From the 'Battle of Seattle' to the 'War on Terrorism' in The New York Times
Unformatted Document Text:
From the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to the ‘War on Terrorism’ 5
has been covered in the press becomes the yardstick for changes in representations of
movements—if such representations do indeed change.
Hypotheses & Research Questions
This study sought to correct the previous emphasis in framing studies on short-term
events by exploring whether the New York Times’ framing of the anti-globalization movement
followed or diverged from the protest paradigm over a total of three years. Thus, it explored the
following three research questions:
RQ1: How did the New York Times’ framing of anti-globalization dissent change over the
three years from the 1999 Seattle protests to the 2002 Washington D.C. protests?
RQ2: In what ways, if any, did the New York Times’ framing of anti-globalization dissent
change after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001?
RQ3: Does the framing of anti-globalization protests in the New York Times coverage from
1999 to 2002 fit the traditional “protest paradigm,” or is a new model required?
The analysis aimed to identify the stable and dynamic patterns of the newspaper’s frames
from four months prior to the Seattle protest coverage to four months after the World Trade
Center attacks. Prior to the dramatic Seattle events of 1999, it seems likely that anti-globalization
received little press attention as a social issue. Since that time, the movement and its activities
have become better known to journalists and the public alike. The hypotheses thus included:
H1: The prominence of coverage of the anti-globalization movement in the New York Times
will increase substantially from 1999 to 2002, as measured by increases in total number of stories, photographs, and front-page placements over time.
The routines of newsgathering reinforce an orientation toward society’s dominant
ideology because journalists select sources that are available, efficient and authoritative (Gans,
1979; Herman and Chomsky, 1988)—in other words, primarily official ones. Previous studies