Partisan bias in news coverage of the ‘Take a Knee’-protest? A content analysis and comparison of online news media in the United States
Mats Hopstaken 10583025 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science Supervisor: Pytrik Schafraad
Abstract
The decision of American Football player Colin Kaepernick to take a knee during the national anthem to gain attention for the oppression of blacks and police brutality resulted in a national discussion in the United States. A lot of celebrities, athletes and politicians expressed their opinions about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest through the media. This media attention constantly reinforced the discussion about the protest and the division in society. However, media in the United States have a partisan bias in their news coverage, offering a distorted image of the protest. A content analysis of 330 articles (N = 330) was conducted to compare the news coverage of the ‘Take a Knee’-protest by three online news media (The Huffington Post, CNN and FOX News) with a different partisan bias. The coverage of the three online news media is compared on the basis of frames used and the application of tone (positive vs negative) in an article. Suitable frames are reconstructed in pre-research. Results show there is a difference in news coverage on both frames used and the application of tone, although not in the expected way based on partisan bias. CNN, considered to be the most neutral medium, turned out not to cover their news neutral but all-round.
Introduction
American Football player Colin Kaepernick started the ‘Take a Knee’-protest in August 2016, by remaining seated on the bench during the national anthem in a pre-season game. No one noticed this until the 26th of August, when a journalist took a picture of
Kaepernick sitting on the bench. Kaepernick’s explained his action in the media: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of colour. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and get away with murder.” In the week after this media attention Kaepernick spoke to a former soldier of the military and decided to shift from sitting to kneeling, to show more respect to those who served the country. On the 1st of September, Kaepernick kneeled, instead of sitting, for the first time. Nevertheless, people accused him from being anti-American, unpatriotic and
disrespectful towards the military. Even president Donald Trump abhorred the protest, while former president Barack Obama applauded the protest. It was the start of a national
discussion, but Kaepernick saw no reason to stop. He protested the oppression of black people and police brutality during the entire season and a lot of other athletes, of several sports, joined the protest. In March 2017, Kaepernick opted out of his contract. While Kaepernick played an acceptable season, no offers of a new team came and Kaepernick remained unsigned. He filed a grievance against the NFL, accusing the teams of collusion to keep him from playing. Meanwhile, other players in the NFL kept on kneeling during the anthem before games and the controversy continued. In September 2018, NFL-sponsor Nike picked a side in the discussion by launching their new Just Do It-campaign with Colin
Kaepernick as its face. People encouraged Nike’s action, but at the same time Twitter was full of pictures of burning Nike clothing. It once again showed the size of the controversy about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest. In February 2019, the NFL reached a settlement with Colin Kaepernick in which was the provisional last chapter of the ‘Take a Knee’-protest. NFL and Colin Kaepernick decided to not publish anything about the content of the settlement.
That the ‘Take a Knee’-protest is so widely reported, is not strange considering that American Football is America’s most popular sport. But besides that, recent police brutality towards blacks was the direct cause of the protest. On the 16th of September in 2016, in the same month Colin Kaepernick took a knee for the first time, a black man was killed by the police. Terence Crutcher had his hands up and was unarmed, but the police officer shot him. Afterwards, a jury acquitted the police officer. It is not sure this was the direct reason for Kaepernick starting his protest, but in the years and months before and after the shooting with Terence Crutcher multiple blacks were killed by police officers without the officers being punished by the court. And that certainly was the reason for Kaepernick to start and keep taking a knee.
It is not the first time that sports and human rights are intertwining. Besides Colin Kaepernick, there are more events in sports that had an effect on the societal state. For example, Jesse Owens, the African America athlete who won three golden medals on the
Olympic Games of 1936 in Berlin. The media framed Owens’ performance as an ideological victory, portraying him as a communal hero (Milford, 2012). Furthermore, first Afro American baseball player Jackie Robinson played a role in the desegregation of the United States. According to Kelly (2015), Jackie Robinson was the first black man that white Americans identified with, by not seeing him as one of ‘them’ but one of ‘us’. At the Olympic Games of 1968, athletes John Carlos and Tommie Smith had a plan. As Marcus (2009) describes: “They would run the race; they would win; and then they would mount the victory stand and, as the band played ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’, before the eyes of the entire world they would bow their heads and raise black-gloved fists in salutes of black power and black unity.“ And that is exactly what happened. In the weeks following the protest, the media objected the protest because they failed to recognize the political statement of the act (Peterson, 2009). But within twenty years they became American heroes in the fight for human rights and racial equality (Henderson, 2010).
Despite a rich history of discussions and incidents about racism, the ‘Take a Knee’-protest confirms that racial inequality stays a widely discussed topic on the public agenda. The media play a role in creating this public agenda, which is the initial stage in the formation of public opinion (McCombs, 2018). The public opinion in the United States seems highly divided, with Democrats and Republicans increasingly dislike and distrust each other, a process called affective polarization (Iyengar, Lelkes, Levendusky, Malhotra & Westwood, 2018). Furthermore, a close connection between affective polarization and ideological polarization is found (Webster & Abramowitz, 2017). Ideological polarization is polarization based on someone’s ideological background. This ideological background has an effect on media preferences, with people picking their media based on political preferences,
contributing to further polarization of the news audience (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009). The Media Bias Chart (appendix 1), created by Ad Fontes Media, shows that the media in the United States are divided, with media considered to go from extremely right/conservative to extremely left/liberal.
This shows the thin line between the public agenda, public opinion, polarization and media preferences. They are all interrelated and effect each other in different ways. The polarization of the United States is showed in the discussion around the ‘Take a Knee’-protest, which makes it an interesting case. This research uses the case of the ‘Take a Knee’-protest to investigate whether right, centred and left online media (according to the Media Bias Chart) cover news in a partisan way. The ‘Take a Knee’-protest is a suitable issue for this research, because the public discourse showed people are divided on what they think of it. The central question is: “What is the difference in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest between online news media?” The news coverage can differ in tone of the article and frames used.
Theoretical Framework Media Bias Chart
The Media Bias Chart is an initiative of Ad Fontes Media. They believe that “one of the ways to make the world better is to become smarter about the news we consume.” They want people to understand the news they consume and do something about the polarization in the United States of America. Their Media Bias Chart, which they update occasionally, gives a clear overview of the partisan bias (horizontal axis) and the overall quality (vertical axis). They already performed content analyses of two thousand individual articles and TV news shows, conducted by twenty trained analysts with different political backgrounds. Based on these findings, the Media Bias Chart is created. The newest and updated Media Bias Chart can be found in appendix 1.
Partisan media
In partisan media not only news is offered, since their news coverage also contains a point of view on the news as well (Levendusky, 2013a). Despite partisan media and framing are two different concepts, they are certainly interrelated. Partisan media-makers reflect a certain point of view in the text and framing is a way to describe an event and so create
media. The relation can be found in the use of the two concepts, since framing can be used to reflect the idea of the media maker in a text and thus create a partisan text. The ‘Take a Knee’-protest is a protest in the United States, where research found partisan bias in television (Banning & Coleman, 2009; Grabe & Bucy, 2009; Groeling 2008; Lowry, 2008), newspapers (Schiffer, 2006; Larcinese et al., 2011; Butler & Schofield, 2010) and online news (Baum & Groeling, 2008; Hehman et al., 2012).
Partisan news leads viewers to perceive the other party more negatively, trust them less and be less supportive of bipartisanship (Levendusky, 2013b). Furthermore, Levendusky (2013a) research shows that partisan media polarize the electorate by creating a greater gap between relatively extreme citizens. Polarization means an increasing distance between partisans in terms of their issue-based ideology (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015) and research has shown it is an effect of partisan media.Smith & Searles (2014) argue that partisan media not always have a significant effect. Specifically, only when partisan media cover the
opposition candidate, it makes viewers less favourable towards this candidate. Audiences tend to “reject coverage that is inconsistent with their views, especially when they see such coverage as politically biased.” (Carmichael, Brulle & Huxster, 2017) Furthermore, audiences strengthen their view when coverage is consistent with their views (Carmichael, Brulle & Huxter, 2017). In short, partisan media seem to have two kinds of effects on polarization. First, reinforcing the audiences’ views when the coverage is consistent with their thoughts. Second, creating a greater distance between the parties when coverage is inconsistent with the audiences’ thoughts.
But there is another way partisan media can affect the audience. Partisan media not only shapes the views of the audience, but also affects what audiences want to watch. A phenomenon we call partisan selective exposure, defined as “a process by which people select media outlets and content consistent with their political predispositions.” (Wicks, Wicks & Morimoto, 2014) The existence of partisan media not only affects peoples’ opinions, but also their media preferences. Audiences tend to choose media consistent with their political thoughts (Wicks, Wicks & Morimoto, 2014). When audiences tend to choose media
consistent with their political thoughts, they are not likely to be exposed to media inconsistent with their thoughts often. Consequently, there is a supposed reciprocal relationship between partisan selective exposure and polarization (Stroud, 2010). Polarization is a concept that keeps coming back to highlight the division in the political landscape of the United States, linking it to the division in the controversy around the ‘Take a Knee’-protest. In this research the online media FOX News, CNN and The Huffington Post are being compared. According to the earlier mentioned Media Bias Chart (appendix 1), FOX News is a
right-winged/conservative online medium, CNN is a relatively central online medium and The Huffington Post is a left-winged/liberal online medium.
Conservatives/Republicans and liberals/Democrats
When mentioning polarization in America, people often talk about the growing ideological difference between conservatives and progressives. Specifically, the
conservatives are united in a political party named the Republicans, while the liberals are united in a political party named the Democrats. Partisans in the United States have become more polarized over time (Lelkes, 2016).
The global warming issue is an example of an issue polarizing the two parties over recent years (Dunlap & McCright, 2008). But in the last centuries the Democrats and Republicans were polarized on slavery, agrarian, currency, social welfare, civil rights, racial equality, cultural and moral issues (Layman, Carsey & Horowitz, 2006). Both parties have their specific background and therefore their stances in these issues. A lot of social
movements in history have had their influence on the Democratic party, namely civil rights, feminism and environmentalism (Grossmann & Hopkins, 2015). Therefore, liberals favour governmental intervention to provide equality, policies that advantage all kinds of minorities and women and less militaristic foreign policy (Noel, 2016). Historically, Republicans always tend to reach their opponents mentioning limited government and attempting to court minority voters on the basis of shared values (Grossmann & Hopkins, 2015). Conservatives favour free markets, business interests, a colorblind approach to racial issues, norms based on
tradition and religion and foreign policies based on American exceptionalism (Noel, 2016). The stances in certain issues of these two ideologies/parties are the basis of the later presented hypotheses of this study.
Framing
Frames are everywhere in communication. Sometimes a frame can be recognized easily, and sometimes it takes effort to find the frame in a message. According to Entman (1993), framing essentially involves selection and salience. The selection of a frame is a decision on the part of the journalist, but these media makers make use of frames both deliberately and unwittingly (Van Gorp, 2007). “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 for the item described.” (Entman, 1993)
In frames, some bit of information in a media message is highlighted, thereby
elevating them in salience (Entman, 1993). Because people are unable to perceive objective reality, salience in messages gives the communicator the chance to affect what receivers notice more easily (Van Gorp, 2007). With salience in a text a certain piece of information will be more noticeable, meaningful or memorable to the receiver (Entman, 1993). But whether a frame has an individual effect also depends on the receiver of the message with the frame. Factors that play a role are the degree of attention, interests, beliefs, experiences, desires, and attitudes (Van Gorp, 2007). Furthermore, Van Gorp (2007) emphasizes that a frame can also have unintended effects when the receiver associates the message with existing
thoughts, incongruent with the frame the journalist wanted to apply.
Where a frame consists of, different prominent framing researchers and theories differ on. Entman (1993), for example, distinguishes four functions of a frame, namely define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgements and suggest remedies. This does not mean that every frame includes all four functions. These four functions of Entman (1993) are the basis of the thoughts of Van Gorp (2007), who argues that a frame
consists of a definition, an explanation, a problematization and an evaluation of the event, taken together in a so-called ‘frame package’. The content of a ‘frame package’ results in a number of conclusions the reader can draw, based on the message. Furthermore, Van Gorp (2007) adds cultural phenomena to the framing-process, emphasizing that frame-packages can only be interpreted the right way when society understands them. Thus, the media not only provides information about the event but also on how it should be interpreted.
Likewise, Benford & Snow (2000) mention three core tasks of framing, diagnostic framing, prognostic framing and motivational framing. Diagnostic framing is the identification of a problem and its attributions. The description of a possible plan to solve the problem, or even the solution to the problem, is proposed in prognostic framing. The last core framing task, motivational framing, “provides a “call to arms” or rationale for engaging in ameliorative collective action, including the construction of appropriate vocabularies of motive.”
Van Gorp (2007) mentions that frames are not only reconstructed by framing tasks or functions, but also by three processes called discursive, strategic and contested processes. The discursive process consists of frame articulation and frame amplification. Frame
articulation means that the event is described in a coherent story, frame amplification is the process adding salience to issues, events or beliefs in the story. In strategic processes frames are being reconstructed with a specific goal. An example could be a letter of application, with the goal to convince a potential employer to invite you on a job interview. The last process van Gorp (2007) describes is the contested process, in which collective action frames are being reconstructed. Collective action frames are frames in which social movements are being addressed, legitimated and activated. This overlaps with the earlier mentioned three core framing tasks of Benford & Snow (2000).
The four locations where frames can be found in the communication process are the communicator, the text, the receiver and the culture (Entman, 1993). First, communicators make decisions in what to say and what not to say, even conscious or not, and are guided by frames. The text, the second location, is constituted by the communicator and contains frames. The third location, the receiver, is the one that reads the text and perhaps is affected
by the frames in the text. Last, culture is the environment of where this process happens and is important because it affects the way a message is interpreted or written down. As
mentioned before, Van Gorp (2007) emphasizes that the essence of framing is in social interaction and culture. “Media makers interact with their sources and other actors in the public arena, and the receivers interact with media content and with each other.” (Van Gorp (2007) This interplay between different actors is involved in the framing process.
In the ‘Take a Knee’-protest frames possibly played a role. Because frames call attention to some aspects of reality while obscuring other elements it might lead to different reactions from different audiences (Entman, 1993). The protest caused a lot of commotion in the United States and it is likely that frames played a role in provoking this.
Frames in the ‘Take a Knee’-protest
In comparing FOX News, CNN and The Huffington Post, five frames are
distinguished. The first frame is the ‘The Flag’-frame, in which Colin Kaepernick is described as someone that is offending the flag of the United States by showing disrespect during the national anthem. His method for sending his message was interpreted as an insult for the country and some think he is disrespectful to the military, anti-America, a betrayer and unpatriotic.
The second frame is the ‘The Struggle of the NFL’-frame, in which the problem the protest created for the NFL is described. Within the NFL a struggle arose because of a disagreement between different parties about the protest. The players were protesting, the fans were against the protest and the owners wanted their players and fans to be happy. Trump was also against the protest and asked the fans to boycott the NFL.
The third frame is the ‘Societal injustice’-frame, were the protest has been drawn on a bigger scale. It is not only police brutality against the black society, it is a problem that keeps coming back looking at the history of the United States. There is a lack of equality in the country and this protest once again shows that. In this frame is emphasized that at the heart of the protest there is a history of societal injustice towards black people in the United States.
In the fourth frame, called ‘Political division’, the earlier described polarization is described. In this frame media describe the division in the protest as a political thing,
considering it as a conflict between Conservatives and Republicans. The protest is not only a confirmation for the polarization in the United States but is also dividing the country even more.
Last, in the fifth frame the focus lays on the Nike campaign with Colin Kaepernick as its face. The ‘Business perspective’-frame describes the decision of Nike to pick a side and so create a lot of controversy. People decided to burn their Nike clothes and post it on Twitter, while other openly encouraged Nike for their brave action.
Framing hypotheses
The ‘The Flag’-frame is based on conservative and traditional positions, such as respect for the military and patriotism. That is why FOX News is expected to use the ‘The Flag’-frame more often than CNN and The Huffington Post (H1).
H1. News coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest by FOX News more often contains the ‘The Flag’-frame than news coverage by CNN and The Huffington Post.
Liberals historically favour equality and policies that advantage all kinds of minorities. In the ‘Societal injustice’-frame the treatment of blacks and the lack of equality in the United States is emphasized. That is why The Huffington Post is expected to use the ‘The Flag’-frame more often than CNN and FOX News (H2).
H2. News coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest by The Huffington Post more often contains the ‘Societal injustice’-frame than news coverage by CNN and FOX News.
CNN is considered to be the most central online medium of the three online media, according to The Media Bias Chart. The division in society concerning the ‘Take a Knee’-protest is emphasized in the ‘Political division’-frame. CNN is expected to cover the news
neutrally, without a political bias. Thus, CNN is expected to report about this division between Republicans and Democrats in the ‘Political division’-frame more than FOX News and The Huffington Post.
H3. News coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest by CNN more often contains the ‘Political division’-frame than news coverage by FOX News and The Huffington Post.
Tone of the article
Besides frames in articles, the tone of the article is important to consider when drawing conclusions about differences in news coverage between online news media. However, tone and framing are interrelated as De Vreese & Boomgaarden (2003) refer to “valenced framing” when a text carries implicit positive and/or negative elements. These positive and/or negative elements decide whether the tone of a text is negative and/or positive. Valenced frames in media messages do affect the perceptions, evaluations and behaviour of the audience (Schuck & de Vreese, 2006). Furthermore, with the presence of positive and/or negative elements in a text, media do more than only provide information. Carroll & McCombs (2003) suggest that media not only give information but also present reputational assessments to their audiences, referring to the tone in a text as “evaluative attributes”. These evaluative attributes in a message influence the judgement of presidents, government policies, political candidates and corporations by calling attention to some matters and ignore others (Carroll & McCombs, 2003). In this case Colin Kaepernick and his ‘Take a Knee’-protest are the issues the media perhaps presents evaluative attributes about and in that way the judgement of the audience can be affected.
Tone hypotheses
FOX News is, according to the Media Bias Chart, a right-winged online medium. President and Republican Donald Trump often shares FOX News messages and openly is a reader of FOX News. Donald Trump always has been critical towards the ‘Take a Knee’-protest and often said Colin Kaepernick have to be ashamed to take a knee during the
national anthem. Because of the critics of Donald Trump and the values of conservatives, partisan right news medium FOX News is expected to be more negative in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest than CNN and The Huffington Post (H4).
H4. FOX News more applies a negative tone in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest than CNN and The Huffington Post.
The Media Bias Chart classifies The Huffington Post as a left-winged online medium. These left-winged Liberals have values like equality and favour policies that advantage all kinds of minorities. Because of the values of Liberals, The Huffington Post is expected to be more positive in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest than CNN and FOX News (H5).
H5. The Huffington Post more applies a positive tone in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest than CNN and FOX News.
Methods
To answer the research question, a content analysis of news articles is conducted. Three online news media, based on their partisan bias, were selected for the analysis. FOX News is a right partisan news medium, CNN is a neutral partisan news medium and The Huffington Post is a left partisan news medium (according to the Media Bias Chart, appendix 1). Online news media with differences in partisan bias were needed for this research to see the differences between them in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest.
Furthermore, these three are part of the ten biggest online news media of the United States, which also makes them suitable for a comparison.
There were a number of criteria for the news articles of these three websites to be selected for this research. First, the news articles had to be published between the 26th of August 2016 and the 7th of May 2019. The 26th of August 2016 was the first day Colin Kaepernick took a knee and that is how the protest started. On the 7th of May 2019 the analysis of the news articles was started, so that is the last date the article could be
published on. Furthermore, the search terms to find and select these news articles were ‘Kaepernick’ and ‘knee’. Every news article had to contain both search terms in order to be selected. The news articles were searched on their own website, with the (advanced) search-function. The language of the news articles had to be English and the article had to be published on their own website. These search terms and criteria resulted in 420 articles of FOX News, 147 of CNN and 304 of The Huffington Post. For each of these online media 110 articles were randomly selected, resulting in a sample of 330 news articles.
The research question is whether there is a difference between FOX News, CNN and The Huffington Post in their news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest. The difference is investigated on the basis of two elements in a text. First, the difference in the frames these three online news media are using. In order to make a comparison of frames used, there had to be frames reconstructed. In a pre-research news articles are analysed, with an inductive approach, to recognize and reconstruct frames that are used often in the ‘Take a Knee’-protest. An inductive approach means that the frames are reconstructed based on the analysis of news stories, when frames emerge from the material during the analysis (De Vreese, 2005). So, during the coding of the texts in this pre-research no predefined coding instrument was used. The goal of this pre-research was to make visible what was implicitly present in the text, and in the end cluster that together into frames. The process to find frames with an inductive approach is described by Van Gorp (2010) with four steps. First, source material, for the analysis, had to be collected. The source material existed of 25 articles of Breitbart, VICE, NPR, Vox, The New York Times and Sporting News. Step two was to start with the open coding of the texts. This coding was very orienting, just mentioning what was written in every sentence or even pieces of sentences in the text. These texts received a label, for example ‘polarization of America’ or ‘Trump critical’. After this, with step three, the possibility of taking these labels together because of overarching ideas was investigated. Five overarching ideas were found, in which the labels of pieces of texts fit together. In the fourth and final step, these five overarching ideas resulted in frames by filling in the frame matrix (appendix 2, table 3). In this frame matrix the four dimensions described
by Entman (1993) can be found, namely problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and suggestions for solutions. These four elements served as guidelines to reconstruct good and complete the frames. Examples of texts found in pre-research that can be matched with one of the frames can be found in appendix 3, table 4.
The pre-research resulted in five different frames, namely the earlier described ‘The Flag’-frame, ‘The Struggle of the NFL’-frame, ‘Societal injustice’-frame, ‘Political division’-frame and ‘Business perspective’-division’-frame. In the process of reconstructing the division’-frames, the criteria of good frames from Van Gorp (2010) are used. He mentions, for example, that frames should be mutually exclusive and should have a strong name. After the
reconstruction of these frames, the frames were tested. Again, articles of Breitbart, VICE, NPR, Vox, The New York Times and Sporting News were coded, but now in order to check whether the created frames can be recognized. After a few small adjustments the created frames were sufficient for research.
Based on these frames the codebook (appendix 4) was created. The codebook contains two sections. In section 1 basic information about the article is given, like the publication date and the online news medium that published the article. Section 2 contains five parts, with every frame covered in one of these parts. Every question is about whether the article contains a certain element of the concerned frame and can be coded with “yes” or “no”. The more of the questions coded with ‘yes’, the more the frame is used in that specific news article.
The second element the difference between the three online news media is based upon is the tone in an article. Within every frame-section a few questions about the tone in the article are added. These questions about the tone are related to the specific frame. A positive tone and a negative tone are measured in two different questions, because a text can contain both a positive and a negative tone about a certain subject. When the tone about a certain subject in a text is neutral, both questions about the positive and negative tone are coded with “no”.
To test intercoder reliability, 10% of the total sample was coded by two coders. Lombard, Snyder-Duch & Bracken (2002) state that a Kappa of 0.80 or higher is reliable. Furthermore, according to Krippendorf (2004), if the research is explorative and tentative, the lowest conceivable limit of Kappa is ≥0.667. In this research, V8, V15, V17, V18, V51, V52, V55, V56 and V60 were reliable (≥0.80). Likewise, V25, V32, V34, V39, V46 and V57 were reliable enough (≥0.667). The other variables, with a Kappa ≤0.667, were considered unreliable according to Kappa. However, Kappa is overcorrecting when the sample is small, which was the case for some variables in this research (Schafraad, 2009). For these
variables the percentage agreement was calculated, because Lombard et al. (2002) advices to use another reliability measurement when Kappa is too low. The values of the percentage agreement can give insights in what the reason is for the low values of Kappa, which could be unreliability or overcorrecting. V1, V3, V5, V9, V19, V26, V27, V29, V31, V33, V38, V41, V45, V47, V48, V49, V50, V53, V54, V59, V61, V62, V63 and V65 had a percentage
agreement higher than 80%. Likewise, V4, V6, V10, V12, V13, V14, V16, V22, V24, V28, V37, V42, V43 and V44 were considered reliable with a percentage agreement higher than 66.7%. There were eleven variables (V2, V11, V20, V21, V23, V30, V35, V36, V40, V58 and V64) with a percentage agreement lower than 66.7%. For these questions, the way the question was formulated in the codebook is changed or a definition or example was added to the question. An overview of the Kappa’s and percentage agreement was added in appendix 5 (table 5).
The title of the article is also coded during the coding but is considered as part of the text. Furthermore, only the text of the articles is coded, the pictures in the article are not taken into consideration. A lot of the news articles contained Twitter-messages as examples for statements or to give an overview of the reactions given about a certain topic. These Twitter-messages were coded like it was a normal text.
For all five hypotheses scales are conducted. These scales indicate, with every hypothesis, how much a specific frame (H1, H2, H3), a negative tone (H4) and a positive tone (H5) are present in the texts. The scale of the ‘The Flag’-frame contained five elements,
the scale of the ‘Societal injustice’-frame contained nine elements and the scale of the ‘Political division’-frame contained nine elements. The number of elements indicates the size of the scale, with more elements of a frame in a text resulting in a higher score on the scale. The number of elements refers to the amount of questions the frame is measured with. The scale of the ‘The Flag’-frame, for example, is a five-point scale, measured with five
questions. But because the scales of the ‘Societal injustice’-frame and the ‘Political division’-frame contained nine elements, while the scale of the ‘The Flag’-division’-frame contained five
elements, the scores had to be standardized in order to compare them. Thus, for H1, H2 and H3 the scale goes from 0 to 1, with scoring 1 when the frame is completely present and scoring 0 when the frame is completely absent.
The scales of negativity and positivity both contained thirteen elements and work in the same way as the scales for the frames do. But because they both had thirteen elements they did not have to be standardized in order to compare them. The more positive elements, for example, are present in a text, the higher that text will score on the scale of positivity. Both negativity and positivity scales are thirteen-point scales, because they are measured with thirteen questions. Al hypothesis are tested with an ANOVA-test, because with all the hypothesis the scales (interval) are the dependent variable and the online news media (nominal) the independent variable.
Results
For none of the ANOVA-test done in this research a test of homogeneity had to be conducted, because all three groups were the same size of 110 articles (N = 330). For H1, the results of the ANOVA-test showed a significant effect from online news medium on the quantity of the use of the ‘The Flag’-frame in an article, F (2, 327) = 3.18, p = 0.04, eta2 = 0.02. However, not in the expected way, as described in H1a. The Huffington Post used the ‘The Flag’-frame the least (M = 0.33, SD = 0.25) and CNN the most (M = 0.41, SD = 0.26), while FOX News used the ‘The Flag’-frame in between them (M = 0.38, SD = 0.26). An overview of the means per hypothesis can be found in table 1. According to the rule of Cohen the effect size (eta2) is
small (<0.09). The post-hoc test shows a significant difference between CNN and The Huffington Post (Mdifference = 0.09, p = 0.04). There is no significant difference between CNN and FOX News. An overview of the results can be seen in table 6, appendix 6.
A significant effect of online news medium on the quantity of the use of the ‘Societal injustice’-frame (H2) is found, F (2, 327) = 7.71, p = 0.01, eta2 = 0.06. As expected, and described in H1, The Huffington Post used the ‘Societal injustice’-frame the most (M = 0.5, SD = 0.26). Then, CNN (M = 0.39, SD = 0.25) and FOX News (M = 0.38, SD = 0.24) used the ‘Societal injustice’-frame less. An overview of the means per hypothesis can be found in table 1. According to the rule of Cohen the effect size (eta2) is small (<0.09). The post-hoc test shows a significant difference between The Huffington Post and CNN (Mdifference = 0.11, p = 0.04) and a significant difference between The Huffington Post and FOX News (Mdifference = 0.12, p = 0.01). An overview of the results can be seen in table 7, appendix 6.
The effect of online news medium on the quantity of the use of the ‘Political division’-frame (H3) was also significant as an ANOVA-test demonstrates, F (2, 327) = 4.04, p = 0.02, eta2 = 0.02. However, not in the expected way, as described in H3. The Huffington Post used the ‘Political division’-frame just more (M = 0.34, SD = 0.22) than CNN (M = 0.33, SD = 0.22), while FOX News used it the least (M = 0.26, SD = 0.25). An overview of the means per hypothesis can be found in table 1. According to the rule of Cohen the effect size (eta2) is small (<0.09). The post-hoc test shows a significant effect between The Huffington Post and FOX News (Mdifference = 0.08, p = 0.03). An overview of the results can be seen in table 8, appendix 6.
Table 1. Overview table means H1, H2 and H3
The Huffington Post CNN FOX News Mean score
‘The Flag’-frame* 0,33 0,41 0,38 0,37
‘Societal injustice’-frame** 0,5 0,39 0,38 0,42
‘Political division’-frame** 0,34 0,33 0,26 0,31
** Measured on a 9-point scale
For the effect of online news medium on the application of a negative tone in an article (H4), the ANOVA-test did not show a significant effect F (2, 327) = 1.62, p = 0.2. CNN was the most negative in their news coverage (M = 2.42, SD = 1.77) and after that FOX News was the most negative (M = 2.4, SD = 1.78). The Huffington Post was least applying a negative tone in their news coverage (M = 2.1, SD = 1.34). An overview of the means per hypothesis can be found in table 2. Furthermore, an overview of the results can be seen in table 9, appendix 6.
Last, the results of the ANOVA-test of the difference in applying a positive tone in news coverage (H5) were significant, F (2, 327) = 7.44, p = 0.01, eta2 = 0.04. Although not in the expected way, because CNN was the most positive news medium (M = 2.16, SD = 1.72), The Huffington Post was the second most positive (M = 1.88, SD = 1.32) and FOX News the least positive (M = 1.4, SD = 1.38). An overview of the means per hypothesis can be found in table 2. According to the rule of Cohen the effect size (eta2) is small (<0.09). The post-hoc test shows a significant effect between The Huffington Post and FOX News (Mdifference = 0.48, p = 0.05) and between CNN and FOX News (Mdifference = 0.76, p < 0.01). An overview of the results can be seen in table 10, appendix 6.
Table 2. Overview table means H4 and H5
The Huffington Post CNN FOX News Mean score
Application of negative tone 2,1 2,42 2,4 2,31
Application of positive tone 1,88 2,16 1,4 1,81
Conclusion
The main question of this research was: “What is the difference in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest between online news media?” This research question is answered on the basis of five hypotheses, analysing the frames and the tone used in a text. With this analysis a comparison between three online news media, FOX News, CNN and
The Huffington Post, is made. The first hypothesis, H1, was: “News coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest by FOX News more often contains the ‘The Flag’-frame than news coverage by CNN and The Huffington Post.” A significant result was found, but only between CNN and The Huffington Post. This means that CNN uses the ‘The Flag’-frame in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee-protest’ more than The Huffington Post, but FOX News does not use the ‘The Flag’-frame more than the other two online news media. This means that H1 hypothesis is rejected.
The second hypothesis (H2), was: “News coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest by The Huffington Post more often contains the ‘Societal injustice’-frame than news coverage by CNN and FOX News.” The results of this test were significant, which means that The Huffington Post uses the ‘Societal injustice’-frame more in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee-protest’ than both CNN and FOX News. This means that H2 is accepted.
Furthermore, H3 was: “News coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest by CNN more often contains the ‘Political division’-frame than news coverage by FOX News and The Huffington Post.” The result of this analysis was significant, but not in the way as expected, since The Huffington Post used the ‘Political division’-frame more than FOX News in their coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest.
Then, the fourth hypothesis, H4, was: “FOX News more applies a negative tone in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest than CNN and The Huffington Post.” The results were not significant, which means that none of the three uses a negative tone more in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee-protest’ than the other two online news media. Thus, H4 is rejected.
Last, the fifth hypothesis (H5), was: “The Huffington Post more applies a positive tone in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest than CNN and FOX News.” This result was significant, but not in the way as described in the hypothesis. Both CNN and Huffington Post were more positive about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest in their news coverage than FOX News. This means that H5 is rejected.
The research question was whether there is a difference between the three online news media in their news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest. Only in the application of a negative tone in news coverage no significant result has been found. Nonetheless, although not in the expected way, four of the five tests were significant. Based on that there is a difference in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest between FOX News, CNN and The Huffington Post. However, there are some explanations for this difference between expectations and results.
The relatively high scores of CNN on the use of frames and the application of both a positive and a negative tone stands out in the results. Looking at table 1, CNN has relatively high means on all three frames, compared to the mean use of the frame, The Huffington Post and FOX. The ‘The Flag’-frame was most present in news coverage of CNN, although not much more than FOX News. Furthermore, CNN was in between The Huffington Post and FOX News with the presence of the ‘Societal injustice’-frame and used the ‘Political division’-frame just less than The Huffington Post. But all three division’-frames were relatively present a lot in coverage of CNN. Furthermore, looking at table 2, CNN was the most positive and most negative online news medium compared to The Huffington Post and FOX News. An explanation for the relatively high presence of all frames and a high application of both negative and positive tone in news coverage of CNN is that CNN is the most neutral online news medium of the three according to the Media Bias Chart. CNN does not put emphasis on one of the frames and on a positive or a negative tone. This is most likely the reason for their unexpected high results in application of both negative and positive tone compared to The Huffington Post and FOX News. The neutrality of CNN is an explanation for only CNN using the ‘The Flag’-frame significantly more than The Huffington Post while it was expected that FOX News used this frame the most (H1). Also, this is an explanation for the unexpected result of only CNN being significantly more positive than FOX News (H5). Last, it is most likely the explanation for CNN using the ‘Political division’-frame more than expected, just less than The Huffington Post. In conclusion, CNN is neutral and offers news coverage that
looks at news from different angles, which make them scoring high on both the use of frames and application of tone in news coverage.
What also stands out in the results is that the mean application of a negative tone is higher with all three news media than the application of a positive tone (see table 2). An explanation for this is that consumers of news do have a preference for negative news coverage (Trussler & Soroka, 2014). Media are responding to this demand with covering the news more negative.
Future research can try to track down what is the factor that makes the difference between the news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest between these three news media. Maybe factors like the identity of the online news medium, the kind of articles or the way of writing, can be taken into consideration. These three are all interrelated because the type of news medium affects the type of article and the way of writing. These three are important for the tone and frames used. Some articles are just reporting facts, while other are more like research journalism. It is needless to say that frames and tone are different in different types of articles. In conclusion, more factors can be taken into consideration in future research.
Besides that, a few things in this research can be done better in future research. The little time of training coders is one of them. The result of that is that some of the variables were maybe interpreted wrong and thereby coded wrong. Furthermore, there was not enough time to change a lot in the codebook and do a reliability analysis after these changes. Now, few questions in the codebook were used without considered to be fully reliable. Also, a different way of measuring the positive and the negative tone in news coverage can be considered. Because the negative and positive tone now are measured apart, some neutral texts may be considered to be both negative and positive. This is an explanation for the reason why CNN is the most negative and positive in their news coverage, while being the most neutral online news medium of the three. Another
shortcoming of this research is that for H1, the ‘The Flag’-frame is measured on a 5-point scale. In normal research, from a 7-point scale on it can be considered as interval. The
ANOVA-test requires the dependent variable to be interval, so a 5-point scale normally is not enough. In future research this has to be taken into account.
In short, answering the research question, there is difference in news coverage about the ‘Take a Knee’-protest between FOX News, CNN and The Huffington Post. As mentioned before, this was not necessarily in the expected way, based on partisan bias.
References
Banning, S., & Coleman, R. (2009). Louder than words: A content analysis of presidential candidates' televised nonverbal communication. Visual Communication
Quarterly, 16(1), 4-17.
Baum, M. A., & Groeling, T. (2008). New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication, 25(4), 345-365.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), 611-639.
Butler, D. M., & Schofield, E. (2010). Were newspapers more interested in pro-Obama letters to the editor in 2008? Evidence from a field experiment. American Politics
Research, 38(2), 356-371.
Carmichael, J. T., Brulle, R. J., & Huxster, J. K. (2017). The great divide: Understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014. Climatic change, 141(4), 599-612.
Carroll, C. E., & McCombs, M. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public's images and opinions about major corporations. Corporate reputation review, 6(1), 36-46.
De Vreese, C., & Boomgaarden, H. (2003). Valenced news frames and public support for the EU. Communications, 28(4), 361-381.
De Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information design journal & document design, 13(1).
Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
Development, 50(5), 26-35.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication, 43(4), 51-58.
Grabe, M. E., & Bucy, E. P. (2009). Image bite politics: News and the visual framing of elections. Oxford University Press.
Groeling, T. (2008). Who's the fairest of them all? An empirical test for partisan bias on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 38(4), 631-657.
Grossmann, M., & Hopkins, D. A. (2015). Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats: The asymmetry of American party politics. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 119-139.
Henderson, S. (2010). ‘Nasty Demonstrations by Negroes': The Place of the Smith–Carlos Podium Salute in the Civil Rights Movement. Bulletin of Latin American
Research, 29, 78-92.
Hehman, E., Graber, E. C., Hoffman, L. H., & Gaertner, S. L. (2012). Warmth and competence: A content analysis of photographs depicting American presidents. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1(1), 46.
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of communication, 59(1), 19-39.
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2018). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science.
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690-707.
Kelly, J. (2005). Integrating America: Jackie Robinson, critical events and baseball black and white. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 22(6), 1011-1035.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human communication research, 30(3), 411-433.
Larcinese, V., Puglisi, R., & Snyder Jr, J. M. (2011). Partisan bias in economic news: Evidence on the agenda-setting behavior of US newspapers. Journal of public Economics, 95(9-10), 1178-1189.
Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 9, 83-110. Lelkes, Y. (2016). Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 80(S1), 392-410.
Levendusky, M. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611-623.
Levendusky, M. (2013). Partisan media exposure and attitudes toward the opposition. Political Communication, 30(4), 565-581.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human communication research, 28(4), 587-604.
Lowry, D. T. (2008). Network TV news framing of good vs. bad economic news under Democrat and Republican presidents: A lexical analysis of political bias. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(3), 483-498.
Marcus, G. (2009). 1968. Common Knowledge, 15(3), 331-335.
McCombs, M. (2018). Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion. John Wiley & Sons. Milford, M. (2012). The Olympics, Jesse Owens, Burke, and the implications of media
framing in symbolic boasting. Mass communication and society, 15(4), 485-505. Noel, H. (2016). Ideological factions in the republican and democratic parties. The ANNALS
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1), 166-188.
Peterson, J. (2009). A ‘race’ for equality: Print media coverage of the 1968 Olympic Protest by Tommie Smith and John Carlos. American Journalism, 26(2), 99-121.
Schafraad, P. H. J. (2009). Controversial Outsiders. A cross-national study of media attention to the far-right 1986-2004. Nijmegen: self.
Schiffer, A. J. (2006). Assessing partisan bias in political news: The case (s) of local senate election coverage. Political Communication, 23(1), 23-39.
Schuck, A. R., & De Vreese, C. H. (2006). Between risk and opportunity: News framing and its effects on public support for EU enlargement. European Journal of
Communication, 21(1), 5-32.
Smith, G., & Searles, K. (2014). Who let the (attack) dogs out? New evidence for partisan media effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(1), 71-99.
Trussler, M., & Soroka, S. (2014). Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(3), 360-379.
Van Gorp, B. (2006). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of communication, 57(1), 60-78.
Van Gorp, B. (2010). Strategies to take subjectivity out of framing analysis. In P. D’Angelo, & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical
perspectives (pp. 84–109). New York, NY: Routledge
Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of communication, 60(3), 556-576.
Webster, S. W., & Abramowitz, A. I. (2017). The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the US electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621-647.
Wicks, R. H., Wicks, J. L., Morimoto, S. A., Maxwell, A., & Schulte, S. R. (2014). Correlates of political and civic engagement among youth during the 2012 presidential
Appendix 1
Media Bias Chart by Ad Fontes Media
Appendix 2
Table 3. Frame Matrix
Frame Problem definition Causal
interpretation
Moral evaluation Suggestions for solutions
The flag The method
Kaepernick used for his protest was, to say the least, not
interpreted as the best method by everyone. People say that with his protest he is anti-America, a betrayer, unpatriotic and lots more. He is offending the flag of the United States.
Colin Kaepernick said, while explaining his protest, that he refuses to stand for a country that is oppressing people. People interpreted this as an insult for the country.
Pride for the country.
It seems that people that see Colin Kaepernick as a betrayer, there is no option to see the method apart from the message. So, the protest just has to stop to let the people that mention pride for the flag be satisfied again.
The struggle of the NFL
With the protest a big problem for the NFL came up. At the one side, the (mostly) white and Republican owners that want their players, the fans and Trump to be happy. At the other side the (mostly) black players, that are against Trump and certain NFL-regulations. And at the third side there are the (mostly) Republican fans, threatening with a boycott of the FPL when they are not strict enough against the protest.
The protest exposed the differences in the NFL-world and now the NFL-owners have to deal with it, while the parties are standing right in front of each other. Also, they were blackballing Colin Kaepernick. How did they had to deal with that without
stakeholders getting angry?
Searching for a way to let everyone be satisfied.
They are always searching for compromises between NFL, the NFL Player
Association and the fans. Because NFL-owners are Republicans, the interference of Trump did not make it easier to find a compromise.
Societal injustice
The protest is bigger than just kneeling, it is something that keeps coming back looking at the history of America. Racial inequality is the reason why
Kaepernick started the process and it still is present in the United States.
Police brutality against
unweaponed black Americans was in the first place the reason why Colin Kaepernick
decided to start the protest. But at the heart of the protest lays a big history of societal injustice towards black people in the United States. Equality in the United States. A solution is that there comes more attention for racial inequality, and especially for police brutality. This could be in regulations or media attention. It would provide another step in the eternal struggle of black people in the United States.
Political division The protest is dividing America in a certain way: right-winged vs. left-winged. The right Republicans
disapprove the protest, while the left
Democrats encourage it. At a certain point, president (and Republican) Donald Trump joined the discussion with a few Tweets. At this point it became a political thing, Republicans vs. Democrats. Polarization of the United States. Trump’s solution, as he said on Twitter, is to let Colin Kaepernick find another country to live. Also, he is suggesting stricter rules prepared by the NFL. Business perspective
Nike started a new ‘Just do it’-campaign and the face of this campaign was Colin Kaepernick. It created a lot of controversy in the country. People were burning their Nike clothes. But also, people encourage their action.
Sometimes it is, to make money, not smart to pick a side in a discussion as a big company. Although this discussion is dividing the entire country, Nike decided to pick a side. It resulted in a completely new twist to the tale.
Picking a side as a financial decision.
Nike just keeps the campaign running and stands behind Colin Kaepernick in his protest.
Appendix 3
Table 4. Examples per frame from pre-research
Frame Example
The flag “The national anthem is a special moment to me,”
Goodell says. “It’s a point of pride. That is a really important moment. But we also have to understand the other side that people do have rights and we want to respect those.”
The flag “Once again, I’m not anti-American,” Kaepernick
says. “I love America. I love people. That’s why I’m doing this. I want to help make America better.”
The flag If the NFL does the right thing and starts putting
heavy fines on players that disrespect America, feel free to tune back in.
The struggle of the NFL N.F.L. owners, players and league executives meet to discuss the protests. An audio recording obtained by The New York Times reveals that players are aggrieved that Kaepernick has not found a job. Owners are intent on finding a way to avoid Trump’s continued criticism and say that large numbers of fans and sponsors have become angry about the protests.
The struggle of the NFL The NFL announces a new policy that includes fines for personnel who "do not stand and show respect for the flag and the anthem," while giving players the
option of remaining in the locker room during pregame ceremonies.
The struggle of the NFL Two days later, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell makes his first public comments on the matter: "I don't necessarily agree with what he is doing," Goodell said, adding, "I support our players when they want to see change in society, and we don't live in a perfect society. On the other hand, we believe very strongly in patriotism in the NFL. I personally believe very strongly in that."
The struggle of the NFL Many NFL players want to find a way to settle the issue — as do NFL owners and the league itself. “We need to go into this thing with an open mind, both sides, not so polarized,” Buffalo Bills linebacker Lorenzo Alexander, a member of the NFL players union’s ruling executive committee, told the Washington Post in July. And one NFL owner told SB Nation’s Thomas George, “We are going to do more with [players] in their causes and in our communities. We listened to our fans who want the anthem and the flag respected. There is room for all of us to get along and keep the game healthy — the right way.”
Societal injustice Kaepernick sits during the national anthem before the 49ers' preseason game against the Packers.
Asked about it afterward, the quarterback says he did so to protest police brutality and the oppression of people of color in the U.S.
Societal injustice I have too often seen our efforts belittled with statements like “He should have listened to the officer,” after watching an unarmed black person get shot, or “There is no such thing as white privilege” and “Racism ended years ago.” We know that racism and white privilege are both very much alive today.
Societal injustice He said he did so in response to police-involved shootings aimed at unarmed black Americans and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, stating, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” a reasoning he expounded on on August 28, 2017.
Political division Two days after President Donald Trump says
players who kneel during the national anthem should be fired, players from numerous teams protest en masse, with members of several teams remaining in the locker room while the anthem is played.
Political division President Barack Obama defends Kaepernick, saying, “I think he cares about some real, legitimate issues that have to be talked about.”
Political division Trump says that he is pleased with the N.F.L.’s new policy, but that he does not think the players should be staying in the locker room in protest. If a player is not standing for the national anthem, Trump says, “maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.”
Political division But though some conservatives viewed
Kaepernick’s protest as an expression of free speech, many on the right didn’t see it that way, seeing the protests as an example of the
“politicization of sports” or “symbolic of how liberalism has been allowed to spread unchecked through our culture,”
Business perspective Kaepernick becomes the face and voice of Nike’s latest “Just Do It” campaign. Like so much else involving him over the previous two years, it draws praise and condemnation.
People walked by a Nike advertisement featuring Colin Kaepernick in New York in September.
Business perspective While the Nike campaign has been well-received, specifically in the black community. It’s not nearly as popular when polled among non-blacks.
Business perspective According to a report from Rolling Stone magazine, Nike’s call center got an earful from customers upset at the company’s latest ad featuring original anthem protester Colin Kaepernick.
Appendix 4 Codebook
Main concepts
The ‘Take a Knee’-protest - American Football player Colin Kaepernick started the ‘Take a Knee’-protest on the 14th of August 2016, by kneeling before a preseason game during the National Anthem. Two weeks later, he explains his action: “I’m going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed. To me, this is something that has to change. When there’s significant change and I feel that flag represents what it’s supposed to represent, and this country is representing people the way that it’s supposed to, I’ll stand.” Kaepernick protests during the entire season and a lot of other athletes, of several sports, joined the protest. And even in the current season, American Football-players kneel during the anthem. This protest caused a lot of commotion throughout the United States and by now over the whole world people heard about the protest.
Frame ‘the flag’ – The method Kaepernick used for his protest was, to say the least, not interpreted as the best method by everyone. People say that with his protest he is
anti-America, a betrayer, unpatriotic and lots more. They say he is offending the flag of the United States. But others think that with this protest he shows a heart for the country and the flag. In this frame the protest is linked to the love for the country and the flag.
Frame ‘the struggle of the NFL’ – With the protest a big problem for the NFL came up. At the one side, the (mostly) white and Republican owners that want their players, the fans and Trump to be happy. At the other side the (mostly) black players, that are against Trump and certain NFL-regulations. And at the third side there are the (mostly) Republican fans, threatening with a boycott of the FPL when they are not strict enough against the protest. Frame ‘societal injustice’ – The protest is bigger than just kneeling, it is something that keeps coming back looking at the history of America. Racial inequality is the reason why Kaepernick started the process and it still is present in the United States.
Frame ‘political division’ – The protest is dividing America in a certain way: right-winged vs. left-winged. The right Republicans disapprove the protest, while the left Democrats encourage it.
Frame ‘business perspective’ – Nike started a new ‘Just do it’-campaign and the face of this campaign was Colin Kaepernick. It created a lot of controversy in the country. People were burning their Nike clothes. But also, people encourage their action.
1. Basic Information
1.1: What is the code of the article?
………..
1.2: Which online news medium published the article?
O Huffington Post O CNN
O FOX News
1.3: When is the article published? DD-MM-YYYY
……-……-…………
1.4: What is the length of the article? Report the amount of words, title included. ………..
1.5: Coder
O Sanne van ‘t Ooster O Mats Hopstaken
1.6 When is the article coded? DD-MM-YYYY
2. Frames
Frame 1: ‘The flag’
2.1A: Is a link between the ‘Take a Knee’-protest and respect for the USA mentioned in the article? This could also be mentioned as something that suggests the country, such as ‘the troops’, ‘the army’ or ‘the flag’. Respect could also be mentioned differently, such as ‘pride’ or ‘love’ for the country.
O Yes O No
2.1B: If yes at 2.1A, is it linked in a positive way? F.e. when is mentioned that the protest makes a person ‘someone that loves the country’, it is positive.
O Yes O No
2.1C: If yes at 2.1A, is it linked in a negative way? F.e. when is mentioned that the protest makes someone ‘anti-American’, it is negative. It could be mentioned both positive and negative. So ‘yes’ as an answer at 2.1B does not mean ‘yes’ at this question is impossible.
O Yes O No
2.1D: Is the National Anthem mentioned as a special moment? This could also be mentioned with other words suggesting the National Anthem is a special moment. F.e. ‘a moment of pride’ or ‘a really important moment’.
O Yes O No
2.1E: Is it mentioned that the ‘Take a Knee’-protest could also have been done in another way? F.e. when there is mentioned that the protest makes sense, but the method is not the right way.
O Yes O No
2.1F: Is Kaepernick or one of the other protesting players labelled for protesting during the Anthem? F.e. when someone is called a ‘betrayer’, ‘unpatriotic’ or ‘a hero’.
O Yes O No
2.1G: If yes at 2.1F, is it positive? F.e. ‘hero’ would be positive. It could also be that he is labelled both positive and negative, this means that it is also positive and so the answer on this question is ‘yes’.
O Yes O No
2.1H: If yes at 2.1F, is it negative? F.e. ‘betrayer’ would be negative. It could also be that he is labelled both positive and negative, this means that it is also negative and so the answer on this question is ‘yes’.
O No
2.1I: Is Kaepernick’s statement for picking this method discussed?
O Yes O No
2.1J: If yes at 2.1I, is it discussed in a positive way? F.e. when is mentioned that this method ‘is the only way to get attention’, it is positive. If it is discussed in both a positive and a negative way, the answer on this question is ‘yes’.
O Yes O No
2.1K: If yes at 2.1I, is it discussed in a negative way? F.e. when is mentioned that this method ‘is not the way to protest properly’, it is negative. If it is discussed in both a positive and a negative way, the answer on this question is ‘yes’.
O Yes O No
Frame 2: ‘The struggle of the NFL’
2.2A: Are the NFL and their different parties mentioned? The parties in this frame are the NFL-owners, NFL-fans and NFL-players.
O No
2.2B: Are these parties mentioned having a conflict/struggle with each other? This could also be a conflict/struggle between two of the three parties.
O Yes O No
2.2C: Are one or more of these parties mentioned having a conflict/struggle with external parties? F.e. Colin Kaepernick or Donald Trump.
O Yes O No
2.2D: Are the differences between the parties mentioned? F.e. that the NFL-owners are mostly white, while the players are mostly black.
O Yes O No
2.2E: Are the consequences of the ‘Take a Knee’-protest for the NFL mentioned? This is the NFL in general.
O Yes O No
2.2F: If yes at 2.2E, are these consequences positive? If the consequences are discussed in both a positive and a negative way, the answer on this question is ‘yes’.
O Yes O No
2.2G: If yes at 2.2E, are these consequences negative? If the consequences are discussed in both a positive and a negative way, the answer on this question is ‘yes’.
O Yes O No
2.2H: Are the reactions to the ‘Take a Knee’-protest by the NFL-owners mentioned?
O Yes O No
2.2I: If yes at 2.2H, are these reactions by the NFL-owners positive? If the reactions are discussed in both a positive and a negative way, the answer on this question is ‘yes’.
O Yes O No
2.2J: If yes at 2.2H, are these reactions by the NFL-owners negative? If the reactions are discussed in both a positive and a negative way, the answer on this question is ‘yes’.
O Yes O No
