From Ideal Victimhood to Social Deviance-Refugees and Migrants. Media Framing of Syrian Refugees and Roma Migrants in the British Media

From Ideal Victimhood

to

Social Deviance-

Refugees and Migrants

Media Framing of Syrian Refugees and Roma

Migrants in the British Media

Maria-Georgiana Zor

Abstract

This paper aims at incorporating media framing into the broader context of migration debate. In this sense, frames of migrant groups identified in the British media are debated utilizing two influential news outlets as a source of text: The Guardian and The Daily Mail. Via an explorative method and frame analysis, the study engages in identifying and interpreting differences in media framing of two social groups: Syrian refugees and Roma migrants. Starting from five media frames identified by previous researchers, this study modifies and comes up with two more media frames, reaching five in total, namely: Responsibility frame,

Human Interest frame, Conflict frame, Impact frame, and Myth-debunking and Criticizing frame. This thesis concludes that surprisingly few differences in framing are recognized

between the two social groups in terms of news frames. However, the Human Interest frame is the most salient when it comes to refugees, built through a victimization tendency in the left-wing broadsheet. The same frame is used by the right-wing tabloid to emphasize the Roma migrants’ tendency toward social deviancy. The Impact frame was the second most employed frame, on the one hand to highlight migration’s economic and societal benefits, and on the other hand to pinpoint the negative economic consequences. Another important finding was that the tabloid employed the word migrant when referring to refugees, whilst

The Guardian used the word refugee predominantly, and marginally reinforced stereotypes

about Roma migrants. This aspect confirms the idea that employing the word migrant or

refugee when referring to refugees presupposes different implications of meaning.

Acknowledgments

I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor Dr. Anouk van Leeuwen for constantly stimulating me to improve my academic performance without discouraging me. This thesis would not have this shape without her minute feedback and constructive guidance. I would also like to thank my family and friends for their loyal emotional support. Last, but not least, I would like to thank all the ambitious and inspiring people that influenced my life to a great extent.

Acronyms

CDA- Corpus-driven Analysis EC- European Commission EU- European Union IS- Islamic State

NHS- National Health Service (UK)

RASIM- Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Immigrants UN- United Nations

UNHCR- The UN Refugee Agency

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ... 5

Introductory Notes ... 5

Societal and academic relevance ... 7

Justification of research ... 8

Why media representation of Syrian refugees and Roma migrants? ... 8

Why the ‘Syrian refugee crisis’? ... 8

Why the January 2014 alleviation of work restrictions for Romanians and Bulgarians? ... 9

Why the British media? ... 9

II. Background ... 10

The Syrian Refugee Crisis ... 10

The Beginning ... 11

Numbers ... 11

Where do refugees come from? ... 12

Where do refugees go? ... 13

What is being done about the refugee situation? ... 14

Elevation of migration restrictions for Romanians and Bulgarians ... 15

III. Theoretical framework ... 15

Relevant Terminologies ... 16

Framing Theory ... 16

Media Framing of Refugees ... 18

Media Framing of Roma Migrants ... 24

News Frames ... 27

1. Human Interest frame ... 28

2. Responsibility frame ... 28

3. Conflict frame ... 29

4. Economic Consequences frame ... 29

Remarks ... 31 IV. Methodology ... 32 Method ... 32 Research question ... 33 Sampling Procedure ... 33 Data Exploitation ... 37 Analysis ... 37 Operationalization table ... 38 Study limitations ... 41

V. Findings and Analysis ... 42

Media framing of Syrian Refugees ... 43 General remarks ... 43 Analysis by frame ... 44 Concluding remarks ... 52 Media framing of Roma immigrants ... 52 General remarks ... 52 Analysis by frame ... 53 Concluding remarks ... 63

VI. Results and Discussion ... 64

Framing comparisons ... 64

General Remarks ... 64

Concluding remarks ... 69

Discussion ... 69

Reporting and media frames ... 70

Theoretical implications ... 71 Limitations ... 79 VII. Conclusion ... 79 VIII. Bibliography ... 81 IX. Annexes ... 93

I. Introduction

“If you can ignore someone’s humanity, you can ignore their plight. It’s easier to turn a blind eye if migrants, rather than humans, are drowning” (The Guardian, 2015a).

Introductory Notes

In a globalized world, crises and political developments are no longer geographically restricted, expanding their repercussions beyond any imaginary Cartesian delineation. With the increased access to information and speed of news’ circulation, the public gains heightened participation in the narrated stories and issues bursting around the world. Nevertheless, the issues’ border-transcending impact makes it easier for news outlets to influence public opinion by appealing to readers’ emotions. Ceyhan and Tsoukala (2002) argue that “Western societies are witnessing the emergence of many existential and conceptual anxieties and fears about their identity, security, and well-being” (pp.21-22). Through its transnational nature, dynamic, and its effect on individual and institutional entities, migration is regarded as a threat to trust and order (Ceyhan & Tsoukala, 2002). Therefore, discourse based on fear, propagation of insecurity and chaos can turn into a notably powerful tool for the media and the government to shape and control citizens’ opinions and behaviors vis-à-vis migration (Farny, 2015 ).

Media outlets use framing to present stories in a certain light to manipulate information and obtain desired reactions from the public. Kuypers (2006) indicates that most readers are not aware of the presence of frames and thus do not realize how these may impact their judgment. The problem of false, exaggerated or stereotypically constructed discourse present in the media referring to certain social groups is acknowledged by theoreticians and the society altogether. According to scholars of minorities and migrants, the relevance of framing and representation lies in the importance of comprehending how various groups are portrayed (Bleich, Bloemraad, & Graauw, 2015) in order to make sense of broader social phenomena and maintain a correct, impartial judgment. There is still much work to be done on the media as a source of information about migrants and minorities (Bleich, Bloemraad, & Graauw, 2015).

Generally, in the context of Roma migrants, studies have concretized a tendency of

Waters (2015), “racialization entails the use of ‘race’ to interpret, order, and structure social relations” (p.8). Therefore, racism in this particular case had overpassed the biological implications and came to imply cultural differences: ‘beggars’, ‘criminals’, morally deficient’, ‘diseased’. Framing patterns of Syrian refugees revealed a tendency toward victimization in the left-wing news outlet, on the one hand, and an inclination of the assessed tabloid to portray them as a burden to the British economy, on the other hand. Overall, throughout the entire sample, a more understanding tone was identified in the discourse on refugees than on the Roma migrants, but The Daily Mail failed to highlight important distinctions between the two groups.

Media’s techniques of discussing social phenomena are an important issue. Migration is at the forefront of policy-makers’ agendas, due to increased migration in Europe, humanitarian disasters, and general anxieties. The public’s perception of migration is highly influenced by the way this issue is portrayed, framed and comprehended. An anti-refugee and anti-Roma media discourse would represent a notable societal problem because of its hegemony and power to constrain and subject social groups to increased control and surveillance (Richardson, 2014). Research on media framing of migration is required in order to enhance current comprehension of the underlying perceptions standing at the base of media portrayal and social apprehension of this salient phenomenon. The present study is relevant to the Crisis & Security academic realm because it identifies syntaxes that can be employed in ‘dog-whistle’ politics and thus provide the foundation for fear management and crisis communication practices. The discourse on migration has important security implications, as migrant groups can be portrayed as a ‘threat’ in various ways: threat to culture, borders, economy, and social system. Therefore, the findings of this study can be employed as a starting point for researching their implications for broader political phenomena (e.g. the rise of right-wing parties).

Starting from five news frames identified by Semetko & Valkenburg (2000), this thesis takes a deductive approach while keeping an open mind for new frames, therefore adopting a partly inductive design. The main goal of this research is to depict framing differences in print media while reporting to Syrian refugees and Roma immigrants in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the study employs qualitative and briefly quantitative methods to answer the following research question: ‘To what extent does media framing of Syrian refugees differ

follows: firstly, it explains the societal and academic to the realm justifying the research topic, and it explores the background of the two social groups’ political implications. Secondly, it presents relevant theories on the subject and elaborates the methodology and research question. Thirdly, it describes the applied frames and how they differ for each case study, interprets these differences in Discussion and finally, it presents the reader with the study’s concluding remarks.

Key-words: Syrian, refugee, asylum-seeker, Roma, migrant, framing

Societal and academic relevance

The number of migrants arriving into Europe has increased in the past years. Consequently, immigration was brought to the forefront of political issues in many European countries (Boomgaarden & Vliegenthart, 2009). The current migration situation poses a major threat to the political stability in Europe, becoming the point of focus of policy-makers, media streams and the public. The present study becomes relevant to the societal realm because it analyses a social group related to what is declared to be one of the most notable refugee crises in history, more precisely the current European refugee crisis, which officially emerged in 2015, when “more than a million refugees and migrants crossed Europe” (BBC, 2016). Moreover, the study also pertains to another notable political event in Europe, the alleviation of work restrictions for Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants in a group of European countries (amongst which The United Kingdom) on January 2014, implying the liberty to migrate and work legally without the necessity of a permit. Research into how media framing of the protagonists of such events is essential to understanding social phenomena. This research benefits the British society by raising awareness vis-à-vis the existence of news framing of migrants and how this framing manifests. This enhances understanding of framing, and thus a more skeptical attitude from the British reader could be triggered.

Academically, this research is valuable because of several reasons. Firstly, it adds on the current academic literature on media framing of migration by comparing two migrant groups that haven not been analyzed by any previous research. Secondly, it explores migrants’ framing and visibility in the media, which “have been insufficiently explored to date” (Bleich, Bloemraad, & Graauw, 2015, p.860). Thirdly, it applies Semetko & Valkenburg

(2000)’s framing model to the the British media, it adjusts it and comes up with two other framing mechanisms (it builds theory therefore). Lastly, some theories were affirmed, some were infirmed and coding with an open mind led to theory-building, as the reader will find out later on in this research.

Justification of research

Why media representation of Syrian refugees and Roma migrants?

Academic research on media portrayal of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants/immigrants is “gaining increasing attention” (Sulaiman-Hill at al., 2011, p.347) and relevance to the socio-political realm. Post 9/11, asylum seeking was one of the most frequently encountered subjects in the media (Wright, 2004; Coole, 2002). Moreover, together with the Syrian refugee crisis, it is argued that the attention given to the subject of “migration” became “obsessive”. Patterns of media framing on this topic are described by Marfleet (2006) as “highly charged” and “ill informed” (p.7). A comparison between the two groups seemed promising, firstly because no record of any academician conducting it exists, and secondly because it seems particularly promising in terms of revealing British media framing of refugees in parallel to economic migrants.

Why the ‘Syrian refugee crisis’?

The increased flow of refugees and asylum-seekers crossing the Mediterranean into Europe in the summer of 2015 brought migration and asylum seeking to the forefront of the media, as well as to the public and policy-makers. The ‘flow’ of refugees and Europe’s inability to efficiently deal with it led to an increased fear among British civilians and a proliferation of media material on the topic (see Venir, 2015; Parker, 2015; Bleich et al., 2015). Moreover, in the light of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks and the humanitarian crisis triggered by the mass forced human displacement caused by the proliferation of wars in the Middle East, the crisis gained more interest from the public, media, and European leaders. A recent Pew Research1 study illustrated that since the refugee crisis was triggered, Europeans’ anxiety toward this group intensified. In the UK in particular, 52 per cent of the British believed that the presence of refugees in their country would increase the likelihood of terrorism, whilst 42

1_{Pew Research Center “is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and}

trends shaping (…) the world”. It conducts “public opinion polling, demographic research, content analysis and other data-driven social science research” (Pew Research , 2017).

per cent were of the opinion that refugees are a burden on the country’s economy because they take jobs and social benefits (Wike, Stokes, & Simmons, 2016). In this sense, I believed a media investigation would be necessary in order to investigate how refugees are portrayed in the media. Since there were concerns that refugees were portrayed by right-wingers more as migrants than as the group they represent (this argument is further elaborated later on), I decided to look into a comparison between the two groups, to see to what extent they differ and in which aspects they are similar.

Why the January 2014 alleviation of work restrictions for Romanians and Bulgarians?

January 2014 marks the moment when Romanian and Bulgarian citizens obtained equal living rights and job access as the rest of other European Union citizens. Consequently, they were granted access to the British welfare state (e.g. social security, healthcare, etc.) (Waters, 2015). Prior to this new political development, the issue of immigration became central to the debate in the media, as well as on the political arena. Towards the end of 2013, the media coverage of immigration turned its attention to Roma migrants already living in the UK, originating from Eastern Europe (Waters, 2015). What is particularly interesting about this aspect is the symbolic association created by the press between the Roma and Romanians (and Bulgarians, to a lesser extent). The anticipated arrival of Romanians and Bulgarians starting January 2014 was influenced by the demonization of Roma people prior to the law being put in practice (Waters, 2015). In his study on media framing of Eastern-European originated Roma, Richardson (2014) took the same temporal reference when he selected his newspaper articles, as well as Waters (2015).

Why the British media?

There are various reasons why the present thesis has chosen the British discourse approach on Syrian refugees and Roma immigrants. In the light of Broomfield’s (2016) findings, the United Kingdom has a history and reputation of sheltering one of the most polarized media in Europe, according to some studies (Broomfield, 2016). Surveys showed that 80 per cent of the British who do not hold a positive opinion of Muslims also regard refugees as a threat (Poushter, 2016 ). According to another survey conducted by the Jean Jaurés Foundation and The Foundation for European Progressive Studies, it was found that when faced with the question: ‘Are you in favour of or opposed to the idea that the tens of thousands of migrants

arriving on the Italian and Greek shores should be distributed among the different countries of Europe and that [France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Denmark] should welcome a proportion of them?’, Britons were the most negative in Western Europe in

their answers, with a total of 44 per cent in favor, followed by France (46 per cent), The Netherlands (48 per cent), Denmark (57 per cent), Spain (67 per cent), Italy (77 per cent), and Germany (79 per cent) (Fourquet, 2015). Moreover, I found it intriguing that the UK, compared to other European countries such as Germany, Norway, or Sweden, accepted a lower number of refugees. According to a briefing document published by Oxford’s Migration Observatory, the UK received 32.414 asylum applications in 2015, from which 64 per cent were initially refused, and eventually accepted a total of 1.194 refugees along the course of 2015 (Blinder, 2016). Moreover, the UK has participated with financial resources only marginally in the humanitarian rescue operations in the Mediterranean, as British politicians believed that this would encourage more people to come attempt the perilous sea crossing (Travis, 2014). The UK is a resourceful case in terms of: media production vis-à-vis migrant groups; academic material; key-country in terms of “economic and military power, with considerable political and cultural influence around the world” (CGSRS, 2016).

II. Background

This chapter endeavors to provide the reader with information on the key-events that influenced the media framing of Syrian refugees and Roma immigrants. To this end, the first part provides background information on the Syrian refugee crisis, whilst the second explains what the lifting of working restriction for Romanians and Bulgarians entailed.

The Syrian Refugee Crisis

This section explores in short why the refugee crisis represents a societal, economic and political problem not only in Europe, but also globally. In this sense, it provides the reader with an overview of facts and figures of what the crisis entails, presenting the main countries of origin, numbers of displaced people, destinations, number of asylum-applications per country and accepted applications. The main conflicts driving the mass migration are also briefly revealed for the first three main countries of refugee origin.

The Beginning

To track down the beginning of the crisis, one must look at the time when it became politicized. By politicized, this research entails the moment when states acknowledged the number of refugees became a problem difficult to be dealt with (Bojadžijev & Mezzadra, 2015). The media played an important role in proliferating the effects of mass displacements and contributed to the official status of the problem as a full-blown crisis in UK. Circulation of powerful images in the media, such as the photograph of Aylan Kurdi lying dead on a beach in Turkey, amplified resonating with the humanitarian disasters. Together with the EU’s difficulties of managing the crisis, media attention marked the beginning of the ‘Syrian refugee crisis’, as well as humanitarian interventions “which multiplied in the summer of 2015” (Bojadžijev & Mezzadra, 2015, p.1). With the illegalization of migration, the Mediterranean became one of the most dangerous zones on the planet since the 1990’s. Thus, even if this phenomenon was not new, it amplified in 2015 and, most importantly, it was given more media attention compared to the past. What contributed to building the sense of urgency of the current refugee crisis was the parallel intensification of the existing unrest in Libya and Syria, as well as in the ‘Greater Middle East’ 2.

Numbers

In 2015, a number of migrants and refugees outnumbering one million have reached Europe, marking the most significant movement of people the continent has experienced since the end of the Second World War (Hutt, 2016). The high amount of people trying to reach into Europe crossing the Mediterranean by boat has led to a full-blown political and humanitarian crisis. As states made efforts to contain the issue, divisions were created within the European Union (EU) over the best procedure on how to resettle the incoming refugees and how to alleviate the humanitarian crisis (Lehne, 2016 ).

2 _{The region stretches from Morocco in the West to the Western extremity of China in the East. Some}

countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus are also included at times (Wikipedia)

A total figure of refugees and internally displaced people reached sixty-five million by September 2016 globally, the highest figure ever recorded in history, according to the International Crisis Group (ICG, 2016). The main reason for this mass displacement of people was triggered mostly by war and violence, political conflict and authoritarian regimes. One of the most notable conflicts driving people to flee remains the conflict in Syria. It started with the beginning of the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, and with the rise of the Islamic State (IS) in 2014, called also the Islamic State of Syria (ISIS) or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or Daesh, by its Arabic acronym. Nevertheless, the ongoing conflicts that burst in Iraq, Afghanistan, poverty in Kosovo, and abuses in Eritrea also played an important role in pushing people to seek safer territories (Lehne, 2016). Victims of violence and poverty have tried the latter mostly by crossing the Mediterranean Sea, wherein winter had not stopped people from doing so. In this sense, according to UNCHR (2016), 135.711 asylum-seekers had crossed the sea into Europe in the March of the same year. In 2015, a Pew Research study stated that 1.3 million migrants applied for asylum within the countries of the European Union. Thus, the amount of applications more than doubled compared to 2014 (Pew Global , 2016), while this official number does not reflect the number of people actually crossing the continent’s borders (Koser, 2015).

Fig. 1

(ICG, 2016)

Where do refugees come from?

As Fig. 1 illustrates, the country with most refugees in 2015 was Syria, with approximately five million refugees, followed by Afghanistan (approximately 2.6 million), Somalia, South

Sudan, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Myanmar, Eritrea, and Colombia.

In Syria, the regime of President Bashar al-Assad has employed a strategy of collective punishment in the detriment of Syrian civilians (ICG, 2016). What started in the year 2011 as anti-government protests, soon after turned into a full-scale civil war. Parties loyal to al-Assad fight against those opposed to his rule, as well as against Jihadist militants that form the current Islamic State (BBC, 2016). Since the beginning of the conflict in Syria in 2011, more than twelve million Syrians have been affected by the violent setting, “including 4.9 million registered refugees, 6.6 million internally displaced people and nearly 250,000 asylum-seekers” (ICG, 2016). In the current European refugee crisis, the most part of refugees are of Syrian nationality. In 2015, refugees from Syria counted 378.000. This rampant figure becomes noteworthy considering the increase from 125.000 in 2014 and 49.000 in 2013. Hence, more refugees resulted in an inflated number of asylum-applications. In 2015, the number of Syrian asylum-seekers accounted for 29 per cent of all refugees seeking asylum in Europe, making for the highest share of any other country. In this context, a quarter of the asylum-seekers from 2015 originated from Afghanistan and Iraq (Pew Global , 2016). An additional quarter of asylum seekers in 2015 were from other relatively new origin countries, including 193,000 from Afghanistan (up from 23,000 in 2013 and 39,000 in 2014) and another 127,000 from Iraq (up from 9,000 in 2013 and 15,000 in 2014).

Where do refugees go?

When it comes to informing the reader about refugees’ destinations, the highest number of refugees applied for asylum in Germany, having received more than 470.000 applications in 2015. However, as mentioned earlier, the number of applications does not reveal the real number of refugees actually crossing the country’s borders. According to German officials, a number of approximately one million were registered into the country in Germany’s ‘EASY’ system used for counting and distributing people prior to them making asylum claims. Due to the fact that refugees made their way through Greece and the Western Balkans, Hungary was the second country to receive most asylum applications, with 177.130 requests by the end of December 2015 (starting January 2015) (BBC, 2016). Sweden is a refugee-welcoming country, with one in seven refugees being assigned there in 2015, whilst their national population “accounts for only one in 50 of the European Union’s citizens” (Koser, 2015). Due to geographical reasons, Greece experienced a high influx of refugees, and considering

the state’s pre-existing unemployment and fiscal challenges, the crisis had a violent impact on the country’s resources (Koser, 2015). A full graph containing all asylum application numbers per European country can be found in Annex 1.

What is being done about the refugee situation?

The Syrian refugee crisis has brought into light two crucial challenges for the Member States and the EU as a whole: firstly, the commitment to the Schengen Agreement was undermined, when a borderless Europe ceased to seem a good idea for some Member States. This problem has aggravated post Paris terrorist attacks, as it called for tighter border security measures and in long term, might undermine one of the fundamental principles of the EU- the free movement of people. Secondly, the asylum mechanism has been overloaded and pressured when presented with an influx of refugees of such dimensions. A sense of urgency was diffused by the increasing human toll, while the EU’s response has been ad-hoc in the endeavor to formulate a unified, forward-looking solution (Lehne, 2016 ).

The response to the Syrian refugee crisis has varied greatly among European governments. States like Germany resettled the highest amount of refugees in Europe and plans to host millions in the upcoming years, whilst the United Kingdom plan the resettlement of a few tens of thousands. Sweden has provided asylum to most refugees compared to its population, whilst countries like Hungary protect their borders by building secured fences. Needless to say, the European Union as a political body did not reach a consensus on what the best course of action should be when handling the refugee crisis. Many citizens of EU countries have provided personal assistance to asylum-seekers. In addition, the private sector has offered financial contributions, and jobs and apprenticeships to humanitarian agencies (Koser, 2015). Some practical measures taken by the EU to tackle the refugee crisis were, for example, in April 2015, when the European Commission (EC) “proposed a 10–point plan that included having the European Asylum Support Office6 (EASO) work with Europol (the EU’s law enforcement agency), Frontex (the European border agency) and Eurojust (the EU agency that deals with judicial cooperation in criminal matters) ” having as goal to put in place, in Greece and Italy, teams to process applications for asylum” (EY, 2016, p.7). In March 2016, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, closed a deal with Turkey aimed at reducing the number of displaced people reaching Europe and thus at alleviating the effects the crisis had

on European countries, especially Italy and Greece. The deal consisted of Turkey’s agreement to take back all asylum-seekers landing in Greece in return for EU promising Ankara €6 billion, and a smoother process for Turks to obtain European visas. This may imply an end to the problem of the Aegean smuggling route, which brought more than 850.000 refugees in Greece in 2015 (Kinsley, 2016). A comprehensive overview of all steps taken by the European Union is comprised in Annex 3.

Elevation of migration restrictions for Romanians and Bulgarians

Transitional controls had been put in place for the citizens of two of three most recent EU member countries, hindering their right to work and claim benefits in some European countries, in their first seven years of membership (EC, 2007). Starting 1 January 2014, EU work and migration restrictions imposed on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens have been lifted, allowing the citizens of the two countries the possibility to move freely and work without requiring a work permit or having restrictions to certain jobs. As a consequence, some member states from the Western European block feared a mass wave of migrants coming in starting January. Even though these fears were founded on fear rather than rational proof, the media gravitated massively on this subject and right-wing politicians’ discourses were loaded with negative message about how ‘thousands’ of Romanians and Bulgarians will arrive in the UK once the restrictions were lifted. More interestingly, two months before the restrictions being officially lifted, the media started to focus on Roma migrants, due to the symbolic link made Western European media in general to Romanians, and in a lesser measure, to Bulgarians (Waters, 2015). Richardson (2014) drew the same conclusion in his study on Roma migrants’ media framing. For this reason, this event is particularly important when assessing the media portrayal of Roma migrants in the British media.

III. Theoretical framework

This section begins with a general presentation of relevant terminologies, then will introduce the reader to the framing theory, working its way through media frames identified by other researchers, while subsequently showing theoretical findings from scholars’ analyses of media coverage of migration in terms of employed language (stereotypes, metaphors, references, etc). Literature on Syrian refugees and Roma migrants will be presented. The

concept of frame coding and what it entails will also be theoretically explained. Moreover, the five media frames developed by Valkenburg & Semetko (2000), which serve as the backbone of this research, will be presented, followed by their relation to framing and a justification for their choice. This method is chosen in order to build the study on a strong basis and provide the reader with the proof that a deep and thorough analysis of the topic in question has been conducted (Denney & Tewksbury, 2013). Subsequently, the chapter will end with stating the literature gap and the necessity of conducting this research.

Relevant Terminologies

According to Pickering (2001), ‘refugee’ and ‘asylum-seeker’ are two words that should reflect a reality of war and forced displacement. The two terms are distinguished by different nuances. On the one hand, according to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating the Status of Refugees, a refugee is an individual “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country” (UNHCR, 2016). The same source avows that an asylum-seeker is a person whose application for a refugee status is pending (UNHCR, 2016). On the other hand, the definition of migrant implies a planned process (Gabrielatos & Baker, 2008 ). According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a migrant is a person who leaves their home country for another one, especially to find work (Gabrielatos & Baker, 2008 ).

Framing Theory

In spite of the fact that no one definition of framing is universally accepted, several researchers have attempted to explain this process. Entman (1993) describes framing as follows: selecting some aspects of a perceived reality in order to 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” (p.54).

According to Norris, Kern & Just (2003), “…‘news frames’, represent persistent patterns of selection, emphasis, and exclusion that furnish a coherent interpretation and evaluation

of events” (p.2). Lakoff (2004) defines frames as “mental structures that shape the way we see the world” (XV), and Lippmann (1922) as "the pictures inside our heads," which differ from "objective reality" (p. 3) (Hallahan, 1999). Frames have the role of simplifying complex messages for the audiences by making appeal to patterns and pre-existing behaviors, underlining certain information or characteristics of an object. This has the goal of making frames more memorable and meaningful, while simplifying them (Kuypers 2006; Entman 1993).

According to Gamson & Modigliani (1987), audiences are being brought to “the essence of the issue” (p.143) by policy debates and news discourses via presenting events in a light of one particular aspect, while leaving others behind. Often in previous studies, the above-explained process called ‘issue framing’ has proved to posses an incontestable power to effect public opinion, especially if the “messages are one-sided with only a dominant frame” (Slothuus, 2008 ). Empirical evidence from previous studies conducted in the past twenty years concluded that it is “widely agreed that citizens in large numbers can be readily blown from one side of an issue to the very opposite depending on how the issue is specifically framed” (Sniderman & Thieriault 2004, pp. 133–134; see Chong & Druckman, 2007 ). Media framing is a paramount player on the stage of social phenomena, influencing portrayals and perceptions. According to Happer & Philo (2013), there is a reversible relationship between the media, public officials and the government, which shapes the way the public perceives crises and security events. Therefore, the way governments and media interact has a major impact on framing mechanisms, and thus influences the manners in which the public perceives certain incidents and reality in general impacting on public perception of a given incident (Norris, Kern & Just, 2003). Reading a framed news piece presupposes guiding the readers to understanding an issue in a certain manner (Evers, 2016). By aiding audiences to reach certain interpretations of events, media frames influence audience perceptions (McCombs & Ghanem, 2001; Rhee, 1997; Evers, 2016). Moreover, framing also has the ability to impact readers’ mentalities and their capacity to recall information (Valkenburg, Semetko & de Vreese, 1999; Evers, 2016).

Academicians argue that framing can be present in various ways: linguistic choices, use of stereotypes, what stories related to a certain topic are emphasized, the use of symbols, images, example choice (Kuypers 2006, p.11; Entman 1993, p.52; Gamson & Modigliani,

1989). Ross (2003) explains the process of framing as a mechanism working on audience recognition of certain cultural meanings assigned to images, discourses, words, and thus linking personal and social history, as well as stereotypes and preconceived ideas to written text. The same author argues that the concept of framing has particularly noteworthy effects in relation to places, people and issues on which the audience does not possess enough knowledge. In this manner, framing leads to shaping the public’s interpretation of a certain social group (Ross, 2003). In this sense, Waters (2015) argues thus that framing is “a particularly effective tool in shaping people’s perception of unfamiliar migrants” (p.6).

Media Framing of Refugees

This study will offer an overview of previous research engaging in analyzing textual frames of refugees in the written press. An overview of existing literature on migration will be presented. The studies that will be presented seemed the most appropriate for building up the existing theory that could answer this paper’s research question. The most influential studies were presented. By most influential, it is implied authors that appeared to be most cited in other works, who came up with innovative theories on the topic.

Kushner (2003) argues that in the UK “the current hostility of the media, politicians, state and public against asylum-seekers in Britain is unprecedented in its intensity” (p.257), whilst Marfleet (2006) notices that negativity and hostile criticism have become dominant and even normalized in the media discourses of refugees following the 1990’s (p.277). The issue of refugees being perceived as a threat by the media and public opinion finds its roots in misinformation on this particular topic (Malloch & Stanley, 2005). Previous literature found that in the portrayal of refugees, media employed predominantly water metaphors, using words such as ‘swamp’, ‘flood’, and ‘sea’ (KhosraviNik 2009; Baker and McEnery 2005; Baker et al. 2008; Pickering 2001; Gabrielatos and Baker 2008). These metaphors were employed with negative connotations. A study conducted by El Refaie (2001) on Kurdish asylum seekers in Italy had the same outcome after analyzing Austrian written media discourses. The water metaphors employed when referring to refugees were more predominant in tabloid newspapers (Gabrielatos & Baker, 2008). Not only did the media employ water metaphors, but they were also a part of right-wing politicians’ statements in the United Kingdom (Charteris-Black, 2006). Thus, proving this particular strategy is a frequent

discursive method employed by anti-immigration forces in the endeavor to “legitimize their views” (Parker, 2015). Another interesting discursive technique identified was the politicians’ appeal to the expression “I’m not racist, but…” (Capdevila & Callaghan, 2008), and in lay rhetoric (Burke & Goodman, 2012; Goodman, 2010), used in the endeavor to dismiss asylum seeking (Parker, 2015).

Asylum-seeking in the context of Australian media representation was also analyzed by Gale (2004), and he managed to pinpoint to three main themes, that were “predicated on contrasting notions of both national identity and the Other” (p.334; Parker, 2015). He first identified a frame using a ‘human face’ metaphor, in order to appeal to the citizens’ benevolence. Afterwards he found a ‘border protection’ frame, used in the context of shaping refugees as a threat to national security (‘boat people’). Only marginally, he further identified the frame where the rights of refugees were stated (Parker, 2015). Continuing on the asylum debate note, Lea and Lynn (2003) sampled letters from the public published in the British media. From their study it resulted that the discourse was mostly negative toward refugees. According to them, refugees were positioned at the exterior of the society, not within it. The identification of very similar marginalization techniques were also observed in the writings of Lecouteur & O’Doerty (2007), illustrated by use of expressions such as ‘illegal immigrants’

or ‘boat people’.

Another paper worth being taken into consideration is Samuel Parker’s (2015) comparative case study analysis of media discourse on refugees, taking as point of reference British and Australian newspapers. The author selected four articles representative to each country, and singled out a total of 40 articles from 2001 until 2010. For the UK, the author chose a total amount of five newspapers: The Daily Mirror, The Daily Express, The Times, and The

Guardian, and The Daily Mail, striving for a balance between broadsheet and tabloid

newspapers. After conducting a discursive psychological analysis, he identified three main media repertoires: „unwanted invader‟, the „dishonest‟ asylum seeker and the „tragic‟ asylum seeker (Parker, 2015). According to his findings, the theme of ‘unwanted invader’ was constructed using metaphors of criminals and metaphors of water. The second main theme he pinpointed was the “dishonest asylum-seekers”, created through discourses on refugees who are not to be trusted. The third theme was the “tragic asylum seeker”, built through presenting stories of refugees and the terrible conditions they find themselves in. The fourth and last theme is the “removing them theme”, in which the British newspapers do “not

distinguish between those who are still seeking asylum and those who may have exhausted the asylum appeal process” (Parker, 2015).

Negative media discourse on refugees and asylum-seekers was also identified by Khosravinik (2009), who observed a duality in the nature of media discourse based either on victimization narratives or forwarding stereotypes. This ambivalence and duality of discourse was also observed by two other scholars, namely Gale (2004) and Van Gorp (2005), whose findings showed two typical frames: that of refugees being innocent victims, and that of unwanted invaders presenting a national threat to the country in question. Most commonly, the identified stereotypes put forward by the media in the context of RASIM were: illegitimacy, threat to national identity, as well as economy (Hanyes, Devereux & Breen, 2004), links to criminality. After analyzing the Australian press, Pickering (2001) identified three main themes prevalent in the media discourse on refugees, all having in common a deviant connotation, an opposition to normality and to being natural: “diseased” deviants, “invading” deviants, and “racialised” deviants (Venir, 2015). Dehumanizing characteristics and stereotypes were also identified in media discourses on RASIM by the following authors: Hanyes, Devereux and Breen (2004), Medianu & Lawson (2013), Gabrielatos and Baker (2008), Coole (2002), and it was noticed by Mollard (2001) that the negative rhetoric in question is in most cases fuelled by the press (Venir, 2015).

In his more recent work, Cohen (2001) was concerned with theorizing on the justifications of apparent public indifference to distant suffering, underlining this phenomenon usually occurs through forms of denial (Cohen, 2001). Moreover, the Durkheimian theories on how societies join forces on the stage of moral resentment directed at deviant groups are present in both Cohen’s and Young’s works (Carrabine et al., 2009). Young (1971, 1974) and Cohen (1972, 1985, 2001) follow the idea that the media goes on the principle of giving the public “what it wants”, thus engaging a big part of the audience in games of moral worries. To explain,

‘out-groups are exploited by the media to project collective anxieties (Young 1973, p.316) via

“exaggerating grossly the seriousness of events” (Cohen, 1973, p.228). According to Young (1974), “newspapers select events which are atypical, present them in a stereotypical fashion and contrast them against a backcloth of normality which is overtypical’ (p.241).

Vis-à-vis the criminalization of refugees and asylum-seekers, it must be mentioned that generally popular culture and the mass media give a tremendous amount of attention to crime-related events. With their various forms of ‘entertainment’, they make it difficult for

the public to distinguish between ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’, according to Carrabine et. al (2009, p.407). The phenomenon brought by the technology of print, wireless communication and the telegraph is described as mediatization (Carrabine et al. 2009, p.407). To define the term, it is characterized by a notable potency to blur the lines between ‘fact and fiction, nature and culture, global and local, … technology and humanity’ to the extent that the modern media have ‘undermined the ability to construct an apparent distinction between reality and representation’ (Brown, 2003). To me more precise, the implications of Brown’s (2003) statement conclude that the inability to differentiate between social reality and media image is accelerating (Osborne 1995, p.28).

One study that differentiated itself from others was Alice Venir’s (2014) “UK Media Representation of Syrian Refugees: A Focus on the Press”. Unlike other papers, hers concluded that the media framing of refugees was predominantly positive. Starting from the assumption that Syrian refugees are portrayed more positively than generally thought by academicians and by the public, Venir (2014) has conducted a study on how refugees were represented in the British media. After assessing a total of 60 newspaper articles belonging to ‘The Guardian’, ‘The Daily Telegraph’, ‘The Mirror’ and ‘The Sun’ in the period comprised between 29 March, 2013 and 29 March, 2014, Venir (2014) identified four main themes as being the most predominant the media’s rhetoric on Syrian refugees and asylum-seekers. Firstly, she found the theme she called ‘Vulnerability and innocence’, which according to the author, mainly refers to the fact that newspaper articles present children as being the main victims of the crisis. The second theme she identified was the ‘Moral responsibility and generosity’, which refers to the moral duty of the United Kingdom to offer humanitarian support to the refugees. Theme three was identified as ‘Refugees rather than opportunists’, which draws a line of distinction between “deserving” refugees and “opportunistic refugees” (Venir, 2014). Subsequently, a last theme the author singles out is what she calls ‘Personal tragedies: giving suffering a name’ (Venir, 2014), which refers to testimonies of refugees, bringing the reader closer to the human side of the crisis. Even though previous research had shown that the media in the UK is mostly negative when it comes to framing of minorities, Alice Venir’s (2014) study is an exception, as it proves after conducting a quantitative analysis that positive articles toward refugees are more predominant than the negative ones. Nevertheless, according to the Refugee Council (UK), the “reporting and commentary about asylum seekers and refugees is often hostile, unbalanced and factually incorrect” (Ellis,

2005). This form of domination and control over information disseminated into the society is labeled as “social power,” which means, “the control exercised by one group or organization (or its members) over the actions and/or the minds of (the members of) another group, thus limiting the freedom of action of the others, or influencing their knowledge, attitudes or ideologies” (van Dijk 1996, p. 84). Metaphors and frames present in the media clear the path for xenophobia, marginalization, racism and prejudice, no matter how subtle or outspoken, according to Waters (2015). Kuypers (2006) affirmed that audiences are not often aware when a frame is visible, and thus do not comprehend the exposure to a “filtered reality” (p.8). Since certain researchers who studied media framing of migrant social groups (e.g. Gabrielatos & Bakers, 2008) noticed an overlap of all terms describing migration, they used the term RASIM 3 in order to investigate the entirety of the groups on the move and the extent to which the terminologies overlap in the media within a certain time frame. News outlets very often fail to make a distinction between the three social groups (refugees, asylum-seekers, migrants), and thus create preconceptions and confusion (Peycheva, 2016 ). Stating the distinctions between terms utilized to describe migrant groups plays an imperative role in interpreting the media frames later on in this study. The Oxford dictionary definition describes an asylum-seeker as being a refugee who has applied for asylum, therefore the temporal scheme works as “refugee → asylum seeker”, whilst the Refugee Council asserts the opposite (Gabrielatos & Baker, 2008 ). If news outlets employ the dictionary definition, then asylum-seekers utilized as people who apply for permanent residence (for various reasons), could be referred to as “immigrants/migrants” as well (Gabrielatos & Baker, 2008 ). Discussions in the public rhetoric were triggered around newspapers referring to refugees as

migrants. While the term ‘migrant’ possesses neutral implications in general, in the context

of the Syrian refugee crisis it is argued that it might be used in the media with negative connotations (in the sense that it does not imply forced displacement) (Ruz, 2015). More explicitly, Barry Malone, online editor for Al-Jazeera, asserted that the word ‘migrant’ “has evolved from its dictionary definitions into a tool that dehumanises and distances, a blunt pejorative” (Malone, 2015). As a consequence, Al-Jazeera refused to use the term ‘migrant’

3 _{Abbreviation referring to refugees, asylum-seekers and immigrants. This term has been found to be used in}

several research papers on refugees, asylum-seekers and immigrants, by scholars such as Costas Gabrielatos &Paul Baker (2008), as well as by Majid KhosraviNik (2010)

when referring to refugees and asylum-seekers pertaining to the ‘Syrian refugee crisis’, and "will instead, where appropriate, say refugee" (Malone, 2015). Additionally, a Washington Post article asked whether it was the case to ‘ditch’ the word (Taylor, 2015). According to Ruz (2015), some parties dislike the term when referring to refugees because it implies a voluntary action, disregarding the fact that the respective group fled for their lives. According to a UN document, “the term 'migrant'… should be understood as covering all cases where the decision to migrate is taken freely by the individual concerned, for reasons of 'personal convenience' and without intervention of an external compelling factor” (Ruz, 2015). Also, the UN distinguished the two terms as follows: “unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants face no such impediment to return. If they choose to return home, they will continue to receive the protection of their government” (UNHCR, 2016 ). As previous research illustrated the mischievous and problematic use of all the above-mentioned terminologies, the present thesis will consistently adopt the word ‘refugee’ when referring to the displaced individuals being part of the current ‘Syrian refugee crisis’. Moreover, the present study also takes into consideration the meaning appropriation gaps and conducts research accordingly.

Generally, previous studies on representation of migration found that migrants were portrayed in a negative way, no matter the time of research. Wood and King (2001) discovered that media discourses trends were to portray migrants as undesirables, criminals, and others. Similarly, van Dijk (1991) underlines that “minorities or immigrants are seen as a problem or a threat, and are portrayed preferably in association with crime, violence, conflict, unacceptable cultural differences, or other forms of deviance” (p.21). An emphasis of these ethicized issues does not bring forward underlying reasons of any nature which lay at the root of these problems. Immigration as a threat is discussed by the same author, observing that this is managed by choosing stories that link immigrants to drugs, violence, and crime van Dijk (2000, p.38). Stories about the economic contribution of immigrants, or migrants seen as victims of discrimination are less encountered in the press, according to most researchers. The selection of published stories is an important aspect, according to Linn (2003, p.24), as the author argues that stereotypes and the way certain social group are represented are supported by this very fact.

Media Framing of Roma Migrants

When it comes to Eastern European migrants coming to Western Europe and the UK in particular, researchers’ results unveiled similar negative trends (Waters, 2015). Analyzing the Czech and Slovak Roma refugees in the UK in the 1990’s, the media coverage was characterized by bullying and xenophobic messages (Waters, 2015). Especially in the case of tabloid newspapers, the “sensationalist, inflammatory and fear-mongering” (Waters, 2015) reporting was common, in order to demonize Roma as people who benefit the system and offer nothing in return, through the use of terms such as ‘parasites’, ‘beggars’, and ‘criminals’ (Wood & King 2001, p.8; Winstanley-Torode, 1998). Whilst Guy (2003) asserts that political representative of the UK described Roma as ‘bogus asylum-seekers’ (Waters, 2015), it is the more prominent the fact that the press did not report on the social exclusion, racist aggression, and lack of employment opportunities back home, or the lack of legal protection, things the Roma people were subject to (Waters, 2015). Prejudicial reporting vis-à-vis Roma was also found by Erjavec (2001), who discovered the trend of portraying them as a threat to national majorities. Prior to Romania and Bulgaria’s accession to the EU, some researchers found that the British press was already negative towards these social groups, spreading fear of invasion and predicting an insurmountable wave of immigrants coming in. Generally, these ideas were channeled onto the audience by constructing the citizens of Romania and Bulgaria as ‘deviant’, ‘criminal’, ‘not the same as “us”’, and also as sources of “medical and moral contamination” (Waters, 2015; Light & Young 2009, p. 292).

Continuing on the media coverage of the Roma population, other studies found that the British press inflicted the idea that this social group will become UK’s problem to deal with, as they are hated in their ‘country of origin’, that being Romania. Studies have thus noticed a phenomenon of racialization post Romania’s EU accession the British press (Fox et al., 2012). According to Waters (2015), “racialization entails the use of ‘race’ to interpret, order, and structure social relations” (p.8). Therefore, racism in this particular case had overpassed the biological implications and came to imply cultural differences. According to Fox et al. (2012), criminality was assigned to Roma as well as migrants in general as an innate characteristic, an aspect denoting therefore racist attitudes. There was a trend of portraying Romanian migrants within the frame of Roma migrants, and therefore were assigned labels such as ‘beggars’, ‘criminals’, morally deficient’, ‘diseased’. Consequently, Eastern

European migrants in general were associated with existing frames created by the media to portray the Roma population. Romanian being portrayed as the same group as Roma in tabloids was a trend researched by Fox et al. (2012), Cahn (2004, p.483), Woodcock (2007, pp.497-8), phenomenon that can be explained either by the similar nomenclature required for both, or by the pre-existent negative media discourses on Roma and the fact that they possessed Romanian nationality, or, as Woodcock (2007) explains, because of the significant Roma minority living on the territory of Romania.

The negative economic aspects regarding migrants are also exploited by the media. Concomitantly with the global economic crisis in 2008 that had devastating consequences in Europe, Rzepnikowska (2013) noticed a racialization with economic implications when she investigated the portrayal of Polish migrants in the UK press. On this note, panic was disseminated by the press predicting floods of migrants to the UK, and the disastrous economic implications that would have on the British society. In the same way, Roma immigrants were portrayed as a financial threat.

Metaphors encountered by some researchers when investigating the framing of migration in the US press found migrants were presented as ‘invaders (Chavez, 2001), or as animals (Santa Ana, 1999; Waters, 2015). Santa Ana (2002) argues that if a nation is constructed by the press as a physical body, immigrants are perceived metaphorically as disease or burderns, and when the nation is perceived as a house, immigrants are constructed as floodwater, invaders, or criminals (Waters, 2015). Therefore, metaphors play a crucial role in building frames propagating xenophobia and prejudice, as well as racism. Most importantly, Kuypers (2006, p.8) argues that most readers are not aware of the presence of frames and thus do not realize how these may impact their judgment.

Coding

It is important to note that coding is not equal to analysis, “although coding is a crucial aspect of analysis" (Basit, 2003, p. 145). On the one hand, coding can be defined as “a heuristic exploratory problem-solving technique without specific formulas to follow” (Saldana, 2009, p.8). Coding represents the first procedure leading to an exhaustive and suggestive analysis of text. “Rather than labeling, coding is based on linking: it leads you from the data to the idea, and from the idea to all the data pertaining to that idea” (Richards & Morse, 2007, p. 137).

According to Saldana (2009), coding is a cyclical action, as it requires several attempts of filtering, highlighting, and generating messages, and makes use of qualitative strategies to generate “categories, themes, and concepts, grasping meaning, and/or building theory” (Saldana, 2009). According to Coffey & Atkinson (1996), coding implies an interfusion between data compilation and data summation, “breaking the data apart in analytically relevant ways in order to lead toward further questions about the data" (pp. 29-31).

Codifying implies organizing ideas systematically, in order to create categories (Saldana, 2009). This process allows data to be grouped and linked “to consolidate meaning and explanation" (Grbich, 2007, p. 21; Saldana, 2009, p.8). On the other hand, Bernard (2006) explains analysis as the endeavor to identify data patterns and possible explanations for their occurrence. Therefore, the analysis process reaches further than coding, because it seeks potential cause-effect relationships findings and certain events, behaviors, or phenomena.

From codes to theory

As earlier mentioned, the present thesis conducted a frame analysis by qualitative and briefly quantitative means. On the one hand, Richard & Morse (2007) stated that “categorizing is how we get ‘up’ from the diversity of data to the shapes of the data” (p.157), whilst concepts represent a process of reaching more abstract constructs. Theory development is led by interrelating themes with concepts (Corbin & Strauss 2008). On the other hand, Layder (1998) claims that pre-existent theory has a major influence on coding processes, through informing or even leading. Moreover, the development of unique theories may not be the result of qualitative research, but may confirm preexisting theories (Mason, 2002; Saldana, 2009). The coding-categories-theory process is exemplified in ‘Annex 5’ in the Annexes section.

According to Bleich et al. (2015), the process of coding of a text which can be defined as ‘media coverage’ is more challenging than the methods of searching, selection and sampling. Authors such as Bloemraad et al. (2015) argue that researchers can already draw conclusions on a minority group through a simple count, as this reflects whether that group is visible or not to the public. The topic, as well as the tone are important when analyzing text. When discussing the topic, scholars can investigate whether particular migrant groups are linked to certain topics, and draw certain conclusions from that. Caviedes (2015) and Lawlor (2015)

endeavored to find such correlations in their research by comparing them across time and space and across media types and minority groups (Bleich, Bloemraad, & Graauw, 2015). Tolley (2015) and Bleich et al. (2015) argue that the relation between topic and group is revealing and thus very relevant to the researcher.

News Frames

Framing theories are an illustrative method to analyze the media representation of specific groups of people, and in this case the portrayal of refugees and migrants. To explain why, one must mention that according to communication studies scholars, what lies at the base of framing mechanisms is the way in which an object or event is described, while this may have an effect on how it is perceived by the public (Scheufele & Tewksbury 2007, p.11). Steimel (2010) explains that news outlets adopt particular frames when presenting stories to audiences. Such frames have been identified and explored by scholars such as Neuman, Just & Crigler (1992). In their study, they have pinpointed four news frames: the human impact frames, economic consequences, conflict, and morality. Later on, Valkenburg & Semetko (1999) replaced the human impact frame and renamed it the human interest frame, and came up with an additional one, the responsibility frame. A notable number of researchers have used these frames in their studies (e.g. Evers, 2016; d'Haenens & de Lange, 2001; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000), as journalists all over the globe make use of them (Evers, 2016). Compared to other quantitavely-conducted studies, Semetko & Valkenburg’s (2000) delimited frames most clearly. Moreover, they were the scholars to improve previously-discovered frames in order to adapt to a higher range of media types. Many other studies (Evers, 2016; d'Haenens & de Lange, 2001; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000) used their frames in relation to framing theory, since the news frames they developed look at how certain aspects of an issue are presented as more salient than others, and comprehend the definitions of framing that were offered earlier on in this thesis. Due to the reasons mentioned above, using Semetko & Valkenburg’s (2000) frames seemed the most suitable and promising when analyzing framing of migration.

1. Human Interest frame

This frame is characterized by offering a human face to an event or issue, and by emphasizing the emotional side of the story. Neuman et al. (1992) found in his study that this frame was almost just as recurrent as the conflict frame, and named it the ‘human impact’ frame. As any business, the news industry is subject to competitiveness and, in order to attract a high amount of readership, it produces news that sell, or news that captures and maintains public interest (Bennett, 1995). This frame is applied thus with the aim of capturing public interest by dramatizing and “emotionalizing” the news via personalization (Bleich et al., 2015). Previous research (e.g. An & Gower, 2009) has shown that the Human

Interest frame can trigger a stronger emotional response from the public, and the emotional

response stimulates assigning blame and responsibility (Evers, 2016). Additionally, authors such as Padin (2006) and An & Gower (2009) found that the use of this frame has a major effect on audiences perceiving the described issue as urgent, dangerous, triggering more negative perceptions. As the frame manifests itself through presenting personal stories, it also has the power to make people better recall events (Robinson & Levy, 1986). Previous research (e.g. Neuman et al., 1992) has shown that this frame is generally the most commonly used in their sample, confirmed by d’Haenens & de Lange (2001) when analyzing asylum-seekers’ media portrayal in the Dutch media. It is thus anticipated that this will be a prevalent frame within the selected newspaper sample for Syrian refugees and Roma migrants.

2. Responsibility frame

The prominent feature of this frame is that an issue is portrayed in a manner to put blame and assign responsibility of a certain consequence on the government, or certain institutions or groups or individuals (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). According to Iynegar (1987), covering a problem in terms of individual culprits or events and not focusing on the broader historical context and its implications for the cause-effect relationship. When it comes to immigration, Benson & Wood (2015) discovered that government sources were the most prevalent in media coverage across several media types and states. This finding could be justified by unequal distribution of resources (Evers, 2016). When assessing news coverage of crises, An and Gower (2009), as well as Semetko & Valkenburg (2000) found that the Responsibility

refugees during the so called refugee crisis, it is expected that this frame will have a high apparition in the media framing of Syrian refugees.

3. Conflict frame

As a means of catching public interest, this frame focuses on highlighting conflicts between individuals, institutions, or groups (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). Neuman et al. (1992, pp.61-62) investigated the US media and observed that the conflict frame was the most salient in American news reporting. Other previous studies also concluded that “complex substantive political debate’ between political parties diminishes the discussion to an “overly simplistic conflict” (Bleich et al., 2015). According to Patterson (1993), coverage of presidential election campaigns is framed mainly in terms of conflict. As a consequence of the media’s reliance on conflict when reporting on certain events, it received much criticism for “inducing public cynism and mistrust of political leaders” (Cappella & Jameson, 1997; Bleich et al., 2015). According to D’Haenens and de Lange (2001), this frame is employed in the endeavor to abridge intricate social and political issues to simple hostilities, presenting one belligerent standing against the other. It can be easily understood why journalists would opt for using this frame in order to reduce complex events to simplified issues (Evers, 2016). The conflict frame contributes to assigning blame in debated political decisions and crisis situations, according to Nijkrake, Gosselt & Gutteling (2015). Additionally, a story presented within the conflict frame contributes to leading the reader into creating antagonistic perspectives into her/his discernment (de Vreese, 2004). The same author found that this frame was more prevalent than the economic consequences frame in the British, Danish and Dutch news vis-à-vis politics and economy-related topics (de Vreese, 2004).

4. Economic Consequences frame

The frame in question refers to presenting a story in parralel to the economic implications and repercussions on a group, institution, individual, or country (Bleich et al., 2015). The economic consequences of an event are often considerable the bigger the impact and radius (Graber, 1993). This frame highlights the profit/loss repercussions of the problem in question (de Vreese, 2004). According to d’Haenens & de Lange (2001), the economic aspect of an issue has a notable news weight, as it is employed by the media to boost the problem’s relevance in the minds of the audience. Nijkrake, Gosseling & Gutteling (2015) proved that