Political Framing Strategies and Their Impact on Media Framing in a Swiss Direct-Democratic Campaign

This article analyzes framing strategies by political actors and their impact on media framing. By framing the issue strategically, we argue that political actors face three strategic choices. First, they must choose one or several substantive frames capable of steering the attention of the media and the public to their own cause and away from the cause of their opponents (“substantive emphasis choice”). Second, they must decide about the amount of attention they want to pay to the opponent's substantive frame(s) as compared to their own frames and whether they want to use their opponents' frames offensively or defensively (“oppositional emphasis choice”). Third, they must decide about how much priority they want to give to their own substantive frame(s) as compared to the (referendum) campaign contest (“contest emphasis choice”). The results are based on a Swiss direct-democratic campaign about the tightening of the asylum law and can be summarized along the three choices. First, in this case, the framing input of the political actors is decisive. The media tend to respect frame ownership and report accordingly. Second, while the political actors predominantly focus on their own frames, they do not exclusively, but refer to their adversaries' frames as well. They do so mainly in a defensive way. The journalists reported both camps with their adversaries' frames too, and attributed a slightly more offensive stance to both camps. Third, the political actors mainly focus on substance. The substantive frames also dominate in the media.

[1]  Gladys Engel Lang,et al.  The Battle for Public Opinion: The President, the Press, and the Polls During Watergate. , 1984 .

[2]  T. Moe The Organization of Interests: Incentives and the Internal Dynamics of Political Interest Groups , 1988 .

[3]  Meindert Fennema,et al.  Why Some Anti-Immigrant Parties Fail and Others Succeed , 2005 .

[4]  Caroline J. Tolbert,et al.  The Initiative to Party , 2001 .

[5]  S. Iyengar,et al.  RIDING THE WAVE AND CLAIMING OWNERSHIP OVER ISSUES: THE JOINT EFFECTS OF ADVERTISING AND NEWS COVERAGE IN CAMPAIGNS , 1994 .

[6]  Herbert P. Kitschelt The Radical Right in Western Europe , 1995 .

[7]  D. Snow,et al.  Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment , 2000 .

[8]  M. M. Ferree,et al.  Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States , 2002 .

[9]  Gaye Tuchman Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality , 1978 .

[10]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Framing as a theory of media effects , 1999 .

[11]  Gerald M. Kosicki,et al.  Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse , 1993 .

[12]  John R. Petrocik Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study , 1996 .

[13]  S. Bowler,et al.  Direct Democracy and Political Parties in America , 2006 .

[14]  Robert M. Entman,et al.  Projections of power : framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy , 2003 .

[15]  Pamela Oliver,et al.  Political Processes and Local Newspaper Coverage of Protest Events: From Selection Bias to Triadic Interactions1 , 2000, American Journal of Sociology.

[16]  Martin Guha,et al.  The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements , 2004 .

[17]  S. Iyengar Media Politics: A Citizen's Guide , 2006 .

[18]  Gladys Engel Lang,et al.  The battle for public opinion : the president, the press, and the polls during Watergate , 1985 .

[19]  W. Gamson Bystanders, Public Opinion, and the Media , 2007 .

[20]  W. Gamson,et al.  Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach , 1989, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  H. Gans Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time , 1979 .

[22]  M. Fennema,et al.  Anti-immigrant parties in Europe: Ideological or protest vote? , 2000 .

[23]  B. Hamm Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy , 2004 .

[24]  Margaret Scammell,et al.  Political Marketing: Lessons for Political Science , 1999 .

[25]  Stephen D. Reese,et al.  Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content , 1995 .

[26]  Jennifer Jerit,et al.  Toward a Theory Relating Political Discourse, Media, and Public Opinion , 2007 .

[27]  G. Cleveland Wilhoit,et al.  The Formation of campaign agendas : a comparative analysis of party and media roles in recent American and British elections , 1990 .

[28]  W. Riker,et al.  The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution , 1996 .

[29]  R. Entman Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution of Power , 2007 .

[30]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies , 2007, American Political Science Review.

[31]  S. Iyengar Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. , 1991 .

[32]  Gadi Wolfsfeld,et al.  Media and Political Conflict: News from the Middle East , 1997 .

[33]  R. Koopmans Movements and media: Selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere , 2004 .

[34]  James A. Stimson Tides of consent : how public opinion shapes American politics , 2004 .

[35]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects , 2004, American Political Science Review.

[36]  John Sides The Origins of Campaign Agendas , 2006 .

[37]  Clarke A. Chambers,et al.  Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How they Fail , 1978 .

[38]  A. Hirschman The Rhetoric of Reaction , 1991 .

[39]  James A. Stimson Tides of Consent , 2004 .

[40]  P. Sniderman,et al.  CHAPTER 5: The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing , 2004 .

[41]  P. Mancini,et al.  Comparing Media Systems: Conclusion , 2004 .

[42]  P. Sniderman Elements of Reason: Taking Sides: A Fixed Choice Theory of Political Reasoning , 2000 .

[43]  James N. Druckman,et al.  The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence , 2001 .

[44]  G. Mazzoleni,et al.  "Mediatization" of Politics: A Challenge for Democracy? , 1999 .

[45]  Hanspeter Kriesi,et al.  Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared , 2006 .

[46]  T. Moe The Organization Of Interests , 1980 .

[47]  Robert M. Entman,et al.  Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm , 1993 .

[48]  Tamir Sheafer,et al.  Competing Actors and the Construction of Political News: The Contest Over Waves in Israel , 2006 .

[49]  W. Lance Bennett,et al.  Constructing publics and their opinions , 1993 .

[50]  W. Gamson,et al.  Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Framing political opportunity , 1996 .

[51]  E. Lascher Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States , 2005, Perspectives on Politics.

[52]  James N. Druckman,et al.  A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments , 2007 .

[53]  David Sanders,et al.  On Message: Communicating the Campaign , 1999 .

[54]  D. Mckie,et al.  Talking Politics , 1975, The Lancet.

[55]  Hanspeter Kriesi,et al.  The Blackwell companion to social movements , 2003 .

[56]  H. Brandenburg Who Follows Whom? , 2002 .

[57]  Theodore Sasson,et al.  Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality , 1992 .

[58]  J. Jasper Getting Your Way: Strategic Dilemmas in the Real World , 2006 .

[59]  Hanspeter Kriesi,et al.  Handbook of Swiss Politics , 2007 .

[60]  R. Koopmans,et al.  Contested Citizenship: Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe , 2005 .

[61]  C. D. Vreese,et al.  News framing: Theory and typology , 2005 .

[62]  James N. Druckman,et al.  F RAMING T HEORY , 2007 .

[63]  Victor W. Pickard,et al.  Managing the Public Sphere: Journalistic Construction of the Great Globalization Debate , 2004 .