AEJMC Archives

AEJMC Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave AEJMC
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: AEJ 05 WatsonB MAC Stalemate, Xenophobia and the Framing of the Immigration Debate
From: Elliott Parker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:AEJMC Conference Papers <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:41:04 -0500
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (722 lines)


This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
         If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line, 
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").

(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================

Stalemate, Xenophobia and the Framing
of the Immigration Debate


Brendan R. Watson
M.A. Student
University of Missouri-Columbia
School of Journalism


Earl English Graduate Studies Center
Missouri School of Journalism
116 Walter Williams Hall
Columbia, MO 65211-1200
(573) 356-1432
[log in to unmask]





Submitted to the Minorities and Communication Division of the 
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication for 
presentation at the annual convention in San Antonio, Texas, August 
10-13, 2004.
Abstract

Overall newspaper coverage of Hispanic immigration is balanced. 
However, the dominant conflict frame used to cover the issue may be 
contributing to the lack of progress towards meeting some of the 
objectives President George W. Bush laid out to overhaul the nation's 
immigration laws in January, 2004. An analysis of coverage since that 
time also reveals significant differences in how Hispanics and 
non-Hispanics report on immigration, both in regards to the frames 
they use and how they source their stories.
Stalemate, Xenophobia and the Framing
of the Immigration Debate

On January 7, 2004 President George W. Bush unveiled a proposal to 
overhaul the United States' immigration laws. Speaking from the East 
Room of the White House he said:
As a nation that values immigration, and depends on immigration, we 
should have immigration laws that work and make us proud. Yet today 
we do not. Instead, we see many employers turning to the illegal 
labor market. We see millions of hard-working men and women condemned 
to fear and insecurity in a massive, undocumented economy…The system 
is not working. Our nation needs an immigration system that serves 
the American economy, and reflects the American Dream (White House, 2004).

More than a year after he made that speech, 78 bills related to 
immigration are pending before the United States House of 
Representatives and the Senate (GovTrack, 2005). But there have been 
no meaningful changes to the nation's immigration laws.
This is partly because from the outset President Bush's speech was 
criticized for pandering to Hispanic voters in the midst of his 
reelection campaign (Westphal, 2004). It was also criticized as being 
little more than an effort to smooth over relations with Mexican 
President Vicente Fox, who was annoyed with various Bush 
administration policies and decisions, particularly in regards to the 
war in Iraq (Washington, 2004). Fox was also upset that Bush had not 
followed through on a promise made during his first election campaign 
to make U.S. immigration laws friendlier to Mexicans and other 
immigrants. The two presidents met in Crawford, Texas just five days 
after President Bush's speech.
The lack of progress toward overhauling the country's immigration 
laws can also be blamed partly on the divisive nature of the issue 
and on American's xenophobic attitudes. According to the Pew Research 
Center, 46% of native-born Americans believe immigrants erode 
traditional American values and 72% also support further restricting 
immigration (Pew, 2004). Perhaps, though, the most persistent 
roadblock to meaningful reform, which scholars have blamed for both 
feeding off of and contributing to xenophobia, is the framing of 
Hispanic immigration by the news media.

Literature Review
An introduction to framing
Research into media effects tries to understand audiences' cognitive 
responses both to overt and subtle content. Three theories, agenda 
setting, priming and framing, dominate this research. Agenda setting 
theory posits that by selecting a finite number of issues and events 
to highlight in the news, the media affects what is most prominent in 
the minds of the audience (Price, 1989). Priming, a closely related 
theory, posits that audiences will give greatest weight to those 
issues covered most by the media when evaluating political leaders 
and policy. Priming is an important theory for helping to understand 
why audiences draw on racial stereotypes when evaluating various 
policies, even when race is not explicitly mentioned in the news 
coverage (Domke, 2001). Framing, however, is the most powerful tool 
for understanding how media affects attitudes towards immigration.
Framing is the process by which the media selects "some aspects of 
perceived reality, … highlight[s] connections among them, and 
thereby…make[s] a particular interpretation and evaluation more 
salient than others" (Entman, 1989). There are four dominant frames 
used by the media: human interest, responsibility, consequence and 
conflict (Valkenburg et al., 1999). The human interest frame uses an 
individual's story and/or an emotional angle to present an issue or 
event from that person's perspective, often as a technique for 
capturing and retaining audiences attention. The responsibility frame 
attributes responsibility for causing or solving a particular problem 
to an individual or group. These two frames are important, but the 
consequence and conflict frames are most relevant to coverage of 
immigration. The consequence frame presents an issue or event in 
terms of its impact – typically an economic impact – on an 
individual, group or geographic region. For example, illegal 
immigration could be framed in terms of the additional cost to the 
government and taxpayers for providing social and health services to 
immigrants. The conflict frame emphasizes a conflict between 
individuals or groups. In the case of immigration, the conflict is 
often between blue-collar workers and immigrants for jobs and other 
limited resources. The strategic or horse race frame is also 
particularly relevant to news coverage of President Bush's 
immigration proposal. The strategic frame emphasizes the competitive 
win/lose nature of political campaigning, often highlighting how a 
politician's statements affect his or her standings in the polls 
(Cappella et al., 1996).

Framing effects
In his 1989 study of newspaper editorials, Entman found support for 
his hypothesis that readers' cognitive processes will conform to the 
dominant frame presented by the news media. Zhongdang and colleagues 
(1996), Capella and colleagues (1997), and Price and colleagues 
(1997) are some of the scholars who support Entman's finding. Price 
and colleagues found that when coverage of Michigan's budget cuts to 
the state university was manipulated to include a conflict, human 
interest or consequence frame, readers' thoughts about the issue 
conformed to these frames. Readers exposed to the conflict frame were 
almost six times as likely as those exposed to the human interest 
frame to list ideas relating to conflict in response to the story. 
Those exposed to the consequence frame were four times as likely to 
list thoughts related to consequences than those exposed to the 
conflict frame.
Price and colleagues (1997) also studied the effects of frames on 
thought valence. They found that when readers were exposed to a human 
interest frame their thoughts were more positive than when they were 
exposed to conflict or consequence frames. Price and colleagues, 
however, concluded that frames have no effect on the complexity of 
audiences' thoughts. Other scholars have, though, concluded that 
frames have such an effect. Shah and colleagues (2004) studied the 
possibility that combination of multiple frames – loss/gain and 
individual/societal – will affect the complexity of cognitive 
responses. The researchers found those exposed to societal gain and 
individual loss frames exhibited the greatest cognitive complexity, 
while those exposed to the societal loss and individual gain 
conditions expressed the least complex thoughts.
This is only one of the disagreements among framing effects 
researchers. Another disagreement involves whether frames affect the 
audience's ability to recall core facts from a news story. Price and 
colleagues (1997) concluded the conflict, consequence and human 
interest frames detract from recall of "core" facts in the story. De 
Vreese (2004), however, concluded news frames, particularly the 
conflict and consequence frames, do not affect the audience's ability 
to recall details from the story.
Researchers have also examined the effect of preexisting audience 
thought schemas on cognitive processes related to framing. Iyengar 
and colleagues (1982) concluded that readers' cognitive processes 
draw on significant information not part of either the news frame or 
core facts of the news story. Shen (2004) found that while 
preexisting schemas do not drastically alter the strength of the 
effects of framing, they affect the frame's salience in audience's 
mind. Shen tested the effects of an ethical or consequence frame in 
coverage of stem cell research, and also a economic or environmental 
consequence frame in coverage of the debate over whether to drill for 
oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Shen hypothesized that 
when individuals with economic schemas are exposed to an economics 
frame, they will be more likely to interpret drilling in ANWAR as an 
economics issue and will support drilling. Likewise, individuals with 
environmental schemas exposed to the environmental frame will be more 
likely to interpret the issue in environmental terms, and will oppose 
drilling. Shen's study supported these hypotheses, which also appear 
to suggest that frames may strengthen individuals' preexisting schemas.
Price (1989) directly addresses this hypothesis in his research on 
the effects of conflict frames. He hypothesized that individuals 
exposed to a story employing a conflict frame that involves a group 
in which they are members will think about the issue from their 
group's perspective. Not only that, but these individuals are likely 
to have an exaggerated perspective on their group's position, which 
leads to strengthening of individuals' preexisting schemas and 
greater polarization between groups.

Framing of race and immigration
Various scholars have attempted to draw connections between 
American's xenophobic attitudes and the media's coverage of 
immigration. Ono and colleagues (2002) quote extensively from the Los 
Angeles Times in Shifting Boarders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and 
California's Proposition 187, which interrogates the media's coverage 
of a proposition. Proposition 187, had it not been overturned by the 
federal courts, would have denied social service, healthcare and 
education to illegal immigrants. The researchers quote two Los 
Angeles Times writers as describing a march featuring the Mexican 
flag as "an outrageous display of Mexican nationalism that bolsters 
the case for reducing immigration" (Ono et al., 2002). This is part 
of a pattern in the Times, which Ono and colleagues assert portrays 
immigration as threat to the national interest, as an "invasion," a 
"takeover" and an "infection." They conclude that the Times' coverage 
legitimized the dominant rhetoric of "the invading undocumented 
immigrant threatening the coherent social order," and helped pass 
Proposition 187.
The connection between the Times' coverage and the passage of 
Proposition 187, however, is a weak one. Ono and colleagues (2002) do 
not distinguish between columnists' personal views, the papers' 
editorial stance and news coverage. They quote all of the above as if 
they were equivalent. Flores (2003), who attempts to make a similar 
connection between the media's negative portrayal of immigrants and a 
lack of public support for immigration, also admits "casual relations 
between the mediated demonization of immigrants and restrictive 
immigration policies are difficult to sustain" (Flores 2003, p. 363). 
The problem with this type of research is that it draws on examples 
of overt xenophobia and racism, as does a good amount of research on 
the portrayal of race in television news. For example, in a 14-week 
study comparing Philadelphia's television stations' coverage of crime 
to local police and FBI violent crime statistics, Romer and 
colleagues found that the news over represents people of color 
perpetrating violence against whites (Romer et al., 1998). Given 
Romer and colleagues' study, it is not surprising that Pan and 
colleagues (1996) found that media use strengthens individuals' 
political ideologies, particularly as they relate to racial equality. 
They found that among White people who blamed African-Americans for 
African-Americans' unequal position in society, media use 
strengthened that belief.
In reality, though, portrayals of race in the news media are often 
more subtle than Ono and colleagues, Flores, and Romer and colleagues 
suggest. Domke (2001) studied news coverage that made no overt 
mention of race, but rather contained various "racial cues," such as 
mentions of "inner city gangs." Domke wanted to determine whether 
there is a correlation between racial perceptions and political 
ideology and whether that correlation is affected by whether or not 
the news coverage contains racial cues. Domke concluded that "racial 
cues not only trigger the association between racial perceptions and 
political ideology but in turn may prompt individuals to become more 
ideologically distinct in their political evaluations."
Cappella and colleague's (1997) efforts to explain the cognitive 
basis for framing can help us to better understand the process of 
"associative priming," which Domke identifies in his study. Cappella 
and colleague explored both the effects of a conflict/strategic frame 
on the public's attitudes towards politics and politicians, as well 
as the cognitive effects of framing. They found that the strategic 
news frame (the horse-race frame in this paper) leads audiences to 
ascribe to politicians artifice, pandering and other negative traits. 
In regards to the cognitive processes of framing, Cappella and 
colleague found that select details about a subject are stored in 
memory nodes. To help recall information and to make sense of 
individual pieces of information, nodes are connected to one another 
through spreading activation. This process allows connections to be 
made between information stored in separate nodes, and allows 
inferences to be made in the place of missing information. In the 
case of urban crime and other race-related subjects, such as 
immigration, the process of spreading activation, or "associative 
priming," is aided by the fact that the media often links these 
issues with race, either overtly or through racial cues. Spreading 
activation helps explain the connections between race-related 
subjects and individuals' previously held racial stereotypes, even 
when race is not explicitly mentioned in the news coverage.
This model for the cognitive basis for framing outlined by Cappella 
and colleague (1997) can help explain an anecdote revisited by 
Lawrence (1997), in his attempt to better understand how the media 
fuels the public's racial prejudices. During his campaign for 
president, championing stricter penalties for violent criminals in a 
speech, George H.W. Bush told a story about Willie Horton. Horton was 
a convicted murder who escaped from prison while on furlough and 
attacked a couple. While this anecdote had no effect on policy issues 
related to crime in the campaign, the media played up the fact that 
Horton was black and had attacked a white couple. As a result, 
feelings of racial conflict increased as did resistance towards 
blacks' political demands, particularly as related to government 
programs intended to introduce greater racial equality. This occurred 
because the audience, aided by the fact the media played up Horton's 
race, made connections in their minds between Horton and previously 
held beliefs about race. As a result of the news media's framing of 
the story, the audience wove a narrative structure, which made the 
story about racial conflict, not crime.
There have been few studies that have explicitly studied framing of 
immigration. Coverage of this issue, though, is imbued with racial 
cues, suggesting the strong parallels that can be drawn between other 
studies on framing, particularly of race-related issues such as 
crime, and framing of immigration. Domke and colleagues (1999) drew 
some of these parallels in their investigation of how framing of 
immigration influences not only individuals' positions towards 
immigration, but also activates racial and ethnic stereotypes that 
are part of those individuals' preexisting schemas. The authors 
tested their hypothesis by writing two different stories, employing 
either a consequence or ethical frame in coverage of immigration. 
Results from the study show that when the story employed an ethical 
frame, there was not a significant correlation between one's position 
on immigration and racial perceptions. But when the story used a 
consequence frame, there was a correlation between perceptions of 
Hispanics as violent and opposition to immigration, and a strong 
correlation between individuals' views of Hispanics as nurturing and 
support for immigration.
These findings are put further into context by Domke's (2001) study 
of the framing of crime, which suggests that audiences' responding to 
coverage of immigration, which often includes racial cues, will 
exhibit a strong correlation between their racial perceptions and 
positions on immigration. There is nothing in Domke and colleagues' 
study, however, to suggest why this correlation would be stronger for 
the consequence than the human interest frame. One possible 
explanation could be Price and colleagues' (1997) conclusion that the 
consequence frame elicits more negative thoughts. Iyengar and 
colleagues (1982) also concludes that media effects, including 
framing, have the greatest influence on audiences when the issue 
covered in a given story is unfamiliar, because the audience will be 
less likely to present arguments to challenge the media's dominant 
frame. This is illustrated by the fact that 51% of Americans with no 
personal contact with immigrants believe that immigration is bad for 
the U.S., compared to only 32% of Americans who have had personal 
contacts with immigrants (National Public Radio, 2004).
Citrin and colleagues (1997) add another interesting perspective. 
They argue that the consequence frame causes greater angst over 
economic conditions, which in turn leads to greater social angst and 
a decrease in support for immigration. Citrin and his colleagues 
investigated the influence of economic factors on individuals' 
attitudes towards immigration. Citrin and colleagues' data 
substantially supports only the tax burden theory, which suggests 
that opponents fight immigration on the basis they believe 
immigration imposes additional fiscal burdens on local, state and 
federal governments, and thus is an additional burden on tax-payers. 
But their research also concluded that anxiety about the economy 
activates anti-immigration sentiments based on fears that immigration 
erodes social cohesion.

Hypotheses
Each of these studies adds a valuable dimension to scholars' 
understanding about media affects, framing and how framing may affect 
the public's perception of immigration. There are still relatively 
few studies, however, of the role of framing in news coverage of 
immigration. Furthermore, most previous studies examined news 
coverage that was manipulated for the purpose of the experiment. In 
order to understand how frames may be affecting the current debate 
over immigration, first scholars need to have a more concrete 
understanding of how the news media, in this case newspapers, frames 
the issue. This study also adds an additional dimension, examining 
differences in framing of immigration based on the reporter's race.
In order, however, to more fully understand how framing of Hispanic 
immigration is affecting the current political debate and public 
opinion, it is first necessary to study whether or not the media's 
coverage of the issue is balanced; what frames the media is using in 
its coverage; the use of immigrants as sources in the newspapers' 
coverage; and differences in coverage that may be occurring in 
different regions of the country where immigration has been a 
particularly heated topic. This study will also examine possible 
differences in the way that Hispanic and non-Hispanic reporters cover 
immigration. The study is based on three hypotheses and six research questions:

H1: Overall, newspaper coverage of Hispanic immigration has a neutral tone.
H2: Among the most common frames used to cover immigration — 
conflict, consequence, human interest and horse race — the conflict 
frame will be most common in newspaper coverage of immigration.
H3: Among the most common frames used to cover immigration — 
conflict, consequence, human interest and horse race — the human 
interest frame will be least common in newspaper coverage of immigration.
RQ1: How frequently do newspaper reporters quote immigrants as 
compared to official sources?
RQ2: Are proponents of immigration and opponents of immigration 
quoted in newspapers with the same frequency?
RQ3: Is there a difference between how Hispanic reporters frame 
immigration compared to non-Hispanic reporters?
RQ4: Is there a difference between the tone of stories written by 
Hispanic reporters and those written by non-Hispanic reporters?
RQ5: Taking into consideration source tone, is there a difference 
between how Hispanic reporters cover immigration compared to 
non-Hispanic reporters?
RQ6: Taking into consideration source affiliation, is there a 
difference between how Hispanic reporters cover immigration compared 
to non-Hispanic reporters?

Methodology
Sample
A content analysis was conducted in winter 2005 on newspaper coverage 
of Hispanic immigration from Jan. 7, 2004, the day the George Bush 
announced his plan to overhaul immigration laws, through May 14, 
2004. Articles were selected using the "Guided News Search" on the 
Lexis-Nexis Academic database. A search was conducted between these 
dates, using the search terms "immigration!" and "Hispanic!" Only 
articles from major U.S. newspapers'[1] news sections, which were 
ostensibly about Hispanic immigration or Hispanic immigrants more 
generally, were selected for the content analysis. One hundred and 
sixty-six articles were selected for the content analysis to ensure 
that the study had enough power (.80) to sufficiently conduct 
statistical tests for a medium effect size (Cohen, 1999). The 
headline, subhead and body of the story were coded. Any graphical 
elements and sidebars were excluded from the analysis.

Coding categories
Reporter's ethnicity. To help determine if there is a difference in 
the way that Hispanic and non-Hispanic reporters report on 
immigration, reporters were coded as being "Hispanic" or "Other," 
based on whether they had a Hispanic-sounding last name. If the last 
name was ambiguous, the reporter's first name was taken into 
consideration. If the reporter was non-Hispanic or the reporter's 
ethnicity was ambiguous, he/she was coded as "Other."
News frames. A story's news frame could be coded as "Conflict," 
"Consequence," "Human Interest," "Horse-race" or "Other." The 
conflict frame was defined as a frame that emphasizes a conflict 
between individuals or groups (Valkenburg et al., 1999). The 
consequence frame was defined as a frame that presents an issue or 
event in terms of its direct impact on an individual, group or 
geographic region. The human interest frame is a frame that uses an 
individual's or group's story and/or an emotional angle to present or 
event. The horse race frame, most frequently used in political 
coverage, suggests that a statement made or an action taken by a 
politician is being put forward first and foremost to court voters 
and win an election (Cappella et al., 1997). More than one frame 
could be present in a single story. In the case that none of the 
frames existed in the story or there was another frame used, the 
frame was coded as "Other."
Story and source tone. To determine whether newspaper coverage of 
immigration is balanced, the stories were coded for their overall 
tone, which could be positive, negative or neutral. Source tone was 
also coded to try to determine if newspapers give greater weight to 
either proponents or opponents of immigration. A positive tone meant 
that overall the story or source was favorable towards either current 
levels of immigration, or was in favor of expanding immigration. The 
story or source could also be coded as positive if it presented an 
overall favorable image of immigrants. A negative tone would suggest 
overall the story or source favored restricting immigration, or 
portrayed immigrants unfavorably. Tone was determined by coding for 
negative or positive words and phrases in the story or a source's 
statements (Rodgers et al., 2003). A source was defined as a person 
who was directly quoted in the story, and only the sources' 
statements within direct quotes were coded to determine source tone. 
If there were more positive words and phrases in the story or a 
source's statements, plus or minus three, the story or source was 
coded as positive, or vice versa. If there was not a difference 
greater than three between positive and negative words and phrases, 
the story or source was coded as neutral.
Source affiliation. To help determine the frequency with which 
newspapers quote immigrants and other non-affiliated sources, sources 
were either coded as being affiliated or unaffiliated. Affiliated 
sources spoke with institutional backing. They were politicians, 
academics, non-profit spokespeople, businesspersons, etc. Individual 
citizens who either have no affiliation or whose affiliation is 
unclear were coded as "unaffiliated."

Reliability
Two graduate students, one male and one female, coded a 36 article 
cross section of the entire sample. Scott's Pi was used to calculate 
the intercoder reliability. Reliabilities for each variable met or 
exceeded the .75 threshold: Newspaper region, 1; Reporter's 
ethnicity, .96; News frames, .76; Story tone, .8; Source tone, .75; 
Source affiliation, .96.

Results:
Hypotheses
Table 1

News frames in newspaper coverage of Hispanic Immigration

	N	Percent

Conflict 	 108	65%
Horse race	68	41%
Consequence	39	23%
Human Interest	34	20%
	Total	166

Note: _(3)2=81.4, P < .0001



The first hypothesis posited that coverage of Hispanic immigration 
and Hispanic immigrants is neutral, meaning that the majority of 
newspaper articles on the subject are neither positive nor negative. 
This hypothesis was supported. Out of 166 stories, 77% were neutral, 
16% were positive and 7% were negative. This hypothesis was tested 
using a chi square test, which compared the observed distribution to 
a distribution where all categories were equally likely. The chi 
square (_(2)2=144.9, P < .0001), was significant.

The second hypothesis predicted that the conflict frame would be most 
common in newspaper coverage of Hispanic immigration. This hypothesis 
was supported. As seen in Table 1, 65% of the stories used the 
conflict frame, 41% used the horse-race frame, 23% used the 
consequences frame, and 20% used the human interest frame. This data 
also supports the third hypothesis, which stated that the human 
interest frame would be the least common frame. These hypotheses were 
tested using a chi square test, which compared the observed 
distribution to a distribution where all categories were equally 
likely. The chi square (_(3)2=81.4, P < .0001), was significant.

Research Questions
  The first research question asked how frequently newspaper stories 
about Hispanic immigration quote affiliated sources compared to 
non-affiliated sources. Affiliated sources were more likely to be 
quoted in news coverage of immigration than non-affiliated sources. 
To answer this research question, an aggregate variable was created 
for affiliated and unaffiliated sources from the mean number of 
affiliated and unaffiliated sources quoted in each story. 
Eighty-eight percent of sources were affiliated, while 12% were 
unaffiliated. This research question was tested using a paired-sample 
t-test. The t value (t=20.3, p < .0001) was significant.
The second research question asked if proponents or opponents of 
immigration are given greater weight in newspaper coverage of 
immigration. Positive sources were given greater weight. An aggregate 
variable for source tone was created, which was the mean of positive, 
negative and neutral sources in each story. Sixty-five percent of 
sources were neutral, while 22% of sources were positive and 12% of 
sources were negative. This research question was tested using a 
paired-sample t-test, where positive and negative sources were 
grouped. The t value (t=3.407, p < .001) was significant.
The third question asked if there is any difference in the way 
Hispanic and non-Hispanic reporters use news frames to report on 
immigration. Hispanics were more likely to use the human interest 
frame, but there was no difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanics 
use of the consequence, conflict and horse race frames. Out of 44 
stories written by Hispanics reporters, 32% used the human interest 
frame, while out of 122 stories written by non-Hispanics, only 16% 
used the human interest frame. This research question was tested 
using a chi square test, which compared the observed distribution to 
a distribution where all categories were equally likely. The chi 
square (_(1)2=4.7, P < .03), was significant.
  The fourth research question asked if there was a significant 
difference between the tone of stories written by Hispanic compared 
to non-Hispanic reporters. There was no significant difference. Of 
the 44 stories written by Hispanics, 2 were negative, 31 were neutral 
and 11 were positive. Of the stories written by non-Hispanics, 10 
were negative, 97 were neutral and 15 were positive. This research 
question was tested using a chi square test, which compared the 
observed distribution to a distribution where all categories were 
equally likely. The chi square (_(2)2=4.3, P > .05), was not significant.
Table 2

Use of affiliated and non-affiliated sources by race

	Hispanic	Non-Hispanic

Affiliated	 80%	91%	
Non-affiliated	20%	9%
	Total	100%	100%

Note: For affiliated sources, t=-2.671, p < .001. For non-affiliated 
sources, t=3.117, p < .001.



The fifth research question asked if there was a difference in the 
number of positive, negative and neutral sources quoted by Hispanic 
reporters versus non-Hispanic reporters. There was no significant 
difference in Hispanic or non-Hispanic reporters' use of positive or 
neutral sources. However, non-Hispanic reporters were more likely to 
use negative sources than non-Hispanic reporters. Of those sources 
used by non-Hispanics, 13% were negative, while only 8% of sources 
used by Hispanic reporters were negative. This research question was 
tested using an independent-samples t-test. The t value (t= -1.170, p 
< .048) was significant.

The sixth research question asked if there was a difference in the 
number of affiliated versus unaffiliated sources used by Hispanic 
reporters versus non-Hispanic reporters. While non-Hispanic reporters 
were more likely to use affiliated sources, Hispanics were more 
likely to use unaffiliated sources. As seen in Table 2, 91% of 
sources were affiliated, while 9% of sources were unaffiliated. In 
the 44 stories written by Hispanics, 80% of sources were affiliated, 
while 20 were unaffiliated. This research question was tested using 
an independent-samples t-test. The t values for affiliated sources 
(t= -2.671, p < .001) and for unaffiliated sources (t=3.117, p < 
.001) were significant.

Discussion and conclusions
	Many previous studies on framing generally, and framing of 
immigration in particular, have been conducted using stories that 
were manipulated particularly for the study. Thus, this study aimed 
to fill a void in the literature but measuring the specific frames 
that are being used currently by the news media to cover Hispanic 
immigration. As predicted, the news media is not overtly biased, 
either in favor or against immigration — at least on the surface. Yet 
previous literature suggests audiences' thinking about an issue 
conforms to the dominant news frame, which in this case is the 
conflict frame, which appeared in 65% of all stories (Price et al., 
1997). The literature also suggests the conflict frame is more likely 
to create a negative reaction among the audience towards immigration 
than alternative frames (Price, 1989).
Furthermore, the conflict frame creates a wider golf between 
proponents and opponents of a given public policy (Price, 1989, Pan 
et al., 1996). The fact that the conflict frame is so dominant in 
news coverage of immigration may be contributing to the fact that 72% 
of native-born Americans favor further restricting immigration (Pew, 
2004). The horse race frame, which was used in 41% of stories about 
immigration, could also be contributing to the lack of support for 
President Bush's proposal to overhaul the nation's immigration's 
laws, as well as the stalemate in the Congress and Senate in regards 
to the 79 bills pending there (Cappella et al., 1996). These frames 
and their relation to the ongoing political debates over Hispanic 
immigration is a ripe area of further inquiry for both communication 
and political science researchers.
The relative scarcity of the human interest frame also needs to be 
further investigated. In particular, how does the use of the human 
interest frame in newspaper coverage of Hispanic immigration compare 
to other public policy subjects? What is the effect of the relative 
lack of this news frame? This is a particularly an important avenue 
of inquiry, as minorities only make up 19% of the staff at major 
daily newspapers, and Hispanics represent an even smaller percentage 
of total journalists (ASNE, 2004).
Several findings from this study suggest that how reporters cover 
immigration may sometimes be related to their race. Firstly, Hispanic 
reporters are more likely to use the human interest frame than 
non-Hispanic reporters. Again, there needs to be further inquiry into 
why this is the case. Also, there needs to be further investigation 
into the sourcing of these stories by Hispanic and non-Hispanic 
reporters to understand why sources who have negative attitudes 
towards immigration are quoted more frequently in stories written by 
non-Hispanic than Hispanic reporters. Is this because non-Hispanic 
reporters seek these sources out, or Hispanic reporters are loath to 
quote them in their stories?
A larger scale study might also look deeper into the reasons Hispanic 
reporters use more unaffiliated sources in their stories about 
immigration than do non-Hispanic reporters. While not all 
unaffiliated sources are immigrants, immigrants are certainly a 
significant part of this group, and one that is far too often 
excluded from coverage about an issue in which they have a lot at 
stake. A future study might look at these three variables — frame, 
tone and source affiliation — and control for both race and Spanish 
language skills to see if a reporter's ability to speak immigrants' 
native language has any bearing on how they are portrayed in the news 
media. Another study may also see if Hispanic reporters and minority 
reporters in general are more likely than White reporters to venture 
outside of the establishment and quote unaffiliated sources. This 
study, however, is an important first step in furthering scholars' 
knowledge about coverage of newspaper coverage of Hispanic 
immigration, and the role of race in predicting how reporters will 
cover this increasingly important issue.
References
American Society of Newspaper Editors (2004). Newsroom employment 
survey. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from the American Society of 
Newspaper Editors website: http://www.asne.org/inde-x.cfm?id=5147.
Cappella, J. & Jamienson, K. (1997). Spiral of Cynicism. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press.
Citrin, J., Green, D. P., Muste, C., & Wong, C. (1997). Public 
opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. 
Journal of Politics, 59, 858-881.
Cohen, J (1992). Methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological 
Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
de Vreese, C.H. (2004). The Effects of Frames In Political Television 
News On Issue Interpretation and Frame Salience. Journalism and Mass 
Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 36-52.
Domke, D. (2001). Racial Cues and Political Ideology: An Examination 
of Associative Priming. Communication Research, 28(6), 772-801.
Domke, D., McCoy, K. & Torres, M. (1999). News Media, Racial 
Perceptions, and Political Cognition. Communications Research, 26(5), 570-607.
Entman, R. M. (1989). How the Media Affect What People Think–and 
Think They Think. chapt 4 in Democracy Without Citizens: Media and 
the Decay of American Politics, New York: Oxford University Press.
Flores, L.A. (2003). Constructing Rhetorical Borders: Peons, Illegal 
Aliens, and Competing Narratives of Immigration. Critical Studies in 
Media Communication, 20(4), 362-387.
GovTrack. Bill Track (Keyword "Immigration). Retrieved March 3, 2005, 
from the GovTrack website: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billsearch.xpd.
Iyengar, S., Peters, M.D., & Kinder, D.R. (1982). Experimental 
demonstrations of the not-so-minimal political consequences of mass 
media. American Political Science Review, 76, 848-858.
Lawrence, B. (1997). Race, public opinion, and the social sphere. 
Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(1), 1-15.
Miller, J. (1994). Immigration, the press and the new racism. Media 
Studies Journal, 8 (Summer), 19.
National Public Radio, Kennedy School of Government & Kaiser Family 
Foundation (2004). Immigration Survey. Retrieved Nov., 2005, from the 
NPR website: http://www.npr.org-/news/specials/polls/2004/immigration/.
Ono, K.A. & Sloop, J.M. (2002). Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, 
Immigration, and California's Proposition to 187. Philadelphia: 
Temple University Press.
Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G.M. (1996). Assessing News Media Influences on 
the Formation of Whites' Racial Policy Preferences. Communication 
Research, 23(2), 147-178.

Pew Research Center for the People and The Press (2004). Evenly 
divided and increasingly polarized: 2004 political landscape. 
Retrieved Nov., 2005, from the Pew Research Center website: 
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=196.
Price, V. (1989). Social Identification and Public Opinion: Effects 
of Communicating Group Conflict. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 197-224.
Price, V., Tewksbury, & Powers, E. (1997). Switching Trains of 
Thought: The Impact of News Frames on Reader's Cognitive Responses. 
Communication Research, 25(5), 481-506.
Rodgers, S. & Thorson, E. (2003). Male and Female Reporting: A 
Socialization Perspective. Journal of Communication, 53 (4), 658-675.
Romer, D., Jamienson, K.H., & de Coteau, N. (1998). The treatment of 
persons of color in local television news: Ethnic blame discourse or 
realistic group conflict? Communication Research, 25(3), 286-305.
Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal 
of Communication 49(1), 103-122.
Shah, D., Kwak, N., Schmierbach, M. & Zubric, J. (2004). The 
Interplay of News Frames on Cognitive Complexity. Human Communication 
Research, 30(1), 102-120.
Shen, F. (2004). Effects of News Frames And Schemas on Individuals' 
Issue Interpretations and Attitudes. Journalism and Mass 
Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 400-416.
Simon, A. & Xenos, M. (2000). Media Framing and Effective Public 
Deliberation. Political Communication, 17, 363-76.
Tewksbury, David, Jones, Jennifer, Peske, Matthew W., Raymond, 
Ashlea, & Vig, William (2000). The Interaction of News and Advocate 
Frames: Manipulating Audience Perceptions of a Local Public Policy 
Issue. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 804-829.
U.S. White House (Jan. 7, 2004). President Bush Proposes New 
Temporary Worker Program. Retrieved March 3, 2005, from the White 
House website: 
http://www.white-house.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html.
Valkenburg, P., Semetko, H.A., & De Vresse, C. (1999). The Effects of 
News Frames on Readers' Thoughts and Recall. Communication Research, 
26(5), 550-569.
[1]  Lexis Nexis Academic's database of major U.S. newspapers 
includes: The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Baltimore Sun, The 
Boston Globe, The Boston Herald, The Buffalo News, Chicago Sun-Times, 
The Christian Science Monitor, The Columbus Dispatch, New York Daily 
News, The Denver Post, The Hartford Courant, The Houston Chronicle, 
Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, The New York Times, New York 
Newsday, The Observer, Omaha World Herald, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 
The Plain Dealer, San Diego Union-Tribune, The San Francisco 
Chronicle, The Seattle Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Petersburg 
Times, The Minneapolis Star Tribune, The Tampa Tribune, The 
Times-Picayune, USA Today and The Washington Post.

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main AEJMC Page

Permalink



LIST.MSU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager