Life, death or drugs: Actor framing power on the news media coverage of health care policy

Abstract

The media are central arenas for actors challenging government practice, as those who succeed in publicly defining issues can influence public perceptions and policy outcomes. Taking into account the widespread civic participation in health media coverage, this study explores actor influence on the media framing of a contentious health policy issue, before and after a policy change. By means of media texts analysis, it analyses the relation between actor frames and the dominant media frames on the issue of priority setting of innovative pharmaceuticals. While confirming that actors vary in their ability to influence the media, the findings contend traditional conceptions that representation equates media influence and shed light on factors that affect frame influence.

The Social and Political Significance of Technology-Driven Organisational Change: Discursive Battles to Frame, Define and Decide in ‘a Space of Points of View’

“…Building on evidence in the literature concerning the potential transformative effects of framing practices in public media (e.g. Fredheim, 2020;Koon et al, 2016), this article thus argues that the discursive battles in public media expectedly influence public sentiment about the HP and its ongoing organisational materialisation in terms of platform modifications and a potential phase-out. Although no definite conclusions on the state and future fate of the HP can be made, it seems likely that the consultant doctors have achieved a slight lead in the arm-wrestling struggles with the regions because their framing activities have been forceful enough to render the platform a national political issue.…”

“…Building on evidence in the literature concerning the potential transformative effects of framing practices in public media (e.g. Fredheim, 2020;Koon et al, 2016), this article thus argues that the discursive battles in public media expectedly influence public sentiment about the system. Therefore, including the perspectives of professional groups who have received and demanded less media attention would provide us with a fuller picture of HP reception.…”

“…The hospital field and the field of power both relate to and depend on the media, which have a unique mandate to explore all spheres of life and share their findings with the public. In a Bourdieusian perspective, the media do not convey mere facts to the public, but should be seen as active co-constructors of ‘social facts’ and public opinion (Champagne, 2005), where journalists, representing various media outlets, and groups that have the power to influence content and impact public sentiments about core issues engage in mutually beneficial relationships (Champagne, 2005; Fredheim, 2020; Shields & Harvey, 2010). The Danish media have historically been linked to the political parties.…”

“…Research has shown that arguments and ideas about issues of public concern in public media outlets may mobilise public and political opinion on various subjects – including healthcare investments – and thereby legitimise political actions and decisions (Fredriksson & Edwards, 2019). Public media may thus be used to affect policy-making and policy changes (Fredheim, 2020; Fredriksson & Edwards, 2019). This can occur, for example, through the use of discursive tools and techniques such as frames that concern the selection and promotion of particular aspects of a phenomenon (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014; Entman, 1993; Koon et al, 2016; Shields & Harvey, 2010).…”

“…This can occur, for example, through the use of discursive tools and techniques such as frames that concern the selection and promotion of particular aspects of a phenomenon (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014; Entman, 1993; Koon et al, 2016; Shields & Harvey, 2010). It is thus important to pay attention to these discursive struggles and, specifically, to their political functions when they aim to mobilise the public (Contandriopoulos et al, 2004; Entman, 1993; Fredheim, 2020; Shields & Harvey, 2010).…”