Revisiting Abu Ghraib: Journalists' Sourcing and Framing Patterns

Abstract

It is a truism in communication research to contend that media portrayals of events can influence public opinion. For decades, public opinion researchers have turned to agenda setting, 1 cultivation, 2 and the spiral of silence 3 to explain how individuals' perceptions of the world can be influenced by media content. However, the magnitude of influence is contingent on a number of conditions, for example, whether the issue is one with which the audience member has direct experience. 4 Recent years have seen a sharp rise in studies of framing, a meta-concept that spans the entire process of message-making, from the construction of a given message to its effects on audience members. 5 Inevitably, individual framing studies rarely can address all these aspects of the framing process. Efforts examining how the media portray various issues and events 6 then tend to assume effects, with empirical studies of framing involving the identification of key aspects of media coverage. 7 The current study focuses on a specific aspect of framing-sourcing-and how journalists' reliance on official sources, often referenced as indexing, 8 manifested itself in coverage of the events at Abu Ghraib in 2004. The allegations of torture at Abu Ghraib already have motivated scholars to study press independence from government frames. Some have shown the press essentially parroting the government's account of events, 9 while others have provided contradictory evidence. 10 Bennett, Lawrence, and Livingston argued that the events at Abu Ghraib created a "'natural experiment' for testing the limits of press independence," 11Drawing on the literature related to indexing and sourcing, this study analyzes portrayals and sourcing patterns of New York Times coverage of Abu Ghraib and invocations of the events during Alberto Gonzales' nomination as U.S. Attorney General. Content analysis of all 760 articles published revealed that journalists overwhelmingly consulted official, though not necessarily partisan, sources during the pre-nomination, nomination, and hearing phases leading up to Gonzales' confirmation. Despite introducing the idea of "scandal" into coverage of Abu Ghraib, which suggests press independence, journalists consulted routine sources and increasingly relied on congressional sources over time.

The domestication of “the Arab Spring”: A comparison of news framing in the United States and South Korea

“…This study is based on the theoretical supposition that the differing portrayals of the Arab Spring in the United States and South Korea are a result of framing, which is "an essential part of [the] news-construction process" (Hickerson et al, 2011). According to Entman (1993), the process of framing involves the selection of certain aspects of a "perceived reality" in order to "make them more salient" and to "promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation" (p. 52).…”

“…When journalists cover an issue or event, they portray or frame it in different ways (Du, 2016; Entman, 1993; Gitlin, 1980; Nelson et al, 1997). By making certain frames more visible, journalists play a pivotal role in disseminating “a particular version of reality” (Hickerson et al, 2011, p. 790). Divergent representations of same issue occur because journalists can employ a variety of words, phrases, images and angles in their preferred ways in presenting issues (Entman, 1993; Nelson et al, 1997).…”

Journalists–sources relationship in violent conflicts coverage: Shifting dynamics

“…Bennett et al () showed that where there is a powerful political consensus, as in Washington towards the invasion of Iraq in 2003, journalists tend to rely on official and elite sources. Even when stories broke independent of government sources, like of the events at Abu Ghraib, journalists quickly look to the government for guidance (Hickerson, Moy, & Dunsmore, ). Military elites too still largely control the access to information during wartime, by summoning journalists for briefings (Robinson et al, ).…”

When official consensus equals more negativity in media coverage: Broadcast television news and the (re-)indexing of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal

“…Many scholars have noted that the military often makes a concerted effort to have the media, politicians, and public move in sync to support a war effort (Bennett et al, 2006; Harmon and Muenchen, 2009; Hickerson et al, 2011; Steele, 1997). Reese and Buckalew (1995: 41) describe this interplay as the ‘interlocking reinforcing triangle of government’ in which government engages the media to cultivate public opinion that is supportive of the military and warfare.…”