The Syrian tale of war : a framing analysis of the Syrian crisis within the New York Times

(1)

The Syrian Tale of War

A Framing Analysis of the Syrian Crisis within the New York Times

Universiteit van Amsterdam Master Thesis Political Science: International Relations Research Project: Nationalism and Populism

Name: Wendy de Wit Student number: 10246142 Supervisor: Dr. Tjistke Akkerman Second reader: Dr. Bram Creusen

Date: August 31, 2014 Word count: 23034

(2)

i

Abstract

The crisis within Syria has been one of the most important international events of the last three years, throughout which it has received a considerable amount of media attention. The manner in which the media portray, or frame, the events they are reporting on is believed to influence the way the audience views the causes, consequences and importance of the events covered, and with that affects beliefs on what the appropriate response is to the matter at hand. The aim of this master thesis is to look into how the most influential American newspaper, the New York Times, framed the Syrian crisis during the last three years. Using the framing analysis developed by Piers Robinson, the quantity of both empathy and distance framing used to describe the Syrian crisis was measured, as well as support or critical framing towards international military intervention. The analysis

showed that the both the empathy and distance frames were used in coverage on the Syrian war, promoting a view of the conflict as affecting many innocent Syrians, but being very complicated, therefore still distancing the public from the Syrian people in the end. The support and critical frame towards international military intervention were hardly present within the coverage, showing that the New York Times did not take a very clear stand on the intervention matter. This made it hard to draw any conclusions on the influence of government policy on media framing, although it could be suggested that the little use of these frames in fact indicates that the government had an influence on media coverage, as no action explicitly was promoted.

(3)

ii

Introduction

The start of 2011 saw what has proven to be the beginning of major upheaval in the political stability of some big countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Initiating in Tunisia, protest and revolt against the ruling regimes spread to Egypt and Libya and on the heels of these revolutions also Syrian citizens stood up against their leader, asking for reforms (Glover, 125, 2011). Now, more than three years later, the terror that was unleashed in response to this last uprising is still no where near coming to an end. According to officials 190.000 Syrians have died due to the violence in the country, but as counting remains difficult the real number is thought to be much higher. Every month an additional 5000 people are estimated to be perishing according to the United Nations and with that the Syrian crisis accounts for the highest number of deaths in any conflict since Rwanda in 1994. More than 2.500.000 people have fled the country, with numbers rising every day and inside Syria an additional 6.500.000 are displaced, meaning that almost half of the population has now been affected by this civil war, creating one of the largest refugee crises in history and making this one of the most pressing humanitarian disasters in the world at this moment (Blanchard & Sharp, 2013, 31; Heydemann, 2013, 59; Salahi, 2013, 1; UNHCR, 2014, 1).

In today’s society the role of the mass media is to keep the people updated on what happens around the globe and the majority of the population have indeed been shown to use the news media as their main source of information. The way the media outlets decide to cover stories and portray them, a process also referred to as framing, has been known to shape the perception of those the media reach. Media coverage therefore has a big influence on the meaning that is placed on the events described and the way they are understood. Looking at international crises these events have gotten more and more attention within the media over time. Since the 1990’s the coverage on conflicts and wars can be said to often fall within either of two frames (Höijer, 2004, 513; Robinson, 2002, 27). The first frame focuses mostly on the suffering of those innocents involved in the crises and portrays these people as victims, while the second frame focuses more on the conflict as a fight between two parties, often going into the role of ethnicity within the conflict and highlighting the fact that those involved are using violence against each other. These different kinds of portrayals have been argued to give the audience a certain belief about the conflict and even implicitly color their opinion on the necessity of intervention. The focus on victims is said to lead to a feeling of empathy towards the population and a feeling that something needs to be done in order to help them,

(6)

2

while the focus on fighting groups promotes a feeling of distance among the audience and indirectly promotes the belief that international help is not necessary, or cannot help those within that conflict (Höijer, Nohrstedt & Ottosen, 2002, 5; Robinson, 2002, 28). When it comes to covering international events, the media are believed to be influenced by the own government’s view on the matter and either of these two frames, or narratives, have been believed to be promoted to the media by the government. Whenever a government plans to intervene militarily the empathy frame is promoted to the media, while the distance frame is encouraged when non-intervention is the aim, trying to create support for these plans among the public. When the government is not certain about what to do itself, is it believed not to be able to promote such narratives to the media and the media are in these times believed to show a different kind of coverage, reflecting the more differing opinions on the matter at hand now as well as taking a more definite stand on whether these people need help or not,

potentially criticizing the government in the process.

The United States, as world’s leading nation and military power, have both an

important as well as critical voice and role in handling the crisis in Syria. Seen as the provider of order internationally they have often led humanitarian interventions into other parts of the world and the biggest part of the forcible interventions up to now has been under the

leadership and command of this nation (Robinson, 2002, 1; Shaw, 2007, 355). The eyes of the international community have indeed again been focusing on this state in order to understand what it is that is happening in Syria and to know what action to take (Blanchard & Sharp, 2013, 31). The American policy on Syria has been very clear from the moment that the uprising started, stating that no military intervention was desired and therefore would not take place within this Middle Eastern state. One moment proved to be a moment of disagreement among elites however, with no clear policy on the intervention matter, right after several hundred innocent civilians were killed by chemical attacks in August of 2013 (Blanchard & Sharp, 2013, 12; Miller, 2013,1).

This research will focus on American news media coverage, and more specifically on the coverage within the New York Times, which is considered to be the most influential newspaper in the country, in order to understand what kind of framing has been used to cover this crisis during the last three years. American news coverage is believed to have not only influenced the American perception of this war, but to have also affected others within the international community, as the U.S. have such an important role in this matter. It seems interesting to look into the media coverage on this particular crisis, in order to understand

(7)

3

what the narrative is that is promoted to the public and therefore what the general perception is of this particular war. Such an insight could also allow to see if this framing appears to have been influenced by government policy on the matter.

The research question of this master thesis is:

How has the Syrian conflict been framed within the New York Times over the last three years, and does this newspaper offer any support for or critique against the government

policy on military intervention within its coverage?

In order to look into the Syrian war coverage, this thesis will first offer an insight into what has been happening in Syria over the last three years, providing information on Syria’s political past and the conflict itself, as well as show how the international community has been responding to the conflict up to now. Then within the second chapter of this study the theoretical basis for this research will be formed, discussing framing within the news media, media coverage of conflicts and wars, the potential effects this framing has on the public’s belief in the necessity for intervention and the much debated role of the media within society. Chapter three will go into the research methods used, discussing the both qualitative and quantitative framing analysis developed by Piers Robinson that will be used in order to analyze the articles within the New York Times. By thoroughly reading the newspaper articles and counting keywords linked to four different frames within the coverage, it is believed to be able to get an understanding of the presence of both the empathy and distance frames describing the conflict, as well as the support and critical frames towards military intervention, used within the coverage. As the analysis of frames has become an often used research tool in order to understand attitudes towards certain matters it seems a suitable research method for this study too. Within chapter four the results will then be analyzed, answering the research question and the thesis will be end with a conclusion and discussion.

This research will offer a descriptive study into the representation of the Syrian conflict within the New York Times, in order to understand what picture has been painted of this war. As there is one clear moment of elite dissensus and policy uncertainty this moment can be compared to the rest of the coverage looked into in order to see if there is a difference in coverage. The portrayal of this crisis will therefore hopefully also provide additional useful

(8)

4

information into the relationship between media framing and government policy. Even though the Syrian conflict is one of the most important international events of the last three years and it has gotten a fair share of media attention, surprisingly enough no academic studies could be found into the framing of this particular war at the onset of this thesis. It therefore appears to be both relevant as well as crucial to take this first step and evaluate the news coverage on Syria in order to try and fill this gap in academic knowledge, analyzing the war coverage on of the most horrible conflicts of this time, in one of the most important and influential newspapers in the world today. By looking into this media coverage, it is hoped that this thesis will help in gathering more relevant information on framing and will with that contribute to the growing knowledge of reporting on international crises as well as set the ground for more research into the coverage on the Syrian war.

(9)

5

Chapter One. The Syrian Crisis

The objective of this thesis is to look into how the Syrian conflict has been framed within the New York Times. In order to do this it seems beneficial to first have a general understanding of the crisis itself before starting to examine its representation within this newspaper. This chapter will therefore give an outline of Syrian political history, the conflict’s development, parties involved within the conflict and international perspectives on the civil war as well as reactions to it. Such an overview will hopefully allow a better understanding of the crisis itself and its complexities, as well as underline some of the conflict’s most important moments. It is believed that such an understanding will add to the ability to look into the news coverage and help in understanding the Syrian crisis’ portrayal within the news media, and more

specifically the New York Times newspaper.

1.1. Political history of Syria

After the Ottoman Empire was dissolved in the aftermath of World War I, the boundaries of what is now known as Syria, were artificially drawn by European states. With that this new country was made up of multiple different religious and ethnic groups consisting of Arab Sunnis, Alawites, Druze, Christians, Shia and Sunni Kurds as a cause. Roughly three quarters of the population professed Sunni Islam. The second largest religious group in the country were the Alawites, professing a variation of Shia Islam, and making up twelve per cent of the population. Christians then made up another ten per cent and the Druze, who combined different religious doctrines, the remaining three (Hof & Simon, 2013, 1; Phillips & East, 2013, 25). Syria was put under the control of the French, who divided the state in three zones of government, one in the North-west dominated by the Alawites, one in the southern region surrounding Jabal al-Druze dominated by the Druze and the remainder of the country was given to the Sunni, with Damascus as the capital (Fildis, 2012, 148; Hof &Simon, 2013, 5). The French performed this divide-and rule strategy to stop any form of Syrian, or Arab, nationalism from arising, but mostly to offer a counterweight to the majority Sunni population.

Mostly Sunni had dominated the political posts and businesses up to then, while the minority groups, and especially Alawites, had been living in rural areas and were considered religious outcasts. During the Ottoman rule Alawites had been victim of abuse and

persecution by the Sunni, as a cause of their belief system, and over the centuries many had been massacred. In order to manage their new colonial asset the French adopted favorable

(10)

6

policies for Syria’s minorities, but foremost for Alawites, providing them with more rights. The security apparatus for example had been off limits to all minorities, but the French

allowed Alawites to join the police, military and intelligence posts. This helped in suppressing the Sunni majority’s challenges to French rule and for the first time allowed Alawites to really take part in society (Bhalla, 2011, 3). Their presence in urban zones started to steadily

increase, just like their social status (Hof & Simon, 2013, 8).

When Syria got independence in 1946 many Sunni tried to reestablish the former power base and worked hard at getting Alawites out of the positions they had acquired in the government, judicial system and businesses during the French rule. The Sunni Arab elite succeeded in getting back most of the power. However Alawites were still a great part of the military and made up about 65 per cent of all the lower rank officers by 1955. The period that followed independence was marked by a lot of political turmoil. No government seemed to be steady enough to rule the country or was able to build solid institutions. During these decades there was a continuous switching of power and several military coups. Tensions increased between Alawites and Sunni in their struggle for power, and massacres on both sides at the hands of the other occurred (Bhalla, 2011, 3; Hof & Simon, 2013, 6). Then in 1970 Alawite General Hafiz al-Assad succeeded in leading the final coup that led to his military leadership, partly made possible by the big amount of loyal Alawites in the military.

Looking back at the turmoil of the past decades Hafiz understood that in order to stay in power he had to make sure that he had a very cohesive and strongly loyal party and military force around him. The first al-Assad knew that a minority cohesion within the government and army could help him stay in power and he therefore made sure that most political top posts were taken by Alawites, and that in the already mostly Alawite military even more positions were made up of Alawites. In order to keep a good standing among all groups within the country, he also made sure however that both Sunni and the other minority groups were still appointed key positions as well, while keeping their numbers low (Landis, 2012, 72). By 1973, now President Hafiz al-Assad, had established single-party rule in Syria and he had formed multiple intelligence services that had surveillants and informers all around the country reporting any misconduct to him. Not only did this help in establishing absolute control over his party and the military, it also spread fear throughout his country, and with that fear came conformity (Hof & Simon, 2013, 10). During these four decades the Assad’s have, together with the Syrian Alawites, completely consolidated power and Hafiz al-Assad has ruled with an iron fist (Bhalla, 2011, 4; Lundgren-Jörum, 2012, 12; Phillips & East, 2013,

(11)

7

24). The regime of this first al-Assad, largely based on family ties and sectarian affiliation, has been durable and extremely loyal over the years, suppressing every attempt at degrading power. In 2000 Bashar al-Assad took over from his father and inherited, what seemed like, a very stable system at the time (Hof & Simon, 2013, 12).

1.2. Syrian people rise up

In February of 2011 twenty Syrian boys between the age of ten and fifteen were arrested and tortured after writing the now famous Arab spring sentence ‘the people want the fall of the

regime’ on a wall of their school in Dara’a. In response their families and neighborhood took

to the street, protesting against this brutal use of force. Although not clear at the time, this demonstration marked the beginning of a major uprising. Within a period of two months protest spread from the city of Dara’a, to the Kurdish northeast, the coastal Latakia area, the cities of Hama, Homs and Aleppo and the suburbs of Damascus (Bhalla, 2011, 1; Kahf, 2013, 6). Mostly teenagers and adults in their twenties and thirties, these people shared the same experience of unemployment and underemployment and brutalization under a repressive, corrupt and enormously armed Syrian elite that had enriched itself over the last decades (Abbas, 2011, 1; Hof & Simon, 2013, 1; Kahf, 2013, 1).The protests came from the country’s grass roots, involved men and women from all over the nation, as even people from very small towns in agricultural areas were seen participating. Asking for reforms, their aim was the rise of a democratic Syria that would be bound to the rule of law and would uphold basic human rights and give the Syrian citizens the political, economic and social opportunities that they had been denied for so long (Kahf, 2013, 2; O’Bagy, 2012, 20).

The incidents in February warned the regime of President Bashar al-Assad that the Arab spring was perhaps reaching Syria and that his society might also carry the potential for explosion. The President formed a special committee to examine what the possibilities were for protest in his country and, if there was indeed such a potential, what he could do to stop it. The committee concluded that there was a possibility and that in order to keep the Syrian regime from falling, like had happened in Tunesia and Egypt, the Syrian regime should crush the protests at the moment of their inception, something these other two states had failed to do (Abbas, 2011, 1). The security forces of President Assad, the Syrian Military Intelligence, therefore got the authorization to use force, and when the protest movements emerged, they violently intervened from the beginning, attempting to repress them. In trying to stop the Syrian public from protesting however, Bashar al-Assad achieved the opposite. The protest

(12)

8

movements kept reasserting, and his regime’s violent repression only seemed to fuel the flame. With the protest continuing and growing bigger, the regime’s repression turned even more violent leading to the use of deadly force by firing into unarmed crowds of protesters, causing massive casualties under civilians (Hof & Simon, 2013, 17; Lundgren-Jörum, 2012, 18).

1.3. Start of a Civil War

With the protests continuing and the violence becoming more widespread and increasingly brutal, citizens eventually took up arms too. A military division on the side of the opposition emerged in August of that year, five months after the uprising started (Hof & Simon, 2013, 1; Kahf, 2013, 2; O’Bagy, 2012, 10). Most of the people that joined the armed opposition in its early stages were army defectors that did not want to attack peaceful protesters anymore or men that turned to violence as a form of self-defense, in order to protect their neighborhoods, their homes and their families from the regime’s assaults (Kahf, 2013, 15). This armed resistance turned into a serious challenge for the Syrian regime around February of 2012 and from that moment on the talk of the non-violent uprising was pushed back and the violence in Syria became known as a civil war (Phillips & East, 2013, 26; White, Tabler & Zelin, 2013, 3).

The Free Syrian Army (FSA) is the most high profile opposition group in this war. Although the ‘rebels’ are often all said to be fighting for the FSA, the FSA can better be seen as an umbrella organization holding different militia together (Phillips & East, 2013, 27). The armed opposition has been growing since the first group of fighters emerged and the units are composed of all layers of Syrian society. Ranging from urban and rural, poor and wealthy, former military to civilian and educated and non-educated, men from all over the country could be seen participating. As mentioned before some units started off as defense of a town, while others were centered around defectors of the Syrian Army and one can still not speak of one opposition army, as there are so many different factions. The war has therefore been more of a local and regional one for the rebels, although all are after the fall of the Assad regime (White, Tabler & Zelin, 2013, 16). Over the years more extremists have been starting to participate in this conflict too, with especially a big increase in 2013. Ultra conservative Sunni Islamists, otherwise known as Salafi jihadists, are now fighting within this war in Syria too and their numbers have been rising quickly. These fighters are not only Syrians, but have joined in the fighting from surrounding countries in the Gulf too, and even people from

(13)

9

Western nations such as Britain, the Netherlands and the United States have been entering the fight. Some of these extremists fighters still focus on a national and Syrian agenda such as the group Ahrar al-Sham. Others such as Jahbat al-Nusra however, who have been linked to Al Qaeda, are not interested in freeing Syria of Assad per se, but are more focused on a global jihadist mission, using the turmoil in an attempt to turn this country, and more countries in the region, into an Islamic state (White, Tabler & Zelin, 2013, 27). The presence of these parties has been making the conflict far more difficult, not only as there as so many different parties involved, but also for giving an extra reason to Assad to use force. From the beginning of the uprising president Assad has said that he has been fighting these extremists, claiming that the regime’s violence has only been used to make sure that these jihadists do not attain any power in the country. Any civilian casualties are an unfortunate side effect of this battle according the Syrian president and not at all his intention(White, Tabler & Zelin, 2013, 3).

1.4. Us versus them

Starting off the Syrian crisis did not necessarily have to do with the identity of the ruling Alawite. As mentioned before, the population stood together asking for a democratic Syria that would abide by the rule of law. During these uprisings slogans saying: ‘No Sunni, no

Allawi, no Arab or Kurd, we all want freedom’ could be seen being carried around (Hof &

Simon, 2013, 15). The Syrian population was asking for reforms and their primary aim was, not an Assad free country, but a nation that took better care of its inhabitants. By choosing to react with violence however, the Syrian regime put the mostly Alawite regime troops, police and intelligence services against the largely Sunni majority protesters from the start. This has caused the already existing sectarian fault lines to become more clear within this crisis. After three years of conflict, where these two groups have been opposing each other continuously, the traditional sectarian divide is now said to have become a crucial part of the conflict and many agree that Syria is in a full-blown sectarian war today (Hof & Simon, 2013, 15).

The Assad regime has itself been accused of actually trying to stimulate such sectarian mobilization from very early on (Abbas, 2012, 8). The regime has been believed to have been trying to create fear among Alawites throughout the country by spreading anti-rebel

propaganda. An example of one such story is that Sunni people in Homs have been

dismembering the bodies of Alawites after having captured them and that they have been seen drinking their blood afterwards (Hof & Simon, 2013, 17). The regime has furthermore been said to have handed out weapons to Alawite citizens, particularly in the suburbs of larger

(14)

10

cities andrural areas, saying that they needed these in order to protect themselves against Sunni’s (Abbas, 2011, 5). Stimulating these beliefs is thought to be done in order to make sure that the biggest part of the Alawite government and security forces would not turn against Assad and is of course only adding to the fear and tensions within the country. The Alawite community is in itself already thought to be likely to stay loyal to the Assad regime as most families have at least one family member working in the security forces or other ministries. With this anti-rebel propaganda being spread it seems obvious that many are becoming terrified of the reprisals that might occur at the hands of their Sunni countrymen, especially considering the fact that Assad and his security services, as Alawites, have been using so much violence against mostly Sunni (Landis, 2012, 74). It is believed that many Alawites, who are so intrinsically linked with the regime, have therefore been aligning with Assad, convinced that sticking with the ruling elite is their only way to survive, only adding to the sectarian divide within the country (Abbas, 2011, 9).

1.5. International perspective on Syria

With the coming of the armed rebels the regime steadily increased their way of combat, using more armor and artillery, putting in armed vehicles, and using mortars and aircraft shootings (Kahf, 2013, 12; White, Tabler & Zelin, 2013, 3). Besides aiming at the rebels, the violence has consistently and from the beginning of the uprising been aimed at Syrian civilians too. Even when the crisis turned into a civil war, the regime appears to have kept on targeting its citizens intentionally, trying to scare people into obeying, and many innocents have died at the hands of Assad’s security forces (Stanton, 2012, 14; Hof & Simon, 2013, 24).The biggest attack on civilians was on August 21 of 2013, when parts of the suburbs of Damascus, and especially an area called Ghouta, were hit by rockets very early in the morning. People, often still in their beds, had extreme difficulty breathing, were seizing and showed signs of foaming around the mouth. Several hundreds of civilians, and many say that the numbers exceeded one and a half thousand, died as a cause of this attack, often choking to death (Blanchard & Sharp, 2013, 12; Miller, 2013, 1). The previous described symptoms that were seen on the victims led to the suspicions that the rockets contained the nerve agent sarin, a chemical weapon. The attacks were believed to have come from forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad, as the areas that were hit belonged to the opposition. The Syrian regime denied the accusations however, saying that the opposition was behind it all, trying to frame the government in order for the international community to become more involved. Investigators of the United

(15)

11

Nations, that were already present in Syria at the time, got the order to look into the attacks. The report they made, based among others things on findings of departure sites of the missiles as well as samples of hair and blood of the deceased, led to the conclusion that the deaths were indeed caused by a chemical substance and that the attacks were very likely to have come from the regime. A definite answer to the responsibility question however was never given.

The violent campaign of Bashar al-Assad against his citizens has led to strong

condemnations from the international community from the beginning of the crisis. In order to try and help the innocent Syrians involved, some actions were taken against the Syrian

government. One of the first nations to impose sanctions on the country was the United States, and they did so very early on in the crisis. Mostly economic, these sanctions were aimed at stopping the weapons proliferation of the Syrian government. By prohibiting all foreign assistance and any financial transactions both with the regime and others in the country, an attempt was made at depriving the regime of Bashar al-Assad of financial and material means to make it harder to continue the violence (Laub, 2013, 1). The U.S. have been otherwise involved as being the largest donor of humanitarian assistance, providing humanitarian aid to both Syria as well as neighboring countries since the beginning of the conflict. Some others nations have followed these examples, with countries in the European Union, such as Britain and France, freezing assets of certain Syrian people too, as well as adding limits to

transactions of Syria’s central bank, imposing travel restrictions on specific officials and banning Syrian cargo flights to Europe as well as providing humanitarian aid to the region. There are also some nations that have been aligning with Assad. Iran, Russia and China, have been all been said to have been supporting the Syrian regime, providing it with necessary means, such as helping it obtain weapons. This shows that the international community is divided on the Syrian matter, making any attempt at getting involved in this conflict more difficult, as it is highly likely that it would lead to the involvement of others on the other side too.

With the brutal violence continuing the question if military intervention in Syria should take place, has become more pronounced over the last two years, especially right after the chemical attacks of last year killing so many innocent. The United Nations has not been able to come to a unanimous agreement on this issue, with Russia and China, vetoing any attempt made at U.N. intervention. As world leading nation and most important military power, the Obama administration has therefore been put under increasingly growing pressure

(16)

12

internationally to intervene militarily in Syria (Blanchard & Sharp, 2013, 5). President Obama however has been very clear on the U.S. policy towards Syria from the beginning of the uprising. The American government has always stated that U.S. military intervention in Syria would not help in resolving the underlying historic religious, ethnic and tribal issues that have been fueling the Syrian crisis (Blanchard & Sharp, 2013, 5). The conflict has from the

beginning been said to be too difficult to solve with military action or presence, and was therefore not desired. The American government claimed that it feared that direct U.S.

military involvement could have unwanted consequences, only making this conflict worse. An intervention could alter the balance of power, and besides making it better, potentially lead to more regional involvement, making the conflict only more complex while also allowing it to affect even more people. Such a shift in power might allow extremists at the scene to take over for example and in turn this could again mean that instead of decreasing the violence, an intervention would only make the conflict worse. Discussion among government members has therefore mostly been focused around the question if the U.S. should arm the rebels, with some arguing that this would help them within this fight (Miller, 2013, 1). A negotiated settlement has furthermore been believed to be the best option, allowing the Syrian state to remain intact, while giving everyone involved in the Syrian conflict a little of what they want. President Obama has therefore been trying to negotiate a political settlement over the last two years, asking President Assad repeatedly to resign from his presidency and allow others to form a new government in Syria (Blanchard & Sharp, 2013, 5).

Although the American policy on Syria has been steadfast, the American President did claim that using chemical weapons within Syria would be crossing a red line in a speech on August 20 of 2012. If the Syrian regime would take up such arms, this would not only break international norms, but it would also be contradictory to international security. Such an act would therefore lead Obama to think otherwise about the American non intervention plans. When almost exactly one year later, on the morning of August 21, 2013 chemical attacks were used anyway, a military intervention seemed imminent. Following the allegations of these chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian population, there was however no political consensus on the intervention within the U.S. government. The views on the matter in fact ranged from those who thought America should indeed use force now in order to help the Syrians, to those who did not want to see any military action at all, stating that the Syrians should still fight this battle on their own (Miller, 2013,1).Before taking any action the American President

(17)

13

September 10, before the American Congress had been able to make a decision on the matter, Syria announced that it would stop producing chemical weapons and that on top of that it would disclose the locations of the weapons, handing them over to the international

community and allowing them to be dismantled. This was enough for President Obama to halt the official consideration of Congress to authorize force in Syria and with that military

intervention was diverted (Blanchard & Sharp, 2013, 2). The U.S. has since been fully involved in helping to relieve Syria of these chemical weapons. To this day no international intervention has taken place within the country, but the Syrian conflict itself is nowhere near coming to an end. Today, it could even be said to be further away from a solution that ever before.

(18)

14

Chapter Two. News Making

This chapter will from the theoretical basis of this research. It will go into framing within the news media, media coverage of conflicts and wars, the potential effects war framing have on the public’s belief in the necessity for international intervention and lastly the much debated role of the media within society. This overview will try to give an insight into the leading beliefs of this time on media coverage and its effects. At the end of the chapter the research question and hypotheses of the current research will be formulated and an explanation will be given into why the New York Times is chosen as the newspaper for analysis.

2.1. Construction of reality in the news media

The news media are a big part of the modern world. Broadcast news such as television and radio, print media encompassing newspapers and newsmagazines, and today also the internet, all produce and distribute information. In this age of advanced communication technology and globalization, journalists have more access to information than ever before and not only events that take place close to home are covered, but things that happen in the most remote parts of the world now also reach the local media very fast (Dimitrova & Strömback, 2005, 406; Livingston, 1997, 1). As the majority of the general public has been shown to use the media as their main source of information, the media are considered to be one of the most influential institutions in today’s society and looking into media coverage therefore is a very important task (Auerbach & Bloch-Elkon, 2005, 85; Vincent, 2000, 322).

The media are often thought to be the source of genuine, detached and unbiased facts and they are believed to give an impartial view of the occurrences that they are covering. Reporting about everything that occurs on a daily basis is impossible however. Choices have to be made regarding what will and what will not be shown to the public and with that the media decide what the issues of the day are and what it is the public should focus on (Dimitrova, Kaid, Williams & Trammell, 2005, 25). Besides distributing information about these chosen events, the media also produce the news. This means that the media not only report on what it is that has happened somewhere, but that they actively participate in the construction of meaning of that event that they are covering (Goldberger, 2004, 11).

Differently put, one could say that any event can be viewed from a variety of perspectives and each perspective offers a somewhat different reality. While covering an event a journalist will use one perspective through which this story will be reported on, and with that in a sense ‘picks’ a certain reality. This process is called framing (Nelson, Oxley & Clawson, 1997, 222;

(19)

15

Steimel, 2009, 220). The most popular definition of framing is by Robert Entman and it summarizes clearly what frames do: ‘frames allow for the selection of some aspects of a

perceived reality, and by making these aspects more salient in a communicating text, the frame promotes a particular definition of a problem, a causal interpretation and assigning of responsibility, a moral evaluation, and a treatment recommendation for the issue that is described’ (Entman, 1993, 52; d’Haenens & De Lange, 2001, 849; Goldberger, 2004, 11; van

Gorp, 2005, 486; Nelson, Oxley & Clawson, 1997, 222; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000, 94; Steimel, 2009, 223). This definition suggests that by selecting certain elements, emphasizing and repeating them, frames focus on how something will be discussed and with that promote one particular interpretation of the event over other interpretations, telling people how to think about that what is covered (Chong & Druckman, 2007, 104; Goldberger, 2004, 11; Lundgren-Jörum, 2012, 11; de Vreese, 2005, 53). Besides choosing which stories to cover and what will come to the public’s attention, the media therefore also influence how something will come to the public’s attention (van Gorp, Vettehen & Beentjes, 2009, 162; van Gorp, 2007, 69).

2.2. How frames work

Over the last decades numerous studies have been done in order to understand which frames there are to be found within the news media and what kind of an effects these frames actually have on those they reach. During all this research a wide variety of frames has been

uncovered and scholars have agreed that frames have different characteristics, which makes it possible to divide them in different categories (Entman, 1993, 53;de Vreese, 2005, 54). One such way of framing is divided in empathy and distance framing, and is often seen within war coverage. These two frames will form the basis of this study and will be discussed in more detail further on in this chapter. First, however it is important to go into the effect frames have on the opinion of those they reach. Research has shown that the effects frames have depends on different factors, such as how often a certain frame is repeated while reporting on an issue, if other frames are used in reporting on that same event, and what the individual motivations, beliefs and knowledge base are of the person the frame reaches (Chong & Druckman, 2007, 110-111). The likelihood that a given frame will affect the opinion of an individual will increase the more often the frame is seen in the coverage of that event, the less (other) frames are used within that coverage and the more the frame matches the already existing convictions of the one that is exposed to the frame (Lee, Maslog & Kim, 2006, 502). Whenever a person is knowledgeable on a certain issue, they will be less likely to be affected by any frame than

(20)

16

people that are less sophistaticated on the topic. These last people will by definition be more susceptible to any frame that is used (Baum & Potter, 2008, 47). However, in general frames can still be said to have a large impact on opinion, not minding if someone is knowledgable on the topic or not (Nelson, Oxley & Clawson, 1997, 236; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000, 94). This big impact of framing is explained by the fact that people have been found to build their opinions on easily available and accessible information, without really considering or

consciously deliberating all the information they have at hand. Knowledge that was gained prior to being exposed to a certain frame is then more easily disgarded because the frame offers a readily available, perceivable and memorable interpretation of the event that is being reported on. The more often a frame is seen therefore in the coverage of that event, especially when it is the only frame used, the more impact it will have, and after a while even more knowledgeable receivers will be affected by the used frame.

2.3. Media coverage of international crises

Those who follow the news media then may consider themselves to be well informed about the world’s most important issues and events, but as the previous has shown people are affected by the way the news media cover events (Evans, 2010, 210). The frames used will influence how the public will perceive the causes, consequences and importance of that what is covered and therefore how they will look upon the event. When it comes to covering international stories this ‘power’ of the media seems even more apparent, as the only way most people get to learn about things that happen so far away from them is through the news media. The amount of media coverage a particular international event gets and the language that is used will therefore influence what the public will think about what has happened somewhere, if the public feels somehow responsible for what is taking place so far away, and in the case of conflict if, and with which side, the public will empathize (Matt, 2010, 209).

Of all the international stories that are covered within the news media most attention goes to humanitarian crises. Natural disasters, internal conflicts and international wars around the globe get the biggest amount of media attention and of these events the focus is mostly on conflicts and wars, as their newsworthiness in general lasts longer than that of natural

disasters (Galtung & Ruge, 1965, 79). A lot of research has gone into the way wars are covered and since the end of the Cold War a number of studies have shown that the media portrayal of conflicts and wars has changed. The focus within the coverage used to be mainly on interstate wars, and these conflicts between states were explained as originating because of

(21)

17

the battle between the capitalist West and the communist East that was dividing the world for almost half a century. After the fall of the Berlin wall and the demise of one of the two superpowers however, this explanation for strive disappeared and it left a void in the way causes were attributed to conflicts around the globe (Evans, 2010, 211). The attention of the media shifted to ‘smaller’ intrastate wars, which were now the most prominent form of conflict. These wars were fought between governments and insurgents, or between rivalling groups, and took place within one state. The crises of the 1990’s, such as the wars within Rwanda and Bosnia, were now most often portrayed as violence that had erupted because of ancient religious and ethnic tension between the groups that were fighting each other in these countries (Shaw, 2007, 351). At the same time another change could be seen. The focus in some of the reports turned more towards the civilian populations who were affected by these crises now. The attention in the media had primarily been on the military aspects of the interstate conflicts, discussing the weapon systems and strategies that were used by the fighting countries. Now however far more attention was paid to the actual people in these crises. The people who provoked them, the people who fought them, and sometimes also the people who suffered from them (Höijer, 2004, 516; Höijer, Nohrstedt & Ottosen, 2002, 5; Robinson, 2000, 616).

Shaw found that the amount of attention any of these groups got within coverage differed among conflicts and he stated that this potentially had an impact on the understanding people had of the crisis at hand. He found that the way both the Kurds and the Shia were portrayed in their fights against Saddam Hussein near the end of the Gulf war differed very much from one another. In the coverage of the Kurdish crisis in the North of Iraq the suffering of the Kurds was highlighted, focusing mostly on the hardships this group was experiencing while being on the run from the atrocities that were committed against them by the regime of Saddam Hussein (Robinson, 2001, 942). A clear focus was on the Kurds as victims within this crisis. The Shia on the other hand, who had a similar struggle against the same Iraqi leader in the South of Iraq, did not have the same representation in the media. Here attention was paid to both sides of the conflict as fighters, the Husseinni government as well as the Shia.

Although the Shia faced the same kind of hardships as the Kurds, the focus on different aspects, such as the violent behaviour on the side of the Shia, painted a different picture of this crisis. By not focusing on the hardships the Shia were enduring and paying attention to their victimhood, but by mentioning that they were using violence just as well as Hussein’s government was, made it harder to clearly identify the victims in this battle. This conflict was

(22)

18

portrayed as a battle between two armed and violent groups. Eventually international help was provided to the Kurds, but not to the Shia and Shaw argued that the difference in media coverage might have been a crucial factor in the eventual decision to intervene in the one crisis but not the other (Robinson, 2002, 29).

Piers Robinson has done a lot of research into the media framing of conflicts and wars as well. He partly bases his ideas on the work of the just mentioned Martin Shaw and

continues in this line of thought (Robinson, 2002, 20). Robinson says that the framing of some conflicts allows for a feeling of empathy to arise for the people affected by crises, while other framing distances the reader from those involved in wars (Robinson, 1999, 306). He states that by focusing on the group in war as victims, with that highlighting their innocence and suffering, media coverage allows the public to identify with them, seeing the victim as similar to themselves. This empathy framing he says is a way that leads the public to feel a closer ‘proximity’ to one side of a conflict or a group in a war. On the other hand coverage focusing on the people involved as warring or fighting parties, often portrayed as members of opposing tribes and with different ethnicities, creates a feeling of ‘distance’ between the public and the people portrayed, making them seem different from the audience, thereby not fostering that same kind of empathy among those the media reach (Robinson 2000, 616; Robinson, 2001, 943). These two distinct ways of framing are believed to influence the receiving public very much in their understanding of wars. Whenever there is a focus on victims, focusing on their suffering, it is easy for the general public to recognize the one in need of help. Especially as the focus in this coverage appears to be foremost on this

humanitarian aspect of the crisis, leaving the political dimensions of the conflicts out of the coverage. A factor adding to a clear distinguishable victim are instances in which the foreign leaders involved in these wars, such as Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, are clearly portrayed and mentioned as the bad side of the conflict (Evans, 2010, 211). The degree to which the media depicts these foreign leaders as evil will help in creating a feeling of

empathy for those whom are suppressed and hurt by these leaders. Whenever the sides within a conflict are fighting each other and are both using violence however, the group or people that need rescuing, are not as clear. In these cases the focus in the coverage is often on underlying social and political issues, such as the ethnic aspect of the conflict, making the conflicts seems more difficult (Robinson, 2002, 29). By focusing on the groups as warring parties, often of opposing ethnicities, whom are different than the audience, a feeling of distance is achieved (Evans, 2010, 219). Even more so because in these cases far fewer, less

(23)

19

vivid and less prominent accounts of civilian suffering are used (Robinson, 2001, 943). These two ways distinct of framing have been believed to have an influence on the attitudes towards international intervention. The degree of empathy in media framing is believed to be key to the public’s understanding and opinion of various conflicts around the globe. Whenever media coverage of a war empathizes with suffering innocent people, this indirectly supports the idea of intervention, as it stimulates the thought among the public that these poor people deserve all the help they can get and it encourages a feeling ‘that something needs to be done’ to arise (Robinson, 2000, 616). Alternatively, distancing in media coverage has been shown to separate the reader from those involved in conflict and with that this coverage implicitly promotes the feeling that intervention is not necessary or cannot help those involved in war. The kind of framing used could therefore give an indication of the image that the news media have been giving to all of those they have been reaching

(Robinson, 2000, 616). Research has shown that the kind of empathy framing just discussed could indeed be found within the coverage of conflicts such as Somalia and Kosovo, where international intervention has taken place, while more distance framing was used in the coverage of other crises, such as the conflict in Rwanda, where none got involved (Evans, 2012, 211; Robinson, 2002, 114).

2.4. The role of media within society

During the 1990’s a rise could be seen in the use of military force in order to try and help end some of the far away conflicts around the globe. The before mentioned change in war

coverage appeared to go hand in hand with this increase and the empathic nature of the coverage of some of these crises in the news media was therefore linked to the subsequent interventions in these areas. The coverage of these international crises, such as the famine in Somalia in 1992-1993 and the war in Bosnia in 1995, became a very interesting topic of investigation (Dimitrova & Connolly-Ahern, 2007, 154; Robinson, 2000, 613). The role of the media within society had always been of interest to academia and, as has been mentioned before, many studies had looked into the effects of media coverage on public opinion. Most of this research came to the conclusion that, besides affecting public opinion to a fair amount, the media framing of events was very often in line with the beliefs and actions of the county’s elites towards that matter, especially when it came to covering international events (Dimitrova et al., 2005, 24). It appeared that the media were influenced by government views on the matter, portraying them to the audience in a way that was in line with current government

(24)

20

policy. One of the leading theories on media coverage became that the media acted as kind of a conveyor belt for political views, although not necessarily consciously, an idea that can be found extensively explained within Bennet’s indexing theory or within the manufacturing

consent concept, stating that among other things the social and political climate in which the

media operate have an effect on the kind of coverage seen (Balabanova, 2004, 275; Baum & Potter, 2008, 40; Dimitrova et al., 2005, 23; Robinson, 2002, 12). The change in war coverage within the last decade of the 20th century however, now appeared to show something

contradictory. In these cases the news media’s portrayal of crises seemed not only to affect public opinion, but to have an effect on politicians too. So much in fact that foreign policy was even adapted to it, leading to international interventions in order to help those innocents involved in the crises (Olsen, Carstensen & Høyen, 2003, 39; Robinson, 2013, 1). Numerous scholars started looking into this, trying to understand if the media had indeed become so powerful.

The empathic nature of the coverage, focusing on the victims of these far away crises, emphasizing their suffering and hardship, was said to be the crucial factor in changing policy. The effect was however not believed to be caused by influencing the political figures

themselves per se. It was thought that public opinion was in fact the driving force behind the changed policy decisions, stating that the news media played a critical role in shaping who the general public thought was responsible for solving these social problems and was then

holding them accountable for it (An & Gower, 2009, 108; Baum & Potter, 2008, 52). Whenever the general public believed that their government was somehow obliged to do something about these far away crises and help the poor people involved, public pressure on policymakers could rise whenever the elites, in the eyes of the people, did not respond to these events accordingly. This actual pressure, or the fear of potential future pressure, was believed to convince elites into changing their policies, in so far as to intervene after all and help the poor people portrayed in the media, in order to not lose their popularity among the public. This phenomenon came to be known as the CNN-effect and with it the media appeared to have gained an enormously influential role in society (Livingston, 1997, 1).

Over the years the CNN-effect has had extensive research and at best it can be said to show mixed results. The effect the media have seem to differ among situations and the relationship between the media and policy formation therefore does not seem to be very clear cut. Scholars are to this day not agreeing on the true connection between these two. The biggest part of academia actually still seem to argue that the media function as the before

(25)

21

mentioned conveyor belt, stating that the media are very much influenced by both the political and social climate in which they operate. The empathic narratives found in the newspapers are thought to actually be stimulated by government officials to the media in order to try to justify international intervention among their public (Robinson, 2002, 28-29). Others however do believe that media can have a great influence on policy formation, claiming that some of the interventions have taken place because of this media coverage (Balabanova, 2004, 274). One of the more recent thoughts is that the relationship between media coverage and policy formation might not be such an either or question as it has been claimed to be, with the media either being very influential or not influential at all. The relationship might be more complex than this and that could indeed explain why sometimes people have found evidence of an effect of media coverage on policy formation, while in other cases people did not (Auerbach & Bloch-Elkon, 2005, 83; Balabanova, 2004, 227; Höijer, 2004, 515; Robinson, 2000, 613). Perhaps the influence of the media differ among circumstances.

Several ideas have surfaced such as that many other factors, ranging from domestic politics, to geopolitical interests or other co-incidental foreign policy crises might all affect both the process of news coverage as well as policy formation (Höijer, 2004, 515). The earlier mentioned Piers Robinson states that one should focus on the degree of policy certainty in order to understand the influence the media have. He agrees with the many other scholars that normally the media indeed reflect the agenda of elites. Whenever elites are agreeing on policy, the news media have been shown to be affected by government policy and to remain relatively uncritical, mostly when it comes to covering international events (Olsen, Carstensen & Høyen, 2003, 39; Robinson, 2000, 615). In these cases it is argued that governments use their credibility as information source and their substantial resources to influence media reports. Journalists get influenced by this and news coverage is therefore consistent with government objectives and with that the media functions in order to manufacture consent for government policy (Balabanova, 2004, 277; Bennett, Lawrence & Livingston, 2006, 469; Dimitrova & Strömbäck, 2005, 406; Olsen, Carstensen & Høyen, 2003, 39). Robinson however says that one can speak of a so called CNN effect in cases where elites are disagreeing and policy towards the topic is unclear. Whenever elites are not agreeing on policy and there is no policy certainty, they lose their ability to offer plausible, well-prepared and coherent messages to the media and therefore do not succeed in setting the agenda (Balabanova, 2004, 227). In these cases the media have been found to focus on the range of different opinions out there, showing different aspects and outcomes linked to different policy

(26)

22

possibilities. The media have also been believed to take more of a definite stand in these instances, showing critique on government actions and stating what it is they should or should not do according to the media, in the case of humanitarian crises potentially shaping who the general public believes is responsible for solving them. Politicians have been shown to count on news coverage in order to understand their public’s opinion on events and it is therefore argued that whenever they are themselves not agreeing, they will rely on media coverage, among other things, in order to understand what their public thinks, helping them in deciding what to do (Evans, 2010, 210). It is in these circumstances that media are believed to be able to become powerful. Covering humanitarian crisis it is believed that when this coverage is empathy framed, focusing on the victims of the crises, as well as critical of government inaction, stating clearly that the government should do something to help these people, that the media would be able to lead to policy changes. In these cases the coverage could lead to international intervention, as elites might be afraid of losing popular support if they would not (Robinson, 2000, 614).

2.5. Research question and hypotheses

The aim of this master thesis is to look into what frames have been used in the coverage of the Syrian conflict. As has been mentioned before the news media are one of the primary ways that citizens meet representations of events and the effect of framing of international events, such as the Syrian crisis, are believed to be even bigger than that of domestic issues, as these international reports are highly likely to be the only reference the public has to the events taking place so far away (Evans, 2010, 226-227; Höijer, 2004, 515). Focusing on what kind of frames have been used in the coverage of humanitarian crises is therefore believed to be a very important as well as plausible tool to examine what the public’s perception is of the issue at hand and with that might help in providing an understanding into what action they believe to be the most appropriate to take with respect to the crisis (Semetko &Valkenburg, 2000, 93-94).

This master thesis will therefore look into the following research question:

How has the Syrian conflict been framed within the New York Times over the last three years, and does this newspaper offer any support for or critique against the government

(27)

23

Taking into account what has been mentioned earlier about empathic and distant war

coverage, one would expect either of these two narratives to arise within the coverage of the Syrian crisis too. The first narrative would focus mostly on the Syrian people as victims of this crisis, highlighting and putting emphasis on civilian suffering and hardships, leading to a feeling of empathy for these innocent Syrians involved in the conflict. The other narrative however would mostly put the focus on the fact that two different parties have been opposing each other within this conflict, highlighting their difference in ethnicity, and focusing on the fact that both groups have been using violence against each other. As the American policy towards the Syrian conflict has been very clear from the beginning of the uprising, stating that no military intervention would take place within this Middle Eastern state, the literature suggests that American officials will have promoted the distance narrative to the media. This master research offers the opportunity to see if the distance frame is indeed the most present within the coverage on Syria, indirectly promoting non-intervention among the American public. As has been shortly explained within chapter one, the period right after the chemical attacks of August 2013, has been said to have been a moment of policy uncertainty towards the intervention matter within the U.S. however. Officials were debating whether to intervene militarily or not, not agreeing with each other on what to do (Miller, 2013, 1). In this case one could argue that within this period a different kind of coverage will be present than within the rest of the periods looked into, now also showing a clear empathy frame, reflecting the fact that there are differing opinions on the matter within the government now. As the media do not get a clear message from the government anymore within this period, the media would show these differing opinions within the coverage, using the empathy frame more now too. This period would also allow the media to take a more definite stand on the matter

themselves, looking into what they believe to be the right action, military intervention or not, thereby not only expressing critique against intervention anymore, but potentially also

support. As a critical frame would be in line with government policy, it is expected that such a frame would be seen throughout most of the coverage, while within the period right after the chemical attacks, a clearer support frame for international military intervention would arise. Based on the literature two hypotheses are formed, which are both divided into a part a and a part b, in order to make the expectations clearer. Part a and b of the first hypothesis focus on the empathy and distance frame and part a and b of the second hypothesis focus on the support and critical frame.

(28)

24 Hypothesis 1a: the Syrian war will be mostly described with the distance frame throughout

the three years of coverage, implicity promoting non-intervention.

Hypothesis 1b: during the time of policy uncertainty and elite dissensus, right after the

chemical attacks of August 2013, the media coverage will show the empathy frame in the coverage too, thereby also promoting military intervention.

Hypothesis 2a: the newspaper will mostly show the critical frame towards military

intervention throughout the three years of coverage, thereby supporting the government policy of non-intervention.

Hypothesis 2b: during the time of policy uncertainty and elite dissensus, right after the

chemical attacks of August 2013, the newspaper will show the support frame for military intervention too, thereby criticizing the government policy of non-intervention.

The coverage of the Syrian crisis offers an interesting case to look into media framing.

Finding out which frames have been used allows an understanding into the general perception of this war to arise. It also provides an opportunity to look into if what the literature suggests on the effects of policy certainty on media coverage proves to be the case within this coverage too. It is necessary to note again that the main aim of this thesis is to foremost offer an

analysis into the framing that has been used within the coverage in the New York Times, as no other study has done so so far. This research will not seek to explain the relationship between media and government policy, as it is extremely hard to make a solid claim on the matter. As no international military intervention has taken place within Syria so far, this crisis also does not offer a proper case study, as the policy on Syria could in this case be argued not to have changed, making it nearly impossible to make such a causal inference between media coverage and policy formation. The time period right after the chemical attacks, with clear elite dissensus and policy uncertainty on the intervention matter, does however offer an opportunity to compare the media coverage in this period to the rest of the coverage, in order to see if there is a difference. This study could with that be seen as the first part of a study into the relationship between media coverage and government policy. By focusing on the framing of the Syrian conflict itself, and comparing different time periods, the results of this framing analysis could potentially be used for future research into the link between this coverage and

(29)

25

the policy towards this Middle Eastern state, adding to existing literature on the relationship between media coverage and government policy.

2.6. The media within the United States

As the world’s leading nation and military power the United States have a very important role and voice in handling the Syrian crisis and the way the Americans look upon this war is therefore very important. Globally the American media are themselves already very

influential in showing what events are noteworthy, influencing news outlets throughout the world, especially when it comes to international news (Dimitrova et al., 2005, 25). Within the news media there are several sources one can focus on. Television, radio, newspapers,

newsmagazines and the internet all provide information for those seeking it. Although newspapers only constitute a small part of this news media outlet, the print media are still among the most important new sources out there. They present extensive facts and a variety of commentaries and opinions on issues, and this printed news form is therefore relied upon most as a source of detailed information. Newspapers are furthermore crucial in deciding which news is important in American society and in general newspapers have been shown to still be viewed as the most reliable news source out there and both the general public as well as policy makers use it on a regular basis (Auerbach and Bloch-Elkon, 2005, 85; Vincent, 2000, 322).

One of the newspapers within the U.S., the New York Times, has been found to be the lead example for not only other national newspapers, but also other news sources such as magazines and even for television news within the country. All these news sources use the New York Times in order to understand which news is important to cover, and very often follow in its footsteps with reporting on issues (Dimitrova & Strömbäck, 2005, 408; Otto & Meyer, 2012, 208; Yang, 2003, 237). One of the reasons for this is that the New York Times has an especially wide range and extensive coverage of foreign policy news in comparison to other newspapers (Auerbach & Bloch-Elkon, 2005, 85; Bloch-Elkon, 2007, 25; Evans, 2010, 213). The New York Times furthermore does not only circulate nationally, but this newspaper reaches a big international readership outside the United States and its influence is therefore felt worldwide. This newspapers is therefore considered to be the most influential newspaper within the United States, and some even say the world. Taking all this into account it seems appropriate that, in order to look into American news coverage, one could focus specifically on this newspaper first. The New York Times is therefore chosen as only paper for analysis

(30)

26

within this research as it is expected to have had a very big impact on the general public within the country as well as in other parts of the world, while also affecting the coverage of other news source outlets in America and around the globe too. Focusing on one newspaper also allows to look into more coverage within this particular source with that.

(31)

27

Chapter Three. Methodology

This chapter will go into how the frames used within the New York Times have been uncovered, giving a detailed description of the methodology used. Such a depiction will hopefully provide others clarity into the research methods of this master thesis and with that allow anyone to replicate this current study or otherwise use the results for future research into this topic.

3.1. Method of analysis

Frames help the news media in creating a specific focus and with that a narrative about that what is covered, influencing the perception people have of the event that is reported on (Entman, 1993, 53). Uncovering the patterns and consistencies within news coverage has therefore been said to be one of the most useful methodological tools in order to understand how subsequent opinion on the matter covered has been influenced(Entman, 1991, 7;

Versteegt & Maussen, 2012, 23). Several methods exist in order to reveal media frames and to uncover those used within the coverage of the Syrian crisis, a method developed by Piers Robinson (2000, 613) was chosen within this research. Robinson combines both qualitative and quantitative research aspects within his studies into war coverage. First, he chooses a sample of news reports for the analysis. This sample is then read thoroughly in order to look at the subject matter closely and develop an understanding of the overall reports (Robinson, 2000, 616). Within the second part of his framing analysis he quantifies how often certain descriptors, and more specifically certain keywords, that are associated with certain frames are used within the reports. Robinson argues that by counting the presence of these keywords within the coverage one can establish which of the frames is the most present within the coverage and therefore what the focus is within the articles (Robinson, 2001, 949). These descriptors are identified, predicting which words the researcher expects to find within the coverage of the event investigated. By not only selecting descriptors that are expected to be found within the coverage, but also keywords that would match an opposite frame, he states that this method avoids selection bias (Robinson, 2000, 616). Counting both the expected descriptors as well as the opposite words in the news coverage, allows one to build a reliable picture of the prevalence of both frames within the news media, and potentially to find more words that offer the opposite view on the data, contradicting the prior expectations. Robinson argues that, although the first qualitative part of his method could be said to be rather

The Syrian tale of war : a framing analysis of the Syrian crisis within the New York Times