Does Violent Protest Receive Negative Coverage?—Media Framing of Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Bill Movement and French Yellow Vest Movement

IF 1.8 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Yao Li, Marion Cassard, B. Holmes
{"title":"Does Violent Protest Receive Negative Coverage?—Media Framing of Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Bill Movement and French Yellow Vest Movement","authors":"Yao Li, Marion Cassard, B. Holmes","doi":"10.1080/00207659.2023.2202992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Regarding media framing of protests, current studies have primarily focused on the negative side of framing tools, that is, marginalization devices that news media employ to belittle and demonize a protest. Yet little scholarship has scrutinized the positive side of framing tools, i.e., affirmation devices that mass media adopt to convey sympathy for and approval of a protest. Through comparing U.S. media coverage of two recent large anti-government movements taking place in China and France—the movements sharing similarities in vital factors impacting media coverage—this paper illustrates a series of affirmation devices, including highlighting issues and downplaying violence, blaming violence on authorities, stressing public approval, backing protest goals, and understating a movement’s dark side. A systematic examination of affirmation devices contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of media framing and the relations between the media and social movements. This exploration also challenges the popular conception that violence by protesters typically leads to negative media coverage.","PeriodicalId":45362,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sociology","volume":"18 1","pages":"205 - 227"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2023.2202992","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Regarding media framing of protests, current studies have primarily focused on the negative side of framing tools, that is, marginalization devices that news media employ to belittle and demonize a protest. Yet little scholarship has scrutinized the positive side of framing tools, i.e., affirmation devices that mass media adopt to convey sympathy for and approval of a protest. Through comparing U.S. media coverage of two recent large anti-government movements taking place in China and France—the movements sharing similarities in vital factors impacting media coverage—this paper illustrates a series of affirmation devices, including highlighting issues and downplaying violence, blaming violence on authorities, stressing public approval, backing protest goals, and understating a movement’s dark side. A systematic examination of affirmation devices contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of media framing and the relations between the media and social movements. This exploration also challenges the popular conception that violence by protesters typically leads to negative media coverage.
暴力抗议会受到负面报道吗?——媒体对香港《反逃犯条例》运动和法国“黄背心”运动的解读
关于媒体对抗议活动的框架,目前的研究主要集中在框架工具的消极方面,即新闻媒体用来贬低和妖魔化抗议活动的边缘化手段。然而,很少有学术研究仔细研究框架工具的积极方面,即大众媒体用来表达对抗议的同情和赞同的肯定手段。通过比较美国媒体对最近发生在中国和法国的两场大型反政府运动的报道——这两场运动在影响媒体报道的关键因素上有相似之处——本文说明了一系列的肯定手段,包括突出问题和淡化暴力,将暴力归咎于当局,强调公众认可,支持抗议目标,以及低估运动的阴暗面。对肯定手段的系统研究有助于更全面地理解媒体框架以及媒体与社会运动之间的关系。这一探索也挑战了一种流行的观念,即抗议者的暴力行为通常会导致媒体的负面报道。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.80%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信