• No results found

Constructing meaning in the battle for Mauna Kea : an interdisciplinary analysis of the frames and frame-building in the local news coverage of the TMT telescope

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Constructing meaning in the battle for Mauna Kea : an interdisciplinary analysis of the frames and frame-building in the local news coverage of the TMT telescope"

Copied!
101
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Constructing meaning in the battle for

Mauna Kea

An interdisciplinary analysis of the frames and frame-building in the local news coverage of the TMT telescope

Racquelle Bannink

Supervisor: Michelle Parlevliet & second reader: David Laws

Master thesis MSc Conflict Resolution and Governance, University of Amsterdam 31 October 2017

(2)

2

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 – Introduction ... 4

Chapter 2 - Background of the conflict ... 7

2.1 Telescopes and the Hawaiian economy ... 7

2.2 A timeline of the TMT conflict ... 9

2.3 The actors and issues ... 11

2.4 Historic telescope conflicts ... 12

2.5 Conclusion ... 13

Chapter 3: Theoretical framework ... 15

Introduction ... 15

3.1 Frames in a conflict – insights from sociology and social movement studies ... 16

3.2 Media and communication science perspectives on frames and framing ... 18

3.2.1 Critiques on media framing research ... 18

3.2.2 Media framing and the importance of punctuation ... 19

3.2.3 Approaches to media framing research ... 20

3.3 Influences on media frame-building ... 23

3.4 The addition of structuration and power and hegemony ... 25

3.4.1 Structuration theory – the relation between the influences on frame-building ... 25

3.5 Conclusion and Conceptualisations ... 28

Chapter 4 - Methodology ... 31

Introduction ... 31

4.1 Research design ... 31

4.1.1 The data ... 32

4.2 The approach ... 33

4.3 Validity, reliability, limitations and ethics ... 34

Chapter 5 – The HSA’s frames of the TMT conflict ... 37

Introduction ... 37

5.1 Issues – what is at stake ... 38

5.1.1 Gaining progress ... 38

5.1.2 The problem of the delay ... 40

5.1.3 The threat of 'losing' the TMT ... 41

5.2 The actors ... 44

5.2.1 The proponents ... 45

(3)

3

5.2.3 Relations between the actors ... 50

5.3 Attributing responsibility ... 51

5.4 Conclusion - Framing the TMT conflict ... 53

Chapter 6 – influences on the journalists’ framing of the conflict ... 54

6.1 Agency ... 55

6.1.1 Cognition ... 55

6.1.2 Journalistic practice ... 56

6.2 Hegemony and cultural resonance ... 56

6.2.1 Hawaiian hegemony and the HSA ... 57

6.2.2 The capable US state ... 57

6.2.3 Corporate economy ... 58

6.2.4 Constructing the TMT is common sense ... 60

6.3 Frame sponsors... 61

6.3.1 Interdependence ... 61

6.3.2 Sponsored frames ... 62

6.3.3 Successful frame sponsoring ... 63

6.4 Newspaper requirements ... 64

6.4.1 Time-pressure, space limitations and newsworthiness ... 64

6.4.2 Newspaper ideology ... 65

6.5 Conclusion ... 67

Chapter 7 – Conclusion and discussion ... 69

Literature ... 74

Appendix A – News articles and editorials HSA ... 82

(4)

4

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Thirteen telescopes have been built on Mauna Kea, a large volcano on the Big Island in Hawaii, since the 1960s (Institute for Astronomy, 2017). From 2007 on, Hawaii has made plans for the construction of the fourteenth telescope. The Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) is planned to become the largest telescope built to date; over 18 stories in height and with a mirror 30 meters in diameter, with the expected ability to see thirteen billion light-years into the universe (Maunakeaandtmt.org, 2017a). Part of the Hawaiian population fiercely resists the construction of the TMT. As a result, for the past years Hawaii has been the scene of a non-violent conflict on the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope, dividing the Hawaiian community (Witze, 2015).

This conflict has been the subject of a lot of news articles, especially since the withdrawal of the telescope’s permit in December 2015, which halted the construction and restarted the permit approval process. The news coverage of this conflict both in local and (inter)national media is intriguing for several reasons. First, while this is not the first conflict on the construction of a telescope on Mauna Kea since the 1960s, nor the only conflict on a Hawaiian island over a telescope at this moment (Gutierrez, 2015; Hall, 2015; Kilakila 'O Haleakalā, 2017), there is no mention of the historical context in the news reports on the TMT conflict. Because of that, the conflict on the construction of the TMT seems like an isolated incident, rather than a possible continuation of a much longer struggle over telescopes on Hawaii, Second, the news coverage often presents it as a conflict between religion and science, between Native Hawaiians and progress (Crane and Morales, 2015). The opponents of the TMT project, however, are not all indigenous Hawaiians, their concerns are not only about religion, but also about indigenous rights, the telescope's permit process and the environment (Big Island Video News.com, 2015; Fox, 2015; Kahea.org, 2011). Third, and most important, it seems that the media's regard of the conflict and the construction of the TMT largely corresponds to that of the proponents.

The news reports on the conflict around the construction of the TMT give an insight into how the conflict is interpreted and framed in national and international media outlets. These media are very far from the conflict, however. This research aims to understand how this conflict is framed in local media and why, as they are closer to the conflict. As such, this thesis hopes to contribute both to a better understanding of the still on-going and, as of now,

(5)

5 still scarcely researched TMT conflict and to how it is interpreted and represented by the media. As both framing by the media and framing in a conflict come together in this case study, I aim to contribute to the literature on media framing of non-violent conflict by bringing together various perspectives from different social sciences disciplines, namely sociology, social movement studies, media and communication studies, and political science to come to an integrated vision on media frames. Lastly, by focussing also on why the frames that were found became dominant, this research hopes to contribute to the – currently limited – research on frame-building (De Vreese, 2005: 60; Hänggli, 2012: 301) from an interdisciplinary perspective.

To research this subject, the research question this thesis aims to answer is: how does the largest newspaper in Hawaii predominantly frame the conflict on the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea in the news coverage during the height of the conflict and how can the dominance of certain frames over others in the news coverage be explained from an interdisciplinary perspective on frame-building? An answer to this question is built up from chapter three until chapter seven. But first, the second chapter provides additional information on the conflict and Hawaii in general, to better understand the context of the conflict and the parties involved in it.

The third chapter contains an overview of the current literature on framing and frame-building from different social sciences disciplines. It also considers the literature on the specific forces that influence media frame-building, namely the cognition of journalists (Carragee and Roefs, 2004: 216; Gamson and Modigliani, 1989: 2,5; Gitlin, 1980: 7), the requirements set by a newspaper (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989: 7; Gitlin 1980; Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 14), the frames that the parties in a conflict sponsor (Carragee and Roefs, 2004: 216; Gamson and Modigliani, 1989: 6; Hänggli, 2012: 302-303) and the cultural resonance (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989: 5) that gives certain interpretations a natural advantage over others. For a deeper and holistic understanding of frame-building and to remedy some of the critiques on framing research, the final addition to the concept of framing is Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory and Gitlin’s (1980) perception of hegemony.

The fourth chapter concerns itself with the methodology of the framing research that follows from the third chapter. It divides the research question into two sub-questions that chapter five and six answer. The chapter expounds on the approaches used to gather and

(6)

6 analyse the data. Finally, it considers the ethics and limitations of this research and discusses the reliability and validity of the chosen qualitative approach.

The fifth chapter presents the results of the framing analysis of the news coverage on the conflict on the construction of the TMT from the largest newspaper in Hawaii, the Honolulu Star Advertiser, based on the conceptualisations of frames as discussed in chapter three. It provides an overview of what the journalists of the newspaper consider relevant regarding the issues, events, actors and their relations (Dewulf et al., 2009: 160-161; Goffman, 1974: 24)., and what the dominant frames in the news coverage on the conflict are. It argues that the news coverage on the conflict on the construction of the TMT from the largest newspaper in Hawaii contains a specific constructed reality (Benford and Snow, 2000: 614) because of the choices the journalists have made in their reports of what is relevant and what isn’t (Goffman, 1974: 24). These choices show that the HSA’s perspective on the conflict presupposes the construction of the TMT telescope and regards the conflict from the perspective of the proponents of the TMT.

The sixth chapter discusses the overarching influence of the cultural hegemonic status quo in Hawaii concerning telescopes on Mauna Kea, through the different levels of influences on frame-building as provided by media studies scholars. It argues that, through an interdependent dynamic between structure and agency, even without intent on the part of the journalist, the cognition and the structural forces of newspaper requirements, frame-sponsoring and cultural resonance, the proponents’ frames were more likely to dominate the news coverage on the TMT conflict compared to the opposition’s perspective.

The final chapter contains a conclusion and discussion of the findings. It positions this research within the current body of literature on framing and frame-building. The thesis ends with a further discussion of the limitations of this research and gives suggestions for further studies on its topics.

(7)

7

Chapter 2 - Background of the conflict

To understand this conflict and its framing it is important to be familiar with some of the region’s background and how the conflict is situated in society. In this background chapter I aim to provide an insight into Hawaiian society, history and economy as well as some of the background of the conflict and Contested Case Hearings. This chapter commences with an introduction into the relation between telescopes on Mauna Kea and the Hawaiian and Big Island economy and then moves on to provide a short overview of the timeline of the conflict. After discussing the actors and issues in the conflict it ends with a consideration of the history of telescope conflicts on Hawaii. This chapter by no means does justice to the complexity of the situation nor is it a complete overview of the Hawaiian situation or the conflict. It merely aims to provide additional information to guide the understanding of the conflict and positions of the parties within the scope of analysis in chapters five through seven.

2.1 Telescopes and the Hawaiian economy

On Mauna Kea the University of Hawaii (UH) and the Hawaiian state government have allowed the construction of thirteen observatories between the 1960s and the present (Institute for Astronomy, 2017). UH leases Mauna Kea’s summit, which is a conservation district, for educational purposes and subleases this land to observatory organisations that construct the telescopes (Institute for Astronomy, 2017). When the first telescope was built on Mauna Kea, this location turned out to have the best conditions in the Northern hemisphere to explore the universe; the air has a very low humidity – humidity can blur images - and because of the islands' remoteness and the height of Mauna Kea it has very little light pollution. Because of these unique conditions Hawaii is favoured among astronomers (Institute for Astronomy, 2017). The state has allowed the construction of another ten telescopes on other Hawaiian Islands, and more new telescopes are under construction (Go-astronomy.com, 2017).

To develop humanity's understanding of the beginning of the universe, the non-profit TMT corporation has made plans for a 14th telescope on Mauna Kea. The Thirty Meter

Telescope (TMT) would be the largest telescope ever built, 18 stories in height and with a mirror 30 meters in diameter. Because of the size and its advanced technology the TMT

(8)

8

corporation expects the telescope is able to see 13 billion light-years away and enrich the current scientific understanding of the universe and its development (Maunakeaandtmt.org, 2017a).

Proponents of the TMT use this scientific advancement through the telescope as an important reason for its construction on Mauna Kea. Other arguments are the economic and educational benefits of the telescope for Hawaii. According to the TMT corporation and the Hawaiian governor, the project would also bring economic development and job opportunities to Hawaii. The telescope would create 140 permanent jobs and an additional 300 temporary jobs to construct it (Maunakeaandtmt.org, 2017a).

Economically, Hawaii could benefit from development. Especially the Big Island, home to Mauna Kea, has a high poverty and inequality rate compared to many other American states (Mather and Jarosz, 2014: 5-6). Hawaii overall has one of the weakest state economies and consistently ranks at the bottom of the best US states for business (CNBC, 2015; 2016; 2017). Indigenous Hawaiians have an unequal share in poverty, in 2013 this group had a 32% higher poverty rate than state average (Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 2014).

The subleases of the telescopes on Mauna Kea do not yield much economic return for Hawaii (Dickerson, 2015). For subleasing the land from the University of Hawaii, the organisations that own and run the existing telescopes pay a symbolic amount of $1 per year for each telescope, with a grand total of $13 per year. To support the economy, the Land Board or Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), the state department that approves the subleases of the land from the UH to the observatory organisations, has demanded a much higher rent for the site. During the ten-year construction phase, the TMT corporation pays an annual amount of $500.000 and in its operational state they pay $1.8 million per year. This money is to be allocated to “the management and stewardship of the mountain” (Kalani, 2014).

Additionally, the TMT corporation set up an educational fund, the THINK fund, for the astronomy education of Hawaiian students. “TMT officially launched the THINK Fund in October 2014. TMT’s THINK Fund initiative benefits Hawaii Island students […] with an annual contribution of $1 million” (Maunakeaandtmt.org, 2017b). Despite the ongoing conflict and the uncertainty whether TMT will receive a permit for subleasing the land, the project started in 2014 and about $3,5 million has now been spent towards the education of Hawaiian youths (Maunakeaandtmt.org, 2017b).

(9)

9 2.2 A timeline of the TMT conflict

The conflict on the telescope’s construction has been building for years (see figure 1, page 9 for a timeline). Opponents of the project have been airing their complaints for the last eight years. The conflict came to the surface in October 2014 when opponents of the project protested at and stopped the TMT ground-breaking ceremony (Kahea.org, 2016).

Several opponents of the telescope, K. Pisciotta, C.K. Ching, P. Neves, D. Ward and E.K. Flores formed a collaboration called Mauna Kea Hui, which translates to the Mauna Kea protectors (Kahea.org, 2016). They are the most organised and well known opponents of the telescope. In 2014 Mauna Kea Hui filed two legal appeals against BLNR. The first was filed against the 2011 approval of the conservation district use permit (CDUP). For any construction on the summit of Mauna Kea a CDUP is required that confirms the project meets the requirements of building in a conservation district. Before approving such a permit, a Contested Case Hearing (CCH) is required by law to weigh additional evidence (Hurley, 2015). Anyone who is directly or indirectly affected by the TMT can become a party in a CCH. In 2011 the BLNR approved the CDUP of the TMT before the required CCH was held (Kahea.org, 2016).

In the meantime, in the spring of 2015, TMT opponents blocked the roads when the TMT contractors began construction on the project, leading to the arrest of 31 protesters (Big Island Video News.com, 2015). Construction was halted and on December 2, 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that the BLNR was wrong to approve the permit before the CCH. The Court invalidated the permit and ordered a new CCH (Hurley, 2015). The new CCH on the CDUP is the chosen period for this thesis.

Mauna Kea Hui filed a second appeal against the BLNR's approval of the sublease of the land from the University of Hawaii (UH) to the TMT (Kahea.org, 2016). For the sublease the BLNR denied a request for a CCH (Hurley, 2016b). The Supreme Court overturned this decision in December 2016, judging that the BLNR “violated the law” and “failed to protect Native Hawaiian rights and public interest in the public lands of [Mauna Kea]” (Hurley, 2016b). The Supreme Court ordered a CCH for the sublease (Hurley, 2016b), which to date has not been held.

(10)

10 Figure 1. Timeline TMT conflict

In March 2016 the TMT corporation set a self-imposed deadline for the construction of the project in April 2018. To meet this deadline, the TMT stated it wanted a permit in early 2016 or at the start of 2017 (Hurley, 2016a). Due to the delay the construction of the project had suffered and the uncertainty if and when the TMT could be constructed on Mauna Kea, the TMT corporation chose La Palma, Spain, as an alternate location for the TMT if it could not be constructed on Mauna Kea (Tmt.org, 2016).

In April 2016 the BLNR announced retired judge Riki Amano as the hearing officer for the Contested Case Hearings. Mauna Kea Hui objected to this because of her closed-doors appointment, which according to them was a violation of the law, and because of a perceived personal bias by being a member of UH's Imiloa Astronomy Center (Hurley, 2016d). Both UH and the TMT corporation also filed objections to the appointee, not due to a lack of faith in her but due to the possible "crippling delays" for the construction of the TMT her appointment could lead to, if it was appealed by the opponents in the Supreme Court (Hurley, 2016d). A few days after this, the BLNR reaffirmed the appointment of Amano, saying that

(11)

11

"common sense must prevail" because objections can be made to every potential candidate if the CCH needs to "subjectively 'appear to be fair' to every possible person" (Hurley, 2016e).

The Contested Case Hearings took place between October 21, 2016 and February 3, 2017. Twenty parties were approved to voice their opinions and research, and to cross-examine a total of 85 witnesses (Dayton, 2016). The parties included the TMT corporation, the native Hawaiian organisation Perpetuating Unique Educational Opportunities (PUEO) and several persons and organisations opposed to the telescope (Stanton, 2016). PUEO favours the TMT for the educational opportunities it provides the Hawaiian youth (Pueo.org, 2017). In August 2017 Judge Amano returned the case to the BLNR and recommended the approval of the TMT CDUP - because it meets the CDUP's requirements - but with 40 conditions in consideration of the opponents' complaints (Kalani and Dayton, 2017). On September 28, 2017 the BLNR approved the permit with a 5-2 majority and including Amano's conditions (DLNR, 2017).

2.3 The actors and issues

The conflict on the TMT construction is a multi-party, multi-issue conflict. Both the outspoken proponents and opponents are very different actors and organisations that favour or dislike the TMT for diverging reasons. The proponents of the project are, amongst others, the TMT leadership, the governor of Hawaii David Ige (Ige, 2015), and the University of Hawaii in Hilo (UH) and various Native and non-native Hawaiian organisations and persons. The opponents are Mauna Kea Hui and a variety of other Native and non-native Hawaiian people and organisations (Stanton, 2016).

As mentioned, proponents of the telescope emphasise the scientific, economic, and educational benefits they believe the telescope would bring (Ige, 2015). On the other side, the opponents feel that the processes for obtaining the telescope permits are flawed and their rights are harmed. Opponents also argue that the telescope and its construction would harm religious and cultural practices on the mountain and do environmental damage (Kahea.org, 2016). Some of the opponents that are part of Hawaii's sovereignty movement, have also symbolised the TMT as a neo-colonial suppression of Hawaiian culture (Kahea.org, 2017; K. Dayton, 13 October 2017).

There are also people who are not explicit proponents or opponents of the TMT. For example, several astronomers from different backgrounds have aired their doubts on the

(12)

12

righteousness of constructing the TMT on Mauna Kea. They defend both sides of the conflict and suggest that science and economics should not be more highly valued than culture. Moreover, these astronomers argue that progress through scientific means is not a universally shared value and should not be presented as such (Dickerson, 2016; Ghorayshi, 2015; Lakdawallah, 2015).

2.4 Historic telescope conflicts

The parties in this conflict have different views on the starting point of the conflict on the Thirty Meter Telescope. What the different actors and researched newspaper consider as a starting point is important because it shows what they consider relevant to the conflict and what perspective on the build-up of the conflict they accept. The importance of the sequence of events in a conflict is further explained in the next chapter.

For those that regard the TMT conflict as an isolated event, the first protests between 2014 and 2015 or when the permit was invalidated in 2015 is a logical starting point. Although this is not on their website, I presume the TMT corporation might regard this as the starting point as it halted the construction of the TMT. For them, this conflict is solely about the construction of TMT. Some of the opponents, especially, regard the conflict not in isolation but as a continuation of an ongoing conflict between the state and a part of the citizens over the construction of telescopes in Hawaii (Kahea.org, 2016). This is also how Kevin Dayton (13 October 2017), one of the main journalists of the researched news articles on this topic, regards the conflict.

Opposition to the telescopes on Hawaii has been steadily growing in the last decades. In 2001 on a news report on the conflict on the construction of the thirteenth telescope McFarling from the LA Times wrote:

“When the first telescopes rose from the mountain--one a year in 1968, 1969 and 1970--there was not a peep of dissent from Hawaiians. Thirty years and nearly $1 billion worth of telescopes later, though, Hawaii is a very different place. A once fledgling Hawaiian movement has grown into a vocal political power in the islands. There are calls for secession from the United States, a return of native Hawaiian lands and, on Mauna Kea, a moratorium on telescopes and even their removal” (McFarling, 2001).

(13)

13

This quote shows how many of the opponents of telescopes, challenge Hawaii as a US state. For them, the start of the conflict traces back to the annexation of Hawaii by the US in 1893 (Kahea.org, 2016). They argue that the conflict over this and all other telescopes on Hawaii is a direct consequence of the treatment of indigenous Hawaiians since that time. Indigenous Hawaiians were suppressed economically, culturally and even linguistically until the 1970s. As Rohring writes in a book about the history of Hawaii:

“Colonization worked, and continues to work, through science, religion, law, politics, capitalism, education, language, and print media to mould Hawaii to fit Western desires. This process of transformation has been written into the dominant history of the islands as “progress,” as non-violent development, and as American manifest destiny culminating in annexation” (Rohring, 2010: 101).

These quotes show how the conflicts over telescopes in Hawaii can be regarded as part of a much larger and often latent conflict between Native Hawaiians and the government. Struggles over the telescopes may be how the overarching conflict manifests itself. Although not all actors in the conflict might perceive the conflict in this manner, it is nonetheless an important context the annexation and growing opposition to the telescopes after the 1970s.

To this day, only one struggle over an observatory project in Hawaii has been able to stop a construction. The Keck Outriggers, six extensions to the existing two Keck telescopes, were halted 2006 by protesters arguing in court that the project did not meet the necessary environmental requirements (Young, 2006). According to Doug Herman from the Smithsonian:

“protests against construction on Mauna Kea have been going on for decades. And while the current [TMT] project has engaged in a lengthy public review process, including consultations with Native Hawaiian groups, the history has been far less sensitive to Native opinion” (Herman, 2015).

2.5 Conclusion

In this chapter introduced the most important issues and actors in the TMT conflict that are referred to throughout the thesis. It further introduced the historical context of telescope conflicts on Hawaii and the importance of the perception of the starting point of the conflict. In Hawaii a clear distinction is made between Native Hawaiians and non-native Hawaiians.

(14)

14

Although I am aware of its contentious nature (Kaomea, 2004; Rohring, 2011) I have maintained this distinction, as the discussion on this subject falls beyond the scope of this research. Moreover, the distinction aids in understanding the different perspectives on the conflict. The next chapters continue from the foundation built in this chapter, which is especially important to understand the influence of hegemony on the frames present in the media.

(15)

15

Chapter 3: Theoretical framework

Introduction

This chapter concerns itself with the theoretical understandings necessary to research how the TMT conflict is framed in the largest newspaper in Hawaii, the Honolulu Star Advertiser (HSA), and why. This chapter brings together perspectives from sociology, social movement studies, media and communication studies and political science to come to an interdisciplinary understanding of frames and their use by journalists reporting on conflicts. It should be noted that the boundaries between these disciplines are artificial and blurred, and the distinction is only made to intentionally integrate them.

The chapter commences with perspectives on frames from sociology and social movement studies to understand what frames are and how and why they are used in a conflict and by journalists. This part demonstrates both that frames provide meaning to all social interactions, and that providing meaning is part of cognition (Benford and Snow, 2000; Goffman, 1974; Entman, 1993; Dewulf et al., 2009). The next part demonstrates that actors in a conflict intentionally use frames and use the media as a podium. Then, the application of Hajer and Laws’ (2008: 254) theory on framing as an ordering device, demonstrates that journalists use frames to make ambiguous information from conflicting parties understandable for their audience.

The subsequent part first discusses three theoretical debates related to media framing research, mainly of media scholars, that this thesis responds to: conceptual confusion confusion (Benford, 1997; Dewulf et al., 2009: 155; Entman, 1993: 52; Carragee and Roefs, 2004: 217-219; Scheufele, 1999: 103-104; Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 3) and reduction of frames to media effects (Carragee and Roefs, 2004: 220-221; Reese, 2007: 149; Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 15), a lack of focus on frame-building (Benford, 1997: 415; De Vreese, 2005; Hänggli, 2012; Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 8-9) and the neglect of power (Carragee and Roefs, 2004). To avoid any conceptual confusion beforehand, I consider frames the attribution of meaning in social interaction (Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 4), framing the use of frames in text or interaction, and frame-building the production of frames.

(16)

16

The following part discusses media and communication studies additions to media framing analysis for this thesis and provides insight into various influences on media frame-building. Both enable an understanding of why the TMT conflict is framed in the news coverage as it is. The next part discusses the various influences media scholars offer on frame-building, as a foundation for the sixth chapter concerned with why the TMT conflict is framed as such in the HSA.

To understand how these described influences affect frame-building, and why certain frames dominate the news coverage of the TMT conflict, the following part applies Giddens' (1984) idea of the interplay between structure and agency to frame-building. It provides an interpretation of journalists as being part of different structures, such as the newspaper and the Hawaiian culture, that inevitably influence the content of news articles. The subsequent part further develops this understanding with the addition of the originally political scientific notion of power and hegemony by Gitlin (1980) as underlying frames and frame-building. The chapter ends with a summary of the most important insights and with integrated conceptualisations of frames, framing and frame-building that guide the understanding of these concepts throughout the thesis.

3.1 Frames in a conflict – insights from sociology and social movement studies

From a sociological perspective, frames, rather than the practice of ‘framing’, are the field of interest. The concept ‘frame’ was first coined by Gregory Bateson in 1955. He argued that statements do not have meaning in and of themselves, but are attributed meaning by frames that are created by context and style. A frame is signified by a specific way of using language to convey a certain interpretation (Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 4). How to recognise this language follows later in this chapter.

Sociologists such as Aarts and Van Woerkum (2005: 231) explain frames as cognitive schemata in people's minds that are based on previous interactions and that determine how a similar interaction is interpreted. Dewulf et al. (2009: 159) argue that “individuals hold multiple frames as knowledge schemas and shift from one to the other as new data are introduced” (Dewulf et al. 2009: 158). "In a specific setting, including an interaction situation, cognitions are triggered and combined, depending on the issue at stake and the context" (Aarts and Van Woerkum, 2005: 231). Understanding frames as part of cognition offers a

(17)

17

deeper understanding of why people unintentionally frame and how cognition influences frame-building.

Goffman continued with the development of the concept of frames as the attribution of meaning and argued that frames “provide meaning, determine what is relevant, and irrelevant when considering certain actors, issues or events, and suggest appropriate

behaviour” (1974: 24). As such, frames can be an unconscious provision of meaning, but also a conscious choice to "diagnose, evaluate, and prescribe” (Entman, 1993: 51). Following Goffman, Dewulf et al. (2009: 165-166) argue that in conflicts knowledge of what is at stake (issues), how the own and other party or parties are represented (identity), the relation between these parties, and how they interact are at the heart of framing.

These sociological insights to the use of frames link to Benford and Snow (2000: 615), two social movement scholars, who argue that frames have three central tasks in a social conflict: diagnosing the problem that needs to be changed and whose responsibility it is (diagnostic framing), providing solutions to the problem (prognostic framing), and motivating others to act (motivational framing). The manner in which "people experience, interpret, process or represent issues, relationships and interactions" (Dewulf et al., 2009: 160-161) can differ vastly between conflicting parties. Through the use of frames, parties use their agency to construct particular social realities (Benford and Snow, 2000: 614).

Journalists, especially in reporting on conflicts, such as the TMT conflict, are subjected to a large and constant flow of different and conflicting information (Gitlin, 1980: 7; Pan and Kosicki, 1993: 56). The contradictory frames of meaning provided by the different parties in a conflict can provide very ambiguous information regarding the issues that are at stake, the identities of the parties, and the interactions between them, that they need to make sense of. According to Benford and Snow, "[social movements] are deeply embroiled, along with the media, local governments, and the state, in what has been referred to as 'the politics of signification'" (2000: 613). In conflicts frames are part of a struggle for meaning on multiple levels between actors with unequal resources (Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 11-12). Dealing with time pressure, journalists quickly need to diminish ambivalence by making sense of that information (Gitlin, 1980: 7; Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2004: 11-14). Journalists' frame-building of a conflict is thus influenced by journalist cognition and the conflicting parties. Chapter 3.3 discusses additional influences on this process.

(18)

18

According to Hajer and Laws (2008: 254), in instances of large amounts of ambiguous information frames can be used as ‘ordering devices’. Hajer and Laws apply ordering to policymakers and describe the unease it gives people when “they cannot ‘read’ a situation and choose readily among alternatives” (2008: 252). By using an ordering device, people can “frame and reframe, and thereby explore different ways of understanding the situation” (Hajer and Laws, 2008: 253). This can also be applied to journalists as they are in charge of reporting and making sense of current events for their audiences. What journalists describe regarding these subjects is an indication of which frames are adopted from the politics of signification between the conflicting parties. Journalists can also order ambiguous

information in their own way based on cognition, so called journalistic interventionism

(Bartholemé et al., 2017: 3). Chapter 6.3 on frame sponsors considers to what extent the HSA journalists adopt and intervene in the news reports.

In sum, sociology and social movement studies offer multiple understandings of frames in relation to the conflict on the construction of the TMT. The most important is that frames are used intentionally – to convince – and unintentionally – as part of cognition – to give meaning in social interaction, especially in ambiguous situations such as the TMT conflict, and as such create a specific social reality. Journalists provide meaning to the TMT conflict on the basis of conflicting information provided by the parties. A journalist can also interject their own interpretations that derive, in part, from cognition.

The literature so far suggests that, to understand how the largest newspaper in Hawaii frames the TMT conflict, the framing analysis needs to focus on how the issues, events, and actors are framed. What is regarded to be at stake, who the actors are and how they relate and interact show how the conflict is interpreted and thus framed. The literature further suggests to analyse the news articles on the use of diagnostic, prognostic and motivational frames.

3.2 Media and communication science perspectives on frames and framing 3.2.1 Critiques on media framing research

The concept ‘frame’ is contested and differs between social sciences disciplines and amongst scholars within these disciplines. According to many framing researchers this has led to

(19)

19

significant conceptual confusion (Benford, 1997; Dewulf et al., 2009: 155; Entman, 1993: 52; Carragee and Roefs, 2004: 217-219; Scheufele, 1999: 103-104; Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 3). Often, this is because framing researchers fail to distinguish between ‘frames’ and ‘framing’, using them interchangeably and often without providing any definition of either one (Entman, 1993; Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 3). At the same time, media studies scholars doing media framing analysis tend to “reduce [the concept of] frames to story topics, attributes, or issue positions” (Carragee and Roefs, 2004: 217).

Also, much of the current media framing research fails to regard frame-building (Benford, 1997: 415; De Vreese, 2005; Hänggli, 2012; Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 8-9). When frame-building is studied, journalists are often described as the main actors which fails to regard “organizational processes, ideological leanings of the news organization, market constraints, differential power of social and political actors, or national and

international cultures and structures” on frame building (Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 12). As such, much of the current frame-building research lacks an understanding that frames themselves are constructed in a struggle for meaning on multiple levels (Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 11-12) and ignores why specific frames dominate media news coverage and others do not (Carragee and Roefs, 2004: 220). There is a neglect of the influence of power in framing research. Even though some authors hint at the influence of power relations, it is almost never explicitly mentioned (Carragee and Roefs, 2004). In order to properly

understand the dominance of certain frames over others in the media reports on the TMT conflict, the above discussion demonstrates that the addition of a concept of power is necessary. To come to a definition of power that can contribute to the framing concept, however, a more in-depth look at the influences of different forces on frames should be considered first.

3.2.2 Media framing and the importance of punctuation

Communication and media studies scholars have applied the sociological concept of frames to media and journalists’ practices in telling a news story (Baysha and Hallahan, 2004; D’Angelo and Kuypers, 2010; De Vreese, 2005; Johnston, 1995; Pan and Kosicki, 1993; Reese, 2001, 2007; Van Gorp, 2010; Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 3). The disciplines’ scholars demonstrate that the media are important political actors in framing contests. As mentioned, political actors, such as actors in a conflict rely for an important part on the media to get their

(20)

20

message to audiences (Benford, 1997; Benford and Snow, 2000; Hänggli , 2012: 301-302). Media studies considers the media an important factor in shaping public debate, because it assumes the audience's dependency on the media to know 'what's going on' (Baysha and Hallahan, 2004: 233-235; Callaghan and Schnell, 2001: 183; Cissel, 2012: 67-68: Cottle, 2008: 854; Gamson and Modigliani, 1989; Gitlin, 1980; Pan and Kosicki, 1993: 69; Scheufele, 1999: 105).

As discussed, events are an important part of communicating what is going on with a conflict. The discussion in chapter two on the starting point of the conflict demonstrates how the actors can have incompatible views of what the conflict is about and when it started. What this also demonstrates is that what the actors see as the starting point of the TMT conflict, is an important determinant for what the conflict is considered to be about. Communication scholars Watzlawick et al. (1967: 54-55) call the sequencing of events in conflict, which is often diverging between parties ‘punctuation’. They argue that a certain sequencing creates a specific reality that can be accepted or rejected by others. The framing analysis in this thesis gives special attention to punctuation, especially to what the HSA considers the starting point of the conflict, because it is part of the reality HSA constructs of the TMT conflict and whether the HSA considers it an isolated conflict.

3.2.3 Approaches to media framing research

Communication and media studies’ research focus is on finding and reconstructing frames in media coverage (Baysha and Hallahan, 2004; Callagan and Schnell, 2001; Cissel, 2012; Cottle, 2008; Van Gorp, 2010). Therefore, the studies that do not reduce the concept of frames to audience effects, offer useful practical approaches to analyse meanings in news coverage and to understand the role of the HSA’s frames in the Hawaiian public debate on the TMT conflict. In searching for framing effects, media scholars often first signify and analyse frames found in their data. Finding frames in news articles is, unfortunately, not straightforward (Entman, 1993: 51; Johnston, 1995: 218).

Scholars have different ideas on whether textual frames can be studied separately from the cognitive frames, or cognition, of the researcher (Van Gorp, 2010: 88-89). Some hold that a researcher cannot be an objective observer, because they cannot avoid a subjective interpretation of the found frames, while others feel that frames in texts can be examined in their own right (Van Gorp, 2010: 89). This thesis uses Gamson and Modigliani’s (1989)

(21)

21

popular, non-reductionist approach to framing research and like Gamson and Modigliani (1989: 3) I hold that the cultural and cognitive level of frames are not completely similar nor separate, but that they interact with one another. As such, chapter four reflects on the possible influences of the researcher’s cognition on the framing analysis in this thesis.

Media and communication literature provides useful guidelines for finding meaning and diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing. Reese (2007: 150) provides important clues: "frames are organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world [emphasis added]". Gamson and Modigliani’s (1989) approach is most suitable to this understanding.They regard frames as 'interpretative packages’ that are made up of several elements that are grouped in a patterned way (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989: 2). Frames are seen as stories consisting of different elements - such as actors, events, issues and relations. They argue that “packages, if they are to remain viable, have the task of constructing meaning over time, incorporating new events into their interpretative frames. In effect, they contain a storyline” (Gamson &

Modigliani, 1989: 4).

To find frames, Gamson and Modigliani (1989: 3-4) distinguish between 'framing devices', which suggest how to think about an issue or event in a symbolic manner and 'reasoning devices', which suggest what should be done about it. They consider four linguistic framing devices: "(1) metaphors, (2) exemplars (i.e., historical examples from which lessons are drawn), (3) catchphrases, [and] (4) depictions” (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989: 3). Van Gorp (2010: 95) adds lexical choices to this list of framing devices, stating that a specific choice of words, lexical choices used can also indicate the use of frames. Gamson and Modigliani also recognise three reasoning devices: "(1) roots (i.e., a causal analysis), (2) consequences (i.e., a particular type of effect), and (3) appeals to principle (i.e., a set of moral claims)” (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989: 3).

Thus, this thesis combines the sociological approach to what journalists consider relevant in describing the issues, events and actors in the TMT conflict, with linguistic framing devices that indicate how to think about the relevant issues, actors and events. The presence of reasoning devices indicates whether and which diagnostic and prognostic and frames are used because they demonstrate what the cause of the conflict is, who is held responsible and what should be done about the conflict. Of the reasoning devices, roots and appeals to principle were never made explicitly in the HSA articles researched, and consequences were

(22)

22

used to point out to the use of diagnostic and prognostic frames concerning the issues, actors, relations and events.

Gamson and Modigliani highlight a preference, though not a need, for a frame to be shared socially. They consider frames that resonate with “larger cultural themes” more successful in being accepted (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989: 5). They exemplify this with a progress frame applied to nuclear energy. Since the Enlightenment progress is regarded a value in western society, making such a perspective on nuclear power easily understandable for readers and also easy to adopt (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989: 5). This means that a frame can be based on an abstract principle that is different from the text or subject it has been applied to (Lindström and Marais, 2012: 23). Cultural resonance is further explained in parts 3.3 on the influences on frame-building and 3.4.2 on hegemony. It should be noted that shared frames are not necessarily shared by all (Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 7).

Often, in news articles multiple frames are present and some frames can dominate a text over other frames. Here, the sociological perspective provided by Entman is useful. According to Entman (1993: 56) "to identify a meaning as dominant or preferred is to suggest a particular framing of the situation that is most heavily supported by the text". He calls this 'salience' (Entman, 1993: 51). In media and communication research predominantly quantitative methods are used to detect dominant frames, such as counting how often a frame is presented (Baysha and Hallahan, 2004: 237; Linström and Marais, 2012: 26-27; Van Gorp, 2010). This thesis takes repetition as a guide to salience and combines this with a qualitative and holistic approach to salience, namely by looking at the overall message that is given in a text (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989; Reese, 2007, Van Gorp, 2007). This interpretation is guided by what the journalists consider relevant in regarding the actors, relations, events and issues.

In sum, media and communication studies add to the understandings of frames from sociology and social movement studies by their focus on the importance of media frames in influencing public debate and on how to analyse media frames linguistically. In the framing analysis of the news articles on the TMT conflict, salience is used to identify the dominance of specific issues, actors and events. Framing and reasoning devices are guides to analyse how the Honolulu Star Advertiser frames the dominant aspects of the conflict. The devices also aid in the detection of the use of diagnostic and prognostic frames and the reconstruction of the

(23)

23

social realities that the journalists create concerning the TMT conflict. Chapter five discusses the results of this analysis. The influences that the next part of this chapter discusses further guide the understanding of why certain frames in the HSA are dominant and others are not.

3.3 Influences on media frame-building

To help answer the second part of the research question, namely why certain frames in the HSA are dominant, this part provides an overview of the influences on frame-building. This part revisits the influence of cognition and the actors in the conflict, which are now considered as frame sponsors. Before regarding frame-sponsors and their power, it introduces the influence of newspaper requirements. Lastly, cultural resonance is also revisited which part 3.4.2 uses as a basis for the influence of hegemony. Together these influences determine which frames are used – and which frames are dominant or salient– in the news coverage of the TMT conflict.

As mentioned, the influence of journalists on frame-building can be regarded rather relative in the sense that frame-building is influenced by many factors. Journalists are more likely to use certain frames in their work when they resonate with their cognitive schemata (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989: 2,5; Gitlin, 1980: 7) as well as with their political and cultural values (Carragee and Roefs, 2004: 216; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989: 5-6). This thesis argues that the influence of cognition on frame-building is not a leading influence on frame-building, as the rest of this part shows. Furthermore, it is very difficult to research and disentangle from other influences, such as the ideology of the newspaper and hegemony.

Another influence on frame-building is the organisational requirements within news production. Something needs to be ‘news worthy’ to qualify for publishing and correspond to the ideology of the newspaper (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989: 7; Gitlin 1980; Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 14). “News worthiness is dependent on how a particular event or story fits the time and space requirements of the news organization” (Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 5). Furthermore, Gitlin argues that “news concerns the event, not the underlying condition; the person, not the group; conflict, not consensus; the fact that advances the story, not explains it” (1980: 28). In other words, newspaper ideology influences which events, persons and disputes in the news coverage on the TMT are news worthy and advance the story.

(24)

24

To make political news such as the TMT conflict newsworthy, strategic game frames and conflict frames are often employed. A strategic game frame emphasises a "competition or game of strategy between opponents" (Dekavalla, 2016: 4) and concerns the behaviour and relation between conflicting parties. A conflict frame "reflects disagreement, showcased though critique/attacks from and towards actors, or visibility of diverging political views in media" (Bartholemé et al., 2017: 2). Conflict frames show the arguments of different sides and interpret them as very oppositional (Bartholomé et al. 2-3; De Vreese, 2004: 38). Both frames can be part of balanced reporting but can also be essential to make a news story more sensational and news worthy (Bartholemé et al., 2017: 3).

So far, it should be clear that journalists "choose how to package their stories in understandable ways; in so doing, they juggle remaining faithful to the frames used by their sources with simultaneously accounting for news values, while sometimes injecting their own unique perspectives" (D’Angelo and Kuypers, 2010: xiii). Journalists’ aim to remaining faithful to the frames of the sources, introduces the importance of power in frame-building. Political actors push a certain agenda, they want to achieve something and actively put out certain frames aimed at convincing others of their vision; they are frame sponsors (Carragee and Roefs, 2004: 216; Gamson and Modigliani, 1989: 6). However, frame sponsors are not equally successful in influencing frame-building. The influence of the input of political actors on media frame-building depends on the power and resources that sponsors have. This thesis considers the TMT conflict the University of Hawaii and Mauna Kea Hui, as well as the TMT corporation as frame sponsors. They are the most important parties in the court case and the conflicting parties that struggle to give meaning to the construction of the TMT and the conflict.

The influence of the input of political actors on media frame building depends on the power and resources that sponsors have. Some researchers ascribe special importance to salience in frame building (Entman, 1993: 51). Hänggli (2012: 302-303) argues that salience is only a crucial influence when the heavily frequent frames are promoted by powerful actors. Hänggli (2012: 303) broadly defines power as "having influence in the background or/and in the foreground...measured at the organisational level". She argues power originates from the recognition of actors as credible and official institutions, such as the government or a reputable business (Hänggli, 2012: 303). Carragee and Roefs (2004: 220) and Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen (2011: 8) add to recognition, that the power of actors depends on their resources – which are distributed inequitably.

(25)

25

From this initial perspective on power, which will be further elaborated on in the next parts of this chapter, the government is a very powerful actor in framing contests to construct social reality. Unsurprisingly, there is a tendency of journalists to favour 'official' institutions and governments as sources to define events (Carragee and Roefs, 2004: 220; Gitlin 1980; Hänggli, 2012: 302-304; Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 14). If this hypothesis of the influence of the relative power of frame sponsors is correct, it fits the initial image of chapter one that the frames sponsored by the TMT proponents on the TMT construction are more dominant in the news coverage than the opposition’s frames.

The last influence on frame-building is cultural resonance. As mentioned earlier, according to Gamson and Modigliani some frames "have a natural advantage because their ideas and language resonate with larger cultural themes. Resonances increase the appeal; they make it appear natural and familiar" (1989: 5). This is an initial demonstration of the importance of the influence of cultural hegemony on frame-building. This is an initial demonstration into the importance of the influence of cultural hegemony on frame-building, which part 3.4.2 elaborates.

3.4 The addition of structuration and power and hegemony

3.4.1 Structuration theory – the relation between the influences on frame-building

As is clear now, frames "are the result of situated social and routinized processes in which the agency of the individual journalists is relative” (Vliegenthart and Van Zoonen, 2011: 8). In order to understand journalistic practice and how the different factors stated above actually have an impact on frame-building, it is important to add a notion of structure and agency to this literature. Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory allows a deeper understanding of the mutual dependence between structure and agency, between journalistic agency and structural influences on frame-building. Chapter six demonstrates this interplay between agency and the structural influences on frame-building in the case of the news coverage of the TMT conflict.

In many traditional theories structure and agency are seen as antagonists and structure is mostly understood as a constraint for agency. According to Giddens (1984: 2) this dualistic vision is too deterministic. He understands structure as constraining to social practice, but also as enabling because it provides the rules that guide action and the

(26)

26

resources that make action possible (Giddens, 1984; Whittington, 2015: 149). Giddens (1984: 15) calls this ‘the duality of structure’. Understanding structure and agency as interactive, allows for the possibility that action alters structure, and thus account for change.

Within social systems people can act in accordance with, or in defiance of the rules; they are agents. "Agency here is the capacity to do otherwise: to follow one system of practices and to refuse another. Such agency makes a difference to the world, in small ways or large, as it contributes to the reproduction or negotiation of a particular system" (Whittington, 2015: 147). Action, then, inherently involves power, because it can transform structures and systems (Giddens, 1984: 15). Whittington (2015: 147) explains that "for Giddens, agency is enhanced by control over resources; it is exercised through the following, or rejection, of rules”. For agents, then, the choice between following or rejecting rules is tied to their control over resources; more resources equals more room not to comply with the demands of a social system.

Giddens (1984: 17) argues that social systems, as reproduced by social practice have ‘structural properties,’ rather than being ‘structures’. He wants to emphasise that they “are not fixed or given” but open to change through agency (Whittington, 2015: 149). To Giddens structural properties are “isolable sets of rules and resources” (1984: 17). He also understands resources as part of structure, which are considered instruments through which power is exercised (Giddens, 1984: 16). Power itself is not a resource but resources provide power, namely by distributing agency (Whittington, 2015: 148).

The influences on framing in the news coverage of the TMT conflict that correspond to ‘rules’ are, for instance, the requirements of newspapers, the consideration of frame sponsors and their relative power, and the culture with which frames resonate. All these influences are formal routines or habits that enable and constrain the behaviour of a journalist when considering frames, or giving meaning, in writing an article. All the influences on frame-building derived from media and communication scholars are part of the structure that enables and constrains journalists' agency in writing news reports.

The news organisation a journalist works for offers them the opportunity to write reports but determines the rules and requirements that constrain their agency. The same goes for the external pressures on frame-building such as frame-sponsors. A journalist can choose to follow the framing of a certain sponsor but certain rules, be they formal or rules of habit, constrain them in their choice to follow sponsored frames from actors less

(27)

resource-27

rich and recognised. Lastly, the dominant political and cultural values present within a region or audience are also part of the structure that determines whether frames will resonate and are therefore constraining the agency of the journalist in building frames.

3.4.2 Power and hegemony

Another valuable addition to understanding frame-building as a social practice in which a journalist's agency is enabled and constrained by structural forces, is a more in-depth understanding of power. As previously mentioned, resources and recognition provide power. Gitlin's (1980) notion of the influence of hegemony on the unequal distribution of social and political power in the US, adds to the understanding of how the frame-building by journalists at the HSA is influenced by power on various levels.

Power influences frame-building in different ways, beyond the power of a journalist or a frame-sponsor. According to Gitlin (1980), the meta-power that works at the basis of framing is hegemony. Gitlin states that “hegemony is the name given to a ruling class’s domination through ideology, through the shaping of popular consent" (1980: 10). This notion of hegemony stems from Gramsci (Gitlin, 1980: 9-11) who points out that dominant classes strive to uphold their ideological hegemony to protect their ownership and wealth, through the production of meanings and values in all kinds of cultural and political institutions.

Hegemony in this thesis is understood as the dominant culture, the ideology, that enters into everything people do and think, “and tries to become that common sense” (Gitlin, 1980: 10). Hegemony is the structure of society and is maintained and reproduced in cultural institutions such as the media, schools and traditions and is consented to because it serves enough of the interests of its subjects (Carragee and Roefs, 2004: 222; Gitlin, 1980: 9-11). This thesis considers as the cultural hegemonic principles of Hawaii, as the 'common sense': the corporate capitalist economy that favours business and progress, Hawaii as a US state (Gitlin, 1980: 9), the legitimacy of technocratic experts, faith in the state as a capable institution, and the value of the individualism of the conflicting parties (Gitlin, 1980: 271). Technocratic experts are for example, academics and as such the TMT corporation. Faith in the state means that “the right and ability of authorized agencies to manage conflict and make the necessary reforms” (Gitlin, 1980: 271) resonates culturally.

Gitlin argues that “in liberal capitalist societies, no institution is devoid of hegemonic functions, and none does hegemonic work only” and that the media is controlled by the “top

(28)

28

corporate and political elites” (Gitlin, 1980: 254). According to Gitlin, ideology is not directly produced and reproduced by the elite, but by “writers and journalists, producers and teachers, bureaucrats and artists organized for production within the cultural apparatus as a whole, advertising and show business, and specialized bureaucracies within the State and the corporations” (1980: 254). This thesis considers the Honolulu Star Advertiser as part of the hegemonic elite (Gitlin, 1980), aimed at the reproduction of the status quo because it benefits from it.

The active process of hegemony is met with continued resistance that causes the hegemonic order to be defended, limited, and changed over time (Carragee and Roefs, 2004: 222; Gitlin, 1980: 10-11). Social movements and activists, such as Mauna Kea Hui, challenge the hegemonic order. TMT opponents resist the hegemonic common sense on two grounds, they consider culture and the environment more important than economic development, and they challenge the status of Hawaii as a US state. They challenge what Rohring argued is the ”dominant history of the islands as "progress,” as non-violent development” (2011: 101).

However, Gitlin (1980: 11) argues, the ideology of the capitalist society endures because of “the penetrating importance of hegemony-uniting persuasion from above with consent from below”. Because of this, resistance to the hegemonic order is limited and change happens slowly. Chapter two demonstrated the slowly growing opposition against the telescopes on Hawaii since the 1990s, which could indicate that the TMT conflict is only the latest episode in a slow hegemonic change in the Hawaiian cultural hegemony.

This thesis considers hegemony as a tacit structural force that affects all the influences of frame-building through ideology. It interconnects the influences through being the common sense. Hegemony affects the cognition of journalists, newspaper ideology and commercial requirements. It also affects the successfulness of frame-sponsors because it largely determines which institutions are recognised as official and resource-rich and thus powerful.

3.5 Conclusion and Conceptualisations

This chapter gave an overview of frames and their use in the media regarding a conflict frame-building for a theoretic foundation to answer the research question. Sociology scholars demonstrate that frames are the attribution of meaning in and of social interaction, which includes the TMT conflict, and that frames are part of cognition and of communication. How journalists frame a conflict can be found by examining what they deem relevant, and by

(29)

29

extension irrelevant, in considering the issues, actors, relations and events. Social movement studies demonstrate that these aspects are at the heart of framing by conflicting parties. The parties construct very different social realities around the conflict through their choices in describing the issues, the identities of the parties, their relationship and the events, including the starting point. As such, they provide journalists of the HSA with ambiguous information to make sense of in a limited time, resulting in the journalists’ ordering of knowledge in frames.

Media and communication studies add to the understanding with linguistic approaches to finding media frames with framing and reasoning devices. This thesis uses these to understand how journalists give salience and meaning to the issues, actors, relations and events and, thus, the TMT conflict. Furthermore, the limited research on media frame-building that exists, demonstrates that it is influenced beyond the cognition of the journalist and the use of conflicting parties as sources. Namely, by newspaper requirements, frame sponsors with unequal power, and cultural resonance. The addition of structuration theory to frame-building shows how the influences on frame-building are largely structural and as such, both enable and constrain the agency of journalists. It also provides a deeper understanding of how journalistic practice is influenced by power struggles on different levels. The last edition to the concept of frame-building is cultural hegemony. This thesis uses this as a theoretical basis to the influence of the cultural resonance of frames on frame-building. Furthermore, the Hawaiian cultural hegemony is argued to affect all the influences on media building of the TMT conflict - cognition, newspaper requirements, and frame-sponsoring – too.

In this thesis, I integrate the above mentioned conceptualisations of frames and framing as well as trying to do justice to the influence of hegemony and other structural forces. I consider framing as using frames. From the multidisciplinary insights in this chapter, for this thesis I conceptualise a dominant media frame in regards to a conflict, as:

a repeated symbolically patterned social constructed reality in a text or interaction, that demonstrates a certain meaning given to an issue, actor, or event, which originates from a struggle over meaning between actors at different levels with unequal power, and that is communicated in a way that promotes a particular problem definition and can offer a causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation.

(30)

30 the journalistic social practice of constructing realities in a symbolic patterned way, enabled and constrained by a struggle over meaning between agents of different levels, and affected by cognition, newspaper requirements, frame sponsoring and culture, which in turn are all influenced by power and hegemony and that this practice leads to the domination of certain interpretations at the expense of others – dominant frames.

(31)

31

Chapter 4 - Methodology

Introduction

This chapter provides an oversight of the research that was carried out. First, the research design and data collection are explained and linked to the research problem and research question. The chapter continues with a description of the data, after which a short insight into the research approach and the approach to the data analysis is provided. The chapter finishes with a discussion on ethics and the potential limitations of the research and considerations of the reliability and validity of the results.

4.1 Research design

This research chose a qualitative case study of the news reports TMT conflict in Hawaii as a design, because it is an interpretative study aimed at understanding this case in-depth. The aim of this study is twofold. First, to understand which meanings the journalists of the largest newspaper in Hawaii attribute to the conflict on the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope in the news coverage. Second, to understand how the journalists’ frame-building of the conflict in the news coverage is influenced. The research question it aims to answer is: how does the largest newspaper in Hawaii predominantly frame the conflict on the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea in the news coverage during the height of the conflict and how can the dominance of certain frames over others in the news coverage be explained from an interdisciplinary perspective on frame-building?

I answer this research question with the use of two sub-questions, answered in chapter five and six respectively:

1. How do journalists of the Honolulu Star Advertiser frame the issues, events, actors and relations of the TMT conflict in the news coverage between December 2015 and August 2017? 2. How can the influence of cognition, newspaper requirement, frame-sponsors and cultural resonance on frame-building explain the dominance of certain frames in the news coverage of the Honolulu Star Advertiser on the TMT conflict?

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

The frame and content components of speech may have subsequently evolved separate realizations within two general purpose primate mo- tor control systems: (1) a

Zowel in haar werk als haar publieke performance (haar mediaoptredens als Maan Leo en haar performances als Burleske danseres) lijkt er een constante spanning aanwezig tussen

The SPECTACOLOR (Screening Patients for Efficient Clinical Trial Access in COLORectal cancer) study is a new programme of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of

[2011-0281] Index Terms—Folding frequency, image analysis, in-plane vibration, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) characteriza- tion, modal analysis, Nyquist criterion,

NGS is already applied in several medical microbiology labo- ratories, including our laboratory at the UMCG, where it is used for outbreak management, molecular case

1. Vervoer en ~erblyf van leer1inge gedurende die skool- vakansies.. Kandel: A:m.erican Jl:duc ion in the Tvventieth Century. Lugtenburg~ G-eskieden van die Onderwys

Previous research on immigrant depictions has shown that only rarely do media reports provide a fair representation of immigrants (Benett et al., 2013), giving way instead

Sensemaking process of case 5 Perceived changes •Changes of national government •Changes affecting citizens •Changes affecting local governments AVE influenced by