Do CNN and FNC provide the coverage we need for a good quality debate on gun control? : assessing the descriptive and substantive representation of voices and frames in US television broadcast news : a case study of Cab

(1)

Do CNN and FNC provide the coverage we need for a good

quality debate on gun control?

_____________________________________

Assessing the descriptive and substantive representation of voices and frames in US television broadcast news

A case study of Cable News Network and Fox News Channel

Graduate School of Social Sciences

Master’s Thesis Political Science, International Relations

Supervisor: mw. dr. C.M. Roggeband Second reader: dhr. R. van Engelen

Academic Year 2017-2018 22-06-18

(2)

2

Abstract

The gun control issue has the basis of a continuing debate in the United States where gun control advocates focus on guns as a cause of violence and criminal activity, while gun rights advocates put their attention on guns as instruments of self-protection supported by a constitutional right that should not be infringed upon. This study examines the FNC and CNN broadcasts coverage of the mass shootings in Orlando and Parkland, with the aim of determining if the performance of both channels meet the democratic standards of providing the tools for a good quality public debate as well as if the pro–rights and pro-control positions receive equal representation within the news coverage of the FNC and CNN broadcasts. It combines a qualitative with quantitative content analysis with a critical discussion of the level of descriptive and substantive representation. Therefore, it draws on the theoretical theories of ‘voice and standing’, ‘deliberative democracy’ and ‘the public debate’. It argues that, instead of presenting a two-dimensional, equal and inclusive debate or encouraging forms of deliberative democracy, a biased and one-sides approach is taken in both news channels when it comes to the controversial issue of gun control. In this view, both channels do not provide the descriptive and substantive representation that is required to establish a good quality public debate.

Keywords: Deliberative democracy, voice and standing, television, public debate, gun control

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for my supervisor mw. dr. C.M. Roggeband, who guided me so patiently through the process that led to this work. I am especially grateful for her constructive comments, encouragement and advice. I would also like to thank dhr. R. van Engelen for taking the time to read and asses my research as a second reader. Many thanks as well to my research group for the inspirational meetings and mutual support. I want to wish them every success in the future. Last but not least, I want to thank my friends and family for their endless encouragement and for letting life not get too serious.

(6)

6

List of Abbreviations

BCPGV Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence CNN Cable News Network

FNC Fox News Channel

(7)

7

List of Diagrams, Tables and Figures

Table 1 Attitudes of both sides of the debate 20

Table 2 Cases based on quantitative coverage in articles in The New York Times. 36

Table 3 Sensitizing questions based on Critical Frame Analysis 38

Figure 1 Attention paid to the issue of mass shootings in press 2017 35

Figure 2 Attention paid to the issue of mass shootings in press 2018 35

Diagram 1 Different types of sources used in CNN 41

Diagram 2 Different types of sources used in FNC 41

Diagram 3 Representation of gender CNN 42

Diagram 4 Representation of gender FNC 42

Diagram 5 Gender representation within sources CNN 42

Diagram 6 Gender representation within sources FNC 42

Diagram 7 Representation of race FNC 43

(8)

8

1. Introduction

Another mass shooting. Another set of grieving relatives of people who have died for no reason. Each year in the United States, more than 33,000 people die as a result of gun violence1. The issue of gun violence is a deeply controversial topic of discussion, both within the political and the public sphere. Regardless of the prevalence of gun violence in American society, the question of how best to reduce its causes and mitigate the impact continues to generate controversy. Confronted with this increase of gun violence and with guns causing so many deaths, most citizens agree on the fact that something needs to be done (Gold, 2004:16). When it comes to debating that “something”, the opinions are sharply divided.

The recent mass shooting in Parkland, Florida has once again reawakened this furious debate over gun control and the constitutional right to bear arms. Year after year, the issue of gun control mobilizes millions of American citizens who perceive the issue as either common sense violence prevention or violation of their constitutional freedoms (Utter & True, 2000). This issue has been, as we have seen, the basis of a continuing debate in the United States where gun control advocates focus on guns as a cause of violence and criminal activity, while gun rights advocates put their attention on guns as instruments of self-protection supported by a constitutional right that should not be infringed upon (Steidley, 2017). It is clear that within this debate these two opposing camps are struggling to make their voices and views heard as much as possible through the mass media. The media, in turn, frames the American public as split into two camps, one that is pushing for stricter gun control or even an assault weapons ban and another that advocates unrestricted access to firearms (Utter & True, 2000:67; Anderson et al. 2017:39). Mass media is considered as a key platform formation for the reason that face to face deliberation among all members of society is practically impossible within a deliberative democracy (Elster, 1998). Because citizens, as well as authorities, rely heavily on a “media-constructed version of reality’’, it is crucial to determine who dominates within the mass media and thus represents the most dominant voice (Callaghan & Schnell, 2001:184). One of the key responsibilities of the mass media is to facilitate the public debate by functioning as a primary platform for decision making and opinion formation (Ihlebæk & Endersen, 2017:139). Therefore, the exchange of ideas and information through a free press within a democratic public debate is considered by many scholars as a central element of mass participation as well

1

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. See http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics consulted on 04/06/2018.

(9)

9 as a requirement for democratic responsiveness to public preferences (Sartori, 1987; Callaghan & Schnell, 2001; Smith & Searles, 2014). However, previous studies have indicated that the average citizen is ‘neither an active consumer of information nor a consistent political participant’ (Carpini & Keeter, 1991). Callaghan and Schnell (2001:183) similarly note that: ‘when citizens do participate in good democratic practices as attending to political news or connecting their vote choices to candidates’ issue positions, they are frequently, whether politically sophisticated or not, at the mercy of the mass media and other central political agents who meet as combatants in the policy arena and determine how issues are debated as well as how policy alternatives will be structured and defined’. Obviously, politicians and advocacy groups try to control the shape and tone of debates since they seek to stimulate outcomes favourable to their own political interests and image (Callaghan & Schnell, 2001:184). Besides the focus on the role of politicians and advocates as being shapers of debates, it is also essential to involve the position of the mass media in this. One might therefore consider if the mass media pursue to deliver an unbiased view of a policy debate to comply with the requirements of journalistic objective norms. Or should they be perceived as active participants who alter as well as shape the presentation and staging of a certain issue such as the gun debate? With regard to the latter, previous research has increasingly indicated that some media outlets provide viewers with an so-called ‘echo chamber’ of their own views and beliefs, which may in its turn lead less informed citizens and group polarization (Stroud, 2007; Iyengar & Hahn, 2009:20; Sustein, 2009:3; Smith & Searles, 2014). This argument also accords with Stroud (2010:2), who points out that the consequent partisan selective exposure, defined as ‘the selection of media consistent with one’s political predispositions’, contributes to more fragmented audiences. These fragmented audiences might lead people to develop different views and positions with regard to what is going on in the world around them. In addition to this, it has been argued that without a shared base of information it becomes a lot more complex for citizens to agree on policy issues (Stroud, 2010:2). As noted by previous studies, this is also considered a major contributing factor for the intensification of political polarization, since it is causing citizens to develop strong polarized positions towards political matters (Stroud, 2010:2; Prior, 2013; Bou-Hamad & Yehya, 2016:1). When it comes to polarization, the debate on gun control is often noted as one of the most polarizing issues in the United States, resulting in two opposing points of view (Cook & Goss, 2014). In this respect, matters of inclusion and exclusion of positions and views attract increasing scholarly attention: Who – or which groups– is or are represented as legitimate members of the political community and therefore have a voice in the mass media? (Mattes & Stadlmair, 2017:2).

(10)

10 When it comes to ‘having a voice’ the element of ‘standing’ could be added (Ferree et al. 2002). This concept is borrowed from legal discourse and refers to ‘the space to speak afforded to individuals and groups’ (Ferree et al., 2002:86). To this end, Ferree’s (2002) conceptualisation of voice and standing is generative for grasping how different actors are competing which each other in order to bring forward their different positions and views. A theory that relates to the concept of voice and standing concerns the theory of ‘deliberative democracy’. Deliberative democracy highlights the fact that discussions and debates in social forums such as the media should be focused on finding the common consensus through public deliberations involving a ‘two-dimensional communication process’ in order to provide incentives for good quality debate. It is important in this context to include all voices, genders, races, values and perspectives that are relevant to the issue at hand instead of promoting individual, ideological or private interests (Young, 1997; Park, 2000:1063, Porta, 2005:340). The debate on gun control is a very well suited public policy issue to examination of media coverage and the complex dynamics of voice and standing process, deliberative democracy and the quality of the public debate, since it is one of the most prominent and long-standing discussion points in the United States politics, important not only at the national level but for practically all state electorates. Additionally, the gun control debate is clearly understood by the “average” citizen; it involves no explicit expertise to form an opinion. It is an issue that is closely followed by the mass public, and, like many policy issues in the political arena, it causes a political conflict that is strong and extremely emotional, driven by tradition, fears, and broadly opposing concepts of individual liberty and the boundaries of government responsibility (Edel, 1995; Spitzer, 2015:38). However, it must be stated that when it comes to the media arena a considerable amount of literature has focused on national as well as regional coverage of newspapers with regards to the gun control debate and the matter of inclusion and exclusion of voices (Leavy & Maloney, 2009; Schildkraut & Muschert, 2014; Hawdon et al., 2015; Holody & Daniel, 2017; Dahmen, 2018). No prior work, however, has been found that analyses television news coverage of the gun control debate after the occurrence of a mass shooting to assess the quality of the public debate, or to put it differently: which actors receive a voice in a democratic society. Little is known yet about the role of television news in light of the gun debate.

That being said, it is vital to analyse televised coverage of the gun debate for two reasons: First of all, television provides a window out to the world and into the home by informing and

(11)

11 influencing people’s perception and standpoints. Despite the facts that there is a decrease in the number of television audience over the past few years, television remains the dominant and preferred source when it comes to the consumption of news media coverage according to American citizens 2. At least still half of all American citizens rely on television for their news (Callaghan & Schnell, 2001:190, Kellner 2018). Since this part of the population relies heavily on television news as a primary source of information in developing attitudes as well as preferences towards political issues and events, television news editors are in a gatekeeping position to influence which problems the audience regard as the nation's most important by means of selectively choosing to cover one side or both sides of an debate (Callaghan & Schnell, 2001:187; Morris, 2005:5).Therefore, the examination of televised media coverage of gun control issues can provide an insight into the possible differences as to who actually gets to speak on the gun debate issue, as well as how these voices differ in terms of what is perceived as the cause for the shooting and what the solution should be. This could offer valuable, relevant and significant insights into the broad spectrum of the gun control debate. In this way, we can get a sense of the differences in how each news channels covers the gun control issue, which in turn could have an influence on the viewer’s resulting depending on which channel they choose to watch.

Second, if it turns out that there is unequal representation, meaning that voices or positions are discredited, answers to the question ‘what are the implications of this for the public debate’ may be given. The practical aim of this research, therefore, is to advance the literature by analysing the quality of debate and posing questions about the legitimacy and representation of the debate within the news broadcasting arena in order to gain valuable insights into the quality of the broader public debate when it comes to the issue of gun control. Specifically, my objective is to analyse whether the pro-rights and pro-control positions are equally represented in the news coverage of popular news sources CNN and FNC? In other words: do they receive equal voice and standing? Ultimately, my contribution to the literature is to provide a comprehensive answer to the following central research question:

‘Does the CNN and FNC news broadcasts provide the coverage we need for a good quality public debate on gun control?’

2

Pew Research Center Journalism & Media. See: http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/ consulted on: 03/05/18

(12)

12 The empirical study relies on the broadcasts coverage of two mass shooting cases: the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 1st, 2017 and the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida that took place on February 14th this year. Practically, by applying the theory of voice and standing, representation and deliberative democracy to the coverage of the gun control debate, this study examines if, and how, democratic ideals of the public debate are represented in the CNN and FOX News television press coverage that followed the aforementioned mass shootings.

Chapter outline

This study is organized into several sections: First, I sketch the historical roots of the gun culture in America as well as the origins and characteristics of the gun debate. Theoretically, I draw on the theories of ‘voice and standing’, deliberative democracy’ and the criteria for the ‘public debate’ that are central to this study. After having identified these theoretical concepts, I specify their linkage and address the important role of television news. In the method section, the characteristics of the research design are presented. This section aims at justifying the data and method used to answer the central research question of this study. I subsequently proceed with the analysis of the findings as well as an illustration of the main empirical results. The conclusion section gives a summary and critique of the findings. Lastly, areas for further research are identified.

(13)

13

2. Historical Context

In many cases, public debates can only be understood in the light of their historical context. This also applies to the gun control debate. In this section I will outline the historical aspects that are relevant to the formulation of a comprehensive answer to the central research question. First of all, I present an empirical overview of the roots of the liberal gun possession culture that lies at the heart of the America's century-old gun control debate. Then, in order to understand the complexities of this controversial issue, the most prominent characteristics of the pro-gun possession rights and pro-gun control restriction side3 of the gun debate are outlined and explained. These characteristics will be used as a stepping stone to coding the transcribed news broadcasts.

2.1 Arming America: The Roots of a National Gun Culture

Despite the fact that popular culture is constantly fluctuating, the deeper cultural roots of ideology and political morals are changing much more slowly. This slow-changing nature of the deeper levels of culture is what we see in the case of the American population's opinions surrounding gun possession. The concept of a ‘gun culture’ continues to appear throughout the literature on the gun debate and relates to the behaviours, beliefs and attitudes about guns and their use by American citizens (Utter & True, 2000:67). Hofstadter (1970:84) noted on the exclusivity of the United States as ‘the only modern industrial urban nation that persists in maintaining a gun culture’. To attain the goal of understanding why guns evoke such a strong and sustained public debate and why guns are considered a key component of American culture, it is vital to provide a brief overview of the history of this American gun culture. Guns have a long and unique history in the United States. The origins of gun use in America dates back to the arrival of its first non-native settlers in a time when the United States was an agricultural nation existing in a hostile environment (Spitzer, 2015:22). These early Americans were using guns as a tool in their hunting efforts, which allowed them to trade goods such as fur and hides and gain wealth, as well as a means of defence against foreign armies and native Americans. Due to this early adoption of firearms as a vital means of protection, the possession of guns has long provided a sense of security to the community and the individual in challenging and uncertain times. A key thing to note concerns the link between survival and

3

(14)

14 shooting skills, and the way in which mastery of firearm usage became a so-called 'rite of passage' for young boys as they entered adulthood (Spitzer, 2015). For this reason, guns were perceived as a necessity of everyday life to many Americans. As the American nation became more urban as well as developed, the need for hunting decreased substantially. During the American Revolutionary War in 1775, guns once again began to play a more significant role (Spitzer, 2015). A common conviction amongst the population arose from the Revolutionary War concerns the idea that it is of great importance to always be prepared to fight tyranny and therefore never give up your firearms. Towards the end of the Revolutionary War, founding father and fourth president of the United States James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives. Ingrained in this Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment of the constitution. The Second Amendment reads as follows:

‘’A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’’.

Second Amendment, US Constitution 1781

Twenty-seven words, whose meaning has been debated within the public forum for hundreds of years. Scholars have discussed them, and the courts, lawyers and policymakers have argued on the issue of what they mean and represent (Spitzer, 2015). To this day, the Second Amendment serves the rule of law and, therefore, is a means in the eyes of many Americans to be better able to resist tyranny (Wilkinson, 2009; Spitzer, 2015). Some people are absolutists, when it comes to the Second Amendment, believing it is their right to own any and all types of firearms. Some people would like to see all guns simply go away. However, there is no doubt that the Second Amendment gave states more facility to form local militias. Permitting people to have guns as well as protecting that right ensured that the people would be able to protect themselves against crime and oppression by foreign hostiles in the future (Kates, 1986:145). Although the Second Amendment language is quite straightforward, there is room for debate about its underlying meaning. Two fundamentally competing interpretations of the amendment have dominated the contemporary debate (Kates, 1986:143). On the one hand, the reference to a ‘well-regulated militia’ is regarded as a mean to be applied strictly to the collective ability of states to form groups who could carry firearms. In opposition to this view, there is the conviction that the Second Amendments applies to individuals. From this perspective the amendments is interpreted as being a ‘’collective right’’ to own a gun, over which the collective the federal

(15)

15 government has no standing (Spitzer,2015). According to Reynolds (1994:461), it is fair to state that those who support gun control have overall tended either to ignore the Second Amendment or to implement an interpretation that leaves it basically without meaning. Those who support gun control, on the other hand, have not surprisingly implemented rather strong interpretations of the Second Amendment and emphasized that the Second Amendment should not be regarded as an unlimited right to own guns. Applied to the political spectrum, Chemerinsky (2014:477) confirms this by similarly indicating that Republican conservatives, who generally lean more towards narrow interpretations of individual rights and along with this a broad view of the Second Amendment. In contrast, from a Democratic liberal point of view, it is just the opposite.

2.2 A Closer Look at the Debate: Pro Gun Rights versus Pro Gun Control

Since 1995, the debate surrounding the Second Amendment 'right to bear arms' outlined in the previous section, fundamentally polarized American society into two starkly opposed groups: the pro-control side and the pro-rights side of the debate. This gun control debate has been one of the most deeply divisive issues in American politics for decades. Whenever a mass shooting of any magnitude takes place, it appears that the debate reignites even more. Within this debate, the two opposing groups compete with each other for social and political resources, a struggle which is often reflected in the media. The debate about gun control revolves around many concepts and the two sides disagree on multiply aspects, however, mostly they disagree on the interpretation of laws and court cases that are related to guns and the effects of firearms regulation when it comes to public safety and criminal activities (Gold, 2004; Spitzer, 2012:7). Both regard themselves to be part of the mainstream of the broader American culture while at the same time portraying the other as engaging in an irrational and separate subculture (Utter & True, 2000:67). However, the term ‘gun culture’ is not dichotomous; there are actually many positions within this framework, and boundaries are disputed. Nevertheless, I speak of the ‘pro-rights’ and ‘pro-control’ stances, as their supporters do, keeping in mind that doing so may conceal more subtle differences in views. Although the term ‘gun culture’ may not be necessarily dichotomous, the views and language used by pro-rights advocates and pro-control advocates are clearly split into two opposing groups (Utter & True, 2000). In order to understand the dynamics of the debate, a concise outline of the main players as well as their

(16)

16 key differences and the focus of their attitudes is required to clarify the rights and pro-control viewpoints. Their viewpoints have been outlined below:

2.2.1 Pro-Rights Advocacy

When it comes to pro-rights proponents, a handful of groups and movements have played a significant role in shaping and outlining gun politics (Spitzer, 2015). Although these advocacy groups are all devoted to the cause of gun rights in the United States, there no doubt that the powerful and well-organized National Rifle Association (NRA) stands out as a leader in terms of media attention as well as most important political effects (Briggs, 1997:38; Amenta et al., 2009; Cook and Goss, 2014). For many this organization represents a beacon of light in the dark decline of American freedoms. The NRA was founded in 1871 in the wake of the American Civil war by two veterans; William Church, editor of the Army and Navy Journal, and George Wingate, who was an officer in the New York National Guard. Concerned by the poor marksmanship they witnessed in battle, NRA’s stated purpose was to train young men how to shoot better. By 1903, the NRA encouraged shooting as a sport at colleges and universities, and later created a summer youth camp. Before World War One, the NRA helped arm and train civilians. During the interwar years, around 1934, the NRA became an active player in politics, resulting in the first National Firearms Act in order to regulate guns (Spitzer, 2015). When the end of the Second World War was near, many soldiers returned, boosting the NRA's membership numbers. Three years after WW2 membership had tripled. An important thing to mention, however, is the fact that the majority of these new arrivals were primarily interested in hunting instead of marksmanship. As a result, the organization rapidly adapted to this new priority (Spitzer, 2015). In the mid- 1950s, with 140 employees as well as 300.000 individual active members, the NRA had grown significantly. Today, the NRA has become one of the nation’s most influential and powerful lobbying organizations and changed its activities to incorporate political advocacy. It is undeniable that much of the power of this leading gun rights organization is derived from its fanatical and broad membership base and its mastery of grassroots politics through investing millions in pro-gun congress campaigns and senate members in order to defend the Second Amendment (Spitzer, 2015).

(17)

17

Focus of attitudes

When it comes to the arguments and positions of the pro-rights side of the debate, they largely revolve around law, principle and practicality. On a legal level, the debate often centers around the Second Amendment. As previously mentioned, those who are on the side of protecting gun rights put a particular focus on the second half of the Amendment concerning ‘the right of individuals to keep and bear arms’(Spitzer,2015). They highlight the Second Amendment being in the Bill of Rights, which is entirely about the rights of individuals. In line with defending the Second Amendment, pro-rights advocates are fond of the slogan “guns don’t kill people, people do, If they don’t use a gun, they’ll use something else” (Metzl & MacLeish, 2015:246). Not surprisingly, this slogan has been so widely disseminated that it is often perceived to be the official motto of the NRA. The current executive vice president NRA Wayne LaPierre is therefore well-known for using this suggestive slogan in platform speeches and in conferences, expressing that ‘there are no good guns, there are no bad guns’ in an attempt to drain guns of the negative associations that surround and portray them as ‘value-neutral tools’ (Duerringer & Justus, 2016:188). In other words, they make the point that if a tool is being misused, the blame goes to the individual operating it.

In order to take the focus off of gun control, gun rights proponents often link mental illness or the absence of a well-functioning mental health system to mass shootings, citing these as a major contributor.. In line with this, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Paul Ryan and other members of the Trump administration have repeatedly focused their attention on mental health in the aftermath of mass shootings in order to distract from conversations about gun control. After the shooting in Las Vegas, Paul Ryan stated that: “one of the things we’ve learned from these shootings is often underneath this is a diagnosis of mental illness” (Perry, 2017). Ryan added that: “mental health reform is a critical ingredient” to preventing tragedies like the one in Las Vegas, leaving gun control legislation completely unmentioned. From the perspective of pro-rights advocates, gun control in itself would be ineffective when it comes to ending gun crime, and that background checks as well as restrictions on gun purchase are in any case irrelevant when mental illness is involved (Metzl & MacLeish, 2015:244).

Besides focussing on the relation between mental illness as a significant factor to the occurring of mass shootings, advocating for pro-rights is frequently supported by the practical argument

(18)

18 that guns are a necessity for giving people the power of self-defence against tyranny and criminal activity (Mackey & Levan,2013:96). Therefore, pro-rights advocates fervently believe that gun ownership should be regarded as an crucial element for the flourishing of a proper citizen. A proper citizen, from this perspective, is one ‘capable of defending his family’ (LaFollette, 2000:266). Pro-rights advocates are of the opinion that an increase of gun control laws would take away the inalienable right of people to defend themselves and hence deny citizens a sense of safety. Likewise, Lund (2017:3) pointed out that: "the right to self-defence and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many (gun control laws) interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals". Therefore, pro-rights proponents claim that body counts would be significantly lower if legislation would strengthen the tools available to Federal law enforcement as well as if more Americans would carry guns ready to overtake an active shooter (Lott, 2010). This view is clearly supported by a quote coming from the NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre who suggested that ‘’The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun’’. In line with this, pro-rights advocates express a strong scepticism towards gun control by primarily conceiving of it as an ineffectual mean of controlling violence and criminal activity. Besides this, there is a widespread belief that gun control would unacceptably infringe on a constitutional, fundamental and human rights (Utter & True, 2000:68-70). Pro-right proponents are therefore speaking of ‘a step an on a slippery slope’ towards a complete prohibition on the private ownership of guns (Utter & True, 2000). Moreover, among pro- right proponents there is a commonly held view that the government should not interfere with the fundamental right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves against those who want to do them any harm

2.2.2 Pro-Control Advocacy

In opposition to the pro-rights side of the debate, which claims that increased firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens would lead to the reduction of crime, pro-control advocates strongly argue that restricting and controlling access to guns would eventually result in safer communities. Pro-control advocates are therefore driven by an ethical imperative that its supporters believe will lead to a better and more civilized nation (Kates, 1994). Therefore, they believe that stricter penalties to discourage citizens from using firearms should be established. In the end, they ultimately advocate for total reduction of firearms by controlling the access of all citizens (Briggs, 1976:38). From the pro-control point of view, the pro-rights lobby culture,

(19)

19 mainly the NRA, engages in corrupt media campaigns, threatens public officials as well as interferes in election campaigns to extends its selfish interests (Utter & True, 2000). The NRA’s main opponent and most widely recognized countermovement organization is The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (Goss, 2004; Spitzer, 2015). Together generally referred to as the ‘Brady Campaign’. The Brady campaign, founded in 1974, has put his main focus on advocating for stronger gun control by national as well as state lobbying efforts and is the largest national, non-partisan grassroots organizations that fights to prevent gun violence (Spitzer, 2015:71). Nonetheless, its resources and size is only about one-tenth of those of the NRA. Some important gun control profits are a result of Brady Campaign activities. Most outstandingly are the Federal Assault Weapons Band and the so-called ‘Brady Bill, which obligated instant background checks for all citizens purchases of guns (Steidly & Cohen, 2017:612)

Focus of attitudes

Contrary to the pro-rights advocates, the arguments and positions of the pro-control side of the debate revolve around morality and rationality (Goss, 2004:690) In contrast to the pro-rights advocates viewpoint, pro-control advocates interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment in a complete different way. As indicated before, they interpret the Amendment as stating its purpose: guaranteeing that people had the arms needed for militia service, implying that state-organized militia are the only ones with that right. Therefore, it is regarded as a mean to be applied strictly to the collective ability of states to organize groups who could carry gun (Utter & true, 2000:67). From a moral point of view, guns are perceived as a symbolization of a violent history (Utter & True). As indicated by (Braman & Kahan,2006:570), pro-control supporters share the conviction that the ready access to guns diminishes public safety by facilitating violence criminal activity and criminal activity. Therefore, a common theme among gun control advocates concerns the conviction that reducing guns will reduce gun violence. Political alignment: Democrats versus Republicans

Not only can the two sides of the debate be distinguished from one another in terms of their attitudes and beliefs, but also in the political sphere there are marked differences. Some even claim that no topic is more politically polarizing in modern American politics than gun policy. More to it than that, it has become a defining issue – which party citizens choose to identify

(20)

20 themselves with is intrinsically linked with their position on gun control (Enten, 2017). Cook and Goss (2014:184) similarly indicate that the question ‘’are you in the possession of a gun?’’ turns out be a better predictor of a person’s political affiliation than many other characteristics. One of the most remarkable developments over the past two decades is the growing gap between Republicans and Democrats on the issue of gun policy (Cook and Goss, 2014). Bearing in mind that within each party there might be exceptions, – Republicans who are comfortable with stricter gun laws and Democrats who identify themselves with gun rights supporters - Cook and Goss (2014:181) point out that generally seen Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to prioritize gun rights over gun control. When it comes to the questions whether mass shootings reflect isolated acts or a bigger social problem, Republicans were significantly more inclined to interpret mass shootings as isolated acts, while Democrats perceive mass shootings as part of a larger phenomenon. Consistent with this, results of a recent study conducted by Parker et al. (2017:71) similarly show that 76 percent of Republicans as well as Republican-leaning independents consider it more important to protect the Second Amendment, which holds the rights of Americans to own guns, than it is to control gun ownership, compared with about a quarter of Democrats and Democratic leaners. In addition to this, Democrats and Republicans are very diversified when it comes to the way the NRA is being viewed. Approximately two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic leaners say the NRA has too much power in comparison to Republicans, of which only 15 percent shares this view (Parker et al., 2017:72). Contrary to this, two thirds of Republicans are of the opinion that the NRA has just the right amount of influence in comparison to 21 percent of the Democrats. The following table illustrates the preeminent qualitative differences of a typical pro-control proponent compared with those of a pro-rights proponent by focusing on the key attitudes and beliefs of the gun debate.

TABLE 1

Themes (pro) gun rights (pro) gun control

Second Amendment A highly valued right that allows the American citizen to protect themselves against crime and oppression

Regarded as a means to be applied strictly to the collective ability of states to unify groups who could carry guns

(21)

21 Self-defence /

individual ownership

The ownership of guns can play a significant role in defence

The development of modern weaponry ensured that

individual possession of guns is mostly irrelevant to defence strategies

Criminal activity A threat to the safety of every American individual which can be combated and deterred with the right to possess guns

Instead of focusing on individual defence, collective security must be established to protects

civilians against criminal activity Cultural history Guns are perceived as means that

have played a vital and noble role in the nations’ development.

Therefore they symbolize individual freedom and responsibility

Guns are perceived as a symbolization of a violent history

Perception of the opposite side of the debate

Greedy for power Greedy of profits

Gun control A useless means of controlling criminal activity and an intolerable violation of fundamental

constitutional and human rights; a step on a “slippery slope” toward an eventual widespread ban on the private ownership of guns

Reasonable policies to limit criminal activity and violence.

Firearms A highly valued tool for

law-abiding

citizens to defend themselves against

criminals as well as governments that have abused their power

Gun are perceived as the central problem of violence and criminal activity

(22)

22

3. Theoretical Framework

In the previous section, the contours of the historical background of the gun culture in America as well as the characteristics and positions that are unique for each side of the debate were set out. Subsequent to these empirical chapters, an overview of the literature with regards to the main theoretical concepts of ‘voice and standing’, ‘deliberative democracy’ ‘the public debate’ and ‘representation’ are reviewed in the following section. Next, the final section addresses the role of television as an important facilitator of participation and engagement in a deliberative democracy, in order to establish the context of the research and to provide theoretical support for answering the central research question.

3.1 The Concept of Voice and Standing

‘Voice and standing’ refers to ‘the right of a person or group to challenge in a judicial forum the conduct of another’ (Ferree et al., 2002:86). Standing, also referred to as ‘the space to speak afforded to individuals and groups’, is a contested terrain in the political as well as media arena in which different actors are competing which each other in order to bring forward their different positions and views and ‘gaining the status of a media source whose interpretations are directly or indirectly quoted’ (Ferree et al, 2002:86). When it comes to this standing, Ferree et al. (2002) rightly indicates that not every actor or group has an equivalent chance to have a voice in public discourse. A reason for this could be that some actors are better motivated and equipped to speak out on a specific subject. However, the customary practices of the way in which news is gathered also play a central role in terms of making some speakers more salient to the media than to others. A key thing to remember is that being cited or covered in the news is not the same as having standing. Certain groups or movements may make the news in the sense that they are mentioned or criticized, however, they are not given the opportunity to provide their views and meanings to the events in which they are involved (Ferree, 2002). Therefore, Ferree et al. (2002:13) argue that standing “refers to a group being treated as an actor with voice, not merely as an object being discussed by others”. Applying this to the debate of gun control this would mean that actors are given space to present his or her own personal viewpoints on the occurred shooting. Who really matters in the eyes of other journalists and a broader public is largely determined by the extent to which the views and positions of an actor or group are reflected or quoted. Moreover, journalists and editors do recognize that giving or denying standing to a particular group or actor also enhances or

(23)

23 diminishes their power. Therefore, power and having standing, according to Ferree et al. (2012:87), are closely interrelated with one another since standing both increases as well as reflects acceptance as an actor on a given policy issue and therefore could be construed as a measure of achieved cultural power. On this basis, it can be assumed that journalists who operate in the media arena attempt to give standing based on their views on who should be considered as the dominant player. Actors and groups are often chosen for the fact that they are seen as representing a certain perspective. In granting standing to a specific group or actor, journalists reflect broader societal expectations instead of merely the ones specific to the mass media (Ferree et al., 2002:87). Besides this, Ferree et al. (2002:87) point out that differences in cultural norms as well as journalistic news routines also play an important role. What journalists consider regarding who makes a difference, in general, will lead to specific news routines and norms concerning source selection that will then be applied to specific issues such as the debate about gun policy (Ferree et al., 2002:88). As mentioned above, little is known so far about these journalistic news routines and the implications of this within a democracy and the quality of the public debate.

3.2 Deliberative Democracy

A theory that relates to the concept of voice and standing concerns ‘deliberative democracy’. Deliberation is, according to Young (1996) based upon the conviction that, while not giving up your own perspective, you might learn if you listen to the perspective of someone else. When it comes to deliberative democracy, democracy is presented as some sort of process that generates a public arena where people can debate collective actions and problems (Young, 1997). In line with this, deliberative democracy is similarly defined by Porta (2005:340) as something that appears when “under certain conditions of equality, inclusion and transparency, a communicative process based on reason (the strength of a good argument) is able to transform individual preferences and reach decisions oriented to the public good,”. In addition Porta (2005:346) also stresses that deliberative democracy is consensual, which means that it should be a form of decision making which takes place in social forums such as the media, whereby people with different perspectives are given an equal space to convince each other of the superiority of their argument on the basis of argumentation open to everyone’s contribution. As noted by Young (1997:61) “In free and open dialogue others test and challenge these assertions and reasons. Participants are careful to sort out good reasons from bad reasons, valid arguments from invalid”. By means of having a discussion, conclusions can be reached that will best

(24)

24 benefit the public debate. To put it differently, deliberative democracy highlights the fact that discussions and debates should be focused on finding the common consensus through public deliberations involving a ‘two-dimensional communication process’ in which all voices, genders, race, values and perspectives at stake are heard instead of promoting individual ideological or private interests (Young, 1997; Park, 2000:1063, Porta, 2005:340).

In line with this, Young (1997) regards the representation of democracy in a way that people with different viewpoints come together to find solutions and establish policies. Therefore, it is of importance that interactions are taking place with those who disagree on each other’s perspective (Park, 2000:1063). A key thing Young (1997) mentions concerns the fact that these interactions at the consequent decisions should made be rational rather than based on power. Young (1997:62) therefore suggests that: ‘’policies ought to be adopted not because of the most powerful interests win but because the citizens or their representatives together determine their rightness after hearing and criticizing reasons”. Nonetheless, the theorization of deliberative democracy is traditionally related to the political arena where policies are discussed. The concept of deliberative democracy is to acknowledge that when it comes to resolve collective problems, it “requires a plurality of all perspectives, speaking styles, and ways of expressing the particularity of social situation” (Young, 1997:73-4). It could be argued, however, that these ideas on communication inclusiveness does not apply solely to debates that take place in political institutions, but also fits into the realm of public debates that occur in other forums, such as the media and the significantly covered issue of gun control. Debates that take place in the media could also be identified as collective problems, such as the issues on gun policies and the starkly opposing sides that emerged from this debate. Through these debates citizens can make their voices heard in order to have influence on the decision making processes by expressing their perceptions and viewpoints, which adds to the quality of the public debate (Young, 1997). To this end, the theory of deliberative democracy is generative for analysing broadcasts coverage of the debate on gun control in the US.

3.3 The Public Debate and Representativeness

As previously indicated, the concept of a public debate is central to the theory of deliberative democracy and is therefore considered to be a fundamental element of democratic decision-making and society (Marcinkowski, 2008:1). The concept of a ‘public debate’ is a form of

(25)

25 public discourse which is defined as: “communication about topics and actors related to either some particular policy domain or to the broader interests and values that are engaged” (Ferree et al., 2002:9). According to Wilkinson (2009:294), this public debate serves ‘the important democratic function of educating people about an issue’. Therefore, the public debate is implemented in multiple arenas: in parliament, in the mass media, in public gatherings and on the streets. However, the focus of this study is on television broadcasts which are part of one of the most central arenas: the media arena.

As stated above and according to the normative definitions of deliberative democracy, the focus of a good quality debate should be on finding the common solutions through public deliberations in which all voices with a stake in the decisions are included instead of promoting individual, ideological or private interests (Young, 1997; Porta, 2005:340). In other words, the exclusion of voices adversely affects the decision-making process and therefore quality of a public debate. The quality of the public debate is crucial when it comes to shaping the so-called public sphere. Most recent conceptualizations of this public sphere were established by expanding on the ideas expressed by Habermas. Drawing on Habermas’s important notion of the public sphere, outlined in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1974) and later work, the public sphere is considered in ideal terms as a ‘realm in which individuals and groups, on the basis of equality, discover and deliberate in a rational and non-coercive manner, public issues of common concern’ (Bourne, 2017:232). To put this into other words, it is in the public sphere that ideas are presented, issues are debated, public opinions as well as solutions to societal problems are formed and social action can really take root. It is noteworthy that, Habermas considered this process crucial for a well-functioning deliberative democracy since it guarantees every actor’s voice can be heard. With the advent of mass media to society, Thompson (1993:173) put forward a number of allegations concerning Habermas’ work as being a theoretical argument with little significance to contemporary societies. Therefore, Thompson (1993:187) suggests instead that the public sphere has shifted to a so-called mediated publicness. A significant characteristic of this mediated publicness concerns that it has a greater reach than the traditional public sphere as well as the possibility to expand the sphere without distance and time differences. Instead of an actual face to face conversation, the contemporary public sphere consists of a one-directional monologue (Thompson, 1993). In line with this, Koopmans (2004:367) argues that the crucial part of the interaction between political authorities and other actors is ‘no longer the direct, physical confrontation between them in concrete locations, but the indirect, mediated encounters among contenders in the arena of the

(26)

26 mass media public sphere’. Therefore, the way actors are portrayed in the mass media is important in the sense that authorities react to it. Notwithstanding the undoubtedly relevant critique against Habermas’s idealisation of the 18th-century public sphere, the idea of an effective and functioning public sphere as a precondition for a quality democracy is still as valid as it was half a century ago. The theory of the public sphere therefore places the emphasis on the role of the public debate when it comes to facilitating or hindering this process (Ferree, 2002). In addition, one of the main values of the public sphere was that ‘’practical reason was institutionalized through norms of reasoned discourse in which arguments, not status or traditions, were to be decisive’ (Calhoun, 1992:2). It was ‘the best rational argument and not the identity of the speaker’ (Calhoun, 1992:13). When we apply this to the gun control debate, we could assume that the normative factor for a good quality public debate concerns that indicators such as status, demographic characteristics money, traditions and identity of the both sides of the debate (pro-gun versus pro-right) do not play a decisive role when it comes to the amount of voice and standing they receive from the media. Furthermore, a good quality public debate should encourage deliberation and thus foster a dialogue and debate between different population groups, which might blur boundaries, deepen civic engagement and eventually lead to solutions (McCoy & Scully, 2010:117; Dickinson, 2016:11). Forming individual or collective opinions therefore necessitates access to information which is both independent of private interests and impartiality inclusive in terms of diversity of points of view (Badouard et al., 2016:1).

3.4 Representation: Notions on Inclusion and Exclusion

As above-mentioned the public debate is considered to be a form of public discourse which is defined as: “communication about topics and actors related to either some particular policy domain or to the broader interests and values that are engaged” (Ferree et al., 2002:9). In addition, democratic norms call for inclusion and equality (Young, 2000:53). Applied to this study, this concerns the equal representation of different actors with different viewpoints and positions on the gun debate. Which actors receive a voice is determined by inclusion and exclusion. It is worth noting, in this context, that inclusion and exclusion are closely related to the concept of representation. Pitkin (1967:16) defines representation as ‘the making present of something or someone who is not literally present through an intermediary (actor)’. Representation, therefore, plays a key role in constituting a deliberative democracy (Plotke, 1997:20). When it comes to this study two types of representativeness are distinguished. The

(27)

27 first type concerns ‘descriptive representation’. According to Pitkin (1967), descriptive representation constitutes ‘who’ is represented and therefore looks at characteristics such as gender, race and types of sources. The underlying reasoning, according to Celis et al., (2008:73), concerns that representation of demographic characteristics is considered an crucial aspect of representation as a whole. In line with this, Moorti (2012:4) points out that gender as well as race shape television narrative. Therefore, gender representation in mass media has attracted a lot of attention from mass communication researchers (Schwartz, 2010:265). Research on representation has mainly taken up the question of women’s representation (Celis et al, 2008; Severs, 2010:411). In line with this, multiple content analyses have shown that men are represented twice as often as women within the mass media (Armstrong, 2004; Ross et al., 2013). A clear gender imbalance in news reports is considered problematic, as Armstong (2004:148) stressed, because it could increase ‘traditional values that exclude and demean the value of women in society, implying that men are more critical to the community’s function’. In line with this, Freedman and Fico (2005:269) similarly pointed out that an underrepresentation of female sources within the media could discourage women from drawing on the media for the reason that, based on the sources that are represented, it does not seem to include or represent them. An important thing to mention, according to Celis et al., (2008) is that this applies not only to gender - race is also considered to be an essential characteristic of representation (Celis et al., 2008). When it comes to race, strong evidence of white men dominating the news is indicated by multiple scholars (Feagin & Ducey, 2017).

As pointed out by Brooks and Hébert (2006:297), race is, just as gender, a social construct through which a society defines its identity. Representation of these social characteristics that recognize the variability of human identity is also referred to as ‘intersectional representation’. McCall (2005:1771) defines intersectionality as ‘the relationships among multiple dimensions and modalities of social relations and subject formations. As noted by multiple scholars, the concept of intersectionality is closely connected to notions of identity formation (Verloo, 2006). Diversity in newsrooms is therefore considered critical in order to represent a complete spectrum of society, which is formed by giving an equal voice to all social identities. With this in mind, emphasis is put on the prominent role of the mass media when it comes to the reproduction of an equal representation in gender and race in order to develop a more equal democratic society (Brooks & Hébert, 2006;297). Having outlined descriptive representation, it is important to note that descriptive representation does not address an essential other and deeper aspect of representation, namely ‘the content of representation’ (Pitkin, 1967:9, Severs,

(28)

28 2010:411). The second type of representation, ‘substantive representation’, does deal with this essential aspect and is generally recognised to be the most important dimension of representation. Contrary to descriptive representation, substantive representation is about the actual content and claims that representatives or actors present or promote and therefore proposes questions such as: ‘what is represented’ and ‘how is this view represented?’ (Pitkin 1972: 209). This conception of representation places an emphasizes on the subject and the connection between the representatives (and their taken positions) and the represented (Celis,2008:76).

As pointed out by Plotke (1997:19), the concept of representation and the concept of exclusion are related in the sense that they are opposites of one another. In line with this, Judge (1999) indicates that exclusion is an inherent aspect of representation since ‘not just the presence of the represented through the representative is an essential element of representation, but their absence is too’. When it comes to exclusion there are two different types that need to be distinguished (Young, 2000:53). The first type concerns ‘external exclusion’ which is the most common form. This type keeps certain social groups, genders, race or perspectives out of the picture and gives a dominant voice to a certain group of people which in turn then dominate the outcome of the debate. This type of exclusion can be linked to descriptive representation in the sense that they are both looking at characteristics such as gender, races and perspective (Pitkin, 1967; Young, 2000:53). The second type of exclusion concerns ‘internal exclusion’ which is less apparent since social groups or individuals are nominally included the representation. However, they are excluded by means of discursive dominance, or to put it differently: the communication of ideas (Young, 2000:53). Young (2000:53) argues that this type of exclusion takes place when the positions and views of some people or groups are dismissed as out of order. Internal exclusion can therefore be linked to substantive representation since both concepts call attention to ‘what is represented’ in terms of positions and ideas.

3.5 The Role of Television in Deliberative Democracy

Thompson’s (1993) work thus suggests the increasing significance of the mass media having colonised the public sphere with entertainment, and of corporate enterprises using the media to promote their own views. This is a problematic issue since in the discussion surrounding public

(29)

29 issues, such as the gun control debate, as well as the maintaining of their transparency must take place in this public sphere (Andersson, 2008:185).

Baker (1998:317) stresses that a free press is a fundamental element within a deliberative democracy. This consensus gives rise to some interesting normative questions, such as; ‘what type of free press does democracy need and who should be participating?’ and ‘what qualities should the public sphere have to nurture and maintain vigorous democratic public life?’ (Ferree et al., 2002:289)?’ Therefore, the concept of the public sphere is central to the study of media for the reason that the media plays a significant role as a facilitator of deliberative democracy by providing members of the public equal access to information as well as equal opportunities to participate (Happer & Philo, 2013:321). As was mentioned in the previous chapter, Young (203:103) defines deliberative democracy as ‘both a normative account of the bases of democratic legitimacy’ as well as a guidance for how citizens should be engaged in the political field. When it comes to engaging citizens, television is perceived as a major forum for further deliberation (Young, 2001:680). In contrast to this, previous research on television has dismissed cable news as ideologically and politically insignificant (Klapper, 1960; Iyengar et al., 1982:848). At that time, the opinion that cable news was ineffective when it comes to being persuasive was the predominant view. However, research from the 1980s and 1990s, as well as more recent studies, call this conviction into doubt (Zaller, 1992; Bartels, 1993, Choi, 2017:1063). Despite the decrease in size of television audiences over the past few years, a minimum of half of all American citizens still rely on television for their news4 (Callaghan & Schnell & 2001:190, Kellner 2018). Since the public debate relies deeply on television news as a primary source in developing attitudes as well as preferences towards political issues and events, television news editors are in a gatekeeping position to influence which problems the audience regard as the nation's most important by means of selectively choosing to cover one side or both sides of an debate (Iyengar et al.,1987; Callaghan & Schnell, 2001:187; Morris, 2005:5). In addition, they become players themselves as they participate in the framing of an issue by commenting on the opinions of others, potentially providing their own meaning (Ferree et al., 2002). According to Callaghan & Schnell (2001:187) editors produce internal story patterns for their audience, and these patterns or frames cognitively function to shape the public debate. In addition to this, television media is often indicated as a space provided for public deliberation as well as to provide time on screen for marginalized groups ensuring that

4

Pew Research Center Journalism & Media. See: http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/ consulted on: 03/05/18

(30)

30 they are included in the deliberation (Hodgetts & Chamberlain, 2013). This inclusion in deliberation is important because if a television news channel provides a limited perspective on social debate or frames it in a particular way, leaving issues or perspectives underexposed, the television content may influence the depth as well as the direction of the public discussion (Choi, 2017:1063). It hardly comes as a surprise, therefore, that the empirical data of several studies shows evidence that the frames that are included or excluded in news reporting influences the individual viewers’ perception of the presented issue (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009, Akira et al., 2014, DeFoster & Swalve, 2017)

In the past decades cable television has rapidly enlarged the choice of media content accessible in U.S. households (Morris, 2005:56). This increasing choice of content has led to more fragmented audiences (Gil de Zúñiga et al. 2012:598). For this reason, scholars are paying more attention to selective media exposure and its possible consequences for the public debate (Feldman et al., 2012:3). In line with this, Ferree et al. (2002) also indicated that the media is not always objective as their study results show that in Germany as well as in the United States actors were excluded from voicing their opinion on abortion. By this means, mainstream media should preferably include all voices, but sometimes this is not the case. Hodgetss and Chamberlain (2013) argue that cable news media is able to increase understanding the moment that they include marginalized voice. However, they can also increase ignorance and discrimination if they exclude a certain voice. Therefore, cable news plays an important role in defining American culture and politics since they appeal to particular segments of the audience with targeted political messages. This propagation of opinion has been plainly observed by popular commentators (Feldman et al., 2012:5). For example, the New York Times stated that ‘’what works in cable television news is not an objective analysis of the day's events but hard-nosed, unstinting advocacy of a specific point of view on a sizzling-hot topic’’(The New York Times, 2006). Kinsley (2006:19) similarly asserts that cable news can be regarded as an ‘medium of outsize, super-opinionated franchise personalities’. This is problematic, since as mentioned before, television is perceived as a major forum for further deliberation on which still at least half of all American citizens rely for their news (Callaghan & Schnell, 2001:190, Young, 2001:680, Kellner 2018). Therefore, according to the theory of deliberative democracy, a normative ideal would be that conflicting parties should be equally covered within the news to discuss their solutions to their collective problems and propose solutions for them (Young, 2003:103. In addition, they should be offered equal representation and space to be critical about each other’s perspectives as well as being open to receiving criticism in return (Young,

(31)

31 2001:672). These normative ideals can also be applied to this study. Ideally, this would imply that the conflicting parties, in this case the pro-rights position and the pro-control position, are covered equally within the FNC and CNN broadcasts by offering both sides equal representation of their frames and perspectives. From this point of view, the following sub-questions are asked:

- ‘Are the pro –rights and pro-control perspectives offered equally representation and to be critical about each other’s perspectives as well as being open to receive criticism in return in the news coverage of the FNC and CNN broadcasts?’

- ‘What are the implications of this representation for the quality of the public debate?’ In the subsequent section, I develop and justify the methodology used in order to formulate a comprehensive answer to the central research question and the associated sub questions. Additionally, I explain the case as well as data selection process, prior to explaining the method with which I coded the data to determine the positions brought forward in the news broadcasts.

Do CNN and FNC provide the coverage we need for a good quality debate on gun control? : assessing the descriptive and substantive representation of voices and frames in US television broadcast news : a case study of Cab