Framing the Dakota Access Pipeline: Democracy Now! vs. Fox News

The Dakota Access Pipeline has been a long disputed subject with many potential stories, so I specifically picked two stories that were relatively close in date to bring to attention what stories were being reported on at the time. The following articles were both written on February 2nd, and describe the arrests of water protectors after the establishment of a new protest camp.
Democracy Now! focused on the water protectors’ perspective. The title, 76 arrested after police raid new protest camp brings the 76 who were arrested to the forefront, and frames the police as unexpectedly raiding the camp. The picture shows militarized police officers wearing bulky gear and helmets, all of whom have covered their faces. The picture suggests intimidation and fear, and doesn’t show the officers interacting with the protectors. The article’s language describes the interactions between the police and the protectors as uneven, to the extent of being unfair. The article uses words like “militarized” and “raided” to describe the police, and words like “historic Sioux treaty land” and “established” to describe the protesters’ camp, painting it in a more positive light. Furthermore, the article makes a point to use the group’s self-proclaimed title of water protectors instead of protesters, which frames the campaign as a noble cause rather than an inconvenience.

Fox News, on the other hand, focused on denouncing the camp by using a tribal chairman who is against the protests as the primary spokesperson. The article explains the situation more clearly, but the choice in title is very suggestive of the content that follows: Tribal chairman decries Dakota Access protesters new camp. The words they use regarding the protest camp and the protectors imply failure: “tried to set up”, “private land”, “flood-prone”, “unsuccessful” and “consider sacred”. They also point out that 2 of the 76 water protectors were arrested for unrelated drug offenses, which suggests the campaign is unprofessional, or even criminal. The article itself briefly mentioned the police, but used the word “authorities” instead of “police officers”. Although the Fox News article has more information surrounding the topic, the writing frames the pipeline and the police officers positively.

Framing of Ivanka Trump's new White House Position

In the Cosmopolitan piece, the story about Ivanka Trump’s role in the White House is framed in a way that challenges her ascent to power. The language and style of writing used by the author is forceful and angry, expressing her disbelief at Ivanka’s role. In the piece, she frequently uses a question and answer style of writing to assert her feelings towards the idea Ms. Trump being in the White House. The main theme of the article is about working woman, and how despite Ivanka’s use of the hashtag, through nepotism has usurped woman who are working for roles in the political sphere. The only quotes are from Trump and Ivanka, and are dissected by the author. This, along with the fact that the piece was written in first person with consistent use of the word ‘we’, shows that the author is not attempting to distance herself from the news of Ivanka Trump. Rather, she is working to frame the story in an ‘us’ v ‘them’ mentality and is clearly choosing a side.

The New York Times piece is more standard reporting. It attempts to deliver the news of Ivanka’s new position at the White House in a more balanced way, at least compared to Cosmopolitan. This article chronicles how Ivanka’s role has changed since the beginning of the campaign. In a stark contrast to the Cosmo piece, this one details the way Ivanka has said she is ensuring to remain ethical in her business and in the White House. This piece also discusses the way Ivanka is upsetting other working women, despite her celebration of them with her brand. Additionally, this piece provides background of Ms. Trump and her husband as Democratic leaning in previous years. While the New York Times has been challenging Trump since the campaign, this piece is framed in an almost optimistic way regarding Ivanka in the White House. While there are quotes discussing the ethical issues, it shies away from directly damning the position. Furthermore, there are large sections dedicated to explaining the measures taken by Ivanka so that she remains ethical, as well as how she has helped Democrats in the past. I wouldn’t say that it is framed in a positive light of the appointment, but it appears to be pointing out why this is not that bad of a thing in the Trump era, and uses the historical precedent of Presidents leaning on their children to do so. The framing here is more of a standard news story, and unlike the Cosmo piece it does not challenge the appointment or explain the quotes used. Rather, it allows the quotes to speak for themselves, which is particularly notable with the conclusion of the article, where an ethics lawyer declares the whole thing nepotism.

Framing: Washington's Missing Girls

These articles discuss the recent social media flash-point that has been made of the issue of the missing girls in Washington D.C. While they both address the often ignored factor of minority race linking the individuals, they frame the central problem and the most effective course of action differently.

TIME attempts to balance the social media spread as well as official police department responses evenly, but ultimately casts a negative tone over the social media involvement. The article portrays a sense of hysteria as a result of the social media coverage, which has unfortunately disseminated false information to a large population. It warns in several different manners how "social media can be [sic] spread inaccurate or alarming information without full context." It seemingly implies that such information should be left to the D.C. officials who had been working to dispel the myths about the volume of missing children, although the article acknowledges that activists have been expressing the lack of media coverage for this demographic, specifically.

AFRO, on the other hand, only briefly mentions the role social media has played in the development of this issue. It cites that an instagram post led to some initial awareness of 14 missing black girls. However, the rest of the article only quotes political figures and justice officials. It references the pressure the Congressional Black Caucus placed on federal authorities to help find the girls and mentions some of the efforts of police officials thus far. Interestingly, the article concludes with what seems to be a call to action for these authorities to not only resolve the immediate issue, but also address the systemic causes underlying these cases.

I think the primary difference in framing between these two articles is the difference in institutional interests of the sites. AFRO is for "black news, sports, entertainment, and politics," and is more likely to look at the issue and the underlying system than TIME, which has a much broader readership.

Kayla Principato
March 30, 2017
FRAMES

These frames focus on millennials and their habits of materialism. They are completely different views and explain millennials as different in each scenario.

The first article from Forbes suggests than millennials are spending more money than they are earning. The PSmag article states that the expectations of millennia are too high and dream of a new Lamborghini and beach house every year.  Counter to that Elite Daily  released an article stating that the people categorized as millennials are the opposite of materialistic. In fact, they suggest that they are passing up opportunities to buy cars to go on six month service trips and exploring the world. These sites represent different frames because the first two articles suggest millennials are materialistic, selfish, and unreasonable but the other article frames millennials as innovators and people that aren't wasting money on channel bags but rather memories and experiences. I think these are subject to the person (obviously different people have different objectives and things that they want) but nonetheless I feel this is an accurate depiction of framing a generation of people in a horrible way and in a positive way.

Framing


These two articles discuss the state of the U.S economy and how people are viewing it versus how it actually is.
In the Wall Street Journal Article they frame it in such a way to show that people see the economy as going up and doing well. The Wall Street Journal tries to debunk this thinking by showing statistics of what is happening with stocks and money within our economy.
The CNN Money article frames the situation of the U.S  economy in a different way, not using what people are thinking, but showing how politics changes our economy. In the article it specifically shows that Trump's plans for tax cuts and other budgeting plans will put the U.S more in debt.
Both articles are showing that our economy is not as good as it may seem to be but put it in different perspectives. Both articles both state that there is hope but that people are overestimating what good is happening.

Framing

"Trump's Plan Won't Reverse Coal's Decline"
FiveThirtyEight

This article leads with the dynamic of Trump vs. Obama, and the first paragraph ends with a Trump quote saying, "My administration is putting an end to the war on coal." The article then goes on to state all the ways in which Trump has incorrectly advertised his plan. The article not only outlines the inaccuracies, but it also provides information regarding how the plan would effect the climate and the economy. The article goes on to say that Trump's plan would, as it turns out, not stimulate the coal industry. The article blames the decline of the coal industry on the 1990's natural gas boom that spread across the country. The frame of this entire article is one in which Trump is wrong and in portraying his confidence, makes a slight mockery of him.


"Trump Can Eliminate the Clean Power Act, But It Won't Bring Back Coal"
Forbes Magazine

This article leads with an objective explanation of what Trump is doing and what act Trump is replacing. This article gives a lot of numbers, percentages and statistics to show how Trump's plan will not bring back the coal industry. The frame of this article is much more number-based and fact-based than the previous article. This article does not mock Trump, but simply outlines why he is wrong in saying that his plan will, "bring back coal."

EPA Frames

Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/28/trump-signs-executive-order-rolling-back-obama-era-energy-regs.html

Blog
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/11/trump_can_t_abolish_the_environmental_protection_agency.html

The fox news article and the blog post on slate.com frame the issue of defunding/deregulating the EPA differently. The fox news article take a more economic view, and discusses how lifting regulation and the Clean Power Plan will bring more jobs in the coal and gas industries, or so as thought by republicans. The blog takes uses a more environmentalist frame. This blog takes about how trump has shown hostility towards significant environmental issues, and how environmentalists need to stand up to him. It focuses more on actions to help the EPA and protect regulations that overall effect human health.

Fox news's recent article about the EPA chief's statement regarding President Trump's new climate bill was framed to calm the public down. Following the President's announcement that he would be reversing the environmental protection bill passed under the Obama administration, people were up in arms. It seems as though this article was released to try and explain to the public that the world is not going to implode, but that now, the plan is to protect the environment, but not at the cost of any economic growth.

The Huffington Post recently published an article on the President's repeal of the previous climate plan. The subject is about the only similarity that these two articles share. The HP article is much longer and is filled with many more facts and specifics. This may be because they are trying to fight against the White House's decision and so they need many more facts and much more credible sources to convince the population.

The 60s

Gitlin Discussion questions

1. What does Gitlin mean by ideology and by the statement “the mass media have become core systems for the distribution of ideology.”

2. What does he mean by the statement “Just as people as workers have no voice in what they make, how they make it, or how the product is distributed or used, so do people as producers of meaning have no voice in what the media make of what they say or do, or the context within which the media frame their activities.” (3) Do you believe this? 

3. What happens when political movements rely on mass media?

4. What is a media frame? What are some examples of reoccurring news frames? 
5.  According to Gans (as referenced by Gitlin), what accounts for prevailing frames? 
6. According to Gitlin, What is hegemony and what is counter-hegemony? 
7.  According Gitlin, what does media have to do with democracy?

The Trump Administration Immigration Ban

Pay attention to the way each story is framed differently: themes, language, sources, visuals, what is emphasized and deemphasized.
Time
Fox
USA Today
Young Turks
(The Young Turks claims to be "the world's largest online news show" and has a YouTube Channel, Fusion show, and a ton of viewers.)

Welcome!

What is media activism and how is it changing in the era of mobile and digital tools and networks? Do traditional sites of power and authority have more leverage in this new environment or are there more opportunities for resistance? These questions are all over the news and scholarly literature these days as the world erupts in protest over various forms of injustice. Check out this time-lapse visualization of protests since 1979. It gets especially amazing around the 2000s when the map gets super crowded. And here is the explanation of how the data was collected. 

Recently there have been demonstrations erupting in the US around the election and policies of Trump, climate justice, police violence against African Americans among other things. The protests are represented in various ways. 

Focus on phones from the Daily Mail.

Images from CBS.

Tim Pool coverage from Ferguson.

Jon Stewart on complaints against protestors.

CBS on The Women's March.

One of the benefits of activist media is it can represent diverse perspectives. Here Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie talks about how to confront what she calls "the danger of the single story." What does this have to do with activist media? 

Media activism today is also goes beyond representation to changing the media structures, forms, and practices.  

Jeff Chang hints at this in this video about his book. You can signup to hear him at the as upcoming Harper Distinguished Speaker lecture on April 13 (5:30 reception, 7:00 speech).