Stekelenburg (2011) echoes the sentiments of Gamson and Wolfsfeld (1993) when she writes that “we should conceive of media as active actors covering, framing and interpreting issues and protest”.
Wolsfeld (2011) says “There is no such thing as objective journalism (nor can there be). The real question is not, then whether or not the media is biased (they are) the question is how are they biased” (Wolfsfeld 2011 pg 47).
This blog will give one clear recent example of how the framing of a particular BBC news story is inextricably linked to its bias. One could hypothesize that the BBC, as an ‘actor’ has a primary framework that has gained ascendance (Snow 1986). The prospect of ambiguity, misframing, and frame disputes are now reduced. (Goffman 1974: 301-38 as cited in Snow 1986) .
The Associated Society of Locomotive Steam Enginemen and Firemen union (ASLEF) and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) are in dispute with Southern Rail’s parent company Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) over their decision to remove conductors from more of its services leaving the driver with the responsibility of closing the doors for the passengers.
CRGM20150121A GV of East Croydon Station Platform for article on station chaos. Picture Credit Grant Melton/copyright LocalWorld2015
Dan Walker and Louise Minchin presented the BBC Brackfast Show on Dec 19th 2016
On the 19th December the BBC Breakfast show presenters framed their introduction of the strike as a disruption. They failed to mention the reason for the strike completely.
The following is how the story is presented:
From the presenters there is a cut to the field reporter speaking to camera, outside a dark station at 6.30am who also focused on the disruption. He did mentioned that the strike is about the lose of conductors . He fails to cover the safety concerns of the strikers, instead framing it as a lose of jobs only.
Two disgruntled and ‘randomly’ picked passengers at the station are interviewed. They cited monetary concerns, framed the strike as ‘unnecessary’ and knew the percentages of how many other services of Southern Rail already operate without conductors. They were not questioned on the safety concerns of the strikers but instead prompted to speak more of the inconvenience.
The field reporter and the two studio presenters then have a micro ‘discussion’ that describes the strike as unnecessary at least 3 times and includes both Southern Rail’s press statement that no jobs will be lost, and that many other train services run without conductors. All then agree that having no conductors is a safe option. This struck me as particularly ironic in a work climate where liability insurance is unavoidable for the smallest of business practices and risk assessments have reached ridiculous heights.
The studio presenter then provocatively and strongly opens an interview with a Southern Rail staff member, sticking up for the rights of passengers . He challenges the woman through the screen, on how she can defend such an ‘unnecessary strike’ before she has had a moment to speak. The woman then surprisingly agrees with him! Turns out she is a PR person for Southern Rail. She effortlessly blames the ‘unnecessary’ strike on the ‘unreasonable’ workers, claiming they are over reacting because it is clearly a safe practice and no jobs will be lost.
Sourthen Rail Platform courtesy of WWW.GETSURREY.CO.UK
In this morning piece there were no voices from strikers or union representatives who were essentially silenced from giving their counter frame of safety. No investigative questions where poised to Southern Rail on where and why it intends to move the conductors, or why when its transport is the one of the most expensive in all of Europe can it not afford to keep conductors. Needless to say there are no overarching challenges to the privatisation model of national rail services either.
The BBC failed to give justice to the point of view of the strikers entirely framing the strike as unneccessary which is by all measures a matter of opinion not fact.
References
Gamson, W. A., & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and Media As Interacting Systems. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Soical Science (528), 114 – 125.
Snow, D. A., Burke Rochford, E. J., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame Alignment Processes, Micrmobilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review, 51 (4), 464 – 481
Stekelenburg, J. v. (2015, Novemeber 30). People protest for many reasons, yet we don’t know how effective protests are. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from The London School Of Economics and Political Science: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-effective-are-protests/
Wolfsfeld, G. (2011). No Such Thing as Objective news. In G. Wolfsfeld, Making Sense of Media and Politics – Five Principles in Political Communication (pp. 47 – 71). New York and London: Routledge.
Thanks for this post Inka. I also saw this report and thought very similar ideas which you have expressed here. I think a later report did go on to interview a representative from the Union, at one of the affected train stations, and whilst this could be seen as giving both sides of the arguments an opportunity, again the field reporter frames the interview to align with the side of the commuters, offering a majority of leading questions.
This is a very well chosen example of framing. I think, that for many Londoners the strikes can be quite inconvenient in their daily lifes. It is easy to forget, why these strikes happen and that this is a fight that many more people should fight. It is really sad to see, how the BBC picked the ‘easy’ perspective and frames the issue in a way that will receive likely the most agreement amongst its audience.
Great post! I remember when we talked about this. Unfortunately, mainstream media bias is not the exception, but the norm.
Traditional media’s role is to keep the status quo, therefore they can’t cover positively any news concerning a strike. They are part of the establishment, they are funded by it, so they can’t do otherwise.
Still, it’s important that we don’t get used to this and that we demand honesty and fairness from them.
In addition to this, we can create our own alternative media, as our blogs for example.
While reading it I was wondering if part of the reason why journalists and show presenters are framing stories in such an unconscious manner, is because they should make sure they have to have content to present to audiences as quick as possible, no matter the quality of it. This can be one of the reasons why they tend to present such bad quality news. Apart from all the others that are related to other type of interests.
Heya ConsciousDigest…. 🙂 I understand what you mean by unconscious framing of certain elements within a story….for example unconscious assumptions that are inherently sexist in nature… the msm is quite full of ‘he’ this and that .. but I really do not believe this BBC news piece was an example of unconscious framing. I thought I described a news piece that was obviously contrived and quite possibly rehearsed. It is well within their professional remit to allow the trade union or a striking worker to speak on behalf of the strike. See you soon 🙂
By ‘unconscious’ I meant: insensible, senseless, insentient. Not unintentional, unintended, accidental.
It’s clear from your post that the framing was done on purpose: “The BBC failed to give justice to the point of view of the strikers entirely framing the strike as unneccessary which is by all measures a matter of opinion not fact.”, I understood that.
See how ‘one interpretation of a word’ can change a whole story?
Thank you for this post that raise important issue. It is a shame to see that a media, which is supposed to be professional, fail this much to cover an issue… Strike can be quite sensitive for people, especially when there is a direct impact on our daily life… Maybe as it is difficult issue, striker should pay more attention to the way they are gonna address media…
Thanks for this post Inka. I also saw this report and thought very similar ideas which you have expressed here. I think a later report did go on to interview a representative from the Union, at one of the affected train stations, and whilst this could be seen as giving both sides of the arguments an opportunity, again the field reporter frames the interview to align with the side of the commuters, offering a majority of leading questions.
This is a very well chosen example of framing. I think, that for many Londoners the strikes can be quite inconvenient in their daily lifes. It is easy to forget, why these strikes happen and that this is a fight that many more people should fight. It is really sad to see, how the BBC picked the ‘easy’ perspective and frames the issue in a way that will receive likely the most agreement amongst its audience.
Great post! I remember when we talked about this. Unfortunately, mainstream media bias is not the exception, but the norm.
Traditional media’s role is to keep the status quo, therefore they can’t cover positively any news concerning a strike. They are part of the establishment, they are funded by it, so they can’t do otherwise.
Still, it’s important that we don’t get used to this and that we demand honesty and fairness from them.
In addition to this, we can create our own alternative media, as our blogs for example.
Thanks for this interesting post.
While reading it I was wondering if part of the reason why journalists and show presenters are framing stories in such an unconscious manner, is because they should make sure they have to have content to present to audiences as quick as possible, no matter the quality of it. This can be one of the reasons why they tend to present such bad quality news. Apart from all the others that are related to other type of interests.
Heya ConsciousDigest…. 🙂 I understand what you mean by unconscious framing of certain elements within a story….for example unconscious assumptions that are inherently sexist in nature… the msm is quite full of ‘he’ this and that .. but I really do not believe this BBC news piece was an example of unconscious framing. I thought I described a news piece that was obviously contrived and quite possibly rehearsed. It is well within their professional remit to allow the trade union or a striking worker to speak on behalf of the strike. See you soon 🙂
Hi and thanks for your reply.
By ‘unconscious’ I meant: insensible, senseless, insentient. Not unintentional, unintended, accidental.
It’s clear from your post that the framing was done on purpose: “The BBC failed to give justice to the point of view of the strikers entirely framing the strike as unneccessary which is by all measures a matter of opinion not fact.”, I understood that.
See how ‘one interpretation of a word’ can change a whole story?
Thank you… I hope you get my point now 🙂
Thank you for this post that raise important issue. It is a shame to see that a media, which is supposed to be professional, fail this much to cover an issue… Strike can be quite sensitive for people, especially when there is a direct impact on our daily life… Maybe as it is difficult issue, striker should pay more attention to the way they are gonna address media…