By Curtis Prendergast
–
News coverage is not a static event. Instead, it flows across days and weeks, sometimes even months and years. A major news story can be the subject of hundreds of news articles, broadcasts and blog posts. Although the news coverage may continue for an extended period of time, each individual story is published under deadline. Often, reporters must publish several stories a day, including blog posts and previews of the coming days’ news coverage.
These stories build on each other to form narratives. A narrative is understood here as a rhetorical form that meets the following criteria: it is made up of at least two events, these events are organized in order of time, the events share a causal relationship, and the events deal with a unified subject. (Foss, 2009, p. 307-308). The news coverage of SB 1070 was made up of a series of events, over the course of months, with each story building on a previous theme and about SB 1070.
These narratives are valuable because news coverage does not simply present information to the public. The news also provides context to events or issues. In other words, the narratives that make up the news help the public understand the world.
The concept of narrative is useful in studying news coverage because of the relationship each story has to other stories about the same subject. Amidst the multitude of newspaper stories, blog posts, and radio and television broadcasts there can be found unifying themes that give order to the seeming chaos. For example, one reporter at the Arizona Daily Star who covers the political beat wrote dozens of articles about SB 1070. As a political reporter she covered the relationship between the law and the political campaigns that culminated in the November 2010 elections. Her coverage developed into one part of a narrative that explained the political ramifications of SB 1070.
Narratives are implied in long-running news coverage of an event or issue. As each story builds on the previous one, reporters develop a rhetorical shorthand to quickly refer to certain concepts. In the early days of the SB 1070 debate, reporters developed phrases to describe SB 1070. For example, in a story published on April 14 the phrase used by the reporter to explain SB 1070 was: “On Tuesday, the Arizona House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 1070, which would make it a state crime to be in the country illegally and would require anyone that local and state police suspect is in the country illegally to produce a green card (Mesa police unsure of new immigration bill’s impact, Arizona Republic, April 14, 2010). As the days and weeks passed, these phrases eventually morphed into “Arizona’s new immigration law,” or a similar phrase.
Framing SB 1070
The example above is only one of the ways that subjects of stories are framed. A frame “recalls a schema on the basis of which the receiver fills in the other reasoning devices that are not explicitly incorporated in the message” (Van Gorp, p. 65). In the case above, reporters were able to build on the knowledge they could reasonably assume the reader already had about SB 1070. However, there are other types of frames.
Types of Frames
The frames used in the actual reference to the subject are called reference frames here. However, a frame does not exist only in the specific mention of the subject. On another level, frames are used to explain the subject, which are called explanatory frames here. On still another level, the angle the reporter takes on the story is also a form of framing, which are called angle frames here.
Reference frames can be seen in the specific mention of the subject and often occur in the first few sentences of the story. For example. the reference frame in one story was: “To the sound of a conch shell and Native American drumbeats, protesters marched to the state Capitol on Sunday to join about 2,500 others in opposition to Arizona’s new immigration law,” (Immigration law protested by more than 2,500 at state Capitol, Arizona Republic, April 25, 2010)
Explanatory frames can be seen in the sentence or paragraph used by the author to describe the subject. For example, in the above story, the explanatory frame is: “The new law, which has sparked protests as far away as Boston, criminalizes the presence of undocumented immigrants and requires police to enforce federal immigration law.”
Angle frames can be seen in the headline and in a comprehensive view of the story itself. For example, the angle frame for the story mentioned above is the title: “Immigration law protested by more than 2,500 at state Capitol.”
Frame Evolution
Frames change over time. As a narrative grows and readers familiarize themselves with the subject of the narrative, reporters must find a way to refer to the subject that both explains the concept and is not redundant.
Reference Frame Evolution
In the case of news coverage of SB 1070, the first reference to the bill by the Arizona Daily Star read: “Members of the Border Action Network have been working feverishly to stop a bill that would give Arizona the strictest set of immigration laws in the country,” (Immigration battle fought within state, Arizona Daily Star, 04/08/2010).
By the end of the month, news coverage of SB 1070 had exploded and the Arizona Daily Star published multiple articles on the law. On April 30 the Star referred to the law as: “Arizona’s new illegal immigration law,” “Obama said Wednesday that the law, which allows police to demand proof of citizenship, threatens the ‘core values that we all care about,’” “the immigration measure,” “Senate Bill 1070,” “the state’s new immigration law,” “the new law aimed at illegal immigration,” “the state’s tough immigration enforcement law,” “Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law,” “Arizona’s new immigration law” (on two separate occasions), “a tough new law targeting illegal immigration,” “a noxious new immigration law.”
The first reference to SB 1070 in the Arizona Republic came on April 1. The reference frame was: “A wide-ranging immigration proposal in the state Legislature continues to attract advocates from both sides of the issue,” (House weighs migrant bill, Arizona Republic, April 1, 2010).
By the end of the month, the Arizona Republic published multiple articles on April 30. The law was framed as: “Arizona’s tough immigration-enforcement law,” “Senate Bill 1070, a law that arms Arizona with the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the nation,” “Senate Bill 1070,” “the immigration bill,” “SB1070,” “the new measure that authorizes the police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants,” “the highly contested new law,” “Arizona’s new immigration law” (on two separate occasions), “Arizona’s immigration law” (on two separate occasions), “Arizona’s new illegal-immigration law,” “the law that makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires local police to enforce federal immigration laws.”
The first reference to SB 1070 in the Nogales International came on April 21. The bill was framed as: “Santa Cruz County Sheriff Antonio Estrada blasted a sweeping new immigration bill passed Monday by the Arizona Senate, calling it an unfunded mandate that will fuel fear and distrust in local communities” (Sheriff rips state immigration bill, local chiefs say ‘wait and see’, Nogales International, April 21, 2010). The Nogales International published four articles about SB 1070 on April 30. In these articles the bill was framed as: “the recently passed bill, SB 1070,” “Arizona’s new immigration law (on two separate occasions),” and “Arizona’s new immigration law, known as SB 1070.”
The examples above illustrate how in just the first month of news coverage, the reference frame evolved from a long sentence, or multiple sentences, to a short phrase such as “Arizona’s new immigration law” or simply “SB 1070.”
Explanatory Frame Evolution
The explanatory frames also evolved during April. These frames usually appeared a few paragraphs from the beginning of the story and were used to describe the law objectively. They were often sandwiched between opinions from different sides of the debate or at the end of the story as background information for the reader. These explanatory frames eventually focused on the state-level criminalization of undocumented immigration.
The first explanatory frame in the Arizona Daily Star came on April 8. The bill was explained as: “The bill, sponsored by Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, would compel all Arizona agencies, including local police departments, to enforce federal immigration laws – something they currently aren’t required to do” (Arizona Daily Star, 04/08/2010).
The last explanatory frames in the Arizona Daily Star came on April 30, when the Star published multiple articles on SB 1070. In one story, the bill was explained as: “Obama said Wednesday that the law, which allows police to demand proof of citizenship, threatens the “core values that we all care about,” (US lawyers look at AZ’s immigration law (Arizona Daily Star, April 30, 2010).
The first explanatory frame in the Arizona Republic came on April 1. The bill was explained as: “The bill would, among other things, make it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It would require law enforcement to check immigration status as well as enforce federal immigration laws. It also would make it a crime in some cases to pick up a day laborer or be picked up as a day laborer,” (House weighs migrant bill, Arizona Republic, April 1, 2010).
One of the last explanatory frames in the Arizona Republic in April 2010 was: “More threats of boycotts were issued from across the country, while a new poll suggested that just over half of Americans support the law that makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires local police to enforce federal immigration laws,” (Arizona immigration law hit with its first 3 lawsuits, Arizona Republic, April 30, 2010).
The first explanatory frame in the Nogales International came on April 21. The bill was explained as: “The bill, which now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer for final approval, would require local police to inquire about people’s immigration status if they have reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally. Under the plan, police forces that do not enforce the mandate could be sued,” (Sheriff rips state immigration bill, local chiefs say ‘wait and see’, Nogales International, April 21, 2010)
One of the last explanatory frames in the Nogales International in April 2010 was: “That’s because the new law requires local law enforcement to ask a person about their immigration status if they suspect that they are here illegally, Silva says. And while the law allows police to avoid immigration queries in cases in which it might hinder an investigation, Silva says that loophole likely won’t assuage victims’ fears,” (Concern for victims’ rights, Nogales International, April 30, 2010).
The explanatory frames were shortened as readers became familiarized with SB 1070. In many cases no explanatory frame was included in the story.
Angle Frame Evolution
Angle frames show the overall perspective the reporter took for the story. The angle frames can be seen in the headlines and the ledes for each story. Due to space restrictions on the pages of newspapers, headlines must be concise and fit spatially with the other stories on the page. Reporters rarely write the headlines, the page design person at the newspaper usually does that, but the importance of headlines in the reader’s comprehension of the story is such that they must be included here.
The first headline, or angle frame, in news coverage of SB 1070 in April 2010 by the Arizona Republic was House weighs migrant bill (Arizona Republic, April 1, 2010). The first angle frame in the Arizona Daily Star was Immigration battle fought within state (Arizona Daily Star, April 8, 2010). The first angle frame in the Nogales International was Sheriff rips state immigration bill, local chiefs say ‘wait and see’ (Nogales International, April 21, 2010).
During the next thirty days, narratives developed and new events became the subject of news coverage. The last angle frames in April 2010 in the Arizona Republic were:
- Arizona immigration law hit with its first 3 lawsuits (Arizona Republic, April 30, 2010),
- Bishop Tutu on the Arizona immigration law (Arizona Republic, April 30, 2010),
- Va. official: Similar immigration law worked (Arizona Republic (WUSA-TV, Washington, D.C.), April 30, 2010),
- Issue’s immediacy makes it harder to be ‘just’ a critic (Arizona Republic, April 30, 2010),
- Mexico’s warning overblown, silly (Arizona Republic (Editorial), April 30, 2010),
- Some Arizonans waiting to pick sides regarding state’s new immigration law (Arizona Republic, April 30, 2010),
- Competing efforts are under way to boycott and support Arizona’s economy (Arizona Republic, April 30, 2010),
- Veteran calls to say he plans anti-boycott visit to Arizona (Arizona Republic, April 30, 2010),
- GOP worries Arizona immigration law could hurt party (Arizona Republic (Politico), April 30, 2010),
- Festival, immigration protest may snarl downtown Phoenix traffic (Arizona Republic, April 30, 2010),
- Arizona Legislature set to go home after wide-ranging session (Arizona Republic, April 30, 2010).
The last angle frames in the Arizona Daily Star were:
- Tucson cop files suit challenging immigration law (Arizona Daily Star, April 30, 2010),
- Pueblo Politics: Kelly calls Paton a little too Flake-y (Arizona Daily Star, April 30, 2010),
- Frankenstein en Arizona (Arizona Daily Star (La Estrella) (Opinion), April 30, 2010),
- Tucson’s May First march, rally could draw thousands (Arizona Daily Star, April 30, 2010),
- Pueblo Politics: Giffords on 1070 (Arizona Daily Star, April 30, 2010),
- Republican Graham has shown courage for bucking party line (Arizona Daily Star (Washington Post Writers Group), April 30, 2010),
- Letters to the editor (Arizona Daily Star, April 30, 2010),
- Immigration briefs (Arizona Daily Star, April 30, 2010),
- Border Boletín: “I support Arizona” (Arizona Daily Star, April 30, 2010),
- ¿Y ahora? (Arizona Daily Star (La Estrella) (Opinion), April 30, 2010),
- Shakira protesta contra SB 1070 en Phoenix (Arizona Daily Star (La Estrella), April 30, 2010),
- US lawyers look at AZ’s immigration law (Arizona Daily Star, April 30, 2010).
The last angle frames in the Nogales International were:
- Immigration law exposes county to lawsuit blitz (Nogales International, April 30, 2010),
- Grijalva is bad for legal hispanics (Nogales International (Opinion), April 30, 2010),
- The Reality of a Conspiracy Theory (Nogales International (Opinion), April 30, 2010),
- Concern for victims’ rights (Nogales International, April 30, 2010),
- Supervisors eye resolution (Nogales International, April 30, 2010),
The accompanying pages show the narratives that emerged in news coverage of SB 1070 during April 2010 and how the different types of frames evolved during this time.
###
