Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Media Frame and
Political Discourse Analysis of
the Lehman Shock in Japanby Roddy McDougall
University of Edinburgh
Origins of the Crisis
Source: Mike Luckovich's Editorial Cartoons (2007)
The Lehman Shock
Fallout from the US Subprime Mortgage Crisis
Little exposure to subprime market in Japan, but
increased dependence upon exports
Fall in global demand and availability of credit results in
drastic reduction of export sales
Ending 73-month period of growth, 5.5% fall in Real GDP1
Single largest drop in economic output since WW2
1Source: Cabinet Office of Japan (www.esri.cao.go.jp/en/sna/data/kakuhou/files/2013/27annual_report_e.html)
Japanese Media Coverage
Unprecedented scale of the Lehman Shock generated a
vast amount of coverage
Large readership / subscription base (45m+ daily circulation)
High degree of trust in the mainstream press
Widely reported journalistic constraint through institutions
such as kisha clubs (e.g. Freeman 2000)
Constraint of coverage constitutes a use of power
Questions to answer
1. What are the signifying elements of the media frames
used to represent the Lehman Shock?
2. Is there an observable change in the use of these
media frames over time?
3. What are the salient argumentative premises used
within the framed articles?
4. How do these premises relate to those used within
official policy discourse?
5. Is it possible to infer an ideological bias within the media
from the analysis?
Media & Power(Fairclough 2015, Gans 2004, Gitlin 2003, Lukes 2005)
The flow of information:
Sources Journalists Audience
“tugs of war”(Gans 2004)
“implicitly contained within
established media practices” (Fairclough 2015, 80)
hidden power
The Exercise of Power(Lukes 2005)
One Dimensional View(Dahl 1957)
Observable Conflict
Decision-Making
“A has power over B to the extent that he can get B
to do something that B would otherwise not do”(Dahl 1957, 201)
The Exercise of Power(Lukes 2005)
One Dimensional View(Dahl 1957)
Two Dimensional View(Bachrach & Baratz 1970)
Observable Conflict
Decision-Making
Potential Conflict
Nondecision-makingAgenda Control
The Exercise of Power(Lukes 2005)
One Dimensional View(Dahl 1957)
Two Dimensional View(Bachrach & Baratz 1970)
Three Dimensional View(Lukes 1974)
Observable Conflict
Decision-Making
Potential Conflict
Nondecision-making
Latent Conflict
Naturalization
Agenda Control
Domination
“power to mislead”
Media Frames(Entman 1993)
“Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To
frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality
and make them more salient in a communicating text, in
such a way as to promote a particular problem definition,
causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or
treatment recommendation for the item described.”
Media Frames(Entman 1993)
selection
salience
problem definition
causal interpretation
moral evaluation
treatment recommendation
Subframe elements
Media Frame Analysis(Kohring & Matthes 2002)
Kohring and Matthes’ method treats Media Frames as
clusters of subframe elements.
Allows Media Frames to naturally emerge from the data
Inhibits analyst subjectivity
Identified Media Frames are issue-specific and capable
of evolving as the situation develops
Fukushima Daiichi Analysis(Masters Dissertation, McDougall 2013)
Kohring and Matthes’ method used to analyse initial
coverage of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster.
Five distinct media frames emerge from the data
Clear evolution of their use over the sample period
Very similar frame usage by both Yomiuri and Asahi
indicating homogenous coverage
Fukushima Daiichi Analysis Results
Doomsday Frame
highly pessimistic, risks and setbacks most salient (30%)
Criticism of Nuclear Industry Frame
public opinion of nuclear policy, ‘myth of safety’ criticised (23.75%)
Situation Under Control Frame
repair efforts highlighted, risks and blame rarely discussed (18.75%)
Public Concern Frame
health and environmental concerns, economic risks (17.5%)
Crisis Management Frame
neutral frame concerned with developing events (10%)
Political Discourse Analysis(Fairclough & Fairclough 2012)
Explores the interaction between agency and structures and of the
relation between language and power.
Challenges the truth or acceptability of argumentative premises
Views premises as reasons for action
Suggests that the representation of the context of action is biased
and serves a particular (power) interest
The structure of practical reasoning(Fairclough & Fairclough 2012)
CIRCUMSTANCES (C)Agent’s context of action. Consists of natural facts and social/institutional facts.
VALUES(V)Agent’s actual concerns or value commitments.
MEANS-GOAL (M-G)Action A is the means that will (presumably) take the Agent from C to G in accordance with V.
GOAL (G)Agent’s goal is a future state of affairs where the Agent’s value commitments are realized.
CLAIM FOR ACTIONAgent (presumably) ought to do Action A.
The argument for Action A:
The structure of practical reasoning(Fairclough & Fairclough 2012)
GOAL (G)Agent’s goal is a future state of affairs where the Agent’s value commitments are realized.
CLAIM FOR ACTIONAgent (presumably) ought to do Action A.
The argument for Action A:
Problem Definition
Causal Interpretation
Moral Evaluation
Treatment
Recommendation
Synergy with
sub-frame
elements
Outcomes and Risks
Strengths
Provide valuable data and analysis on
an important and contemporary issue in
Japanese society
Extend framing theory to include a
critical component
Broaden the scope of communication
research to include Japanese sources
Weaknesses
Single analyst increases subjectivity risk
Linguistic component open to
misinterpretation
Time-consuming analytical method
Opportunities
Feed into conversations surrounding the
role of the Japanese press
Explore an economic issue from a non-
economic/social science standpoint
Threats
Availability of source material
Limited timescale for analysis
