Verica Rupar

JOURNALISM CURIOSITY AND STORY-TELLING FRAME: A comparative study of Australian and Danish newspapers

This comparative study of journalism practices in Australia and Denmark explores the interplay between two concepts relevant for journalisms meaning-making activity: a curiosity seen as an action meant to close an information gap, and a story-telling frame seen as a form of structuring information which helps to define what is known of a topic. Using the newspaper coverage of events following the discovery of a “mysterious sickness” in the previous home of a group of Tasmanian devils sent to Copenhagen Zoo as a christening gift for the baby of the Danish royal, the article examines how the epistemological and organisational dimension of frames relates to the process of meaning making. We suggest refining the concept of frame in journalism studies by making a distinction between a frame (an epistemological category) and an angle (a textual organisation category). Our investigation shows that this distinction better serves the analysis and understanding of the mechanisms behind journalism in comparative contexts.

Keeping Our Options Closed: the Dominance of the Conflict Story-Telling Frame in Media Coverage of the Royal Commission's Report On Genetic Modification in New Zealand

The debate on Genetic ModificationlEngineering in New Zealand was extensively covered in the press, particularly on the release of a Royal Commission report on the subject in July 2001. Examination of that coverage reveals that the print media framed the story primarily as a political conflict between environmentalists and a government that was routinely employed as an authoritative (rather than a contested) source. The press —and not just in its editorial columns — also took a strongly pro-GM/GE stance, notwithstanding the fact that it did not appear to reflect the opinions of its readers.

‘Shadow publics’ in the news coverage of socio-political issues

Coverage of contentious socio-political issues in the news media often involves the creation of ‘shadow publics’ that facilitate journalistic framing strategies. These publics are not easily identifiable but exert significant persuasive power by virtue of the authority ascribed to them. This article explores how the media create and legitimize certain shadow publics which then go on to influence public policy. The findings of the article come out of an examination of the extensive newspaper coverage of two highly debated issues – immigration and genetic modification – in New Zealand between 1998 and 2002. Although the coverage of the two issues was dramatically different, it was apparent that particular sections of the population were given greater voice over others in newspapers via the seemingly neutral yet strongly opinionated and influential shadow publics.