Divided by the Past?
Differences in the Framing of Immigration Between East and West German Regional Newspapers
Author: Dania Böcker
Student ID-card number: 11710403 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s program: Communication Science Supervisor: Dr. Joost van Spanje
Abstract
Drawing on the political socialization approach and the Hierarchy of Influences Model, this study investigates the extent to which the communist legacy in Europe impacts contemporary framing of immigration in East and West German regional newspapers. Using a sample of East and West regional newspapers (N=449), the study analyzes eight news frames: Attribution of responsibility to government/immigrants, economic asset/burden, victim/intruder, Willkommenskultur [welcoming culture]/Fremdenhass [xenophobia]. Independent-samples t-tests are used to analyze the data. The findings confirm that East and West German regional newspapers significantly differ in the use of three frames. In East Germany, regional newspapers are more likely to frame immigration with the attributing responsibility to the government and Fremdenhass frame, while West German regional newspapers are more likely to frame immigration with the Willkommenskultur frame. Explanations for the results are discussed in light of differences in values and disposition to authoritarianism caused by ideological legacies of capitalism and communism in Europe, while also taking into account the contact hypothesis and political socialization theory. Regarding media production, the influence of ideological legacies is discussed using the Hierarchy of Influences Model, investigating to which level ideological influence shapes media content.
Keywords: ideological legacy, framing, immigration, contact hypothesis, Hierarchy of
Divided by the Past?
Differences in the Framing of Immigration Between East and West German Regional Newspapers
Unity has been promoted throughout Europe since the fall of the “Iron Curtain” that divided the continent both ideologically and territorially. However, the ideological legacy of the communist regime still exists today (Migheli, 2016), and there is still an (invisible) wall separating the continent (van Hoorn & Maseland, 2010). While former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe have largely adopted Western standards for institutions and laws during the last 29 years, the communist legacy has an ongoing impact on economic and social areas of life, continuously affecting what citizens think, prefer, and how they behave (Boenisch & Schneider, 2013). This can be explained by the political socialization approach, assuming that the ideological and political system individuals live in shape them during socialization (Neundorf, 2009; van Hoorn & Maseland, 2010; MacKuen & Brown, 1987). For Europe, that means that citizens of former communist countries have been shaped by very different beliefs and attitudes from citizens of countries with a Western democratic past. Citizens in Eastern Europe, for example, are more in favor of the government interfering in economic affairs than citizens in Western Europe (Migheli, 2016). One reason for the ongoing existence of the differences is little “geographic mobility” in Europe’s former communist countries (Boenisch & Schneider, 2013:392).
Present-day Germany is a unique case to study these persistent differences based on two different ideological socialization processes. While East and West Germany1 share a past with the same ideological and political system (Heinemann, 2000) before 1945, this changed
1For convenience of reading, the former communist German Democratic Republic will be referred to as “East Germany“ and the former Federal Republic of Germany will be referred to as “West Germany“.
after WWII due to different ideologies of the occupying allies. From 1945-1990, East Germany was ideologically under communist influence and a different ideological
socialization process than West Germany. This “natural experiment” (Boenisch & Schneider, 2013:392) allows a comparison of how both regimes differently impacted generations of Germans, and to investigate the presence of the communist legacy in Germany. Differences regarding citizens’ values (van Hoorn & Maseland, 2010) and their socio-economic structures (Neundorf, 2009) can still be seen today, 29 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Immigration in Germany is a suitable topic for the East-West comparison, as differences in attitudes and behavior between citizens in East and West Germany become visible in this respect. In the 2017 federal election, the anti-immigration party “Alternative for Germany” (AfD) received a higher proportion of second votes in East than West Germany (Weber, 2016). According to issue ownership theory, one reason for voting for
anti-immigration parties is concern about anti-immigration (Burscher, van Spanje, & de Vreese, 2015). As a result, it can be expected that citizens in East and West Germany have different levels of concern about immigration. To study the differences resulting from ideological legacies in Germany, the topic of immigration and local newspapers as a source are a suitable
combination.
Immigration2 is a topic best to be investigated on the regional level, as it is a domain of policy that has “a distinctly local component” (Lawlor, 2015:919), where immigration
2 While the terms immigrant, refugee, asylum seeker and the like all refer to different concepts with different connotations, for this research the term “immigrant” will be used including all of the aforementioned concepts of non-German individuals, fleeing from their country, seeking shelter in Germany, Europe or otherwise. Within the framework of this research it will be relevant to analyze how the press refers to this overall “outgroup” of immigrants.
becomes concrete. Within that context, the arrival, welcoming and integration of immigrants into the community are relevant issues (Schmidtke, 2017). In addition, immigration is a topic which gets a lot of media coverage, being a concern for security (Buonfino, 2004) and national identity (van Gorp, 2005) in Europe.
Local news media are expected to reflect specifically local perspectives and priorities, and might therefore play a part in enhancing them (Lawlor, 2015). The same is here assumed for regional newspapers in East and West Germany, which are expected to report in
accordance with their respective audiences’ views and attitudes in order to maximize sales among their readership and thus to mirror potential differences. In addition, they are likely to be the best way of comparing written news media coverage from East and West, as national newspapers of both former nations no longer exist. Consequently, combining subsamples of regional newspapers from each region makes a comparison possible.
Framing offers an opportunity to learn about political and social procedures (van Gorp, 2005) in East and West Germany. The topic of immigration can be assumed to be especially receptive to effects of framing, because, as Iyengar (1990) argued for terrorism, “most people do not understand the related international conflicts and complex foreign ideology“ (Berbers, Joris, Boesman, d’Haenens, Koeman, & van Gorp, 2016:800) and is thus a suited topic to investigate differences in underlying ideological legacies.
Throughout Europe’s current refugee situation, Germany has been one of the countries taking in the most immigrants; and in 2015 the country experienced a surge in immigration (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2016).). This resulted in the historic decision of German Chancellor Angela Merkel to open the borders, entailing an increased media coverage of the topic (Haller, 2017).
While the number of immigrants arriving in Germany has decreased, policy
regulations and integration matters are still highly important today. For that reason, this study will investigate press coverage from 2015 up to and including 2018.
Assuming attitudes towards immigration to be different in East and West Germany, based on ideological legacy, and regional newspapers to mirror these differences, the research question addressed in this study reads as follows:
RQ: To what extent do regional newspapers in former East and West German states differ in the framing of immigration in Germany, between 2015-2018?
Societal Relevance
Media can play a vital part in shaping and reflecting public opinion about immigration and respective policies (Buonfino, 2004), initiating support for immigration-related
regulations (van Gorp, 2005), and indirectly impacting attitude towards immigration (Seate & Mastro, 2016). This research will show to what extent media frame immigration differently in East and West Germany, revealing a potentially divided press coverage within the whole country. In particular, investigating the Willkommenskultur [welcoming culture] and
Fremdenhass [xenophobia] frame pair, this research will contribute to Germany’s pressing Willkommenskultur debate and German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s immigration policies, in
combination with the country’s East-West divide by showing how the media frame the topic. Scientific Relevance
This study will add to existing research by investigating the bigger picture of
ideological influences to contemporary news media in Europe, using the example of East and West Germany. Differences in values and disposition to authoritarianism will be discussed in light of ideological legacies of capitalism and communism in Europe, considering the political socialization theory. Regarding media production, the influence of ideological legacies will be discussed, investigating to which level ideological influence shapes media content. With respect to framing, this study will look into whether ideological legacy has an impact on how media frame immigration.
Theoretical Background
How citizens think about immigration can be explained with social identity theory considering that “social identity dynamics are at play when the issue of immigration arises“ (Mangum & Block, 2018:2). Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) can explain claiming membership to a social group and the resulting influence of opinion (Mangum & Block, 2018). According to this theory, it is more likely for people to perceive their own group as favorable (Berbers et al., 2016).
For this research, East and West Germany will be considered as different “groups” (Tajfel, 19823), justified by their different ideological past. This implies that citizens in East and West Germany are expected to construct their respective social reality as the “in group” and see immigrants as the “out group”. If “social identity and in- and out-group processes are critical for understanding news production and structures in news stories that focus on ethnic cultural minorities“ (Berbers et al., 2016:801), it can be expected that those processes are also important for understanding structures in news like framing, that focus on immigrants. Framing and Frame Building
Research on frame building and framing is concerned with the relationship between how news portray certain topics and how the public perceives them (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). In communication science, frame building is therefore also referred to as “second-level agenda building” (Hänggli 2012:301; Kiousis, Mitrook, Wu, & Seltzer, 2006:268). Frames make some aspects “more salient in a communication text” (Entman, 1993:52) than others and can be seen to “have normative implications" (de Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2003:362) when giving topics a direction. Frames can thus influence the public by how they portray political topics (de Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2003), as “the dominant frame seems most likely to affect political outcomes” (Entman, 1991:8). Building on Berbers et al. (2016), this study
will be placed in a constructionist paradigm (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). Among the factors that play a role in how journalists construct frames in this paradigm are cultural resonance, societal and organizational factors, such as the “ideological origin of newspapers“ (Berbers et al., 2016:800).
For the purpose of this research, the ideological origin of newspapers will be assigned to the macro level of the social system in the “Hierarchy of Influences Model” (Shoemaker & Reese, 2014). In their model, Shoemaker & Reese (2014) point out five levels of analysis to structure the factors that influence media (social systems, social institutions, organizations, routines, and individuals), stressing that “the social system is the foundation from which all media content is constructed” (Shoemaker & Reese, 2014:245) and that all other levels “reflect[…] the characteristics of the total social system” (Shoemaker & Reese, 2014:69). They divide the social system into ideological, economic, political, and cultural subsystems, highlighting the ideological subsystem as crucial. Considering the different ideological legacies of East and West Germany, the ideological subsystems influencing their respective media content creation can also be expected to be different.
Framing Immigration
In framing research, a differentiation is made between different types of frames (de Vreese, 2003). Generic frames are not limited to cultural or thematical context, while issue-specific frames focus on one issue-specific topic, “exceeding thematic, cultural or time limitations” (de Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2003:363). If issue-specific frames have either a positive or negative connotation, these are referred to as valence frames (de Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2003). For the issue-specific topic of immigration, relevant for this study, immigrants are often framed with either a positive or a negative connotation - for example either as intruders or as victims (van Gorp, 2005).
Diverse research on how news media frame immigration has been conducted in the last two decades, as the topic has increased in both presence and importance. Some studies
have been conducted comparing media coverage across countries, including Germany (Berry, Garcia-Blanco, & Moore, 2015; Benert & Beier, 2016; Helbling, 2014). Some have taken a closer look at the role geography plays in framing immigration within one country (Cheng, Igartua, Palacios, Acosta, & Palito, 2014; Grimm & Andsager, 2011), or the role of emotions in explaining framing effects on opinions about immigration (Lecheler, Bos, & Vliegenthart, 2015). Haller (2017) conducted a comprehensive investigation of the Flüchtlingskrise
[refugee crisis] in German media. Addressing the question if the topic Willkommenskultur has been covered differently by the media, depending on political leaning and area of distribution, he stressed the changing tonality in the news media coverage after violent incidents involving immigrants in December 2015. Research on the framing of immigrants in the German
regional press, in conjunction with highlighting differences between East and West Germany, has been carried out by Widmann (2015). Comparing East and West German regional
newspapers while taking into account frame pairs with respectively opposing valences, he found that the East had a higher mean visibility of the intruder frame (adapted from van Gorp, 2005), namely depicting immigrants “as agitators or as endangerment“ (Widmann, 2015:48). With regards to West Germany, he found a higher mean visibility of both the bogus-refugee frame, which depicts immigrants as “‘undeserving’ of protection or as a threat to our
economic situation“ (Widmann, 2015:51) and the humanitarian frame, depicting immigrants in need of “immediate protection in Germany“ (Widmann, 2015:50). The research was laid out in order to compare positive and negative frames and showed “no clear, systematic distinction” (Widmann, 2015:40). He is attributing the differences to a possible “influence of historical experiences and other contextual factors” (Widmann, 2015:40). This study will therefore take the research a step further and take the ideological influences into
Conceptual Definition of the Frames
Taking into consideration past research on framing immigration, frames that are both the most prominent for that topic in Europe, and the most relevant for the East-West
comparison, have been selected as the most suitable frames for this paper. The mix of issue-related and generic frames, each established in former research, has been adjusted for
immigration in Germany. Four topics have been investigated, with two opposing frames each, to represent a positive and a negative side of the topic. Regarding attributing responsibility, the frames are not opposing but attributing to different actors.
The generic attribution of responsibility frame by Semetko & Valkenburg (2000:96) “presents an issue or problem in such a way as to attribute responsibility for its cause or solution to either the government or to an individual or group”. Following research by Iyengar (1991) and An & Gower (2009), for this study, the attribution of responsibility is split into two frames: attribution of responsibility to government and to immigrants, to measure to whom the responsibility for issues related to immigration is attributed to in Germany. The generic economic consequences frame by Semetko & Valkenburg (2000:96) “reports an event, problem, or issue in terms of the consequences it will have economically on an
individual, group, institution, region, or country”. Because in Germany, negative and positive economic consequences have been found to dominate immigration coverage (Berry et al., 2015), this frame is split into economic burden and economic asset frame. The intruder/victim frame pair (adapted from van Gorp, 2005) deals with how immigrants are portrayed, either as being helpless victims or criminal intruders. To include a Germany-specific variable, two new frames have been created, addressing German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s immigration policy: The Willkommenskultur/Fremdenhass frame pair deals with how Germany as a society receives immigrants, either welcoming or repulsive. The Willkommenskultur frame is loosely based on the multicultural frame by Roggeband & Vliegenthart (2007) but focuses more on the willingness to help and citizens’ groups’ dedication. The Fremdenhass frame is
based on the “Immigrants as victims of aggressions, abuses or xenophobic behaviours” frame by Cheng et al. (2014:202) and the Islam-as-a-threat frame by Roggeband & Vliegenthart (2007).
For the following hypotheses, the expected fundamental prerequisite is that regional newspapers report in accordance with their readers’ attitudes and reflect their respective regions’ conditions (Lawlor, 2015).
Attribution of Responsibility: Government vs. Immigrants
The way news coverage is framed can influence if individuals attribute responsibility for an issue to the government and political institutions, or individuals (Iyengar, 1990). According to the dominant paradigm, “an individual’s political ideology or worldview
provides the dominant influence over attributions of responsibility” (Iyengar, 1990:60). In the case of immigration in East and West Germany, a difference in attributing responsibility can be expected based on a difference in ideological legacy.
Ideological differences between the former communist East and the democratic capitalist West (Fischer, Maes, & Schmitt, 2007) bring along different views on the market economy (Migheli, 2016) and the understanding of the role of the state. Compared to Western Europe, citizens in former communist countries of East Europe are more likely to want
government intervention for topics regarding the economy (Migheli, 2016). Citizens in East Germany can thus be expected to be more likely to want the government to intervene in the economy, and to attribute responsibility to governing institutions.
Attributing responsibility to an individual can be connected to the concept of scapegoating, which “is discussed most comprehensively in the areas of inter-group
prejudice” (Dixon, 2007:82). The concept is known to be used by populist parties (Petersson, 2009), “symbolically” blaming someone else for one’s own distress (Bailey, 1973:12), which can be of psychological, economic or social origin (Bailey, 1973). Considering the popularity of the populist anti-immigration party AfD in East Germany, and the fact that the
economically lower-performing East feels more distress if the country faces immigration-related economic consequences, East German citizens can be expected to be more likely to attribute the responsibility to immigrants.
H1: In East German regional newspapers, the responsibility for immigration-related issues is more attributed to the government compared to West German regional newspapers.
H2: In East German regional newspapers, the responsibility for immigration-related issues is more attributed to immigrants compared to West German regional
newspapers.
Economic Consequences: Burden vs Asset
The impact of immigration on the economy can be framed as a burden or an asset. Research found that U.S. citizens are more likely to be against immigration if they have the feeling that immigrants are competition for their economic status (Burns & Gimpel, 2000; Citrin, Green, Muste, & Wong, 1997; Mangum & Block, 2018).
Citizens in East Germany can be expected to feel more threatened by immigrants being a burden for the social system since economic performance in East Germany is still lower than in the West (van Hoorn & Maseland, 2010), only slowly adjusting to Western standards (Boenisch & Schneider, 2013). This is causing citizens in the East to experience a financial disadvantage (Fischer et al., 2007). In addition, unemployment and feeling left out of the working environment have been found to be worse in post-communist countries (Smith, 2009) in general and in East Germany (van Hoorn & Maseland, 2010). From a
“system which ensured food and jobs for everybody” (Migheli, 2016:687), East Germany had to adjust to a system where the “risk of losing a job—once it has been taken—is real and probable” (Migheli, 2016:687). Citizens in East Germany can thus be expected to consider economic consequences more as a burden than in West Germany.
West Germany experienced a Wirtschaftswunder [economic miracle] in the 1950s, causing an increased demand in labor forces, which led to the invitation of Gastarbeiter [guest workers] (Klekowski von Koppenfels, Höhne, Lafleur, & Stanek, 2017).The West has thus a past of experiencing benefits from people coming into the country, which East
Germany has not. This, in combination with the American capitalistic ideals that shaped West Germany, leads to the expectation that citizens in West Germany are more likely to consider immigration to be an asset for the economy.
H3: In East German regional newspapers, immigrants are more often framed with an economic burden frame compared to West German regional newspapers.
H4: In West German regional newspapers, immigrants are more often framed with an economic asset frame compared to East German regional newspapers.
Intruder vs Victim
Immigrants can be framed in the media as stereotypical victims or intruders (van Gorp, 2005). “Protecting national identity and the level of prosperity from external threats” (van Gorp, 2005:489) is connected to immigration related policy issues. Based on the
ideological legacy, East Germany attributes more importance to traditions and the community and egalitarian values (Fischer et al., 2007; Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996) than West Germany. And minorities, like immigrants, have been found to be depicted as a threat for established values (Conway, Grabe, & Grieves, 2007; Seate & Mastro, 2016). In addition, East Germans are more likely to be prone to protect the already low prosperity from external threats. This leads to the expectation that citizens in East Germany fear intruders in their community and immigrants are more framed as such than in West Germany.
Citizens in West Germany have been socialized under Western ideologies. Regarding their positive experiences with the Western allies and the following prosperity after WWII, it can be expected that citizens in West Germany are more empathetic regarding victim-liberator situations. In the case of the current immigration wave, they might be more likely to see
immigrants as victims in need of help, stressing “the humanitarian policy towards asylum-seekers“ (Van Gorp, 2005:489). The victim frame is expected to be more prevalent in West German media.
H5: In East German regional newspapers, immigrants are more often framed as intruders compared to West German regional newspapers.
H6: In West German regional newspapers, immigrants are more often framed as victims compared to East German regional newspapers
Willkommenskultur vs Fremdenhass
In Germany, in light of the 2015 immigration wave, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has introduced a policy of Willkommenskultur, opening the borders. While many citizens in Germany embraced the step and lived the welcoming culture, this approach was not supported by everyone in Germany. Fremdenhass and especially anti-immigration sentiments could also be seen, predominantly in East Germany.
One attempt to explain Fremdenhass in East Germany is the interaction of fear of deprivation and authoritarianism (Seipel & Rippl, 2000). According to research on
authoritarianism (Feldmann & Stenner, 1997), economic conditions and a lack of experience with those situations might have an amplifying impact on authoritarian dispositions.
Accordingly, authoritarianism might exist as a latent disposition (Seipel & Rippl, 2000) that is activated in situations of threat. Examples for these threat situations are anxiety about the future, unemployment or increasing criminality, which can be triggered by immigration. Therefore, Fremdenhass can be expected to be more prominent in the East.
Willkommenskultur is likely to be higher in West and lower in East Germany, based on
the “contact hypothesis”. According to the contact hypothesis from psychology (Christie & Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008) “contact between individuals from two different groups can help reducing prejudices and create mutual understanding“ (Fischer et al., 2007:164). In Germany, a possible negative correlation can be noticed between the regional
share of immigrants and second votes for the anti-immigration party “Alternative for
Germany“ (AfD) in the 2013 general election: While immigrants live mainly in West German metropolitan areas, AfD received above-average popularity, mainly in the East (Weber, 2016). These recent numbers show that in the West, interpersonal contact has further
decreased prejudices. Willkommenskultur can be expected to be more prominent in the East. H7: In East German regional newspapers, immigration is more often portrayed with the Fremdenhass frame compared to West German regional newspapers.
H8: In West German regional newspapers, immigration is more often portrayed with the Willkommenskultur frame compared to East German regional newspapers.
Method Research Design
To answer the research question, a quantitative content analysis of news media coverage has been chosen, as it is the best fit to reveal differences between countries, allows a precise comparison (de Swert, Schacht, & Masini, 2015), and allows to make inferences about the content (Holsti, 1969). Following a deductive approach, the presence of news frames in articles about immigration in East and West German regional newspapers has been
investigated. For this research, four valence news frame pairs based on frames in established research and the overall valence of each pair have been coded according to a detailed
codebook (Appendix A) that entailed items measuring the frames according to the research they are based on. The codebook and all measurement decisions have been made prior to coding, as recommended by Neuendorf (2002).
Sample
Six regional newspapers have been included in the analysis. Three for East Germany:
Berliner Zeitung (BZ), Sächsische Zeitung (SZ), Mitteldeutsche Zeitung (MZ), and three for
(SN) (Appendix B). The newspapers have been chosen because the areas of circulation don’t
overlap, their ownership does not overlap, and for pragmatic considerations of availability on
LexisNexis. The articles are credible in a way that they have been published by established
houses, and representative because chosen to cover a wide area of regions in both East and West Germany (Bryman, 2016). The sample has a high population validity, being
representative of the target population.
Method of sampling was systematic random sampling with second step randomization for Rheinische Post4. For the four year period from 2015 to 2018, every 100th day was
sampled. This was done to consider seasonal influences, as one season consists of three months (approximately 100 days). If the 100th day was a Sunday or a national holiday, the following day was chosen, which then served as the starting point to count to the next day. A test-search had shown that an estimation of the number of articles likely to be found per day was hardly to be made, as the days massively varied in coverage. To ensure a sufficient amount of articles for the final sample, after November 5, 2018, four additional days have been sampled, counting to the end of 2018 and starting again in 2015. This resulted in a selection of 19 days (Appendix C).
For these 19 days, for all six newspapers, all articles found by a HLEAD search using a Boolean query (Appendix D) were downloaded from the database LexisNexis academic NL5. The query is based on former research by Berry et al. (2015), who found that in Germany, refugees are mostly labeled as refugees (Flüchtling) and asylum seekers
4 From the pre-selection of “Rheinische Post”, a random subsample of articles (n=135) has been chosen, to equal it to the amount of articles published in the other newspapers (de Swert, Schacht & Masini, 2015), to have an equal sample size in the East/West comparison.
5 While predominantly used in social science research, LexisNexis does not include all articles and sometimes included duplicates (Deacon 2007, Kirilenko & Stepchenkova 2012).
(Asylsuchende). The query is thus designed to find the most important articles regarding the topic (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2012). A HLEAD search was chosen to include the most relevant articles and exclude articles only mentioning the term (Lawlor, 2015) but not lose relevant articles with unrelated headlines. This resulted in a pre-selection of 1,393 articles.
To make sure only relevant articles would end up in the final sample, the articles were manually selected as relevant or not. Decision rule was that duplicates, indexing mentions, police reports, articles dealing with immigrants out of Germany, letters to the editor, irony and sarcastic op-eds were not included. For replicability, a list of the articles included in the final sample can be found in Appendix E. This led to a number of 810 “false positives” (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2012). After eliminating the “false positives”, 583 relevant articles were coded from the six newspapers (SZ: n=47; MZ: n=109; BZ: n=48; PNP: n=36;
RP: n=269; SN: n=74). After declaring every second article from RP missing, the “Rheinische Post” had a random subsample of articles (n=135). This led to a final sample of N=449.
This sample size is large enough to make statistically relevant inferences, as for dichotomous variables a random sample of a minimum of 384 articles ensures a result at the 95% level of confidence (Neuendorf, 2002). Unit of analysis was the whole article, all variables have been coded on article-level (de Swert et al., 2015). To create the two variables “East” and “West” German regional newspapers, SZ, MZ and BZ have been computed to the variable “East” (n=204), constituting 45.4 % of the final sample, and PNP, RP, and SN have been computed to the variable “West” (n= 245), constituting 54.6 % of the final sample. Operationalization
For content analysis, operationalization “means the construction of a coding scheme”, which in this case is “a set of measures in a codebook” (Neuendorf, 2002:118). The codebook entailing the operationalization of the frames was designed to have discrete dimensions, mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories, and very clear instructions to ensure a good replicability (Bryman, 2016; Neuendorf, 2002). Human coding has been chosen as a research
method because context was taken into consideration for coding the frame items (Macnamara, 2005)6. Because coders have to draw on their cultural experience to code (Cicourel, 1964), the coder training devoted one session to awareness of potential bias as both coders are natives from West Germany. Common rules for assessing article content have been trained. The instructions in the codebook were precisely phrased to narrow down the manifest content and not leave room for undefined interpretation of the coders (van Gorp, 2005). Both codebook and the articles are in German language, coded by two German native speakers. Each article in the final sample was coded according to the codebook. First, the whole article had to be read. Then metadata like newspaper ID and article ID, coder ID and date have been coded for each article. Then the frame items were coded. The frames have been measured by a set of 26 different indicators (items) that were coded with dichotomous variables (present=1; not
present =0). While binary data has the disadvantage of measurement errors which may lead to
lower correlations, the advantage is a good intercoder reliability (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). All frames have been measured by 3 indicators, respectively, except
Willkommenskultur and Fremdenhass frame, which have been measured by 4 indicators,
respectively (Appendix F). The frames are not mutually exclusive and can and have been expected to appear simultaneously in one article; they could also not be present at all. Intercoder Reliability
Intercoder reliability was tested by having a second coder code approximately 10% (Neuendorf, 2002) of randomly selected articles of the whole sample (n=40), and calculating
6 Computer based content analysis has been ruled out for this research, as the dictionary for a computer based content analysis could easily cause low validity (Neuendorf, 2002) and might not reveal subtle framing differences (Lawlor, 2015).
Krippendorff’s Alpha (Hayes and Krippendorff, 2007). The α for frame items7 ranged
between .74 and 1.0 (Appendix G), which can be considered sufficient as intercoder reliability in framing studies is not as accurate as counting words (van Gorp, 2005). For some items, α could not be computed because of “insufficient variation” (Krippendorff, 2004:236). This was due to the items not being present in the ICR sample. The items have still been included in the sample for two reasons: 1. inferences can be made about a frame not being present in the media; 2. it is common for frames to not show presence of all items that are intended to measure the frame. Except for the complete non-presence of attribution of responsibility to immigrants items, the items that could not be computed were “component in a multimeasure index” that was reliably established in former studies (Neuendorf, 2002:160). After
establishing the ICR, coder 1 coded the rest of the sample. Validity and Reliability of Data
A good validity of this research has been established by discussing and learning research objectives and reading relevant articles before starting to code (“immersion in the message pool”, Neuendorf, 2002:102-103) and a well-selected sample for analysis. A good generalizability in this research means that the findings of the analyzed newspapers can be applied to all German newspapers. This is ensured by selecting a sufficient sample size as well as paying precise attention to methodology. Replicability of this research is of high importance, so other researchers can challenge or confirm the results. For this purpose, the extensive codebook has been designed, with guidelines, instructions and methods used (Macnamara, 2005).
7 The alpha for the variable genre was insufficiently low (.21) and thus dropped (van Gorp, 2005), also because not relevant for the analysis.
Analysis
To measure the news frames, scales have been computed based on Semetko & Valkenburg (2000). This was done by adding the relevant items for the respective frame and dividing the result by the number of items used. The resulting framing scales had values from .00 (frame totally not present) to 1.00 (frame totally present). For example, the economic burden scale was measured using three items. If none of those items was present in an article, it resulted in a scale score of 0. If one item was coded as present, this resulted in a scale score of .33. If two items were coded as present, this resulted in a scale score of .67. And if three items were coded as present, this resulted in a scale score of 1.00.
Because of the a priori design based on former research, all items intended to measure the respective frames were included computing the scales8. To compare the frame use
between the East and West sample, eight independent-samples t-tests have been conducted, with East/West as independent variable, and the respective frames a dependent variable. The effect sizes for the significant t-tests were calculated using Cohen’s d.
Results
Comparing East and West, differences can be seen in the percentages of the frames present (Table 1), as well as the mean scores of the visibility of the frames per newspaper (Table 2). In West Germany, the Willkommenskultur frame has the highest mean (M=.23;
SD=.25), present in 54.7 % of the sample, compared to East Germany (M=.16; SD=.24),
where the frame was present in 36.8% of the sample. In the East, the attribution of
8 Based on Semetko & Valkenburg (2000), a principal factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed, and Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the internal consistency of the scales. Both factor loadings and the alpha values did not meet statistical level of sufficiency. Because the scales represent frames measured by items that don’t have to correlate, for this research the a priori design will not be adjusted.
responsibility to government frame has the highest mean (M=.28; SD=.36), present in 43.6 % of the sample, compared to West (M=.21; SD=.32), present in 35.5 % of the sample. The attribution of responsibility to immigrants frame scale (M=.002; SD=.03), for which the items already showed no variation in the ICR subsample, was only present in 0.7% of the sample.
Table 1
Percentage of Articles in which a Frames is Present in East and West
Frame East1 West2
1. Attr. resp. to gov. 43.6% 35.5%
2. Attr. resp. to imm. 1% 0.4 %
3. Economic burden 12.3 % 17.6 % 4. Economic asset 5.4 % 3.7 % 5. Victim 13.2% 15.1 % 6. Intruder 13.7% 11.8 % 7. Willkommenskultur 36.8% 54.7 % 8. Fremdenhass 31.9% 19.2 %
1percentages within East (n=204)
2percentages within West (n=245)
Table 2
Mean Scores of the Visibility of Eight Frames in German Regional Print Media
Outlet Attr. resp. to gov. Attr. resp to imm. Econ. Burden Econ. Asset
Victim Intruder Willkomme
nskultur Fremde n hass East .28 (.36) .0031) (.03) .05 (.15) .02 (.08) .06 (.17) .05 (.14) .16 (.24) .11 (.18) SZ .31 (.37) 0 .06 (.13) .03 (.09) .05 (.16) .06 (.17) .14 (.25) .14 (.20) MZ .19 (.32) .0031) (.03) .03 (.12) .01 (.06) .05 (.15) .04 (.12) .20 (.25) .09 (.17) BZ .43 (.39) .01 (.05) .10 (.23) .02 (.08) .10 (.23) .07 (.15) .08 (.16) .14 (.19) West .21 (.32) .0011) (.02) .07 (.17) .01 (.07) .06 (.15) .05 (.13) .23 (.25) .06 (.13) PNP .25 (.36) 0 .09 (.19) .02 (.08) .08 (.17) .07 (.16) .24 (.28) .03 (.09) RP .18 (.29) .0021) (.03) .07 (.18) .01; (.05) .05 (.15) .03 (.12) .24 (.26) .06 (.13) SN .23 (.33) 0 .06 (.16) .02; (.10) .06 (.15) .05 (.14) .20 (.23) .07 (.15) Overall .24 (.34) .0021) (.03) .06 (.17) .02 (.07) .06 (.16) .05 (.14) .19 (.25) .08 (.16)
Note. Values in parentheses represent standard deviations
Independent-Samples T-Tests
Results of the independent-samples t-tests (Appendix H) showed that three of the frames significantly differ between East and West Germany: Attribution of responsibility to the government, Fremdenhass and Willkommenskultur.
Findings of the independent-samples t-test with attributing responsibility to the government frame scale as dependent variable and East/West as independent variable shows that East (M = .28, SD = .36) and West (M = .21, SD = .32) significantly differ in the amount of attributing responsibility to the government, t(405.792) = .2.184, p = .030, CI = [.007 - .134]. The effect size is small (Cohen’s d=.22), with a mean difference of .07, which means that East scores on average .07 more on the attributing responsibility to the government frame scale than West, supporting H1, that in East German regional news coverage on immigration, the responsibility for immigration-related problems is statistically significantly more
attributed to the government compared to West German regional newspapers.
Findings of the independent-samples t-test with the Fremdenhass frame scale as dependent variable and East/West as independent variable shows that East (M = .11, SD = .18) and West (M = .06, SD = .14) significantly differ in the amount of mentioning the
Fremdenhass frame, t(363.58) = 3.386, p = .001, CI = [.022 - .083]. The effect size is small
(Cohen’s d=.36). The mean difference is .05, which means that East scores on average .05 more on the Fremdenhass frame scale than West, supporting H7, that in East German
regional news coverage on immigration, the Fremdenhass frame is more present compared to West German regional newspapers.
Findings of the independent-samples t-test with the Willkommenskultur frame scale as dependent variable and East/West as independent variable shows that East (M= .16, SD= .24) and West (M= .23, SD = .25) significantly differ in the amount of mentioning the
Willkommenskultur frame, t(447) = -2.994, p = .003, CI = [-.116 - .024]. The effect size is
average .07 less on the Willkommenskultur frame scale than West, supporting H8, that in East German regional news coverage on immigration, the Willkommenskultur frame is less present compared to West German regional newspapers.
Findings of the independent-samples t-tests with the attribution of responsibility to immigrants (H2) economic burden (H3), economic asset (H4), the intruder (H5), and victim (H6) frame scales as dependent variable and East/West as independent variable show no statistically significant difference between East and West German regional news, thus rejecting these hypotheses. This means that East and West German newspapers do not statistically significantly differ in the amount of framing immigrants as an economic burden or asset, as intruders or victims, and in attributing responsibility to immigrants.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate differences in framing of immigration between East and West German regional newspapers, assuming an ideological influence of the communist legacy on news media. This was done by using 26 framing items to measure the presence of eight different frames that had been established in former research. Of the eight frames compared between East and West, attribution of responsibility to the
government, and the opposing frames Willkommenskultur and Fremdenhass were found to statistically significantly differ in their presence. The attribution of responsibility to
immigrants frame, as well as the economic burden/asset and victim/intruder frame pairs did not show a statistically significantly different presence in East and West German regional newspapers. The findings were in line with the discussed theory.
As expected, regional newspapers in East Germany more often attributed
responsibility to the government than in the West. A possible explanation is the political legacy of state regulation. Immigration is a matter for the state (Roggeband & Vliegenthart, 2007), and in the former communist East citizens were used to the government regulating
economy and employment (Migheli, 2016). This legacy still impacts their likeliness to attribute responsibility to the government, in this case to regulate immigration related matters – more so than for citizens in the West.
Another reason for the prevalence of attributing responsibility to the government in the East might be that in the 2017 election, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party CDU received less and the AfD more votes in the East than in the West, showing that in East Germany, fewer citizens might approve of Merkel and her policies, including her immigration policies, and in turn react with more attributing responsibility to the government.
The differences in coverage regarding Willkommenskultur and Fremdenhass between East and West can be explained with the “contact hypothesis” (Christie & Allport, 1954). Citizens in East Germany only got to experience contact and interact with people outside from communist countries after the end of the communist regime. In addition to that, during the current immigration wave, fewer immigrants were located in East Germany than in the West in the investigated timeframe, possibly causing more Fremdenhass in the East based on low interaction with immigrants. West Germany, “Americanized” and more open to
multiculturalism after WWII, had been in contact with immigrants since the “guest workers” were invited into the country. This already established a culture of welcoming and citizens thus have more experience integrating immigrants and more contact limiting prejudices, which still shows in the prevalence of the Willkommenskultur framing.
Another possible explanation might be based on East Germany’s inferior economic status compared to West Germany. Immigrants coming to Germany might cause more existential fear in East Germany, which activates authoritarianism, which in the East is the strongest predictor for right-wing extremism (Seipel & Rippl, 2000). A higher right-wing extremism in the East, which is leading to a higher level of anti-immigrant violence in the East, causes regional newspapers to more frequently report about immigration with a
Theoretical Implications
The findings add to the existing body of research in several ways. This study is the first to investigate differences in framing based on ideological differences within Germany in present-day news media. The findings indicate that ideological legacy has an impact on news framing, which means that, for the Hierarchy of Influences Model (Shoemaker & Reese, 2014), the ideology level has been shown to influence the news content. In Germany, the media system level is not suppressing differences on the ideology level.
In addition, this research contributes to the framing of immigration research in
Germany by supporting the findings of Widmann (2015), that immigration in Germany is not primarily framed as negative, but that the picture is more complex. With Fremdenhass and
Willkommenskultur, both valences are present in Germany, but differently distributed between
East and West. These results paint a more complex picture than positive or negative of how immigration is framed in German newspapers.
Practical Implications
For Germany, the differences in newspaper coverage in East and West Germany that can be attributed to ideological legacy have several practical implications. One starting point to improve unity in Germany and to decrease xenophobic sentiments, primarily in the East, is to acknowledge that different views regarding immigration not only exist among citizens but also in the news media. Since press coverage has an impact on public opinion that should be taken into consideration when planning campaigns (Hertog & Fan, 1995).
For Europe in a bigger picture, the findings are a starting point showing that the Eastern communist legacy is visible in the media coverage of a former communist country. Immigration and respective regulations are highly important for all European countries, and acknowledging that the different ideological legacies that once divided the continent are still visible in the media, for the case of Germany, becomes important for planning campaigns to promote unity and reduce xenophobia in Europe.
Limitations and Future Research
The findings are limited in their generalizability to former communist Eastern and present-day Western European countries. A limitation to the generalizability of the attribution of responsibility to the government frame is Germany’s unique standing in handling the immigration situation. While the German government enforced an open border policy to welcome immigrants, other countries, including those with a communist legacy, were more restrictive. Due to the different immigration policies, the former communist countries cannot be expected to frame the attribution of responsibility to the government the same way.
An additional limitation is the degree to which the findings that East and West differ in the framing cannot be solely attributed to the respective ideological legacies. The ceteris paribus condition is not entirely met by this research design, as external factors influencing the media framing cannot be ruled out. Changing ownership or editorial guidelines of the newspapers have not been taken into account.
It is of great importance to bear in mind that the picture is quite complex and many mediating and moderating variables also play a role in why the news media frame
immigration the way they do. For example, according to Haller (2017), the
Willkommenskultur frame found its way into regional newspapers through party
representatives one the one hand, but also through representatives of industry and labor unions. And labor unions are more active and represented in West than in East Germany (Biebeler & Lesch, 2015). This might have influenced the results more than ideological legacy.
By nature, the design of content analyses can only show the existing or non-existing content in media coverage, reasons for expectations why can merely be expected based on theory. While for this research, the social system level of the “Hierarchy of Influences Model” (Shoemaker & Reese, 2014) has been considered, as it is the foundation from which all media content is constructed, the other four levels of the model, social institutions, organizations,
routines, and individuals, which also structure the factors that influence media, have not. For example, to know which articles were published intentionally by the regional editors, their competences in publishing decisions would have to be taken into consideration (Haller, 2017).
In this study, the regional newspapers are expected to be representative for East and West Germany, which in this case is merely based on the location of their distribution areas. While, for this design, the location is of importance for the ideological legacy, the newspapers might not just reflect “East” or “West” attitudes, as the ownership of newspapers and the heritage of journalists are not taken into account.
Further research should, next to replication to see if the findings hold true, investigate other levels in the “Hierarchy of Influences Model” to detect other possible variables
influencing media framing in East and West Germany. Qualitative research and interviews with journalists and editors might give an insight about reporting decisions and selling incentives, to see to which extent decisions to promote either Willkommenskultur or
Fremdenhass are related to mirroring the readership’s attitudes in order to increase sales.
To look further into the bigger picture of a communist legacy in Europe, future research should compare media coverage about immigration from Eastern and Western European countries, especially regarding the Willkommenskultur, Fremdenhass and attributing responsibility to the government frames. After all, the ideological legacy of the communist regime still exists, and it will be of interest to learn if an (invisible) wall is separating the continent’s media coverage.
References
An, S., & Gower, K. K. (2009). How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 107-112. doi:
10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.010
Bailey, R. V. (1973). The scapegoat – or the one that got away. British Journal of Guidance
& Counselling, 1(2), 11-18. doi:10.1080/03069887308259347
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. (2016). Das Bundesamt in Zahlen 2015: Asyl,
Migration und Integration. Nürnberg: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtinge.
Retrieved from Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge Website:
https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/Broschueren/bundesamt -in-zahlen-2015.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
Biebeler, H. & Lesch, H. (2015). Organisationsdefizite der deutschen Gewerkschaften.
Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik (95)10, 710-715. doi: 10.1007/s10273-015-1891-y
Benert, V., & Beier, A. (2016). Influx of Migrants versus People in Need – A Combined Analysis of Framing and Connotation in the Lampedusa News Coverage. Global
Media Journal: German Edition, 6(1).
Berbers, A., Joris, W., Boesman, J., d’Haenens, L., Koeman, J., & van Gorp, B. (2016). The news framing of the ‘Syria fighters’ in Flanders and the Netherlands: Victims or terrorists? Ethnicities, 16(6), 798-818. doi:10.1177/1468796815603753
Berry, M., Garcia-Blanco, I., & Moore, K. (2015). Press Coverage of the Refugee and
Migrant Crisis in the EU: A Content Analysis of Five European Countries.
Boenisch, P., & Schneider, L. (2013). The social capital legacy of communism - results from the Berlin Wall experiment. European journal of political economy, 32, 391-411. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2013.09.007
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Buonfino, A. (2004). Between Unity and Plurality: The Politicization and Securitization of
the Discourse of Immigration in Europe. New Political Science 26(1), 23–49. doi:10.1080/ 0739314042000185111.
Burns, P., & Gimpel, J.G. (2000). Economic Insecurity, Prejudicial Stereotypes, and Public Opinion on Immigration Policy. Political Science Quarterly, 115(2), 201–225. doi: 10.2307/2657900
Burscher, B., van Spanje, J., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). Owning the issues of crime and immigration: The relation between immigration and crime news and anti-immigrant voting in 11 countries. Electoral Studies, 38, 59-69.
doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.03.001
Cheng, L., Igartua, J. J., Palacios, E., Acosta, T., & Palito, S. (2014). Framing Immigration News in Spanish Regional Press. International Migration, 52(6), 197-215.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2010.00647.x
Christie, R., & Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. The American Journal of
Psychology,67(4), 742-743.
Cicourel, A.V. (1964). Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York, NY: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Citrin, J., Green, D. P., Muste, C. & Wong, C. (1997). Public Opinion towards Immigration Reform: The Role of Economic Motivations. Journal of Politics 59(3), 858–81. doi: 10.2307/2998640
Conway, M., Grabe, M. E., & Grieves, K. (2007). Villains, victims, and the virtuous in Bill O’Reilly’s “No-Spin Zone”: Revising world war propaganda techniques. Journalism
Studies, 8(2), 197–223. doi: 10.1080/14616700601148820
Deacon, D. (2007). Yesterday's papers and today's technology: Digital newspaper archives and 'push button' content analysis. European Journal of Communication, 22(1), 5-25. doi:10.1177/0267323107073743
Comparison of Newspaper Coverage on Irregular Migration and Lampedusa in Five European Countries, Italian Studies, 70(4), 506-520. doi:
10.1080/00751634.2015.1120947
de Vreese, C. H. (2003). Framing Europe: Television News and European Integration. Amsterdam: Aksant
de Vreese, C. H., & Boomgaarden, H. (2003). Valenced news frames and public support for the EU. Communications, 28(4). doi:10.1515/comm.2003.024
Dixon, R. (2007). Scapegoating. Journal of School Violence, 6(4), 81-103. doi:10.1300/J202v06n04_05
Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27.
Entman, R. M. (1993) Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal
of Communication 43(4), 51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
Feldman, S., & Stenner, K. (1997). Perceived Threat and Authoritarianism. Political
Psychology, 18(4), 741-770. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00077
Fischer, R., Maes, J., & Schmitt, M. (2007). Tearing down the ‘Wall in the head’? Culture contact between Germans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(2), 163-179. doi 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.05.004
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37. doi: 10.1086/229213
Grimm, J., & Andsager, J. L. (2011). Framing Immigration: Geo-Ethnic Context in California Newspapers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(4), 771-788.
doi:10.1177/107769901108800406
Haller, M. (2017). Die “Flüchtlingskrise“ in den Medien. Tagesaktueller Journalismus
Hänggli, R. (2012). Key Factors in Frame Building: How Strategic Political Actors Shape News Media Coverage. The American Behavioral Scientist,56(3), 300-317.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data. Communication Methods And Measures, 1(1), 77-89. doi:10.1080/19312450709336664
Heineman, E. (2000). Single Motherhood and Maternal Employment in Divided Germany: Ideology, Policy, and Social Pressures in the 1950s. Journal of Women's
History, 12(3),146-172. doi:10.1353/jowh.2000.0055
Helbling, M. (2014). Framing Immigration in Western Europe. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies, 40(1), 1-21. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2013.830888
Hertog, J., & Fan, D. (1995). The Impact of Press Coverage on Social Beliefs: The Case of HIV Transmission. Communication Research, 22(5), 545-574.
Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Weasley.
Iyengar, S. (1990) Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political
Behavior, 12(1): 19–40. doi: 10.1007/BF00992330
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kiousis, S., Mitrook, M., Wu, X., & Seltzer, T. (2006). First- and Second-Level Agenda- Building and Agenda-Setting Effects: Exploring the Linkages Among Candidate News Releases, Media Coverage, and Public Opinion During the 2002 Florida Gubernatorial Election. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(3), 265-285. doi:
10.1207/s1532754xjprr1803_4
Kirilenko, A. P., & Stepchenkova, S. O. (2012). Climate Change Discourse in Mass Media: Application of Computer-Assisted Content Analysis. Journal of Environmental
Klekowski von Koppenfels, A., & Höhne, J. (2017) Gastarbeiter Migration Revisited: Consolidating Germany’s Position as an Immigration Country. In J.-M. Lafleur & M. Stanek (Eds.), South-North Migration of EU Citizens in Times of Crisis (pp. 149-174). Location: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39763-4
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lawlor, A. (2015). Local and National Accounts of Immigration Framing in a Cross-national Perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(6), 918-941. doi:
10.1080/1369183X.2014.1001625
Lecheler, S., Bos, L., & Vliegenthart, R. (2015). The Mediating Role of Emotions: News Framing Effects on Opinions About Immigration. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 92(4), 812-838. doi: 10.1177/1077699015596338
MacKuen, M. & Brown, C. (1987). Political Context and Attitude Change. The American
Political Science Review, 81(2), 471-490. doi: 10.2307/1961962
Macnamara, J. (2005). Media content analysis: Its uses; benefits and best practice methodology. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), 1–34.
Mangum, M., & Block, R. (2018). Social identity theory and public opinion towards immigration. Social Sciences, 7(3), 41. doi:10.3390/socsci7030041
Migheli, M. (2016). Behind the Wall: What Remains of the “Communist Legacy” in Contemporary Europe. Social Indicators Research, 127(2), 671-690.
doi:10.1007/s11205-015-0990-x
Neuendorf, K. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Neundorf, A. (2009) Growing up on Different Sides of the Wall – A Quasi- Experimental Test: Applying the Left–Right Dimension to the German Mass Public. German
Petersson, B. O. (2009). Hot Conflict and Everyday Banality: Enemy images, scapegoats and stereotypes. Development, 52(4), 460-465. doi: 10.1057/dev.2009.59
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐ analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922-934. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.504
Roggeband, C., & Vliegenthart, R. (2007). Divergent framing: The public debate on migration in the Dutch parliament and media, 1995–2004. West European
Politics, 30(3), 524-548. doi: 10.1080/01402380701276352
Schmidtke, O. (2017). Reinventing the Nation: Germany’s Post-Unification Drive Towards Becoming a ‘Country of Immigration’. German Politics, 26(4), 498-515. doi: 10.1080/09644008.2017.1365137
Seate, A.A. & Mastro, D. (2016). Media's influence on immigration attitudes: An intergroup threat theory approach, Communication Monographs, 83(2), 194-213. doi:
10.1080/03637751.2015.1068433
Seipel, C. & Rippl, S. (2000). Ansätze der Rechtsextremismusforschung - ein empirischer Theorienvergleich. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation 20(3), 303-318.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93-109.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (2014). Mediating the message in the 21st century : A media
Sociology perspective (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National Culture and the Values of
Organizational Employees: A Dimensional Analysis Across 43 Nations. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2), 231-264. 10.1177/0022022196272006
Stratification and Post- Communism on Political Participation in Europe. Sociologický
časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 45(3), 487–517.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 33(1), 1-39. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall Publishers.
Van Gorp, B. (2005). Where is the Frame? Victims and Intruders in the Belgian Press
Coverage of the Asylum Issue. European Journal of Communication, 20(4), 484–507. doi:10.1177/0267323105058253.
Van Hoorn, A., & Maseland, R. (2010). Cultural differences between East and West Germany after 1991: Communist values versus economic performance? Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 76(3), 791–804. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2010.10.003
Weber, H. (2016). Mehr Zuwanderer, mehr Fremdenangst? Ein Überblick über den Forschungsstand und ein Erklärungsversuch aktueller Entwicklungen in
Deutschland. Berliner Journal Für Soziologie, 25(4), 397-428. doi: 10.1007/s11609-016-0300-8
Widmann, T. (2015) Refugees in the News: An Analysis of Frames in German Regional
Appendix A Codebook
Codebook Version 1b (English Translation, Original in German 2018_12_09 Introduction to the Codebook: This research deals with how the news media frame
immigration in Germany. The period under investigation is 01.01.2015 till 31.12.2018. German regional newspapers will be investigated with the goal to see to which extent there is a difference in the framing of immigration between East and West Germany. As a German native speaker, all coders have previous knowledge and opinion about the immigration situation in Germany. Considering coders will know about the refugee crisis and have an opinion about it, coders are strictly advised to make coding decisions solely based on the article-texts given with the instructions of the Codebook, not considering prior knowledge. The Codebook is designed as follows: First, formal features will be coded, then the frame items will be coded. Two frames each make a frame pair opposing in valence. After coding a frame pair, the valence will be assessed for the whole article.
Instructions for the Coders: Before starting to code, get familiar with the Coding Scheme, the Codebook and all formal rules from the coder training. Have a separate piece of paper for notes. First, always read the entire article before starting to code it. Every entire article is a unit of analysis, and will thus receive a specific code. The Codebook will provide detailed instructions and examples, please always consider those when making decisions. The frame items are Yes/No questions. There is no “right” or “wrong” answer. Both frames of a pair can be present, or none; the frames are not mutually exclusive. Only articles dealing with
immigration in Germany are considered relevant. Immigrant is in this case a synonym for refugee, asylum seeker, and the likes.
The frames that will be investigated are:
1. Attribution of Responsibility to the government/to immigrants 2. Economic burden/asset
3. Intruder/victim
4. Willkommenskultur/Fremdenhass Coding the Articles:
Formal Features: Name Coder • Dania • Lisa Newspaper • Sächsische Zeitung • Mitteldeutsche Zeitung • Berliner Zeitung • Passauer Neue Presse
• Rheinische Post
• Stuttgarter Nachrichten Date of the newspaper
• YYYY-MM-DD Artikel ID
• Newspaper_year (e.g. 15 or 16) - month - day -article word count Journalist
• agency (reuters, dpa, AFP…) • Journalist
• Both/none/other Genre
• News & Teaser
• Opinion piece (op-ed; Editorial) • Interview
• other Relevance
-> YES(=1)/NO(=0)
should always be the case due to pre-selection
The Frames:
Attribution of Responsibility to the Government / to Immigrants
The article deals with to whom responsibility is attributed to regarding immigration in Germany. It is distinguished between attributing the responsibility to the government, to immigrants, or to someone else.
Attribution of responsibility to government
The government, parties, politics are attributed responsibility regarding immigration in Germany. An example are politicians blaming other politicians, organizations that demand solutions.
The following items are indicators of the frame: • Government responsible
Does the article attribute responsibility for immigration related issues to the government?
-> YES(=1)/NO(=0)
Does the article mention that the government can and should solve or improve issues arising from immigration?
Examples: - Wenn die Landesregierungen nicht mehr Geld zur Verfügung stellen,
kollabieren die Kommunen und Städte unter der finanziellen Last. - Kramp-Karrenbauer: “Ich würde nicht von Krise sprechen, aber zweifellos ist die Flüchtlingsfrage eine der größten Herausforderungen der jüngsten Zeit. Weder in der Öffentlichkeit noch in der CDU ist dieses Thema populär. Wir müssen es aber trotzdem lösen.
-> YES(=1)/NO(=0) • Suggested solutions
Does the article mention solutions for immigration related issued? -> YES(=1)/NO(=0)
Attribution of responsibility to immigrants
Responsibility for immigration related issues is attributed to immigrants.
Example: - Muslime in Deutschland tragen die Schuld an der Flüchtlingskrise.
The following items are indicators of the frame: • Immigrants responsible
Does the article attribute responsibility for immigration related issues to immigrants? -> YES(=1)/NO(=0)
• Immigrants should find solution
Does the article mention that immigrants can and should solve or improve issues arising from immigration?
-> YES(=1)/NO(=0) • Suggested solutions
Does the article mention solutions for immigration related issued? -> YES(=1)/NO(=0)
Responsibility attributed to other actors: [open field] Valence:
Overall in this article, the responsibility is predominately attributed to
-> GOVERNMENT -> IMMIGRANTS -> NEUTRAL
Economic Consequences: Burden/Asset
The article deals with economic consequences of immigration in Germany. It is distinguished between being an asset or a burden for the economy.
Economic Burden
The article portrays immigration with a negative connotation for German economy, Germany, and German citizens. Tax payers will be burdened, unemployment will rise The following items are indicators of the frame:
