Key issue (Terrorism Coverage)

Abstract

“Key issue” describes the main issue or perspective an article focuses on when reporting on a news topic. There might be different key issues for the same topic: When reporting on terrorism, articles can for example concentrate on the incident itself, the perpetrator behind it, victims and/or political reactions to terrorism.\nField of application/theoretical foundation:\nKey issues share similarities with other variables such as news “frames”, “issue salience” or “issue ownership” that also try to identify different perspectives for the same or different news topics. Therefore, studies based on “Framing” (Entman, 1993) work with similar variables to analyze what issues journalists focus on and many studies cited here use the concept of framing to identify key issues, for example Li (2007) or Zhang & Hellmuller (2016).\nReferences/combination with other methods of data collection:\nStudies for example combine content analysis and interviews with journalists to shed more light on dynamics and structures of terrorism coverage, including key issues (Larsen, 2019).\nExample studies:\nLi (2007); Matthews (2016)\n\xa0\nInformation on Li, 2007\nAuthors:\xa0Li (2007)\nResearch question:\xa0How did television outlets frame 9/11 during the first 24 hours of coverage and how did this framing change over time?\nObject of analysis:\xa0News coverage by five TV outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX news)\nTime frame of analysis: 24 hours after attacks on September 9 2001 occurred\nInfo about variables\nVariable name/definition: Coverage frame: “The coverage frame is defined as the aspects of a perceived reality identified through a story that makes these aspects more salient in the news coverage” (Li, 2007, p. 676).\nLevel of analysis: News story (TV)\nVariables and values: Political coverage frame, economic coverage frame, criminal coverage frame, environment coverage frame, safety coverage frame, human interest coverage frame, religion coverage frame, disaster coverage frame, other coverage frame\nReliability: Scott’s pi: .8\n\xa0\nInformation on Matthews, 2016\nAuthors:\xa0Matthews (2016)\nResearch question:\xa0How did newspapers react in the immediate aftermath of the London bombings 2005?\nObject of analysis:\xa0News coverage by nine UK newspapers and their Sunday equivalents (The Star, The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Express, The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent)\nTime frame of analysis: July 8 2005 to July 15 2005\nInfo about variables\nVariable name/definition: Story themes\nLevel of analysis: News article\nVariables and values: Reconstruction and reaction, bombers’ identities, police investigation, victims/the missing, heroism and survivors, London’s reaction\n\xa0\nTable 1. Measurement of “Key Issue” in terrorism coverage.\n\n\n\n\n\nAuthor(s)\n\n\nSample\n\n\nManifestations\n\n\nReliability\n\n\nCodebook\n\n\n\n\nAn et al. (2018)\n\n\nArticles from terrorist websites\n\n\n31 different key issues, ranging from terrorist attacks to their political consequences\n\n\nAverage Holsti value for all pairwise comparisons: .66\n\n\nAvailable\n\n\n\n\nDu & Li (2017)\n\n\nOnline news articles\n\n\n6 different key issues, including “description and updates of the incident itself”, “causes of the incident”, “consequences of the incident”, “conflicting viewpoint related to the incident”, “condemn the terrorist behavior and discuss the punishment/reprisal”, and “background/history knowledge of the incident areas”\n\n\nScott’s pi for all variables in study: between .798 and 1\n\n\nAvailable\n\n\n\n\nHausecker & Jirschitzka, 2010; Jirschitzka et al., 2010\n\n\nBroadcasting programs\n\n\n11 different key issues, ranging from war against terror to communication of terrorists\n\n\nAverage Holsti value for all pairwise comparisons with five coders and one main coder: .66\n\n\nAvailable\n\n\n\n\nLarsen (2019)\n\n\nBroadcasting programs and online news articles\n\n\n3 different key issues, including “threat of terrorism”, “countering and prevention”, and ”terrorism as phenomenon”\n\n\nCohen’s kappa: .782\n\n\nAvailable\n\n\n\n\nLi (2007)\n\n\nBroadcasting programs\n\n\n9 different key issues, including “political”, “economic”, “criminal”, “environment”, “safety”, “human interest”, “religion”, “disaster”, and “other” coverage frame\n\n\nScott’s pi: .8\n\n\nNot available\n\n\n\n\nLi & Izard (2003)\n\n\nBroadcasting programs and news articles\n\n\n10 different key issues, including “business”, “World Trade Center”, “Pentagon”, “safety (concerning future attacks)”, “government and U.S. president, “criminal activity and terrorism,” “personal story”, “American public”, “U.S. Arab community”, and “past events”\n\n\nScott’s pi for all nominal variables in study: between .78 and .96\n\n\nNot available\n\n\n\n\nMatthews (2016)\n\n\nNewspaper articles\n\n\n6 different key issues, including “reconstruction and reaction”, “bombers’ identities”, “police investigation”, “victims/the missing”, “heroism and survivors”, and “London’s reaction”\n\n\nNot reported\n\n\nNot available\n\n\n\n\nZhang & Hellmuller (2016)\n\n\nOnline news articles\n\n\n8 key issues, sorted in the overarching categories “geopolitics” (consisting of “failing state”, “political opportunism”, “strategic game”, “geopolitical alignment”) and “existential threat” (consisting of “ISIS prowess”, “human rights crisis”, “economic consequences”, and “ISIS propaganda”)\n\n\nKrippendorf’s alpha: .73\n\n\nAvailable\n\n\n\n\n\n\xa0\nReferences\nAn, Y., Mejia, N. A., Arizi, A., Villalobos, M. M, & Rothenberger, L. (2018). Perpetrators’ strategic communication: Framing and identity building on ethno-nationalist terrorists’ websites. Communications, 43(2), 133–171. doi:10.1515/commun-2017-0057\nDu, Y. R., & Li, L. (2017). When press freedom meets national interest: How terrorist attacks are framed in the news in China and the US. Global Media and China, 2(3–4), 284–302. doi:10.1177/2059436418755761\nEntman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x\nHausecker, N., & Jirschitzka, J. (2010). Mediale Konstruktion I: Methodisches Vorgehen—Inhaltsanalyse der Terrorberichterstattung in deutschen Fernsehnachrichten [Media construction I: Methods – content analysis of terrorism coverage in German TV news]. In W. Frindte & N. Hausecker (Eds.), Inszenierter Terrorismus [Staged terrorism] (pp. 67–89). VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.\nJirschitzka, J., Hausecker, N., & Frindte, W. (2010). Mediale Konstruktion II: Die Konstruktion des Terrorismus im deutschen Fernsehen – Ergebnisdarstellung und Interpretation. [Media construction II: the construction of terrorism in German TV - results and interpretation]. In W. Frindte & N. Hausecker (Eds.), Inszenierter Terrorismus [Staged terrorism] (pp. 81–119). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.\nLarsen, A. G. (2019). Threatening criminals and marginalized individuals: Frames and news conventions in reporting of radicalization and violent extremism. Media, War & Conflict, 12(3), 299–316. doi:10.1177/1750635218769331\nLi, X. (2007). Stages of a crisis and media frames and functions: U.S. television coverage of the 9/11 incident during the first 24 hours. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(4), 670–687. doi:10.1080/08838150701626578\nLi, X., & Izard, R. (2003). 9/11 Attack coverage reveals similarities, differences. Newspaper Research Journal, 24(1), 204–219. oi:10.1177/073953290302400123\nMatthews, J. (2016). Media performance in the aftermath of terror: Reporting templates, political ritual and the UK press coverage of the London Bombings, 2005. Journalism, 17(2), 173–189. doi:10.1177/1464884914554175\nZhang, X., & Hellmuller, L. (2016). Transnational media coverage of the ISIS threat: A global perspective? International Journal of Communication, 10, 766–785.