Have Politicians Become Entertainers?
How the British press covered and evaluated the candidates of the
2016 American election
Sanna Yekta
Student number 11108525 Master’s Thesis
Masters in entertainment communication Supervisor: Renske van Bronswijk Graduate School of Communication Master’s program Communication Science
Abstract
Framing of news messages has commonly been used in the media to generate greater audience appeal. This study hopes to add to existing research on news framing by studying media depiction of a political election. The aim of the study is two-fold. First, articles mentioning the political candidates are examined to assess whether they are mentioned more in soft news or in substantial news-contexts. Secondly, differences in candidate portrayal are analyzed based on the political leaning of the newspapers. Both analyses are carried out trough a content analysis of articles of four different newspapers. The findings show that soft news framing was the most prominent frame, regardless of political affiliation and character (tabloid or broadsheet) of the newspaper, and additionally, most portrayals of the political candidates where of unfavorable nature. Furthermore, an association was found between high prominence of unfavorable portrayals and use of soft news, which indicated that candidate scrutiny in newspapers with opposing political values is mainly centered around the character and personality, and less so on the political standpoint of that candidate.
Introduction
The media has commonly been appointed a central role in modern democratic societies for spreading adequate political knowledge to the public, both by depicting the words of political representatives, and by including interpretations of these. By this account, newspapers have the power to raise questions and act as a platform for public discourse. Within the field of framing theory, it has long been proposed that news producers will actively adjust and frame news content in ways that will attract greater audience appeal as a reaction to competition. Consequently, many researchers have studied trends and effects of exposure to frames in political news coverage (Baum, 2002; Caprara & Zimbardo, 2004; Garzia, 2011; Langer, 2007; MacGregor, 2007; Patterson, 2000; Prior 2007; Reinemann, Scherr & Legante, 2012; Vu, 2014).
A key focus amongst researchers of political news has been on the soft news frame (Baum, 2005; Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Patterson, 2000; Iyengar, Norpoth & Hahn, 2004; Scammell, 2005), which denotes news that has added entertaining elements to the information. The frame is proposed to have emerged as a response to an increasingly competitive media landscape (Curran et al., 2009; Gasher, 2000), enforced by the emergence of the Internet, which has led to a greater availability of news (Valkenburg, Peter & Walther, 2016). Thus, it is supposed that news producers have adapted the content they publish in order to make it more appealing for their audience (MacGregor, 2007; Vu, 2014).
Soft news can include humoristic elements, focuses on personal adjectives, and favors sensationalized news. By using these elements, the news are getting closer to entertainment media and further from substantial political coverage. While there are scholars that previously have examined framing of media content, this study focuses on the comparison of the framing in tabloid and broadsheet newspapers. This dynamic is relevant to study since there are different expectations on the level of hard news depending on the quality character of the newspaper. By examining the extent that political candidates are mentioned in soft news articles, this study gives further insight to political news coverage.
Previous studies have indicated that politicians are often assessed by their characteristics and personality in the news, rather than for the political values they represent, a trend that is reinforced by the media to sell issues, and is encouraged by politicians, whom adjust to the trend to get news coverage. (Baum, 2005; Baumgartner, Morris & Coleman, 2015; Garzia, 2011; Groshek & Al- Rawi, 2013). Yet, assuming that personal politics and soft news framing benefits the politician is questionable.
Studies are indicating that negativity in candidate portrayal is highly prominent in political depictions (Cho & Ha, 2012; Vliegenhart, Boomgaarden, Van Aelst & De Vreese, 2010), especially towards candidates affiliated with parties of opposing political leaning. However, few studies have studied whether there is a connection between raised negativity levels and personal politics framing. By giving further attention to variances in portrayals in newspaper with different political leanings, we can learn more about how politicians and issue standpoints are portrayed in the media, and look deeper in to how media influences public perception of politicians
The aim of this study is to scrutinize the current state of political reporting systems in advanced (post)industrial democracies. In order to study this, a recent political event was chosen, namely the 2016 presidential election in the United States, and analyzed from an external perspective, British media, since this would ensure that any coverage of the political event excluded persuasive intentions. Furthermore, Britain is an interesting media model to study since their media system features both the public service model and the liberal market model. The British public service flagship BBC is both amongst the largest in the world and has the objective to keep the public adequately informed. Besides the BBC, the media is largely owned by private actors, which, due to increased competition, has noticeably increased its focus on soft journalism (Curran, Iyengar, Lund & Salovaara-Moring, 2009; Vliegenthart, 2010). Recent literature suggests an increase in game and strategy coverage of elections in British press (Vliegenthart, 2010). Moreover, British media makes an interesting arena for this analysis, due to recent political events in the country, such as Brexit, which can have an effect on the media discourse. There has been a recent right-wing political wave in the country, which inherently, could have an effect in the media depiction of political events. Because of the partly private and market driven nature of the British media, most newspapers are affiliated with a political ideology, indicating that partisan depictions of political events might occur. Previous studies have found that the conflict frame is a common feature of elections news found in the British press, which could be an outcome of their liberal media model (Dimitrova & Strömbäck, 2012).
This study intends to examine the coverage of the 2016 American election in newspapers in the United Kingdom in order to estimate whether the political candidates are mentioned more in soft news or in substantial news-contexts. This study hopes to generate a greater insight into the factual foundations that individuals base their
democratic foundation of many (post)-industrial societies with mixed media systems are standing on. To do this the study looks at two tabloid newspaper and two broadsheet newspapers through a content analysis including 500 articles. Secondly, the study utilizes the same dataset to examine the candidate portrayal in the different newspapers in contrast, with their political affiliation.
RQ1: Is there a difference in the framing context that political candidates of the
2016 American elections are mentioned in UK media, depending on the tabloid or quality character of the newspaper?
RQ2: Based on the political leaning of a newspaper, are political candidates
portrayed differently in UK newspapers?
Theory
Newspaper characteristics and entertainment based media
In comparison to other media forms, the newspaper have commonly been assumed to offer qualitatively better coverage of political news. However, whether the assumption upholds in today’s context is a question in need of further investigation. Previous studies have suggested that newspapers, in fact, are not of higher quality than other media outlets (Druckman, 2005). Effectively, this raises questions of the quality of contemporary political news depiction.
Amongst the main trends identified within political news coverage, the personal politics frame has surfaced (Caprara & Zimbardo, 2004; Garzia, 2011; Langer, 2007). The literature suggests a preference for depicting the politician as a subjective individual, rather than as an anonymous spokesman for a political standpoint. Modern media, including television, newspapers, and social media sites, have become vehicles for the distribution of candidate images and personalized politics. This is partly enforced by audience appeal, which has found a particular preference for physical representations of a political ideology (Mazzoleni, 2010). News items using the personal politics frame have an increased attention towards appearances, characteristics, actions and personal issues that have no direct relation to politics (Garzia, 2011).
Studies suggest that the common denominator amongst individuals with associated political preferences is more frequently linked to the personal attributes and
characteristics amongst a given group, for instance; gender, age and interests, rather than the ideological position. Thus, the individual prefer candidates that comply most with the attributes that they identify within themselves, instead of building their choice purely on political ideology. Indicating that non-verbal components are highly significant when evaluating political candidates (Bakker, Roodujin & Schumacher, 2016, Bennett, 2012; Caprara & Zimbardo, 2004; Druckman, 2003; Garzia, 2011).
Humor is often an integral part of the entertainment based political media, and in popular “mock news” shows, such as The Daily Show, political news are being told in humoristics, sarcastic and ironic ways (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Brewer & Marquardt, 2007). Furthermore, politicians are found discussing their personal lives in talk shows (Baum, 2005), and are seen guest-starring in popular TV series (Harmon, 2016). The upsurge of entertainment based political news is encouraged by politicians, partly because they aspire to draw the attention of parts of the public that are not predisposed to seek out political information, and partly because of the changing media environment, which will not guarantee a candidate coverage purely on the basis of their capabilities any longer, implying that they have to adapt their strategy (Baum, 2005; Baumgartner et al., 2015; Garzia, 2011; Groshek & Al-Rawi, 2013).
Correspondingly, entertainment-based media is found to attract a larger audience than purely substantial news stories, which is in the interest of a media producer in a liberal media environment (Patterson, 2000; Iyengar et al., 2004; Scammell, 2005).
While many scholars within media research use the term soft news (Baum, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Prior 2007; Reinemann et al., 2012), the phrase is still largely undefined. It includes the personal politics frame, which has been conceptualized above, the infotainment frame, humor frame and horse race frame. A news item that includes the infotainment frame regularly evolves around trivial events and is commonly framed in a sensational manner. Often, these stories are connected to conflicts, non-politically significant endorsements or mention celebrities (Bennett, 2005; Freelon & Karpf, 2014; Jebril, Albæk & de Vreese, 2013; Patterson, 2000; Prior, 2007). An article including the humor frame is often written in an informal tone and contains elements of sarcasm, irony, self-deprecation, jokes and use of offensive language (Papacharissi, 2007). Finally, the horse race frame is used during election campaigns and tends to portray these as a thrilling competition by mentioning polls, referring to winners and losers or talking about campaign activities (Scammell, 2006, Iyenegar et al., 2004). Substantial political news is conceptualized by Scammell (2006) as stories that portray any level of
welfare and social issues. Reviewing soft news
A key focus amongst studies on election coverage within the media has been on identifying the most salient frames and the tone of the news (Patterson, 2000). Previous studies have indicated lower levels of coverage on substantial issues in comparison to non-substantial coverage (Adriaansen, van Praag & de Vreese, 2010; Scammell, 2005). Further, in those instances that political standpoints were cited, the articles rarely included any elaboration or discussion concerning these. This finding is problematic since it indicates that individuals are not assessing political candidates based on their issue stances, but on character evaluation (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007).
Scholars who have taken a positive stand on the emergence of soft news are arguing that it contributes to raise political awareness amongst the audience. They claim that it appeals to a greater number of individuals; raises civic engagement; and in some cases, leads individuals to change their opinion (Cao & Brewer, 2008; Freelon & Karpf, 2014).
On a broader scale, it may have weakened the underpinnings of democracy by not sufficiently problematizing political standpoints (Gasher, 2000; Patterson, 2000; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). Scholars are accusing the media of overlooking issue coverage, and by doing so affecting the ability of individuals to make informed political decisions (Boomgaarden, Vliegenthart & de Vreese, 2011; Caprara & Zimbardo, 2004; Garzia, 2011). The core of democracy builds upon the notion that the populace is adequately informed to make educated decisions about their political standpoint, which emphasizes the importance of issue coverage (Boomgaarden et al., 2011; Curran et al., 2009). By keeping certain topics salient, the media has an inherent power to influence the public agenda by deciding what is politically relevant, and thus also influence the level of knowledge amongst the populace (Habermas, 2006; McCombs & Shaw, 1972).
Furthermore, research indicates that soft news has led to a rise in distrust of media and lead to cynicism towards the political establishment; this outcome is particularly salient when media messages are framed in a negative manner (Adriaansen et al., 2010; Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Price & Stroud, 2005; Semetko, & Valkenburg, 2000). It is important to further research this topic, since cynical and pessimistic perceptions of politics has been found to be negatively related to the willingness to vote and discuss politics (Schyns & Nuns, 2007). In contrast to other scholars, Druckman and Nelson (2003) state that media framing in itself does not moderate the general level of political knowledge; rather it is controlled by to the availability of appropriate knowledge.
Hence, they argue that the presence of soft news will not cause a decline in the levels of public knowledge, as long as it coexists with substantial news, indicating that there are no framing effects on the audience. However, previous studies diverge from their findings and argue that frames do in fact affect individual’s perception of a subject (Baum, 2002; Caprara & Zimbardo, 2004; Garzia, 2011; Langer, 2007; MacGregor, 2007; Patterson, 2000; Prior, 2007)
Alongside media framing of political news, political candidates are argued to be contributing to the increased personal politics framing within media by adapting this new media logic into their public self-presentation. They do this for example, by relying more heavily on favorable self- imagery, using pleasing narratives and adapting their rhetoric to the voters they want to attract (Bakker et al., 2016; Caprara & Zimbardo, 2004; Langer, 2007). If political news is in fact less focused on substantial coverage, the individual’s decision to support a specific candidate is influenced by the characteristics and personalities of that candidate, rather than being centered on the correspondence of political values (Boomgaarden et al., 2011).
It is often assumed that the dedication of space to substantial issues in a newspaper is determined by the characteristics of the newspaper, with broadsheet newspapers designating more space for substantial issues than tabloid newspapers (Hallin, 1992; Sparks, 2000; Zoonen, 1998). However, this study intends to investigate whether these assumptions are still accurate in today’s competitive news market. A comparative study can therefore both elaborate on the available research on framing of political news and assess the differences between the broadsheet and tabloid newspapers. The tabloid press has been described as a medium that combines information and entertainment (infotainment), often focusing on scandals and sensationalized news (Hallin, 1992; Sparks, 2000; Zoonen, 1998). Studies on news coverage argue that tabloid newspapers tend to focus more on personalities, infotainment, horse-race framing and humor framing of the news, and less so on substantial issues (Vliegenthart et al., 2010). Studying the present state of political news depiction must therefore include both tabloid newspapers and broadsheet in order to see if there are any major differences in the discourse.
RQ1: Is there a difference in the framing context that political candidates of the
2016 American elections are mentioned in UK media, depending on the tabloid or quality character of the newspaper?
H1a: Substantial issue frame will be included more frequently in broadsheet
newspapers than in tabloid newspapers.
In addition to this, this paper also focuses on the prevalence of soft news framing in the two types of newspapers. Because of increased competition within media, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H2b: There is no difference in soft news framing between broadsheet newspapers
than tabloid newspaper Media bias & candidate portrayal
The contradictory and vague nature of political analysis caused by increased soft news framing, produces an uncertainty amongst the audience. According to the uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975), individuals whom are in a state of uncertainty are more motivated to seek further information in order to reduce the uncertainty caused by the lack of substantial political exchange (Hogg, 2000; Hewstone, Rubin & Willis, 2002). Hence, if people cannot find clear messages within the media that is supposedly non-partisan, the outcome is most likely that the individual will seek answers within partisan media, which will provide them with rationalizations.
Polarization within the media is not a new phenomenon; however, the growth of the Internet and new media has aggravated this and it is estimated that the supply and demand for media sources that have partisan inclinations is greater today than what it used to be (Lelkes, Sood & Iyengar, 2015). The selective exposure theory (Zillmann & Bryant, 1985) postulates that individuals seek out news sources that best align with their own needs and beliefs, which could lead to greater exposure to potentially imbalanced and partisan rhetoric, and ultimately causing increased polarization (Lelkes et al., 2015; Strömbäck, Djerf-Pierre & Shehata 2012; Valkenburg et al., 2016).
Research has shown that individuals are more motivated to consume partisan media when they have negative feelings towards a particular subject (Cho & Ha, 2012). The opinion building of the individual is dependent on the tone and character of the content (Fridkin, Kenney, Gershon, Shafer & Woodall, 2007). Additionally, the effect of the message will be greater since, according to the theory on confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998), the active audience tends to accept messages that are congruent with the own conviction in order to maintain cognitive consistency, and limit the processing of those of incongruent messages (Cho & Ha, 2012; Iyengar & Westwood, 2014; Klayman,
1995; Nickerson, 1998; Schuck, Boomgaarden & de Vreese, 2013; Siegelman & Seigelman, 1984; Valkenburg & Peter, 2016). This reasoning implies that it would be in the interest of partisan media to produce news with negative slants towards the opposition, as this would generate greater engagement amongst their audience. Consequently this dynamic is disposed to increasing the net imbalance of skewed information amongst those who consume partisan media.
Recent literature suggests that the tone within the media has become increasingly negative and emphasizes unfavorable personal portrayals of political candidates (Vliegenhart et a. 2010). Furthermore, it is proposed that there is a greater focus on soft news framing (Iyengar et al., 2004) and favors personal portrayals of political candidates (Garzia, 2011). Conversely, less space is devoted to substantial issue framing. Based on this assessment of the current state of political news content, the occurrence of negative candidate portrayals would not focus on scrutinizing the political standpoint of that candidate, it would rather demonstrate negativity through soft journalism.
It is of interest in this analysis to study the extent of which the political leanings of newspapers affect the depiction of political news. This study follows the expectations of Scammell (2005), who argues that newspapers with a political leaning towards the left would be more favorable towards democratic candidates, and newspapers leaning right would be more favorable towards the republican candidates.
RQ2: Based on the political leaning of a newspaper, are political candidates
portrayed differently in UK newspapers?
H2a: Articles with left-leaning affiliation were more unfavorable towards Trump
than articles with right-leaning affiliation.
H2b: Articles with left-leaning affiliation were more favorable towards Clinton
than articles with right-leaning affiliation.
H2c: When a candidate is mentioned, he or she will most likely portrayed in an
H2d: Unfavorable portrayal of the candidate Donald Trump moderates usage of
soft news framing, so that whenever unfavorability is high there will be a higher prevalence of the soft news frame.
H2e: Unfavorable portrayal of the candidate Donald Trump moderates usage of
soft news framing, so that whenever unfavorability is high there will be a higher prevalence of the soft news frame.
Methodology Quantitative content analysis
In order to test the hypotheses, a content analysis was conducted. Content analyses are used to empirically describe messages of media content in a systematic way that reduces the complexity of a high amount of data (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). By looking for “key-words, stock phrases, stereotyped images, sources of information, and sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgments” (Entman 1993, p. 52) frames can be identified within media messages. Vliegenthart and van Zoonen (2011) argue that by identifying frames, one can assign a meaning to a text based on its interaction and contextualization with other texts. Entman (1993) presented a definition of framing stating: ‘to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation’ (p. 52). Chong and Druckman suggest, “[...] Framing refers to the process by which people develop a particular conceptualization of an issue” (Chong & Druckman, 2007b, p. 104). This suggests that framing of news has the power to affect the way people think about a topic depending on which information is given in the. Data set and random sampling
The selection of newspapers was based on two characteristics, political inclination and whether the newspaper was recognized as a tabloid or quality/broadsheet newspaper. Table 1 gives an overview of the newspapers included in the paper, as well as their affiliation and character. The four newspapers were selected on the basis of their circulation volumes. The chosen newspapers were deemed to be amongst the highest circulating papers within their character group, which was based on whether two factors,
political leaning; right/left, and newspaper characteristics; tabloid/ broadsheet (Turvill, 2015, Wilks-Heeg, Blick & Crone, 2012).
Table 1
Summary of newspapers included in the analysis
Newspaper Political affiliation Character
The Times Conservative Broadsheet
The Guardian Democrat Broadsheet
The Sun Conservative Tabloid
Daily Mirror Democrat Tabloid
After this selection was made, data collection was carried out through the search engine Lexis Nexis. To be included in the sample, articles had to mention either one, or both, of the presidential candidates, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, which were running in the 2016 US election. The dataset was gathered from three different time periods, all consisting of two consecutive weeks starting on a Monday. The first sample was drawn from the month of August, starting on Monday the 1st. This was the first Monday following the date when the republican candidate, Donald Trump, had officially been nominated as the official candidate by the republican party (July 22), and likewise, the democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, was nominated in the democratic convention (July 26) (Andrews, Lai, Parlapiano & Yourish, 2016). Furthermore, the 1st of August is in close connection to the Brexit vote in the UK, which was held on the 23rd of July. The second sample was drawn from four weeks prior to the election, starting from Monday the 10th of October. And the final sample was attained, starting from 21st of November, which was the second Monday after the election. Using a stratified sample allowed the study to see how the coverage within the newspapers changed over time, whether it increased and if there was a change in focus.
In total 871 articles were found after the exclusion of objects that were deemed irrelevant or appeared twice within the sample. In Figure 1 information is given about the spread of the sample, indicating the number of articles found from each newspaper. As seen in the summary, the number of articles published was at its lowest level in the first round of data collection in the case of the Times, The Guardian and Daily Mirror,
and reaching its highest level in the last sample. Divergent from this trend is The Sun, where the highest number of articles was drawn from the second sample.
Figure 1
Summary of articles found at different collection occasions
From the drawn sample a selection was made, consisting of 125 articles per newspaper, using a random sampling conducted through the statistical program R. The one level random sampling was based on lists with the number of articles published in the given timeframe. All relevant articles were assigned a number, starting with the most recently published article for each newspaper, which was given the number one, and so forth back in time. In total, R generated 125 random numbers and the articles with the corresponding number were the ones coded. The random sampling in R can be comprehended in the Appendix 1: Random sampling in R.
Procedure and intracoder reliability
The codebook was the key tool used in this study to analyze the acquired data sample. The purpose of this codebook was to help categorize the articles by content and style through identifying frames that have previously been outlined by researchers. The variables included in the codebook are put together especially for this research and are based on frames that have previously been defined and used by other scholars (see appendix 2: Codebook). The coding of the articles was done through the program Qualtrics and was conducted by one coder. Following the coding procedure an intracoder reliability test was conducted in order to validate the consistency in the coding by ensuring an sufficient level of agreement. 15% of the articles were selected randomly and coded twice (N = 76 articles, N = 19 per newspaper), as suggested by Neuendorf (2002). The reliability check yielded a Cohen’s Kappa of κ = .44 and a percentage of agreement of 89%. This result satisfies the rule of thumb, which indicates
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
N um be r of a rt ic le s The Time The Guardian The Sun Daily Mirror
that a Kappa value between .40 and .75 is a fair to good agreement without interference of chance.
Measures and scale consistency
In the following section the predefined frames are further explained and the measures used in the content analysis are exemplified. A reliability test was conducted to test the internal reliability of the scales, and all frames had a high reliability. Following the scale consistency analysis, the average values of the scales are presented.
Humor frame. Humor is often used together with an informal tone. The frame aims to capture the presence of humor which can be expressed through sarcasm, irony, self-deprecation, jokes and use of offensive language (Papacharissi, 2007). The frame got assessed through five items (M = 1.19, SD = .27) on a two-point scale (1 = No, 2 = Yes, five items, α = .76), such as “Does the story include elements of sarcasm?”. Deleting an item from this scale would only marginally improve Cronbach’s alpha, and hence rejecting a component was deemed unnecessary. A low score indicated a low occurrence of the frame, whereby a high score indicated a high occurrence.
Personal politics frame. This frame emphasizes personal attributes when writing stories about politics or political candidates. This way of writing allows the reader to relate to their political candidates on a more personal level (Bennett, 2012; Caprara & Zimbardo, 2004; Garzia, 2011). The six adapted questions, such as “Does the story talk about their characteristics, behaviors or interests of the candidates or other individuals mentioned in the story?” (M = 1.28, SD = .37) were measured on a two-point scale (1 = No, 2 = Yes, six items, α = .89). A score close to 1 indicated a low occurrence of the frame in the articles, and correspondingly, a score close to 2 represented a high occurrence.
Infotainment frame. In this framing, political news and politicians are depicted the same way news about entertainment would be angled, where entertainment media includes stories focusing on trivial events, incidents or highlight information that the audience is interested in rather than what the audience needs to know (Bennett, 2005; Jebril et al., 2013; Patterson, 2000; Prior, 2007). The frame got assessed through seven items on a two-point scale (1 = No, 2 = Yes, seven items, α = .76) through a series of adapted questions, including “Does the story revolve around a news flash, exposés or sensationalized news?” (M = 1.58, SD = .33). A score close to 1 indicates a low occurrence of the frame and 2 a high occurence.
Horse Race frame. The frame refers to an effort to make the campaigning more exciting by portraying the election as an exciting competition between the contestants (Scammell, 2006, Iyenegar, 2004). The frame got assessed through five adapted items on a two-point scale (1 = No, 2 = Yes, five items, α = .84), such as “Is the election portrayed as a race or a competition between two candidates?” (M = 1.24, SD = .36).
Substantive Issue frame. This frame focuses on the expressed political stands of the individuals of the political candidates, including foreign affairs, the economy, social welfare and social issues (Scammell, 2006). The six adapted questions were assessed through six items on a two-point scale (1 = No, 2 = Yes, six items, α = .78), and included questions such as “Does the story include any political stands communicated by the political candidates?” (M = 1.08, SD = .18). Low scores equal low occurrence, and high scores equal high occurrence.
Favorability frame. The frame indicates whether the article is perceived to be favorable or unfavorable towards one of the presidential candidates. The frame was measured through two items, which assessed the perceived favorability of either presidential candidate on a three-point scale (0 = Neutral/absent, 1 = favorable, 2 = unfavorable). The two questions measured the perceived overall favorability of the democratic candidate, Clinton (M = 0.35, SD = .64) and the republican candidate, Trump (M = 1.66, SD = .72). A score close to 0 indicated that the candidate was either absent from articles of perceived favorably, and a score close to 2 indicated a tendency to portray the candidate unfavorably. A low score indicated a low occurrence of the frame, whereby a high score indicated a high occurrence.
In order to assess the occurrence of soft news, the frames infotainment, humour, personal politics and horse race were combined, which created the soft news frame. The soft news frame included 23 items and had an alpha value of α = .82 (M = 1.30, SD = .29). A score close to 1 indicated a low occurrence of the frame in the articles, and correspondingly, a score close to 2 represented a high occurrence. Removing items in the scale was not necessary, since Cronbach’s alpha is already over the acceptance level.
Results
In the following section the exploratory analysis required to answer the research question and hypotheses will be presented.
The first hypothesis (H1a) expected less substantial issue coverage in tabloid newspapers than in broadsheet newspapers. An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the levels of substantial issue coverage in broadsheet and tabloid newspapers, and the results revealed that the use of substantial issue frame in tabloid newspapers (M = 1.16, SD = .30) was lower than in the broadsheet newspapers (M = 1.31, SD = .39) conditions; t (500) = -4.774, p < .001. Therefore the hypothesis indicating that broadsheet newspapers use more of the substantial issue frame than the tabloid newspapers, is supported.
For H1b, an independent samples t-test was conducted to test if there was a difference between tabloid and broadsheet newspapers in the amount of soft news framing. The results revealed a weak non-significant difference between tabloid (M = 1.28, SD = .32) and the broadsheet newspapers (M = 1.32, SD = .26) conditions; t (500) = -1.55 p = .12. This result confirmed that the broadsheet newspapers did not differ significantly from the tabloid newspaper in soft news framing, and therefore hypothesis 2b can be accepted.
For H2a the relation between political affiliation and favorability for Trump was tested with a chi square test of independence. The results (χ2 (2, N = 500) = 28.71, p < .001) suggest that a higher number of articles with left-leaning affiliation are unfavorable towards Donald Trump than the amount of articles with right-leaning affiliation, which went in line with the hypothesis.
H2b tested the same relation but in regard to the democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. Again a chi square test of independence was conducted and the difference was significant, (χ2 (2, N = 500) = 12.671, p = .002), stating that the articles with a right-leaning affiliation tended to be unfavorable towards Hillary Clinton to a greater extent in comparison to those with left-leaning affiliation.
The next hypothesis (H2c) stated that whenever a candidate is mentioned, he or she will most likely portrayed in an unfavorable manner. First this interaction was tested for Donald Trump through a chi square test and the hypothesis was accepted (χ2 (2, N = 500) = 119.812, p <.001). The test asserted that in 84,4% of the articles in which Trump was mentioned he was portrayed unfavorably. The same relation was tested with the democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. In this instance the hypothesis was denied, (χ2 (2, N = 500) = 261.97, p <.001). As seen in Figure 2, Clinton was only portrayed
either portrayed favorably or absent in the majority of the articles. Clinton was absent in 61% of the articles, which is noteworthy, and amongst the articles she was mentioned, 43.9% were favorable. Trump, on the contrary, was mentioned in 95,6% of the articles and only 4.6% of these were favorable. Overall, the tone towards the candidates in the coded articles was mostly negative or ambivalent.
Furthermore, an independent samples T-test was conducted to see if there was a significant difference in the level of unfavorable portrayal between tabloid (M = .94, SD = .47) and broadsheet newspapers (M = 1.08, SD = .51), which gave a significant result (conditions; t (500) = -3.10 p < .001). This indicates that broadsheet newspapers had a higher frequency of unfavorable portrayal than tabloids. Finally, a chi-square test was carried out to see if there was any difference in the level of unfavorable portrayal depending on the date of sample collection. For the democratic candidate there was a significant difference, (χ2 (4, N = 500) = 57.45, p <.001). However, this difference is mainly explained by the high absence of Clinton in the articles gathered in the last collection date, which was after the date of the election. Regarding the republican candidate Trump, there was no significant difference found χ2 (4, N = 500) = 5.51, p = .24). This indicates that Trump was consistently portrayed in an unfavorable manner.
The final analysis, H2d, tested whether the favorability of either candidate would act as an intervening variable in the already established relationship between type of newspaper and the use of the soft news frame, see Figure 3.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Unfavorable Favorable Ambivalent/neutral
P er ce n t Figure 2
Overall tone in the coverage of the candidates
Clinton Trump
Figure 3
Moderation model for hypothesis 2d & 2e
To test this the PROCESS macro for moderation (model 1) was used in SPSS (Hayes, 2013). The first moderation analysis used the candidate Hillary Clinton as moderator in the association and was revealed to be non-significant (t (500) 1.60, b = .086, se = .05, p = .11). However, as seen in table 2, there is a significant direct effect between favorability of Clinton on soft news framing, indicating that the more unfavorable Clinton is portrayed the more the soft frame is used, but not between type of newspaper and soft news framing.
The second moderation tested whether the same interaction was true for the republican candidate Trump. The test revealed a significant moderation in the interaction (t (500) 2.30, b = .07, se = .23, p = .022).
Table 2
Summary of regression analysis using favorability as mediator
Following this result, I looked at the conditional effects, which indicated a significant moderation in high levels of unfavorability (t (500) 2.12, se = .03, p = .034). This
no direct effect between type of newspaper and soft news framing, which can bee seen in table 2. However, there was a direct effect between the favorability of Trump and the soft news frame, implying that the more unfavorable the candidate is portrayed, the higher the frequency of soft news framing.
Discussion and conclusion
This study adds to a long line of media framing research and on how political elections are depicted. Prior research has indicated that soft journalism has become increasingly prevalent in media content due to increased competition; and based on prominent literature it was expected that tabloid newspapers would to a greater extent use soft news framing, whereas broadsheet newspapers would have a higher degree of the substantial issues frame (Hallin, 1992; Sparks, 2000; Vliegenthart et al., 2010, Zoonen, 1998).
Relying on a content analysis, the study was able to answer two research question. The first, Is there a difference in the framing context that political candidates of the
2016 American elections are mentioned in UK media, depending on the tabloid or quality character of the newspaper?, was studied through the occurrence of two frames,
substantial issue frame and soft news frame. There was a significant difference found in the level of these frames between the two groups, which states that broadsheet newspapers focus more on substantial issues, however, use an equal level of soft journalism to the tabloid newspapers. The second question, Based on the political
leaning of a newspaper, are political candidates portrayed differently in UK newspapers?, was measured through the level of favorability in candidate portrayals and
it was found that there was a significant difference in the portrayal.
The most prominent frame within all the coded articles was the infotainment frame, and the frame with the lowest occurrence was the substantial issue. A finding that ads even more weight to the argument that the media has gained greater focus on entertainment based news, and less so on substantial news. Further, when comparing broadsheet and tabloid newspaper, the results present an equal level of soft news in the two types of newspapers, a finding that goes against previous research. This outcome could be a consequence of an increasingly competitive media landscape (Curran et al., 2009; Gasher, 2000), which forces newspapers to adopt their content to the wants of the audience (MacGregor, 2007; Vu, 2014). However, the evaluation of the substantial issue frame revealed that the broadsheet newspapers had a significantly higher level of
substantial news coverage, a finding that is of great importance since it affirms a crucial difference in the two types of newspapers and reinforces the perception that broadsheet newspapers offer more substantial coverage of political news (Druckman, 2005). Yet, the high prevalence of soft news framing in all units of analysis could have an effect on the public perception of politics, and could suggest that broadsheet newspapers are potentially gaining more resemblance to the tabloid press. The role of the media as a source for adequate information is essential for democracy (Patterson, 2000). Lecheler (2010) discloses that multiple exposures to a frame will have a strengthening effect on public judgment, which goes in line with previous literature arguing that framings does have an impact on public opinion (Baum, 2002; Caprara & Zimbardo, 2004; Garzia, 2011; Langer, 2007; MacGregor, 2007; Patterson, 2000; Prior, 2007). The findings in this study could indicate that the media is altering the individual’s interpretation of politics and is transforming what qualities the individual uses to base their political inclination on, implying a greater focus on characteristics and personalities, and less so on political values.
Besides high levels of soft news framing, it was found that all newspapers tended to prefer unfavorable portrayals of the political candidates to favorable ones. In line with previous research, it was found that the level of unfavorable portrayal was greater towards the candidate with opposing political affiliation, indicating that the political leaning of a newspaper does lead to variation in candidate portrayal. However, it was also discovered that the republican candidate, Donald Trump, was consistently portrayed unfavorably, disregarding the newspaper and date of data collection. Two reasons are identified which could explain this finding; first of, it could indicate that the British right-leaning press did not favor the republican candidate in this specific election. Secondly, parallels are made to the soft news frame. Recent studies on the media attention surrounding Donald Trump during the 2016 election suggest a highly hybridized campaign, which exploited the tendency of media to report controversial and entertaining remarks (Lawrence & Boydstun, 2016). The moderation analysis of candidate Trump presented a significant relation between unfavorable portrayals of the candidate and the use of soft news framing. This indicates the validation of the previously theorized notion stating; not only is there a low level of substantial issue framing in the news content, the content that is published tends to be both unfavorable towards the candidates and focus on soft journalism (Iyengar et al., 2004; Vliegenhart et a. 2010). This implies that any unfavorable portrayal of the candidate Donald Trump
he had entertainment value, rather than scrutinizing and challenging any political discourse expressed by Trump (Lawrence & Boydstun, 2016).
Conversely, when the same moderating analysis was conducted with the democratic candidate Hillary Clinton as the intervening factor, the hypothesis was rejected. An explanation for this could be that Clinton was absent to a great extent in the units of analysis. However, although no significant moderating effect was found, there was a direct effect between unfavorable portrayal and occurrence of soft news framing, which affirms the notion that analysis of political messages expressed by political candidates has taken a secondary position, and instead, greater focus is given to character evaluations and unfavorable dissemination of personal (Vliegenhart et a. 2010). Furthermore, it was found that broadsheet newspapers had a higher frequency of unfavorable portrayal than tabloids. This finding, in combination with the high prominence of soft news framing in the broadsheet articles, adds more weight to the argument that increasing competition in the media landscape has forced news producers to adopt a more entertainment based discourse in political evaluations (Adriaansen, van Praag & de Vreese, 2010; Scammell, 2005).
Although the gap between entertainment media and political news is still big, this study implicates that this divide has become gradually narrower. The way that political news and candidates are being portrayed in newspapers can have consequences for public opinion, political actors and for the democratic process (Habermas, 2006; McCombs & Shaw, 1972), since previous literature has stressed the importance of the media as distributor of knowledge (Boomgaarden et al., 2011; Curran et al., 2009). It is therefore important to have a comprehensive understanding of how political news are depicted in the media, and to apprehend what effects that framing of media messages may have on public perception of an issue and opinion formation.
This study suggests that media framing of political candidates has gained a greater focus on soft journalism and unfavorable portrayals, a verdict that is critical for the progression of democracy in advanced (post)-industrial democracies with mixed media systems. It indicates both a shift in the way the public scrutinizes political candidates, but also suggests that the media might be a driver of partisan political views and an enforcer of audience segmentation.
Limitations and future research
There are some potential limitations to this study that need to be addressed. Using a single country reduces the generalizability of the study vastly. This research draws its conclusions from a single-case, which indicates that the results could be incidental and very much informed by these specific candidates. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the subject, it is necessary to assess the subject by means of a comparative study, which draws parallels between media systems in multiple countries, and builds its analysis around several political events. Furthermore, it would be wise for future research to include a more systematic and in- depth look at substantial issue coverage. In this research, substantial issue coverage has only been addressed to a limited extent. And for this reason, there has been no conclusions drawn on the character and extensiveness of any substantial coverage that might have been prevalent in the coded articles. In addition, future research might focus on analyzing the prominence of soft journalism on a longitudinal scale. This would give further insight to whether, and to what extent, newspapers have changed over the course of a longer time period, and could add to this study’s conjecture stating that newspapers, qualitative (broadsheet) newspapers in particular, have increased use of soft journalism due to increased competition.
While this study has some limitations, it offers both a theoretical and empirical foundation that can be used for future research on framing of politics and candidates.
References
Adriaansen, M. L., Van Praag, P., & De Vreese, C. H. (2010). Substance matters: How news content can reduce political cynicism. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 22(4), 433-457. doi:10.1177/009365027900600106
Andrews, W., Lai, R.K.K., Parlapiano, A. & Yourish, K. (2016). Who Is Running for President? The New York Times. Updated July 26, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/2016-presidential-
candidates.html?_r=0
Bakker, B. N., Rooduijn, M. & Schumacher, G. (2016). This is what Trump supporters and your argumentative uncle have in common. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey- cage/wp/2015/12/23/this-is-what- trump-supporters-and-your-argumentative-uncle-have-in- common
Baum, M. A. (2002). Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review, 96(01), 91-109.
Baum, M. A. (2005). Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 213-234. doi:10.1017/S0003055402004252
Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341-367. doi: 10.1177/1532673X05280074. doi: 10.1080/15377857.2015.1074137
Baumgartner, J. C., Morris, J. S., & Coleman, J. M. (2015). Did the “Road to the White House Run Through” Letterman? Chris Christie, Letterman, and Other-Disparaging Versus Self-Deprecating Humor. Journal of Political Marketing, 1-19. doi: 10.1080/15377857.2015.1074137
Beckwith, J. & Sorscher, N. (2016). Trump and the media: A text analysis. [online] Retrieved from: http://thedataface.com/trump-media-analysis/
Bennett, L. W. (2005). News as reality TV: Election coverage and the democratization of truth. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22(2), 171-177. doi: 10.1080/07393180500093802
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human
communication research, 1(2), 99-112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
Boomgaarden, H. G., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2012). A worldwide presidential election: The impact of the media on candidate and campaign evaluations. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(1), 42-61. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr041
Brewer, P. R., & Marquardt, E. (2007). Mock news and democracy: analyzing The Daily Show. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 15(4), 249-267. doi:10.1080/15456870701465315
Caprara, G. V., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Personalizing politics: a congruency model of political preference. American psychologist, 59(7), 581. Retrieved from: http://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2010/PSY222/um/11678300/Personalizing_Politics_-_A_Congruency_Model_of_Political_Preference__Caprara__Zimbardo_.pdf
Cao, X. (2008). Political comedy shows and knowledge about primary campaigns: The moderating effects of age and education. Mass Communication & Society, 11(1), 43-61. doi: 10.1080/15205430701585028
Cho, J., & Ha, Y. (2012). On the communicative underpinnings of campaign effects: Presidential debates, citizen communication, and polarization in evaluations of candidates. Political Communication, 29(2), 184-204. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.671233
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(04), 637-655. doi:10.1017/S0003055407070554
Curran, J., Iyengar, S., Lund, A. B., & Salovaara-Moring, I. (2009). Media system, public knowledge and democracy a comparative study. European Journal of
Communication, 24(1), 5-26. doi: 10.1177/0267323108098943
Dimitrova, D. V., & Strömbäck, J. (2012). Election news in Sweden and the United States: A comparative study of sources and media frames. Journalism, 13(5), 604-619. doi: 10.1177/1464884911431546
Druckman, J. N. (2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. The Journal of Politics, 65(2), 559-571. doi:10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00015
Druckman, J. N. (2005). Media matter: How newspapers and television news cover campaigns and influence voters. Political Communication, 22(4), 463-481. doi:10.1080/10584600500311394
Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729-745. doi: 10.2307/3186130
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of
advanced nursing, 62(1), 107-115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal
of communication, 43(4), 51-58. Retrieved from
http://proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/docview/1302274657?accountid=14615
Fridkin, K. L., Kenney, P. J., Gershon, S. A., Shafer, K., & Woodall, G. S. (2007). Capturing the power of a campaign event: The 2004 presidential debate in Tempe.
Journal of Politics, 69(3), 770-785. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00574.x
Freelon, D., & Karpf, D. (2015). Of big birds and bayonets: hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 Presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 390-406. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.952659
Garzia, D. (2011). The personalization of politics in Western democracies: Causes and consequences on leader–follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 697-709. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.010
Gasher, M. (2000). [Review of the book Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times, by McChesney, R. W.] Canadian
Journal of Communication. Vol 25, No 4 (2000). Retrieved from
http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/1189/1123
Groshek, J., & Al-Rawi, A. (2013). Public sentiment and critical framing in social media content during the 2012 US presidential campaign. Social Science Computer Review,
31(5), 563-576. doi: 10.1177/0894439313490401
Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? the impact of normative theory on empirical research1. Communication theory, 16(4), 411-426. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x
Hallin, D. C. (1992). The passing of the “high modernism” of American journalism.
Journal of Communication, 42(3), 14-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00794.x
Harmon, S. (2016). Hillary Clinton meets Ilana and Abbi in new Broad City clip. [online] Retrieved from: www.theguardian.com/tv-and-
radio/2016/mar/16/hillary-clinton-meets-ilana-and-abbi-in-new-broad-city-clip. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press. Retrieved from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0316/f2bc77021bcf6499374213ffec0a95926dd9.pdf Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A
motivational theory of social identity processes. European review of social
psychology, 11(1), 223-255. doi: 10.1080/14792772043000040
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual review of
psychology, 53(1), 575-604. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109
Iyengar, S., Norpoth, H., & Hahn, K. S. (2004). Consumer demand for election news: The horserace sells. Journal of Politics, 66(1), 157-175. doi:10.1046/j.1468-2508.2004.00146.x
Jebril, N., Albæk, E., & De Vreese, C. H. (2013). Infotainment, cynicism and democracy: The effects of privatization vs personalization in the news. European
Journal of Communication, 28(2), 105-121. doi: 10.1177/0267323112468683
Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. Psychology of learning and
Langer, A. I. (2007). A Historical Exploration of the Personalisation of Politics in the Print Media: The British Prime Ministers (1945-1999). Parliamentary Affairs, 60(3). doi: 10.1093/pa/gsm028
Lecheler, S. (2010). Framing Politics. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam
Lelkes, Y., Sood, G., & Iyengar, S. (2015). The hostile audience: The effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12237
MacGregor, P. (2007). Tracking the online audience: Metric data start a subtle revolution. Journalism Studies, 8(2), 280-298. doi: 10.1080/14616700601148879 Mazzoleni, G. (2000). A return to civic and political engagement prompted by
personalized political leadership?. Political Communication, 17(4), 325-328. doi: 10.1080/10584600050178915
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media.
Public opinion quarterly, 36(2), 176-187. doi: 10.1086/267990
Neuendorf, K. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook. Sage publications. Retrieved from
http://academic.csuohio.edu/kneuendorf/SkalskiVitae/SkalskiNeuendorfCajigas17.pd f
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.
Review of general psychology, 2(2), 175. doi: 1089-2680/98
Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New media & society, 11(1-2), 199-220. doi: 10.1177/1461444808099577
Patterson, T. E. (2000). Doing well and doing good. Faculty Research Working Paper
Series, No. RWP01–001. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University. Retrieved from:
http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=257395
Price, V., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Public attitudes toward polls: Evidence from the 2000 US presidential election. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(4), 393-421. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edh119
Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in
political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge. Cambridge University
Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., Scherr, S., & Legnante, G. (2012). Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 221-239. doi: 10.1177/1464884911427803
Scammell, M. (2005). “Four More Years”: how the UK press viewed the 2004 US presidential election. Journalism studies, 6(2), 203-216. doi: 10.1080/14616700500057338
Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication, 57(1), 9-20. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x
Schuck, A. R., Boomgaarden, H. G., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Cynics all around? The impact of election news on political cynicism in comparative perspective. Journal of
Communication, 63(2), 287-311. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12023
Schyns, P., & Nuus, M. (2007). Political cynicism and social cohesion in Europe and the United States. Social capital and governance: Old and New members of the EU in
comparison, 91-103. Retrieved from
https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/728fd463-1db4-4b19-907c-4a2865f0cf6d.pdf Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content
analysis of press and television news. Journal of communication, 50(2), 93-109. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x
Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C. K. (1984). Judgments of the Carter-Reagan debate: The eyes of the beholders. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(3), 624-628. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/268863
Sparks, C. (2000). The panic over tabloid news. In C. Sparks and J. Tulloch (Eds.)
Tabloid Tales, pp. 1–40. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Strömbäck, J., Djerf-Pierre, M., & Shehata, A. (2012). The dynamics of political interest and news media consumption: A longitudinal perspective. International Journal of
Public Opinion Research, eds018. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/eds018
Turvill, W (2015). National newspaper circulations, May 2015: Mail on Sunday overtakes Sun on Sunday, Times remains only growing title. [Online] Retrieved from: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/national-newspaper-circulations-may-2015- mail-sunday-overtakes-sun-sunday-times-remains-biggest-growing/
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Walther, J. B. (2016). Media effects: Theory and research. Annual review of psychology, 67, 315-338. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033608
Vliegenthart, R., Boomgaarden, H. G., Van Aelst, P., & De Vreese, C. H. (2010). Covering the US presidential election in Western Europe: A cross-national comparison. Acta Politica, 45(4), 444-467. doi: 10.1057/ap.2010.2
Vliegenthart, R., & Van Zoonen, L. (2011). Power to the frame: Bringing sociology back to frame analysis. European Journal of Communication, 26(2), 101-115. doi: 10.1177/0267323111404838
Vu, H. T. (2014). The online audience as gatekeeper: The influence of reader metrics on news editorial selection. Journalism, 15(8), 1094-1110. doi:10.1177/1464884913504259 Wilks-Heeg, S. (2012). How democratic is the UK? The 2012 Audit. Political Insight,
3(2), 8-11. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-9066.2012.00104.x
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1985). Selective-exposure phenomena. Selective exposure to
communication, 1-10. Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group.
Zoonen, L. Van. (1998). The ethics of making private life public. In K. Brants, J. Hermes and L. van Zoonen (Eds.) The Media in Question: Popular Cultures and
Public Interests, pp. 113–23. London: Sage.
Appendices Appendix 1: Random Sampling in R
R-Code for the random sampling of four papers
The Guardian: 332 articles of interest have been counted sample (332,125, replace = FALSE, prob = NULL)
The Times: 243 articles of interest have been counted sample (243,125, replace = FALSE, prob = NULL)
The Sun: 169 articles of interest have been counted sample (169,125, replace = FALSE, prob = NULL)
Daily Mirror: 127 articles of interest have been counted sample (127,125, replace = FALSE, prob = NULL)
Appendix 2: Codebook V1 Newspaper The Sun (1) Daily Mirror (2) The Guardian (3) The Times (4)
V2 Date: Enter the date in the following order dd/mm V3 Type of newspaper Tabloid (1) Broadsheet (2) V3 Political affiliation Left-leaning (1) Right-leaning (2) Frame 1. Humor frame
Humor is often used together with an informal tone. The frame aims to capture the presence of humor which can be expressed through sarcasm, irony, self-deprecation, jokes and use of offensive language. Papacharissi (2007, p. 29) operationalized sarcasm as “the use of caustic, Irony as ”humorous focus on the contrast between how things appear as opposed to how they really are”, and self-deprecation as ”a humorous attempt effected by making fun of oneself”. As humor is a matter of personal taste, the frame does not aim to measure how funny, only seeks it presence of absence (Papacharissi, 2007).
Q1 (Q01-1) Humor Frame: Does the story include elements of sarcasm? No (1)
Yes (2)
Q2 (Q01-2) Humor Frame: Does the story include irony? No (1)
Yes (2)
Q3 (Q01-3) Humor Frame: Does the story include self-deprecation from any of the individuals mentioned in the article?
No (1) Yes (2)
Q4 (Q01-4) Humor Frame: Does the story include jokes? No (1)
Yes (2)
Q5 (Q01-5) Humor Frame: Does the story include offensive language? No (1)
Yes (2)
Frame 2. Personal politics frame
This frame emphasizes the personal attributes when writing stories about politics or political candidates. This way of writing allows the reader to relate to their political candidates on a more personal level (Bennett, 2012; Capara & Zimbardo, 2004; Garzia, 2011). In this perspective, the public is given the opportunity to judge politicians as individuals, giving them an human face or and emotional angle, rather than as promoters of a specific political direction (Garzia, 2011, p. 697). Based on popular believes about consumer preference, media has a preference for writing stories where the individual is portrayed in a personal way, rather than as a agency or remote individual (Mazzoleni, 2010).
Q6 (Q03-1) Personal Politics Frame: Does the story mention personal attributes, appearances or gender of the candidates or any other individual mentioned in the story? No (1)
Yes (2)
Q7 (Q03-2) Personal Politics Frame: Does the story talk about their characteristics, behaviours or interests of the candidates or other individuals mentioned in the story? No (1)
Yes (2)
Q8 (Q03-3) Personal Politics Frame: Does the story reflect the personal health or personal issues of the candidates or other individuals mentioned in the story?
No (1) Yes (2)
Q9 (Q03-4) Personal Politics Frame: Does the story mention actions of the political candidates that are not directly related to politics?
No (1) Yes (2)
Q10 (Q03-5) Personal Politics Frame: Does the story employ adjectives or personal vignettes that generate feelings of outrage, empathy---caring, sympathy or compassion? No (1)
Yes (2)
Q11 (Q03-6) Personal Politics Frame: Does the story go into the private or personal lives of the political candidates or other individuals mentioned in the story?
No (1) Yes (2)
Frame 4. Infotainment frame
The infotainment frame encapsulates news depictions that are outlined in an entertaining way, blurring the line between hard news and entertainment media (Bennett, 2005). In this framing, political news and politicians are depicted the same way news about entertainment would be angled, where entertainment media includes stories focusing on trivial events, incidents or highlight information that the audience is interested in rather than what the audience needs to know (Bennett, 2005; Jebril et al., 2013; Patterson, 2000; Prior, 2007).
Q12 (Q04-1) Infotainment Frame: Does the story revolve around a news flash, exposés or sensationalized news?
No (1) Yes (2)
Q13 (Q04-2) Infotainment Frame: Does the story refer to confrontations, gaffes or lies between two or more parties or individuals?
No (1) Yes (2)
