2010 - Public Relations Society of America
2010 - Public Relations Society of America
2010 - Public Relations Society of America
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
frames present new considerations without the intent <strong>of</strong> challenging the common frame (Dardis<br />
et al., 2008).<br />
Successful frames are described as having salience, resonance, and persistence. Salience<br />
refers to the frequency <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> the frame, resonance corresponds to the number <strong>of</strong> individual<br />
arguments represented, and persistence is the endurance or amplification <strong>of</strong> the frame throughout<br />
media outlets (Entman, 1993; Baumgartner, De Boef, Boydstun, 2008).<br />
Frames define the problem and suggest a remedy. Individuals then construct their own<br />
counter-frames even when elites impose their influence over media outlets. Effects are <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
confounded by frame parity, which occurs when a counter-frame with a complete alternative<br />
narrative receives equal play in the media (Entman, 2004). Framing effects are dependent upon<br />
the reach <strong>of</strong> the medium delivering the frame (Fan et al., 2002).<br />
Journalists incorporate frames into accounts for efficiency <strong>of</strong> comprehension (Luther &<br />
Miller, 2005). Eventually dominant frames push weaker frames aside, indirectly promoting<br />
content bias (Entman, 2007). Frame strength is a result <strong>of</strong> how frequently a frame is used within<br />
the media and the level <strong>of</strong> source credibility (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997; Chong, 1996; Chong,<br />
2000; Domke, Shah, & Wackman, 1998; Druckman, 2001A; Edy & Meirick, 2007; Iyengar,<br />
1991). Amplified frames, frames that survive the test <strong>of</strong> time, become part <strong>of</strong> the public<br />
vernacular once shared by political elites and journalists (Shah, Watts, Domke, & Fan, 2002).<br />
Using four major U.S. newspapers, the New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street<br />
Journal, and the Washington Post, this study seek to find:<br />
RQ1: How does the framing <strong>of</strong> nuclear energy differ in the news coverage <strong>of</strong> nuclear<br />
energy from 1991 to 2008 in use <strong>of</strong> story elements and dominant frame packages?<br />
RQ2: What is the dominant frame package over time?<br />
Methods<br />
Content Analysis<br />
Quantitative content analysis provides a formal system for examination <strong>of</strong> content<br />
through the use <strong>of</strong> systematic, replicable, and reductionistic procedures (Riffe, Lacy & Fico,<br />
2005). Content analysis not only allows for inferences to be made about relationships between<br />
important variables within this study, but also for the identification <strong>of</strong> primary dimensions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
nuclear energy debate.<br />
Sampling<br />
USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times were selected for this study<br />
based upon their daily circulation.<br />
Using the search engine ProQuest, a search for news articles containing content on either<br />
nuclear energy or nuclear power was conducted separately for each newspaper beginning with<br />
1991 through 2008. The search resulted in a total <strong>of</strong> 4095 news articles with news articles<br />
peaking in 1991, and then again in 2006. When examining the trend <strong>of</strong> nuclear energy news<br />
articles among the four newspapers, the New York Times leads with the most news articles with<br />
the exception <strong>of</strong> 1996, 1997 and 2005 (Figure 1).<br />
45