Media Framing of Political Conflict: A Review of the Literature

"[T]he literature suggests that media framing strongly influences political outcomes and thus fosters or undermines democratic institutions in new democracies in various ways."

This paper provides a critical overview of the literature on media and conflict by focusing on the ways in which contemporary news media frame different types of political conflict: inter-state and civil wars, extreme violence, institutionalised conflicts, and social movements in western democracies, as well as conflicts in non-democratic regimes and in democratisation. It aims to draw parallels between media reporting on these political conflicts and to suggest arguments and hypotheses for the empirical study of media framing of democratisation conflicts - such as those over citizenship, elections, transitional justice and distribution of power - in transitions from authoritarian rule and in new democracies, which are at the centre of the Media Conflict and DEMocratisation (MeCoDEM) project. With research focusing on 4 countries (Serbia, Egypt, Kenya, and South Africa), MeCoDEM investigates the role of traditional media and information and communication technologies (ICTs) in conflicts that accompany and follow transitions from authoritarian rule to more democratic forms of government. (See Related Summaries, below.)

As Nebojša Vladisavljevic explains, the concept of framing takes into account the capacity of a media presentation to define a situation and the issues, as well as to set the terms of a debate, and reflects the richness of media discourse. Framing influences both which events appear in the news and how they are reported. The more general level of framing overlaps with the concept of agenda setting, which puts emphasis on the media influence on the public in terms of what to think about. By selecting and reporting news, the media focus public attention on some issues, people, and problems, and not others. The more refined level of framing refers to how the media discuss those issues, problems, and people. By highlighting some parts of information about a problem, frames elevate them in salience, often through placement or repetition, or association with culturally familiar symbols; simultaneously, frames omit other aspects of the problem. Individuals react to framing in communication texts largely on the basis of existing common schemas in their minds, which originate from a society's culture. Reporters and the mainstream news media editors, for the most part engage in framing without trying to advance any specific political or policy agenda.

Vladisavljevic's review of the literature reveals a fractured field. There is an extensive literature on how media report on wars, on election campaigns, and on popular protest and social movements in western democracies, as well as some research on media coverage of violent conflicts in non-democratic regimes and democratising states. However, there are only limited attempts to draw parallels between the media coverage of different kinds of conflicts and little cross-fertilisation of findings from the disparate literatures. Much of the literature discusses the ways in which western media frame foreign conflicts and domestic election campaigns and policy debates, while there is considerably less focus on the media framing of domestic conflicts in non-western settings, such as those that arise during and after transitions from non-democratic rule.

Several authors claim that reliance on existing models of media and conflict in established western democracies may be misleading in the study of non-western, transitional settings. They therefore call for developing new theories that are more suitable to discern the role that media play in democratisation. In contrast, this paper identifies arguments and hypotheses from the existing literature for further exploration in the study of media framing of political conflicts - such as those on citizenship, elections, transitional justice, and distribution of power - in transitions from authoritarian rule and in new democracies, which are at the centre of the MeCoDEM project.

It is clear to Vladisavljevic that media coverage of political conflict can only be understood in context. Several dimensions of the political context matter in this respect, such as regime type, international (foreign) or domestic perspectives, the degree of elite consensus, the degree of policy uncertainty, whether or not a conflict takes place within an institutionalised setting, and the stage of democratisation. Also, the literature suggests that media framing influences political outcomes - for example, the decisions made by policymakers, the strategic choices of collective actors, or popular responses to conflicts.

Lessons for further study of the media framing of democratisation conflicts that are particularly relevant to MeCoDEM include:

• The "indexing" thesis, which was developed in the study of media and foreign policy in western democracies, if applied to MeCoDEM's research agenda, could appear in the following form: The political elite consensus on the issue at the centre of a particular democratisation conflict is reflected in media reporting, even if trustworthy but conflicting evidence exists from unofficial circles; conversely, the lack of elite consensus is reflected in competing perspectives on the issues in media coverage, largely in proportion with political actors' perceived power. Likewise, when there is no policy on the particular issue, the media tend to present different perspectives on it. For example, when it comes to democratisation conflicts in Serbia, one should expect more pluralistic media coverage of the 2001 transitional justice and the 2008 election conflicts, which involved severe elite conflicts, than in the 2010 Pride parade conflict in which right-wing groups tried to challenge an emerging elite consensus.
• The study of media coverage of various political conflicts in western democracies suggests that highly institutionalised conflicts, such as election campaigns and to a lesser extent legislative debates, provide more space for competing frames in the media than other conflicts. One could therefore hypothesise that the media framing of elections will be more pluralistic than that of other forms of conflict in new democracies.
• Vladisavljevic suggests that it would be interesting to explore how widespread strategic framing (as opposed to issue-based coverage) of conflicts in transitions from authoritarian rule and in new democracies is. Is it limited to the coverage of election campaigns, or does it spread out to other conflict types? Or perhaps its significance depends on other factors, such as the historical and cultural legacy of a particular country? What are consequences of widespread strategic framing (if any) for the quality of democracy in these contexts?
• It remains unclear to Vladisavljevic how media frame conflicts in various stages of democratisation, that is, whether more pluralistic and confrontational framing of conflicts is to be expected in transitions from authoritarian rule or later, once the basic democratic institutions have already been put into place. The 4 countries selected for empirical research in MeCoDEM provide a testing ground to explore the 2 hypotheses or, alternatively, the claim that the role media play in democratisation principally depends on other factors, such as the mode of transition and prior regime type.
• A review of the literature suggests that contemporary media coverage of popular protests and social movements in western democracies is not very different from that of political parties. The focus is not only on the spectacle aspect of popular protests, but also on goals and policy proposals, in sharp contrast to the coverage of social movements before the 1970s (and of contemporary non-democratic regimes), which used to concentrate on violence. Does the same argument apply in new democracies in which popular protest has not yet become institutionalised? Is media framing of "illegitimate" popular protests different (and if so, how) from that in western democracies?
• "[T]he literature on media and conflict in divided societies suggests that the exclusivist media coverage of 'rival' ethnic, linguistic, racial, ideological or sexual minorities may undermine democracy and facilitate violence. 'Othering' of minority groups by drawing on various constructions of the opposing group identities, often based on victimisation polarises the society while the media can also aid recruitment and co-ordination of the perpetrators of violence, strengthen their resolve and help them gain power. A hypothesis may be formulated in this way: the more exclusivist the media coverage of 'rival' ethnic, linguistic, racial, ideological or other groups, the more likely that it will undermine democratic institutions and facilitate violence. Which factors facilitate such exclusivist coverage of minority groups? Specific conflict types, the depth of social divisions, political polarisation or the stage of democratisation? Kenya's 2007 and 2013 election campaigns provide contrasting cases that should shed light on these issues."