The central question of this thesis is, how has the alternative US media framed the war in Syria? The analytical approach is informed by recent scholarly debate regarding peace journalism and constructive journalism. The framings of the war in Syria have been studied in three alternative US online news sources through a qualitative content analysis. The news sources are Truthout, The Progressive and Common dreams. Results show that these alternative US media has framed the war in line with characteristics of peace journalism and constructive journalism. This tendency departs from how the conflict is regularly framed in mainstream US media. The three studied media have for example promoted diplomatic and peaceful solutions to the war in Syria and tend to give voices to people that are not part of the US political elite.

The central theory guiding my research is that interstate conflict, at least as covered in mass media, leaves residual cultural attitudes that can shape the political context in which elites formulate policy. Specifically, U.S. interventionism in the Middle East has given rise to fundamental hostilities, founded on misguided biases, that shape involvement in the region today. I focus on one step within that broader theory, to test it empirically: the hypothesis that anti-Muslim stereotypes, when activated, will shape an individual’s foreign-policy preferences. I begin by considering competing accounts that link 1) ethnocentrism or 2) targeted stereotypes with support for the use of military force in the Middle East. After careful review of the group-based and social-identity theories that undergird the two accounts, I synthesize them. My more-complete theory can be summarized as: Someone will exhibit an ethnocentric response toward an out-group when negative stereotypes about the group combine with an individual’s in-group identity to result in perceived threat. Applying the logic of that hypothesis to Muslims and American foreign policy, I argue that, for American whites, Muslims are uniquely situated to be perceived as realistic and symbolic cultural threats to their core national identity because they may differ in terms of ethnicity, culture, and religion. Mass media portray Muslims as violent and encourage Americans to evaluate them in terms of such cultural dissimilarity. On the other hand, Muslims present little identity threat to blacks, whose core in-group identity typically revolves around their status as a racial minority in the United States. Even blacks who identify with the nation will not view Islam as incompatible with their national identity because that identity is typically not predicated on looking, living, or believing a certain way. I develop these ideas into testable hypotheses and investigate how anti-Muslim attitudes shape opinion about important contemporary Middle East issues. Using survey and experimental data, I find compelling evidence linking anti-Muslim attitudes – among whites – to support for using military force (rather than diplomacy) against Iran and against Islamists. Those attitudes also predict opposition to accepting Syrian refugees. Finally, I turn from this narrative of negativity to argue that the anti-Muslim stereotypes many citizens bring to bear when forming judgments of Middle East policy can be shifted. I base this optimistic expectation on media framing theories, which suggest that issue frames can shift opinion when they emphasize strong and credible arguments. After constructing frames from debate statements during the 2016 Presidential Election, and an original frame that affirms counterstereotypes of Muslims, I expect and find evidence that strong frames emphasizing the obligations of American identity and factual counterstereotype-affirming information can shift those who oppose accepting refugees to more moderate positions. Broadly, my research offers a theoretically-grounded schematic for how stereotypes and identity construction operate together cognitively to shape public opinion. My methods offer leverage to those endeavoring to explain how these idea elements shape opinion in other issue domains. I also divulge important nuances about how specific actors (i.e., whites) propagate a cycle of anti-Muslim attitudes, warfare, and terrorism. I contribute to rivalry theory in international relations by explaining how cultural biases shape an enduring rivalry of the grandest scale: the perpetual U.S.-Middle East conflict. My framing research offers both academic and practical contributions by providing evidence on behalf of existing theory and by suggesting how media and political elites – by describing issues in unbiased ways – could knock off course the perpetual cycle of American interventionism, retaliatory terrorism, and resulting anti-Muslim stereotype generalizations.

The primary component in eccentrically braced frames (EBF) is the link as its plastic strength controls the design of the frame as well as the entire building within which it is installed. EBFs are the first part of building design and every other component is sized based on the forces developed in the link. Oversized link elements lead to the use of unnecessary materials and can increase construction costs. Additionally, the advantages of using a continuous member of the same depth for both the link and the controller beam (in terms of the cost and the time) motivates researchers to find a way to control the link strength in conventional EBFs. Previous studies on the link-to-column connections in EBF have shown that the links are likely to fail before reaching the required rotation due to fractures at low drift level. Moreover, improving the strength of the links in EBF depends primarily on their ability to achieve target inelastic deformation and to provide high ductility during earthquakes. Therefore, in this study, the concept of tuned link strength properties in EBF, T-EBF, is experimentally introduced as a solution to improve the performance of the link in conventional EBF by cutting out an opening in the link web. Furthermore, a new brace-to-link connection is proposed to bolt the brace member with the link in contrast to the conventional method of welding them. This new idea in continuous beam design was investigated to verify the stability of the tuned eccentrically braced frame, either welded or bolted, with a bracing member. A total of four full-scale cyclic tests were conducted to study the ability of T-EBF to achieve inelastic deformation. The specimens have two different cross sections: W18x76 and W16x67, two different sections where the brace was welded to the link, and two other specimens at different sections where the brace was bolted to the link were examined. The experimental results indicate that the link in T-EBF can achieve high rotation, exceeding 0.15 rad, and an overstrength factor equal to 1.5. Failure involved included web buckling at very high rotation. The T-EBF displayed a very good, non-replaceable ductile link. The experiments were followed by an isotropic kinematic-combined hardening model in the finite element analyses (FEA). The FEA analysis is developed to predict the effect of web opening configuration on the local section stresses and strains and global characteristics of the frame. FEA exhibits good agreement with the experimental results and can capture the inelastic buckling behavior of the sections. The link configuration parameters of the T-EBF were studied extensively on a W18x76 shear link subjected to the 2016 AISC seismic design provisions loading protocol (ANSI/AISC 341-16, 2016). The parametric study also included the performance of a range of wide flange sections. The analysis shows that the reduced web section has effect on the plastic strain in which low plastic strain observed near ends and connections and high at the center of the web. Results also demonstrate that if the shear link is appropriately sized with web opening and intermediate web stiffeners provided, an excellent shear link with high ductility under cyclic loads can be obtained. Changing the configuration of the opening cutout also had a significant effect on reducing the transition zone cracks.

This dissertation examines the effects of issue frames and individual-level mediating factors on attitudes toward same-sex marriage and civil unions. It employs three survey experiments to test both competing and non-competing frame environments, an advance which will clarify the effect of these environments on public opinion. Prior literature on multiple frame environments has failed to reach consensus on the effects of multiple frame environments (MFEs) on public opinion, MFEs may: moderate subject opinion or facilitate stronger connections between subject core values and issue opinions. Results indicate that frame effects vary with framing environment: subjects presented with two persuasive frames advocating the same issue position, or a persuasive frame advocating one position and an unpersuasive frame advocating another, reported opinions closer to the persuasive frames than the control groups. Subjects who received persuasive frames advocating contrary positions reported more moderate positions than the control groups. The magnitude of frame effects also varied by question, with larger effects recorded for the civil unions question than the same-sex marriage question. On balance, these findings support the literature suggesting that multiple frame environments moderate public opinion, although some core value-issue opinion linkages were strengthened by the framed environments. Results for the individual-level political sophistication hypotheses were inconclusive. This thesis extends prior work on MFEs to a salient and divisive issue, with multiple possible solutions. In doing so, it helps resolve a debate in the literature on the effect of MFEs on public opinion. It also provides a first test of individual-level factors, such as respondent political sophistication, which may mediate the reception and processing of these frames by citizens. Finally, this thesis tries to bring both of these literatures into communication with one another to better understand the effects of each in relation to public opinion.

The current research investigates how and why consumers' construal levels and the appeals framed either by gains or losses jointly influence persuasion. The findings across four experiments indicate that matching high-level construals with gain frames and low-level construals with loss frames leads to a) higher intentions to engage in cholesterol lowering behavior (experiment 1), b) more favorable brand attitudes (experiment 2), c) greater willingness to donate to an environmental organization (experiment 3), and d) higher buying intentions for a brand (experiment 4). It seems that these outcomes occur because matches between construal level and message frames encourage people to pay attention to the information they evaluate (experiments 1 ˜4), and this enhanced attention induces greater perceptions of processing fluency, which in turn leads to positive attitudes (experiments 2˜4). Further, this research demonstrates that an adequate amount of cognitive resources is required for this matching effect to occur (experiment 4). The current research contributes to the construal level, message framing, and matching literatures by unveiling the specific mechanism underlying the matching relationship between construal level and gain versus loss frames on persuasion and by identifying a boundary condition for it. This research also has managerial implications for marketing managers and policymakers in that it suggests a strategic way to use construal level and message frames to enhance marketing communication and advertising effectiveness.

This study examined the frames used by the U.S. print media -- The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times -- in their coverage of the Kashmir conflict and the parties involved in it from 1989 to 2003. It divided the 15-year period of coverage into four phases -- 1989-1990, 1991-1998, 1999-2001, and 2002-2003 -- and focused on the coverage of seven subjects. It then identified sources and keywords from 180 news reports and placed them into categories from which it isolated thematic clusters or frames. The study found that in the first two phases, the conflict was described as a violent Kashmiri separatist movement, a frame that changed to one depicting it as ongoing violent conflict between India and Pakistan. In all phases, Kashmiris were predominantly identified as armed militants fighting for secession of Kashmir from India, a goal that decreased in prominence in the last two phases. India was depicted initially as a country suppressing the rebellion in Kashmir through violent means with the help of its armed forces, a frame that shifted later to a military force fighting Pakistani troops and non-Kashmiri Islamic fighters. Pakistan was consistently identified as a country supporting the Kashmiri separatist movement with arms and training,and later as a country itself participating in the conflict through its military. The United States was consistently described as a country concerned with peace and security in South Asia. The dominant frames in all periods were found to be portraying the conflict as a war and in the last two phases, a potential nuclear war. The Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris were always characterized through their religious identities -- Indians as Hindu, and Pakistanis and Kashmiris as Muslim or Islamic. Official sources were consistently greater in number than unofficial sources for India, Pakistan and the United States but for Kashmiris, unofficial sources scored over official ones in all four periods.

<p>Den här uppsatsen är en studie om problematiken som den gamla analoga polisradions tystnad och det nya, digitala radiokommunikationssystemet Rakels införande innebär för massmedierna. Länge har det varit möjligt för gemene man att med enkel utrustning, lagligt, avlyssna bland annat polisens radiokommunikation. Det nya digitala systemet, som har fått namnet Rakel, gör det omöjligt för utomstående att ta del polisens radiokommunikation. Rikspolisstyrelsen har i sina riktlinjer för hur massmedierna skall behandlas i och med införandet av Rakel, betonat att webben är den bästa kanalen för att snabbt och enkelt sprida information om händelser.</p><p>Uppsatsen belyser de förändringar som sker i massmediernas sätt att arbeta för att nå den information som tidigare gick att få via avlyssning av polisens radiokommunikation. En ny situation uppstår, där massmedierna får lita mer på den information som ges av polisen.</p><p>Flera teorier, exempelvis kultivationsteorin, förklarar vilken stor påverkan massmedierna har på människors verklighetsuppfattning. Därför kan det anses vara viktigt att massmedierna dels ger en rättvis bild av rättssamhället, men även en granskande journalistik riktad mot samhällets makthavare som i den här studiens fall är polisen. Ett organ med rätt att bruka våld.</p><p>Undersökningen bygger på kvalitativa samtalsintervjuer med representanter från massmedierna i de län som har använt Rakel längst: Skåne, Blekinge och Kalmar län. I dessa län har en mindre, kvantitativ undersökning genomförts på de nämnda polisdistrikten, där antalet registrerade händelser hos polisens kommunikationscentraler har jämförts med antalet publicerade händelser på de olika polismyndigheternas webbplatser.</p><p>Resultaten i denna undersökning visar att det finns en oro mot förändringen som Rakel innebär för nyhetsrapporteringen. Framför allt finns ett problem i att det inte längre är massmedierna som får göra urvalet av vilka händelser som blir nyheter. Istället har polisen tagit en roll som i medieteorier kallas för en gatekeeper, som väljer vad som ska komma till massmediernas kännedom.</p>

No description available.

<p>The IPCCand the FCCC are both central institutions in the international handling of the climate change issue. How these institutions frame and define the climate change issue is decisive for the action taken in response. The aim of this thesis was to analyze and describe how the climate change problem is framed and defined within the FCCC and the IPCC. Furthermore, the aim was also to examine if there are any differences between the IPCC’s and the FCCC’s framings and definitions of the climate change problem, and if so, what those differences consist of. The analysis was based on a line of documents from the IPCC and the FCCC, which were analyzed through a qualitative textual analysis. </p><p>The results of the analysis indicate that there are both similarities and dissimilarities between the institutions. The definitions of the term climate change differ in the sense that the FCCC only regards human-induced changes in climate, as climate change. The IPCC, on the other hand, includes both natural variability and human-induced changes in its definition of climate change. In the practical usage the definitions are similar, and the results indicate that the IPCC in practice has adopted the FCCC’s definition and only focuses on anthropogenic climate change. The climate change issue is by both of the institutions perceived as a greenhouse gas question, and the consequences are described as very extensive and serious. The FCCC gives advantages to mitigative responses in relation to adaptive, and also the IPCC describes mitigative responses as advantageous. Finally, the study indicates that there is a linking between the scientific and political spheres, which is extended by the fact that the FCCC’s definition of climate change creates a demand for scientific input in the decision-making process. The science and policy relationship builds upon mutual expectations of what the respective spheres can contribute with in terms of useful knowledge and policy-relevant questions.</p>

<p>Aim: The study's aim and run-up are to investigate how journalists frame texts, during impact of those standards and values that they have, combined with the organization and in the nation where they work.</p><p>Method/Material: The study looks on how the authors of articles at the Swedish newspaper "Dagens Nyheter" and the Norwegian newspaper "Dagbladet", uses the concept al-Qaida, in their news rapport, during the period 19:th of mars – 24:th of august 2003. Two hundred articles were collected and divided into two groups, 1) the explicit group, there the text actu ally treated al-Qaida, 2) the implicit group, there the text e.g. linked to the name al-Qaida and the article itself treated another subject. Is it possible to see differences or resemblances, in the way that journa lists frame their texts? The main theoretical run-up is framing accor- ding to R. Entman (1993). The study works with an overall hypothesis: that it advises differences between these two countries and newspapers framing of al-Qaida.</p><p>Main results: Among the explicit articles, the newspaper "Dagbladet" distinguihes themselves most, both in the number of articles and how many times they used the concept al-Qaida. Among the implicit articles, it is the newspaper "Dagens Nyheter" that have the largest amount of articles, but it is the "Dagbladet" that mentions the concept al-Qaida more times. I therefore draw the conclusion that "Dagbladet" "refers/ mentions" al-Qaida considerable more times in their articles than "Dagens Nyheter". The reason to this is probably the cultural, indivi dual, organizational and national differences that are between the countries. And probably that Norway were a part of the Iraq coalition force's 2003.</p>