1 / 19

Framing Surveillance in the Post 9-11 Era

Lemi Baruh – April 29, 2009 Kadir Has University Societies under Siege: Media, Government, Politics, and Citizens’ Freedoms in an Age of Terrorism Conference. Framing Surveillance in the Post 9-11 Era. Introduction . Agenda Setting and Framing Research Trigger Events September 11 Attacks

deiter
Download Presentation

Framing Surveillance in the Post 9-11 Era

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lemi Baruh – April 29, 2009Kadir Has University Societies under Siege: Media, Government, Politics, and Citizens’ Freedoms in an Age of Terrorism Conference Framing Surveillance in the Post 9-11 Era

  2. Introduction • Agenda Setting and Framing Research • Trigger Events • September 11 Attacks • A frequently repeated theme about privacy: • Conflict between privacy and other social values and/or goals

  3. Agenda setting & framing • Two Levels of Agenda Setting • Agenda Setting of Objects: News tell the public what to think about (Cohen 1963). • News frames as organizing structures • Providing points of entry to the subject • Highlighting points of importance • The first level is more often than not interested in understanding the relationship between media coverage and public opinion • The second level treats media content as the result of an ideological contest (i.e. what are the power relationships?). • The ideological contest is often investigated using from media content along with information about structural/institutional factors.

  4. Agenda setting & framing • For both levels, trigger events tend to play an important role in influencing coverage of issues: • Examples: • The O.J Simpson events triggered an increase in the visibility of other domestic violence cases/stories (Maxwell et al. 2000). • In the post 9/11 era, news about racial profiling making reference to “terrorism” as a justification has caught up with references to drug wars and policing (Domke et al. 2003). • The hypotheses tested in this presentation follow a similar logic.

  5. Agenda setting & framing • H1: The number of privacy and/or surveillance related news articles, published in daily mainstream newspapers, will be higher in Post-September 11 period than in Pre-September 11 period (Agenda Setting & Public Arenas Model).

  6. “Who is the culprit?” as a news frame • 1970’s – 1980’s: Governments were seen as the major contributor to the “surveillance society”. • Deregulation and privatization of surveillance functions since the Regan/Thatcher era made the private sector an integral part of surveillance and meant that more attention was being paid to transgressions by private institutions (Laperriere 1999; Lyon 2001). • The private/government label that public associates with surveillance has effects on • Public perceptions and/or criticism • Legal remedies that are seen appropriate in terms of protecting privacy • Not trusting government to protect citizens against government surveillance, • Focusing on contractual relations and market forces to “protect” individuals against private misuses of personal information, • Treating personal information as a commodity • Life after PATRIOT ACT?

  7. “Who is the culprit?” as a news frame • H2: Newspaper articles pertinent to privacy rights and/or surveillance of individuals will be more likely to focus on government institutions as constituencies that are undertaking surveillance and/or intruding on privacy in Post-September 11 period than in Pre-September 11 period. • RQ1: What is the nature of changes in the tendency of newspapers to identify private agencies as undertaking surveillance • RQ2: What is the nature of changes in the tendency of newspapers to identify private and government agencies together as undertaking surveillance

  8. Avoiding the “G” word • Framing research focuses on the ideological contest involved in selection of frames. • During times of conflict, the frames adopted tend to be narrower. This is especially the case for perceived “one-sided” conflicts (e.g. fight on “terror”). • We are likely to find “patriotic journalism”. • Less criticism of government • Media acting to reflect the “official view”

  9. Avoiding the “G” word • However, in the 2001 junction, a “war on terror” on the one hand and “small government” rhetoric of neoliberal government on the other meant that journalists were facing a dilemma about how to cover post 9/11 measures. Dual role of media: • Assure the public that appropriate steps are being taken (Waisbord 2002) • Avoid the Orweillan association between big government and surveillance. • Although this dual role was somewhat expected from all media institutions (Zelizer 2002), ideological slant may influence whether: • Surveillance as a social trend without an identifiable source rather than a government initiative

  10. Avoiding the “G” word • H3: Newspapers with a “conservative” slant will be less likely to exhibit an increase in number of articles that identify government agencies as constituencies that are undertaking surveillance.

  11. Methodology • Simple interrupted time series • Pre: January-July 2001Post: January-July 2001 • Probability In Proportion to Size Sampling • 27 Newspapers, 935 articles • Content Analysis Variables: article type; article origin; type of surveillance or privacy invading activity; institutions undertaking surveillance; reference to “terrorist” threats • Ideological Slant of a Newspaper determined by the editorial endorsement the newspaper gave during the 2000 presidential elections • Endorsement given to Al Gore or Ralph Nader (n = 14) -> Not conservative • Endorsement given to George Bush (n = 13) -> Conservative

  12. Breakdown of articles analyzed • Pre 9/11 Period • 88.2% were news, • 9% were unsigned editorials and • 2.8% were commentaries • Post 9/11 Period • 87.3% were news, • 7.2% were unsigned editorials and • 5.6% were commentaries

  13. Types of government agencies

  14. Definitions of Surveillance Activities

  15. Pearson Correlations: Surveillance Activity & Institution

  16. Hypotheses 1 & 2 • Hypothesis 1: 16.35% increase in total number of articles focusing on privacy or surveillance from • ...paired sample test of difference approaching significance (n = 27, p = .78) • H2: • Government as one of the agencies: • From 40.7% in pre 9/11 to 56.5% in post 9/11 (p <.001) • Government as the only agency: • From 21.8% in pre 9/11 to 37.8% in post 9/11 (p <.001)

  17. Research Questions 1 & 2 • Research Question 1 • Private Insitutions as one of the instiutions: • From 66.4% to 43.5% (p <.001) • Private Institutions only: • From 45.8% to 28.6% (p <.001) • Research Question 2 • Private and Government together: • From 16.4% to 12.1% (n.s.)

  18. Hypothesis 3 • Approximately 27% of the increase in number of articles that focus on government institutions as undertaking surveillance was related to a newspapers’ ideological slant • The difference between conservative papers v. not conservative papers remained significant after controlling for other newspaper structural factors such as market make-up, MSA, ownership structure and circulation number

  19. Discussion • Hypothesis 1: • The public arenas model • Hypothesis 2: • Attention away from private institutions? • Trust in government and regulation of privacy? • Reversing commodification? • Hypothesis 3: • Ideological Slant

More Related