449949

2012
PUS23210.1177/0963662512449949Bowe et al.Public Understanding of Science

P U S
Article

Public Understanding of Science

Framing of climate change 2014, Vol. 23(2) 157169

The Author(s) 2012

in newspaper coverage of the

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0963662512449949
East Anglia e-mail scandal pus.sagepub.com

Brian J. Bowe,Tsuyoshi Oshita, Carol

Terracina-Hartman and Wen-Chi Chao
Michigan State University, USA

Abstract
In late 2009, a series of e-mails related to climate research were made public following the hacking into
a server and the e-mail accounts of researchers at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.
According to some skeptics of climate change research, the content of those e-mails suggested data were
being manipulated, while climate scientists said their words were taken out of context. The news coverage
of this scandal provides an opportunity to consider media framing. This study has two aims: to extend
previous research using a cluster analysis technique to discern frames in media texts; and to provide insight
into newspaper coverage of the scandal, which is often referred to as Climategate. This study examines
the frames present in two British and two American newspapers coverage of the issue.

Keywords
climate change, Climategate, cluster analysis, framing, newspapers

1. Introduction
In late 2009, a series of e-mails related to climate research were made public following the hack-
ing into a server and the e-mail accounts of researchers at the University of East Anglia Climate
Research Unit (CRU). According to some skeptics of climate change research, the content of
those e-mails suggested data were being manipulated, while climate scientists said their words
were taken out of context. Selected contents suggest the scientists had been manipulating or hid-
ing data, attempting to prevent publication of journal articles with which they disagreed, and fil-
ing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to their data. Key words include a hockey
stick graph, which CRU director Phil Jones reportedly asked to use to support specific time
periods that illustrated warming; he also referenced a trick in an analysis of tree ring data and

Corresponding author:
Brian J. Bowe, Michigan State University, School of Journalism, 305 Communication Arts & Sciences Building, East Lansing,
MI 48824, USA.
Email: bowebria@msu.edu

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015

158 Public Understanding of Science 23(2)

in another message mentioned the need to hide the decline. Critics taking his comments out of
context accused the CRU and the entire field of climate science of being unethical.1 The news
coverage of this scandal provides an opportunity to consider media framing, which Reese (2001)
described as the way events and issues are organized and made sense of by media, media profes-
sionals, and their audiences (p. 7). This study is based on Matthes and Kohrings (2008) tech-
nique for discerning frames in media texts through a cluster analysis of frame elements. It uses
this technique to examine the frames present in coverage of the scandal, which is often referred
to as Climategate, in two British and two American newspapers.

2.Theoretical framework
As Tuchman (1980) suggested, news content functions like a window on the world through which
people learn of themselves and others, of their own institutions, leaders, and life styles, and those
of other nations and peoples (p. 1). Just like windows on houses, news content is contained within
a frame. In both cases, the construction of the frame itself alters what people are able to see and,
ultimately, how they make sense of it. This is the concept behind framing, which is an active area
of journalism and mass communication research (van Zoonen and Vliegenthart, 2011) and is the
most frequently used theory in top journals in the field this century (Bryant and Miron, 2004).
Framing has roots in sociology and was launched by Goffman (1974), whose work popularized
framing as a metaphor for studying the organization of social information in everyday life. This
type of framing involves the principles of selection, emphasis, and presentation composed of little
tacit theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters (Gitlin, 2003: 6).
Distinct from the types of framing present in everyday life, media frames, organize the world
for both journalists and the people who rely on their reports, offering a set of interpretive packages
that give meaning to an issue (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989: 3). Such frames provide the
persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and
exclusion, by which symbol-handlers routinely organize discourse, whether verbal or visual
(Gitlin, 2003: 7).
Yet, despite framings ubiquity or perhaps because of it the exact nature of frames
remains in question. Framing has been criticized for being undertheorized (Entman, 1993) or
even atheoretical (Matthes, 2009). In the literature, framing has been described as a concept, an
approach, a theory, a class of media effects, a perspective, an analytical technique, a paradigm,
and a multiparadigmatic research program (DAngelo and Kuypers, 2010: 2). Frames can be
operationalized as both independent and dependent variables (Carpenter, 2007), and they can be
found in the communicator, the text, the receiver and the culture (Entman, 1993). This very diver-
sity has at times pushed the field toward incoherence, with Reese (2007) offering the critique that
because of framings popularity, Authors often give an obligatory nod to the literature before
proceeding to do whatever they were going to do in the first place (p. 151).
Some researchers, acknowledging the problems with both reliability and validity in framing
research, have attempted to address those issues. One threat to validity in framing research is how
frames are operationally defined. Tankard (2001) stated that a crucial first step toward a systematic
empirical approach to framing research is the identification of common lists of frames for the
domains being discussed. Nisbet (2010) echoed that position, noting framing researchers have a
tendency to reinvent the wheel, when identifying frames, which leads to inconsistencies in
understanding both the nature and measurement of frames (p. 46).
In an effort to improve the reliability and validity of framing measures, this article builds on the
work of Matthes and Kohring (2008), who argued that a frame is a highly abstract concept, and that

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015

Bowe et al. 159

coders are more reliable when coding smaller frame elements. They proposed and tested a method
that looks not for whole frames, but rather for separate frame elements, which they argue are more
easily coded in the material. After coding, researchers look for patterns among the frame elements.
That means when some elements group together systematically in a specific way, they form a pat-
tern that can be identified across several texts in a sample. We call these patterns frames (p. 263,
emphasis added). The method Matthes and Kohring proposed has been further validated by David,
Atun, Fille, and Monterola (2011), who determined that this procedure is efficacious for analyzing
highly complex issues that evolve over time.

3. Framing climate change

The issue of climate change provides an instructive case study for framing researchers because of
its tremendous complexity, transcending economic, political, scientific, and social boundaries
across cultures. Public attitudes toward the topic continue to reveal disagreement over whether
human-caused climate change is true, with public concern only recently recorded as rebounding
from all-time lows in the United States. As concerns over a warming planet grow, public skepti-
cism over human causes eases, but remains, in the United States and Great Britain (Jones, 2011;
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2011; Saad, 2009; Wan, 2010). The scientific
uncertainty surrounding climate change has been a major characteristic of coverage of the issue
since the mid-1980s, which Zehr (2000) argued erected a boundary between climate scientists and
the general public. The public depends on media to help them make sense of the science of climate
change (Boykoff, 2011), and media coverage can help amplify dramatic real-world events into a
full-blown scare (Ungar, 1992). However, Bell (1994) determined that even though reporters usu-
ally reported scientific issues correctly, one in six stories featured significant misreporting about
the scientific facts behind climate change.
Previous research suggests this disagreement continues to be reflected in the media coverage of
the phenomenon. But not only does the coverage reflect discord, it may contribute to it. As Antilla
(2008) noted, public perception of climate change is strongly influenced by media constructions of
the issue.
Because of American journalistic conventions, reporters are compelled to appear objective and
cautious and therefore, engage in self-censorship that causes them to either underreport aspects of
climate change or continue to posit a debate over issues the scientific community no longer finds
controversial (Antilla, 2005). In fact, Boykoff and Boykoff (2004) found it was the U.S. prestige
presss adherence to balance standards that led to biased coverage of human contributions to cli-
mate change and subsequent appropriate actions.
Another source of variation in coverage of climate change is the ideology of the media outlet
(Carvalho, 2007). Such ideologically driven frames which convey messages of scientific uncer-
tainty, economic consequences, and political conflict and strategy are more influential on public
perceptions of climate change than scientific consensus or mainstream news attention (Nisbet,
2010). Environmentalists tend to frame climate change as a looming disaster or within a Pandoras
Box frame a tactic that can lead to ridicule of scientists and public fatalism (Nisbet, 2010).
Opposing conservative groups counter that the science behind climate change is weak, that climate
change may offer benefits, and that efforts to counter climate change would do more harm than
good (McCright and Dunlap, 2000). Moreover, reporting on environmental issues has been found
to be shallow and biased in favor of corporate interests (Nissani, 1999).
Foust and Murphy (2009) examined two types of apocalyptic frames in the global warming
discourse: one rooted in cosmic fate and beyond human ability to control, and the other subject to

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015

160 Public Understanding of Science 23(2)

human agency. The former approach, the authors claimed, provokes resignation in the face of a
human-induced dilemma (p. 164). But Iyengar and Kinder (2010) suggested audiences are more
engaged with episodic framing, which involves people and personalities as a chief storytelling
technique. Conversely, thematic framing, which offers a broader, societal discussion to abstract
concepts is less frequent (Iyengar, 1994, 1996).
When it comes to writing about an abstract, perhaps unobservable issue, such as climate change,
an unintended consequence of this trend might be, according to Hallahan (1999) that viewers and
readers feel absolved of responsibility for social problems because responsibility is so readily
attributed to the people portrayed in the news, whether or not the newsmakers depicted are culpa-
ble (p. 221).

4. Cross-national comparative study of framing

Framing research examines the way media and audiences organize and make sense of social phe-
nomena. Thus, it seems logical to expect differences in frames in different countries. Previous
research often emphasizes that differences in national media systems and news cultures can influ-
ence news media frames between nations (van Zoonen and Vliegenthart, 2011). However, scholars
have argued that more cross-national comparative studies are needed to further explicate those
relationships (Benson, 2004; Strmbck and van Aelst, 2010).
De Vreese, Peter, and Semetkos research on news coverage of the launch of the Euro (2001)
found that a conflict frame was highlighted in television news in all European countries they stud-
ied. Wittebols (1996) found clear differences in the tone of news coverage in the U.S. and Canada
in a study of news reporting on social protest, explaining such differences could be attributed to
structural variables, such as political systems and the countries position in the global society.
Snow, Vliegenthart, and Corrigall-Brown (2007) also found that other variables, such as time
and source use, exacerbated national differences. Furthermore, there is a suggestion that framing
does not localize at the national level and instead markedly differs from organization to organiza-
tion, and therefore, researchers should consider news production dynamics from organization to
organization (Archetti, 2008).
Comparative international research into media coverage of environmental issues (including
Brossard, Shanahan, and McComas, 2004; Good, 2008; Jones, 2009; Shih Wijaya, and Brossard,
2008) has produced mixed findings. Brossard et al. (2004) found that climate-related issues are
reported in culturally specific ways though such results dont suggest all newspapers or all
media within a given nation offer a similar social construction of an issue. Good (2008), refer-
encing Herman and Chomskys media propaganda model (1988), expected differences in cli-
mate change coverage as a result of societal factors influencing news production as well as the
role a system of government might play; she found U.S. papers were more likely to frame news
articles of climate change as discussions of science than were Canadian or international
newspapers.
Antilla (2008) found especially stark differences between U.S. and U.K. coverage of so-called
climate tipping points; however, in a study comparing news coverage of climate change in the U.S.
and Sweden, Shehata and Hopmann (2012) found striking similarities in coverage, suggesting
national political elites have minimal influence on how the issue is framed in coverage.
While primarily concerned with testing Matthes and Kohrings cluster analysis technique, this
study also contributes to the literature of cross-national comparative framing studies by examining
one research question and two hypotheses related to the coverage of the Climategate controversy
in the U.S. and U.K.

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015

Bowe et al. 161

Previous research remains inconclusive on the question of whether one should expect a differ-
ence in media frames based simply on national differences. While the sample used in this study
cannot be generalized to represent the entire media landscape in the U.S. and the U.K., such uncer-
tainty inspired a research question:

RQ1: In examining a single media event, are the most dominant frames in British coverage different from
the frames in U.S. coverage?

However, because there is some support in the literature for the notion that media framing can
differ as a result of societal factors, this study tests a set of hypotheses based on the particularities
of the scandal itself and which of those particularities may have been more salient based on
national interests.

H1a: British coverage will frame Climategate as hackers responsibility more than American coverage.

H1b: American coverage will frame Climategate as scientists responsibility more than British coverage.

H2a: Climategate will be more often framed as a political issue in British coverage than in American
coverage.

H2b: Climategate will be more often framed as a scientific issue in American coverage than in British
coverage

5. Method
This study examines the framing of global climate change in two elite American newspapers and
two elite British newspapers coverage of the East Anglia e-mail scandal. Elite papers were selected
because they set the agenda for non-elite papers and tend to use more sources (Carpenter, 2007).
The frame elements were operationalized using Entmans (1993, 2004) definition of framing as the
emphasis of certain problem definitions, causal attributions, moral evaluations and/or treatment
recommendations in a communication text. Similar to Matthes and Kohring (2008), we considered
problem definitions to include both issues and actors. Causal attribution was operationalized as
whether the responsibility for the controversy was attributed to scientists or hackers. Moral evalu-
ation considered whether the issue was framed as scientific data manipulation or hacker criminal
behavior. Finally, treatment recommendation considered whether climate change was depicted as
true, false, or unknown. Heeding Nisbets advice about building on the work of previous research-
ers, portions of the coding protocol employed in this study were adapted from Trumbo (1996).
To determine the frames in media coverage of Climategate, this study examined newspaper
articles from two elite British newspapers (The Guardian and The Independent) and two elite
American newspapers (The New York Times and The Washington Post). Previous research has
shown that such elite or prestige newspapers set the agenda for other news organizations
(Reese and Danielian, 1989) and that quality newspapers tend to operate in nation-specific con-
texts (Strmbck and van Aelst, 2010). Boykoff and Boykoff (2004) similarly focused on prestige
press in the U.S. for a study of climate change reporting, while Carvalho (2007) examined the
British prestige press.
While the newspapers selected for this study are present in prior literature examining climate
change reporting, it should be acknowledged that the New York Times and Washington Post could

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015

162 Public Understanding of Science 23(2)

be considered establishment media outlets, while the Independent and the Guardian are consid-
ered progressive. Thus, the papers on each side of the Atlantic would not likely attract the same
demographics. With recent literature suggesting a dominant frame of science in U.S. journalism
and enforcement/societal factors in U.K. reporting (Antilla, 2008; Carvalho, 2007; Good, 2008), it
is valuable to include these newspapers in the current study to further examine whether these same
frames would persist in coverage of a specific event, rather than discussion of a nebulous environ-
mental issue like climate change.
The New York Times and Washington Post are viewed as having a national voice per their
national distribution, but it is not the intent of this study to generalize results to all publications, not
even those with similar status, such as the Chicago Tribune or the Los Angeles Times. The U.K.
newspapers were selected for their appearance in prior literature, most notably Carvalho (2005,
2007). Studying climate change discourse in printed newspapers over 19 years, Carvalho and
Burgess (2005) argued that while sources, in particular the political authority figures, play a key
role in shaping the debate over climate change, the framing is mediated through each newspapers
distinct and individual ideological worldview.
The unit of analysis was the paragraph (n = 1,575), which allows for the discovery of more than
one frame per story. A sample was drawn via LexisNexis using the terms East Anglia and cli-
mate for four months from the date the story broke on November 19, 2009. The breakdown of
paragraphs by publication is New York Times (n = 272, 17.3%), Washington Post (n = 212, 13.5%),
The Independent (n = 440, 27.9%) and The Guardian (n = 651, 41.3%). A reliability test was con-
ducted on a randomly drawn subsample of 10% of the articles to determine intercoder reliability.
Using Scotts pi to correct for chance agreement, the reliabilities for the variables were as follows:
problem definition/issues (.78), problem definition/actors (.73), causal attribution (.74), moral
evaluation (.67) and treatment recommendation (.75).

6. Data analysis
To analyze the data, a cluster analysis was performed using Wards (1963) Method, which is a
procedure for creating hierarchical groups made up of mutually exclusive subsets that are based on
similarity. Punj and Stewart (1983) found it to outperform other clustering algorithms. As Matthes
and Kohring (2008) noted, this method is appropriate for identifying suitable cluster solutions in
this type of framing study.
Cluster analysis results are displayed in a tree-like diagram called a dendrogram. Upon visual
inspection of the dendrogram in this case, a four-cluster solution was deemed to be the best option
(Table 1), where best refers to the comparative value in comparison to a five-cluster and three-
cluster solution. The four-cluster results were saved as a variable in the dataset, so each observation
was labeled with its cluster membership. Table 2 breaks down the main variables in each frame.
Each of the four frames is described below.
The first frame we call a Scientific Dishonesty frame, comprised mainly of university scientists
(38.7%), political leaders (18.4%), and other scientists (15.5%). The causal attribution was almost
entirely (98.9%) scientists responsibility, and the moral evaluation was that Climategate was pri-
marily a data manipulation (82.9%). While the percentage was not large, this frame had the greatest
percentage of claims that climate change is not true (11.2%).
The second frame was similar to the first frame in some respects. This frames topic also was
mostly scientific (41.4%), with legal (15.1%) and political (14.5%) subtopics. As in the first
frame, the main actors included university scientists (23.3%) and other scientists (16.0%). Most
of the paragraphs in this frame did not make claims about causal responsibility (88.7%) or moral

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015

Bowe et al. 163

Table 1. Results of four-cluster solution.

Four-cluster solution (Ward Method)

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent

Valid 1 375 23.8 23.8 23.8
2 774 49.1 49.1 73.0
3 139 8.8 8.8 81.8
4 287 18.2 18.2 100.0
Total 1575 100.0 100.0

Table 2. Main variables for four frames.

Scientific Scientific Criminal Political

Dishonesty Explanation Activity Advocacy
frame frame frame frame
Issue: Scientific 66% 41.4% 26.6% 16.4%
Issue: Legal 5.3% 15.1% 58.3% 3.8%
Issue: Political 11.9% 14.5% 10.1% 56.1%
Actor: University scientists 38.7% 23.3% 27.3% 0.0%
Actor: Political leaders 18.4% 5.1% 7.9% 77.4%
Actor: Other scientists 15.5% 16.0% 9.4% 0.0%
Actor: Hackers 0.0% 0.8% 20.9% 0.0%
Responsibility: Scientists 98.9% 2.2% 2.2% 0.3%
Responsibility: Hackers 0.3% 0.0% 95.0% 0.3%
Responsibility: N/A 0.8% 88.7% 2.9% 99.3%
Moral: Data manipulation 82.9% 4.9% 6.5% 0.0%
Moral: Hacker crime 0.5% 2.0% 77.7% 0.0%
Moral: N/A 16.6% 93.1% 15.8% 100%
Treatment: Climate change is true 9.6% 20.3% 12.2% 38.2%
Treatment: Climate change is not true 11.2% 0.9% 5.0% 3.5%
Treatment: Truth of climate change unknown 35.2% 24.5% 26.6% 0.7%
Treatment: N/A 44.0% 54.3% 56.1% 53.7%

attribution (93.1%). While more than half of the paragraphs did not offer a treatment recommen-
dation (54.3%), the rest of the sample was split between claims that climate change was true
(20.3%) and that the truth of climate change was unknown (24.5%). We call this a Scientific
Explanation frame.
The third frames issue identification was largely legal (58.3%), with scientific (26.6%) and
political (10.1%) components. The largest numbers of actors in this frame were university scien-
tists (27.3%) and hackers (20.9%). The frame depicted the issue overwhelmingly as hackers
responsibility (95.0%) and as a crime by hackers (77.7%). The paragraphs that contained treatment
recommendations either claimed the truth of climate change is unknown (26.6%) or claimed
climate change is true (12.2%). We call this frame the Criminal Activity frame.
We call the fourth frame a Political Advocacy frame. More than half of the issues (56.1%) were
political and more than three-quarters (77.4%) of the actors were political leaders. This frame

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015

164 Public Understanding of Science 23(2)

Table 3. Frame differences between U.S. and U.K.

U.S. papers U.K. papers

Scientific Dishonesty 114 (23.7%) 260 (23.9%)
Scientific Explanation 263 (54.7%) 507 (46.5%)
Criminal Activity 37 (7.7%) 102 (9.3%)
Political Advocacy 67 (13.9%) 220 (20.2%)

overwhelmingly lacked responsibility attributions (99.3%) and contained no moral evaluations.

Of the paragraphs that evaluated the truth of climate change, 38.2% suggested that climate change
is true.
To answer RQ1, we compared the difference between frames in American and British coverage
(Table 3) through chi-square tests of independence. Significant results were found for the Scientific
Explanation frame (2 = 4.454, df = 1, P = 0.0348) and the Political Advocacy frame (2 = 7.163,
df = 1, P = 0.0074). We failed to find, however, significant differences for the Scientific Dishonesty
frame (2 = 0.003, df = 1, P = 0.9553) or the Criminal Activity frame (2 = 1.061, df = 1, P =
0.3029). Those results indicate some difference between the American and British framing of the
controversy.
We conducted chi-square tests of independence on the causal attribution variables to test H1a
and H1b. On the question of whether British coverage would frame the controversy as hackers
responsibility more than American coverage, a significant result was not found (2 = 0.201,
df = 1, P = 0.6542). Likewise, on the question of whether American coverage would frame the
controversy more as scientists responsibility, we failed to find a significant result (2 = 0.101,
df = 1, P = 0.7507). Therefore, H1a and H1b were not supported.
The results for RQ1 could be seen to lend support for H2a and H2b. To further confirm, a chi-
square test of independence was conducted. A significant result was found on the question of
whether Climategate would be more often framed as a political issue in British coverage than in
American coverage (2 = 24.873, df = 1, P < 0.0001). Similarly, a significant result was found on the
question of whether Climategate would be more often framed as a scientific issue in American
coverage than in British coverage (2 = 29.554, df = 1, P < 0.0001). Therefore, H2a and H2b were
strongly supported.

7. Discussion
This articles primary concern was to discuss an emerging methodological approach to framing
research namely a manual-clustering frame analysis. The results of this analysis offer support
for the effectiveness of the frame coding method as described by Matthes and Kohring (2008). The
main advantage of this technique, these researchers note, is that frames are not subjectively deter-
mined but empirically suggested by an inductive clustering method (p. 275). By coding separate
frame elements, we were able to discern four coherent frames in just such a fashion. In this way,
we feel confident in agreeing with Matthes and Kohring that a frame is, indeed, a complex concept
that is the sum of its frame elements.
This study provides a snapshot of news coverage of Climategate from four elite newspapers in
the U.S. and the U.K. While the results of this study contribute to an overall understanding of the
differences in media coverage of Climategate, they offer only a part of the picture and are unable
to be generalized to all U.S. and British coverage. Still, it may be possible to speculate on

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015

Bowe et al. 165

differences in coverage based on national interests. Perhaps H1a and H1b were not supported
because the question of whether Climategate was either scientific dishonesty or a crime perpetrated
by hackers doesnt have a binary answer it may have been both. Similar journalistic standards
in both nations may have dictated that both elements were part of the story.
On the other hand, H2a and H2b may have seen such strong support because they were not
related to what happened, but what it meant. In Britain, Climategate was more of a local story
because it involved public institutions and Parliamentary hearings over potential corruption. In the
U.S., on the other hand, the specific political implications of the situation were far removed, but the
general contours of the scandal fit into growing public skepticism of the scientific establishment.
The antecedents and effects of such frame differences need to be discussed from political,
economic, and journalistic contexts in further studies. In this sense, this study should be regarded
as a first step for such an expansive research project. By dissecting frames using this elemental
approach, researchers will be able to look more closely at aspects of frames among different
countries news coverage. In so doing, we believe the factors behind frame differences over time
can be analyzed.
In general, the results suggest news coverage did respond to the local particularities of the issue,
but that some frames crossed national boundaries. This further suggests that reporting on environ-
mental issues may be socially constructed and not only culturally constructed. Brossard et al.
(2004) discerned a stronger cyclical pattern in American coverage of climate change than in French
coverage, with U.S. reports focused more on domestic issues and conflicts between scientists and
politicians. Such patterns are related to well-established journalistic practices in U.S. media cul-
ture, and those patterns were present in this studys findings. But the most interesting results may
be the frames that crossed borders.
What is it about the Scientific Dishonesty and Criminal Activity frames that transcended
national media cultures? Perhaps the allegation of wrongdoing whether perpetrated by unethical
scientists or criminal hackers is more universally compelling and easier to understand than
explanations of complex scientific issues. These two frames seem to fit Iyengars (1994) descrip-
tion of episodic frames as illustrations of specific instances of events. Perhaps episodic frames are
particularly coherent in cross-cultural contexts.
On the other hand, the Scientific Explanation and Political Advocacy frames may be more
thematic in nature. Thematic frames report issues more broadly and abstractly by placing them in
some appropriate context historical, geographical or otherwise (Iyengar, 1996: 62). Because
the U.S. and U.K. have distinct social, political, and historical contexts, it would logically follow
that thematic frames might be less transferrable across cultures.

8. Limitations/future research
One of this studys main limitations was the lack of treatment recommendations. Of the four
frames, around half of the paragraphs had no treatment recommendation coded. Such a result may
mean that treatment recommendation should be operationalized in a different way; however, it also
may mean that treatment recommendation is a variable best measured at the story level, rather than
the paragraph level.
Another limitation was relatively low intercoder reliability on the moral evaluation variable.
Moral attributions were not as frequently occurring as some of the other frame element variables,
and that lack of variation was a blow to reliability when using Scotts pi to correct for chance agree-
ment. On a deeper level, though, this might bring into question Matthes and Kohrings assertion
that individual frame elements are inherently easier to code than holistic frames. Future researchers

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015

166 Public Understanding of Science 23(2)

should continue to explore ways to improve the measurement of moral attributions in media texts.
Further, intercoder reliability was similarly cited as a limitation by Brossard et al. (2004), though
they suggested that it may have been a trade-off for greater validity.
This technique for determining frames holds promise, particularly when conducted at the
paragraph level. Future researchers should examine how many frames occur within individual
stories. They also should consider whether some variables are best examined at the story level,
rather than at the paragraph level. Finally, this technique should be expanded to other topics using
well-established codebooks to see whether the results are more reliable and valid.

Note
1. Two years after the initial hacking incident, a second round of hacking occurred, this time dumping
220,245 files onto a Russian server, and then onto skeptic Web sites. This pattern is a repeat of 2009, only
this time, investigators detected a message file that the perpetrator failed to encrypt. Despite assistance
from the Metropolitan Polices National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit and Qinetiq (a global
defense and security firm), to date, no one has been charged by the Norfolk Constabulary. Critics say
there has been little action on the matter.

References
Antilla L (2005) Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Global
Environmental Change 15(4): 338352.
Antilla L (2008) Self-censorship and science: A geographical review of media coverage of climate tipping
points. Public Understanding of Science 19(2): 240256.
Archetti C (2008) News coverage of 9/11 and the demise of the media flows, globalization and localization
hypotheses. International Communication Gazette 70(6): 463485.
Bell A (1994) Media (mis) communication on the science of climate change. Public Understanding of Science
3(3): 259275.
Benson R (2004) Bringing the sociology of media back in. Political Communication 21: 275292.
Boykoff MT (2011) Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Boykoff MT and Boykoff JM (2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global
Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, Part A 14(2): 125136.
Brossard D, Shanahan J and McComas K (2004) Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison
of French and American coverage of global climate change. Mass Communication and Society 7(3):
359377.
Bryant J and Miron D (2004) Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication 54(4):
662704.
Carpenter S (2007) U.S. elite and non-elite newspapers portrayal of the Iraq war: A comparison of frames
and source use. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 84(4): 761776.
Carvalho A (2005) Representing the politics of the greenhouse effect: Discursive strategies in the British
media. Critical Discourse Studies 2(1): 129.
Carvalho A (2007) Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on
climate change. Public Understanding of Science 16(2): 223243.
Carvalho A and Burgess J (2005) Cultural circuits of climate change in U.K. broadsheet newspapers
19852003. Risk Analysis 25(6): 14571469.
DAngelo P and Kuypers JA (2010) Introduction: Doing news framing analysis. In: DAngelo P and
Kuypers JA (eds) Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives. New York,
NY: Routledge, pp. 113.
David CC, Atun JM, Fille E and Monterola C (2011) Finding frames: Comparing two methods of frame
analysis. Communication Methods and Measures 5(4): 329351.

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015

Bowe et al. 167

De Vreese CH, Peter J and Semetko HA (2001) Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: A cross-national
comparative study of frames in the news. Political Communication 18: 107122.
Entman RM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4):
5158.
Entman RM (2004) Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Foust CR and Murphy WO (2009) Revealing and reframing apocalyptic tragedy in global warming discourse.
Environmental Communication 3(2): 151167.
Gamson WA and Modigliani A (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A construction-
ist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95(1): 137.
Gitlin T (2003) The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making & Unmaking of the New Left.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Goffman E ([1974] 1986) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston, MA: North-
eastern University Press.
Good JE (2008) The framing of climate change in Canadian, American, and international newspapers: A
media propaganda model analysis. Canadian Journal of Communication 33: 233255.
Hallahan K (1999) Seven models of framing. Journal of Public Relations Research 11(3): 205242.
Herman E and Chomsky N (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Iyengar S (1994) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues, Paperback edn. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Iyengar S (1996) Framing responsibility for political issues. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 546: 5970.
Iyengar S and Kinder DR (2010) News That Matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Jones AR (2009) Framing global warming: An international comparison of news media framing of climate
change from 19932003. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
San Francisco, CA, August 7. Available at (accessed November 10, 2010): http://www.allacademic.com/
meta/p307056_index.html
Jones JM (2011) In U.S., concerns about global warming stable at lower levels. Gallup.com. Available at
(accessed March 12, 2012): http://www.gallup.com/poll/146606/Concerns-Global-Warming-Stable-Lower-
Levels.aspx
Matthes J (2009) Whats in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the worlds lead-
ing communication journals, 19902005. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 86(2):
349367.
Matthes J and Kohring M (2008) The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and
validity. Journal of Communication 58: 258279.
McCright AM and Dunlap RE (2000) Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the
conservative movements counter-claims. Social Problems 47(4): 499522.
Nisbet MC (2010) Knowledge into action: Framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In:
DAngelo P and Kuypers JA (eds) Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspec-
tives. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 4383.
Nissani M (1999) Media coverage of the greenhouse effect. Population & Environment 21(1): 2743.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2011) Modest rise in number saying there is solid evidence
of global warming. Available at (accessed March 19, 2012): http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/01/
Punj G and Stewart DW (1983) Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and suggestions for application.
Journal of Marketing Research 20(2): 134148.
Reese SD (2001) Prologue Framing public life: A bridging model for media research. In: Reese SD, Gandy
OH, and Grant AE (eds) Framing Public Life: Perspectives of Media and Our Understanding of the
Social World. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 731.
Reese SD (2007) The framing project: A bridging model for media research revisited. Journal of Communication
57: 148154.

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015

168 Public Understanding of Science 23(2)

Reese SD and Danielian LH (1989) A closer look at intermedia influences on agenda setting: The cocaine
issue of 1986. In: Shoemaker PJ (ed.) Communication Campaigns about Drugs: Government, Media, and
the Public. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 4766.
Saad L (2009) Increased number think global warming is exaggerated. Gallup, March 11. Available at
(accessed March 19, 2012): http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-
exaggerated.aspx
Shehata A and Hopmann DN (2012) Framing climate change: A study of US and Swedish press coverage of
global warming. Journalism Studies 13(2): 175192.
Shih TJ, Wijaya R and Brissard D (2008) Media coverage of public health epidemics: Linking framing
and Issue Attention Cycle toward an integrated theory of print news coverage of epidemics. Mass
Communication and Society 11: 141160.
Snow DA, Vliegenthart R and Corrigall-Brown C (2007) Framing the French riots: A comparative study of
frame variation. Social Forces 86(2): 385415.
Strmbck J and van Aelst P (2010) Exploring some antecedents of the medias framing of election news: A
comparison of Swedish and Belgian election news. International Journal of Press/Politics 15(1): 4159.
Tankard JW (2001) An empirical approach to the study of media framing. In: Reese SD, Gandy OH, and
Grant AE (eds) Framing Public Life: Perspectives of Media and Our Understanding of the Social World.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 95106.
Trumbo C (1996) Constructing climate change: Claims and frames in U.S. news coverage of an environmental
issue. Public Understanding of Science 5: 269283.
Tuchman G (1980) Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York, NY; London, UK: Free
Press; Collier Macmillan.
Ungar S (1992) The rise and (relative) decline of global warming as a social problem. The Sociological
Quarterly 33: 483501.
van Zoonen L and Vliegenthart R (2011) Power to the frame: Bringing sociology back to frame analysis.
European Journal of Communication 26(2): 101115.
Wan KW (2010) UK grows more skeptical on climate change: Poll. Reuters, June 10. Available at
(accessed March 19, 2012): http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/10/us-climate-survey-idUSTRE
65968620100610
Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical
Association 58: 236244.
Wittebols JH (1996) News from the noninstitutional world: U.S. and Canadian television news coverage of
social protest. Political Communication 13: 345361.
Zehr SC (2000) Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public
Understanding of Science 9(2): 85103.

Author biographies
Brian J. Bowe is a doctoral student in Michigan State Universitys Media and Information Studies
program and a graduate fellow in information and communication sciences at CELSAUniversit
Paris-Sorbonne. He is the author of several books about popular music. He holds a B.A. in journal-
ism and an M.S. in communications from Grand Valley State Universitys School of Communications,
where he previously served as a Visiting Assistant Professor.

Tsuyoshi Oshita is a doctoral student and a research assistant in Michigan State Universitys
Media and Information Studies program. Prior to joining the program, he worked as an advertising
media planner and a public relations consultant in Japan. He holds M.A. degrees in International
Public Relations from Cardiff University (U.K.) and Socio-Information and Communication
Studies from the University of Tokyo (Japan).

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015

Bowe et al. 169

Carol Terracina-Hartman is a Research Assistant in the Knight Center for Environmental

Journalism at Michigan State University and a Visiting Assistant Professor of Mass Communications
at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. As an environmental journalist, she worked in both
print and radio, in Wisconsin, Idaho and California. She holds a B.A. in English literature from the
University of Illinois U-C and an M.A. in Mass Communication from the University of
WisconsinMadison.

Wen-Chi Chao is an analyst at The Nielsen Company. She graduated from Michigan State
University with an M.A. in Public Relations.

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD C. SILVA HENRIQUEZ on October 19, 2015