Content-Type: text/html

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
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0602A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D6907155%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a> with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").

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

Outsourcing and the Class Divide:
The Framing of an Economic and Social Issue in Fortune and Time

Josh Mound

Ohio University
Hoover House #161
136 S. Green Dr.
Athens, OH 45701
(740) 597-7780
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0602A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D6907155%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>






Submission: 2005 AEJMC Convention – Magazine Division
C. Wright Mills defined an "issue" as "public matter," which means 
that "some value cherished by publics is felt to be threatened" 
(1959, 9).  However, "often there is a debate about what that value 
really is and about what it is that really threatens it" (Mills 1959, 
9).  Issues are "often without focus" because they involve "a crisis 
in institutional arrangements" and "cannot very well be defined in 
terms of the immediate and everyday environments of ordinary men" 
(Mills 1959, 9).
	The "globalization of production and distribution" and the 
accompanying restructuring of the economy has been termed "perhaps 
the most important change that has occurred in the American economy 
during the past three decades" (Marger 2002, 97).  Outsourcing is 
part of the shift in institutional arrangements known as 
globalization.  As a social and political issue, outsourcing has been 
over 20 years in the making.
In the early 1980s, the social construction of outsourcing began to 
take shape.  What we today think of as outsourcing is in reality an 
amalgamation of two, once-distinct terms and ideas: "outsourcing" and 
"offshoring."  Whereas the former meant the purchase of a product or 
service from an outside firm, foreign or domestic, the latter 
indicated that a company relocated part or all of its own processes 
overseas.  In the media and popular dialogue of the United States 
today, when the term "outsourcing" is used, it usually implies the 
hiring of non-American workers in a foreign country by a U.S. 
company, regardless of the specific method.
The confusion over the true meaning of "outsourcing" is in the 
tradition of other economic buzzwords.  In both Britain and the 
United States, the meaning of "downsizing," once the dominant 
management term in media coverage, was blurred (Collins 2000, 285; 
Baumol, Blinder, and Wolff 2003, 1, 93).  In many ways, "outsourcing" 
has outstripped "downsizing" as the prevalent term related to 
industry affairs.  Generally, "downsizing" denotes a reduction in 
employees, but "downsizing" and its associated terminology also 
include today's idea of "outsourcing" (Collins 2000, 285; Baumol, 
Blinder, and Wolff 2003, 1-2, 88).  Often, when comparing an article 
about downsizing and an article about outsourcing side-by-side, it is 
difficult to distinguish between the two processes, apart from the 
difference in terminology, without consulting outside 
documents.  While outsourcing only represents one element of 
downsizing, the coverage of outsourcing has increased over the same 
period that coverage of downsizing has decreased.  In both Fortune 
and Time, the coverage of downsizing has diminished over the past ten 
years, while the coverage of outsourcing increased steadily at first, 
then sharply in recent years.  The declining coverage of downsizing 
may reflect "issue-attention cycle," in that it simply ran its course 
as an attention-getting issue (Downs 1972, 27-30).  It also may be 
that, taken as distinct processes, outsourcing is simply the next 
cost-cutting step after downsizing.  Such confusion has made it 
unclear whether the uses of these terms have always denoted different 
phenomena, or whether the phenomenon has been fairly constant and 
merely a change in terminology has occurred.  Perhaps the transition 
from the use of the term "downsizing" to the use of the term 
"outsourcing" can be said to denote both an actual, if perhaps 
subtle, change in business practice, and a metaphorical change in terminology.
Like many political and social buzzwords, the idea of outsourcing is 
much more powerful than its definition.  Outsourcing is a complex 
issue, one that is in fact comprised of numerous, intricate facets of 
related issues including "private profit," "private income wages," 
"working conditions," "the efficiency of labor," "unemployment," and 
"restraint of trade," all of which involve "data that are at best 
spasmodically recorded," meaning that "the news on these subjects is 
bound to be debatable, when it is not wholly neglected" (Lippman 
1922, 14-15).  Yet, outsourcing has been far from neglected by the 
media recently.  But the very nature of the issue has lead to 
intense, widespread debate.  As various interested parties—such as 
politicians, organizations, and other social actors—have attempted to 
shape, spin, and slant coverage of the issue, the media have been 
giving the issue its "public character," which occurs when "mere 
happenings" are transformed into "publicly discussable events" 
(Tuchman 1978, 3).  This public character began to take shape as the 
media framed outsourcing.  Frames are "principles of selection, 
emphasis, and presentation composed of little tacit theories about 
what exists, what happens, and what matters" (Gitlin 1980, 
6-7).  Media outlets frame issues when they "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 problem definition, causal 
interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for 
the item described" (Entman 1993, 5).
News stories "avoid structural linkage between events" (Tuchman 1978, 
180).  When faced with an issue as complex as outsourcing, which 
allows for many different categorizations, framing is used as a tool. 
Framing allows journalists "to process large amounts of information 
quickly and routinely: to recognize it as information, to assign it 
to cognitive categories, and to package it for efficient relay to 
their audiences" (Gitlin 1980, 6-7).  Almost from the first instance 
of what is today termed "outsourcing," assuming a first instance of 
such a subjective happening could ever be determined, journalists had 
to categorize the happening in some way fitting with the structure of 
existing news categories.  These initial instances were likely not 
termed "outsourcing;" however, at some point the transfer of 
production overseas became known specifically as "outsourcing."
The term first appeared in The New York Times in 1981 and The 
Washington Post in 1982.[1]  In both instances, "outsourcing" was 
used in the context of automotive industry labor negotiations 
(Holusha 1981, D1; Brown 1982, A6).  The Washington Post article 
introduced the term this way: "The job security issues largely 
involve plant closings and so-called 'outsourcing'—the use of outside 
contractors, foreign and domestic, to make GM parts" (Brown 1982, 
A6).  In The New York Times, it first appeared in a quotation from 
the president of the United Auto Workers: "'They've got to think 
seriously about preventing companies from outsourcing our work,' he 
added. 'Those are our jobs and we've got to be addressing this 
problem more seriously in 1982 than ever before'" (Holusha 1981, D1).
Those examples taken from publications that are part of the so-called 
"prestige press" represent the role of the media in the introduction 
of the term outsourcing into social dialogue.  As the examples 
demonstrate, the initial use of the term was usually related to job 
losses in production industries, losses that were usually sustained 
by blue-collar workers.  Both of the examples cited above dealt with 
shutdowns in the automotive industry and the movement of production 
to outside firms, both Japanese and domestic.
References to outsourcing remained relatively sparse throughout the 
1980s, peaking in 1984, when it was mentioned in 15 articles and 
advertisements in The New York Times ("Outsourcing" 2004).  At that 
point, the term was still primarily related to manufacturing 
industries and blue-collar jobs.  However, by the early 1990s, 
outsourcing in the computer industry also began to receive 
coverage.  A December 16, 1991, article in The New York Times 
addressed the rising threat outsourcing presented to white-collar workers:
Like past recessions, blue-collar workers have been hit harder than 
white-collar workers…. Yet professionals, administrators and other 
desk-holders have lost jobs in record numbers, and economists believe 
the white-collar occupations and service industries will come under 
further pressure in the years ahead, just as manufacturing did in the 
1980s" (Lohr 1991, A1).

Framing the issue in terms of job loss, this prescient piece 
foreshadowed the spread of job-loss anxiety from predominantly 
blue-collar workers to white-collar workers, a trend that would 
continue over the years to come.
	Though automotive and manufacturing outsourcing was still covered, 
references to outsourcing by companies such as Xerox and AT&T 
increased.  As outsourcing spread beyond the automotive and steel 
industries, the issue received more attention.  By 1996, 
"outsourcing" appeared in 131 articles and advertisements in The New 
York Times ("Outsourcing" 2004).  Similar trends occurred in The 
Washington Post.  From January through October, 2004, "outsourcing" 
was mentioned in over 250 Washington Post articles; while 
"outsourcing" appeared in only 37 Washington Post articles in all of 
1997 ("Outsourcing" 2004).
	As the examples of media content cited demonstrate, many of the 
early references to outsourcing framed the issue in terms of the 
domestic job losses which often result from the practice.  Because of 
the complexity involved in unraveling the causal factors of media 
coverage, any assertion of causation relating to long-term changes in 
the coverage of outsourcing would rely simply on anecdotal evidence 
and speculation.  Yet, several social and historical factors likely 
influenced the coverage of outsourcing.  According to Shoemaker and 
Reese, "systematic repetitive patterns of content make it more likely 
that content represents some underlying cultural pattern or 
organizational logic" (1996, 32).  Indeed, the increased prominence 
of outsourcing in the media corresponds with several economic and 
social changes of the past several decades.
While employment statistics are readily available and job losses in 
recent years have been widely noted, the precise number of jobs lost 
due to the particular phenomenon of outsourcing is 
debatable.  However, widely reported research conducted by the 
University of California, Berkeley's Fisher Center for Real Estate & 
Urban Economics has indicated that over 125 million U.S. jobs may be 
susceptible to outsourcing (Bardhan and Kroll 2003, 6).  That 
possibility, though speculative, is perhaps reflected by the fact 
that, over the past two years, when asked how likely it is that "you, 
someone in your family, or someone else you know personally will lose 
their job in the next six months," between 40% and 50% of respondents 
have told pollsters that it is at least "somewhat likely" (IPSOS-Reid 
2002, 2004).
It is economic anxiety in the context of a changing economy that has 
created fertile ground for increased media coverage of both 
downsizing and outsourcing.  The rise of both downsizing and 
outsourcing as significant issues, demonstrate the "rise of 
middle-class frustration politics" that began in the 1980s (Phillips 
1993, xxiii).  While much of the debate surrounding these issues 
relates to the validity of such fears, this period brought previously 
unknown economic anxiety to middle-class American families, and even 
some upper-middle class American families, as they began to worry 
about the safety of their "bank accounts, insurance coverage, home 
values, and pension coverage" (Phillips 1993, xxii).  By the 
mid-1980s, the majority of American workers were employed in the 
service sector (Marger 2002, 84-85).  In the face of "downsizing," 
blue-collar and white-collar workers alike felt there had been a 
change in the traditional "loyalty of firm to worker," that the 
"postwar middle-class 'social contract' broke down" (Newman 1993, 14; 
Phillips 1993, 9).  As Phillips noted:
In this climate, top executives lost compunctions about terminating 
blue-collar and middle-class jobs in order to make their companies 
'competitive.'  They moved production to Taiwan and Mexico, 
liquidated company pension plans and reduced other employee 
benefits.  Upper-middle-class professionals and vendors of private 
sector services were also able to charge rapidly escalating prices 
for health care, legal costs, banking services, college tuition, 
entertainment tickets, cable television charges and the like (1993, xxii).

Such conditions created a sense of unease, as even educated, 
white-collar workers were struggling to attain the same standard of 
living as their blue-collar postwar parents (Newman 1993, 18).  Many 
women entered the workforce for the first time as middle-class 
families found that two incomes were now necessary to "keep pace" 
(Marger 2002, 93; Phillips 1993, 11).
Considering demographic shifts that have occurred in the past several 
decades, economic restructuring and the global economy have helped 
the upper-middle class prosper, while those below have struggled and 
lost ground (Marger 2002, 89).  Throughout the 1980s and into the 
1990s, the earning of those in the upper-middle class and above, the 
top 20% of earners, pulled away from the middle-class workers, whose 
inflation-adjusted incomes were stagnant or decreasing (Marger 2002, 
43-44, Phillips 1993, 28).  For those workers who had internalized 
the American values and ideals of "meritocratic individualism" and 
the Puritan work ethic, the possibility of downward mobility caused a 
profound sense of despair (Newman 1999 7-9, 76).
Despite those shifting demographics and the focus on domestic job 
losses that characterized much of the early coverage of outsourcing, 
the experience of outsourcing has been far from universal and 
reactions to it have varied accordingly.  To various interested 
parties, outsourcing is a means of achieving cost effectiveness, a 
threat to human rights, a vital component of free-market capitalism, 
a cause of job losses, a process which creates more U.S. jobs than it 
sheds, a demonstration of anti-American business values, a practice 
necessitated by competition, and a manifestation of corporate 
greed.  Such inherent contradictions in viewpoint, and the values 
that underlie each viewpoint, create the potential for conflicting frames.

Literature Review
While changes in the coverage of outsourcing are likely indicative of 
real events, "media content does not always mirror reality" and 
"different media produce different content" due to a "network of 
influences, ranging from communication workers' personal attitudes 
and role conceptions, routines of media work, media organizational 
structure and culture, the relationships between the media and other 
social institutions, and broad cultural and ideological forces" 
(Shoemaker and Reese 1996, 258).  Media content is both a 
"manifestation of culture" and a "source of culture," and it offers a 
"specific view of social reality to the audience" (Shoemaker and 
Reese 1996, 60, 258).  Framing is one of the processes by which 
reality is filtered and shaped by the media.
It can be said that "some media coverage will affect the agendas of 
some people, regarding some issues, some of the time" (Gandy 1982, 
265).  Because the media are the primary disseminators of 
information, it has been shown that frames omitted from the aggregate 
media discourse are unavailable to and unknown by the public (Gamson 
1992, 180-181; Tuchman 1978, 156).  Yet, various media outlets often 
frame the same issue differently.  The frames presented by different 
outlets are not always congruent because "mass media are a site for 
various actors to contest the ways in which we think and talk about 
policy issues" (Kosicki and Pan 1997, 83).  Provided that the frames 
used stay within the confines of what Hallin termed the "sphere of 
legitimate controversy," an issue such as outsourcing provides ample 
opportunities for frame conflict (1986, 116-117).
While some framing research has attempted to discover if differences 
in outlets' framing of an issue lead to corresponding differences in 
each outlet's audience's perceptions of the issue, there has been 
very little compelling evidence demonstrating such between-outlet 
media effects, perhaps because individuals who largely rely on one 
outlet are also aware of frames used by other outlets, and are 
therefore able to utilize all frames.  Yet, this lack of 
between-outlet audience media effects does not mean that examining 
how different publications, networks, or programs frame a topic is 
irrelevant.  Even if an effect on audiences cannot be demonstrated, 
knowledge of between-outlet differences in framing still has value.
As recent critics have noted, the study of framing is more than the 
study of media effects (Carragee and Roefs 2004, 
215-218).  Ascertaining how an issue such as outsourcing is framed 
between two publications, for example, is an attempt at understanding 
"the complex interactions between the dominant meaning within news 
texts, the class and cultural positions of the readers and viewers 
attending to these texts," and "the discourses and codes associated 
with these positions" (Carragee and Roefs 2004, 223).  Rather than an 
action undertaken by an editorial staff without regard for the 
consumers of a publication, framing is an exercise in "the social 
construction of meaning, a construction shaped by both producers and 
consumers of media frames" (Carragee and Roefs 2004, 215).
Nearly all publications have "target" audiences (Shoemaker and Reese 
1996, 191-192).  While it may be incorrect to assume that every staff 
member consciously writes with the publication's audience in mind at 
all times, informal social controls in the newsroom help to orient 
all staff members to the publication's "slant," much of which stems 
from "considerations of class" with regard to "the principle areas of 
policy," namely "politics, business, and labor" (Breed 1955, 327).
Consumers are not simply passive actors in the framing process.  No 
one publication serves as an individual's sole source of information, 
and the media, in general, are not the only source of information 
available to the public.   In fact, the most "robust" frames are 
those which are formed by a combination of "media discourse, 
experiential knowledge, and popular wisdom" (Gamson 1992, 
128).  Because the idea of slant is widely discussed, presuming that 
consumers are able to select from a variety of media outlets, with 
some perhaps presenting conflicting frames, the selection of one 
outlet over another is relevant.  In that light, the selective 
exposure to an outlet that frames an issue in a certain way may 
represent consumers' world views expressed through media choice.  The 
reciprocal relationship between a publication's targeting of a 
specific audience and that audience effectively rewarding the 
publication via the process of subscription or newsstand purchase not 
only reinforces the particular slant of the publication but also the 
corresponding framing techniques used by the publication.
To an even greater extent than most newspapers, the consumption of 
national magazines is a highly selective process.  National magazines 
are not tied to a geographic area, eliminating the possibility that 
class differences in readership are merely a reflection of geography, 
a possibility inherent in local media.  Uses and gratifications 
theory would suggest that readers purchase Fortune or Time for a 
reason.  Similarly, magazines, even more so than other media, cater 
to "highly targeted audiences," and income is one of the specific 
demographics considered (Johnson and Prijatel 1999, 27, 148).  As a 
previous study has demonstrated, a magazine specifically considers 
the class of its target audience when selecting content (Cantor and 
Jones 1983, 113).  Therefore, an analysis of the framing of an issue 
in two magazines whose audiences are of different socioeconomic 
classes would be perhaps the most logical method to understand the 
relationship between the class of a target audience and the framing 
of outsourcing.  Because the aforementioned relationship between a 
magazine and its audience reinforces the use of a particular set of 
frames, studying how different magazines frame outsourcing can offer 
insight into how each particular publication slants its coverage of 
outsourcing and each outlet's respective audience views 
outsourcing.  Furthermore, if two publications, with two distinct 
audiences, frame outsourcing differently, those differences may help 
to articulate a fundamental clash in viewpoint between two segments of society.
Earlier research has suggested that class may indeed play a role in 
the framing process.  Though not termed "outsourcing," Gamson studied 
media coverage of "troubled industry" issues (layoffs and shutdowns 
in the steel and automotive industries during the late-1970s and 
1980s) and compared them to "working" people's perceptions of the 
issues (1992, 40, 132).  The primary frames used by the media, 
according to Gamson, were "partnership," which focused on cooperation 
between business, labor, and government in the face of adversity and 
"free enterprise," which stressed the ability of the market to 
correct itself.   As Gamson notes, neither of these frames are 
adversarial in nature, nor are they related to class.  The "capital 
flight" frame, which blamed multinational corporations for seeking a 
"docile, unorganized, or cowed labor force," was rarely mentioned in 
the national media at this time (1992, 87-88).  The media blamed 
Japanese competition for layoffs 63% of the time, with Time magazine 
featuring particularly inflammatory copy in that respect (Gamson 1992, 40).
	In accordance with the vast majority of national media discourse, 
only 19% of "troubled industry" discussion groups studied by Gamson 
referenced class conflict without prompting (1992, 90).  However, 
when prompted, participants' discussions indicated a familiarity with 
this frame that extended beyond the discourse present in the 
media.  Overall, people were able to pull from personal experience 
and popular wisdom, as well as media discourse, meaning that some 
form of adversarial frame, including "capital flight" arose in over 
half of the conversations, even though rarely featured in the media 
(1992, 108).  Additionally, participants rarely blamed the Japanese, 
despite media focus on that frame (1992, 145-147).
Not insignificantly, these discussion groups were comprised of 
"working people," which generally meant that most were blue-collar 
workers, and few had graduated from college.  While this study seems 
to support the relevance of class to the framing process, Gamson's 
findings cannot be generalized beyond "working people."  The findings 
are also specific to the social context of the time period the study 
was conducted.  The issue of outsourcing is much more prominent today 
and is perhaps as relevant to white-collar Americans as to 
blue-collar Americans, meaning that such blue-collar/white-collar 
distinctions are perhaps no longer as relevant as in the past.
Through the examination of how Fortune and Time frame the issue of 
outsourcing, the "degree to which specific frames are linked to 
central issues of power" can be better understood, particularly the 
issue of socioeconomic class (Carragee and Roefs 2004, 224).  Though 
both are owned by Time, Inc., these two publications are aimed at 
different audiences.  Time is a general newsmagazine, while Fortune 
bills itself to advertisers as the "world's premiere business 
magazine" that "reaches the most sought-after leaders in business" 
(Fortune/FSB 2003).  An analysis of relevant demographic information 
obtained from MediaMark Research, Inc. reveals the class differences 
between the readers of Fortune and Time (Mediamark, Spring 
1997).  Income and wealth, occupational prestige, and educational 
level are often defined as the three key components of class (Marger 
2002, 26).  When compared to the overall makeup of the population, 
the households of the subscribers to both publications are found 
disproportionately in the upper class categories.  However, when 
compared to each other, Fortune's readership is clearly higher in 
socioeconomic class than that of Time.  Of the adult readers of each 
publication, 78.5% of those who read Fortune are employed full-time, 
while only 60.0% of Time readers are employed 
full-time.  Furthermore, 29.5% of Time readers are unemployed, while 
only 15.0% of Fortune readers are unemployed.  In terms of household 
income, 48.1% of Fortune readers earn $75,000 or more per year, a 
level that approximately denotes the upper-middle class, while only 
37.3% of Time readers earn the same.  This difference is drawn more 
sharply when the individual employment incomes of subscribers are 
compared, with 37.3% of Fortune readers and 15.5% of Time readers 
earning over $50,000 per year. A comparison of the total stocks and 
other investments, measures of wealth, owned by readers of each 
magazine reveals that Fortune readers significantly exceed Time 
readers in that category also.  For example, 6.0% of Fortune readers 
own stocks with a total value of $50,000 or more in comparison to 
3.4% of Time readers who own the same.
While distinguishing between white-collar and blue-collar workers was 
once considered crucial, with the increase in the number of 
low-paying white-collar jobs that has occurred over the past several 
decades, white-collar workers are increasingly found in categories 
below the middle-class (Jackman and Jackman 1983, 32).  Nonetheless, 
occupational distinctions can be seen in the distribution of Time and 
Fortune readers into occupational categories.  Of all Fortune 
readers, 33.7% fall into the Executive, Administrative, and 
Managerial category, a category comprised of jobs that most people 
associate with the upper-middle or upper class, while 13.8% of Time 
readers have jobs in the same category (Jackman 1979, 449).  Fortune 
readers are also more highly educated than Time readers.  College 
degrees were held by 52.1% of Fortune readers and 35.8% of Time 
readers, while high school was the highest level of education 
completed by 26.0% of Time readers, compared to 12.6% of Fortune readers.
	When income, investments (wealth), occupation, and education are 
considered, the vast majority of Time readers would be classified as 
lower-middle class and middle class (or, the "new working class" and 
the "contingent class").  While a substantial number of Fortune 
readers are drawn from the same groups that compose Time's 
readership, nearly half of all Fortune readers would fall into the 
upper-middle or "privileged" class, with perhaps some readers likely 
representing the elite "capitalist" class (Heider 2004, 10-13; 
Perruci and Wysong 2003, 19-30; Gilbert and Kahl 1993, 308-317).  Put 
another way, the $40,000-$49,999 bracket approximately represents the 
median family income range for the years being studied (Marger 2002, 
36).  A majority of Time readers are below this bracket, while a 
majority of Fortune readers are above this bracket.  This is not to 
say such distinctions are clear-cut.  Some working-class individuals 
read each publication, and some members of the "capitalist" class may 
read both publications.  Though the demographic makeup of each 
audience clearly overlaps with that of the other, and neither is 
comprised solely of individuals in the classes described, these 
classifications work as a general rule.
As the data indicate, distinctions between the reader's of Time and 
Fortune are significant, but they are not drastic.  A comparison of 
how a labor union frames outsourcing in its literature and how a 
major manufacturing corporation frames outsourcing in its literature 
would stem from a desire to examine extreme, but expectedly drastic 
differences.  Any differences in the way Time and Fortune frame the 
issue essentially represent the different viewpoints of two segments 
of the middle-class.  Limiting an examination to such a narrow range 
means that differences are magnified and are more significant.  In 
fact, many of the aforementioned demographic differences may not 
merely represent general class differences, but may rather indicate a 
more specific class difference: the distinction between a business 
publication's audience and a general newsmagazine's audience.  In 
that way, the demographic differences themselves may merely be a 
representation of that distinction.
This study seeks to answer these questions: First, how do Fortune and 
Time each frame outsourcing?  Second, what is the significance of any 
similarities or differences in each magazine's framing?

Methods
Forty-seven Time articles and 224 Fortune articles were 
examined.  Those numbers represent the population of articles from 
1994 through October 2004 that use the term "outsourcing," 
"outsource," or "outsourced."[2]  The population was determined by a 
full-text search of each magazine's historical database, each 
available through EBSCOhost.  While EBSCOhost does not enumerate any 
caveats associated with the Fortune and Time databases, the 
possibility that some articles have been erroneously excluded clearly 
exists.  However, the potential to uncover every instance in which 
those terms are used outweighs any possible pitfalls associated with 
electronic databases, and makes the database the most accurate method 
of determining the population.  Specifically, an early examination of 
the articles demonstrated that very often the term "outsourcing" was 
used in an article with neither a headline nor an introductory 
paragraph that in any way indicated the issue would be addressed.  If 
the issue of outsourcing was examined through a study of the issues 
themselves, many articles clearly would have been overlooked.
While the population size was initially quite large, once each 
article was coded, the true population was determined to be 
twenty-nine Time articles and fifty-three Fortune articles.  As noted 
earlier, initial references to outsourcing in the early 1980s often 
denoted the type of outsourcing discussed today.  However, many 
articles, particularly those from 1994 to 2002, that used the term 
did not use it in the current sense.  Many of these references to 
outsourcing were simply referring to business practices that utilized 
an outside source, including other U.S. companies.  Any article in 
which it was not clear that the outsourcing being addressed was 
offshore outsourcing was excluded.  It was reasoned that the 
inclusion of frames that may be employed in reference to domestic 
outsourcing would skew the results, because foreign, not domestic, 
outsourcing is the current topic of debate.  Other articles were 
excluded from the population size because the references to 
outsourcing were brief and the issue was not framed in any way.
The frame analysis technique used for the study was based on both the 
methods of Gamson and the methods of Martin (1992; 2003).  The most 
salient frames used by the media, politicians, and other interested 
parties were identified.  A sample of the Time and Fortune articles, 
other mass media sources, and interest group literature were all 
consulted.  Four frames that generally cast outsourcing in a positive 
light and four frames that generally cast outsourcing in a negative 
light were identified.  A pre-test was then conducted and this list 
of frames was revised and modified.  The following positive frames 
were used for this study: Cost Effectiveness and Profits, Free 
Enterprise, Inverse, and Necessity.  The following negative frames 
were used for the study: Human Rights, Job Loss, Patriotism, and 
Unfairness (See Appendix A for a complete description of each frame 
with examples).  Two catchall categories were also added: Positive 
Other and Negative Other.
The frame was the unit of analysis.  However, for the purposes of 
this study, one frame unit was determined to be no longer than a 
paragraph, and multiple frames could be used in a paragraph.  If one 
frame was used throughout an entire paragraph, it was only coded as 
one use of the frame.  However, if it was used for multiple 
paragraphs, each paragraph was considered a frame.  For example, one 
paragraph could frame outsourcing using the Free Enterprise frame in 
the first two sentences, and the Inverse frame in the last 
sentence.  The next paragraph could continue the Inverse frame.  That 
scenario would be coded as one use of the Free Enterprise frame and 
two uses of the Inverse frame.  Thus, every instance of appearance of 
a frame in an article was noted.
All articles that dealt with offshore outsourcing were coded, 
including opinion/editorial pieces and letters to the editor.[3]  If 
only a portion of an article dealt with outsourcing, only that 
portion of the article was coded.  For example, an article addressing 
job loss that only mentioned job loss due to outsourcing in one 
paragraph was only counted as one frame.  Even if job loss was 
mentioned throughout the article, if outsourcing was not portrayed as 
the reason for the job loss being addressed in the entire article, 
only the section which attributed a specific instance or type of job 
loss to outsourcing was coded.  However, even if outsourcing was only 
mentioned once or twice in the article, if outsourcing was clearly 
implicated as the cause, or one of the causes, for all of the job 
loss being discussed in the article, the entire article was coded.
All of the coding was done by the author.  An intracoder reliability 
test was performed to test reliability.  Ten percent of the 
population was randomly selected and recoded.  The reliability for 
frame recognition—the ability to recognize the total number of frames 
used in the article—was 93%.  The reliability for positive frames, 
based on percentage of agreement, was 89%, while the reliability for 
negative frames was 86%.  To determine the ability of the study to be 
replicated, an undergraduate was trained to code.[4]  Ten percent of 
the sample was randomly selected and coded by the 
student.  Reliability for frame recognition was 92%, while 
reliability for positive frames was 80% and reliability for negative 
frames was 91%.[5]

Results
Fortune and Time do, indeed, frame the issue of outsourcing quite 
differently.  Furthermore, statistically significant differences in 
the use of the several specific frames, and the values each frame 
stresses, demonstrate the role that class plays in the perception of 
outsourcing.  In terms of the percentage of positive and negative 
frames each magazine used, Fortune's framing of outsourcing is almost 
the exact inverse of Time's framing of outsourcing.  Of the 258 
instances of frames use in Fortune between 1994 and 2004, in 162 
(62.8%) instances positive frames were used, while in 56 (37.2%) 
instances negative frames were used.  Of the 155 instances of frame 
use in Time, in ninety-nine (63.9%) instances negative frames were 
used and in 56 (36.1%) instances positive frames were used.  A 
z-score and analysis of its two-tailed probability reveal that this 
distribution is statistically significant (z = 5.46, p < .001).  The 
distribution of individual frames reveals several specific framing 
differences (See Appendix B for a complete table of frequencies and 
percentages).  The Job Loss frame (z = 3.87, p < .001) and the Human 
Rights frame (z = 2.92; p = .004) were employed significantly more 
often in Time magazine, while the Cost Effectiveness and Profits 
frame (z = 5.22; p < .001), Inverse frame (z = 3.48; p = .001), and 
Other Positive frame (z = 2.23; p = .026) were employed significantly 
more often in Fortune magazine.
	The Cost Effectiveness frame and the Free Enterprise frame were 
essentially tied for the most prevalent frame in Fortune.  The Cost 
Effectiveness frame was used sixty-four times (24.8%) and the Free 
Enterprise frame was used sixty-five times (25.2%).  These frames 
stress the values of good business sense and profits and capitalism 
and the common good, respectively.  In Time, the Job Loss was by far 
the most prevalent, appearing 61 times (39.4%).  This frame 
emphasizes numerous values, but specifically employment, stability, 
and the promise of the American dream related to the "hard work leads 
to success" notion.  Additionally, it is worth noting that Job Loss 
was also a common frame in Fortune, appearing 55 times (21.3%), and 
that Free Enterprise was used 35 times in Time (22.6%).  Time used 
the Free Enterprise frame to counterbalance its dominant construction 
of outsourcing as negative, and Fortune used the Job Loss frame to 
counterbalance its dominant construction of the issue as 
positive.  While each magazine did use those frame significantly 
less, statistically, than the other, the fact that each acknowledged 
a contrary frame as significant reflects at least some agreement on a 
few facets of the issue.  It is noteworthy, though, that both 
magazines used a counterbalancing frame that is generally presented 
in a non-controversial manner and is not used to place blame or point 
fingers.  Yet, a drastic difference was noted in the use of the Cost 
Effectiveness frame, one which could possibly be considered what 
Gamson termed an "adversarial" frame, in that it usually identifies 
the parties that benefit from outsourcing and those that are harmed 
by it, but makes no apologies for such an outcome (1992, 87-88).  The 
Cost Effectiveness frame was used only 11 times (7.1%) in Time and, 
as previously noted, 64 times in Fortune (25.2%).  This statistically 
significant difference perhaps reflects a clear distinction in the 
degree to which profits are valued as a reasonable motive for outsourcing.
When frame use each year is examined over the decade being studied, 
it becomes clear that Fortune began covering and framing the issue 
well before Time addressed the subject.  Eighteen instances of frame 
use, thirteen of which were usages of positive frames, occurred in 
Fortune in 1994.  The magazine continued to address outsourcing every 
year, to a greater or lesser extent, throughout the 1990s.  Time, on 
the other hand, did not address outsourcing until 2000.  For both 
magazines, coverage of outsourcing spiked in 2003; however, before 
2003, only six instances of frame use occurred in Time, while 85 
instances occurred in Fortune, a distribution which reflects the 
greater attention Fortune gave to the issue.

Discussion
What do the contrasting uses of frames by Fortune and Time reveal 
about how the issue of outsourcing is perceived?  As noted earlier, 
when income, wealth, education, and job prestige are considered, 
nearly half of all Fortune readers are in the upper-middle-class or 
above, while over seventy percent of Time readers are found below the 
upper-middle class.  It is clear that different constructions of the 
issue are created by each magazine for its respective audience.  When 
readers select Fortune or Time, they are selecting one worldview over 
another.  The editors and publishers of each magazine are also likely 
acutely aware of the dominant demographics and views of their 
readers.  Yet, it is difficult to discern which demographic factors 
are most relevant to the issue of outsourcing.
As noted earlier, Fortune is a business magazine aimed at executives, 
administrators, and managers.  While Time is a magazine aimed at a 
general audience.  Perhaps the true division reflected in the 
conflicting views presented by Fortune and Time is one of executives, 
administrators, and managers versus other workers.  Or is it those 
who own stocks and other market instruments versus those who do 
not?  Or is it high income versus lower income?  Or is it something 
else?  Those factors are difficult to untangle, because so many are 
interrelated.
If these magazines can indeed be said to represent their respective 
readers, this study confirms the findings of Jackman and Jackman 
(1983, 61-66).  Even between such closely related groups as the 
middle and upper-middle classes, they noted distinct differences in 
how each group perceived issues.  For example, in their survey they 
found that middle class respondents were more likely to feel that 
both the poor and they themselves are hurt by private ownership of 
corporations and businesses, while upper-middle class respondents 
were likely to believe that everyone benefited from private ownership 
(Jackman and Jackman 1983, 61-66).  Jackman and Jackman received 
roughly the same results when they asked respondents what classes 
they thought benefited from tax deductions for business investment 
and what classes they thought were hurt by it (Jackman and Jackman 
1983, 61-66).  For both questions, the differences between the 
opinions of those in lower classes and those in the upper-middle 
class were even more drastic (Jackman and Jackman 1983, 61-66).
While the way in which each publication frames outsourcing does seem 
to correspond with differences of opinion regarding other economic 
issues expressed by members of each class in the Jackman and Jackman 
study, perhaps the readers of each publication are not overtly aware 
that they are purchasing a distinct worldview when they purchase 
Fortune instead of Time, or vice versa; though it would be hard to 
miss the differences.  Rather than reflecting conscious, overt 
displays of class values, the purchase of Fortune or Time and the 
relationship between the demographics of each magazine's readership 
and the manner in which each magazine frames outsourcing may reflect 
the symbiotic relationship between the values and opinions of a 
magazine's readers and the magazine's editorial content.  Each both 
reinforce and shape the other.
While not initially identified as a research topic, the difference in 
the chronology of each magazine's coverage raised an important 
question.  What is the significance of Fortune's covering the issue 
of outsourcing long before Time covered the issue?  Research has 
demonstrated that trade publications "act as insider channels of 
communication during early industry-related policy process" by 
addressing key issues long before newspapers and other media sources 
(Hollifield 1997, 764).  While Fortune is a consumer magazine with a 
highly targeted audience of business people that focuses on business 
and finance matters, not a trade publication, the same pattern noted 
in regard to trade publications held true for Fortune, in that it led 
Time in the coverage of outsourcing by six years.  The research cited 
above also indicated that trade publications shape policymakers views 
of key issues (Hollifield 1997, 759).  Did the coverage of 
outsourcing by publications such as Fortune have the same effect?  If 
nothing else, Fortune was able to submit its framing of outsourcing 
to the public and policymakers before Time.  Because business 
publications often neglect to address the social and political 
implications of policies, there is the possibility that "some 
under-reported social implication related to a new industry proposal 
or innovation will generate unexpected public opposition when news of 
it becomes more widely disseminated" (Hollifield 1997, 766-768).
The ability of industry publications to shape issues before the press 
at large has several potential negative impacts both for the public, 
industry, and politicians.  If business and industry publications 
shape policies without considering their broad social implications, 
that practice may continually lead to policies the public at large is 
unhappy with, which often results in a public and media backlash that 
may eventually hurt the businesses and politicians who shaped the policy.
Rather than serving the interests of specific audiences, when 
important policies and issues are discussed, all implications and 
perspectives should be addressed by all publications.  However, the 
current pattern is unlikely to change.  As discussed earlier, issues 
such as outsourcing can simultaneously seem to benefit some and hurt 
others.  That fact, combined with the fundamentally different 
perspectives of various segments of society, means that perhaps the 
conflict runs too deep to be resolved.

Conclusions
It is the media that helps to construct the notion of a classless 
society (Heider 2004, 6). The different class viewpoints and values 
noted in this study are rarely articulated, at least not in terms of 
class.  Perhaps this is because "often there is a debate about what 
that value really is and about what it is that really threatens it" 
(Mills 1959, 9).  One group can see promise in outsourcing and threat 
in its end, while another can see the opposite.  While both the media 
and society as a whole neglect to mention or even ignore these 
differences, by examining the media, the "institutional arrangement" 
of class can be understood (Mills 1959, 9).
Both the content of Fortune and the content of Time demonstrate that 
each publication presents a unique perspective to its readers.  Not 
only are these differences in framing instructive of the significant 
divisions in the country, but also of the potential dangers of such 
targeted content, which is designed to attract and reinforce 
viewpoints, rather than to challenge them and foster intelligent debate.















APPENDIX A

Positive Frames:

	Cost Effectiveness and Profits – This frame stresses the positive 
economic benefits 	which accrue to businesses in the form of profits 
when work is outsourced.  It 	stresses profit maximization as the 
logical goal of any business.  Generally, this frame is 	used in a 
way that does not claim the benefits are evenly 
distributed.  Therefore, to a 	certain extent, this frame can be 
viewed as what Gamson termed an "adversarial" frame 	(1992, 
87-88).  The values stressed by this frame include good business 
sense and profits.  	Example: "Offshoring keeps costs down ... 24/7 
says that by running and managing call 	centers in India from the 
U.S. it can cut companies' costs by 30% to 60%" (Vogelstein 	2004, 212).

	Free Enterprise – The Free Enterprise frame stresses the purported 
universal benefits of 	capitalism.  The notion that everyone, not 
just businesses, benefits from laissez-faire 	capitalism is 
presented.  Outsourcing is framed as part of the nature of 
capitalism; 	therefore, to fight it would be futile and damaging to 
the system.  Among the specific 	claimed benefits often enumerated 
are that savings are passed on to consumers through 	reduced product 
prices, the increased value of stocks, and the overall benefits to 
the U.S. 	economy as well as foreign economies.  This frame may also 
note the benefit to countries 	receiving U.S. jobs.  The values 
stressed by this frame are capitalism and the 
common 	good.  Examples: "Outsourcing has become an increasingly 
important element of 	corporate efficiency strategies around the 
world, allowing high-cost operations in 	developed countries to be 
replaced by low-cost production in developing countries such 	as 
China. Ultimately, these benefits are also passed on to consumers 
around the world" 	(Roach 2004, 64).

	Inverse – This frame is used to counterbalance and contradict the 
focus on outsourcing 	either by claiming that it is not as prevalent 
as reported or that more jobs are actually 	"insourced" than 
outsourced.  Often, this frame explicitly or implicitly suggests 
that 	opposition to outsourcing is unfounded because most people are 
not properly informed.  	By generally framing the issue in terms of 
jobs, the frame stresses employment as a value 	as well as correct 
information.  Example: "Surprisingly absent is mention of the 
global 	'insourcing' trend, the fact that foreign companies are 
constantly arranging to do business 	within the U.S. and hiring U.S. 
workers. Currently, we insource 6.4 million jobs" (Herger 	2004, 31).

	Necessity – In some ways, this frame is a mid-point between the Free 
Enterprise and 	Profits frames.  This frame implicitly acknowledges 
that at least short-term stress may be 	felt by those whose jobs are 
outsourced.  It may, in fact, label those who ignore this as 	having 
a callous disregard for workers.  This frame suggests that everyone, 
including 	businesses are feeling the effects of globalization, and 
that outsourcing is a response that 	most businesses have tried to 
avoid, but have essentially had their hands forced.  	Primarily, this 
frame argues that outsourcing is necessary for businesses to stay 
afloat.  	This frame stresses the value of survival and the notion of 
common struggle.  Example: 	"Rosen Sharma is sure about one thing. 
His nine-month-old company, Solidcore, a start-	up that makes backup 
security systems for computers, could not survive 
without 	outsourcing." (Kiviat, et al. 2004, 26)

Negative Frames:

Human Rights – This frame constructs outsourcing as a question of 
poor treatment of 	foreign workers in some countries, particularly in 
"sweat shops."  This frame plays 	primarily on the value of 
compassion.  Example: "In a recent survey by India's 
Dataquest 	magazine, 40% [of people working in Information Technology 
jobs 'outsourced' from 	U.S. companies] said they suffered from sleep 
disorders, and 34% complained of 	digestive problems" (Rajan 2004, 34).

	Job Loss – This frame constructs outsourcing as an issue that should 
primarily be 	thought of as one that results in job loss.  This frame 
does not necessarily cast aspersions 	on outsourcers.  Generally, 
this frame is not an adversarial frame, because it usually is 
not 	concerned with placing blame.  It may focus on the types of jobs 
being lost, the personal 	effects of job loss, etc.  Sometimes the 
Job Loss frame may be used in the context of a 	discussion of job 
loss as whole, other times it may be used when reporting job losses 
in a 	certain sector of the economy or a particular occupation.  This 
frame may emphasize 	many different values, including employment—both 
in an individual sense and one 	related to the economy as a whole, 
stability, and the American dream, among others.  	Example: "'In some 
instances, the rage is not off-target,' writes a computer engineer 
who 	had worked for the Kennedy Space Center.  'When several hundred 
of us were laid off in 	2002, Florida sent outplacement counselors, 
who emphatically and repeatedly told us to 	try to work for 
Wal-Mart--that there were no other jobs'" ("Outrage" 2004, 32).

Patriotism – The Patriotism frame asserts that outsourcing is 
un-American.  This frame 	is used to argue that, by sending jobs 
overseas, companies are turning their backs on 	American workers, to 
whom they have a responsibility as fellow Americans, meaning it 	is 
usually used as an "adversarial" frame (Gamson 1992, 87-88).  This 
frame also argues 	that, by "abandoning" American workers, the 
country will be severely weakened.  In the 	latter sense, a concern 
for the strength of the country is expressed.  The Patriotism 
frame 	may be applied in the context of "buy American" movements, 
etc.  Obviously, this frame 	primarily underscores the notion of 
patriotism and concern for American strength.  	Example: "Notes Juan 
Carlos Leon-Barth of Orlando, whose six-figure job was moved 
to 	Bangalore: 'When the highly educated people in a booming economy 
like India's are 	hired to do our jobs for less, they may soon learn 
to do it better. What will keep them 	from taking over? Rome was once 
the center of the world.  Now it's just a nice place to 	visit'" 
(Outrage 2004, 32).

Unfairness – This frame is perhaps the clearest example of an 
"adversarial" frame (Gamson 1992, 87-88).  Rather than enumerate 
specific negative effects of outsourcing, this frame is used to 
express outrage, and to place blame on the "villains" of 
outsourcing.  Primarily, this frame is employed to underscore the 
disparity between corporate profits, CEOs' salaries, etc. and the 
common person.  Generally, it displays anger at 
corporations.  However, it may also express disbelief or resentment 
when addressing actions (or lack thereof) by businesses and the 
government to stop outsourcing or counteract its effects. The values 
it stresses are fairness, equality, and justice.  Example: "The stock 
market had a strong 2003, and corporate profits in many industries 
exceeded expectations, so why haven't companies that started 
outsourcing as a way to cut costs reversed course and brought the 
jobs back 	home?" (Kiviat, et al. 2004, 26)








































News/Feature
Opinion/Editorial
Letters to the Editor
Total
Fortune
Time
Fortune
Time
Fortune
Time
Fortune
Time
Positive Frames
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
Cost Effectiveness **
63 (29%)
10 (7%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (6%)
64 (25%)
11 (7%)
Free Enterprise
48 (22%)
31 (23%)
15 (47%)
0 (0%)
2 (22%)
4 (24%)
65 (25%)
35 (23%)
Inverse **
11 (5%)
1 (1%)
3 (9%)
0 (0%)
2 (22%)
0 (0%)
16 (6%)
1 (1%)
Necessity
8 (4%)
8 (6%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
8 (3%)
8 (5%)
Other *
9 (4%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
9 (3%)
1 (1%)
Total Positive
139 (64%)
51 (38%)
19 (54%)
0 (0%)
4 (44%)
5 (30%)
162 (62%)
56 (36%)
Negative Frames
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
Human Rights
0 (0%)
3 (2%)
0 (0%)
1 (50%)
0 (0%)
1 (6%)
0 (05)
5 (3%)
Job Loss **
44 (20%)
55 (40%)
10 (31%)
0 (0%)
1 (11%)
6 (35%)
55 (21%)
61 (39%)
Patriotism
5 (2%)
2 (2%)
1 (3%)
1 (50%)
2 (22%)
2 (12%)
8 (3%)
5 (3%)
Unfairness
6 (3%)
7 (5%)
2 (6%)
0 (0%)
2 (22%)
1 (6%)
10 (4%)
8 (5%)
Other
23 (11%)
18 (13%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (12%)
23 (9%)
20 (13%)
Total Negative
78 (36%)
85 (63%)
13 (41%)
2 (100%)
5 (56%)
12 (71%)
96 (37%)
99 (64%)
Total
217 (100%)
136 (100%)
32
(100%)
2
(100%)
9
(100%)
17
(100%)
258
(100%)
155
(100%)
APPENDIX B



Z-Test (Two-Tailed) Significance Levels:
  	
*    Total frame distribution - p = .026
**  Total frame distribution - p = .001












Works Cited

Bardhan, Ashok D. and Cynthia Kroll. "The New Wave of Outsourcing." 
Fischer Center
Research Reports [online]. (Accessed 20 October 2004). Available from 
World Wide Web: 
(http://repositories.cdlib.rg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?Article=1025&context=iber/
fcreue), 2003.

Baumol, William J., Alan S. Blinder, and Edward N. Wolff. Downsizing 
in America: Reality,
  Causes, and Consequences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2003.

Breed, Warren. "Social control in the newsroom: A functional 
analysis." Social Forces 33, no. 4:
326-335, 1955.

Brown, Warren. "General Motors, UAW Nearing Accord on Cost-Savings Contract."
Washington Post, 21 March 1982, A6.

Cantor, Muriel G. and Elizabeth Jones. "Creating Fiction for Women." 
Communication Research
10, no. 1: 111-137, 1983.

Carragee, Kevin M. and Wim Roefs. "The Neglect of Power in Recent Framing
Research." Journal of Communication 54, no. 2:214, 2004.

Collins, David. Management Fads and Buzzwords: Critical-practical 
Perspectives. London;
NewYork: Routledge, 2000.

Downs, Anthony. "Up and Down with Ecology: The 'Issue-Attention 
Cycle.'" In Agenda
Setting: Readings on Media, Public Opinion, and Policymaking, edited 
by David L. Protess and Maxwell McCombs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 
1991. Originally published in The Public Interest 28 (Spring 1972): 38-50.

Entman, Robert M. "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured 
Paradigm." Journal of
Communication 43, no. 4:51, 1993

Fortune/FSB Media Kit [online]. (Accessed 16 November 2004). 
Available from World Wide
Web: (http://www.fortune.com/fortune/mediakit), 2003.

Gamson, William A. Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University 
Press, 1992.

Gandy, Oscar. "Beyond Agenda-Setting." In Agenda Setting: Readings on 
Media, Public
Opinion, and Policymaking, edited by David L. Protess and Maxwell 
McCombs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1991. Originally published in Oscar 
H. Gandy, Jr., Beyond Agenda Setting: Information Subsidies and 
Public Policy (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Co., 1982).

Gilbert, Dennis and Joseph A. Kahl. The American Class Structure: A 
New Synthesis. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1993.
Gitlin, Todd. The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making & 
Unmaking of the New
  Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1980.

Hallin, Daniel C.  The "Uncensored War": The Media and Vietnam. New 
York: Oxford
University Press, 1986.

Heider, Don, Ed. Class and News. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield 
Publishers, 2004.

Herger, Wally. "Don't Forget 'Insourcing.'" Fortune, 14 June 2004, 31.

Hollifield, C. Ann. 1997. "The Specialized Business Press and 
Industry-Related Political
Communication: A Comparative Study."  Journalism & Mass Communication 
Quarterly 74, no. 4: 757, 1997.

Holusha, John. "Detroit Still Seeks U.A.W. Concession." New York 
Times, 20 July 1981, D1.

Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report. May 21, 2002.

Ipsos-Public Affairs Poll. Jun 14, 2004.

Jackman, Mary R. "The Subjective Meaning of Social Class 
Identification in the United States."
	Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter 1979, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p443, 20p.

Jackman, Mary R. and Robert W. Jackman. Class Awareness in the United 
States. Berkeley:
	University of California Press, 1983

Johnson, Sammye and Patricia Prijatel. The Magazine From Cover to 
Cover: Inside a
	Dynamic Industry. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Pub. Group, 1999.

Kiviat, Barbara, Sara Rajan, Cathy Booth Thomas, Jyoti Thottam, and 
Karen Tumulty.  "Is Your
Job Going Abroad?" Time, 1 Mar. 2004, 26.

Lippmann, Walter. "Public Opinion." In Agenda Setting: Readings on 
Media, Public Opinion,
and Policymaking, David L. Protess and Maxwell McCombs, Eds. 
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1991. Originally published in Walter 
Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1922)

Lohr, Steve. "Executives Expect Many '91 Layoffs to be Permanent." 
New York Times, 16
December 1991, A1.

Marger, Martin N.  Social inequality: Patterns and Processes. Boston 
: McGraw Hill, 2002.

Martin, Christopher R.. "The 1997 United Parcel Service Strike: 
Framing the Story for Popular
Consumption." Journal of Communication Inquiry 27, no. 2:190, 2003.

Mediamark Research Inc. Spring 1997.

Mills, C. Wright. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford 
University Press, 1959.

Newman, Katherine S. Declining Fortunes: The Withering of the 
American Dream. New York:
BasicBooks, 1993.

"Outrage Over Outsourcing." Fortune, 22 Mar. 2004, 32.
"Outsourcing," in New York Times Historic  [database on-line]. 
(Accessed 15 October 2004).
	Available from World Wide Web: (http://ejournals.ebsco.com).

"Outsourcing," in Washington Post [database on-line]. (Accessed 15 
October 2004).
	Available from World Wide Web: (http://ejournals.ebsco.com).

Pan, Zhongdang and Gerald M. Kosicki. "Framing as a Strategic Action 
in Public Deliberation."
In Reese, Stephen D., Oscar H. Gandy, Jr., and August E. Grant, 
Eds.  Framing public life: Perspectives on Media and Our 
Understanding of the Social World.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 
Associates, Inc., 2001.

Phillips, Kevin. Boiling point: Republicans, Democrats, and the 
Decline of Middle-class
Prosperity. New York: Random House, 1993.

Perrucci, Robert and Earl Wysong. The New Class Society: Goodbye 
American Dream?
	Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, c2003

Roach, Stephen S.  "Why we ought to be thanking the Chinese." 
Fortune, 22 Mar. 2004, 64.

Shoemaker, Pamela J. and Stephen D. Reese. Mediating the Message: 
Theories of Influences on
Mass Media Content. White Plains, NY: Longman, 1996.

Tuchman, Gaye. Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. 
New York: Free Press,
1978.

Vogelstein, Fred. "24/7 Customer." Fortune, 11 Feb. 2004, 212.





[1]  No database with full-text search capability is available for 
Time or Fortune (the publications to be studied) prior to 1992; 
therefore, the issue's ascent to prominence was traced through the 
historical databases of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

[2]  The database was also queried for "offshoring" and its other 
forms; however, that did not dramatically increase the number of 
viable articles.  Those articles were excluded from the sample 
because the term "outsourcing" has been coined, however erroneously, 
to denote the issue being debated.  Therefore, it seemed unwise to 
include articles that do not use that term, particularly if the 
inclusion of such articles would yield a negligible impact.
[3]  Letters to the editor were included because they represent 
content that is selected by the editorial staff, even though it is 
not generated by the staff.  Also, letters to the editor are often 
printed because the writers disagree with the content of an article 
published in the magazine.  In that way, they are used to 
counterbalance to the editorial content.
[4]  It is worth noting that the undergraduate student was not 
familiar with framing theory.  She also was trained very briefly and 
coded the sample in a period of only a few hours.
[5]  While the reported agreement reflects agreement regarding 
"positive frames" and "negatives frames," the total number of 
positive frame agreements was not simply divided by the total number 
of decisions.  However, such a process would have lead to a higher 
percentage of agreement than that reported above.  Rather, the total 
number of agreements for each individual frame was the numerator and 
the total number of decisions was the denominator (the standard 
mathematical procedure for the computation of simple 
agreement).  Then, the numerators of all the individual frame 
agreement fractions were summed and the denominators of all the 
individual frame agreement fractions were summed.   Reliability was 
computed this way because some frames are so rare that the 10% of the 
population randomly selected did not contain any of those 
frames.  Therefore, it was impossible to report reliability for each 
frame individually.  Also, it would not be reflective of the actual 
reliability to note that reliability for a frame was 100% when it was 
one agreement out of one opportunity, or that reliability was 0% when 
it was zero agreements out of one opportunity.