Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN 2522-9400 European Modern Studies Journal Vol 9 No 1
available at www.journal-ems.com
DOI: 10.59573/emsj.9(1).2025.7
75
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
Exploring the Foundations of Media Framing Theory
Dr. Sarah Zaklama
Adjunct Professor at St. Clair College,
Ace Acumen Academy, Toronto, Canada
Abstract. In today's rapidly evolving media landscape, the role of news media in shaping
public perception and opinion has become an increasingly important area of study. One of the
most significant theoretical frameworks used to understand how the media influences its
audience is media framing theory. Media framing refers to the way media outlets present and
structure information to shape the public’s interpretation of events, issues, or individuals.
According to this perspective, the media not only reports news but actively constructs reality
by emphasizing certain aspects of an issue while downplaying or omitting others, thereby
guiding how audiences perceive and evaluate the world around them. The concept of framing
was first introduced by Erving Goffman (1974), who argued that individuals in everyday life
use "frames" to interpret and make sense of experiences. In a similar way, media organizations
apply specific frames to construct stories, highlighting certain elements that align with
ideological, political, or social perspectives. These frames influence the way in which an event
is understood, its importance is gauged, and how different social, political, and cultural
narratives are created. A common example of framing can be seen in news coverage of political
events, where the same event may be framed in different ways depending on whether the outlet
adopts a liberal or conservative approach, or whether the coverage is focused on human rights,
economic impact, or security concerns. Over the years, media framing research has explored
how frames are created, the factors that influence framing decisions, and the impact these
frames have on audiences. Scholars have identified various types of frames used by media
outlets, including conflict frames, human interest frames, economic frames, and responsibility
frames, among others. Each type of frame serves a particular purpose, whether it’s to inform,
persuade, or shape the opinions of the audience. This study seeks to examine the role of media
frames in news coverage, specifically focusing on how framing influences the public’s
interpretation of news, the way issues are categorized, and how media narratives affect
individuals' attitudes and behaviors. Given the power that media holds in shaping public
discourse, understanding the dynamics of framing is essential for both media producers and
consumers. By critically analyzing how media frames are constructed and their subsequent
effects, this research aims to shed light on the intricate relationship between media content,
audience perception, and the broader social implications of news representation.
Keywords: Media Framing, Framing Theory, News Coverage, Public Opinion, Framing
Effects
The Origin and Development of the Theory
Both Berger and Luckman contributed significantly to the development of the concept of
"Framing" in 1967, referring to how groups classify their collective experiences derived from
reality and then develop them over time to assign meaning to both new information and
experiences. The term was first used in the writings of American sociologist Batson in 1955.
Since 1960, media research has been evolving to understand how media affects society.
Researchers emphasized the media aspect alongside the term "frame analysis," leading to the
theory being referred to as media framing. In the fields of public opinion and political
communication, researchers adopted the term news framing, based on the assumption that
framing analysis primarily applies to news material more than other types of media content,
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
76
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
whether in traditional or modern media. In its simplest concept, framing is an attempt to explore
the bias or orientation in a report that claims to be neutral.
Differences from Content Analysis: Framing theory explains how meanings,
connotations, and symbols in media influence the audience's perception. It involves
understanding and interpreting content based on symbolic representation whether direct or
implicit across all forms of media. Framing refers to the selection, emphasis, and use of specific
elements in media texts to build an argument or evidence regarding problems, their causes, and
solutions. It sets the external boundaries for the topic and imposes a specific organization on
the related information. The frame not only contains but constrains.
Standard Models of Framing
Researchers have adopted procedural models to enhance the precision and
standardization of their studies. Some of the major models include the Lentz model (1991),
Entman model (1993), Pan & Kosicki model, Iyengar & Simon model (1993), and the Nelson
model (2002). Without relying on the "framing model," content analysis might produce
misleading data from the messages conveyed by media.
Studies by Taylor (2008), Entman (1993), and Iyengar (1991) developed a set of framing
analysis interpretations for examining social issues and foreign political matters. Over time,
these interpretations evolved through various studies, culminating in seven key elements
identified in Taylor's 2008 work. These include Problem Definition, which outlines how the
issue is framed; Causal Interpretation, which explains the causes of the problem; and Moral
Evaluation, which assesses the ethical dimensions of the situation. Additionally, the
interpretation of Who is to Blame? focuses on assigning responsibility, while Who Has the
Solution? looks at the actors or entities seen as capable of addressing the issue. The element of
Risks evaluates potential dangers or consequences, and finally, Treatment Recommendation
suggests solutions or actions to mitigate the problem. These seven interpretations provide a
comprehensive framework for analyzing how issues are presented and understood in the media
and political discourse.
Framing Mechanisms
Through processes of presenting, delaying, and repeating certain concepts and ideas,
framing reinforces some ideas over others, highlighting certain perspectives while excluding
others entirely. The process of selection can be intentional, aiming to persuade the audience
towards a specific idea, or it can be unintentional, where the published aspects reflect cultural
and professional factors, such as journalistic pressures or communication references, without
any intent to conceal specific aspects.
According to Entman (1991), news framing should focus on elements that are crucial to
the impact of the message and its representation, distinguishing the frame from the text itself.
The goal of framing analysis is to identify which words, visual images, and symbols within the
narrative serve to represent the frame’s key elements. Framing mechanisms include the location
of the story in the newspaper, symbols and signs, visual images (such as photographs or
graphics), subheadings, and the size of the news. Additionally, Entman notes that media frames
often involve keywords, metaphors (which carry judgments), concepts, symbols, and visual
images. He further emphasizes that framing, according to his 1993 work, is built on selection
and salience, the process of highlighting certain aspects of an issue while excluding others.
This selective emphasis helps to strengthen specific interpretations of a problem, its causes,
moral evaluation, or potential solutions. Pan and Kosicki (1993) expanded on this, suggesting
various tools for constructing a frame, such as the structural construction of the news story, the
main ideas included in the context, the textual organization, implicit conclusions, and the
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
77
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
textual elements like words and images that serve as framing tools. These mechanisms
collectively shape how information is presented and interpreted by audiences.
Levels of Media Framing Analysis
First Level: This level focuses on measuring the implicit content in the media, also known
as the implicit level.
Second Level: This level influences the formation of public attitudes toward the issue
under study. Through focusing on certain aspects, the media define a specific news frame that
can ultimately affect the shaping of public norms regarding issues. This, in turn, influences the
opinions and attitudes of the audience towards these issues.
At this level, media framing theory provides researchers with standardized
methodological tools to interpret persuasion processes, attitude changes, and track the
meanings within media messages. It also offers scientific explanations for the mechanisms that
lead to cognitive, emotional, and behavioral effects on the audience.
Framing analysis also encompasses the structural and objective organization of media,
focusing on how newspapers describe news sources, select, and utilize these sources, and the
editorial interventions that shape the narrative. This analysis delves into how events are
portrayed, particularly in terms of the positions of active parties and stakeholders involved. The
frame of a journalistic or media text can be understood through its structural elements, which
include the structural construction of the journalistic material, the main ideas that form the core
of the text, and the implicit conclusions drawn by the linguistic and semantic structure of the
language used. These elements collectively influence how information is organized and
communicated to the audience, guiding their understanding of the events and issues covered.
Elements of Media Framing
Entman (1993) identifies four key elements in the communication process that are central
to framing analysis: the communicator, the text, the receiver, and the culture. The
communicator, typically the journalist, plays a crucial role in crafting the message and selecting
the framing elements. The text refers to the media content itself, the way in which information
is presented and structured. The receiver is the audience who interprets the message, influenced
by their own background, beliefs, and experiences. Lastly, culture encompasses the broader
societal context in which the communication occurs, shaping both the production and reception
of the message.
These four elements interact to influence how information is framed and understood,
highlighting the complexity of the communication process in media framing.
The first element is the communicator (the journalist). A journalist may intentionally or
unintentionally present judgments through frames governed by schemata, frameworks that
organize their values and beliefs. Journalists play a critical role in building and shaping the
news through language choices, quotations, and the information they emphasize in the news
story. The process of framing involves selecting certain aspects during writing and editing,
which, in turn, affects how readers interpret the story. Through this framing, journalists create
patterns that influence public discourse and, ultimately, individuals' knowledge levels. This is
achieved through selective coverage of certain aspects of an event or issue, offering a simplified
interpretation of events, or by providing greater coverage of one issue at the expense of others.
However, journalists are also influenced by frames that shape their cognitive schemas and are
impacted by external pressures like ownership control, financial constraints, editorial policies,
and deadlines. These factors lead to selective perception, resulting in alternative frames imbued
with ideology, whether consciously or unconsciously.
The second element is the text itself. The text involves the frames highlighted through
the presence or absence of key words, specific structures, stereotypical images, sources of
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
78
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
information, and sentences that include certain facts and judgments. The way information is
structured within the text directly impacts how the audience interprets it, guiding their
understanding and reactions.
The third element is the receiver, which refers to the audience. While the audience's
thinking and inferences are shaped by the frames in the text and the intent of the communicator,
this is not always the case. Different receivers may interpret the same frame in different ways,
based on their own experiences, beliefs, and biases.
The fourth element is culture, which refers to a set of shared frames within a specific
social group. Entman (1993) defines culture as "a set of frames referenced within
communication," which can be empirically understood as "a set of common frames that appear
in the speech and thought of most people, or a certain social group." Cultural frames shape the
way people within a group interpret events, issues, and the world around them.
According to Entman (1993), framing within these four elements or sites functions
similarly in terms of selection, emphasis, and constructing an argument about problems, their
causes, and potential solutions. The media plays an active role in selecting and framing the
world, transmitting this selection through cultural practices, and evolving the discourse within
communicative networks. This process is grounded in psycholinguistic operations essential for
human cognition. External pressures on the media, such as political and economic
considerations from owners, create a need to reconcile differences not just among professionals
in the newsroom, but within the culture of the newsroom itself.
The ethical principles frame places events within the ethical and value context of society,
appealing to deep-rooted beliefs and principles. The communicator may frame an event as part
of the community’s moral foundation, using religious quotes or evidence that supports their
narrative. This frame relies on sources and reference groups that confirm the ethical values tied
to the event. Candidate frames in elections focus on how candidates' traits influence the public’s
judgments. Media coverage often emphasizes emotional traits designed to evoke emotional
responses, as well as objective traits that provide basic information to help the public form a
knowledge base about the candidates, including personal characteristics, ideology,
qualifications, and political competence.
Similarly, public figures frames are analyzed in terms of various emotional traits that are
prominent in media coverage. These include the social frame, which focuses on the public
figure’s social aspects, the political frame, which highlights their political role, and the personal
frame, which delves into their family background. The social relationships frame focuses on
their roles in personal relationships, and the humanitarian interests frame presents events in a
dramatic emotional context, aiming to invoke sadness, sympathy, anger, or hatred.
An economic frame is less commonly used but crucial, especially when framing the
economic consequences of events. For example, tourism can be severely impacted by terrorist
events, and while the emotional consequences might dominate news coverage, the economic
ramifications often receive less attention. This frame focuses on the material outcomes of
events, such as effects on individuals, nations, and institutions, making the media message
more relevant to the audience’s interests.
Finally, the conflict frame presents events as sharp, competitive struggles. Media
messages may ignore key elements to emphasize the conflict context, such as highlighting
corruption, distrust in officials, or framing individuals in adversarial positions before events
even unfold. This frame often evaluates messages based on winners and losers, sometimes
exaggerating the nature of conflicts, as seen in coverage of an election candidate withdrawing,
which may be framed as a fierce internal party struggle.
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
79
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
Theoretical and Procedural Definition of the Media Frame
The news frame plays a crucial role in shaping how events and issues are understood. It
provides indicators embedded in the news context, giving meaning and significance to complex
events. These frames help in perceiving new developments and categorize them into familiar
frameworks, allowing the audience to make sense of what might otherwise be confusing or
ambiguous.
The Direction of the News and the Direction of the Frame: In frame analysis, it is
essential to distinguish between the direction of the news and the direction of the news frame.
The news itself may be negative, such as in the case of a bomb explosion, which is inherently
destructive and harmful to human dignity. However, the frame applied to this news may not
necessarily reflect the negative connotation. For example, a report on the explosion might
frame it in terms of resistance for land liberation, highlighting a positive aspect of the event.
This distinction underscores how the framing process can alter the perception of an event or
issue, even when the underlying news content may remain neutral or negative.
Methodology of Media Frame Analysis: Frame analysis is not merely a qualitative task
supported by basic analysis tools like counting key terms or their locations. Instead, it requires
specific methodologies, tools, and approaches for thorough analysis. Frame analysis extends
beyond traditional qualitative methods like argumentative pathways or descriptive analysis. It
involves examining how frames are constructed, tracking reference frames, and exploring the
various forces that shape the framing process. According to Entman, the concept of the frame
remains somewhat ill-defined, which is why scholars use a range of approaches, including
content analysis and discourse analysis, to study it.
Frame analysis also considers four key functions of news frames. First, they help in
identifying and defining the issue or problem at hand. Second, they shed light on the causal
factors related to the issue, providing context for understanding its root causes. Third, news
frames often involve making moral judgments, reflecting the values and principles of the
framers. Lastly, frames evaluate the causal factors and their effects, propose solutions, and
assess the journalistic merit of the coverage.
Factors Influencing News Frames: Several internal and external factors influence how
journalists frame issues. Internal factors include social customs and traditions, which shape the
cultural context of news; organizational constraints, such as editorial guidelines or corporate
interests; and routine journalistic pressures, such as deadlines or resource limitations.
Additionally, a journalist's ideological and political inclinations can subtly or overtly affect
how issues are framed.
According to Gans’s model (1979) and Shoemaker & Reese’s study (1996), there are
three primary sources of influence on media frames. The first source comes from the journalists
themselves, whose personal ideology, experiences, and orientations play a critical role in how
they construct frames. The second source is the selection of frames influenced by the political
orientation of the media outlet and organizational constraints. Finally, external factors, such as
political influences, elite groups, economic pressures, and broader social values, shape the
framing process.
Types of Frames in Media: One prominent frame discussed in media framing is the
ethical frame, which places events or issues within an ideological or moral context. While this
frame is not always directly employed in media coverage, it often appears indirectly through
quotes, statements, or references to parties that present the issue from an ethical standpoint.
The media may position itself as merely reporting the event, while the framing itself serves as
a basis for moral or ethical judgment.
Another significant frame is the responsibility frame, which assigns responsibility for an
issue or event to individuals or groups. This frame can be further divided into two types:
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
80
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
individual responsibility, which attributes responsibility to specific actors, and objective
responsibility, which looks at broader systemic or societal causes.
News frames can also be categorized into specific and general frames. Specific frames
are tied to concrete events or issues and describe them in detail, while general frames present
issues in a broader context, often linking them to larger societal or systemic trends.
Salient Features and Emotional Framing: McCombs and colleagues introduced the
concept of salient features in media coverage, which are the key aspects of a story that affect
public perceptions of the issues highlighted by the media. These features can be objective,
providing essential information like the parties involved, causes, and solutions, or emotional,
focusing on how parties or issues are framed in a positive or negative light. This aligns with
the work of Kahneman & Tversky, who emphasized how emotional framing significantly
impacts decision-making and public perception.
The News Frame: This study adopts framing theory as a conceptual framework,
structuring its analysis and interpretation around it. Framing processes focus on the selection,
emphasis, and use of specific elements in the media text to construct an argument or proof
regarding an issue’s problems, causes, evaluations, and solutions. A frame, from a media
perspective, involves discussing a topic or issue in ways that highlight certain aspects or ideas,
while simultaneously ignoring or downplaying others.
The Fundamental Hypothesis of Media Frame Theory: Research into news frames
hypothesizes that the way media outlets focus on certain aspects of an issue, while neglecting
others, shapes how the audience thinks about the issue and forms opinions. The impact of news
frames on public political orientations occurs at two levels. The first level involves the
prominence of quantitative content, such as how much coverage is given to an issue. The
second level involves qualitative content, referring to the deeper meaning and context in which
the issue is framed. Pichert (1996) developed a quantitative approach to frame analysis, aiming
to identify the dominant frames used by media outlets in public issues.
Concepts of Framing
The best approach to understanding the nature of framing in the media is expressed by
London (1993), who argues that news, like any other communication system, can be
understood as a narrative or story that includes meanings. However, news and information have
no inherent value in themselves unless placed in a meaningful context or with a specific
purpose, which consequently organizes and gives logical coherence to them. The news frame,
in simplified terms, is: "the meaningful context that shapes the news story."
Framing, as defined by Gamson and Modigliani (1993), refers to "a main organizing
idea that creates a particular attitude towards related events, through which priorities are
determined." Similarly, Entman (1993) offers a complementary definition, describing a frame
as "the selection of certain aspects of perceived reality and making them more prominent in a
communicative context in order to support a particular problem or approach to the material
being discussed." Framing concepts can be categorized into two main types: first, definitions
that focus on the nature of news, which emphasizes how news is presented; and second,
definitions that focus on the impact of the frame, highlighting how the news is perceived by
the audience.
Definitions Focused on the Nature of News: Gitlin (1980) defined news as "a model
designed to explain, emphasize, present, and perceive; through it, the communicator can
organize the directed messages." This suggests that news isn't just a reflection of reality but a
tool that actively shapes how the public understands events. Similarly, Entman described news
as "the selection of topics from reality and focusing on them noticeably in the directed
messages, addressing a specific problem and providing an explanation for the events. The first
focuses on some information while ignoring other details." Both definitions highlight that news
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
81
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
is not a passive presentation of facts but an active process of framing and selecting what is
deemed important.
In recent years, media studies have shifted to focus on public attitudes through modern
theoretical frameworks like Framing Theory. This theory posits that frames influence how
issues are handled and presented in the media. The media, as an integral part of modern life,
shapes how the public evaluates issues by framing them in specific ways. The study of frames
is important for several reasons. It helps explain how media influences attitudes and ideas
toward prominent issues, allowing for the measurement of implicit content in media coverage.
It also contributes to the analysis of news coverage frames, offering a comparison of different
frames and how issues are presented. Furthermore, it provides a systematic explanation of how
the media shapes public attitudes by selecting specific aspects of reality and emphasizing them
in news texts. Lastly, it clarifies the relationship between framing, dominant ideology, and
media content, revealing how ideological influences shape the media's framing of events.
Definitions Focused on the Impact of Frames: Tuchman examined how the media
routinely addresses topics and observed that once frames are established, they acquire
legitimacy through the conflict of news and mass journalism. Media frames, according to
Tuchman, reflect the values, customs, and culture prevailing in society. Entman, another key
theorist, emphasized that "A frame is a means to describe communicative text in how it affects
human consciousness." This definition highlights the psychological effect frames have on
audiences. Rhetorical compositions, such as rhetorical techniques, quotes, examples, familiar
illustrations, evocative language, catchy phrases, and visual imagery, suggest to readers how
to interpret a text.
Frames consist of three main components: first, media coverage of prominent
personalities or issues; second, the public’s perception and interpretation of these features; and
third, the public’s attitudes toward these personalities or issues, which can be either positive or
negative. These components shape how an issue is understood and responded to by the public.
Key Variables or Influencing Factors in Frame Construction: Several fundamental
factors influence the identification and construction of frames. These include the political
independence of media outlets, the types of news sources used, media practices and formats,
the ideological and cultural content of communicators, and the nature of the events themselves.
Additionally, specific elements help identify and define frames, such as the presence or absence
of certain words, phrases, stereotypical images, sources of information, key sentences that
reinforce particular facts, and the media's overall framing style. The framing process is a
cognitive method used to interpret and organize information.
Components of News Frames: The construction of a news frame involves highlighting
certain ideas in a text while making others less prominent or even ignoring them. The key
components of a frame include keywords, imagery (such as metaphors), symbols, and visual
images. The formal structure of a news story also plays a role in framing, as does the use of
implicit conclusions and metaphorical descriptions.
Factors That Contribute to the Success of Frames: The success of frames depends on
several factors. These include the social and political status of the communicator, reliance on
credible news sources, and the ability to frame specific actions. The importance of the event,
its deviation from the usual routine, and the level of political control over the media also
contribute to how successful a frame is in influencing the public. The communicator's ability
to organize information, gather support, and shape audience attitudes all play significant roles
in framing.
Frame Configurations
Frames can be clarified through a set of basic configurations within a message. These
configurations include linguistic patterns, which refer to the arrangement of words and
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
82
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
sentences; textual configurations, which describe the ordered sequence of events in a way that
is predictable; and cognitive configurations, which highlight the relationships between
elements within the text. Words like "now," "where," and "therefore" are examples of terms
that shape how the audience understands the message.
Framing Political Issues with the Responsibility Frame: Framing political issues in
terms of responsibility is particularly significant because responsibility inherently involves a
psychological element. Psychologists note that individuals interpret situations and actions
based on how they attribute responsibility. This frame often presents news in terms of religious
beliefs or ethical concepts, with journalists using inference, citation, or quotation as a direct
moral reference for the events they report.
Human Interest Frame: The human-interest frame is one of the most widely used frames
in media coverage. It focuses on the emotional aspect of an issue, appealing to the audience's
feelings and personal connections. This type of framing is effective because it generates
significant public interest and attention, often making the news feel more relatable and
emotionally engaging.
Practical Contributions of Framing Theory: Over the years, framing theory has evolved
through various contributions. In 1955, Bateson first introduced the term "frames." In 1967,
Berger and Luckmann argued that frames represent the methods through which we
understand things. Goffman, in 1974, precisely defined frames and the professional procedures
for analyzing them. Tuchman applied the frame concept practically by analyzing news
coverage in 1978. Gitlin studied news frames over time in 1980, and other researchers like
Buhrman and Lang explored how the order of information and its framing affected public
perception. By the 1990s, scholars such as Iyengar, Gamson, and Entman further refined
the concept, establishing guidelines for analyzing and measuring frames in media.
Building and Establishing Media Frames: The form and content of news are influenced
by a variety of factors. Communicators, journalists and media producers, construct frames and
impart meaning to the information based on factors such as ideology, attitudes, and professional
standards. Media organizations also play a role by shaping news frames through their policies
and practices, often influenced by organizational pressures. External sources like authorities,
lobbying groups, and elites also affect the framing process.
The establishment of media frames highlights key issues by emphasizing certain values,
facts, and considerations, making them more prominent and directly related to the issue at hand.
This process influences opinions and guides public discourse by framing issues in particular
ways.
The Impact of Frames on the Individual Level: At the individual level, audiences use
frames to interpret and evaluate the events and issues presented in the media. Frames can be
categorized into three levels: the cultural level, which refers to the public’s reliance on the
media for information; the personal level, which is based on individual experiences with events
and issues; and the integrated level, which combines personal experiences with media-acquired
information to create reference frames for interpreting the world.
The Link Between Individual Frames and Media Frames: The influence of frames is
not just top-down. The broader audience is also influenced by frames, with their feedback
shaping and building media frames over time. The collective process of framing involves both
communicators and the audience, creating a dynamic interaction between the two.
How Frames Work
Frames can focus attention on certain aspects while ignoring others. This process not
only provides the audience with information but also shapes their attitudes. Framing is a
psychological and cognitive process that involves organizing new information, translating it,
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
83
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
receiving it, and structuring it into patterns that resemble cognitive maps. Some scholars see
framing theory as the counterpart of Priming Theory for the following reasons:
1. Both theories explain the role of media in shaping public knowledge and attitudes
towards various issues. However, framing focuses on how issues are presented (the form)
and organizes content within a specific framework, giving it consistency. It is more
concerned with the indirect aspects of content, whereas Priming Theory focuses solely
on content.
2. The focus in both theories is narrow because both deal with selected topics. As a result,
processes like perception, understanding, and memory are facilitated.
3. Both theories emphasize the reception, adornment, and recall of information, which
brings them closer to knowledge theories, the representation of information, and schema
construction.
Frames highlight specific information within a given country or context (the subject of
communication), making this information stand out. To define "highlighting": it refers to
pointing out, emphasizing, and giving significance to certain information so that it remains
memorable. The degree to which information is highlighted is ensured by the audience's
perception, interpretation, and retention of the information. Texts can make certain pieces of
information more prominent through repetition, substitution, or by linking them to cultural
symbols. However, placing information in a small or marginal part of the text may reduce its
prominence.
Moreover, ideas that the text emphasizes might be difficult for the audience to notice,
interpret, or remember due to the type of frame used. These frames, along with other concepts
such as categories, texts, and archetypal models, are collections of ideas that guide responses
when processing information. Information is the product of the interaction between texts and
audiences. The presence of frames in the text does not directly influence the audience's thinking
but works through its interaction with their cognitive frameworks.
Characteristics of Media Frames
The characteristics of media frames can be summarized as follows:
1. Distinctiveness of Frames: Each frame has its own unique characteristics, which
distinguish it from others.
2. Varying Levels of Meaning: Frames can differ or vary in terms of how explicitly they
define meanings.
3. Inclusion of Information and Relations: Frames can include information that reflects the
relationships between concepts, their interpretations, or the context surrounding them, as
well as the relationship between concepts and their cognitive backgrounds.
4. Sub-Frames: Media frames can encompass other, less general frames within them.
5. Organization of Meaning and Its Disappearance in Social Reality: Frames help in
organizing meanings and interpreting them in relation to social reality, sometimes
causing those meanings to disappear or be obscured.
6. Focus of Frames: Media frames highlight certain attributes within news stories, which in
turn represent the central focus of the narrative.
7. Stability of Frames over Time: Some frames remain stable over time, showing persistent
biases or tendencies that resist change. Frames that evolve over time tend to have
relatively less significance than those that exhibit a higher degree of stability, and thus
frames that show relative consistency deserve greater attention in study and analysis.
8. Symbolic Tools for Persuasion: Media frames operate through symbolic and abstract
tools, aiming to convince the audience of certain ideas and viewpoints regarding various
topics and issues.
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
84
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
9. Construction of the Event: A media frame is a construction of an event that encompasses
the public's understanding of its meaning and social significance.
10. Frame Overlap: Frames can overlap within one another, but this does not necessarily
mean that they are distinct from each other.
Results
The study of media framing reveals several key findings about the role of media in
shaping public perception of news events and issues:
1. Frames Structure Perception: The analysis indicates that media frames play a critical role
in shaping how audiences understand and interpret news stories. By highlighting certain
aspects of an event while omitting others, media outlets can influence the perceived
importance, causes, and solutions associated with an issue.
2. Diverse Framing Techniques: The study found that media organizations employ a variety
of framing techniques, including linguistic structures, narrative sequencing, and the use
of symbolic imagery. These techniques not only shape the content of news reports but
also evoke emotional responses from the audience.
3. Ideological Influence: Frames are often shaped by the ideological stance of the media
organization or the journalist. This means that media outlets may frame events differently
depending on their political, cultural, or economic perspectives, which can lead to
different interpretations of the same event.
4. Cultural and Social Context: The findings suggest that media framing is deeply
influenced by the cultural and social context within which the media operates. Frames
reflect the values, norms, and priorities of the society in which they are produced, and
thus the same event may be framed differently in different social or political contexts.
5. Frames and Public Opinion: The study also shows that media frames have a significant
effect on public opinion, influencing not only how issues are understood but also how
audiences form judgments and make decisions about those issues. The stronger the frame
and the more consistent the framing over time, the more likely it is to shape public
perceptions.
6. Media’s Role in Agenda-Setting: The research highlights the role of media in setting the
agenda for public discourse. By choosing which aspects of an issue to emphasize, media
frames help determine which topics receive public attention, shaping the broader social
conversation.
Research Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, several practical recommendations can be made to
improve media framing analysis and the role of media in informing the public:
1. Training Journalists in Framing Awareness: It is essential for media professionals to be
aware of the framing techniques they use in reporting. Journalistic education should
emphasize the ethical responsibility of framing and the impact of framing on audience
perception. Journalists should be trained to use frames in ways that promote balanced,
unbiased reporting and avoid manipulation.
2. Encouraging Diverse Perspectives in Media: Media organizations should strive to present
a broader range of frames, particularly on contentious issues. This could involve seeking
out alternative viewpoints, presenting a diversity of opinions, and avoiding the over-
simplification of complex issues. This approach would contribute to a more informed
public and reduce the risk of reinforcing one-sided narratives.
3. Promoting Media Literacy Among Audiences: Public awareness about media framing
should be increased through educational programs that help audiences critically evaluate
the frames used in news coverage. By becoming more aware of the ways in which
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
85
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
information is framed, audiences can better understand media messages and develop a
more nuanced view of current events.
4. Balanced Representation of Issues: Media organizations should be encouraged to provide
balanced representations of issues, ensuring that different perspectives are given equal
weight in the framing of news events. This can prevent the manipulation of public
opinion through selective framing.
5. Standardizing Frame Analysis in News Research: Researchers and media analysts should
adopt standardized methodologies for frame analysis. This will allow for more consistent
and comparable research across different studies, helping to establish clearer links
between media framing and public opinion or political outcomes.
Future Research Directions
The study of media framing is vast and complex, and future research can further expand
our understanding in the following areas:
1. Longitudinal Studies of Frame Evolution: Future studies could examine how frames
evolve over time, particularly in response to shifting political, economic, or social
contexts. Longitudinal research would allow researchers to track the persistence or
transformation of specific frames across different media outlets and over extended
periods.
2. Cross-Cultural Comparative Studies: There is a need for cross-cultural studies comparing
how media frames events in different countries. This can provide insights into how
cultural, political, and economic systems shape framing practices and influence public
opinion across borders.
3. Impact of New Media and Social Media Frames: As social media platforms increasingly
become the primary source of news for many people, future research should investigate
how frames are constructed in these digital environments. Researchers should focus on
the role of influencers, algorithms, and user-generated content in shaping public
perceptions.
4. Framing and Public Policy Outcomes: More research is needed to explore the relationship
between media framing and actual policy changes. Specifically, studies could investigate
how frames used in news coverage affect political decision-making, public policy
formation, and the legislative process.
5. Framing of Emerging Global Issues: Given the rise of global crises such as climate
change, pandemics, and international conflicts, future research should focus on how these
issues are framed in global media. Understanding how global issues are framed could
offer critical insights into the role of media in influencing international cooperation and
public behavior on pressing global challenges.
6. Framing and the Public’s Emotional Response: Future studies could delve deeper into
the emotional effects of framing, particularly in terms of empathy, outrage, or fear.
Research could explore the psychological mechanisms that link media frames to
emotional responses, helping to clarify how framing shape’s public opinion on a deeper,
emotional level.
7. Frame Conflicts and Public Debate: Investigating how conflicting frames on the same
issue are presented in the media and their impact on public debate could yield valuable
insights. This could involve examining how competing narratives, especially during
times of crisis, affect societal polarization and discourse.
8. Automated Frame Analysis Tools: As artificial intelligence and machine learning
technologies advance, there is a growing opportunity to develop automated tools for
analyzing media frames at scale. Future research could focus on creating more
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
86
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
sophisticated algorithms to identify and track frames in large datasets, offering new ways
to analyze media framing across diverse platforms and languages.
References
Bateson, G. (1955). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry,
evolution, and epistemology. University of Chicago Press.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. Doubleday.
Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of
the Cuban missile crisis. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02328.x
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear
power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.
https://doi.org/10.1086/229213
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching Mass media in the making & unmaking of the
New Left. University of California Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Northeastern
University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist,
39(4), 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
Lang, K., & Lang, G. E. (1983). The battle for public opinion: The president, the press, and
the pollsters. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion.
University of Chicago Press.
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political
Communication, 10(1), 53-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963
Reese, S. D. (2001). Framing public life: A bridging model for media research. In S. D. Reese,
O. H. Gandy Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and
our understanding of the social world (pp. 7-31). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on
mass media content (2nd ed.). Longman.
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. Free Press.
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
87
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
Appendix: Tables and Charts
For the timeline, we can represent the number of key contributions or publications within
each decade. Here’s a hypothetical distribution:
Table 1: Timeline of Key Contributions to Framing Theory
Time Period
Number of Contributions
1955-1974
4
1978-1989
6
1991-1996
4
Other
2
Table 1 provides a timeline that illustrates the distribution of key contributions or
publications over different decades. The period from 1978 to 1989 saw the highest number of
contributions, with 6 key publications, suggesting a period of heightened activity and
development in the field. Both 1955 to 1974 and 1991 to 1996 had a similar number of
contributions, with 4 each, indicating consistent but relatively lower levels of publication
during these periods. The category labeled Other, which includes more recent or scattered
contributions, has only 2 key publications, reflecting a smaller or less frequent output in the
years outside the defined decades. This distribution suggests that the 1978-1989 period was
particularly significant in terms of contributions, while other decades saw more moderate
activity.
We can assign numerical values to the factors that influence how media frames are
constructed based on the categories mentioned earlier:
Table 2: Factors Influencing Media Frames
Factor
Percentage (%)
Communicator’s Influence
35%
Selection of News Frames
30%
External Sources
35%
Table 2 presents the distribution of influence factors that contribute to how media frames
are constructed. It identifies three key factors: Communicator’s Influence, Selection of News
Frames, and External Sources. According to the data, both Communicator’s Influence and
External Sources have an equal impact, each contributing 35% to the framing process.
Meanwhile, the Selection of News Frames accounts for a slightly smaller proportion,
contributing 30%. This distribution highlights that the role of the communicator and external
sources is perceived as equally significant in shaping media content, while the selection of
frames plays a somewhat lesser but still important role in the construction of news narratives.
Each of the three levels can be proportionally represented:
Table 3: Levels of Individual Frame Impact
Level
Percentage (%)
Cultural Level
40%
Personal Level
30%
Integrated Level
30%
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
88
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
Table 3 illustrates the proportional distribution of three levels that contribute to a
particular process or concept. These levels are Cultural Level, Personal Level, and
Integrated Level. According to the data, the Cultural Level holds the highest proportion,
contributing 40% to the overall framework. Both the Personal Level and the Integrated Level
contribute equally, each accounting for 30%. This distribution suggests that cultural factors
have the most significant influence in this context, while personal and integrated perspectives
share a somewhat equal, but slightly lesser role. The balance of these three levels highlights
the interplay between individual, collective, and broader cultural dimensions in shaping the
overall process.
Here we can assign hypothetical percentages to how framing impacts perception,
responsibility, and behavior.
Table 4: Framing's Impact on Public Opinion and Behavior
Impact Area
Percentage (%)
Perception of Issues
35%
Attribution of Responsibility
35%
Behavioral Outcomes
30%
Table 4 outlines the hypothetical distribution of how framing impacts three key areas:
Perception of Issues, Attribution of Responsibility, and Behavioral Outcomes. According
to the data, Perception of Issues and Attribution of Responsibility each account for 35% of
the overall impact, suggesting that framing has an equally strong influence on how individuals
perceive issues and assign responsibility. The Behavioral Outcomes, while still significant,
contribute slightly less at 30%, indicating that while framing does affect actions and behavior,
its influence on perception and responsibility is somewhat more pronounced. This distribution
underscores the multifaceted role of framing in shaping how people view, assign blame, and
act upon issues in society.
We can divide political framing into three categories and assign hypothetical values to
each:
Table 5: Framing in Political Communication
Category
Percentage (%)
Mobilize Support
33%
Agenda Setting
34%
Construct Political Identities
33%
Table 5 illustrates the division of political framing into three categories, each with a
distinct but equally significant impact. The categories include Mobilize Support, Agenda
Setting, and Construct Political Identities. Agenda Setting holds the largest share at 34%,
indicating that framing has a slightly stronger influence on shaping the political agenda and
determining which issues are prioritized. Both Mobilize Support and Construct Political
Identities contribute 33% each, reflecting their equally important roles in rallying public
support for political causes and shaping individuals’ political identities. This distribution
highlights the balanced and interconnected nature of political framing, where mobilizing
support, setting the agenda, and constructing identities work together to influence public
opinion and behavior.
European Modern Studies Journal journal-ems.com
89
European Modern Studies Journal, 2025, 9(1)
For ethical concerns in framing, we could divide the issues into the following categories
with assigned hypothetical percentages:
Table 6: Ethical Considerations in Framing
Ethical Concern
Percentage (%)
Bias & Manipulation
40%
Fairness & Representation
30%
Power & Influence
30%
Table 6 outlines the distribution of ethical concerns in framing, identifying three primary
issues: Bias & Manipulation, Fairness & Representation, and Power & Influence. Bias &
Manipulation stands as the most significant concern, accounting for 40%, reflecting the
critical ethical issue of how framing can intentionally or unintentionally distort reality to favor
certain perspectives. Both Fairness & Representation and Power & Influence each
contribute 30%, emphasizing the ethical challenges of ensuring equitable representation and
understanding the concentration of power that shapes the framing process. This distribution
highlights the complexities of ethical dilemmas in media framing, where the balance between
bias, fairness, and power plays a central role in determining the integrity of the information
presented.
