Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse that views language as

a form of social practice. Scholars working in the tradition of CDA generally argue that (non-linguistic) social practice
and linguistic practice constitute one another and focus on investigating how societal power relations are established
and reinforced through language use.

Background[edit]
Critical discourse analysis emerged from 'critical linguistics' developed at the University of East Anglia in the 1970s,
and the terms are now often interchangeable.[2][3]Sociolinguistics were paying little attention to social hierarchy and
power.[4] CDA was first developed by the Lancaster school of linguists of which Norman Fairclough was the most
prominent figure. Ruth Wodak has also made a major contribution to this field of study.

In addition to linguistic theory, the approach draws from social theory—and contributions from Karl Marx, Antonio
Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu—in order to examine ideologies
and power relations involved in discourse. Language connects with the social through being the primary domain
of ideology, and through being both a site of, and a stake in, struggles for power. [1] Ideology has been called the basis
of the social representations of groups, and, in psychological versions of CDA developed by Teun A. van Dijk and
Ruth Wodak, there is assumed to be a sociocognitive interface between social structures and discourse
structures.[5] The historical dimension in critical discourse studies also plays an important role. [6]

Methodology[edit]
Although CDA is sometimes mistaken to represent a 'method' of discourse analysis, it is generally agreed upon that
any explicit method in discourse studies, the humanities and social sciences may be used in CDA research, as long
as it is able to adequately and relevantly produce insights into the way discourse reproduces (or resists) social and
political inequality, power abuse or domination.[7][8] That is, CDA does not limit its analysis to specific structures of text
or talk, but systematically relates these to structures of the sociopolitical context. CDA has been used to examine
political speech acts, to highlight the rhetoric behind these, and any forms of speech that may be used to manipulate
the impression given to the audience.[9] However, there have been flaws noted with CDA. For example, it has been
said that it is simultaneously too broad to distinctly identify manipulations within the rhetoric, yet is also not powerful
enough to appropriately find all that researchers set out to establish. [10]

Norman Fairclough developed a three-dimensional framework for studying discourse, where the aim is to map three
separate forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of (spoken or written) language texts, analysis of discourse
practice (processes of text production, distribution and consumption) and analysis of discursive events as instances
of sociocultural practice.[1][11] Particularly, he combines micro, meso and macro-level interpretation. At the micro-level,
the analyst considers various aspects of textual/linguistic analysis, for example syntactic analysis, use of metaphor
and rhetorical devices.[clarification needed] The meso-level or "level of discursive practice" involves studying issues of
production and consumption, for instance, which institution produced a text, who is the target audience, etc. At the
macro-level, the analyst is concerned with intertextual and interdiscursive elements and tries to take into account the
broad, societal currents that are affecting the text being studied. [12][13]
Critical Discourse AnalysisNorman Fairclough

Abstract

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a branch of critical social analysis, whichcontributes to the latter a
focus on discourse and on relations between discourse andother social elements (e.g. on how discourse
figures in ideologies and power relations). Critical social analysis is normative and explanatory critique: it
criticizesexisting reality on normative grounds (e.g. on the grounds that needs for human well- being
which should be met are actually not met) and seeks to explain it in terms of theeffects of posited
structures, mechanisms and forces (e.g. the workings of capitalism).There is a long tradition within
critical social analysis of viewing social reality asconceptually mediated: it is events and practices, but it
is also ‘ideas’, and theories,conceptualizations and construals of these events and practices. From this
perspectivethe ‘objects’ of critical social analysis are we might say ‘material-semiotic’, and itsconcerns
are with dialectical relations between the material and the semiotic (or ‘discourse’). A consequence is
that critical social analysis is interdisciplinary or ‘trans-disciplinary’ in character. CDA is best seen as
contributing a semiotic emphasisand ‘point of entry’ into trans-disciplinary critical social analysis. I shall
present oneversion of CDA, and a trans-disciplinary research methodology associated with it,
andillustrate it through a discussion of aspects of the current financial and economiccrisis.

Introduction

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) brings the critical tradition in social analysis into languagestudies, and
contributes to critical social analysis a particular focus on discourse, and onrelations between discourse
and other social elements (power relations, ideologies,institutions, social identities, and so forth).
Critical social analysis can be understood asnormative and explanatory critique. It is normative critique
in that does not simply describeexisting realities but also evaluates them, assesses the extent to which
they match up tovarious values which are taken (more or less contentiously) to be fundamental for just
or decent societies (e.g. certain standards – material but also political and cultural - of humanwell-
being). It is explanatory critique in that it does not simply describe existing realities butseeks to explain
them, for instance by showing them to be effects of structures or mechanismsor forces which the
analyst postulates and whose reality s/he seeks to test out (e.g.inequalities in wealth, income and access
to various social goods might be explained as aneffect of mechanisms and forces associated with
‘capitalism’).

Aspects of Critical discourse analysis by Ruth Wodak

1. 1. AAspects of Critical Discourse Analysisspects of Critical Discourse Analysis Ruth WodakRuth Wodak
Presented To:Presented To: Dr Asim sbDr Asim sb Presented By: HusnatPresented By: Husnat
2. 2. Introduction Central and Relevant terms Historical development of CDA Most important theoretical and
methodological theories within this research paradigm
3. 3. CDA Classical Rhetoric, Textlinguistics, Sociolinguistics, Applied Linguistics and Pragmatics The notion of
ideology, power, hierarchy and gender along with some sociological variables are there for interpretation
Gender issues, racism, media, political, organizational discourses or dimensions of identity research have
become prominent
4. 4. Methodology Methodologies differ greatly on account of the aims of the research Small qualitative case
studies as well as large data corpora, drawn from field work and ethnographic research are used.
5. 5. Interests of CDA Relationship between language and power Struggle and Conflict in society and language
Relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language Investigates social
inequality as expressed, constituted, legitimized and so on, by language use
6. 6. Interests of CDA “Language is also a medium of domination and social force. It serves to legitimize
relations of organized power. Insofar as the legitimizations of power relations,… are not articulated,…
language is alsi ideological” (Habermas 1967, 259).
7. 7. CDA CDA has never attempted to be or to provide one single or specific theory Studies in CDA are
multifarious, derived from quite different backgrounds, oriented towards very different data and
methodologies. CDA and CL “ are at most a shared perspective on doing linguistic, semiotic or discourse
analysis” (Van Dijik 1993, 131).
8. 8. 2. The notions of “ discourse, critical, power and ideology” CDA sees “language as a social practice”
(Fairclough / Wodak 1997) And considers the context of language use to be crucial (Wodak 2000, Benke
2000) CDA sees discourse(language use in speech and writing) as a form of social practice Dialectical
relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s) Discourse is socially
constitutive as well as socially conditioned
9. 9. Discourse & Text In English speaking world “Discourse” is often used both for written and oral texts
(Schiffrin 1992) Lemke(1995) defines “text” as the concrete realization of abstract forms of knowledge
“Discourse” as a form of knowledge and memory, whereas “text” illustrates concrete oral utterances or
written documents (Reisigl/ Wodak 2001).
10. 10. Critical The practical linking of “social and political engagement” with “a sociologically informed
construction of society” (Krings et al., 1973, 808). “in human matters, interconnections and chains of cause –
and- effect may be distorted out of vision. Hence “critique” is essentially making visible the
interconnectedness of things” (Fairclough 1995, 747).
11. 11. Critical Basically, “critical” could be understood as having distance to the data, embedding the data in
the social context, taking a political stance explicitly, and having a focus on self reflection as scholars doing
research.
12. 12. Ideology Thompson points out that the concept of ideology first appeared in late 18th -century France
and has thus been in use for about two centuries. For Thompson, ideology refers to social forms and
processes within which, and by means of which, symbolic forms circulate in the social world.
Thompson(1990) sees the study of ideology as the study of “the ways in which the meaning is constructed
and conveyed by symbolic forms of various kinds”.
13. 13. Ideology For Eagletoon(1994), the study of ideology has to bear in mind the variety of theories and
theorists that have examined the relationship between thought and social relation. All the theories assume “
that there are specific historical reasons why people come to feel, reason, desire and imagine as they do.”
(1994, 15) Social contexts (sociolinguistics; Carson, ILD, 65-67)
14. 14. Power Texts are often sites of struggle in that they show traces of differing discourses and ideologies all
contending and struggling for dominance. Defining features of CDA are to be seen in its concern with power
as a central condition in life, and in its efforts to develop a theory of language which incorporates this as a
major premise. Power is about relations of difference, and particularly about the effects of differences in
social structures.
15. 15. Power Language indexes power, expresses power, is involved where there is contention over power and
where power is challenged. Power does not derive from language but language can be used to challenge
power, to subvert it, to alter distributions of power both in the short and long term. CDA takes interest in the
ways in which linguistic forms are used in various expressions and manipulations of power.
16. 16. Aims of CDA Fundamentally interested in not only analyzing opaque but also transparent structural
relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language. Critical theories,
thus also CDA, are afforded special standing as guides for human action. They are aimed at producing both
enlightenment and emancipation. One of the aims of CDA is to “demystify” discourses by deciphering
ideologies.
17. 17. History of CDA The 1970s saw the emergence of a form of discourse and text analysis that recognized
the role of language in structuring power relations in society. The works of Kress/Hodge(1979),
Fowler/Kress/Hodge/Trew (1979), Van Dijik (1985), Fairclough(1989), and Wodak(ed.) (1989) serve to
explain and illustrate the main assumptions, principles and procedures of what had then been known as CL.
18. 18. History of CDA Kriss indicates that the term CL was “quite self- consciously adapted” (1990, 88) by the
group of scholars at the university of East Anglia in 1970s. Kress(1990, 94) shows how CDA by that time
“emerging as a distant theory of language, a radically different kind of linguistics”. Fairclough/ Wodak (1997)
established 10 basic principles of a CDA program.
19. 19. History of CDA (1) The approach is interdisciplinary. This entails different dimensions of
interdisciplinarity. Teamwork consists of different researchers from different traditionally defined disciplines
working together. The methodologies are also adapted to the data under investigation. (2) The approach is
problem-oriented, rather than focuses on specific linguistic items. Social problems are the items of research,
such as “racism, identity, social change”.
20. 20. History of CDA (3) The theories as well as methodologies are eclectic; i.e., theories and methodologies
are integrated which are adequate for an understanding and explanation of the text under investigation. (4)
 The study always incorporates fieldwork and ethnography to explore the object under investigation. (5) The
approach is abductive: a constant back and forth movement between theory and data is necessary.
21. 21. History of CDA (6) Multiple genres and multiple public spaces are studied, and intertextual and
interdiscursive relationships are investigated. (7) The historical context is always analyzed and integrated
into the interpretation of discourse and texts. (8) Different approaches in CDA use different grammatical
theories.
22. 22. History of CDA (9) Grand theories might serve as a foundation, in the specific analysis, Middle-Range
Theories serve the aims better. (10) Practice and application are aimed at. The results should be made
available to experts in different fields, and, as a second step, be applied, with the goal of changing certain
social and discursive practices.
23. 23. Main Research Agenda Main basic assumptions of early stages about CDA are articulated in Kress’s
work. These are Language is a social phenomenon; Not only individuals, but also institutions and social
groupings, have special meanings and values that are expressed in language in systematic ways; Texts are
relevant units of language in communication;
24. 24. Main Research Agenda Readers/hearers are not passive recipients in their relationships to texts; There
are similarities between the language of science and the language of institutions, and so on. (Kress 1989)
25. 25. Metafunctions of language by Halliday He distinguished three metafunctions of language which are
continuously interconnected: Firstly, the ideational function, through which language lends structure to
experience. Secondly, the interpersonal function, which constitutes relationships between the participants.
Thirdly, the textual function, which constitutes coherence and cohesion in texts.
26. 26. Open questions and perspectives Certain areas have not yet adequately been discussed and which
invite researchers from CDA The problem of operationalizing theories and problems of mediation); The
linguistic theory to be applied: often enough, a whole mixed bag of linguistic indicators and variables were
used to analyze texts with no theoretical notions or grammatical theory in the background.
27. 27. Open questions and perspectives The accusation of being biased- however are certain readings of texts
justified? To justify certain interpretations, the decisions for particular analysis should be made more explicit.
Inter- or trans-disciplinarity have not yet been truly integrated into text analysis.

oucauldian discourse analysis.

1. 1. What is critical discourse analysis. In CDA, the notion of ‘critical’ is primarily applied to the engagement
with power relations associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory. In this, it argues against a realist,
neutral and rationalist view of the world. Instead the role is to uncloak the hidden power relations, largely
constructed through language, and to demonstrate and challenge social inequities reinforced and
reproduced. Discourse is a contested and contestable term. James Gee (1990) uses the term discourse
(with a small ‘d’ to talk about language in use, or the way language is used in a social context to ‘enact’
activities and identities. His work is influenced by Michel Foucault. In terms of analysis, CDA takes the view
that texts need to be consider in terms of what they include but also what they omit – alternative ways of
constructing and defining the world. The critical discourse analyst’s job is not to simply read political and
social ideologies onto a text but to consider the myriad ways in which a text could have been written and
what these alternatives imply for ways of representing the world, understanding the world and the social
actions that are determined by these ways of thinking and being.
2. 2. Is based on the theories of Michel Foucault. Is a form of discourse analysis, focusing on power
relationships in society as expressed through language and practices.
3. 3. The analysis attempts to understand how individuals view the world, and studies categorizations,
personal and institutional relationships, ideology, and politics This approach is close to social
constructivism, as the researcher tries to understand how our society is being shaped (or constructed) by
language, which in turn reflects existing power relationships.  The method analyzes how the social world,
expressed through language, is affected by various sources of power.  These are expressed through
language and behavior, and the relationship between language and power.  Besides focusing on the
meaning of a given discourse, the distinguishing characteristic of this approach is its stress on power
relationships. 
4. 4. The first step is a simple recognition that discourse is a body of statements that are organized in a regular
and systematic way. The subsequent four steps are based on the identification of rules on: How those
statements are created. What can be said (written) and what cannot. How spaces in which new statements
can be made are created. Making practices material and discursive at the same time. Kendall and Wickham
outline five steps in using "Foucauldian discourse analysis".
5. 5. A Foucauldian notion of discourse holds that: •discourse is a culturally constructed representation of
reality, not an exact copy •discourse constructs knowledge and thus governs, through the production of
categories of knowledge and assemblages of texts, what it is possible to talk about and what is not (the
taken for granted rules of inclusion/exclusion). As such, it re/produces both power and knowledge
 simultaneously •discourse defines subjects framing and positioning who it is possible to be and what it is
possible to do •power circulates throughout society and, while hierarchised, is not simply a top-down
phenomenon •it is possible to examine regimes of power through the historicised deconstruction of systems
or regimes of meaning-making constructed in and as discourse, that is to see how and why some categories
of thinking and lines of argument have come to be generally taken as truths while other ways of
thinking/being/doing are marginalised.
6. 6. There are of course a range of critiques of this social theory – how much it denies material reality,
whether it disallows agency, whether anything precedes discourse and so on…
7. 7. Turning this way of understanding discourse into method to apply to textual analysis means asking of the
text or texts questions such as:
8. 8. •What is being represented here as a truth or as a norm? •How is this constructed? What ‘evidence’ is
used? What is left out? •What is fore grounded and back grounded? What is made problematic and what is
not? What alternative meanings/explanations are ignored? • What is kept apart and what is joined together?
•What interests are being mobilized and served by this and what are not? •How has this come to be? •What
identities, actions, practices are made possible and /or desirable and/or required by this way of
thinking/talking/understanding? What are disallowed? What is normalized and what is pathologised?
9. 9. A DIVE INTO FOUCAULT’S DISCOURSE.
10. 10. Ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity and power
relations. Discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. They constitute the 'nature' of
the body, unconscious and conscious mind and emotional life of the subjects they seek to govern (Weedon,
1987, p. 108). ... a form of power that circulates in the social field and can attach to strategies of domination
as well as those of resistance ( Diamond and Quinby, 1988, p. 185).
11. 11. In his view knowledge is inextricably( can’t untie or separate) connected to power, such that they are
often written as power/knowledge. That is, he looks at the continuities and discontinuities between
“epistemes” (taken by Foucault to mean the knowledge systems which primarily informed the thinking during
certain periods of history: a different one being said to dominate each epistemological age), and the social
context in which certain knowledges and practices emerged as permissible and desirable or changed.  Not
in the traditional sense of the word but in attending to what he has variously termed the 'archaeology'(
studying human history) or 'genealogy' (studying family history) of knowledge production.  Foucault's work
is imbued with an attention to history. 
12. 12. Lots of attention given to History of knowledge. Not in traditio nal sense. Termed it as Archaeology n
Genealogy Looks at the continuities and discontinuities between “epistemes”. N Social context, which
makes certain knowledges n practices Permissible, desirable n changed. KNOWLEDGE POWER
13. 13. Discipline is a mechanism of power which regulates the behavior of individuals in the social body. This
is done by regulating the organization of space (architecture etc.), of time (timetables) and people's activity
and behavior (drills, posture, movement). It is enforced with the aid of complex systems of surveillance.
Foucault emphasizes that power is not discipline, rather discipline is simply one way in which power can be
exercised. He also uses the term 'disciplinary society', discussing its history and the origins and disciplinary
institutions such as prisons, hospitals, asylums, schools and army barracks. Foucault also specifies that
when he speaks of a 'disciplinary society' he does not mean a 'disciplined society'. Disciplinary power: 
sovereign power: Sovereign power involves obedience to the law of the king or central authority figure.
Foucault argues that 'disciplinary power' gradually took over from 'sovereign power' in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. Even now, however, remnants of sovereign power still remain in tension with
disciplinary power.  Foucault's conceptual analysis of a major shift in (western) cultural practices, from
'sovereign power' to 'disciplinary power', is a good example of his method of genealogy. 
14. 14. Panopticon, panopticism and surveillance: The Panopticon, was a design for a prison produced by
Jeremy Bentham in the late eighteenth century which grouped cells around a central viewing tower.
Although the prison was never actually built the idea was used as a model for numerous institutions
including some prisons. Foucault uses this as a metaphor for the operation of power and surveillance in
contemporary society.
15. 15. Power . Foucault argues a number of points in relation to power and offers definitions that are directly
opposed to more traditional liberal and Marxist theories of power. definitions power is not a thing but a
relation power is not simply repressive but it is productive power is not simply a property of the State. Power
is not something that is exclusively localized in government and the State (which is not a universal essence).
Rather, power is exercised throughout the social body. power operates at the most micro levels of social
relations. Power is omnipresent at every level of the social body. the exercise of power is strategic and war-
like.
16. 16. …as part of his attempt to understand the relationship between language, social institutions, subjectivity
and power. Discursive fields, such as the law or the family, contain a number of competing and contradictory
discourses with varying degrees of power to give meaning to and organize social institutions and processes.
They also 'offer' a range of modes of subjectivity (Weedon, 1987, p. 35). It follows then that, if relations of
 power are dispersed and fragmented throughout the social field, so must resistance to power be (Diamond
& Quinby, 1988, p. 185).
17. 17. Thus, there are both discourses that constrain the production of knowledge, dissent and difference and
some that enable 'new' knowledges and difference(s). The questions that arise, are to do with how some
discourses maintain their authority, how some 'voices' get heard whilst others are silenced, who benefits and
how - that is, questions addressing issues of power/ empowerment/ disempowerment. Foucault argues
though, in The Order of Discourse, that the 'will to truth' is the major system of exclusion that forges
discourse and which 'tends to exert a sort of pressure and something like a power of constraint on other
discourses', and goes on further to ask the question 'what is at stake in the will to truth, in the will to utter this
'true' discourse, if not desire and power?' (1970, cited in Shapiro 1984, p. 113-4). 
18. 18. THANKS.

Framing Theory
The concept of framing is related to the agenda-setting tradition but expands the research by focusing on the
essence of the issues at hand rather than on a particular topic. The basis of framing theory is that the media
focuses attention on certain events and then places them within a field of meaning. Framing is an important
topic since it can have a big influence and therefore the concept of framing expanded to organizations as well.

In essence, framing theory suggests that how something is presented to the audience (called “the frame”)
influences the choices people make about how to process that information. Frames are abstractions that work
to organize or structure message meaning. The most common use of frames is in terms of the frame the news
or media place on the information they convey. They are thought to influence the perception of the news by
the audience, in this way it could be construed as a form of second level agenda-setting – they not only tell the
audience what to think about (agenda-setting theory), but also how to think about that issue (second level
agenda setting, framing theory).

The theory was first put forth by Goffman, under the title of Frame Analysis (link to PDF of article). He put
forth that people interpret what is going on around their world through their primary framework. This
framework is regarded as primary as it is taken for granted by the user. Its usefulness as a framework does not
depend on other frameworks.
Goffman states that there are two distinctions within primary frameworks: natural + social. Both play the role
of helping individuals interpret data. So that their experiences can be understood in a wider social context. The
difference between the two is functional.
Natural frameworks identify events as physical occurrences taking natural quote literally and
not attributing any social forces to the causation of events. Social frameworks view events as socially driven
occurrences, due to the whims, goals, and manipulations on the part of other social players (people). Social
frameworks are built on the natural frameworks. These frameworks and the frames that they create in our
communication greatly influence how data is interpreted, processed, and communicated. Goffman’s underlying
assumption is that individuals are capable users of these frameworks on a day to day basis. Whether they are
aware of them or not.
 An actual frame.

Framing techniques per Fairhurst and Sarr (1996):

 Metaphor: To frame a conceptual idea through comparison to something else.

 Stories (myths, legends): To frame a topic via narrative in a vivid and memorable way.
 Tradition (rituals, ceremonies): Cultural mores that imbue significance in the mundane, closely tied to artifacts.
 Slogan, jargon, catchphrase: To frame an object with a catchy phrase to make it more memorable and relate-
able.
 Artifact: Objects with intrinsic symbolic value – a visual/cultural phenomenon that holds more meaning than
the object it self.
 Contrast: To describe an object in terms of what it is not.
 Spin: to present a concept in such a ways as to convey a value judgement (positive or negative) that might not
be immediately apparent; to create an inherent bias by definition.
Framing is in many ways tied very closely to Agenda Setting theory. Both focus on how media draws the
public’s eye to specific topics – in this way they set the agenda. But Framing takes this a step further in the
way in which the news is presented creates a frame for that information. This is usually a conscious choice by
journalists – in this case a frame refers to the way media as gatekeepers organize and present the ideas, events,
and topics they cover.
Framing is the way a communication source defines and constructs a any piece of communicated
information. Framing is an unavoidable part of human communication – we all bring our own frames to our
communications.

Sources + further reading:

 Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York, NY et al.:
Harper & Row
 Fairhurst, G. & Sarr, R. 1996. The art of Framing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 Scheufele, Dietram A. 1999. “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects.” Journal of Communication 49 (4): 103-
22.
 Framing the News
BY PEW RESEARCH CENTER: JOURNALISM & MEDIA STAFF
Overview
A Study of the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Princeton Survey Research Associates
What are the narrative techniques journalists use to frame the news?

Do some stories contain discernible underlying messages?

Do these journalistic conventions of storytelling represent a set of professional predilections or

biases, which contend with ideology and other personal perspectives in determining the nature of
news?

The Project for Excellence in Journalism is embarked on a multi-year study to try to answer these
questions. Over the next year, it intends to examine what major biases exist in the press, and to try to
quantify to what extent ideological bias exists.

As a first step, the Project, along with professor Jay Rosen of New York University and Princeton
Survey Research Associates, developed a pilot study to identify various narrative story telling frames
employed in presenting the news.

This pilot study — focusing mostly on framing — was meant primarily as a learning device to aid in
developing the larger bias study. Yet it did yield some interesting findings that are the basis of this
report. Among them:

 Straight news accounts, the inverted pyramid narrative frame, accounted for a surprisingly small
number of front page stories–only 16%–suggesting the press is becoming increasingly thematic and
interpretative in the way it presents news.

 In contrast, the press shows a decided tendency to present the news through a combative lens. Three
narrative frames — conflict, winners and losers and revealing wrongdoing — accounted for 30% of all
stories, twice the number of straight news accounts. The penchant for framing stories around these
combative elements is even more pronounced at the top of the front page and is truer still when it
comes to describing the actions or statements of government officials.Although newspapers
increasingly talk about the need to explain and interpret, the findings suggest they do less of it than
might be expected. Explanatory framesthose that reveal how things work, how they fit into larger
trends, or historical contextaccounted for only 12% of all stories. The findings also confirm a
 presumption on the part of journalists that readers don’t care much about policy or its impact. Policy
stories accounted for only 8% of the pieces on the front page.

 Local papers tend to rely on traditional straight news accounts and try to explain how things work
more. National papers are more interpretative and try to put news into a larger perspective.

 Increasingly, news originates from decisions made in the newsroom rather than by events from the
outside. While statements by government officials represented the most common trigger for front
page news, the next three most common were all newsroom initiated–a decision by news
organizations to show enterprise, to analyze and interpret, or to preview what comes next.

 The press is not simply negative or cynical. In those stories deemed to contain some kind of
underlying message, optimism was actually the most common theme (as in suggesting perseverance
pays off). But when stories were triggered by journalists’ own enterprise, the message became more
distrustful.

In preparation for the larger study, this prologue study analyzed front page content of seven
newspapers for two months, beginning January 1, 1999 through February 28,1999. It looked at three
papers categorized as national: the New York Times, Washington Postand Los Angeles Times. It looked at
four papers categorized as local or regional: theAtlanta Journal Constitution, the Idaho Statesman in
Boise, the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
It tried to capture four central elements of how journalists present the news:

1. Topic: What story topics were played on page one.

 Trigger: What triggered the news organization to cover the story. In other words, what made the
event or issue news in the first place? Was a poll released? Was a bill passed? Did an official hold a
press conference?
 Frame: What narrative device or approach was used by journalists in composing the story. For
example, was the story built around the conflict inherent in an issue? Was the story built around the
points of agreement among stakeholders in an issue?
 Underlying Message: This code tried to identify any underlying social or folkloric messages
evoked in the story, consciously or unconsciously. Is the government inefficient? Are politicians in it
mostly for power? Is the little guy usually right? This code of enduring message was developed in
part to test the question of whether the press has certain unconscious social, cultural or even political
biases, such as toward establishmentarianism, negativism, etc. These are biases or predilections that
go beyond narrative story telling which journalists might more readily acknowledge as a more
necessary way of ordering the news to make it interesting.

What is framing in the news?

Framing Theory. The concept of framing is related to the agenda-setting tradition but expands the
research by focusing on the essence of the issues at hand rather than on a particular topic. The
basis of framing theory is that the media focuses attention on certain events and then places them
within a field of meaning.

What is the framing process?

Framing involves social construction of a social phenomenon – by mass media sources, political or
social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. Participation in a language
community necessarily influences an individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or
phrases.

What is the framing effect?

The framing effect is an example of cognitive bias, in which people react to a particular choice in
different ways depending on how it is presented; e.g. as a loss or as a gain. People tend to avoid
risk when a positive frame is presented but seek risks when a negative frame is presented.

What is the difference between using frame analysis or discourse analysis?

I would say that framing analysis (FA) is fundamentally a type of discourse analysis
(DA) - it is after all an analysis of one's (or several) discourse. It is an analysis that is
intended to bring to the fore the manner in which the communicator of a message uses
discursive key elements in order to frame a certain topic/experience/idea in a certain
manner so the recipients of the communication will view it in that manner.
As mentioned above by other before me, DA is an umbrella term for a whole gamut of
analytical approaches, all of which share the common denominator of analyszing
discourse. Hence, FA is compatible with some but not with other types of DA.
Understand your research question well, and you should be able to identify where and
how the two literatures - that of FA and that of DA - may be put to use together for your
research.