The purpose of this study is to examine right-wing alternative media's framing of politics. This is examined by applying a method based on the framing theory, called Issue, game and scandal. The material consists of political news articles from these media during the 2018 election campaign in Sweden (13 August to 9 September), which in turn are either classified as issue news, game news or scandal news. The study uses the following five sites: Samhällsnytt, Nya Tider, Samtiden, Nya Dagbladet and Nyhetsbyrån. The study shows that alternative right-wing media frame politics as a scandal most times, followed by game and then issue. The results from the study are then compared with traditional media's framing of politics during the same period of time, where it shows that alternative right-wing media frame politics as scandal to a much greater degree than traditional media do, and that issue and game framings occur significantly less often on alternative right-wing media. The study also tries to explain how the differences between alternative right-wing media and traditional media can be understood, where press ethics and populism seem to be the key attributes. / Syftet med denna uppsatsen är att undersöka alternativa högermediers gestaltning av politik. Detta undersöks genom att applicera en metod som baseras på gestaltningsteorin - Sak, spel och skandal. Materialet består av politiska nyhetsartiklar från dessa medier under den svenska valrörelsen 2018 (13 augusti till 9 september), som i sin tur antingen klassificeras som saknyhet, spelnyhet eller skandalnyhet. I undersökningen används följande fem sajter: Samhällsnytt, Nya Tider, Samtiden, Nya Dagbladet och Nyhetsbyrån. Undersökningen visar att alternativa högermedier gestaltar politik som skandal flest gånger, följt av spel och sen sak. Resultatet från undersökningen jämförs sedan med traditionella mediers gestaltning av politik under samma tidsperiod, där det framgår att alternativa högermedier gestaltar politik som skandal i betydligt högre grad än vad traditionella medier gör, samt att sak- och spelgestaltningar förekommer betydligt färre gånger på alternativa högermedier. Dessutom redogörs det för hur skillnaderna mellan alternativa högermedier och traditionella medier kan förstås, där pressetik och populism bidrar med förklaringen.

The aim of this study is to investigate how moral issues surrounding one of the lengthiest environmental conflicts – the Canadian seal hunt controversy - were communicated by two Canadian mainstream newspapers: the national Globe and Mail, and the Newfoundland-based The Telegram in 2009, the year in which the European Union banned the import of all seal products on the basis of a moral standard relating to the welfare of animals. At a general level, the purpose of this work is to examine how the news media construe and convey environmental ethical positions when dealing with complicated environmental issues. To this end, this thesis draws from media framing theory to implement a qualitative linguistic analysis of the 99 news articles to analyze how seals and sealers – the two main subjects of moral worth in this controversy – were framed in the two newspapers. The analysis found that seals were predominantly framed in accordance with their perceived social and economic benefit, largely overlooking animal welfare considerations. Sealers, on the other hand, tended to be portrayed as people of moral rectitude and brave seafarers, with a concomitant onus placed on the cultural and economic importance of sealing for Northerners. The findings corroborate claims that our perceptions of animal species, especially those which are considered wildlife, and the type of our relationship with them vary in accordance with human utility. At the same time, these perceptions are influenced by the social and cultural aspects of humans' relationship with the environment that may trump considerations of animal welfare and compassion toward sentient animals. Seen in the perspective of environmental ethics debate, the seal hunt controversy reveals the current lack of consensus on determining the most sound ethical principle in order to ensure our treatment of the environment is morally consistent. As the seal hunt controversy is not a standalone phenomenon of the protest based in animal welfare considerations, this thesis can be of value for the future research of comparable environmental controversies. Reconciling antagonistic environmental ethics is important for environmental policy-making and management, in order to ensure a greater and more productive stakeholder participation in solving environmental issues more effectively, while at the same realizing our moral obligations towards the animal world and the rest of the nature.

Previous research on framing has proved its strong effects on the social perception and political preferences of individuals. Therefore, the aim of this research is to explore how Saudi women's issues have been framed in a sample of United States and Saudi newspapers. Saudi Vision 2030 is the post-oil plan for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that was announced on April 25, 2016. The sample of this thesis was 300 news stories from eight newspapers. The U.S. newspapers were the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. The Saudi newspapers were Al Riyadh, Okaz, Al Jazirah, and Al Watan. This thesis explores how these issues have been covered before and after Saudi Vision 2030 by answering five basic questions. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the news stories. For the quantitative analysis, five pre-defined generic frames from Semetko and Valkenburg were adopted: conflict frame, human interest frame, morality frame, economic consequences frame, and responsibility frame. An inductive approach to find the new frames was used for the qualitative analysis. Moreover, this thesis looked at how U.S. and Saudi newspapers have visually framed Saudi women through an analysis of the types of images used in the news stories related to Saudi women's issues. The main finding suggests that within the used frames in the newspapers, the U.S. newspapers focused more on the human-interest frame, while the Saudi newspapers mostly used the economic frame. Furthermore, the types of issues covered are discussed.

No description available.

No description available.

This comparative analysis explores the state repression experienced by The Black Panther Party, which was active mainly during the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the currently biggest movement for racial equality in the US, the Movement for Black Lives. Using Conflict Theory and Critical Race Theory the research asks two research questions: How has state repression changed from the Black Panther Party to the Movement for Black Lives? and What are possible explanations for this change? This thesis aims to shed light on state repression in relation to movements focused on black rights and equality. The findings of this research are in line with conflict theory, and supportive of racial threat perspective as a theoretical framework. The thesis concludes that state repression of black dissent has changed in multiple aspects, such as police violence, legislative measure, surveillance, and media framing, yet is still prevalent and harmful to social movements.

The Syrian civil war has displaced upwards 13 million people and was a major part of what constituted the migration crisis in the European Union in the years leading up to the culmination in 2015. According to researchers, this event marks the decline of European solidarity as the European Union member states continued to pass the reception burden onto each other. However, the recent events in Ukraine have re-sparked the solidarity principle once again, as countries are lining up to receive the Ukrainian refugees. Starting a conversation whether there could be a difference between refugees and refugees. Based on a content analysis, this thesis investigates the differences in media framing of the Syrian refugee stream and the Ukrainian refugee stream within the Swedish context by analysing 30 articles from three of Sweden's biggest news outlets. The study identified four major key differences in framing of the two migrant groups namely, (1) the aspect of gender, since women, children and elderly constitute most of the Ukrainian refugees, they are perceived as less of a threat than the young men who came to Sweden due to the Syrian civil war. (2) A shift in the underlying meaning of the words “solidarity” and “crisis” when referring to the two groups. (3) A shift in media and political discourse from debate to action, and (4) the focus on illegal verses legal refugees due to the difference in legislation, where one group is protected from needing to use illegal routes to enter a European country whilst the other is not.

This study critically examined how issues of multiculturalism and Muslim immigration are discursively constructed within the English language European online press. Through the use of a frame analysis as well as a more focused discourse analysis, an examination was undertaken to uncover how “us” versus “them” perspectives were manifest within a public discourse. A total of 132 articles from The Daily Mail, Le Monde Diplomatique, Dutchnews.nl, Spiegel Online and The International Herald Tribune were selected using a systematic sampling method based on the results of a search query for multiculturalism at each news site. The analysis of the data corpus revealed the news media's depiction of multiculturalism and Muslim immigrants as not wholly negative on the surface but under closer scrutiny revealed discursive and linguistic techniques that consistently marginalized and “othered” them. The themes found in the data corpus also illuminated a trend of the subordinated population as lacking proper representation and always being spoken for by the news media.

Death in custody elicits accusations and emotional outbursts by the victims' families, community, activists and the general pubic. These controversial cases have become a regular feature in the news. Using thematic analysis, I examine news reporting on the deaths of two racialized individuals with mental illness at the hands of law enforcement officers in Ontario in 2016. This study draws on the concepts of framing and narratives to examine how news media reporting of law enforcement deaths involving racialized men suffering from mental illnesses may produce conflicting narratives and frames. The news media's coverage of such incidents presents various narratives and frames in an attempt to assist the general public in making sense of the incident. Journalists' quoted sources and their messages resulted in the frames that were found in this study. These frames included opposing views on the use force, the influence of race and mental illness, injustice, and uniqueness of the event. Similarly, the narratives included comments and discourses on the event, how people make sense of what happened and why it happened the way it did, and what can be done to prevent these issues from recurring. Narratives about the identities of both victims and law enforcement agents, the nature of law enforcement work, and system change were also included. The different narratives and frames that appear in news reports of law enforcement brutality cases may create a polarized community with a section of the citizenry agreeing with and supporting these frames while the other section opposes them. The use of force, a contentious issue, is visible to the public and frequently elicits competing claims that serve to frame it as a necessary part of law enforcement work or as brutality that primarily targets the vulnerable in society. This study is significant because it investigates narratives and frames in order to fully comprehend and appreciate the contrasting discourses surrounding the use of deadly force by law enforcement against racialized men with mental health issues in Ontario.

No description available.