Krzysztof Wasilewski
Regional and Municipal Public Library in Gorzow Wielkopolski
Pokračování článku I Zpět na začátek textu
Having introduced the basic media frames and their potential to affect audiences, it is possible to draw some conclusions as to their usefulness in fostering social cohesion among members of various cultures. The examples provided above indicate that certain media frames may have a greater impact on audiences than others. Especially those frames that correspond with audiences’ opinions on certain migration-related issues or are accepted as “common sense” frames, such as economic consequence frame or national security frame, may affect audiences to a large degree. Even though the process of media framing is influenced by various external factors, it is still possible to single out the most important ones. First of all, it is a medium policy which depends on both: the owner’s interests and the expectations of the receivers. Another factor is the political and cultural environment in which a media outlet functions (Herman and Chomsky, 1994, p. 3-14). Although most mainstream media represent the centrist, liberal position on various subjects, including immigration, they still take into consideration the opinions of their receivers. In other words, if the society becomes less enthusiastic about cultural diversity, so do the mainstream mass media. For example, let us think about the U.S. media behaviour after the 9/11 attacks. Responding to the rise of patriotism and nationalism among receivers, the majority of media employed the language and narration that corresponded with those feelings. As a result, U.S. media largely supported the American military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (see DiMaggio, 2009, p. 113-132).
During the process of media framing it is being decided which frames will become dominant in media-constructed intercultural communication. When it comes to such topics as immigration and refugees, there can be distinguished the three main generic frames: economic, social, and political. Each of them can be positive or negative and is divided into issue-specific frames. Using various studies, it is possible to predict how certain frames are received by audiences. For example, the economic frame – whether used in a negative or positive meaning – affects mostly those people whose economic situation is volatile. They are more susceptible to news messages that depict foreigners as a working force and – regardless of the original intention – consider this frame as negative. On the other hand, the national cohesion and national security frames appeal to all social classes. The “securitisation” of immigration, which has been in progress for some time now, has influenced the media as well. The cultural diversity frame that used to be regarded as a positive frame has recently evolved into a negative one, in which foreign religion, customs, and traditions are presented and received as a threat to national unity.
How then can media frames be used in intercultural communication? If one of the main functions of the media is fostering social cohesion, which is especially important in societies that are becoming more and more heterogeneous, then the process of framing should avoid employing frames that provoke uncertainty and hostility. Such negative frames would include depicting immigrants or refugees as a homogenous mass, since it naturally evokes the feeling of threat among audiences. Instead – as both scholars and journalists admit – the media should choose individual frames. One needs only to think about the famous picture of Alan Kurdi – a three-year-old Syrian refugee boy who drowned attempting to reach the European shore – to realise how powerful the individual frame can be. Another frame useful for intercultural communication is the integration frame. Even though cultural diversity is currently widely perceived as an idea ambiguous at best, highlighting positive aspects of integration can build broader acceptation for incomers. In order to secure framing that would foster intercultural dialogue, various steps should be taken. For example, a United Nations Alliance of Civilizations’ study proposes the exchange of opinions between media around the world, more thorough education of journalists, and the establishment of regular “media watches” (Howard and Idriss, 2006, p. 13). In this sense, media should perform peace journalism, encouraging, just like intercultural communication, constructive dialogue, and providing the same space for all parties in the conflict (Roy and Shaw, 2016, pp. 1-14).
Even though the division into “us” and “others” seems to be the prevailing media frame, the news media can still produce positive coverage of foreign cultures. First of all, it is wise to remember that the usage of thematic frames provides the necessary context, whereas episodic frames focus on a selected episode. By choosing the latter, the media inevitably risk that – regardless of their original intentions – the reception among audiences will be negative. For example, reporting extensively on terrorist attacks carried out by foreigners (or natives of foreign origin) in Europe and the US, turns the episodic frame of foreign terrorism into a generic frame that may soon dominate the entire intercultural media discourse. Second, since media frames are the strongest when they correspond with personal frames, intercultural communication should include motives and tropes that receivers are familiar with. For example, conservative host societies may feel more understanding for incomers (immigrants, refugees) if the media highlight their attachment to traditional values. Even though these values may differ, they still share a certain core – common for both groups. On the other hand, liberal societies should be more receptive to the democracy frame and cultural diversity frame since tolerance and the respect for minorities are the fundaments of each liberal democracy. Finally, due to the social media, other frames – marginalized by the mainstream media – have a chance to appear and secure position in the discourse. The social media and other alternative media may play an important role in the process of frame building, including framing of intercultural communication. They provide “people and governments with a powerful tool to construct their own messages, to set the media agenda, or to frame the news messages” (Chen, 2012, p. 6). On the one hand, new media are capable of fostering intercultural dialogue; on the other, however, they “tend to reflect the asymmetry of intercultural communication and inevitably lead to the problem of intercultural confrontation or conflict” (Chen, 2012, p. 6).
To conclude, media frames present a plausible tool not only to describe intercultural communication, but also to turn it into the desired direction. Knowing how the process of frame building works and which frames may have the greatest impact on the audiences, it is possible to significantly eradicate the negative and subjective coverage of foreign cultures, giving space to a more culturally and ethnically inclusive reporting. Only then can intercultural communication facilitate a real dialogue instead of a set of monologues.
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London and New York: Verso.
Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating Frame Strength: The Case of Episodic and Thematic Frames. Political Communication, 28, 207-226.
Aarøe L. (2017). Framing: Audience Frames. In P. Rössler (Ed.), The International Encyklopedia of Media Effects, vol. 2, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 626-634.
Barnett, G.A., Lee, M. (2003). Issues in Intercultural Communication Research. In W. B. Guddykunst (Ed.), Cross-cultural and intercultural communication, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE, 259-274.
Bauman, Z. (2004). Identity. Cambridge, Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Benson, R. (2013). Shaping Immigration News: A French-American comparison. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Callaghan, K. (2005). Controversies and new directions in framing research. In K. Callaghan, F. Schnell, R.M. Entman (Eds.), Framing American politics, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 179-190.
Carey, J.W. (1992). Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. New York, NY and London: Routledge.
Cargile, I.V.M., Merolla, J.L., Pantoja, A.D. (2014). The effects of media framing on attitudes toward undocumented immigration. In V. Carty, T.M. Woldemikael, R. Luévano, Scholars and Southern Californian immigrants in dialogue, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 41-67.
Chen, G.M. (2012). The impact of new media on intercultural communication in global context. China Media Research, 8(2), 1-10.
Coleman, R., McCombs, M., Shaw, D., Weaver, D. (2009). Agenda setting. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen, T. Haznitzsch (Eds.), The Handbook of Journalism Studies, New York, NY: Routledge, 147-160.
Collier, M.J., Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural Identity: An Interpretive Perspective. In Y.Y. Kim, W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.) Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 99-120.
Coutin, S., Chock, P. (1997). “Your friend, the illegal”: Definition and paradox in newspaper accounts of U.S. immigration reforms. Identities, 2, 123-146.
DiMaggio, A. (2009). When Media Goes to war: Hegemonic Discourse, Public Ppinion, and the Limits of Dissent. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Edelman, M.J. (1993). Contestable categories and public opinion. Political Communication, 10(3), 231-242.
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
Entman, R., Matthes, J., Pellicano, L. (2009). Nature, Sources, and Effects of News Framing. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen, T. Haznitzsch (Eds.), The Handbook of Journalism Studies, New York, NY: Routledge, 175-190.
EU Migrant Crisis (2017). Retrieved from European Parliament webpage: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20170629STO78630/eu-migrant-crisis-facts-and-figures (viewed January 2018).
Feagin, J.R. (2013). The White Racial Frame: Centuries of Racial Framing and Counter-framing. New York: Routledge.
Fishman, M. (1980). Manufacturing the News. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Gamson, W.A. (1992). The social psychology of collective action. In A.D. Morris and C. McClurg Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 53-76.
Gamson, W.A., Croteau, D., Hoynes W., Sasson, T. (1992b). Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373-393.
Goffman, E. (1986). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Graber, D.A., Dunaway, J. (2015). Mass Media and AmericanPpolitics. New York: CQ Press.
Haslett, B.B. (2012). The Theory of Structurational Interaction. New York and London: Routledge.
Haynes, Ch., Merolla, J.L., Ramakrishnan, S.K. (2016). Framing Immigrants: News Coverage, Public Opinion, and Policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Herman E.S., Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York, NY: Pantheon House.
Howard R., Idriss, S. (2006). Research Base for the High-level Group Report: Analysis on Media. New York, NY: United Nations.
Howarth, C. (2011). Representations, identity and resistance in communication. In D. Hook, B. Franks, M. Bauer, W. Martin (Eds.). The Social Psychology of Communication, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 153-168.
Jensen, I. (2004). The practice of intercultural communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 6, http://www.immi.se/intercultural (viewed January 2018).
Jörg, M. (2009). What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the world’s leading communication journals, 1990-2005. Journalism and Mass Communication Quaterly, 86, 349-367.
Kellner, D. (1995). Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics between the Modern and the Postmodern. London and New York: Routledge.
Keshishian, F. Acculturation, communication, and the U.S. mass media. In F.D. Jandt (Ed.), Intercultural Communication: A Global Reader, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE, 230-242.
Kurylo, A., (2013). Inter/cultural Communication: Representation and Construction of Culture. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Lerch, M., Schwellnus, G. (2006). Normative by nature? The role of coherence in justifying the EU’s external human rights policy. The Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 304-321.
Littlejohn, S.W., Foss, K.A. (2009). Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC: SAGE.
Lynch, J., McGoldrick, A. (2005). Peace Journalism. Stroud: Hawthorn Press.
Martinez, A.G., Castaňo, J.G., Kressova, N., Chovancova, L., Echeverria, J.F. (2013). Participation of the media on combating racism and xenophobia. In M.M. Lirola (Ed.), Discourses on Immigration in Times of Economic Crisis: A Critical Perspective, Newcastle upon Tynes: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 238-259.
McQuail, D. (1994). Mass Communication Theory: An introduction (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory (6th edition). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC: SAGE.
Moi, P., Johnson C.N. (2015). Public opinion. In G. Mazzoleni (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, vol. 3, Malden, MA, Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 1320-1336.
Murdock, E. (2016). Multiculturalism, Identity and Difference: Experiences of Culture Contact. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nelson, T.H., Clawson, R.A., Oxley, Z.M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567-583.
Neuman, R.W., Just, M.R., Crigler, A.N. (1992). Common Knowledge. News and the Construction of Political Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Noels, K.A., Yashima T., Zhang R. (2012). Language, Identity and Intercultural Communication. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge, 52-66.
Nordland, R. (2015). A Mass Migration Crisis, and It May Yet Get Worse. The New York Times, Nov. 1, A6.
Payan, T. (2016). The Three U.S.-Mexico Border Wars: Drugs, Immigration, and Homeland Security (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA, Denver, CL: Praeger.
Pentzold, C., et al. (2016). Reconstructing Media Frames in Multimodal Discourse. Discourse, Context and Media, 12, 32-39.
Rapport N. (2014). Social and Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts, 3rd ed. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Ratajczak, M. (2012). Różnorodność kulturowa w mediach [Cultural Diversity in the Media]. Warszawa: Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa.
Rivenburgh, N.K. (2011). Media Framing of Complex Issues: The Case of Endangered Languages. Public Understanding of Science, 22, p. 704-717.
Roy S., Shaw I.S. (2016). Introduction – Communicating Differences: Toward Breaking the Boundaries for Peace and Conflict in Communication. In S. Roy, I.S. Shaw (Eds.), Communicating Differences: Culture, Media, Peace and Conflict Negotiation, Basingstoke, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-14.
Rubio-Marin, R. (2000). Immigration as a Democratic Challenge: Citizenship and Inclusion in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E., McDaniel, E.R., Roy, C.S. (2015). Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Boston, MA: SAGE.
Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122.
Schirato, T., Yell, S. (2000). Communication and Culture: An Introduction. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE.
Semetko H.A., Valkenburg P.M. (2000). Framing European Politics. A Content Analysis of Press and Television News. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93-109.
Shoemaker, P.J., Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the Message (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Spencer-Oatey, H., Kotthof, H. Introduction. In H. Kotthof, H. Spencer-Oatey (Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Communication, Berlin, New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-7.
Steinberg, S. (1995). Introduction to communication. Cape Town: Juta & Co. Ltd.
Trent, J.S., Friedenberg, R.V., Denton R.E. Jr. (2011). Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices (2nd ed.). Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Turner, J.H. (2013). Theoretical Sociology: 1830 to the Present. Riverside: University of California.
Vandervoordt, R. (2016). Humanitarian media events: On the symbolic conditions of moral integration. In A. Fox (Ed.), Global Perspectives on Media Events in Contemporary Society, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 90-105.
Vreese de, C.H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal + Document Design, 13(1), 51-62.
Wilkinson, A.B. (2015). U.S. Multiculturalism or Cultural Assimilation? Retrieved from the Huffington Post webpage: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-b-wilkinson/us-multiculturalism-or-cultural-assimilation_b_8218490.html (viewed December 2017).
Williams, R. (1961). The Long Revolution (pp. 57-88). London: Chatto & Windus.
Yilmaz, F. (2016). How the Workers Became Muslims: Immigration, Culture, and Hegemonic Transformation in Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31 Dec 2023
