LLoouuiissiiaannaa SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy LLSSUU DDiiggiittaall CCoommmmoonnss LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2010 FFrraammiinngg JJeewweellll:: aa ddiissccoouurrssee aannaallyyssiiss ooff nneewwssppaappeerr ccoovveerraaggee iinn tthhee aafftteerrmmaatthh ooff tthhee AAttllaannttaa OOllyymmppiiccss bboommbbiinngg aanndd ddiissccuussssiioonn ooff lleeggaall aanndd eetthhiiccaall ssttaannddaarrddss ffoorr ssuucchh pprraaccttiicceess Anne L. Songy Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Mass Communication Commons RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn Songy, Anne L., "Framing Jewell: a discourse analysis of newspaper coverage in the aftermath of the Atlanta Olympics bombing and discussion of legal and ethical standards for such practices" (2010). LSU Master's Theses. 588. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/588 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FRAMING JEWELL: A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF NEWSPAPER COVERAGE IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE ATLANTA OLYMPICS BOMBING AND DISCUSSION OF LEGAL AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR SUCH PRACTICES A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment for the requirements for the degree of Master of Mass Communication In The Manship School of Mass Communication by: Anne L. Songy B.A., Louisiana State University, 1991 August 2010 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am forever indebted to a number of people for their roles in the completion of this project. My sincere thanks go to my thesis chairman, Dr. Craig Freeman, whose patience and skill were the driving force behind my success. Despite my frequent diatribes about the merits of prior restraint (and similar Communist practices), he allowed me the freedom to examine my arguments and find the truth on my own. I am equally grateful to Dr. Lou Day, whose remarkable knowledge in the field of media ethics provided me a sure foundation on which to expand my study. Dr. Rick Popp’s enthusiasm for qualitative research changed the way I view mass media studies and impacted this project profoundly. I am honored to have been mentored by all three of these fine professors. I would also like to thank two friends and colleagues: Teresa Day, who planted the seed five years ago, and Dena Arnone, who cheered me on every step of the way. Lastly, I hold the highest regard and appreciation for three individuals whose sacrifice and support cushioned this long and rocky road. I am forever thankful to my mother, Anne G. Shirley, who shared with me her deep respect and affection for the power of the English language. To my son, Daniel, who has sacrificed a great deal to allow me this opportunity, I promise I will not pursue another degree until he has left for college. Finally, to my husband Moe Songy, I am exceedingly grateful for his unyielding devotion to me and my endeavors. His encouragement and sacrifice were instrumental in my success, and his positive attitude was strong enough for both of us. He is indeed a rare and precious find. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................................ii ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................v CHAPTERS INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1 LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................14 FINDINGS..................................................................................................................26 Frame Clusters...................................................................................................26 The Reluctant Hero..................................................................................26 Jewell is Guilty........................................................................................27 United We Stand......................................................................................29 Media Self-Coverage...............................................................................32 Discursive Tactics..............................................................................................34 SOCIETAL DISCUSSION..........................................................................................36 Mythology and Framing....................................................................................36 Symbolism and Framing....................................................................................42 Storytelling and Framing...................................................................................45 Society and Framing..........................................................................................47 LEGAL DISCUSSION................................................................................................49 A Brief History of Libel.....................................................................................49 Regarding Jewell................................................................................................55 Viability of False Light......................................................................................59 Broader Implications..........................................................................................61 ETHICS DISCUSSION...............................................................................................64 Theoretical Framework......................................................................................65 Self-Restraint.....................................................................................................69 Explanations.......................................................................................................72 The Journalist...........................................................................................72 The News Organization...........................................................................74 Industry Standards...................................................................................78 Collective Mindset of the Profession.......................................................80 Pack Mentality...............................................................................80 First Amendment Righteousness...................................................81 Pretending for Democracy.............................................................82 iii CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................85 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................93 VITA......................................................................................................................................110 iv ABSTRACT This study examines the newspaper coverage of Richard Jewell during the weeks after the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing. Jewell, a security guard working in the Olympic Park on July 27, 1996, was initially hailed as a hero due to his discovery of a bomb minutes before the explosion. After Jewell’s name was leaked to the press as an FBI person of interest in the case, many reporters began to frame Jewell in a negative light and, in some instances, even implied his guilt. Through a discourse analysis of news stories published between the date of the bombing and the date Jewell was officially removed as a suspect (three months), four distinct framing clusters are identified in this study: The Reluctant Hero, He is Guilty, United We Stand, and Media Self-Coverage. Discursive tactics used to support these themes are identified as word choice, source choice and use of unnecessary information. The roles of myths, symbols, storytelling, and society in frame-making provide the foundation for an in-depth discussion about the broader meanings and implications of the news frames found in the coverage of the bombing. This study finds that frames are prevalent in media coverage and play an essential role in society, but they are sometimes misused by the press in such a way that harms individuals. A subsequent legal discussion underscores the courts’ dogged protection of First Amendment rights in these situations and the dilemmas that develop when a private individual is ruled to be a public figure in the defamation lawsuit. An additional examination of news media ethics offers possible reasons journalists resort to the types of discursive tactics found in the Jewell coverage; specifically, this study finds explanations that pertain to the journalist, the newsroom, industry guidelines, and the collective mindset of the profession. v INTRODUCTION Framing is an often-used tactic the news media employ to present their own adaptations of stories. Gamson & Modigliani (1987) define a frame as “a central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events, weaving a connection among them” (p. 143). The media frame possesses a great deal of power and can help to assign blame for a social problem, to take another issue out of public focus, or to intimate a person’s guilt. Tankard (2001) observes, “Much of the power of framing comes from its ability to define the terms of a debate without the audience realizing it is taking place” (p. 97). He likens media framing to “the magician’s sleight of hand – attention is directed to one point so that people do not notice the manipulation that is going on at another point” (p. 97). I will examine the script (or storytelling) function of framing and analyze the attempts made by newspapers to frame a story using techniques that ultimately imply a subject’s guilt. The print coverage of Richard Jewell, the key figure of the Atlanta Olympics bombing, will be examined in this single case study. A narrative investigation of the topic using this approach will provide an additional layer of knowledge to the body of literature pertaining to framing, news discourse, narratives, ethics and first amendment rights. The discussion will be particularly interesting with respect to meaning-making surrounding high profile crimes in our society. For example, we will gain insight into the techniques and scripts with which the news media speaks to the public and how they strengthen existing cultural scripts and create new ones depending on the societal climate. Furthermore, given that media framing itself can present serious ethical dilemmas and legal concerns, an investigation of this nature provides an ideal opportunity for exploration of journalism’s legal parameters and ethical principles. Finally, the study is important because it 1 speaks to the power of the press in its ability to use certain discursive tactics that imply the guilt of an innocent person, while sometimes ignoring more truthful (albeit less interesting) facts. A discourse analysis of this type is a most efficient way of studying media scripting in the “trial by media” context. Whereas a content analysis would only brush the surface of the issue, the discourse analysis gives us the depth needed to gain another dimension of understanding of culture, ideology, and meaning-making. Furthermore, a quantitative study may be able to show some of the effects of framing on the public, but it cannot tell us the specific themes with which the media package the story and, ultimately, insinuate the guilt of an innocent man. The Olympics bombing provides an excellent study for this media phenomenon for several reasons. Richard Jewell was initially hailed as a hero due to his discovering a bomb minutes before the explosion and his ushering of hundreds of people out of harm’s way. In fact, he was used as an exclusive source by several outlets (Lopresti, “Guard’s alertness in park makes him an unexpected hero,” 1996). Within three days of his accolades, Jewell’s name was leaked to the press by the FBI as being a person of interest in the case. Immediately, some media outlets began to frame Jewell as a “loser” and a person who fit the “loner terrorist” profile (Scruggs, K., & Martz, R., “FBI suspect ‘hero’ guard,” 1996). Although homegrown terrorist Eric Rudolph eventually pled guilty to the bombing and Jewell was cleared of all charges, the negative impact to his reputation was immense. Although he collected damages in settlements from several news sources, he was unsuccessful in his libel suit against the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and he never recovered from the stigma given to him by the press. Jewell’s attorney Jack Martin said, “‘The bottom line is that a good, innocent man has been devastated’” (Curriden, 1997, p. 20). 2 LITERATURE REVIEW According to Entman (1993), “To frame is to 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” (p. 52). Alternatively, frames are also described as “mentally stored clusters of ideas that guide individuals’ processing of information (Entman, 1993, p. 53). In other words, frames can be studied with an eye toward the creator of the frames (the journalist or the source) or the interpreter of the frames (the audience). Gitlin (1980) agrees, stating frames are “largely unspoken and unacknowledged, organize the world both for journalists who report it and, in some important degree, for us who rely on their reports” (p. 7). Kinder and Sanders (1990) refer to frames as “embedded” devices (by the news media) and “internal structures of the mind” (for individuals) (p. 74). Similarly, Kinder and Sanders describe the duality of frames as “devices embedded in…discourse” and “internal structures of the mind” (p. 74). In his discussion of framing, Scheufele (1999) recognizes three separate actors: the advocacy organization or source, the journalist, and the audiences (McQuail, 2005). Scheufele also assigns processes to the actors, wherein journalists construct frames while working under press routine pressures, interest groups transmit the message, and the audience accepts the message (McQuail). D’Angelo (2002) asserts that framing literature indicate there are three distinct framing paradigms: cognitivist, construcionist, and critical. A cognitivist model describes the journalist’s text becoming “embodied in the thoughts and words of those affected,” while the constructionist model underscores the interpretations journalists ascribe to the positions of their sources (McQuail, p. 511). Lastly, the critical paradigm attributes frames to the “outcome of news gathering routines and the values of elites” (McQuail, p. 511). 3 Media framing has been studied both on its own merits as a phenomenon that affects how news events are understood (Price, Tewksbury & Powers, 1995, Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Iyengar, 1991) and as one part in a more complicated system of related approaches, such as agenda-setting (Iyengar & Kinder, 1997; Popkin, 1994). Many times, framing is defined by these related, yet distinctly different, approaches (Fisher, 1997; Scheufele, 1999; Hallahan, 1999; and Maher, 2001). In 1972, McCombs and Shaw set out to determine if the media influenced what the public viewed as issues of importance in political campaigns and whether that exposure influenced audience attitudes. They found voters were likely to share a composite of the media’s portrayal of important news based on the political candidates’ agenda-setting. Fifteen years after McCombs and Shaw’s seminal study on agenda-setting, Iyengar (1987) measured the effects of framing on causal beliefs and the subsequent impact on assessments of presidential performance. He found that people can and do come up with explanations for issues of national importance, and those explanations do affect their opinions of the incumbent president. He writes, “The more individuals attribute problems to structural systematic causes, the more critical they are of President Reagan’s performance” (p. 828). In 1991, Iyengar examined the influence of television viewing on audience perception of responsibility for political issues. In his research, he identified two types of frames, defined by the unique way each is presented (episodic and thematic) and described the difference between the two as, “episodic framing depicts concrete events that illustrate issues, while thematic framing presents collective or general evidence” (p. 14). In this respect, episodic framing tends to illicit more emotion through the use of individual, specific events, while thematic frames tend to be more abstract and systemic (Iyengar, 1991). The differentiation between these two type of frames is important, claims Iyengar, because the use of one over the other determines how the 4