The cultural framing hypothesis: cultural conflict indicators in The New York Times from 1981 to 2007

Abstract

The authors investigated attributes related to a `cultural framing hypothesis', the notion that mass media have promoted Samuel Huntington's `clash of civilizations' theory, establishing its `salience' outside the academic environment. Media salience of cultural attributes can be linked to several public outcomes: (1) an overall attribution of importance — the fact the `clash of civilizations' paradigm is recognizable and important in the public mind; (2) the theory may be used as a tool for interpretation for whatever conflicts happen around the globe, overshadowing various other plausible and scientifically sound explanations; (3) the theory may be leading to notions of expanded inter-ethnic or `civilization' identities as described by Huntington. To assess the existence of cultural framing, the authors conducted a quantitative content analysis of five different micro-frames, derived from Huntington's seminal work, over a 27-year period. The authors examined two main hypotheses: H1: cultural frames will be predominantly traceable in media content after Huntington's theory appeared in the early 1990s; and H2: cultural frames will be salient in newspaper content during periods of intense terrorist activities, mainly after the year 2001. Both hypotheses were supported by the data.

Show me the study! Science by press release is not science

“…In communication and media studies, the framing hypothesis studies a set of phenomena in which the media coverage reduces some elements of the perceived reality and arranges the remaining essential items into a coherent narrative that emphasizes connections between them in order to promote an interpretation anchored on plausibility [41][42][43][44]. Thus, it is a process that in itself tends to tone down nuance and simplify context, which are essential features to the accurate reporting of scientific findings to avoid, among other things, spin.…”

“…Framing in news coverage generally encompasses four functions: (a) problem definition, (b) causal analysis, (c) moral judgment and (d) the promotion of solutions. The framing is also expected to cue, shape and change the interpretations of the readers and audience members, as well as their preferences, introducing or increasing the apparent importance of certain ideas, activating mental schemes that encourage the audience to think, feel and decide in a particular way [41][42][43][44].…”

“…They organize the story, taking into account organizational and modality constraints, professional judgments and some judgments about the audience [41][42][43][44]. In contrast, people's information processing and their interpretation of facts and reality are also influenced by pre-existing structures, schemes of interpretation that end up interacting and determining how the news will be perceived, accepted, rejected, doubted, which aspects will be cherry-picked and to what extent for the purpose of ego enhancement, affirming identity and ideology, and belonging to groups [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. That said, spin on research findings, spin in media coverage and news coverage frames are a recipe for completely losing control over any scientific narrative, laying grounds for misinformation, disinformation and all in-between.…”