N=293), Argentina (N=55), US (N=56). Total N=404.
Table 2. Country-specific keywords used for data collection
Spain Argentina United States
-12 de octubre -Cristóbal Colón -Hispanidad -Fiesta Nacional -América -Desfile -12 de octubre -Cristóbal Colón -Día de la raza -Descubrimiento de América -Indígena -October 12 -Christopher Columbus -Columbus -Native American -Hispanic -Italian Operationalization of variables
Due to the scarce empirical research available in this field, a specific codebook was developed as the instrument of quantitative data collection for framing analysis. The
development of the codebook was made with the help of a preliminary sample obtained from the six media outlets under study, in years which are different from the two aforementioned periods. Particularly, random news articles from two weeks of October in 2008, 2009, 2010 were reviewed in order to get a preliminary perception of the issues and topics being discussed in each country.
[20]
The variables considered in this codebook were measuring the presence or absence of approval-disapproval and historical frames, as well as the extent to which certain actors were mentioned in each story. The presence of approval-disapproval was measured by five nominal variables, which were assessing the presence of controversial or contested
situations in the story, regardless how related is the conflict to historical affairs. This frame is also measuring the feeling of pride and the feeling of shame, as well as the presence of arguments in favour or against the celebration. The presence of historical frames was measured by 11 nominal variables, aimed at identifying the mention of dominant
interpretations of history or templates. For instance, the specific mention of “the discovery of America”, the presence of any reference to pre-Columbian cultures, or the use of the word genocide and colonialism were coded. Finally, the presence of actors was measured by five ratio variables, counting the exact number of times that certain actors were mentioned throughout the story. Indigenous, royal, officials, political, and expert actors were coded (see codebook in Appendix B).
Each variable of the codebook was subject of two-waves intercoder reliability tests, which used Krippendorff’s alpha to measure the agreement achieved by three different coders coding a subsample of 30 articles. All of those articles were selected from random years different from the time periods considered for the main sample under study. The calculation of Krippendorff’s alpha with bootstrap was run in SPSS using the macro developed by Hayes (2007). In the first test, all variables obtained a coefficient α > .5, while 13 variables obtained α > .667; therefore, the reliability test confirmed a high level of agreement between coders (see results of the first test in Appendix C). Five problematic variables (α < .5) were either fixed or deleted, to finally run a second intercoder reliability test over two variables, which scores were α > .55 (see results of the second text in Appendix D).
The coding process was applied to the sample (N=404) by using the online software Qualtrics, which facilitated the introduction of the data and the export of the database to SPSS. A Cronbach's Alpha test was performed to assess the internal consistency of the
[21]
variables that were measuring similar constructs. The test was applied to the variables measuring historical references (α=.82), neutral historical references (α=.50)9, critical or
non-neutral historical references (α=.69), approval towards the celebration (α=.70), and
disapproval towards the celebration (α=.86)10. Afterward, different statistical analyses were
performed according to the nature of the data (see set of variables, indexes, and statistical tests in Appendix E).
FINDINGS
A one-way between subjects’ ANOVA was conducted to compare the presence of actors, in order to test H1 which stated that official, royal, and political actors are more prominent in Spain than in Argentina and the US. As can be seen in Table 3, for all the actors measured there was a statistically significant difference across countries.
Table 3. Presence of actors compared across-country.
Spain US Argentina Variable M SD M SD M SD p Indigenous actors 0,18 1,05 0,59 1,19 0,55 1,36 .006** Royal actors 0,90 1,49 0,12 0,70 0,18 0,72 .000*** Officials 3,59 4,61 1,31 3,14 1,44 1,93 .000*** Political actors 2,62 3,35 0,68 1,42 0,75 1,75 .000*** Experts 0,17 0,61 0,34 0,76 0,96 1,68 .000***
Results of One-way ANOVA comparing total means of the groups, with the significance value establishing the following levels: p<0.5*, p<0.05**, p<0.001***.
9 The index neutral historical frames got a deficient score (α=.50), thus this frame was analysed in a
more conservative and moderate way than the other indexes with higher coefficients.
10 Due to the nature of the variables measured through this content analysis, including dissimilar
historical references, the merged variables were considered as index rather than scale. This means that the statistical analyses are not measuring the degree or the extent to which certain frame is present, but rather the sum of the presence of certain elements.
[22]
Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test were performed to dive into the already detected significant differences. Regarding royal actors, the test indicated that the mean score for Spain (M=.90, SD=1.49) was significantly higher than the mean score for the US (M=.12, SD=0.70). Meanwhile, the mean score for Argentina (M=.18, SD=0.72) did not significantly differ from the mean score of the US. Regarding officials as actors, the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Spain (M=3.59, SD=6.61) was significantly higher than the mean score for the US (M=1.31, SD=3.14). But again, the mean score for Argentina (M=1.44, SD=1.93) did not significantly differ from the mean score of the US. Finally,
regarding political actors, Post hoc comparisons indicated that the mean score for Spain (M=2.62, SD=3.35) was significantly higher than the mean score for the US (M=.68, SD=1.42), while the mean score for Argentina (M=.75, SD=1.75) did not significantly differ from the mean score of the US. Consequently, Royal, Officials, and Political actors are significantly more prominent in Spain, confirming H1.
With the aim of testing H2, which states that critical (not-neutral) historical references are more frequent in Argentina and the US than in Spain, Mann-Whitney's U tests were performed, considering that the data per country was not following a normal distribution.
Table 4. Critical historical references compared across-country.
Variable SP AR P SP US p US AR P Pre-Columbian cultures 0,05 0,27 .000*** 0,05 0,32 .000*** 0,32 0,27 .567 Colonialism mentioned 0,17 0,40 .000*** 0,17 0,29 .029* 0,29 0,40 .210 Indigenous genocide mentioned 0,10 0,24 .005** 0,10 0,22 .010** 0,22 0,24 .839 European colonialism mentioned 0,01 0,31 .000*** 0,01 0,17 .000*** 0,17 0,31 .081 Columbus - Conqueror 0,06 0,00 .148 0,06 0,03 .486 0,03 0,00 .331
Means per country obtained through descriptive statistics, while the significance value was obtained after performing Mann Whitney U test per each variable. p<0.5*, p<0.05**, p<0.001***.
[23]
As can be seen in Table 4, there was a rather clear pattern of statistically significant differences between Spain and Argentina, and Spain and the US, but no significant differences among the US and Argentina. The presence of pre-Columbian cultures, colonialism, indigenous genocide, and European colonialism was significantly higher in Argentina compared to Spain, and in the US compared to Spain. Nevertheless, none of the above-mentioned variables was significantly different between Argentina and the US. The exception to this trend is the description of Columbus as a conqueror, which did not significantly differ between Spain and the US (U=871, p=.486), Spain and Argentina (U=799.0, p=.148), and Argentina and the US (U=595, p=.331). In spite of this oddity, the statistical analysis for most of the variables suggests that critical historical references are more frequent in Argentina and the US than in Spain, partly confirming H2.
Still in the cross-country comparison, Mann-Whitney's U tests were performed to test H3, which states that mentions to the feeling of pride or approval towards the celebration, as well as arguments favouring the festivity, are more prominent in Spain than in Argentina and the US. As shown in Table 5, there is a clear pattern with no statistically significant differences among Argentina and the US, while Spain and Argentina differ significantly, with a higher prominence of both frames in Spain. Meanwhile, Spain and the US differ only in terms of pride, which presence is significantly higher in Spain. Therefore, H3 is partly confirmed.
Table 5. Approval towards the celebration compared across-country.
Variable SP AR P SP US P US AR P
Pride 0,61 0,47 .051* 0,61 0,42 .007** 0,42 0,47 .601
Arguments favouring 0,45 0,29 .031** 0,45 0,36 .193 0,36 0,29 .461
Means per country obtained through descriptive statistics, while the significance value was obtained after performing Mann Whitney U test per each variable. p<0.5*, p<0.05**, p<0.001***.
Moving towards cross-time comparisons, independent samples t-test were conducted to test H4, which states that indigenous actors are more prominent in Period I (2004, 2005, 2006)
[24]
than Period II (2014, 2015, 2016). Although the mean of indigenous actors in Period I (M=.41, SD=.16) is relatively higher than Period II (M=.24, SD=.05), the t-test showed that the means between these two periods were not statistically different, t(402)=1.39, p=.163. Thence, H4 is rejected.
In order to test H5, which affirms that references of October 12 as a contested event, the feeling of shame or disapproval, and arguments against the celebration are more prominent in Period II than Period I, Chi-square tests of independence were performed. As shown in Table 6, the three variables used to measure this frame were significantly higher in Period II than in Period I. Looking at the cross tabulation, the presence of October 12 as a contested issue got 45.6% in Period I, while the same option got 60.1% in Period II, χ² (1,N=402)=6.93, p=.008. The feeling of shame or disapproval got 21.1% in Period I, and the same option got 46.6% in Period II, χ² (1,N=404)=22.29, p=.000. Similarly, the presence of arguments against the celebration got 16.7% in Period I, while the same option got 35.5% in Period II, χ² (1, N=404) =13.795, p=.000. Thence, H5 can be confirmed.
Table 6. Disapproval towards the celebration compared across-time.
Period I Period II
Variable Absent Present Absent Present N P
October 12 - Contested issue 54,4% 45,6% 39,9% 60,1% 402 .008**
Feeling of shame or disapproval 78,9% 21,1% 53,4% 46,6% 404 .000***
Arguments against the celebration 83,3% 16,7% 64,5% 35,5% 404 .000*** Percentages obtained from chi-square test of independence, where p<0.5*, p<0.05**, p<0.001***.
Likewise, a Chi-square test of independence was performed to test H6, which states that historical frames are more prominent in Period II than in Period I. As can be seen in Table 7, none of the items considered to assess the presence of this frame resulted in statistically significant differences among periods, but instead percentages were stable over time. Therefore, H6 is rejected.
[25] Table 7. Historical frames compared across-time.
Period I Period II
Variable Absent Present Absent Present N P
The arrival of Columbus to America 61,4% 38,6% 61,6% 38,4% 404 .972
Pre-Columbian cultures mentioned 87,7% 12,3% 87,9% 12,1% 404 .953
Colonialism mentioned 81,4% 18,6% 77,2% 22,8% 403 .360
The Discovery of America mentioned 79,8% 20,2% 76,6% 23,4% 404 .478
Indigenous genocide mentioned 90,4% 9,6% 84,8% 15,2% 403 .142
European colonialism mentioned 89,5% 10,5% 93,8% 6,2% 404 .136
Percentages obtained from chi-square test of independence, where p<0.5*, p<0.05**, p<0.001***.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This research engaged with the challenge of analysing the journalistic uses of the past to report on commemorative events, contributing to the collection of empirical data still scarce due to the nascent character of the study field. Moreover, in a globalized world where news productions are influenced by a web of interconnected factors (Reese, 2001), Journalism and Media Studies are increasingly turning to transnational comparative designs, and this paper has proposed that the field of Media Memory should follow the same path. The
celebration of October 12 turned out to be a suitable study case in this regard, for evidencing the global forces involved in the media construction of history. Although the event that gave birth to the celebration was factually the same for the three countries under study, the ways by which Columbus’ arrival to America is being pictured in the news varies significantly. Nevertheless, this study also found interesting connections between national communities.
In this respect, one of the most compelling findings of this study is the rather remarkable similarities between Argentina and the US. Not only the presence of indigenous actors was
[26]
higher in these two nations compared to Spain, but also the low presence of the frame of approval. Yet, more importantly, both Argentina and the US showed a rather significantly higher presence of critical historical frames. They both mentioned pre-Columbian cultures and colonialism in a higher rate than Spain, and the genocidal scale of the fate of the original inhabitants of the American continent was more mentioned in these two countries as well. Although more nations are needed in order to draw major conclusions, these results could lead us to think about the existence of an American community of memory regarding a common colonial past.
This kind of communities was already identified by Assmann (2007), who described the role of the World War II and the Holocaust in uniting European nations. Nonetheless, in the American context, this concept is facing historical and semantical challenges. The advent of the US as a global power after the World War II11, took from the spotlight its former history of
as a colonized nation and brought an imperialist temper to its foreign policy, especially towards Latin America (Mignolo, 2009). Therefore, the general conceptualization of colonialism is more likely to be perceived different among the US and the Latin American nations, since the last have registered in their historical memory not only the colonialist rule of European empires but also the intervention of the US (Mignolo, 2009). Furthermore, the concept of “American community of memory” is rising up a semantic dilemma. The very name by which the United States is often referred as, -the synecdoche by which the whole “America” is being used to refer to one of its countries- is discouraging the installation of the idea of a continental community of memory, and probably misleading the discussion to the memories of the United States. Thus, the results of this study would suggest to the scholarly working on transnational identities to develop an unexplored and complex issue, namely the common memories shared by 35 independent American nations, and another 20 American dependent territories.
11 International Relations’ scholars have described this period as the Pax Americana, or the era of
[27]
Regarding Spain, the results of this study are confirming the nature of this celebration as a political instrument (Sebastiani, 2016a), mainly led by the elites. The highest presence of government officials, members of the monarchy, and political actors is suggesting the prevailing institutionalization of the festivity, turning the state into the main mnemonic agent regarding the construction of this historical memory. These results dialogue with Kligler-Vilenchik et al. (2014), whose findings described a legitimizing function of the media while disseminating state-sponsored commemorations. Presumably for the same reasons, the approval towards the celebration was moderately higher in Spain than in Argentina and the US, while the mention of critical historical frames was significantly lower. Consequently, in the Spanish media coverage can be perceived what Kitzinger (2000) called “media
templates”, referring to the routine use of historical reference points within journalistic reporting. The consequences of these templates, according to Kitzinger (2000), is the attribution of a single primary meaning to historical events, in this case to the arrival of Columbus to America, simplifying historical processes and reducing the opportunity for alternative readings to join the public debate.
This last point leads to the second-way comparison developed in this study, by which different frames were compared across-time. The results of these analyses showed that the presence of indigenous actors is not higher in Period II than in Period I. Thence, the voices that are holders of an alternative interpretation of the “discovery of America” did not join the public debate surrounding the festivity in the most recent years, in spite of having empirical evidence of a statistically significant higher presence of disapproval towards the celebration in Period II. This is contradicting the supposed positive impact of technology and social media in their visibility and political participation (Cottle, 2000). Moreover, the remarkably stable percentages of the mention of historical frames among the two time periods under study is confirming what Schuman et al. (2005) said about the “inertia” of memory, and the difficulties to transform rooted perceptions of history even before the advent of revisionist approaches.
[28]
All things considered, it is worth noting that the rise of this discussion within journalism and memory, about the routine and un-critical reproduction of historical accounts, is intrinsically blended with broader academic debates about the normative expectations of journalism and the media within democratic systems (Strömbäck, 2005). Sticking to official and elite-driven interpretations of history, while inhibiting the participation of common citizens and minorities into the media memory-making process would fit into more procedural or minimalistic models of democracy, thence suggesting that analysing collective memory and the public
representations of historical events would greatly contribute to political communication research. Even the nuances and further factors affecting the media construction of collective memory are sufficiently comparable to the hierarchy of influences shaping news production (Reese & Shoemaker, 2016). For instance, Kaiser (2014) indicated that, in the memory-making of past human rights violations, the extent to which journalists engage with the past is an editorial decision mediated by multiple factors, such as personal involvement of the individual journalist with the historical event and the outlet’s corporate interests.
The limitations of this study were mainly posed by the uneven distribution of the sample across countries since the prominence of the celebration in Spain determined a significantly larger sample size than in Argentina and the US. This difference might have been led by the newsworthiness criteria that Harcup and O’Neill (2017) called “the power of the elite”, due to the prominent participation of royal, governmental, and political actors in the Spanish
October 12. Therefore, further studies could expand the corpus of research to other
commemorative events addressing similar historical passages, such as independence days and military battles. Further studies could also address an issue that remained unassessed in this study, namely the role played by political affiliation and ideology in reporting about the past, which might be influencing news production at different levels. With these future challenges in mind, this research shed light on several understudied aspects in the field, providing triggering results that might encourage communications’ scholars to look back, maybe finding in the past the answers to understand a complex and interconnected present.
[29] REFERENCES
Aguilar Fernández, P., & Humlebaek, C. (2002). Collective memory and national identity in the Spanish democracy: The legacies of Francoism and the civil war. History & Memory, 14(1), 121-164.
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (2013). Post-colonial studies: The key concepts.
Routledge.
Assmann, A. (2007). Europe: a community of memory?. ghi Bulletin, 40(1), 12-25. Beasley-Murray, J., Cameron, M. A., & Hershberg, E. (2009). Latin America's left
turns: an introduction. Third World Quarterly, 30(2), 319-330.
Boukes, M., & Vliegenthart, R. (2017). A general pattern in the construction of economic newsworthiness? Analyzing news factors in popular, quality, regional, and financial newspapers. Journalism, 1464884917725989. Conboy, M. (2011). INTRODUCTION: How journalism uses history. Journalism
Practice, 5(5), 506-519.
Cottle, S. (2000). Ethnic minorities & The media: Changing cultural boundaries.
McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Del Popolo, F. & Jaspers, D. (2014). Los pueblos indígenas en América Latina. Avances en el último decenio y retos pendientes para la garantía de sus derechos. Síntesis. CEPAL.
Denevan, W. M. (1976). The native population of the Americas in 1492.The University of Wisconsin Press.
Deuze, M. (2005). What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism, 6(4), 442-464.
Edy, J. A. (1999). Journalistic uses of collective memory. Journal of communication, 49(2), 71-85.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal
of communication, 43(4), 51-58.
Decreto 1584/2010 Feriados Nacionales (2010, November 2). Retrieved from
http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/170000-174999/174389/norma.htm
Freire, G., Schwartz-Orellana, S., Zumaeta-Aurazo, M., Costa, D., Lundvall, J. M., Viveros-Mendoza, M., … Sousa, L. (2015). Indigenous Latin America in the twenty-first century: the first decade. World Bank Group, Washington D.C. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of
[30]
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (Eds.). (2011). Comparing media systems beyond the
Western world. Cambridge University Press.
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2017). Ten years after comparing media systems: What have we learned?. Political Communication, 34(2), 155-171.
Harcup, T., & O’Neill, D. (2017). What is news? News values revisited (again).
Journalism studies, 18(12), 1470-1488.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89. Herrero, P. P. (1992). América Latina y el colonialismo europeo: (siglos XVI-XVIII).
Síntesis.
Kaiser, S. (2014). Argentinean torturers on trial: how are journalists covering the hearings’ memory work?. In Zelizer, B., & Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K. (Eds.),
Journalism and Memory (pp. 242-257). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Kansteiner, W. (2002). Finding meaning in memory: A methodological critique of collective memory studies. History and theory, 41(2), 179-197.
Kitzinger, J. (2000). Media templates: patterns of association and the (re)
construction of meaning over time. Media, Culture & Society, 22(1), 61-84. Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Tsfati, Y., & Meyers, O. (2014). Setting the collective memory
agenda: Examining mainstream media influence on individuals’ perceptions of the past. Memory Studies, 7(4), 484-499.
Klor de Alva, J. J. (1995). The Postcolonization of the (Latin) American Experience: A Reconsideration of" Colonialism,"" Postcolonialism," and" Mestizaje." In Prakash, G. (Ed.), After colonialism: Imperial histories and postcolonial
displacements (pp.241-275). Princeton University Press.
Kubal, T. (2008). Cultural movements and collective memory: Christopher Columbus
and the rewriting of the national origin myth. Springer.
Layne, C. (2012). This time it’s real: The end of unipolarity and the Pax Americana.
International Studies Quarterly, 56(1), 203-213.
Ley 18/1987, de 7 de octubre, que establece el día de la Fiesta Nacional de España en el 12 de octubre. (1987, October 8). Retrieved from
https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-1987-22831
Maybury-Lewis, David (2002). Genocide against Indigenous peoples. In Hinton, A. L. (Ed.), Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide (pp.43-53). University of California Press.
[31]
Neiger, M., Zandberg, E., & Meyers, O. (2014). Reversed memory: Commemorating the past through coverage of the present. In Zelizer, B., &
Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K. (Eds.), Journalism and Memory (pp. 113-127). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Olick, J. K. (2014). Reflections on the underdeveloped relations between journalism and memory studies. In Zelizer, B., & Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K. (Eds.),
Journalism and Memory (pp. 17-31). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Reese, S. D. (2001). Understanding the global journalist: A hierarchy-of-influences approach. Journalism studies, 2(2), 173-187.
Reese, S. D., & Shoemaker, P. J. (2016). A media sociology for the networked public sphere: The hierarchy of influences model. Mass Communication and
Society, 19(4), 389-410.
Rodríguez, M. (2004). Celebración de" la raza": una historia comparativa del 12 de
octubre. Universidad Iberoamericana.
Schudson, M. (1997). Lives, laws, and language: Commemorative versus non-commemorative forms of effective public memory. Communication Review (The), 2(1), 3-17.
Schudson, M. (2014). Journalism as a vehicle of non-commemorative cultural memory. In Zelizer, B., & Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K. (Eds.), Journalism and
memory (pp. 85-96). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Schuman, H., Schwartz, B., & d’Arcy, H. (2005). Elite revisionists and popular beliefs: Christopher Columbus, hero or villain?. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(1), 2-29.
Schwartz, B. (2015). Commemoration. International Encyclopedia of the Social &
Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), Elsevier, p.235-242.
Sebastiani, M. A. G. (2016a). América y el nacionalismo español: las fiestas del 12 de octubre, del franquismo a la democracia. Historia y política: Ideas,
procesos y movimientos sociales, (35), 71-94.
Sebastiani, M. G. (2016b). Nacionalismo español y celebraciones hispánicas en Argentina: el 12 de octubre, una aproximación. Anuario IEHS: Instituto de
Estudios histórico sociales, 31(2), 159-179.
Snow, D. (2001). Collective identity and expressive forms. Center for the Study of
Democracy.
Strömbäck, J. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6(3), 331-345. Vernet i Llobet, J. (2003). El debate parlamentario sobre el 12 de octubre, Fiesta
[32]
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2001). Letters to the editor as a forum for public deliberation: Modes of publicity and democratic debate. Critical Studies in Media
Communication, 18(3), 303-320.
Wolfgram, M. A. (2015). A model for comparative collective memory studies: Regime types, cultural traditions, and difficult histories. Politička misao: časopis za
politologiju, 51(5), 13-35.
Zaidenwerg, C. (2013). La ‘argentinización’ de los Territorios Nacionales a través de la educación formal e informal. Estudio de caso Río Negro (1908-1930).
Universitat de Barcelona.
Zandberg, E. (2010). The right to tell the (right) story: journalism, authority and memory. Media, Culture & Society, 32(1), 5-24.
Zelizer, B., & Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K. (Eds.). (2014). Journalism and memory. Springer.
Zerubavel, E. (1998). Language and memory:" Pre-Columbian" America and the social logic of periodization. Social Research, 315-330.
[33] APPENDICES
Appendix A. Cover page of the Spanish newspaper ABC, October 12, 1919.
“Madrid, October 12, 1919. Madrid: One month, 1.5 pesetas. Provinces: Three months, 5. Abroad: Six months, 28 pesetas. ABC, illustrated newspaper. Fifteenth year, N°5219. October 12, 1492. Landing of Christopher Columbus in America, fact that is commemorated today in the Day of the Race (painting of Dioscoro T. Puebla)” (Own translation).
[34]
Appendix B. Final version of the codebook after applying the first Krippendorff’s alpha test. Codebook – October 12
Overall description of the article
1. Country (COUNTRY). The country where the newspaper belongs to: 1= Spain
2= United States 3= Argentina
2. Source (SOURID). The news source from which the news story was retrieved: 1= El País (EP)
2= ABC (ABC) 3= The Washington Post (TWP)
4= The New York Times (NYT) 5= Clarín (CL)
6= La Nación (LN)
3. Date (DATE). The date when the news article was published: DD/MM/YYYY Actors
4. How many times does the story mention any of the following actors?
In order to identify this frame, count when the article mentions names of individuals, social groups, positions, roles, and institutions identifying people. They could be mentioned as sources, as providers of testimonies, street protesters, comments, etc. Each appearance should be coded separately but only when they appear for the first time. For example: a story states that “the ministry of Defence wants to turn October 12 into the day of Spanish pride”. Afterwards, the same article quotes the Officer in Chief, “Mr. Fernando Alejandre, who has
been trying to detach the parade to the political crisis”. In such case, “Governmental actor”
should be coded as “2” times, because even though they belong to the same “sector” one of them is an institutional actor and the other one is an individual actor. Similarly, if an indigenous group is firstly mentioned as a collective and then an individual member of the group is quoted or named, it should be coded as “2” times too. If the story uses different narrative strategies to avoid mentioning the same name many times, those strategies shouldn’t be coded. For example: the same article follows up saying “he (Fernando Alejandre) proposed the new
hashtag #ProudtobeSpanish”. As the “he” is referring to an actor already counted, do not count
it again. Finally, if the actor is not mentioned at all, code “0”.
a. Indigenous actors: spokespersons, groups, organizations, communities. Number of times mentioned: ______
b. Royal actors: king, members of the royal family, the crown (from elsewhere, not exclusively from Spain).
