|
ABSTRACT
Drug Problems and Government Solutions:
A Frame Analysis of Front-Page Newspaper Headlines
About the Drug Issue, 1987-1994
Robert W. Leweke
Doctoral Student
111 St. Ayers Way
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 408-8204
[log in to unmask]
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Despite criticism of current national drug policy the drug war
continues. This study sheds light on the dominant frames employed by headlines
in three major newspapers from 1987 through 1994. The analysis moves beyond
agenda-setting research and brings previous critical studies more up-to-date.
It discovers portrayals of the drug problem in terms of the problem identified,
the solution recommended, and the moral judgment the headlines employed toward
the issue.
Drug Problems and Government Solutions:
A Frame Analysis of Front-Page Newspaper Headlines
About the Drug Issue, 1987-1994
Robert W. Leweke
Doctoral Student
111 St. Ayers Way
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 408-8204
[log in to unmask]
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Paper submitted for presentation at
the AEJMC National Conference
Mass Communication and Society Division
Anaheim, CA
August 1996
Introduction: "The chief cause of problems is solutions"[1]
National budget outlays for the war on drugs continue to rise; much
of the money goes to incarceration. According to one story, a record number of
persons were imprisoned in 1994 by national, state and local authorities; many
of those prisoners were drug offenders.[2] Over one million persons are in
prison now in the U.S. One study estimates that "if the present rate of
increase [in prison population] merely continues, rather than accelerating as it
has during the past two decades" America's inmate population will surpass 2
million by the year 2000.[3]
This study will explore how media frames of the drug problem may have
contributed to the harshness of the public policy toward drug offenders since
the end of 1986. The public policy implications of this "framing" then will be
discussed.
As an extension of the agenda-setting hypothesis,[4] the idea behind
framing is that news media don't simply prompt the audience what issues to think
about, but also prompt them how to think about those issues. As an expanding
area of research, analysis of news frames is a fertile area that will provide
important insights into the structure of drug policy coverage in the United
States and into how the frames in that coverage may reinforce, or help change,
the nature of drug policy.
Recent scholarship in political science has provided insights into
the interplay between the political power of social groups targeted by public
policy and the portrayals of those groups. These portrayals, or "social
constructions," are defined as the stereotypes, "cultural characterizations or
popular images" of policy target groups, which are "the persons or groups whose
behavior and well-being are affected by public policy."[5]
Statement of Problem
Coverage of the "war" on drugs is an important area of study because
of the threat it poses to public policy, American institutions, and individual
liberties.[6] Perhaps most importantly, however, by studying how the American
news media have packaged the drug war, we may better understand how media
framing of public issues through social constructions affects public opinion and
hence public policy (assuming a link between the latter two). Research
questions include: In what ways have the news media been able to "select some
aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating
text, in such a way as to promote a particular . . . treatment
recommendation"[7] for the drug problem? What spin or slant did the media put
on the drug problem, by highlighting some bits of information and ignoring
others?
The effects of the "drug war" from a public policy standpoint are
many. They include the overcrowding of state and federal prisons caused by the
influx of prisoners given long mandatory sentences for drug-related crimes. As
law professors Steven B. Duke and Albert C. Gross recently pointed out,
drug sentences represent the largest segment of growth for the
penal population. . . . In 1989, drug prohibition forced our penal
institutions to warehouse somewhere between 260,000 and 343,000 people, who
otherwise would not have burdened that system. If we add those who were
imprisoned not for drug crimes but for drug-related crimes (such as crimes to
get drug money, or murders and assaults arising out of the drug business) we
could include at least another 150,000 to the total. Thus, about half of our
penal population is there because of drug prohibition.[8]
The cost in money and personnel devoted to drug law enforcement is
enormous: the fiscal year 1993 federal budget set aside more than $6 billion for
the "war," not including military efforts and enforcement by state and local
agencies.[9] And the cost of the "drug war" diverts police, court and monetary
resources from other public policy goals (including punishment of truly serious
crimes such as rape and murder).[10]
LITERATURE REVIEW
The main agenda-setting work on the media and drug policy is the
collection edited by mass communication researcher Pamela Shoemaker.[11]
Several studies in it demonstrated the interplay between the print and broadcast
media during drug coverage through 1986. But the limits of this agenda-setting
research are severe. As explained by Donald Shaw and Maxwell McCombs, the
purpose of the Shoemaker collection was anything but value-neutral:
The agenda-setting role of the press is one of civic mobilization.
The press helps focus our attention on the key problems of the days. It sets
the agenda for public action. In a democratic society the press plays an
indispensable role in helping achieve a working consensus of how public
support and the resources of government and the private sector will be
allocated to the concerns of the moment.[12]
As Jimmie L. Reeves and Richard Campbell have pointed out, the
Shoemaker collection embraced the use of agenda-setting studies to further state
drug control policies:
Such social-scientific research tends to provide what
is best described as a "top-down," administrator's
picture of the news. Framed and composed from the point of view of
a power bloc vying for the attention of a sluggish public, this research is
often inspired by the idea of using the news media to achieve "civic
mobilization."[13]
The purpose of this study is to move beyond the agenda-setting based
research and apply the concept of framing to a more critical analysis of
coverage of the drug war.
Framing and public policy implications
Rather than focusing on how the media influence the amount of
salience the public gives an issue, framing asks the question: How do the media
give certain perspectives on an issue more salience than others? That is, how
do the media "tell" us how to think about a given issue?
There are several different descriptions of the framing concept.
Communication scholars have struggled with comparable definitions, although each
relied on his or her own rationale for its causes and manifestations.[14] The
most comprehensive definition of the concept of framing is that it describes the
four important functions of news discourse: to use common cultural values to
define public problems; to define the causes of those problems; to provide a
valuative framework for judging the problems' causes and their effects; and to
recommend and justify public treatments for those problems.[15] The
implications of the framing of news discourse regarding public policy are
dramatic. If subtle changes in framing of a public policy issue affect public
support for treatment of that issue,[16] then the forces that determine the news
frame may have a determining effect on the outcome of policy-making.[17]
Researchers in political science also have recognized the impact on
public policy of the rhetoric and stereotypes that media frames contain. Anne
Schneider and Helen Ingram have linked the formation of public policy to how
groups targeted by policy-makers are "socially constructed" in the media,
popular culture and in political discourse.[18] They argue that "public
officials commonly inflict punishment on negatively constructed groups who have
little or no power, because they need fear no electoral retaliation from the
group itself and because the general public approves of punishment for groups
that it has constructed negatively."[19] Schneider and Ingram identify socially
constructed "deviants" such as criminals and addicts as being in the worst
position regarding their lack of political power and their negative construction
in the broader culture.
The following research questions attempt to get at these social
constructions, by asking how certain types of media used them to frame the drug
problem and recommend solutions, using common cultural values embedded in the
frame.
Research questions
Several studies have addressed the news treatment of the drug war in
the 1980s, especially during the blitz of coverage in 1986 at the height of the
crack cocaine scare.[20] But researchers have not explored how the news media
have framed the moral and treatment questions arising from the drug problem
since then.
The exploratory questions raised are: Since the end of 1986, how have
the news media defined the drug problem in terms of common cultural values?
What causes have they attributed to the problem? What moral or valuative
framework have the news media provided for judging causes and effects? And
finally, what public policy treatment or treatments have the news media
recommended in response?[21] This analysis will go beyond previous studies of
media coverage of the drug war in two ways: the time period will bring research
more up to date, and the analysis of media frames will extend the theoretical
basis for analyzing coverage beyond the agenda-setting model.
METHOD
The study addressed these questions through a content analysis of
leading national newspapers. Headlines were chosen for analysis in order to
enable a study of coverage over a longer period of time than would be possible.
Headlines also provide a good measure of the arrangement of key words or
phrases, or syntactical structures, used by news media to call attention to the
frame of the underlying news stories. As Zhongdang Pan and Gerald M. Kosicki
point out, "a headline is the most salient cue to activate certain semantically
related concepts in readers' minds; it is thus the most powerful framing device
of the syntactical structure."[22] So by looking at headlines over the last
several years, this initial exploratory study may both provide an initial survey
of drug war frames over the last eight years, and serve as a guide for further
research into news frames of the drug war in the stories themselves, and in
other types of media, such as television.
Using the NEXIS online search program, news headlines in the New York
Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times were found using the key words
"drug," "cocaine," and "crack" from 1987 through 1994.[23] Because of the large
number of stories during this time period, the focus of the study was tightened
to include only those headlines on the front page of the newspapers. Using the
key words, stories not on the front page and not covering illicit drugs were
removed. A population of 1444 stories were selected. To further reduce the
number of headlines into a manageable size for one coder, the headlines were
assigned a number in chronological order (by newspaper) from one to five. A
systematic sample of every five headlines was then selected after a random
start. The selection yielded a sample of 288 headlines, which were then coded.
The headline, date, and story origin were recorded, as well as
whether the key words modified others and whether crime, violence and sports
were involved. Any attribution of claims made in the headline were recorded, as
well as the problem identified, whether a cause was given for the problem, and
any solutions recommended for the problem.
Limitations
Coding just headlines limits the generalizations that can be made
from the analysis. Often, a short headline will not say much. The coding lacks
some information a fuller analysis (say, of the story itself) would yield,
because of a larger percentage of "missing" data related to the limited units of
analysis.
The method of gathering the headlines also is also constraining. The
online search program does not provide an image of the headline or story as it
appeared in print, only a copy of the text. The system does not provide
headline size, placement and prominence, or whether a photograph or illustration
appeared with the story to make it more attractive, so the analysis cannot
account for these differences.
Finally, the use of certain key words (in this case, "drug"
"cocaine," and "crack") to get the population of headlines from which the sample
was taken, may have skewed the results somewhat by focusing the frame on the
substances themselves. However, earlier research indicates that these words may
be common in stories about the drug problem during the study period.[24]
RESULTS
In a live nationally televised address to the nation in September
1989, President Bush announced his escalation of the "war on drugs." As Duke
and Gross note, it was to be a war on "a class of inanimate objects--illicit
drugs."[25] The findings of this study show that the nation's leading
newspapers were also naming illicit drugs as a problem in themselves. But in
the newspapers and in the war itself, drugs weren't the only targets: people
were the real objects. And in terms of solutions, those recommended by the
headlines followed the government line.
The analysis of these front-page headlines indicates that, first, the
drug issue has turned from a national and international story in the 1980s, to a
local one in the 1990s. Second, the key words ("drug," "cocaine," and "crack")
were most often used as adjectives to modify other words in the headlines,
providing an interplay between the key words and the modified words that
symbolically framed the drug issue. Finally, the analysis will turn to the way
the headlines overall framed the drug issue in terms of problems and solutions.
Dateline
The place of origin of the front-page headlines tended to follow the
frame provided by Bush's Andean strategy[26] early in the period. As Table 1
shows, international drug stories from the sample, datelined especially from
Latin America, increased from an average of about 12% in 1987 to around 20% by
1989. But after the Bush administration's fierce anti-drug rhetoric of 1989 had
died down somewhat, the attention of the nation's three major newspapers turned
away from the national and international frame to one more local in nature.
While national stories about the issue had decreased and then leveled off at
around 30% by 1989, local headlines took the place of national and international
stories, rising to nearly 50% of all stories in 1989, then climbing to around
60% from 1991 through the end of 1994.
This rise in local stories reflects in part both the issue being
framed and the nature of the newspapers. The drug problem has often been framed
in terms of larger inner-city problems as well as a problem of international
interdiction. Some headlines even linked the international and local aspects to
associate the problems of the inner-city with the "foreign" scourge of cocaine:
for example, one local headline in the Los Angeles Times read, "Southland; 8
Columbians, including woman, 71, arrested in Glendale drug bust."[27] The
cities from which the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington
Post publish all experienced during the period what many perceived to be a wave
of drug-related problems. After the rhetoric of the Andean strategy died down,
the front-page drug headlines' return to local stories after 1989 had its roots
in the focus on big city crime and social chaos, but the headlines sometimes
looked outside the borders of America for scapegoats.
Table 1
Sources of front-page stories in the New York Times, the Washington
Post, and the Los Angeles Times, 1987-1994.[28]
Year
Source 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Local 33.3% 27.9% 47.7% 42.2% 61.1% 60.0% 58.8% 64.7%
(8) (17) (41) (19) (11) (12) (10) (11)
National 50.0 45.9 27.9 35.6 27.8 30.0 17.6 11.8
(12) (28) (24) (16) (5) (6) (3) (2)
Inter- 12.5 14.8 20.9 15.6 5.6 5.0 5.9 23.5
national (3) (9) (18) (7) (1) (1) (1) (4)
Not 4.2 11.5 3.5 6.7 5.6 5.0 17.6 ---
given (1) (7) (3) (3) (1) (1) (3) ---
---------------------------------------------------------------
Totals 100.0% 100.1% 100.0% 100.1% 100.1% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0%
(24) (61) (86) (45) (18) (20) (17) (17)
As Table 1 also indicates, the number of front-page stories (n=86)
peaked in 1989, coinciding with the administration's attention to the problem.
Over half of the headlines coded appeared in these three years.
Drug words as cues for identifying problems and solutions
This part of the coding recorded whether the headline used the key
word ("drug(s)," "cocaine," or "crack") as a modifier (usually an adjective) for
another word. When it did, the modified word or words were recorded.
The use of "cocaine," "crack" or some other drug, or the word "drug"
itself, in a headline turns out to be a common way to cue the reader's attention
to the frame of the drug issue. Out of the 288 headlines in the sample, the key
drug word modified another word directly following it in 229 headlines, or
79.5%.
The modified words carry strong cues that help define the central
problems, causes and a moral judgment -- the frame -- of the issue.
Overwhelmingly, the modified words framed the issue either in terms of criminals
or addicts, or in dark metaphors. For example, drug words modify descriptives
that call up images of illegality or the underworld, such as "baron,"
"smugglers/smuggling," "ring," and "gang(s)." For example, a Los Angeles Times
story was headlined, "Anaheim fears drug turf wars among gangs."[29] "Use,"
"user," "takers," and "addict(s)" are also modified by drug words.
Many modified words in this group tap stark images: for example,
"nightmare," "violence," "slavery," "killing," and "scourge."[30] In this way
the key drug words are used to link common cultural images of violence, death
and evil to the drugs themselves, and to subtly imply the effects of the drugs
by direct symbolic connections.
The second general category of these modified words contains
descriptive words that imply solutions. These words fall into four general
symbolic categories: "war" or military metaphors, law enforcement or
prosecution, legislation or policy, and state surveillance. The majority of
these words frame the solution in terms of the state and imply government
action. For example, the military metaphors include "war," "crusade,"
"offensive," "battle(s)," "fight," and "seizure." Other modified words in this
broad category of state solutions to drug problems include "court," "sentences,"
"program," "tests," "probe," and "control."
A third category, economic words, indicate the ironic use of symbols
that link drugs with the worldwide market economy. For example, modified words
in this category include "deal," "trade," "buy," "possession," "assets," and
"producers." The word "money" is often used to symbolically demonstrate the
taint of drugs, as in "Drug money suspected in cash car purchases."[31] The
appearance of these relatively neutral or positive nouns and descriptives
indicates how nouns denoting culturally accepted institutions and processes
(such as "trade" or "seller") can be immediately delegitimized through guilt by
association with a single modifying word ("cocaine trade", "drug seller"). It
also demonstrates the inherent contradiction in political rhetoric that promotes
"free enterprise" only in socially accepted spheres of economic activity; "drug
dealers" are by definition not in the same moral and valuative boat as, say,
antique dealers.
Over time the frame indicated by the key drug words that modified
these things and activities changed. Especially in 1990, the year after
President Bush's nationally televised address and the initiation of the Andean
strategy, the frame (as symbolized by the key modifiers) switched dramatically
from one emphasizing the problems and their causes in 1989 (criminals, addicts
and general mayhem) to one greatly stressing state solutions. The percentage of
modified words in the "problems" category dropped from 36.8% to 17.4%,
representing a decreased focus on the problems and their causes. In contrast,
the emphasis on solutions moved even more decisively in the opposite direction,
from 26.4% in 1989 to 63.0% of the modified words in 1990. By itself, this
switch in emphasis from problems of crime, addiction and chaos to solutions of
law enforcement, militarization and incarceration does not conclusively prove a
link between the political situation in 1989 and the policy results in later
years. But when taken with the frame of the headlines as a whole, the picture
becomes clearer. The next section discusses the drug frame in terms of the
problems the headlines identified.
The problem: Drugs, people and chaos
As Table 2 shows, the single most common problem named in the sampled
headlines was people, either as individuals, families, or groups (criminal or
non-criminal). This category made up about 28% of the total.[32] Other
problems follow in descending order: some substance, usually the generic "drug,"
but sometimes one of the other key words, "crack" or "cocaine," or in a few
cases alcohol or another illicit drug such as LSD or heroin.[33] About 22% of
the headlines named drugs as the problem.
Third came the general category of mayhem or "social chaos" (19.8%):
crime, violence, death, accidents and AIDS. Other sources of the problem were
either the government's drug war itself (9.3%),[34] or in contrast, not enough
drug war (or war poorly fought, 4.5%). Finally, 5.1% of the identified problems
fit into a miscellaneous category. In 10.8% of the headlines coded, no problem
was identified.
The fairly even emphasis on the three problems of social chaos
(especially violence and crime), people and drugs is interesting, for together
they make up about 70% of the total problems identified in the sample. The
overall frame of the problem during the late 1980s and early 1990s then becomes
a mixture of crime and violence associated with people taking, distributing or
producing drugs. When this general frame is taken with that provided by the key
words and the words they modify (see the previous section), the overall frame
during this period becomes clearer. Social chaos ("drug violence," "crack
babies") is linked to people associated with the substances, especially outlaws
("drug traffickers," "cocaine ring"). As the results show, the solutions to
these problems of drug crime, violence and mayhem round out the frame in
unmistakable terms.
The next section discusses how even the few headlines that were
critical of the drug war had trouble escaping this dominant frame.
The problem: Too much war?
Even the few headlines of the period that criticized the drug war
itself or an aspect of it often did so in a half-hearted or indirect way. As
the tables in Appendix A show, these headlines fell into three general
categories: identification of constitutional rights violations or the extreme
nature of the war, political or scandalous disputes stemming from the war, and
criticism of the war watered down by the use of third parties to take
responsibility for the attack.
As the first category shows, some headlines did indeed indicate
strong skepticism of the drug war and the damage it was doing. The themes
include arrests of "innocent" persons fitting police profiles, harsh prison
terms, government theft of private property without trial, and a possible shift
away from military tactics and imprisonment to treatment programs.
But even some of these headlines, notable for their scarcity among
the hundreds of front-page stories about the drug war, are very tentative in
their criticism and almost all rely on a government institution or official as a
source for broaching the subject. For example, the last two headlines rely on
either the "county" agency or the "U.S." government to "weigh" a "policy shift."
Even when the government is the problem, the frame of solution is the government
as well.
The second category of "critical" headlines, those reporting
political disputes or scandals, treat the drug war as secondary to the juicy
"irregularities" or "set ups" that are the real story. Similarly, the third
category of critical headlines delegitimize the criticism by relying on third
parties to make the attack. The first headline hides behind the label of
"liberals" in Congress, a designation with complex connotations of "softness on
crime" and minority status (even when the Democrats were in the majority). The
third headline relies on unspecified "critics." But the most interesting
headlines are the second and fourth, both criticizing the "racial inequity" of
drug arrests and sentencing.
There are two symbolic processes of delegitimization at work in these
two headlines. As in the other two headlines in this group, the attacks are
made by "experts" or "critics," thus absolving the objective journalist from
responsibility for questioning state policy. But notice that in the April 1990
Los Angeles Times headline, even though black Americans "feel the brunt of the
drug war," it is "experts" who are saying so, not blacks themselves. This
subtle symbolism not only delegitimizes criticism of the drug war, it relegates
an entire race to the opinions of "experts."
Government remedies: take them or leave them
As Table 2 shows, nearly half of the headlines did not recommend a
solution at all. This is most likely due to the tendency of headline writers
(and journalists) to identify a situation "objectively" without advocating
remedies. However, as critics have pointed out, objectivity tends to allow
authorities to provide a frame. This in part accounts for the overwhelming
reliance on government solutions, when solutions were recommended by the sampled
headlines at all.
By far the largest category of solutions offered were those provided
by state power. In about 40% of the headlines, the government had the answer,
either through legislation, executive power, the courts, the military or law
enforcement.[35] This last sub-category, police and law enforcement, alone
accounted for about 21.9% of the solutions overall, and about 54% of the
government solutions portrayed. In many headlines, the law enforcement and
military solutions were rhetorically mixed, reflecting the militarization of
civilian efforts in the drug war.[36] This also reflects mainstream
journalism's reliance on the police and law enforcement officials for
information about issues associated with crime. And as the previous section on
problems showed, the drug problem was indeed one associated largely with crime.
Though making up a much smaller percentage of recommended solutions,
drug testing of workers by government agencies as well as private businesses
appeared regularly throughout the period. Sometimes, the two frames (state
solutions and drug tests) were mixed: for example, one story reported the
attorney general's support for drug testing teachers.[37] When this is taken
with the reliance on government, and with the relative scarcity of other
Table 2
Sources of the drug problem and their solutions, in front-page
headlines of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times,
1987-1994.[38]
Problems
People 28.0%
Drugs 22.2
Social chaos 19.8
Drug war itself 9.3
Not enough drug war 4.5
Misc./other 5.1
No problem identified 10.8
-----
Total 99.7%
Solutions
The government 40.3%
Drug testing 4.5
Society,
non-govt. groups 3.5
Medical treatment 2.1
Drug "peace" .3
Misc./other 3.8
No solution recommended 45.5
-----
Total 100.0
solutions such as medical treatment or individual choice, it is no
wonder that drug "peace" (either legalization or decriminalization) is
recommended in just one headline and then only half-heartedly in the form of an
"unspeakable" question.[39]
Conclusion
This analysis has empirically shown how three major newspapers, in
the form of front-page headlines, have relied in recent years on a relatively
limited range of imagery and symbolism to structure the frame of the drug issue.
First, the emphasis on internationally datelined stories, in terms of
the number of headlines, during the height of coverage from 1987 through 1989
provided a frame of militarization that may have influenced the frame in later
stories focusing more on the local problem. The early placement of the problem
beyond U.S. borders (partly due to the rhetoric of the Andean strategy) created
the symbolic environment in which outsiders ("the enemy") could be blamed and a
harsher policy using the military and law enforcement agencies could be more
easily justified in later years.
Second, this research also lends further empirical support, in a new
area (drug policy coverage), to the contributions to framing by Robert M.
Entman. In particular, Entman's research has shown that although a dominant
frame (for example, state solutions in the form of military interdiction and
incarceration of offenders) may be opposed by other resistant frames (drug
"peace"), this apparent "polysemy" in the news text will have little meaning for
most readers, leaving the dominant frame as the salient policy-definer for all
but the most thoroughly informed readers.[40] This is also underscored by the
raw numbers: the large proportion of headlines within the dominant frame, and
the tiny proportion of headlines outside it. After the peak of coverage in the
late 1980s, subsequent sporadic challenges to the frame constructed then were
simply too little, too late to tear it down.
One way these headlines constructed drug problems and solutions was
to accept the dominant frame of criminality the state constructed around the
drug issue, and then to apply that characterization to the people involved. In
this mediated frame, anyone caught up in the criminal justice system in a
drug-related crime (and caught by a headline somewhere along the way) then
becomes an example of the evils that supposedly flow from drugs, and the vicious
cycle continues.
Finally, previous research on framing has largely focused on news
coverage of particular events, such as airplane shootdowns and the Gulf War. In
studying headlines about the drug issue from 1987 through 1994, this analysis
has demonstrated that the theory of framing can be used as a guide to study the
coverage of a broad policy issue over time, as well as a particular event. In
addition, an analysis of headlines enables the researcher to focus more on key
words that help define the frame.
Future research should focus more on exposing the links between the
state and the print and broadcast media to explore in greater depth how media
frames are adopted, particularly regarding the drug issue. This might include
comparative analyses of key official speeches and documents by officials in the
drug war from the president on down, and news stories generated by these
sources. Research should also look at the effects the frame leaves in its
"wake" by studying public opinion changes (as well as the frames in the public
opinion poll questions themselves) to track the effects of framing on public
opinion and policy.
Works Cited
Duke, Steven B. and Albert C. Gross. America's Longest War:
Rethinking Our Tragic Crusade Against Drugs. New York: Putnam, 1993.
Entman, R.M. "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured
Paradigm." Journal of Communication, 43:4 (1993), 51-58.
Gitlin, Todd. The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making
and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1980.
Gonzenbach, William J. "A Time-Series Analysis of the Drug
Issue, 1985-1990: The Press, The President and Public Opinion."
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4:2 (1992), 126-147.
Johns, Christina Jacqueline and Jose Maria Borrero N. "The War on
Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure." In Gregg Barak, ed. Crimes by the
Capitalist State. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1991.
Kandel, Denise B. "The Social Demography of Drug Use." In Ronald
Bayer and Gerald M. Oppenheimer, eds. Confronting Drug Policy: Illicit Drugs
in a Free Society. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 24-77.
Mackey-Kallis, Susan and Dan Hahn. "Who's To Blame for America's
Drug Problem?: The Search for Scapegoats in the 'War on Drugs.'"
Communication Quarterly, 42:1 (Winter 1994), 1-20.
McCombs, Maxwell E. and Donald Shaw. "The Agenda-Setting Function of
Mass Media." Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (1972), 176-187.
Merriam, John E. "National Media Coverage of Drug Issues,
1983- 1987." In Pamela J. Shoemaker, ed. Communication Campaigns about Drugs:
Government, Media, and the Public. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1989, 21-29.
Moore, Mark H. "Drugs, the Criminal Law, and the Administration of
Justice." In Ronald Bayer and Gerald M. Oppenheimer, eds. Confronting Drug
Policy: Illicit Drugs in a Free Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993, 226- 257.
Orcutt, James D. and J. Blake Turner. "Shocking Numbers and Graphic
Accounts: Quantified Images of Drug Problems in the Print Media." Social
Problems, 40:2 (May 1993), 190-206.
Pan, Zhongdang and Gerald M. Kosicki. "Framing Analysis: An Approach
to News Discourse." Political Communication, 10 (1993), 55-73.
Parenti, Michael. Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media.
2nd ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993.
Reese, Stephen D. and Lucig H. Danielian. "Intermedia Influence and
the Drug Issue: Converging on Cocaine." In Pamela J. Shoemaker, ed.
Communication Campaigns about Drugs: Government, Media, and the Public.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989, 29-45.
Reeves, Jimmie L. and Richard Campbell. Cracked Coverage: Television
News, The Anti-Cocaine Crusade, and the Reagan Legacy. Durham: Duke University
Press, 1994.
Schneider, Anne and Helen Ingram. "Social Construction of Target
Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy." American Political Science
Review 87:2 (June 1993), 334-47.
Shaw, Donald L. and Maxwell E. McCombs. "Dealing with Illicit
Drugs: The Power--and Limits--of Mass Media Agenda Setting." In
Pamela J. Shoemaker, ed. Communication Campaigns about
Drugs: Government, Media, and the Public. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989, 29-45.
Shoemaker, Pamela J., ed. Communication Campaigns About Drugs:
Government, Media, and the Public. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1989.
Tuchman, Gaye. Making News: a Study in the Construction of Reality.
New York: Free Press, 1978.
Vallance, Theodore R. Prohibition's Second Failure: The Quest for a
Rational and Humane Drug Policy. Westport, CT.: Praeger, 1993.
Appendix A
Main categories of front-page headlines critical of the drug war in
the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, 1987-1994.
Extremism in the war effort
"Airport Drug Efforts Snaring Innocents Who Fit 'Profiles'"
New York Times, 20 February, 1990
"Drug Program's Tough Tactics Draw Fire"
Los Angeles Times, 24 March, 1990
"Life in Prison For Cocaine Possession?; High Court Weighing
Strict Michigan Law"
Washington Post, 5 November, 1990
"Long LSD Prison Terms--It's All In the Packaging; Law Can Mean
Decades In Prison For Minuscule Amounts. DEA Official Says No Change Is
Needed"
Los Angeles Times, 27 July, 1992
"Seizure of Assets Leaves Casualties In War on Drugs; People Who
Were Never Arrested, Much Less Convicted, Have Had Property Taken"
Los Angeles Times, 14 October, 1992
"2 Judges Decline Drug Cases, Protesting Sentencing Rules"
New York Times, 17 April, 1993
"County Drug Policy Shift Weighed; Some Officials Consider a Plan To
Offer Nonviolent Offenders Treatment Instead of Jail"
Los Angeles Times, 17 May, 1993
"U.S. Considers Shift In Drug War; Military Interdiction Called a
Failure"
Washington Post, 16 September, 1993
Political Disputes or Scandals
"Drug Buy Set Up For Bush Speech; DEA Lured Seller To Lafayette Park"
Washington Post, 22 September, 1989
"Saudi King Gave $1 Million For Mrs. Reagan's Drug War; Fund Was
Moved To California At Term's End"
Washington Post, 7 March, 1990
"Audit Faults Drug Tests At Interior; IG Report uncovers Many
Irregularities"
Washington post, 21 November, 1992
Third Parties Make the Attack
"Liberals Call House Drug Bill An Assault on the Constitution;
Sweeping Changes In Justice System Backed"
Washington Post, 19 September, 1988
"Blacks Feel Brunt of Drug War; About 80% of Users Are White,
Experts Say, But the Majority of Those Arrested Are Black"
Los Angeles Times, 22 April, 1990
"4th Amendment Is Trampled In Drug Offensive, Critics Say; More
Courts Upholding Random Searches"
Washington Post, 7 May, 1990
"Harsher Crack Sentences Criticized As Racial Inequity; Mandatory
Penalties Are Unfair to Blacks, Critics Say"
Los Angeles Times, 23 November, 1992
Appendix B: Content Analysis Date __/__/__ No._______
Headline:________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Publication (circle): 1. nytimes 2.wpost 3.latimes
Date of story:__/__/__
Length (in words): __________
Type (circle): 1.local 2.national 3.international 4.other/na
Key Words in Head: "Cocaine" (Y1/N2) "Crack" (Y1/N2)
"Drug(s)" (Y1/N2) Other____________________
Does the key word(s) modify another? (Y1/N1)
If yes, write modified word(s) here____________________________
Is crime involved? (Y1/N2)
Is violence involved? (Y1/N2)
Are sports involved? (Y1/N2)
Is statement or claim in headline attributed to someone? (Y1/N2)
If yes, who?________________________________________________
PROBLEM: Is there a problem? (Y1/N2)
If yes, is it: 1.individual 2.family 3.non-criminal group
4.criminal group/organization 5.some social force
6.some substance 7.the drug war itself
8.other______________________
Is there a CAUSE for above problem? (Y1/N2/na)
If yes, what is it?____________________________________________
SOLUTION: Is there a solution? (Y1/N2/na)
If yes, is solution: 1.legislative 2.executive (gov./president)
3.judicial 4.military 5.law enf./police
6.individual 7.family 8.society/other group
9.Medical/professional treatment
10.decriminalization/legalization/"peace"
11.other____________________________________________________
COMMENTS:
[1] Town & Country, May 1979, as quoted in Steven B. Duke and Albert
C. Gross, 1993, p. 1.
[2] Durham Herald-Sun, "U.S. prisons in '94 held more than 1 million
inmates, a new record." 10 August, 1995.
[3] Duke and Gross, 1993, p. 179.
[4] McCombs and Shaw, 1972.
[5] Schneider and Ingram, 1993, p. 334.
[6] For an excellent critique of drug prohibition, its effects and
alternatives, see Ethan A. Nadelmann, "Drug Prohibition in the United States:
Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives," Science, 245 (September 1989), pp.
939-46.
[7] Entman, 1993, p. 52.
[8] Duke and Gross, 1993, p. 179.
[9] Vallance, 1993, p. 33.
[10] Johns and Borrero, 1991, p. 69; Moore, 1993, p. 251.
[11] Shoemaker, ed., 1989.
[12] Shaw and McCombs, 1989, p. 119.
[13] Reeves and Campbell, 1994, p. 22.
[14] Tuchman, 1978; Gitlin, 1980; Parenti, 1993.
[15] Entman, 1993, p. 52.
[16] Ibid, p. 57.
[17] Pan and Kosicki, 1993.
[18] Schneider and Ingram, 1993.
[19] Ibid, p. 336.
[20] See, for example: Merriam, 1989; Gonzenbach, 1992; Orcutt and
Turner, 1993; Mackay-Kallis and Hahn, 1994; Reeves and Campbell, 1994.
[21] These questions follow Robert M. Entman's outline for the
concept of framing, which will be discussed in more detail below.
[22] Pan and Kosicki, 1993, p. 59.
[23] These papers have been found to lead other news media,
including television, in drug coverage. Reese and Danielian, 1989.
[24] Bob Leweke and Steve Jackson. "News Narrative of the Drug War
in Newsweek, 1989-1992." Paper presented at the National Media Literacy
Conference, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, September 1995.
[25] Duke and Gross, 1993, p. xv.
[26] The Andean strategy as policy and as political rhetoric
influenced U.S. drug policy in terms of geography as well as in terms of
resources allocated. President Bush targeted the "source" countries for the
cocaine supply (mainly Columbia and Peru) for military aid, and dramatically
stepped up the U.S. military's role in training and interdiction. This had the
dual effect of placing the problem outside U.S. borders, and providing the
defense department with another reason for funding as the Cold War waned. See
Chapter 7, "Militarizing the Drug War," in Kraska, Peter B., ed. Altered States
of Mind: Critical Observations of the Drug War. New York: Garland, 1993.
[27] 5 September 1989.
[28] Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
[29] 6 February 1992.
[30] For example, "Urban emergency rooms: a cocaine nightmare." New
York Times, 6 August 1989; Colombian 'day of love' broken by a long night of
drug violence." New York Times, 17 September 1989.
[31] Washington Post, 26 December 1988.
[32] For example, "P.G. [Prince Georges County, MD] official probed
in drug case; sources say head of council gave cocaine to officer." Washington
Post, 13 January 1990. Note that the individuals are the problem, not the
corruption spawned by the drug war.
[33] For example, "Wilder eyes drug tests on campus; task force
named to probe narcotics, crime at colleges." New York Times, 3 April 1991.
Note the automatic relationship between drugs and crime.
[34] See the next section for a more qualitative look at this
category.
[35] Examples -- Legislative: "Drug bill passes, finishing business
of 100th Congress." New York Times, 23 October 1988. Executive: "Audit faults
drug tests at Interior; IG report uncovers many irregularities." Washington
Post, 21 November 1992. Judicial: "Drug court cuts New York backlog." New York
Times, 6 February 1988. Military: "Panel said to seek new military role in
fight on drugs." New York Times, 2 July 1989. Law enforcement/police: "2
apartments in projects are seized in drug cases." New York Times, 28 April,
1988.
[36] For example, "Police barricades confront Pico-Union drug
dealers." Los Angeles Times, 20 October 1989.
[37] "Meese says U.S. will support drug tests for new teachers." New
York Times, 20 March 1987.
[38] Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
[39] "The Unspeakable Is Debated: Should Drugs Be Legalized?" The
New York Times, 15 May, 1988.
[40] Entman, 1991.
|
