Archive | 2021

Sources (Terrorism Coverage)



Sources describe the actors quoted by journalists to support or refute their argumentation or to introduce new aspects into a discussion. Sources might be used for direct or indirect quotes and can be attributed to a variety of actors, such as government officials, witnesses or PR sources. In terrorism coverage, the media tends to mostly rely on official sources such as the government or police officials.\nField of application/theoretical foundation:\nContent analyses focus on journalistic sources beyond terrorism coverage. Such analyses are often based on “Agenda-Setting” theories (McCombs & Shaw, 1972), models conceptualizing the relationship between journalists and PR, power hierarchies, or studies on working routines of journalists.\nReferences/combination with other methods of data collection:\nSimilar analyses in the context of “Automated Content Analysis” try to grasp news “Actors”, of which news sources might be one, automatically (for example Burggraaf & Trilling, 2020). In addition, interviews with journalists can shed light on their sourcing routines (Larsen, 2018).\nTwo studies are of particular value when analyzing sources used in terrorism coverage since they analyze a large variety of different sources and will hence be discussed in the following section.\nExample studies:\nLarsen (2019); Venger (2019)\n\xa0\nInformation on Larsen, 2019\nAuthor: Larsen (2019)\nResearch question:\xa0How are radicalization and violent extremism framed in the news, including the sources used in these articles?\nObject of analysis:\xa0Online news from four Norwegian news outlets (Aftenposten, NRK, TV2, and VG)\nTime frame of analysis: 2014–2015\xa0\nInfo about variables\nVariable name/definition: Sources\nLevel of analysis: News stories\nVariables and values: 27 different values, namely (1) no source, (2) police, (3) security services, (4) national politician in position, (5) national politician in opposition, (6) local politician, (7) bureaucracy/administration, (8) lawyer, (9) military/intelligence, (10) expert/researcher, (11) journalist/editor, (12) “extreme Islamist”, (13) “right-wing extremist”, (14) acquaintances, (15) NGOs, (16) international organizations, (17) religious leaders/spokespersons, (18) members of the public, (19) health, (20) education/school, (21) private sector/business, (22) prison administration, (23) affiliation not mentioned (i.e. anonymous), (24) think tank, (25) public prosecutors, (26) judge/court of Justice, (27) other\nReliability: Cohen’s kappa: .895\n\xa0\nInformation on Venger, 2019\nAuthors:\xa0Venger (2019)\nResearch question:\xa0How did the use of sources in news on the London bombings differ across newspapers published in countries with different media systems?\nObject of analysis:\xa0Newspaper coverage in the UK (The Guardian, The Times), the US (The Washington Post, The New York Times), and Russia (Izvestiya)\nTime frame of analysis: July–August 2005\nInfo about variables\nVariable name/definition8 different values, including (1) local government officials of the newspaper’s country, (2) foreign government officials, including officials of international agencies, (3) local experts, (4) international experts, (5) foreigners not associated with any government, (6) private citizens (of the newspaper’s country), (7) citations for local newspapers, (8) citations for international newspapers.\nReliability: Rust and Cohen’s PRL reliability index, minimal value of any variable in study: .85\n\xa0\nTable 1. Measurement of “Sources” 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\nBennett (2016)\n\n\nOnline news articles\n\n\n12 different sources, ranging from “domestic media” to “eyewitnesses”\n\n\nNot reported\n\n\nNot available\n\n\n\n\nDouai & Lauricella (2014)\n\n\nNewspaper articles\n\n\n5 different sources, ranging from “Western media sources” to “official/government Muslim sources”\n\n\nPercent agreement across all variables: 94.25\n\n\nNot available\n\n\n\n\nDu & Li (2017)\n\n\nOnline news articles\n\n\n7 different sources, ranging from “NGOs” to “laws, orders, and documents”\n\n\nScott’s pi for all variables in study: between .798 and 1\n\n\nNot available\n\n\n\n\nFahmy & Al Emad (2011)\n\n\nOnline news articles\n\n\n5 different sources, ranging from “US sources” to “Al Qaeda sources”\n\n\nScott’s pi: .92\n\n\nAvailable\n\n\n\n\nGardner (2007)\n\n\nNewspaper articles\n\n\n7 different sources, ranging from “analyst/academic” to “friends and family of the terrorist”\n\n\nHolsti across all variables: .87\n\n\nNot available\n\n\n\n\nLarsen (2019)\n\n\nBroadcasting programs and online news articles\n\n\n27 different sources, ranging from “security/intelligence” to “religious spokespersons”\n\n\nCohen’s kappa: .895\n\n\nAvailable\n\n\n\n\nLi (2007)\n\n\nBroadcasting programs\n\n\n10 different sources, ranging from “airlines officials” to “witnesses”\n\n\nScott’s pi: .84\n\n\nNot available\n\n\n\n\nMatthews (2013)\n\n\nNewspaper articles\n\n\n16 different sources, ranging from “police sources” to “experts”\n\n\nMinimal value for all variables in study: .8\n\n\nAvailable\n\n\n\n\nMatthews (2016)\n\n\nNewspaper articles\n\n\n7 different sources, ranging from “friends” to “survivors and witnesses”\n\n\nNot reported\n\n\nNot available\n\n\n\n\nVenger (2019)\n\n\nNewspaper articles\n\n\n8 different sources, ranging from “local experts” to “citations for international newspapers”\n\n\nRust and Cohen’s PRL reliability index, minimal value of any variable in study: 85\n\n\nNot available\n\n\n\n\nZhang & Hellmüller (2016)\n\n\nOnline news articles\n\n\n10 different sources, ranging from “ISIS/insurgent groups” to “ordinary people”\n\n\nKrippendorf’s alpha: .8\n\xa0\n\n\nAvailable\n\n\n\n\n\xa0\nReferences\nBennett, D. (2016). Sourcing the BBC’s live online coverage of terror attacks. Digital Journalism, 4(7), 861–874. doi:10.1080/21670811.2016.1163233\nBurggraaff, C., & Trilling, D. (2020). Through a different gate: An automated content analysis of how online news and print news differ. Journalism, 21(1), 112–129. doi:10.1177/1464884917716699\nDouai, A., & Lauricella, S. (2014). The ‘terrorism’ frame in ‘neo-Orientalism’: Western news and the Sunni–Shia Muslim sectarian relations after 9/11. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 10(1), 7–24. doi:10.1386/macp.10.1.7_1\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\nFahmy, S. S., & Al Emad, M. (2011). Al-Jazeera vs Al-Jazeera: A comparison of the network’s English and Arabic online coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict. International Communication Gazette, 73(3), 216–232. doi:10.1177/1748048510393656\nGardner, E. (2007). Is there method to the madness?: Worldwide press coverage of female terrorists and journalistic attempts to rationalize their involvement. Journalism Studies, 8(6), 909–929. doi:10.1080/14616700701556799\nLarsen, A. H. (2018). Newsworthy actors, illegitimate voices: Journalistic strategies in dealing with voices deemed anti-democratic and violent. Journalism. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/1464884918760865\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\nMatthews, J. (2013). News narratives of terrorism: Assessing source diversity and source use in UK news coverage of alleged Islamist plots. Media, War & Conflict, 6(3), 295–310. doi:10.1177/1750635213505189\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\nMcCombs, M.E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. doi:10.1086/267990\nVenger, O. (2019). The use of experts in journalistic accounts of media events: A comparative study of the 2005 London Bombings in British, American, and Russian newspapers. Journalism, 20(10), 1343–1359. doi:10.1177/1464884919830479\nZhang, X., & Hellmüller, L. (2016). Transnational Media Coverage of the ISIS Threat: A Global Perspective? International Journal of Communication, 10, 766–785.\n

Volume None
Pages None
DOI 10.34778/2W
Language English
Journal None

Full Text