Understanding the importance of hard and soft
news in political law-making
Femke Bijl - #11876212
Supervisor: dr. mr. J.H.P. (Joost) van Spanje
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
University of Amsterdam 29-06-2018
Abstract
As the law on intelligence and security services (Wiv) is something that is discussed a lot in the media, this research is looking at the differences between hard and soft news, using a privacy or a security frame, to see whether there is an effect on the attitude towards the Wiv. Four different versions of one news article were created to see whether there was a significant difference between them. Based on an online survey that was distributed, hard and soft news did not significantly differ from each other, yet there was a significant difference between the privacy and security frame. This also might have led to the significant differences between soft news/ privacy, soft news/ security and hard news/ security. The significant difference between the frames is an important finding, as it shows that media outlets can influence and guide the attitude or opinion of an audience in a particular direction.
Introduction
A lot of people are struggling with the dilemma privacy vs. security. People both want security and privacy, but apparently, this is hard to achieve. Some politicians state that it is either privacy or security – it is living a safe life with the risk of losing your privacy, or living a private life with the risk of an unsafe country. The decision between one or the other is very difficult, yet, the question is what makes Dutch citizens decide what they are willing to give up: their privacy or their security.
On the 21st of March 2018, the government set up a referendum for the Dutch citizens to vote either for or against the adjustments in the Law on intelligence and security services (Wet op de inlichtingen- veiligheidsdiensten, shortly said the ‘Wiv’). The
referendum was about the adjustments in the law, as the last time the law was reviewed was in 2002 (AIVD, 2018). The main differences between the Wiv 2002 and the Wiv 2017 are about the adjustments in the level of power of authorities, the adjustments in supervision, and the creation of clearer rules within the law (Referendum Commissie, 2018). The authorities claim that the adjustments are necessary as the world is changing because of social media, and the government should be able to check online conversations too (Muller & Voermans, 2017). Nevertheless, based on previous EU-wide national surveys, a strong majority of Dutch citizens is against changes in their privacy (Custers, Dechesne, Georgieva, & Hof, 2017). Therefore, the discussion about the Wiv is very current and important.
Because of the importance of the Wiv, this research will address the attitude of Dutch citizens towards the Wiv specifically. Yet, this will be done in combination with the effect of different sorts of news and the effect of different frames, on the attitude of the participants. As a lot of various news outlets cover the discussion about the referendum, it becomes clear that some news articles cover the Wiv differently. So, this research will therefore look at the
differences between sorts of news, in this case, hard and soft news, and the differences between sorts of frames, in this case privacy and security.
Hard news is in general more about statistics and facts, while soft news is more seen as something that is based on emotions and human interest stories (North, 2016). The idea of this research is to find out whether there is a difference between hard and soft news, with the use of a privacy or security frame, in the attitude towards the Wiv. The general idea is that hard news is more believable than soft news (Lehman-Wilzig & Seletzky, 2010), as hard news contains more in-depth coverage on topics (Boukes & Boomgaarden, 2015), while soft news is more likely to be used in social media, as it is seen as something lighter to read (Lehman-Wilzig & Seletzky, 2010). Privacy and security, on the other hand, are the two topics that are discussed a lot when addressing the new Wiv. That is why these topics will be used as a frame in this research, as they are likely to influence the attitude of participants.
The research will use four versions of one news article: two hard news versions and two soft news versions, with both one security frame and one privacy frame to test the attitude of the participants. The research question will therefore be what is the difference between hard and soft news, using a security and privacy frame, on the attitude towards the Wiv?
This research goes beyond already existing research, as previous research did not combine both hard and soft news with specific sorts of frames. Price, Tewksbury and Powers (1997) only discussed the effect of frames on the attitude of readers, while Baum and
Jamison (2006) only did it on the effect of hard and soft news on the political awareness of their participants. The combination of both hard and soft news, and different sorts of framing is not done before, while this is important to do so, as frames are most of the time, alongside the sort of news, the most leading factor in guiding someone’s opinion in a certain direction (Robbennolt & Studebaker, 2003). Therefore, it will be an interesting addition to previous
research to find out whether this combination leads to an effect on the attitude towards the Wiv.
‘Hard’ vs. ‘Soft’ news
Defining ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ is difficult, as the line between the two is extremely blurry. Therefore, it is important to find an acceptable definition for both terms in order to proceed this research. It is not just one single characteristic that defines the type of ‘news’, but it is a set of characteristics combined all together (Reinemann, Stanyer, Scherr, & Legnante, 2011). The definitions that are used in this research will be a combination of a few of the
characteristics mentioned by previous research.
Lehman- Wilzig and Seletzky (2010) and North (2016) both state that ‘hard’ news contains more important issues, facts, commentary, analyses, serious topics – in other words, it is considered more prestigious than ‘soft’ news. ‘Soft’ news, on the other hand, is more about entertaining the audience, rather than having an informational value (North, 2016). So, for hard news the reader will receive the news in an informative way, as their main goal is to inform the audience. For soft news, the main goal is more about entertaining the audience, yet, news can also be informative, but brought to an audience in an entertaining way. The main goal of the two sorts of news will be used in our definitions for hard and soft news.
In addition, human-interest stories play a huge part in ‘soft’ news, as Boukes, Boomgaarden, Moorman and De Vreese (2015) mentioned. Human-interest stories attract a bigger audience and people are more likely to believe those stories than just plain facts and statistics (Boukes et al, 2015). As human interest stories are so important for soft news, they will be part of our definition.
‘Soft’ news contains more scandals and gossip, and is seen as being more subjective and sensationalist than ‘hard’ news (Lehman-Wilzig & Seletzky, 2010). And foremost, celebrities are part of ‘soft’ news stories a lot, as the aim of soft news is to entertain
(Lehman-Wilzig & Seletzky, 2010) (North, 2016). Yet, most of the time there is also some connection to a significant political issue within soft news. For the definitions, celebrities or experts are interesting elements too. Celebrities are part of soft news more explicitly than in hard news, while for hard news celebrities can be part of it, but the focus is not on them.
Boczkowski (2009) agrees on the fact that there is not just one definition for hard or soft news, and that researchers only give several characteristics instead. That is why, he mentioned that there are some themes that are discussed a lot when talking about hard or soft news. The previously mentioned characteristics of Lehman- Wilzig and Seletzky (2010), North (2016), and Boomgaarden, Moorman and De Vreese (2015) fit most of the themes of Boczkowski. The themes that were presented are ‘the importance of the temporal dimension and the existence of commonalities between the two kinds of news’ (Boczkowski, 2009, p. 100). Hard news is most of the time characterized as the serious sort of news, which is reported directly as a ‘breaking news’ item (Boczkowski, 2009) (North, 2016) (Lehman-Wilzig & Seletzky, 2010). While soft news can most of the time be presented whenever it seems interesting (Boczkowski, 2009). This is something noteworthy, as time apparently is seen as an important element to define hard or soft news. Yet, soft news could also have a breaking news story with some shocking elements. So, that is why the temporal dimension will not be part of the definitions in this research. All in all, based on the previously mentioned researches, the following definitions were created.
The definition used for ‘hard’ news will be, News messages that are based on facts, rather than human interest stories. The main goal is to inform the audience, this can be done with statistics and data (numbers). Human interest stories are not portrayed explicitly, the focus is more on the data and the reports, instead on personal opinions and celebrities.
The definition used for ‘soft’ news will be News messages that are mainly focused on informing the audience in an entertaining way. These messages are focused on human
interest stories explicitly, and therefore contain more personal stories and emotions. If news messages contain celebrities, they are part of the message in a more entertaining way than just informative.
The use of these definitions will make it easier to recognize the sort of news that is used in the research. These definitions will be an improvement to previous definitions as they acknowledge the fact that some elements can be part of both sorts of news, but the focus needs to be more on whether something is presented explicitly within the sort of news or not. As four versions of a news article are created for this research, it is important to distinguish the different elements of hard and soft news.
Framing
Price, Tewksbury and Powers (1997) already noticed an effect of framing on public opinion a long time ago. They noticed that news values might have a huge influence on the public opinion of the reader. The way journalists put down certain words in articles; the way they actually package a news story by adding particular sides and leaving out others, could have a fundamental effect on the attitude of the readers. Price et al. (1997) called this value-framing, it is about the emphasis on particular values which can encourage a certain way of thinking. They did mention that a frame can certainly direct an audience in a particular way, but not completely control the train of thought.
This is also the case with our research, a privacy and security frame were both used in hard and soft news versions, yet, it is not said that the respondents are influenced in such a way that they completely change their attitude. Still, the expectation is that there is some activation of thoughts about the subject due to the article read. The frames security and privacy will be explicitly present in the different versions. One privacy frame and one
security frame will each guide one of the two versions of soft news, and one of the two versions of hard news.
This special kind of framing is called issue-specific framing. ‘An issue-specific approach to a study of news frames allows for investigation of the framing of particular events in great specificity and detail.’ (De Vreese, Peter, & Semetko, 2001, p. 108). Issue- specific framing is useful in comparing the ways of framing of particular events or issues. It focuses on the same issue for all the cases, but has a different approach within. Therefore, issue-specific framing is part of this research as the different versions of hard and soft news are written with either a privacy or a security frame, with the focus on the Wiv.
As Terkildsen and Schnell (1997) state in their research, ‘the public is dependent on mass media for political information’ (p. 879). The information that is gathered by the public forms the way they think about a certain topic. Kuypers (2010) mentioned that framing filters the perception of our worlds. By focusing on particular aspects of time, and ignoring or downplaying others, certain ideas or attitudes are formed among individuals (De Vreese, Peter, & Semetko, 2001) (Kuypers, 2010) (Schuck & De Vreese, 2006) (Zillmann, Chen, Knobloch, & Callison, 2004). This leads the first hypothesis: Privacy framing causes a more negative attitude towards the Wiv, compared to security framing. The expectation is that privacy frames will have a greater effect in stimulating a negative attitude towards the Wiv, as privacy arguments focus on the protection of personal information, rather than sharing it to ensure the security (Jacobs, 2016).
Yet, the main question is about the combination of the sorts of news and either a privacy or security frame. In Table 1, the expectation of the different versions is shown. The expectation is that soft news with a privacy frame will create a more negative attitude towards the Wiv, than hard news with a privacy frame. As in the version of soft news/
Wiv (see Appendix A), instead of the political problem of privacy for the majority. As it is a story based on emotions and personal experiences, participants might feel more sympathetic to the story of the professor (Boukes, Boomgaarden, Moorman, & de Vreese, 2015), then for dry statistics about privacy violations. This takes us to hypothesis 2: Soft news/ privacy will lead to a more negative attitude towards the Wiv, than hard news/ privacy. Additionally, the expectation for the security frame is that soft news with a security frame will create a more positive attitude towards the Wiv, than hard news with a security frame. As again, the professor mainly mentioned his own personal experiences in a terroristic event, this might scare the participants in such a way that they feel sorry for him, and eventually see the need of security which leads to a more positive attitude towards the Wiv (see Appendix B). Individual case stories are mostly more appealing and understandable to a bigger audience (Zillmann & Brosius, 2012). Therefore, hypothesis 3 will be soft news/ security will lead to a more positive attitude towards the Wiv, than hard news/ security.
Table 1.
Expectation of sort of news with either a privacy or security frame
Privacy Security
Hard News Negative attitude towards the Wiv Positive attitude towards the Wiv
Soft News More negative attitude towards the Wiv More positive attitude towards the Wiv
Method
In order to answer the research question an experiment was created. Four versions of a news article were generated and participants were asked to read one of those versions, and then answer some questions and statements about it.
Participants. 217 participants completed the survey. All participants needed to be Dutch and old enough to vote during the elections on the 21st of March 2018. The sample was evenly spread as 41.6% of the participants were male, and 63.9% were either HBO, WO or higher educated. It is relevant to have a sample with ages above 18 years old only, as from this age Dutch citizens are allowed to vote. Therefore, age is added as a sampling criterion. The education level of the participants varied from finishing high school till PhD/ Doctor. The distribution of the survey was online, the link was spread among different people and different places. All participants were asked to share it with their own contacts and network too. This caused the sample to be very diverse in age, gender, and education.
Design and procedure. The research contained a between-subjects experimental design. The experimental stimulus was a created news article about the adjustments to the law on intelligence and security services (Wiv). Four different versions of this news article were created, and each participant was randomly assigned to one of those versions. The four versions were created based on the different categories: hard news/ security, hard news/ privacy, soft news/ security, and soft news/ privacy. After the randomly assigned news article version, a range of different questions and statements were asked.
To create the dependent variable (DV) that measures the attitude towards the Wiv, several statements were offered to the participants, to which they had to answer on a Likert scale from 1 to 7 (with 1= completely disagree, 7= completely agree) how much they shared the opinion of the offered statement. The statements were strongly connected to original statements of Dutch political parties and they expressed how much the participants agreed with the content of the new Wiv. Agreeing on the security statements mostly indicated an agreement to the referendum about the new Wiv, while agreeing more on the privacy statements indicated more a disagreement to the referendum about the new Wiv.
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics dependent variable Attitude towards the Wiv
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
What is the attitude
towards the wiv? 217 27.00 53.00 39.8940 5.40600
Valid N (listwise) 217
All statements were computed into a new variable called Attitude towards the Wiv. As some of the statements were pro-security and pro-privacy (see Appendix E), they needed to be transformed into the same scale. Therefore, all the pro-security scales where turned around, saying that on a scale from 8 till 56, 8 will be the lowest score participants could get and 56 the highest score. A low score would mean a preference for the security side, and a high score would mean a preference for the privacy side, which on its turn means that a preference for the privacy side is a negative attitude towards the Wiv, and a preference to the security side a positive attitude towards the Wiv. Table 2 showed that 27 was the minimum and 53 was the maximum of the variable Attitude towards the Wiv.
The scale of the new variable had a good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .68. This was improved by removing the item ‘De virtuele wereld is een broedplek voor gevaar, en dit moet worden voorkomen’ from the scale, with a Cronbach alpha of .70. In addition, the components of the new variable were also run in a factor analysis, in which the Principal components analysis revealed the presence of one component with the Eigenvalue exceeding 1 (Eigenvalue: 2.31, explaining 31.6% of the variance).
Stimulus Material. Four articles were created and manipulated to fit the ‘hard news’ or ‘soft news’ category with either a privacy or security frame. All the articles contained a fictional professor of Erasmus University Rotterdam to create a sense of credibility. Yet, all the articles had some nuances that differed from each other.
The articles began with the same introduction and ended with the same sort of conclusion. There were only some nuances looking at the percentages, statistics and human interest stories to show the differences between hard and soft news and the sort of frame used (privacy or security). Appendices A and B show the two soft news versions, with Appendix A being the privacy frame and Appendix B the security frame. Appendix C and D show the two hard news versions, with Appendix D being the privacy frame and Appendix C the security frame. The middle of the article was as similar as possible, but of course differed on some sentences to create the nuance.
Results
In Table 3, the distribution of the variable Attitude towards the Wiv is shown in relation to the different versions. Based on the descriptive statistics only, it seems that there is not a
significant difference between hard news privacy and hard news security. Yet, for soft news there seems to be a difference based on the means.
Table 3.
In order to test whether there is an actual significant difference between the versions and the attitude towards the Wiv, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was
conducted to see the impact of these various versions. Participants were randomly assigned to the different versions, so they were divided into four groups according to the version they saw (Group 1: Soft news/ security; Group 2: Soft news/ privacy; Group 3: Hard news/ security; Group 4: Hard news/ privacy). The assumption of homogeneity of variance was not
Descriptive Statistics DV: What is the political attitude towards the wiv?
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Soft News Security 56 38.8750 5.70825 .76280 37.3463 40.4037 27.00 50.00 Soft News Privacy 55 41.8909 5.43198 .73245 40.4224 43.3594 31.00 53.00 Hard News Security 53 39.0943 5.48166 .75296 37.5834 40.6053 28.00 53.00 Hard News Privacy 53 39.6981 4.49609 .61759 38.4588 40.9374 32.00 50.00
violated, as the variance in scores was not significantly different. There was a statistical difference at the p < .05 level in Attitude towards the Wiv scores for the four groups: F (3, 213) = 3.7, p = .012. Besides the fact that the statistical significance was reached, the actual difference between the mean scores of the groups was small, as the effect size, based on the eta squared, was .05. Yet, the Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test (see Appendix F1) showed that the mean score for Group 1 (M = 38.88, SD = 5.71) was significantly
different than the one of Group 2 (M = 41.89, SD = 5.43). Group 2 also significantly differed from Group 3 (M = 39.09, SD = 5.48), the other groups did not significantly differ from each other. The mean score of group 2 was higher, which indicated a significantly more negative attitude towards the Wiv, compared to group 1 and 3.
In Figure 1, a visualization shows the differences between the various versions. Yet, in the graph it seems that the differences are enormous, but the mean scores are not that spread from each other, as not all versions were significantly different from each other. Table 2 showed that the minimum score of Attitude of the Wiv was 27 and the maximum 53. That is why the scale of Graph 1 is also ranged like this, as this makes the visualization easier. It gives an idea of the differences in the mean scores, line A and B indicate a significant
difference, while line C is almost flat. It does show, however, that for the privacy versions the participants had a higher mean score than the security versions, which might indicate that the frame does influence the attitude towards the Wiv.
Figure 1. Line chart of the differences between the versions towards the attitude of the Wiv
Yet, to find out whether those differences of the mean scores between the frames are significant, an independent samples T-test was conducted to compare the security frame to the privacy frame. This showed that there was a significant difference in the mean scores for the frames security (M = 38.98, SD = 5.57) and privacy (M = 40.81, SD = 5.09 ; t (215) = 2.53, p = .012, two-tailed) on the attitude towards the Wiv. The privacy frames showed a higher mean score than the security frames, which indicated that the participants of the privacy frame were more leaning towards a preference for privacy, while the participants of the security frame were more leaning towards a preference for security. In other words, the security frame participants had a significantly more positive attitude towards the Wiv, compared to the privacy frame participants.
Discussion
This research aimed to assess the potential difference between hard and soft news, using a privacy or security frame, on the attitude towards the Wiv. Based on a one-way between-groups analysis of variance, between the independent variable Versions and the dependent variable Attitude towards the Wiv, it was found that soft news/ privacy was significantly different from soft news/ security and hard news/ security. Stating that soft news/ privacy was significantly more negative towards the Wiv, than the other two groups. Yet, soft news/ privacy did not have a significantly more negative attitude towards the Wiv compared to hard news/ privacy (hypothesis 2), and neither was soft news/ security significantly more positive compared to hard news/ security (hypothesis 3). This means that soft news did not generate a more negative or positive attitude towards the Wiv, as it was not supported by my findings. However, there was a significant difference between the frames privacy and security on the attitude towards the Wiv, as the privacy frames had a significantly more negative attitude towards the Wiv, compared to security frames (hypothesis 1), which were leaning more towards a positive attitude.
The findings of hypothesis 1 add up to previous research of Price, Tewksbury and Powers (1997), as their research found that issue frames caused a significant impact on the responses their participants gave. Some frames increased certain feelings, while others suppressed them (Price, Tewksbury, & Powers, 1997). The results of my study confirmed the theory that frames have the ability to guide readers’ thoughts into a particular direction (De Vreese, 2004). Yet, the expectation was also to see a difference between hard and soft news, as soft news was expected to increase either the positive or negative attitude with the use of human interest stories (Boukes et al., 2015). Boukes et al. (2015) mentioned that as long people saw some sort of human interest stories, they tended to have a responsible political attitude towards the government. Still, this was not seen in the results of this research.
Yet, the significant difference that was found with the one-way ANOVA can be explained by the significant difference between the sorts of frames. As the privacy and security frame were the leading factors in guiding the attitude of the participants, it is not strange to see a difference between soft news/ privacy, soft news/ security and hard news/ security. However, the idea of Baum and Jamison (2006) that hard and soft news differ significantly in obtaining sufficient information to form an attitude or opinion, is not covered in this research. A reason for this could be the misinterpretation by the participants of the various versions they were assigned to, as this could have negatively influenced the research. Or, mentioned by Baum and Jamison (2006) themselves, the level of political awareness could have been a factor in deciding what sort of news was more effectively. This could have caused the difference between hard and soft news to be less prominent.
The limitations of this research are the lack of the use of a level of political
awareness, as this could have been a turning point in deciding whether there was a relation between high levels of awareness, and lower levels of awareness on the attitude of the Wiv. In addition to that, De Vreese (2004) acknowledged that knowledge about a specific topic leads to ‘deeper and more sophisticated information processing’ (p. 46), which could have, on its turn, already change someone’s attitude beforehand. Another limitation is the fact that the Wiv and the referendum were discussed a lot in the media. This could have influenced the way the participants completed the survey, as their answers could have been affected by the overload of information in the media. The last limitation is the generalizability of the sample. 217 participants completed the survey, yet, the N value of the various versions was not that high (around 50 participants each). This could be improved by reaching out to a bigger audience to ensure at least 100 participants per version, as the recognition of the sorts of frames might be improved.
For future research, the versions of hard and soft news should be tested more accurately beforehand. The created definitions are useful for this, yet, in times of social media some elements might need to be added in the future. This could improve the likelihood of recognizing the correct version once participants are assigned to it. In addition to that, the importance of news frames became very evident in this study. Ways of framing can influence the considerations and attitudes of the readers towards political issues. As it is important that everyone has sufficient truthfully information to base their attitude and opinion on, further research on framing is needed to find out to what extend people are really influenced by it. Lastly, this study should be replicated with an addition variable that might influence the outcome of the results. This variable is the already existing knowledge of the participants, as this could influence their final attitude. In this research, there was no consideration of already existing knowledge about the Wiv, which might have influenced the way participants
answered to the statements.
All in all, this study was a baseline in stating the potential difference between hard and soft news, using a security and privacy frame, on the attitude towards the Wiv, as the combination of the sort of news and sort of frame was new. However, the answer to the research question was that there was no significant difference found between hard and soft news, nevertheless, framing, on the other hand, showed its importance and its necessity to research even further. Laws are important to vote for, and that is why sufficient knowledge about these topics is necessary, so frames should not be leading the attitudes and opinions of its audience.
References
AIVD. (2018). Nieuwe wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten. Retrieved from AIVD:
https://www.aivd.nl/onderwerpen/nieuwe-wet-op-de-inlichtingen--en-veiligheidsdiensten/wiv-2002-versus-wiv-2017
Back, K. J., & Parks, S. C. (2003). A brand loyalty model involving cognitive, affective, and conative brand loyalty and customer satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 27(4), 419-435.
Baum, M. A., & Jamison, A. S. (2006). The Oprah effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens vote consistently. The Journal of Politics, 68(4), 946-959.
Boczkowski, P. J. (2009). Rethinking hard and soft news production: From common ground to divergent paths. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 98-116.
Boukes, M., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2015). Soft news with hard consequences? Introducing a nuanced measure of soft versus hard news exposure and its relationship with political cynicism . Communication Research, 42(5), 701-731.
Boukes, M., & Vliegenthart, R. (2017). News consumption and its unpleasant side effect. Journal of Media Psychology, 29(3), 137-147.
Boukes, M., Boomgaarden, H. G., Moorman, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). Political news with a personal touch: How human interest framing indirectly affects policy attitudes . Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(1), 121-141.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought listing technique. Cognitive assessment, 388-438. Custers, B. H., Dechesne, F., Georgieva, I. N., & Hof, S. (2017). De bescherming van
De Vreese, C. H. (2004). The effects of frames in political television news on issue interpretation and frame salience. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 36-52.
De Vreese, C. H., Peter, J., & Semetko, H. A. (2001). Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: A cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Political
communication, 18(2), 107-122.
Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. Psychological foundations of attitudes, 147-170.
Jacobs, B. (2016, January 29). Select while you collect. Nederlands Juristenblad, 4, 256-261. Kuypers, J. A. (2010). Framing analysis from a Rhetorical Perspective. In P. D'Angelo, & J.
A. Kuypers, Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. (pp. 286-311). New York: Routledge.
Lanzing, M. (2016, September 10). Privacy is geen luxe, maar noodzaak. Retrieved from De Volkskrant: https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/privacy-is-geen-luxe-maar-noodzaak~b5a2d78c/
Lehman-Wilzig, S. N., & Seletzky, M. (2010). Hard news, soft news, ‘general’ news: The necessity and utility of an intermediate classification. Journalism, 11(1), 37-56. Muller, E., & Voermans, W. (2017, January 13). Nieuwe wet op de inlichtingen- en
veiligheidsdiensten. Nederlands Jouristenblad, 2, 102-109.
North, L. (2016). The gender of “soft” and “hard” news: Female journalists' views on gendered story allocations. Journalism Studies, 17(3), 356-373.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS Survival Manual. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies. Pike, S., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of
cognitive, affective, and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 333-342.
Plasser, F. (2005). From hard to soft news standards? How political journalists in different media systems evaluate the shifting quality of news. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(2), 47-68.
Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers' cognitive responses. Communication research, 24(5), 481-506.
Prior, M. (2003). Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political communication, 20(2), 149-171.
Referendum Commissie. (2018, January). Verschillen tussen de Wiv 2002 en de Wiv 2017. Retrieved from Referendum Commissie:
https://www.referendum-commissie.nl/binaries/referendumcommissie/documenten/publicaties/2018/01/18/vers chillen-tussen-de-wiv-2002-en-de-wiv-2017/ReferendumWiv_pdf3-verschillen.PDF Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., Scherr, S., & Legnante, G. (2011). Hard and soft news: A review
of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 221-239. Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A. (2003). News media reporting on civil litigation and
its influence on civil justice decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 27(1), 5-27. Schuck, A. R., & De Vreese, C. H. (2006). Between risk and opportunity: News framing and
its effects on public support for EU enlargement. European Journal of Communication, 21(1), 5-32.
Terkildsen, N., & Schnell, F. (1997). How media frames move public opinion: An analysis of the women's movement. Political Research Quarterly, 50(4), 879-900.
Tuchman, G. (1973). Making news by doing work: Routinizing the unexpected. American journal of Sociology, 79(1), 110-131.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221-243.
Valkenburg, P. M., Semetko, H. A., & De Vreese, C. H. (1999). The effects of news frames on readers' thoughts and recall. Communication research, 26(5), 550-569.
Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H. B. (2012). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. New Jersey: Routledge.
Zillmann, D., Chen, L., Knobloch, S., & Callison, C. (2004). Effects of lead framing on selective exposure to Internet news reports. Communication Research, 31(1), 58-81.
Appendix A Soft news/ privacy version ‘Ik heb helemaal niets te verbergen, of toch wel?!’
Door: Josaphina kalk
Rotterdam – op 21 maart 2018 heeft er een landelijk referendum plaatsgevonden over de totstandkoming van de nieuwe wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten (wiv), beter bekend als de Sleepwet. Vele mensen zeiden vrijwel meteen, ‘ik heb niets te verbergen, laat ze maar lekker zoeken!’. Maar is dit echt waar? Heeft u echt werkelijk helemaal niets te verbergen?
Vele onderzoeksbureaus waren de laatste maanden hard bezig geweest met het peilen van de stemming onder de bevolking over de nieuwe wiv. Daaruit bleek dat het merendeel van de mensen was nog niet zeker van zijn of haar keuze.
De heer Willem Pieters, hoogleraar op het gebied van veiligheid en privacy aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, heeft tegen de nieuwe wiv gestemd. ‘Ik heb altijd met mijn hele hebben en houwen op straat gelegen. Men wist precies waar ik mee bezig was, en om deze reden had ik niets te verbergen. Dus, waarom zou ik dan tegen deze wet stemmen?’ Pieters zag op dat moment de wiv niet als een direct gevaar voor zijn privacy, hij had immers niets te verbergen. Toch, kwam er voor Pieters een moment waardoor hij ietwat begon te twijfelen. ‘Het feit dat deze wet iedereen mag natrekken die ook maar in connectie staat met een verdachte persoon, zie ik als een doorn in het oog. Deze nieuwe aanpassing zou het mogelijk maken, indien ik toevallig drie huizen verder iemand zou kennen die in connectie staat met IS, mij ook te controleren en na te trekken. Ik heb dan wel niets te verbergen, maar ik heb ook geen connectie met IS. Waarom zouden ze dan mij, om die reden, willen
checken?’ Pieters is van mening dat privacy belangrijker is dan wat dan ook. ‘Niemand wilt dat zijn gegevens zomaar op straat komen te liggen, denk bijvoorbeeld aan je
maagzweer en hier informatie en services op gaat aanpassen. Dat ik ineens een duurdere verzekering moet nemen, of bepaalde dingen misloop door gelekte informatie? Nee, de overheid hoeft dit zeker niet te weten!’
Pieters is niet de enige die heeft gekozen voor zijn eigen privacy. Veel mensen zien de nieuwe aanpassingen als een grote schending op hun leven. Iedereen heeft namelijk weleens wat te verbergen, of het nu een simpele code is, of een vreemd luguber mailtje. Misschien is die informatie momenteel wel veilig bij de overheid, maar wie zegt dat dit over 10 jaar nog steeds zo is?
Kortom, ieder werd geacht goed na te denken over de keuze om te stemmen voor of tegen de nieuwe wiv. Natuurlijk heeft het in beide gevallen zijn voor- en nadelen, maar de vraag is, heeft u als burger gekozen voor een overheid die alles van u weet, waar het hebben van geheimen verleden tijd is en alles open en blootligt, of voor een eventueel veiliger
Nederland? Voor veel burgers is dit een lastig dilemma, en was de keuze dan ook erg dubbel.
Note to version:
This version did not contain any numbers or statistics. It was just based on the opinion and personal stories of the professor. ‘Stel je voor dat de overheid weet van mijn maagzweer en hier informatie en services op gaat aanpassen’ (transl. Imagine that the government knows about my gastric ulcer, and enhances their information and services on just that). This version was based on human interest stories, and not on actual findings from researches and statistics.
Appendix B
Soft news/ security version ‘En weer een aanslag... Terrorisme moet worden voorkomen!’ Door: Josaphina kalk
Rotterdam – op 21 maart 2018 heeft er een landelijk referendum plaatsgevonden over de totstandkoming van de nieuwe wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten (wiv), beter bekend als de Sleepwet. Vele mensen zeiden vrijwel meteen, ‘Terrorisme is iets wat voorkomen kan worden!’. De veiligheid voor Nederland staat immers voorop.
Vele onderzoeksbureaus waren de laatste maanden hard bezig geweest met het peilen van de stemming onder de bevolking over de nieuwe wiv. Daaruit bleek dat het merendeel van de mensen was nog niet zeker van zijn of haar keuze.
De heer Willem Pieters, hoogleraar op het gebied van veiligheid en privacy aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, heeft voor de nieuwe wiv gestemd. ‘Ik heb in mijn tijd als hoogleraar veel nare verhalen gehoord, en ben daarom ook van mening dat meer controle op ons leven bepaalde aanslagen kan voorkomen. Dus, waarom zou ik dan tegen deze wet stemmen?’ Pieters zag de wiv als een toevoeging aan onze veiligheid. ‘Het feit dat deze wet mensen mag natrekken, die in connectie staan met extreem gevaarlijke verdachten, zie ik als een pluspunt. Deze nieuwe aanpassing zou het mogelijk maken bomaanslagen en andere gevaarlijke terroristische daden te voorkomen.’ Pieters is van mening dat veiligheid belangrijker is dan wat dan ook, ‘ik ben ooit reeds ontsnapt aan een bomaanslag op een metrostation in een ander Europees land, niemand wilt op deze manier omkomen, of dit überhaupt meemaken. Ik heb mensen bebloed weg zien kruipen... Nee, in dat geval ben ik zeker weten voor de nieuwe aanpassing. Simpelweg door het hebben van informatie kunnen wij heel veel voorkomen en zorgen voor een veiliger Nederland. Dit kan levens redden, en wie wilt dat niet?’
Pieters is niet de enige die heeft gekozen voor veiligheid. Veel mensen zien de nieuwe aanpassingen als een zekerheid in hun leven. Iedereen waardeert een veilig Nederland voor jong en oud. Misschien is het momenteel tamelijk veilig in Nederland, maar wie zegt dat dit over 10 jaar nog steeds zo is?
Kortom, ieder werd geacht goed na te denken over de keuze om te stemmen voor of tegen de nieuwe wiv. Natuurlijk heeft het in beide gevallen zijn voor- en nadelen, maar de vraag is, heeft u als burger gekozen voor een overheid die enkele dingen van u weet en hiermee zorgt voor een veiliger Nederland, of stemt u tegen deze veiligheid? Voor veel burgers is dit een lastig dilemma, en was de keuze dan ook erg dubbel.
Note to version:
This version is focused on the good sides of the law. The points made in the article are based on the personal stories of the professor. He ‘experienced’ a terroristic attack in a metro station in another country, so that is why he thinks the law should exist in the first place. It less based on actual facts, but more on the emotions of the professor. ‘Niemand wilt op deze manier omkomen, of dit überhaupt meemaken. Ik heb mensen bebloed weg zien kruipen...’ (transl. Nobody wants to die this way, or even experience something like that. I saw people crawling around in puddles of blood...). Everything in this article is there to shock the reader with emotions and experiences.
Appendix C
Hard news/ security version Meerderheid van de bevolking is zich bewust van de gevaren Door: Josaphina kalk
Rotterdam – op 21 maart 2018 heeft er een landelijk referendum plaatsgevonden over de totstandkoming van de nieuwe wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten (wiv), beter bekend als de Sleepwet.
Vele onderzoeksbureaus waren de laatste maanden hard bezig geweest met het peilen van de stemming onder de bevolking over de nieuwe wiv. Daaruit kwam de verwachting dat 42,3% van de stemmers vóór de wet zal stemmen, en 39,8% tegen. Hier werd al meteen duidelijk dat het merendeel van de mensen destijds nog niet zeker was van zijn of haar keuze. Uit een onderzoek van I&O Research blijkt dat een derde van de jongeren tot 35 jaar zegt voor de nieuwe wet te zijn. Bij de ouderen (65-plussers) is dit percentage een stuk hoger, wel liefst 63 procent.
De heer Willem Pieters, hoogleraar op het gebied van veiligheid en privacy aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, heeft voor de wiv gestemd. ‘Ik heb in mijn tijd als
hoogleraar veel nare verhalen gehoord, en ben daarom ook van mening dat meer controle op ons leven bepaalde aanslagen kan voorkomen. Dus, mijn stem in het referendum was voor de nieuwe aanpassingen in de wet.’ Pieters zag de nieuwe wiv als een toevoeging op onze veiligheid. ‘Het feit dat deze wet mensen mag natrekken, die in connectie staan met extreem gevaarlijke verdachten, zie ik als een pluspunt. 43% van de aanslagen in de afgelopen 5 jaar had voorkomen kunnen worden met betere informatie. Ter verduidelijking, wanneer je uit gaat van 200 aanslagen, hadden er 86 voorkomen kunnen worden. Dit betekent dus een voorkoming van haast de helft van de aanslagen, en daarmee ook direct de gevallen slachtoffers.’ Pieters is van mening dat veiligheid belangrijker is dan wat dan ook, ‘Vele onderzoeken tonen aan dat meer en gerichtere informatie kan bijdragen aan het vinden van
daders, en het voorkomen van aanslagen. Wanneer 43% van de aanslagen al voorkomen kan worden met deze aanpassing, waarom zouden we dan tegen stemmen?’
Pieters is niet de enige die heeft gekozen voor veiligheid. Veel mensen zien de nieuwe aanpassingen als een zekerheid in hun leven. Iedereen waardeert een veilig Nederland voor jong en oud. Misschien is het momenteel tamelijk veilig in Nederland, maar wie zegt dat dit over 10 jaar nog steeds zo is?
Kortom, ieder werd geacht goed na te denken over de keuze om te stemmen voor of tegen de nieuwe wiv. Natuurlijk heeft het in beide gevallen zijn voor- en nadelen, maar de vraag is, heeft u als burger gekozen voor een overheid die enkele dingen van u weet en hiermee zorgt voor een veiliger Nederland, of stemt u tegen deze veiligheid? Voor veel burgers is dit een lastig dilemma, en was de keuze dan ook erg dubbel.
Note to version:
This version is build up out of numbers and statistics in favor of the law. All the numbers guide to the positive sides of the wiv, and the fact that security can help Dutch citizens. ‘43% van de aanslagen in de afgelopen 5 jaar had voorkomen kunnen worden met betere informatie.’ (transl. 43% of the terroristic attacks of the past 5 years could have been prevented with a better access to information). The percentages help to make the point of the professor stronger.
Appendix D
Hard news/ privacy version Meerderheid van de bevolking deelt liever niets
Door: Josaphina kalk
Rotterdam – op 21 maart 2018 heeft er een landelijk referendum plaatsgevonden over de totstandkoming van de nieuwe wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten (wiv), beter bekend als de Sleepwet.
Vele onderzoeksbureaus waren de laatste maanden hard bezig geweest met het peilen van de stemming onder de bevolking over de nieuwe wiv. Daaruit kwam de verwachting dat 42,3% van de stemmers vóór de wet zal stemmen, en 39,8% tegen. Hier werd al meteen duidelijk dat het merendeel van de mensen destijds nog niet zeker was van zijn of haar keuze. Uit een onderzoek van I&O Research blijkt dat een derde van de jongeren tot 35 jaar zegt voor de nieuwe wet te zijn. Bij de ouderen (65-plussers) is dit percentage een stuk hoger, wel liefst 63 procent.
De heer Willem Pieters, hoogleraar op het gebied van veiligheid en privacy aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, heeft tegen de nieuwe wiv gestemd. ‘Uit de verwachtingen kwam destijds naar voren dan 42,3% van de bevolking voor de aanpassingen in de wet wilde stemmen. Ik behoorde hier eerst ook bij. Onderzoeken toonden in eerste instantie geen directe gevolgen voor mij, als burger, aan.’ Pieters zag op dat moment de wiv niet als een direct gevaar voor zijn persoonlijke privacy. Toch, kwam er voor Pieters een moment waardoor hij ietwat begon te twijfelen. ‘Het feit dat deze wet iedereen mag natrekken, die ook maar in connectie staat met een verdacht persoon, zie ik als een doorn in het oog. 82% van de bevolking staat indirect, of zelf direct, in connectie met een persoon die mogelijk slechte bedoelingen heeft. Dit wil echter niet zeggen dat jij als persoon ook meteen deze ideeën hebt. De nieuwe aanpassing zou het mogelijk maken mij ook te controleren en natrekken indien mijn connecties verdacht zijn.’ Pieters is van mening dat privacy belangrijker is dan wat dan
ook, ‘de laatste maanden heb ik een onderzoek gedaan naar het vertrouwen in de overheid, 74% van de ondervraagden was van mening dat de overheid niet altijd zorgvuldig te werk gaat met informatie. Mijn vraag is dan ook, waarom zouden we, met dat in ons achterhoofd, dan nog meer informatie over onszelf schenken?’
Pieters is niet de enige die heeft gekozen voor zijn eigen privacy. Veel mensen zien de nieuwe aanpassingen als een grote schending op hun leven. Iedereen heeft namelijk weleens wat te verbergen. Misschien is die informatie momenteel wel veilig bij de overheid, maar wie zegt dat dit over 10 jaar nog steeds zo is?
Kortom, ieder werd geacht goed na te denken over de keuze om te stemmen voor of tegen de nieuwe wiv. Natuurlijk heeft het in beide gevallen zijn voor- en nadelen, maar de vraag is, koos u als burger voor een overheid die alles van u weet, waar het hebben van geheimen verleden tijd is, of voor een eventueel veiliger Nederland? Voor veel burgers is dit een lastig dilemma, en was de keuze dan ook erg dubbel.
Note to version:
‘Meerderheid van de bevolking deelt liever niets’ (transl. Majority of the citizens prefers to share nothing). In hard news, more statistics and numbers are presented, so this is also the case for this version – ‘Daaruit kwam de verwachting dat 42,3% van de stemmers vóór de wet zal stemmen, en 39,8% tegen’ (transl. The expectation was that 42,3% of the voters were in favor of the law, and 39.8% against it). Besides that, the professor did not talk about personal issues or emotions, he just focused on statistics and percentages. These numbers were aimed on the privacy of civilians – a lot of the bad sides of the law were explained to make the preference towards privacy stronger.
Appendix E
Statements used for dependent variable Attitude towards the Wiv
The first statement (S1) that was used was ‘Een inbreuk op de privacy is altijd toegestaan voor terrorismebestrijding’ (translation: A violation on privacy is always permitted once it is preventing terrorism). This statement was pro-security, as it claims that it is allowed to violate someone’s privacy once security can be guaranteed.
The second statement (S2) was ‘De privacy moet altijd voorop staan, wanneer er sprake is van gerichte gegevensverzameling’ (translation: Privacy needs to come first,
especially when there is specific data collection happening). This statement is pro-privacy, as it states that privacy always needs to come first.
The third statement (S3) was ‘Een inbreuk op de privacy mag enkel en alleen worden toegestaan als dit juridisch strak is geregeld’ (translation: A violation on privacy is only allowed when there are strong legal regulations for it). This statement was pro-privacy, as it states that violation of privacy is only allowed when there are strict rules.
The fourth statement (S4) was ‘Teveel opengestelde persoonlijke informatie kan zorgen voor een machtsmiddel bij grote (commerciële) organisaties’ (translation: Too much shared personal information can lead to a tool of power for big (commercial) organizations). This statement is pro-privacy as it states that sharing personal information could lead to a misuse of power.
The fifth statement (S5) was ‘Er mag enkel en alleen communicatie worden onderschept wanneer er een concrete verdenking is’ (translation: Only with enough suspicion, it is allowed to intercept someone’s communication). This statement was again pro-privacy, as interception is only allowed when there is a precise suspicion.
The sixth statement (S6) was ‘De rechter moet ten alle tijden beslissen wanneer het noodzakelijk is om communicatie te onderscheppen’ (translation: The judge always decides
when it is necessary to intercept communication). This statement was pro-privacy as the judge always decides whether it is necessary to intercept the communication.
The seventh statement (S7) was ‘Het volgen van een verdacht persoon is
belangrijker dan privacy in het algemeen, aangezien deze persoon mogelijk kwaad in de zin kan hebben’ (translation: To track a suspect who might have dangerous ideas, is more important than privacy in general). This statement was pro-security, as preventing danger is seen as more important than privacy in general.
The eight statement (S8) was ‘De virtuele wereld is een broedplek voor gevaar, en dit moet worden voorkomen’ (translation: The virtual world is the breeding ground of danger, and this must be prevented). This statement is pro-security as thee virtual world is seen as something that needs to be tracked down.
The ninth and last statement (S9) was ‘Er moeten strengere normen komen op het mogelijk maken van aftappen van telefoons’ (translation: Stricter norms need to be created to enable tapping phones). The last statement was pro-privacy as stricter norms need ensure that tapping phones will only happen when necessary.
Appendix F
Table 1. Multiple Comparisons test of Versions and Attitude towards the Wiv
Multiple Comparisons: Tukey HSD: What is the political attitude towards the wiv?
95% Confidence Interval (I) Welke versie is
gegeven?
(J) Welke versie is gegeven?
Mean
Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Soft News Security
Soft News Privacy -3.01591* 1.00749 .016 -5.6247 -.4071
Hard News Security -.21934 1.01704 .996 -2.8529 2.4142
Hard News Privacy -.82311 1.01704 .850 -3.4567 1.8104
Soft News Privacy Soft News Security 3.01591* 1.00749 .016 .4071 5.6247
Hard News Security 2.79657* 1.02152 .034 .1514 5.4417
Hard News Privacy 2.19280 1.02152 .142 -.4524 4.8380
Hard News Security Soft News Security .21934 1.01704 .996 -2.4142 2.8529
Soft News Privacy -2.79657* 1.02152 .034 -5.4417 -.1514
Hard News Privacy -.60377 1.03094 .936 -3.2733 2.0658
Hard News Privacy Soft News Security .82311 1.01704 .850 -1.8104 3.4567
Soft News Privacy -2.19280 1.02152 .142 -4.8380 .4524
Hard News Security .60377 1.03094 .936 -2.0658 3.2733
