Diss. Umeå : Umeå universitet, 2006.

<p>Abstract</p><p>The opinions about the European Union vary considerably between the member states. There are likely several reasons of this, the following study examines one that ought to play a major role. This study examines the idea that media affects the public opinion. According to the theory of Framing media can not only tell us what to think about, media also has the power to influence how we think about the matter. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a fractured paradigm” by Robert M. Entman works as a main influence of this study. Entman suggests that frames promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described.</p><p>The aim of the study is to analyse how the European Union is depicted in German and Austrian newspapers. To find underlying frames in the chosen 114 articles, a comparative qualitative textanalysis has been used. The four, by Entman suggested, items that compose frames were searched, analysed and compared. The result concludes that different frames occur in German and Austrian newspapers. The various EU-opinions in the two countries could with other words partly be due to different kinds of media reports.</p><p>Nyckelord: Framing, EU, media, allmänna opinionen, medias effekt</p>

Abstract The opinions about the European Union vary considerably between the member states. There are likely several reasons of this, the following study examines one that ought to play a major role. This study examines the idea that media affects the public opinion. According to the theory of Framing media can not only tell us what to think about, media also has the power to influence how we think about the matter. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a fractured paradigm” by Robert M. Entman works as a main influence of this study. Entman suggests that frames promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. The aim of the study is to analyse how the European Union is depicted in German and Austrian newspapers. To find underlying frames in the chosen 114 articles, a comparative qualitative textanalysis has been used. The four, by Entman suggested, items that compose frames were searched, analysed and compared. The result concludes that different frames occur in German and Austrian newspapers. The various EU-opinions in the two countries could with other words partly be due to different kinds of media reports. Nyckelord: Framing, EU, media, allmänna opinionen, medias effekt

<p>This thesis analyses how 'public opinion' was conceptualised by Members of the Swedish Parliament (MPs) between 1848 and 1919. The source material consists of the printed minutes from parliamentary debates where issues such as religious freedom, constitutional reform and reform of the Press were discussed. What happened to the ideal of an enlightened public opinion when the development of a large-scale industrial economy changed the nature of the Press? </p><p>Two main aspects of public opinion are analysed. Firstly, the question of what MPs considered the most reliable source of public opinion is examined. The legitimacy of manifestations claiming to represent public opinion, such as written petitions, the Press, Parliament itself, quantitative estimations and also the silent opinion was discussed. In the 1910s the voices of women were also included by some MPs when assessing public opinion.</p><p>The second main aspect is how MPs envisioned the relationship between the reliability of public opinion and the conditions for public discourse. Here an important distinction was made between public opinion formed in a free and unhindered debate and that brought about by persuasion.</p><p>The study shows that public opinion was a contested concept in the Swedish Parliament. In the 1850s, Conservatives gave the religiously conservative nature of public opinion as a reason to postpone the reform of religious laws. In debating constitutional reform, on the other hand, it was the Liberals who argued that decisions should follow public opinion. In the 1910s, the Left was divided over the relationship between public opinion and the State, with some arguing that the State should intervene in the public debate to offset the negative influence of market mechanisms. Others felt that public opinion rather than legislation should set the limits of the public discourse, especially in the case of religion, but also concerning the Press.</p>

This thesis analyses how 'public opinion' was conceptualised by Members of the Swedish Parliament (MPs) between 1848 and 1919. The source material consists of the printed minutes from parliamentary debates where issues such as religious freedom, constitutional reform and reform of the Press were discussed. What happened to the ideal of an enlightened public opinion when the development of a large-scale industrial economy changed the nature of the Press? Two main aspects of public opinion are analysed. Firstly, the question of what MPs considered the most reliable source of public opinion is examined. The legitimacy of manifestations claiming to represent public opinion, such as written petitions, the Press, Parliament itself, quantitative estimations and also the silent opinion was discussed. In the 1910s the voices of women were also included by some MPs when assessing public opinion. The second main aspect is how MPs envisioned the relationship between the reliability of public opinion and the conditions for public discourse. Here an important distinction was made between public opinion formed in a free and unhindered debate and that brought about by persuasion. The study shows that public opinion was a contested concept in the Swedish Parliament. In the 1850s, Conservatives gave the religiously conservative nature of public opinion as a reason to postpone the reform of religious laws. In debating constitutional reform, on the other hand, it was the Liberals who argued that decisions should follow public opinion. In the 1910s, the Left was divided over the relationship between public opinion and the State, with some arguing that the State should intervene in the public debate to offset the negative influence of market mechanisms. Others felt that public opinion rather than legislation should set the limits of the public discourse, especially in the case of religion, but also concerning the Press.