Orientador: Murilo Cesar Soares / Banca: Danilo Rothberg / Banca: Maximiliano Martin Vicente / Resumo: Esta dissertação analisa como se comportaram as principais revistas semanais brasileiras - CartaCapital, Época, Istoé e Veja - a respeito da crise política do primeiro mandato do governo Lula que ficou reconhecida como "Escândalo do Mensalão". Trata-se de uma crise paradoxal e rica, do ponto de vista analítico, porque envolveu com denúncias de corrupção um partido cuja trajetória foi permeada pela defesa da ética e por se tratar de uma crise revestida de características de "escândalos políticos midiáticos". Buscando evidenciar os tipos de contrastes apresentados, tratamentos e enquadramentos nas abordagens do tema, a pesquisa analisa as narrativas jornalísticas de 51 matérias das quatro revistas no período 13/06/2005 a 21/09/2005, considerando o pico de interesse público no tema e atenção da mídia. A análise indicou o nível de responsabilidade imputado pelas revistas ao Partido dos Trabalhadores, ao governo e ao presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, bem como o volume de críticas direcionadas a cada um deles, revelando diferenças significativas de tratamento e indicando nuances de enquadramentos relativos ao assunto. Existiu consenso, isolamento e conflitos de extremos, observados entre as revistas, caracterizando uma diversidade de pensamento livremente expressados pelos veículos de comunicação. Lula foi um dos agentes mais referidos a respeito do escândalo, mas o percentual de críticas e enquadramentos negativos a respeito dele foi diferente entre as revistas. Existiu, no entanto, único consenso: a responsabilidade do PT no episódio / Abstract: This paper analyses how the main Brazilian weekly magazines - CartaCapital, Época, Istoé, and Veja - approached the political crisis of president Lula first mandate, which became known as the mensalão. It was a paradoxical and complex crisis, from a more analytical point of view, because a political party with a history of ethical principles defence was accused of corruption and because it was a crisis that presented "media scandal" characteristics. In search of bringing evidences about the kind of contrast that were presented, treatment and framings when tackling the subject, this paper analyzes the journalist narratives of 51 stories of the four magazines from the period of 06/16/2005 to 09/21/2005, taking into consideration the public interest and the media attention about the matter. The analysis indicated the level of responsibility that was attributed by the magazines to the Workers' Party, to the government, and to president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, as well as the amount of critics directed to each one, revealing significant differences in the treatment of the subject and indicating nuances regarding the matter. There were consensus, isolation and conflicts between opposite sides, which could be observed among the magazines, which can show a diversity of thougts that were freely expressed by the media. Lula was one of the most cited elements regarding the scandal, but the level of negative critic and framings about him was different in each magazine. There was, however, a sole consensus: the Workers' Party (PT) responsibility in the event / Mestre

Dissertação (mestrado)—Universidade de Brasília, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração, 2015. / Submitted by Albânia Cézar de Melo (albania@bce.unb.br) on 2015-05-11T15:24:54Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2015_YeddaBeatrizGomesAlmeidaDismanCruzSeixas.pdf: 1607292 bytes, checksum: f6a0c5ad107faee60f77e22c9ef7f2aa (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Guimaraes Jacqueline(jacqueline.guimaraes@bce.unb.br) on 2015-05-13T13:04:58Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2015_YeddaBeatrizGomesAlmeidaDismanCruzSeixas.pdf: 1607292 bytes, checksum: f6a0c5ad107faee60f77e22c9ef7f2aa (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-13T13:04:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2015_YeddaBeatrizGomesAlmeidaDismanCruzSeixas.pdf: 1607292 bytes, checksum: f6a0c5ad107faee60f77e22c9ef7f2aa (MD5) / A presente dissertação tem como objetivo geral testar, empiricamente, em que medida as preferências dos decisores em políticas públicas são afetadas pelo framing, entendido como diferentes formas de apresentar problemas decisórios equivalentes, verificando se gestores públicos e indivíduos que não participam de processos decisórios em políticas públicas são afetados de formas distintas pelo framing. Para tanto, foram selecionadas duas amostras, uma de especialistas em políticas públicas e gestão governamental, composta por 114 participantes, e uma de alunos de graduação, composta por 134 participantes. Para o alcance do objetivo principal foram desenvolvidos três estudos, de natureza quantitativa, em que foram aplicados três problemas decisórios para cada uma das amostras, do tipo risky choice: o problema da doença asiática, o problema do câncer e o problema do investimento. O Estudo 1 buscou testar os efeitos unidirecionais de framing, associados a mudanças na preferência quanto ao risco manifestada pelos indivíduos. Foram verificados efeitos unidirecionais de framing em todos os problemas, para ambas as amostras. O Estudo 2 buscou testar os efeitos bidirecionais de framing, associados a uma reversão da decisão, ou seja, relacionados à aversão ao risco no frame positivo e à propensão ao risco no frame negativo. Foram verificados efeitos bidirecionais apenas na amostra de gestores, nos problemas da doença asiática e do câncer. O Estudo 3 busca testar o efeito preditivo do framing sobre a preferência. Foi verificado efeito preditivo estatisticamente significativo do framing em todos os problemas, para as duas amostras. Ademais, verificou-se que os gestores apresentaram efeitos de framing de maior magnitude que os alunos nos problemas da doença asiática e do câncer. As implicações teóricas e práticas e as limitações do estudo são apresentadas, bem como uma agenda de pesquisa. / The aim of this research is to examine empirically if, and to what extent, preferences manifested by public policy decision-makers are affected by framing, defined as different ways to present equivalent decision problems. This study also examines if public managers and individuals not directly involved in public decision processes are affected by framing in different ways. To achieve the main objective, two samples were selected: the first was composed by 114 specialists in public policy and government management, and the second was composed by 134 undergraduate law students. Three quantitative studies were developed, in which three risky choice decision problems were presented to each sample: asian disease problem, cancer problem and investment problem. Study I tested for unidirectional framing effects, associated with risk preference shifts. Unidirectional effects were verified in all the problems, for both samples. Study 2 tested for bidirectional framing effects, associated with preference reversals (risk aversion in positive frame and risk propensity in negative frame). Bidirectional effects were verified in the asian disease problem and in the cancer problem, only in specialists in public policy and government management sample. Study 3 tested the predictive effect of framing on preferences. Statistically significant framing effects were verified in all the problems, for both samples. Besides, results showed that specialists in public policy and government management presented stronger effects than undergraduate students in the asian disease problem and in the cancer problem. The theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the study and a research agenda are presented.

A partir de un análisis semiótico del discurso, la investigación busca describir y analizar cómo El Comercio, La República y El Diario construyeron interpretaciones de los hechos de violencia ocurridos en el país durante la época del conflicto armado interno. Algunas de estas interpretaciones diferían completamente de los hechos ocurridos. Además, en gran parte de las noticias analizadas no se ha encontrado evidencia del uso del concepto de derechos humanos ni siquiera en su acepción más básica de respeto por la vida.

abstract: Recommendations made by expert groups are pervasive throughout various life domains. Yet not all recommendations--or expert groups--are equally persuasive. This research aims to identify factors that influence the persuasiveness of recommendations. More specifically, this study examined the effects of decisional cohesion (the amount of agreement among the experts in support of the recommendation), framing (whether the message is framed as a loss or gain), and the domain of the recommendation (health vs. financial) on the persuasiveness of the recommendation. The participants consisted of 1,981 undergraduates from Arizona State University. The participants read a vignette including information about the expert group making a recommendation--which varied the amount of expert agreement for the recommendation--and the recommendation, which was framed as either a gain or loss. Participants then responded to questions about the persuasiveness of the recommendation. In this study, there was a linear main effect of decisional cohesion such that the greater the decisional cohesion of the expert group the more persuasive their recommendation. In addition, there was a main effect of domain such that the health recommendation was more persuasive than the financial recommendation. Contrary to predictions, there was no observed interaction between the amount of decisional cohesion and the framing of the recommendation nor was there a main effect of framing. Further analyses show support for a mediation effect indicating that high levels of decisional cohesion increased the perceived entitativity of the expert group--the degree to which the group was perceived as a unified, cohesive group¬--which increased the recommendation's persuasiveness. An implication of this research is that policy makers could increase the persuasiveness of their recommendations by promoting recommendations that are unanimously supported by their experts or at least show higher levels of decisional cohesion. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.A. Psychology 2013

Problemformulering: #Metoo-kampanjen blev kanske bland det mest omtalade fenomenet under året 2017. För många människor utgör medier den viktigaste kontakten med vad som händer i världen. Men vilken bild av kampanjen är det svenskarna har fått förmedlad till sig utifrån de svenska tidningarna? Hur väljer de största rikstäckande tidningarna att gestalta kampanjen?
Syfte: Syftet med studien är att granska gestaltningen inom #metoo-kampanjens nyhetsrapportering under perioden 15 oktober 2017 till 15 november 2017.
Metod och material: E n kvantitativ innehållsanalys har genomförts bestående av totalt 133 analysenheter från Sveriges största morgon- (Svenska Dagbladet och Dagens Nyheter) och kvällstidningar (Expressen och Aftonbladet).
Huvudresultat: Genom arbetet med denna studie har vi nått resultatet gällande gestaltningar som framkommer i morgontidningarnas och kvällstidningarna nyhetsrapportering angående #metoo-kampanjen. Gestaltningarna som framträder i studien och analysen är: sakgestaltning, konfliktgestaltning, gestaltning som mänskligtintresse, moralgestaltning samt ansvarsgestaltning. Hur morgontidningarna och kvällstidningarna skiljde sig åt i gestaltandet av #metoo-kampanjen var till störst del i förekomsten av källor. Sakgestaltning och mänskligt intressegestaltning förekom mest procentuellt bland undersökningsenheterna.

The threat from violent extremism has become prioritized in the Swedish political discourse. Right wing extremism is the most common form of extremism. However, Islamist extremism is seen as the most severe threat against the Swedish society. Previous research indicates that there is an institutionalized view that foreigners are seen as more dangerous than home-grown extremists. The overall aim of this study is to examine how identity can contribute to the understanding of violent extremism as a threat. This is done by using a qualitative text analysis guided by framing and securitization theory in order to analyse how Swedish press has framed two extremist crimes. The study concludes that media frames the two threats differently and that the right wing-extremist is perceived as an individual unlike the Islamist perpetrator who is portrayed as a representative for a greater threat.

Multimodal theory has developed out of social semiotics and can be seen as a response to the rise in the use of new technologies for the creation, distribution and consumption of media texts and the need to find new ways of describing and explaining their role in representation and communication. Its development is historical. It is a response to change over time. The incorporation of the visual into social semiotics marks a key moment in the development of multimodal theory. Visual literacy is discussed in relation to changes in modes of representation and a critique of this concept is provided. This is conducted in relation to how the visual modality has been integrated into social semiotics as a platform for research into multimodal communication more generally. Framing is developed along three main lines of enquiry (semiotic, cognitive and affective) as alternative ways of accounting for some of these shifts in communication and each are presented in the form of case studies. Framing and its close relationship with composition in media texts is discussed and this understanding, one that emphasise proximity as a multimodal principle, is applied to the visual design of content, the realisation of context through the provision visual cues, and later to embodiment and urban space. The three case studies, the application of framing to a range of media texts, the critical judgements made about the role visual in contemporary theory and the application of these concepts to multimodality are presented as part of an intellectual journey.

This research is aimed at identifying political bias in mainstream media news channels. Specifically, this thesis focuses on political bias portrayed through the media following the inauguration of President Donald Trump. This analysis explores the media’s coverage of the initial travel ban (enforced by executive order) during the first month of the Trump presidency. The content in this research explores specific frames, facts, statistics, wording, phrasing, and overall presentations of two primetime media hosts, Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity. This research explores several presentations from each host, all pertaining to the Trump Administration’s initial travel ban. Framing theory is used throughout the manuscript to emphasize the manner in which each host presents news and information, while also distinguishing the differences between each host due to their partisan agendas. Through this research, it was found that both media hosts presented news and information on the same issue (the travel ban) through completely different perspectives. Each host varied drastically in tone, phrasing, and facts of emphasis, while also presenting each issue in a manner that aligns with a specific partisan agenda. This research demonstrates that partisan agendas and perceived audience needs take priority over the reporting of objective facts and straightforward coverage on the issue of immigration in the United States.

Out of many, media is one of our important sources from where we know the world, we learn about society, about our surroundings, about the others. Regardless of time and space media is shaping our knowledge, changing the horizon of our imagination each and every moment.  This study is about representation. How a country as the other is represented in Swedish media landscape. I tried to know -How is Bangladesh represented in Swedish newspapers? I have collected reports about Bangladesh that was published in four main stream Swedish newspapers and conducted a quantitative content analysis through the lenses of Agenda setting, Priming and Framing theory from the post colonial perspective to know how Bangladesh is represented in Swedish newspapers. The results found in this study are more similar to the earlier studies conducted by researchers and further suggests that the framing of Bangladesh, ‘the others as a country’ in the foreign news in Swedish newspapers are dominated by pre-framed notions and images of the source; which is subjected to conduct further study in general or for any particular country.

This thesis examines whether there is a frame difference in online news coverage of the controversial 2014 Crimean referendum by The New York Times and the Russian newspaper, Kommersant. The research is grounded in framing theory and literature on the attribution of news sources. The study is conducted in two languages and it seeks to examine how media systems, perspectives on the issue, journalistic standards, as well as cultural backgrounds and historical ties influenced framing of the event. Sample online articles from each newspaper were selected and a quantitative content analysis was performed in order to identify the main themes, frames and source attribution patterns in media news coverage about the referendum. The pattern to quote official sources for providing justification and legitimacy to news stories has influenced the coverage in both newspapers: both The New York Times as well as Kommersant heavily relied on their respective government officials and experts. However, The New York Times provided a greater diversity of opinions supporting the values of a libertarian media system. Politics was the dominant theme of the referendum-related articles in both newspapers, however, Kommersant and The New York Times touched on economy and military themes with different frequencies. A comparison between themes in two periods (before and after the referendum) has not shown a meaningful difference for both newspapers. Kommersant’s online coverage was less critical of Russian policies and frequently utilized a set of the For-referendum frames, rarely touching upon Russian military activities on the peninsula. However, the frame depicting breach of international law appeared with the same frequency as the For-referendum frames, showing that Kommersant tried to maintain independence under the Russian neo-authoritarian media system. The New York Times focused on the illegitimate character of Crimean annexation and exposed every move of Russian troops, which is in line with U.S. foreign policy aims. However, the American publications did not hide the cultural and historical ties between Crimea and Russia and frequently mentioned the illegal character pertaining to Ukrainian protests and a temporary government.