Lotte Kamphuis 5878578
Master’s Thesis
Erasmus Mundus Journalism, Media and Globalisation Graduate School of Communication
University of Amsterdam
Thesis supervisor: dr. M. Moorman 26-06-2015
We Are Here, in the Media:
News framing of failed asylum seekers in the Netherlands Lotte O T Kamphuis
Abstract
This study examines how the case of We Are Here (WAH) is framed in the Dutch news. WAH is a self-organized group of failed asylum seekers that protests for a more inclusive asylum policy in the Netherlands. Predefined issue specific frames from previous inductive research by Van Gorp (2005) were adapted and used for a deductive content analysis. The concerning frames are the intruder, victim, distrust, donor, not-in-my-backyard and everything-in-the-garden’s-lovely frames. In addition, the study explores how frame sponsors and events influence the news framing over time. News articles from four Dutch daily newspapers were analyzed over a period of more than two years. The results show that the not-in-my-backyard, intruder and victim frames are most present in the news reporting on the WAH case. More specifically, political actors sponsor the framing that the illegal overstay of failed asylum seekers in the Netherlands meets resistance. Failed asylum seekers are held accountable and they should therefore leave. On the contrary, the protest group WAH sponsors the framing that failed asylum seekers are victims who cannot return to their unsafe home countries, yet the Dutch government and its asylum policy do not provide them any help. In addition, the first scenario is dominantly detected in shorter news items, whereas the second scenario is dominantly detected in lengthier news stories, such as features and editorials. The findings of this study are discussed in the light of rising asylum applications and intensified asylum regulations both in the Netherlands and other EU member states, which force refugees to resort to irregular means in their search for a better life.
Introduction
In September 2012, a group of overstaying failed asylum seekers residing in Amsterdam disrupted the invisibility they lived in. They established the self-organized action collective We
Are Here in an attempt to resist their rejected asylum applications and demand humane living
conditions (Wij Zijn Hier, 2014). The group had been moving around Amsterdam for over two years before the Dutch coalition government agreed on an approach to provide failed asylum seekers access to basic services.1
Although the case is located on a local and national level, the subject matter is not
exclusively central to the immigration debate in the Netherlands. Both rising asylum applications and increasing illegal immigration of refugees are a contemporary challenge for European
countries (Follis, 2015). In addition, the establishment of a common European asylum policy concentrated on regulation and control entails that the illegal overstay and return of unsuccessful asylum seekers is a relevant topic on the political agenda of EU member states (IOM, 2005; Nickels, 2007; European Commission, 2014). Since asylum and immigration constitute high politics, related topics receive a great amount of media coverage throughout Europe (Horsti, 2007). We Are Here’s revolt gained significant attention in the Netherlands as well. The case is illustrative for the consequences of intensified asylum regulations, which force refugees to resort to irregular means in their search for a better life.
Within the fields of political science and communications, a considerable amount of research has been conducted on media coverage related to issues of asylum and immigration across Europe (e.g. d’Heanens & De Lange, 2001; Horsti, 2007; Nickels, 2007; Vliegenthart & Roggeband, 2007). Several of these studies focus on the use of frames in the communication by
1 The so-called ‘bed-bad-brood’ agreement. A more extensive explanation of We Are Here and an update on the current situation can be found in the theoretical framework of this study.
media outlets, such as the archetypical presentation of asylum seekers, refugees and
undocumented migrants as victims or intruders (e.g. Van Gorp, 2005; Van Gorp, Vettehen, & Beentjes, 2009; Horsti, 2007; 2010; 2013). Few studies specifically consider news framing of illegal immigrants and media coverage aiming at asylum policy change (e.g. Horsti, 2013; Ihlen & Thorbjørnsrud, 2014; Ihlen, Figenschou, & Larsen, 2015). The present study will not only examine how the We Are Here case was framed in the Dutch news, but it will also explore how frame sponsors and events influenced the use of frames over time. In brief, frame sponsors are agents who attempt to direct journalists’ frame selection in news reporting according to their interests (Pan & Kosicki, 1993; Vliegenthart & Roggeband, 2007). Research on framing in political context is relevant to the field of communication studies, as framing can possibly affect public opinion, impact political attitudes and influence policy making (Iyengar, 1991; Chong & Druckman, 2007; Schuck, Vliegenthart, & De Vreese, 2014). Besides, as people’s understanding of We Are Here may hinge on the perceived impression of the collective given by the media, it is apposite to examine the framing of failed asylum seekers in the news (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007).
This study starts with a more extensive explanation of We Are Here and a review of literature and theory concerning framing and the asylum debate, which leads up to several hypotheses. A methods section follows, after which the empirical analysis of the news coverage on We Are Here is presented. Here, the research question will be answered and the hypothesis will be reviewed. The study finishes with a discussion on the strengths and limitations of the framing analysis, and possible suggestions for follow-up research.
Theoretical framework We Are Here and the Media
We Are Here (WAH) emanated from a group of failed asylum seekers that mobilized to protest against the Dutch asylum policy. They hope to benefit from taking collective action in an attempt for regularization of their cases. The group set up camp in the backyard of a protestant church organization for charity in September 2012. From then on WAH has been expanding and roaming from one accommodation to another in Amsterdam (Piersma, 2014). The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights and the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) estimated the living conditions of the group of failed asylum seekers as inhumane. As a result, in April 2015, the Dutch coalition government ensured access to food, clothing and shelter for the group, providing that they cooperate with the return to their home countries. WAH considers the arrangement insufficient, as this agreement does not offer twenty-four hour housing and
overlooks the insurmountable problem that the failed asylum seekers cannot return to their home countries. For this reason, the group continuous their protest against the Dutch asylum policy (Het Parool, 2015).
Failed asylum seekers are “asylum seekers whose cases have been rejected for
unreasonably long and even indefinite periods of time to prevent absconding” (UCRE, 2005, p. 2). In this particular case, the Dutch authorities rejected the asylum applications. The
construction of a unified European asylum policy has increasingly restricted asylum laws and policies in EU member states. Consequently, failed asylum seekers have become a growing category within European politics. The logistic obstacles countries encounter in the removal of failed asylum seekers result in extensive numbers of asylum seekers overstaying in Europe after
their application has been rejected. Meanwhile these people are denied social or welfare benefits, and face deportation or being placed in retention. Political protests similar to those by WAH, demanding for a more inclusive asylum policy, have been taking place in other EU member states as well (Freedman, 2009).
Due to the limited resources of WAH, it is important for the group to generate media attention in order to communicate their interests and grievances. Coverage can function as a pressure tactic to put WAH’s issues on the political agenda, which might even be followed by policy change and/or a reversal of return decisions (Vliegenthart & Roggeband, 2007; Ihlen & Thorbjørnsrud, 2014). In addition, media attention helps WAH to raise awareness and to collect practical support for everyday needs, to legitimize their existence, and to create public
acceptance for its ambition to pressure the Dutch authorities to change the asylum system (Gamson & Wolfsfeld, 1993). Besides, as most Amsterdam residents and other Dutch citizens have had little to no personal contact to the collective of failed asylum seekers, people inevitably rely on the media in forming an opinion on this contested issue (Van Gorp et al., 2009).
Framing asylum
Framing theory is a research approach that is used within various academic disciplines and it can therefore be conceptualized in various ways (Van Gorp, 2014). Within the literature of political communication, the definition of framing provided by Entman is often-used (Vliegenthart & Roggeband, 2007): “To frame is to select some aspects of a received reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular definition of a problem, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). The media can thus present a topic or issue in various ways, whereby
certain information is emphasized over other, hereby making it significantly noticeable to the audience. This is referred to as framing (Schuck & de Vreese, 2006; Horsti 2007). Consequently, framing analysis is deployed to examine how the media discusses a certain topic or issue (Van Gorp, 2007).
Previous framing research has shown that a distinction can be made between generic and issue specific frames. Generic frames are ubiquitous and not inevitably connected to any
particular topic. Much research is oriented towards these types of frames. On the contrary, issue specific frames are tailored to a particular context (De Vreese, Peter, & Semetko, 2001). As the current study concerns the particular subject of the news framing of failed asylum seekers, issue specific frames are utilized to examine the media content.
The concerning frames derive from previous research on the news coverage regarding the opening of a refugee center in Belgium (Van Gorp, 2005; 2014). Although this event and the WAH case are not completely comparable, the issue specific frames can nevertheless be utilized, as both situations share resemblances and connect to the larger theme of immigration (Horsti, 2007; Chong & Druckman, 2007). In no particular order, the frames used in this study are: the
intruder frame, the victim frame, the distrust frame, the donor frame, the Not-in-My-Backyard (NIMBY) frame and the Everything-in-the-Garden’s-Lovely (EITGL) frame.
The intruder frame presents the foreign asylum seeker as a villain or profiteer who
deliberatively abuses the asylum system (Van Gorp, 2005). For instance, by suggesting that WAH is as a collective of suspicious and criminal aliens. In addition, this frame tends to refer to asylum seekers as a social threat and stresses illegal acts, such as overstaying in the case of WAH (Horsti, 2007; 2013).
In contrast, the victim frame presents asylum seekers as innocent and vulnerable people in need of protection and help (Nickels, 2007). It refers to asylum seekers as being succumbed to authoritarian power, oppression, dangerous travels and sometimes the injustice of the asylum system of the new country (Horsti, 2013). An example would be criticizing the treatment of WAH by the Dutch authorities and referring to it as inhumane. Next, the victim frame tends to stress that the circumstances asylum seekers live in are due to a force lying beyond their responsibility (Van Gorp et al., 2009). Rather, forces like dangerous home countries or
insufficient acting western countries are the cause. This also gives rise to the portrayal of asylum seekers as being passive, weak and powerless (Van Gorp, 2014). Both the victim and intruder frame have been the focus of previous studies on the framing of asylum seekers, refugees and undocumented migrants in the media (e.g. Van Gorp, 2005; Van Gorp et al., 2009; Horsti, 2007; 2010; 2013).
The distrust frame suggests a strong suspicion against politicians and/or other authorities and resistance to what they communicate. An example would be criticism on the legislative proposal to provide failed asylum seekers with food and an overnight shelter, by arguing that the agreement is incomprehensible, impracticable and a compromise by the coalition government. The frame suggests that politicians, sometimes far away from the physical location of an issue, cannot be trusted and treat the local problem unfairly. Rumors concerning electoral interest and the role of local authorities are also included in this frame (Van Gorp, 2005). For instance, speculations that government parties do not want to modify the asylum policy, out of fear to lose voters.
The donor frame shows the presence of asylum seekers in the community as a provider of unexpected possibilities. Concrete and practical arguments concerning this situation are often
presented within this frame (Van Gorp, 2014). For example, the argument that young members of WAH could offer a counterbalance to the aging population in the Netherlands.
The NIMBY frame refers to the reluctant attitude of authorities and citizens to allow asylum seekers and refugees into the community (Nickels, 2007). On the one hand this can be detected in the protest of locals against the poorly chosen camping and squatting locations by WAH. Here the failed asylum seekers are considered as a problem population. Moving the asylum seekers out of locals’ figurative backyards is the proposed solution. On the other side, authorities and media use the frame to represent the protest of the community as a notorious problem that swiftly surfaced again. In this case, the “narrow-minded prejudice” of the local population is the problem. Here the solution would be to let WAH reside in Amsterdam or somewhere else in the Netherlands (Van Gorp, 2014, p. 84).
Finally, The EITGL frame ignores concrete objections and practical problems concerning the situation. It emphasizes that offering people shelter is not a problem when everybody just takes a little responsibility and that it is enough to show solidarity and become hospitable, and tolerant (Van Gorp, 2014). An NGO arguing that the Netherlands should understand WAH’s situation better and that they should provide help to the group would for instance fit this frame.2
Van Gorp’s previous research with the six frames showed that the presence of these frames in the news reporting on the asylum center was not fixed and changed over time. Around the opening of the center, the distrust frame was much detected in news articles due to conflicts between political actors. Besides, local residents voiced the intruder and NIMBY frames in news articles on the opening of the center. The dominant position of the distrust, intruder and NIMBY frames shifted after anti-refugee protests took place. Subsequently, locals initiated solidarity events after which the lovely and victim frame became dominant in the news (Van Gorp, 2014).
It should also be noted that a single news article can contain multiple frames, or none (Chong & Druckman, 2007). In addition, the chance of detecting a frame in a lengthy news article, such as a feature story, interview or editorial, is bigger than finding a frame in a shorter news item (Van Gorp, 2005). This study examines if and how the six frames are present in the news coverage on WAH.
Frame sponsors in the asylum debate
In conducting a framing analysis, not solely media messages but also the sources consulted and used by journalists can be taken into consideration, as these contribute substantially to news reporting (Van Gorp, 2005). In the media coverage on WAH, multiple agents bring forward their perspectives on the involved problems and promote their own interests (Vliegenthart &
Roggeband, 2007). These agents can be considered frame sponsors (Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes, & Sasson, 1992). Frame sponsors “may strategically try to convince the media to cover a situation in accordance with ‘their’ frame” (Van Gorp 2007, p. 86). In other words, frame sponsors are interested in persuasively directing journalists’ perception and frame selection in their reporting on a certain event (Pan & Kosicki, 1993). In addition, the actors that sponsor a frame will invigorate the issue by trying to define the given problem and by declaring why they consider it important (Van Gorp, 2007; Ihlen & Thorbjørnsrud, 2014). Consequently, different sponsors may promote different frames (Ihlen et al., 2015). As various media outlets often rely on the same information sources, similar frames may emerge in different media, enhancing the persuasive power of frame sponsors (Van Gorp, 2007). However, it should be noted that
although frame sponsors attempt to affect news reporting, ultimately editorial decisions influence if and how their supplied information is used (Ihlen & Thorbjørnsrud, 2014).
Based on previous research on actors in immigration policy protests, five frame sponsors are distinct for the WAH case. Firstly, ad hoc protest groups in the form of WAH, and activists attached to the collective (Horsti, 2013). Secondly, political actors and bureaucrats, such as political parties, members of parliament and local authorities responsible for asylum policies. Thirdly, local or national Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and legal assistance acting on behalf of WAH and other failed asylum seekers, and taking care for those in special need. Some of these NGOs are specifically involved with human rights, asylum law, religion or humanism. Fourthly, academics specialized in human rights, migration and/or asylum, who use research, reports and public statements to contribute to protests and public debates. Lastly, media
and journalists, as these address the asylum policy and select a certain perspective in reporting
on the issue (Versteegt & Maussen, 2012; Horsti, 2013).
Each of these frame sponsors face different dilemmas in promoting their frames
regarding WAH and the Dutch asylum system (Ihlen et al., 2015). Minority groups, such as the failed asylum seekers from WAH, usually receive little speaking time from the media. This impedes the possibility to share their thoughts in news coverage concerning asylum and immigration (Van Dijk, 1983). Meanwhile government elites and immigration authorities
traditionally have a hierarchic position as resources (Ihlen et al., 2015). These actors are however often bound to emphasize the rules and regulations regarding immigration in the media
(Freedman, 2009). Yet, political actors in European countries often weight the asylum question against legal and administrative concerns. They therefore tend to struggle between a more severe asylum policy out of national interest, and a looser one out of humanitarian interests (Nickels, 2007). NGOs are increasingly considered strategic communicators and skilled sources in the daily-newsgathering process (Ihlen et al., 2015). However, NGOs might be restrained in their
public criticism towards government policy and their support and militancy for WAH, due to collaboration with authorities in administering asylum seekers and arranging accommodation (Freedman, 2009).
Next, frame sponsors promote different problem definitions, causes and solutions (Entman, 1993). Political decision-makers and immigration authorities typically present the overstay of failed asylum seekers as illegal and as undermining the asylum system. These actors however do sometimes recognize that the law can have unfortunate consequences for people. NGOs and other interest groups often argue that the immigration policy is too strict and that more liberal practices in the current asylum policy are required, in order to stop humanitarian and social problems for failed asylum seekers. In addition, NGOs and other interest groups often point to the emphasis of media and political actors on the illegal status of failed asylum seekers, for instance by using counter arguments such as ‘no human being is illegal’ or by stressing that irregulars just ‘want to live a normal live’ as well (Ihlen et al., 2015). Asylum seekers more particularly stress the negative consequences of and their fear for returning to their home countries. Besides, they emphasize how immigration authorities neglect or overlook these worries in their asylum application process and the subsequent rejection (Freedman, 2009). Taken together, this shows that issues concerning immigration and asylum seeking have a polarizing character (Van Gorp et al., 2009). This study looks at the presence of frame sponsors in the news coverage on WAH and how these sponsors relate to the different frames.
Conclusion and expectations
This study is interested in the framing of WAH in the news. Drawing on the theoretical framework, as outlined in the above sections, several hypotheses can be formulated.
H1: The intruder and victim frames will be more present than the other frames.
Previous research demonstrates that asylum seekers, refugees and undocumented migrants are stereotypically presented as respectively intruders and victims (e.g. Van Gorp 2005; Horsti, 2007; 2013). It is therefore expected that the intruder and victim frames will be detected in the news coverage selected for this study. The frames will not necessarily be in competition with each other, thus separately presented, but the frames can appear entangled to one another (Horsti, 2013). As no follow up research has been done on the four other frames proposed by Van Gorp, it is unsure if and to what extent the distrust, donor, NIMBY and EITGL frames will be detected in the news coverage.
H2: The presence of news frames changes over time. As aforementioned, news frames
are not fixed and may change over time, or even compete with one another as time goes by and various events happen (Chong & Druckman, 2007). It is therefore expected that the presence of frames in the news will change during the extensive period of coverage on WAH.
H3: Respectively, political actors, NGOs and WAH will sponsor news frames most.
In the interaction with media and journalists, government elites and immigration authorities appear to have the most chance to be used as a resource. Next are NGOs, which are increasingly considered as a source by reporters (Ihlen et al., 2015). As a minority group, failed asylum seekers will probably be given only little speaking time in the news coverage (Van Dijk, 1983). Taken together, it is expected that this study will find a variance in the presence of frame sponsors in the news.
H4: Political actors sponsor the intruder frame, NGOs and WAH sponsor the victim frame. Where earlier studies showed that political decision-makers typically stress the illegality
emphasize that some people cannot go back to their home countries and that these people are looking for a safe haven to live a humane life (Ihlen et al., 2015). It is therefore expected that political decision-makers, i.e. the Dutch coalition government and municipality of Amsterdam, promote the intruder frame, in which illegal acts are accentuated and asylum seekers are
presented as villains. NGOs and WAH will expectedly promote the victim frame, which presents asylum seekers as vulnerable people who need help. However, as no previous research has been conducted on the connection between frame sponsors and the six proposed news frames, it is hard to predict correlations between the different frames sponsors and the six frames.
Method Research design
This study conducts a longitudinal quantitative content analysis in order to investigate how the case of WAH is framed in the news. Dutch newspapers were chosen as sampling units, since these media outlets are considered significant in shaping political opinion (Van Gorp et al., 2009). More pragmatically, newspapers make it accessible to compare news coverage across media outlets and over time, in order to capture general framing trends. The units of analysis are individual and entire news articles. These were coded on the presence or absence of the frames.
Selection of research units
The content analysis was carried out on a sample of articles from four Dutch daily newspapers:
De Telegraaf, de Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblad and Het Parool. Together these represent the
diversity of dailies in the Dutch newspaper landscape. De Telegraaf has the highest circulation rate and holds a populist-conservative reputation. NRC Handelsblad and de Volkskrant are the
most widely read quality newspapers (Bergman, 2013; HOI Institute for Media Auditing). These are less sensationalist and more sober than De Telegraaf (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). NRC Handelsblad is regarded as a centrist or right-of-center daily, whereas de Volkskrant is
considered a secular newspaper with a political left-of-center view (Bergman, 2013). All three dailies have an editorial office based in Amsterdam, which makes it likely that they all reported on WAH to a considerable extent. Het Parool is an Amsterdam focused regional newspaper that started out as a resistance paper during World War II (Laarman, 2013).
The news articles were accessed using the LexisNexis digital database. News articles related to We Are Here and/or the temporary shelters of the group3 and/or the new policy on providing basic services for the group of failed asylum seekers in Amsterdam were included in the article selection. As a result, a total of 403 articles fitted the requirements. 228 articles from Het Parool, 73 from De Telegraaf, 53 from NRC Handelsblad and 49 from de Volkskrant were included in the sample.
The timeframe of the study stretches from the week in which WAH presented itself (3 September 2012) to the end of the week in which the Dutch coalition government agreed on a solution for the group and the first responses on this agreement (26 April 2015) (see figure 1). This entire timeframe is chosen, as it would be methodologically inappropriate if solely news coverage around key events would be examined (Vliegenthart & Roggeband, 2007). Key events have a more direct effect on the amount of media coverage, than real-world developments (Scheufele, 2004; Vliegenthart & Boomgaarden, 2007). Incidents and conflicts are for instance events on which media reporting tend to focus (Van Dijk, 1983). After important events, subsequent happenings have a bigger chance of being covered by the media as well (Brosius &
3 E.g. Diaconie, Notweg, Vluchtkerk, Vluchtflat, Vluchtkantoor, Vluchthaven, Vluchtgarage, Vluchtmarkt,
Vluchtopvang, Vluchtschool, Vluchttoren, Vluchtopvang and Vluchtgebouw. The group of failed asylum seekers is often identified or equalized with the name of the temporary shelter they reside.
Eps, 1995). In addition, events can influence the presence of frames in news coverage, both in duration and size. Previous research however indicates that it is quite unpredictable if an event will cause a subtle or strong frame shift, or change the frame for a limited period of time or permanently (Vliegenthart & Roggeband, 2007). Mapping the news reporting on WAH both during real-world developments and at key events makes it possible to properly examine the development of the use of frames (Van Gorp, 2007).
Figure 1. Amount of news articles on the WAH case between 3 September 2012 and 26 April 2015
Measures of content analysis
The representative sample of news articles from the four national newspapers was coded on the presence and absence of the aforementioned six frames. These frames derived from a qualitative inductive content analysis by Van Gorp (2005). The current study provides an extension to this research. In Van Gorp’s inductive framing analysis, a small sample of news articles was
extensively analyzed with an open view in an attempt to identify possible frames. Next, loosely defined preconceptions of these frames were made (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). For the current study, a matrix of operationalized framing indicators was created based on these
preconceptions. These indicators consist of the main reasoning and framing devices identified by Van Gorp. A frame can be considered as a package composed out of a cluster of reasoning and
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 03-09-12 03-10-12 03-1 1-12 03-12-12 03-01-13 03-02-13 03-03-13 03-04-13 03-05-13 03-06-13 03-07-13 03-08-13 03-09-13 03-10-13 03-1 1-13 03-12-13 03-01-14 03-02-14 03-03-14 03-04-14 03-05-14 03-06-14 03-07-14 03-08-14 03-09-14 03-10-14 03-1 1-14 03-12-14 03-01-15 03-02-15 03-03-15 03-04-15 De Telegraaf (73) NRC Handelsblad (53) de Volkskrant (49) Het Parool (228)
framing devices characteristic for that specific frame (Van Gorp, 2007). Reasoning devices concern the narrative structure of news: what is defined as the problem, who is assigned responsibility, which possible solutions are reached and what moral claims are made (Entman, 1993). Framing devices concern linguistic and visual elements, such as metaphors, terminology and other use of vocabulary (Chong & Druckman, 2007). As this study focuses on the textual part of news articles, and not the visual elements, the focus will be predominantly on the
reasoning devices rather than the framing devices. In addition, previous research has shown that typically reasoning devices cohere better than framing devices (Van Gorp, 2005).
To measure the extent to which the framing and reasoning devices appear in the news articles, a series of analytical questions was developed (see table 1).4 Additional questions concerning sources and frame sponsors were also included in the codebook. The news articles from the four national newspapers were coded on the presence and absence of this predefined set of framing indicators. In analyzing the prominence of the reasoning and framing devices, a binary scale was used for each indicator, reaching from a minimum value of zero (not present) to a maximum of one (present). As this study has an exploratory approach towards measuring the existence of the six frames, it primarily focuses on the presence of the various reasoning and framing devices, instead of reconstructing the expected frame packages. Besides, a single news article does not necessarily have to include all frame indicators in order for a frame to be present in the article (Entman, 1993). This framing analysis examines if the reasoning and framing devices occur in news articles and if these occur simultaneously, hereby forming latent patterns of meaning (Van Gorp, 2005).
In addition, the codebook also includes questions on the sources used for the news reporting on WAH. Newspapers depend largely on external sources as providers of material,
such as interviews, statements, research and social media. This way, sources influence the
framing in news content. A reasoning device in a news article can for instance originate from a Table 1. Matrix of operationalized items that were identified as indicators of the six frames, plus the
intercoder reliability in Krippendorff’s alpha
Problem definition Responsibility Solution Moral judgment and
emotional basis
‘Foreigners’ are a nuisance Asylum policy A rigid and - Protect own population and/or threat to local reality α = .67 severe asylum α = .66
α = 1 and asylum repatriation - Suspicion and aversion
seekers policy against foreigners
α = .72 α = .66 α = .71
- Possibly criminal foreigners α = .75
Poor people, forced to leave The rich West A lenient and - The moral duty to help your
their home countries, α = 1 efficient needy fellow men
searching for safe haven asylum policy α = .69
α = .83 α = .70 - Compassion
α = .68
- Helpless victim α = .71
Politicians take decisions led Those who are Voice protest - Politicians abuse power and by own interests, which harm in power against status
others α = .72 implicated α =.79
α = .81 α = 1 politician - Distrust, cynicism and
α = 1 anti-political feelings
α = .71
There is no problem at all; Evasion of Grabbing the - The government as donor
the presence of the asylum responsible chances α = 1
seekers creates possibilities actor α = 1 - Thankfulness for the offered
α = 1 α = .71 chances
α = 1
Resistance against the Local population - The asylum - Not taking own people
residency of the asylum α = 1 seekers can into account
seekers and authorities stay α = 1
α = .73 α = .72 α = .70 - Egoism and narrow minded
- The asylum prejudice of population seekers have α = 1
to go - Sense that population is
α = .81 suffering injustice
α = 1
Lack of solidarity and Local population Relieve the - Hospitality, tolerance, etc.
hospitality α = 1 pain by α = .73
α = .79 reaching out - Feelings of solidarity
for others α = .72 α = .81
source that is included in the news. For instance a politician stating that failed asylum seekers should return to their home countries or a NGO arguing that asylum policies should be more
NI M B Y fr am e fra m e Dist rust frame In tr ud er fr am e Vic tim frame EI T GL fr ame Donor frame
humane. Consequently, sources contribute positively in the evocation of a frame. Both the origin of a statement in the news story and the prominence it has been given by the journalist should be included in the analysis, as these are part of the framing process (Van Gorp, 2010). The
indicative questions therefore focus on the various sources and their significance. In doing to, it is only possible to consider the sources explicitly referred to in the news articles (Van Gorp, 2005).
The instructions for the coding procedure were strictly formulated. Operationalized definitions of the variables were given and examples of codes and non-codes for variables were provided. This should have limited the space for ambiguous and free interpretation, which controlled for the reliability of the coding. The use of a deductive codebook makes the study easily replicable. Since manual coding was used, an intercoder reliability test was calculated with Krippendorff’s alpha (Bryman, 2012). The test was conducted on a subsample of fifty randomly chosen newspaper articles and yielded satisfactory results (See table 1).5
Results
The WAH case study is located on a local and national level, which recurs in the news coverage (see table 1, appendix 3).6 The news articles on WAH primarily focus on the local (91%) and, to a lesser extent, national level (18%). However, the subject of overstaying failed asylum seekers is also affiliated to the contemporary immigration debate in Europa. Yet, only a small amount of news articles refers to the European level (6%). This shows that news reporting barely fits the WAH case into a European framework of rising asylum applications, illegal overstay and
5 Framing devices that yielded unsatisfactory results were either adjusted and recoded by the researcher and intercoder, or removed from the codebook. It should be noted that it is not unusual that the intercoder reliability for the presence of reasoning and framing devices does not reach the same level as questions focusing for instance on the news genre or word frequencies (Van Gorp, 2005). For all intercoder reliability results see appendix 2. 6 For the extensive data collection see appendix 3.
policies concentrating on regulation and control.
Next, moving to a new location gave rise to most news reporting on WAH (13%). Regarding the activities of WAH, evictions (11%), protests (7%), temporary stay (7%) and the squatting of accommodations (5%) were considerable news leads, just as concerns about the current situation of the failed asylum seekers (6%). Verdicts with regard to squatting, evictions and criminal activities (9%) gave also cause to news reporting. Besides, political statements concerning the issue (8%) and political consolations (5%) on the handling of failed asylum seekers and immigration policy appeared to be newsworthy events as well (see table 2, appendix 3). Taken together, this shows that in the case of WAH media focus largely, but not solely, on incidents and conflicts (Van Dijk, 1983).
Regarding framing devices, in the majority of the newspaper articles multiple terms were used when talking about the members of WAH. The most frequently used terminology was asylum seeker(s) (88%), failed asylum seeker(s) (72%), refugee(s) (38%) and illegal(s) (23%). This shows that the illegality of the overstaying failed asylum seekers is not emphasized in the majority of the news articles. As illegal is associated with criminality, the term was tested for a correlation with the reasoning devices of the intruder frame. The outcome shows that only a positive association was detected between the attribution of responsibility to the Dutch asylum policy and the use of the term illegal(s) (r= .20, p < .001). No correlation was found for the other reasoning devices of the intruder frame. Metaphors were scarcely used in the news reporting on WAH, with exception of the ‘guest house metaphor’ (8%), such as ‘putting a roof above their heads’ or ‘providing asylum seekers shelter’.
Frames over time
The separate reasoning devices belonging to the six frames were analyzed in the news coverage over time. In doing so, it became evident that five timestamps were influential for the news framing (see figure 2). The news coverage on WAH started around the demonstrational camp, the subsequent political debate, eviction of the camp and WAH squatting a next location. This was the initial reporting phase on WAH, in the last quarter of 2012. During 2013 the news reporting focused mainly on the evictions of the buildings where WAH resided, the asylum seekers wandering around the city of Amsterdam, the squatting of new buildings and
demonstrations by WAH. At the beginning of November 2013, news reporting focused on the ruling by the ECSR, which stated that the Dutch government should provide failed asylum seekers with basic services. The end of 2013 and the first half of 2014 were marked by the start of an experimental project called ‘de Vluchthaven’. For this project the government provided shelter to failed asylum seekers, in exchange for cooperation with their return. The experiment did not succeed and the majority of the group did not return to their home countries. Around the end of the project, in the middle of 2014, the amount of news articles increased shortly. The failed asylum seekers returned to the streets and in the first quarter of 2015 the news reporting focused on a reconsidered discussion concerning the Dutch asylum policy. After vigorous debate the government proposed a new plan to provide failed asylum seekers with basic services: the so-called ‘bed-bad-brood’ agreement. This shows that news reporting around both key events and real-world developments are considered in this framing analysis.
Great differences can be distinguished in the detected problem definitions of the frames in the news articles (see figure 2). During the initial reporting phase, the problem definition of resistance against the stay and residence of WAH, part of the NIMBY frame, was mostly present.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 01-09-12 01-10-12 01-1 1-12 01-12-12 01-01-13 01-02-13 01-03-13 01-04-13 01-05-13 01-06-13 01-07-13 01-08-13 01-09-13 01-10-13 01-1 1-13 01-12-13 01-01-14 01-02-14 01-03-14 01-04-14 01-05-14 01-06-14 01-07-14 01-08-14 01-09-14 01-10-14 01-1 1-14 01-12-14 01-01-15 01-02-15 01-03-15 This was followed by the problem definition that the failed asylum seekers fled their unsafe home countries to look for a safe haven, part of the victim frame. Throughout 2013, the problem belonging to the NIMBY frame continued to be mostly present, yet to a considerable lesser extent than in the initial reporting phase. The problem definition of the victim frame was also still noticeably present. Around the ECSR statement, the problem definition of the victim frame shortly transcended the problem definition of the NIMBY frame. However, at the time of de Vluchthaven, the problem definition that asylum seekers are a nuisance, part of the intruder frame, was shortly dominantly detected. When it became clear that the project did not succeed, the problem definition of the NIMBY increased considerably. Shortly thereafter the problem definition of the distrust frame dominated, which emphasizes that politicians took decisions out of their own interest. Finally, around the time of the bed-bad-brood agreement, the problem definition of both the NIMBY and victim frame was most present again. This shows once again the battle that can be detected between on the one hand reporting on the resistance against the stay of WAH and on the other hand reporting on the asylum seekers’ need for a save haven.
Figure 2. Presence of problem definitions in the news reporting over time (N= 403)
initial phase migrating in Amsterdam ECSR statement Vluchthaven bed-bad-brood discussion
Regarding the attribution of responsibility, the initial reporting phase was marked by the failed asylum seekers being hold accountable for causing problems due to their overstay and other inconvenient actions (see figure 3). This is part of the intruder frame. During 2013, a short interchange was detected in the presence of the responsibility attribution to the Dutch asylum policy. This is part of the NIMBY frame and points to the deficiency of the asylum policy, as it does not provide what WAH desires. However, for the rest of 2013 the problem attribution towards asylum seekers was mainly present again. In 2014, when project Vluchthaven did not succeed, the attribution of responsibility towards asylum seekers increased, possibly as the failed asylum seekers did not follow the precondition of cooperating with their return. In addition, for the first time the responsibility towards the Dutch authorities was considerably more present, probably because they introduced the project. Again, around the bed-bad-brood debate, the responsibility was mainly attributed to the Dutch government, probably as it was expected that they would provide a solution for the situation concerning the overstaying failed asylum seekers.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 01-09-12 01-10-12 01-1 1-12 01-12-12 01-01-13 01-02-13 01-03-13 01-04-13 01-05-13 01-06-13 01-07-13 01-08-13 01-09-13 01-10-13 01-1 1-13 01-12-13 01-01-14 01-02-14 01-03-14 01-04-14 01-05-14 01-06-14 01-07-14 01-08-14 01-09-14 01-10-14 01-1 1-14 01-12-14 01-01-15 01-02-15 01-03-15
Intruder frame: asylum policy (122) Intruder frame: asylum seekers (173) Victim frame: rich West (1) Victim frame: home country (74)
Distrust/NIMBY frame: Dutch government (118) Distrust frame: international authorities (15) Donor frame: none (87) EITGL/NIMBY frame: locals (1)
News articles (403)
Concerning the solution, in the initial phase of the news coverage it was dominantly proposed that asylum seekers should leave, either their place of residence or the Netherlands in general. This is part of the NIMBY frame (see figure 4). During 2013, the solution of providing the failed asylum seekers with help, part of the EITGL frame, was predominantly detected in the news. Interestingly, at the time of the ruling of the ECSR, the dominant solution briefly shifted towards the asylum seekers having to leave again. At the time of de Vluchthaven, the proposed solution returned to the NIMBY frame. Shortly after the start of the bed-bad-brood debate, this momentarily shifted towards the solution of letting the asylum seekers stay, also part of de NIMBY frame. However, around the presentation of the bed-bad-brood agreement the proposed solution of the asylum seekers having to leave was dominantly detected again. This is probably because the proposal stated that failed asylum seekers are offered basic services on condition that they cooperate with their departure.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 01-09-12 01-10-12 01-1 1-12 01-12-12 01-01-13 01-02-13 01-03-13 01-04-13 01-05-13 01-06-13 01-07-13 01-08-13 01-09-13 01-10-13 01-1 1-13 01-12-13 01-01-14 01-02-14 01-03-14 01-04-14 01-05-14 01-06-14 01-07-14 01-08-14 01-09-14 01-10-14 01-1 1-14 01-12-14 01-01-15 01-02-15 01-03-15 Intruder frame (5) Victim frame (30) Distrust frame (32)
Donor frame (0) NIMBY frame: stay (31) NIMBY frame: leave (80) EITGL frame (73) News articles (403)
For the moral reasoning devices, a principal component analysis with VARIMAX rotation was conducted in order to investigate if these cluster together (see table 3 and 4, appendix 3). The six separate factor analyses indicated that the moral and emotional basis framing indicators indeed form reliable and unidimensional factors, with exception of the donor frame as too little cases were detected in the news articles (see table 3). In the initial phase of the news coverage on WAH, the moral basis of the victim frame was dominantly present (see figure 5). This encourages the reader to regard asylum seekers as victims in need of compassion and help. At the same time, the moral basis of the intruder frame was also considerably present. This creates suspicion and aversion against asylum seekers, as they are presented as possible
criminals. The presence of both moral bases decreased before the start of 2013. During that year the moral basis of the victim frame is quite constantly present in the news articles. Around the Vluchthaven project a rise of the moral basis of the victim frame is visible. At the time of the bed-bad- brood debate and agreement, the moral basis shifts towards the distrust frame. This suggests feelings of cynicism towards politics, as it indicates the abuse of power by politicians.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 01-09-12 01-10-12 01-1 1-12 01-12-12 01-01-13 01-02-13 01-03-13 01-04-13 01-05-13 01-06-13 01-07-13 01-08-13 01-09-13 01-10-13 01-1 1-13 01-12-13 01-01-14 01-02-14 01-03-14 01-04-14 01-05-14 01-06-14 01-07-14 01-08-14 01-09-14 01-10-14 01-1 1-14 01-12-14 01-01-15 01-02-15 01-03-15 Intruder frame (11) Victim frame (40) Distrust frame (13) Donor frame (0) NIMBY frame (1) EIGTL frame (12) News articles (403)
A possible explanation is that criticism on the proposal mooted that the agreement is a compromise between the coalition parties in order to retain the current government.
In sum, this concise overview shows that the presence of the problem, responsibility, solution and moral reasoning devices can be more or less liable to change, depending on real-world developments and events. The problem definitions originating from the NIMBY and victim frame interchange for dominance over time. Only once the problem definition of the intruder frame briefly transcended. Regarding attribution of accountability, failed asylum seekers, the Dutch government and their asylum policy were alternately hold accountable in the news articles. However, the first transcended the latter two most often. The proposed solutions also showed a stable interchange between the NIMBY and EIGTL frames. Lastly, although the moral basis of the victim frame is considerably more present than the moral bases of other frames, the intruder and distrust frames twice shortly surpass the victim frame. Taken together, this shows that the presence of different reasoning devices shifted during the years of news coverage on WAH, yet not rigorously or permanently. This confirms the hypothesis that the presence of news frames changes over time.
Altogether, the problem definition of the NIMBY frame is found most present followed by the problem definition of the victim frame (see table 3). Interestingly, the problem definition of the NIMBY frame is significantly more present in short news items than the victim frame. On the contrary, the problem definition of the victim frame is significantly more present in lengthy stories, such as feature and opinionated articles, than the problem definition of the NIMBY frame (see table 2). Attributions of responsibility are generally designated to the asylum seekers
themselves, the Dutch government and the Dutch asylum policy. These are respectively part of the intruder and NIMBY frames. Again, for this group of reasoning devices differences
regarding the news article genre are visible. Asylum seekers are significantly more held accountable for problems in news items, whereas the Dutch government and its asylum policy are significantly more blamed in lengthy stories. In terms of proposed solutions, generally the NIMBY and EITGL frames were present in the news. For this reasoning device however, no significance difference is detected in news items and lengthy stories. Lastly, the moral evaluation of the victim frame was most present in the news. This reasoning device is significantly more present in lengthy stories than in news items. An explanation for the difference between the presence of reasoning devices in short news items and lengthy stories is that the latter provide more space to elaborate on different reasoning devices than the first do (Van Gorp, 2005).
Table 2. Mean and standard deviation for the presence of reasoning devices according to news article genre
news item lengthy story
M SD M SD t400
Problem definition
NIMBY frame .35 .48 .18 .38 3.65***
Victim frame .12 .33 .32 .47 4.90***
Responsibility
Asylum seekers (intruder) .47 .50 .36 .48 2.21*
Asylum policy (intruder) .22 .41 .45 .50 4.95***
Dutch government (NIMBY) .24 .43 .38 .39 2.96**
Moral basis
Victim frame .22 .31 .47 .35 7.2***
*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Note: M= mean, SD= standard deviation, (N= 403).
Generally, the reasoning devices of the NIMBY frame are dominantly present in the overall news coverage, seen from the level of the problem definition, attribution of responsibility and in terms of solutions. This debunks the hypothesis that the intruder and victim frames are more present in the news on WAH than the other frames. However, it should be noted that the responsibility and moral reasoning devices of the intruder frame are considerably present, yet the problem and solution indicators were only limitedly found. For the victim frame, the problem and moral reasoning devices were also notably present, yet the responsibility and solution reasoning devices were not (see table 3).
Table 3. Mean and standard deviation for the visibility of reasoning devices in newspaper articles (N= 403)
Problem definition Responsibility Solution Moral and emotional basis
‘Foreigners’ are a nuisance Asylum policy A rigid and - Protect own population and/or threat to local reality .30 (.46) and severe asylum .04 (.20)
.05 (.22) asylum seekers repatriation - Suspicion and aversion
.43 (.50) policy against foreigners
.01 (.11) .24 (.43)
- Possibly criminal foreigners .25 (.43)
Factor mean score: .18 (.29) Eigenvalue: 1.587 (52%) Poor people, forced to leave The rich West A lenient and - The moral duty to help your their home countries, .00 (.05) efficient needy fellow men
searching for safe haven asylum policy .19 (.39)
.20 (.40) .07 (.26) - Compassion
.46 (.50)
- Helpless victim .30 (.46)
Factor mean score: .31 (.35) Eigenvalue: 1.768 (59%) Politicians take decisions led Those who are Voice protest - Politicians abuse power and by own interests, which harm in power against status
others .29 (.46) implicated .04 (.21)
.07 (.25) .04 (.19) politician - Distrust, cynicism and
.08 (.27) anti-political feelings .18 (.39)
Factor mean score: .11 (.24) Eigenvalue: 1.304 (65%) There is no problem at all; Evasion of Grabbing the - The government as donor the presence of the asylum responsible chances .00 (.00)
seekers creates possibilities actor .00 (.00) - Thankfulness for the offered
.01 (.09) .22 (.41) chances
.01 (.12)
Factor mean score: - Eigenvalue: -
Resistance against the Local population - The asylum - Not taking own people residency of the asylum .00 (.05) seekers can into account
seekers and authorities stay .04 (.19)
.29 (.45) .29 (.46) .08 (.27) - Egoism and narrow minded
- The asylum prejudice of population seekers have .04 (.20)
to go - Sense that population is .20 (.40) suffering injustice
.04 (.21)
Factor mean score: .04 (.13) Eigenvalue: 1.235 (41%) NI M B Y fr am e fra m e Dist rust frame In tr ud er fr am e Vic tim frame Donor frame
Lack of solidarity and Local population Relieve the - Hospitality, tolerance, etc.
Hospitality .00 (.00) pain by .23 (.42)
.03 (.17) reaching out - Feelings of solidarity
for others .10 (.30) .18 (.39)
Note: values in parentheses represent standard deviations.
Frame sponsors in the news
Concerning the sources consulted for the news articles, the most directly quoted actors are WAH (30%), the mayor and municipality of Amsterdam (17%) and NGOs and legal assistance (16%). This looks slightly different for the most used indirect sources, which are the mayor and
municipality of Amsterdam (19%), jurisdiction (7%) and the Dutch government (7%) (see table 7 and 8, appendix 3).
Next, regarding the most and second most important resources for the newspaper articles, both WAH (19%) and the mayor and municipality (19%) were mainly detected as most
important sources. The second most important sources in news articles were also the mayor and municipality (13%) and WAH (9%). As explained in the methods section of this study, sources that are explicitly referred to, both consulted and/or literally quoted, are considered frame sponsors. These sources influence the use of frames in the news. Considering the five frame sponsors that are distinguished in the theoretical framework, both the Ad hoc protest group WAH and political actors and bureaucrats, such as the mayor and municipality of Amsterdam, can be regarded as the main frame sponsors in the news reporting on the WAH case. The results partly confirm the hypothesis that respectively, political actors, NGOs and WAH sponsor the news frames. On the one hand, political actors are indeed detected as the main frame sponsors. However on the other hand, not NGOs, but WAH is the second most important frame sponsor.
Factor mean score: .17 (.27) Eigenvalue: 1.047 (52% EI T GL fr ame
When comparing the presence of these two main frame sponsors between the news genres, it is visible that the mayor and municipality sponsor frames significantly more in short news items. On the contrary, WAH sponsors the frames in lengthier stories significantly more (see table 4).
Table 4. Mean and standard deviation for the presence of frame sponsors according to news article genre
news item lengthy story
M SD M SD t400
Mayor and municipality .35 .48 .13 .34 4.93**
We Are Here .16 .37 .33 .47 3.97**
** p < .001. Note: M= mean, SD= standard deviation, (N= 403).
To examine the hypothesis that political actors sponsor the intruder frame, and NGOs and WAH the victim frame, a set of correlation tests was run (see table 5 and 6). Both expected and unexpected results manifested themselves. Concerning the various reasoning devices of the intruder frame, only a significant positive relation was detected between political actors, the attribution of responsibility to asylum seekers and the moral basis of the intruder frame. This shows that political actors, such as the Dutch coalition government and the municipality of Amsterdam, sponsor that failed asylum seekers are hold accountable for the nuisance they cause and that the own population should be protected against this suspicious group. Next, no
correlations were found between the reasoning devices of the victim frame and NGOs as frame sponsors. Significant positive associations were however found between WAH as frame sponsor and the problem definition and moral basis of the victim frame. This reveals the underlying dimension that WAH sponsors that they are victims who fled their unsafe countries in search for a safe haven. In addition, the group of failed asylum seekers also suggests that it is a moral duty of others to show compassion and help them out. In sum, the political actors partly sponsor the intruder frame, just as WAH partly sponsors the victim frame. It is however not demonstrated that NGOs sponsor the victim frame as well.
Table 5. Correlation coefficients values (Pearson’s R) between intruder frame and political actors (N= 403)
Intruder frame Frame sponsor
political actors
Problem definition .053
Responsibility: asylum seekers .212**
Responsibility: asylum policy .194
Solution .049
Moral basis .106*
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01.
Table 6. Correlation coefficients values (Pearson’s R) between victim frame and NGO/WAH (N= 403)
Victim frame Frame sponsor
NGO WAH Problem definition .056 .149** Responsibility -.019 .082 Solution .006 -.024 Moral basis .093 .115* Note: *p < .05, **p < .01.
Discussion and conclusion
This study investigates the framing of We Are Here in the Dutch Media. This collective of overstaying failed asylum seekers disrupted the invisibility they lived in by publicly protesting for a more inclusive asylum policy. More than two years of newspaper articles were deductively analyzed based on six predefined issue specific frames drawn from previous inductive research by Van Gorp (2005), namely the intruder, victim, distrust, donor, NIMBY and EITGL frames. The outcome of the study shows that WAH is mostly framed on the basis of reasoning devices from the NIMBY frame. This frame emphasizes the resistance against the residency of failed asylum seekers. The Dutch authorities are attributed responsibility, due to their inadequate decision-making. The proposed solution is that the group of failed asylum seekers has to leave. Framing devices of the intruder and victim frame are also considerably present in the news coverage. Concerning the first, feelings of aversion against WAH are invoked, as the news reporting emphasizes that asylum seekers break the law by overstaying in the Netherlands and by squatting people’s property. The problems caused by this situation are attributed to the asylum seekers and the insufficient Dutch asylum policy. On the contrary, news articles containing the
victim frame stress the problem that the failed asylum seekers fled their unsafe home countries and now search for a safe haven. Members of WAH are presented as victims in need of
compassion and help. The detected reasoning devices, part of different frames, are
predominantly sponsored by the mayor and municipality of Amsterdam and the ad hoc protest group WAH. These actors have been given most opportunity by journalists to bring forward their perspectives and promote their own interests.
When dividing the result between shorter news items and lengthier news stories, such as features and editorials, it becomes evident that the problem definition of the NIMBY frame and the responsibility attribution of the intruder frame, are most present in the news items. In addition, the mayor and municipality of Amsterdam are most present as frame sponsor in news items. These emphasize the resistance against the residency of failed asylum seekers in the Netherlands and hold WAH accountable for the troubles caused by their overstay. On the
contrary, in lengthier stories the problem definition and moral basis of the victim frame are most suggested, plus the responsibility attributions of the intruder and NIMBY frames. In addition, WAH is dominantly present as the frame sponsor of lengthier stories, stressing that they are victims of unsafe countries in need for help, which is not provided by the Dutch authorities and their asylum policy. A reason for this difference between the frames and sponsors in shorter news articles and longer stories might be that the latter provides more space to elaborate, thus containing more reasoning devices and sources, than short news items do (Van Gorp, 2005).
No previous deductive framing study has demonstrated that issues of immigration are framed according to the NIMBY frame. The detected presence of the intruder and victim frame is however in line with prior studies, which showed that asylum seekers are stereotypically presented in terms of intruders and/or victims (Van Gorp, 2005; Horst 2007; 2013). The analysis
shows that the WAH case is not framed in one way. Empirical evidence was found that different reasoning devices were present in different points in time. News articles do not necessarily have to include all reasoning devices for a frame to be present, and the results confirm that news frames were not equally present in the reporting in WAH (Entman, 1993). The NIMBY, intruder and victim frame appeared to be both in competition with each other and entangled to one another at different points in time and related to both real-world developments and key events. This is in line with previous research, which showed that news frames are not fixed and can change over time, either in a subtle or more radical manner (Chong & Druckman, 2007; Vliegenthart & Roggeband, 2007).
Finally, the results concerning frame sponsors both confirm and deviate previous
research. Despite being a minority group, the failed asylum seekers of the WAH collective were one of the two main frame sponsors in the news. This outcome is remote from earlier research, which argued that minority groups such as asylum seekers are given little speaking time in the media (Van Dijk, 1983). A possible explanation is that WAH is actively looking for media attention in their protest against the current Dutch asylum policy. In addition, the group of asylum seekers is easy approachable in their daily presence on the streets of Amsterdam. Consequently, WAH got the opportunity to communicate their interests and grievances in the news, such as their worries of returning to their home countries. The next main frame sponsor is the mayor and municipality of Amsterdam. This result was expected, as government elites appear frequently as an important source in the news, emphasizing legal concerns and national interests (Nickels, 2007; Ihlen et al., 2015). Interestingly, NGOs do not seem to have a major role as frame sponsor in the news reporting on the WAH case. This is unexpected as previous research argued that NGOs are increasingly considered as useful sources by media (Ihlen et al.,
2015). In the particular case of WAH, NGOs might possibly be restrained in their criticism toward the asylum policy, due to their collaboration with authorities in administering asylum seekers and arranging accommodation (Freedman, 2009).
Strength and limitations
This study contributes to the widely discussed topic of immigration and asylum and adds to the existing literature on news processes and framing related to these subject matters. For instance, by showing that asylum seekers are not dominantly framed in terms of intruders and victims. The outcome learns that times of rising asylum applications, intensified asylum regulations and illegal migrants becoming a growing category in EU member states, possibly changes the news reporting and framing of asylum and immigration issues (Freedman, 2009). Next, this study provides the possible impression that the Dutch audience is given on the WAH case by the media. Most Amsterdam residents and other Dutch citizens have had little to no personal contact with the collective of failed asylum seekers. People therefore inevitably rely on media coverage in creating an understanding of this much-debated issue (Van Gorp et al., 2009). As framing can possibly affect public opinion, framing analyses such as this study are of relevance (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007).
The deductive content analysis approach made it possible to cope with a large sample of news articles and to investigate differences in framing between and within media (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). Investigating the WAH case over a long period of time contributed to the reliability of the research results. It made it possible to show relationships between frames, frame sponsors and news reporting over time. The use of a deductive codebook, with clear
conceptualizations, makes the study easily replicable. This also contributes to the reliability of this study (Bryman, 2012).
Nonetheless, some critical remarks can be made. This empirical study is situated on the local and national context of Amsterdam and the Netherlands. In addition, news coverage varies across different outlets and countries. The results are therefore not sufficient for generalizing and firm conclusions. Further research is needed in order to transcend the particular case of WAH. For example with corresponding case studies from within Europe, to fit the topic into a European framework of rising asylum applications, illegal overstay and policies concentrating on
regulation and control. This would also assess whether the six frames by Van Gorp can be detected in other case studies and in the content of other media outlets as well. Next, although this study shows how the WAH case is framed in the Dutch news, how it affects the audience’s understanding of the topic is disregarded. Relevant additional research could therefore focus on the possible effects of the news frames on public opinion. Finally, this study looks at how frame sponsors influence news reporting on the WAH case. It however sidestepped that ultimately editorial decisions by journalists and others influence if and how the supplied information of frame sponsors is used (Ihlen & Thorbjørnsrud, 2014). Possible follow-up research could focus on the working procedure of journalists. For instance by investigating how sources are selected, consulted and referred to, or what possible motives underlie journalists’ frame and source
selection in their reporting on immigration and asylum issues. This could perchance also provide an insight in the difference between the presence of frames and sponsors in short news items and lengthier stories, as detected in this study.
References
Actiegroepen demonstreren woensdag tegen illegalenakkoord. (2015, April 26). Het Parool. Retrieved from
http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/4/AMSTERDAM/article/detail/3981662/2015/04/26/Actiegro epen-demonstreren-woensdag-tegen-illegalenakkoord.dhtml
Bergman, T. (2014). Following Washington’s lead The Dutch press on the run-up to the war in Iraq. International Communication Gazette, 76(2), 109-127. doi: 10.1177/1748048513504164 Brosius, H. B., & Eps, P. (1995). Prototyping through key events News selection in the case of
violence against aliens and asylum seekers in Germany.European Journal of Communication,
10(3), 391-412. doi: 10.1177/0267323195010003005
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th edition). Oxford university press.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
d'Haenens, L., & De Lange, M. (2001). Framing of asylum seekers in Dutch regional newspapers. Media, Culture & Society, 23(6), 847-860. doi: 10.177/0163443010236009 De Vreese, C.H. Jochen Peter, Holli A. Semetko, C. (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. doi: 10.1080/105846001750322934
Entman, R.M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43(4). 51-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
European Commission (2014). A Common European Asylum System. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2837/6593
