FRAMING, AGENDA SETTING AND PRIMING: DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS Belén AMADEO, Prof. Dr. Universidad de Buenos Aires, CONICET, ARGENTINA bamadeo@fibertel.com.ar Belén AMADEO was born in 1970, Buenos Aires, Argentina. She holds a Political Science BA from Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina, and a PhD in Public Communication from Universidad de Navarra, Spain. She is a researcher and lectures on Political Communication, Cyberpolitics, Communication Theory, Civic Culture and Mass Media at undergraduate, graudate and doctoral levels in Argentina and Uruguay. Abstract The framing theory has been defined and explained by various scholars whose viewpoints on the theory could not have been more different. Each researcher attributes functions and specific characteristics to frames according to the specific “level of the communication” where he thinks they are placed. The first “level” is the making and treatment of news -the production of the information by journalists and the media. The second level is the message in itself -that is to say the concrete contents of news-, and the third level is the one of the reception of the message by the audience -the effect frames have on those who receive them. There are authors who deal with the concepts of frame and framing in more than one of those communication levels at the same time, and those who see framing in all those levels simultaneously. This, therefore, forces to create a fourth and last level in our classification, the one corresponding to those authors who see framing as a communication process embracing the three previous steps. This fourth ʺlevel of communicationʺ allows us to grasp the connections appearing through all the transfer of meaning, thus overcoming the idea that frames are something different from the rest of the process. Framing is a comprehensive theory that includes the newsmaking process, the formal characteristics of the pieces of news as well as their reception by the audience. It focuses on underlying social values shared by journalists and their community, values that are either explicitly mentioned or suggested in the news. The Framing theory explains the transfer, strengthening and modification process of the social set of values, symbols and norms from the mass media to society and vice versa. Stating the differences between the theory of Framing, Agenda Setting and Priming deems useful considering the fact that some of their particular aspects tend to be confused. The connection between the concepts of frame and attribute, for example, has proven to be misleading: the process of framing is not the media’s mere assignment of attributes to some issues or individuals in the news. It implies a dynamic transfer of meanings from media to society and from society to media, baring in mind not only the psychological perspective –that of the journalists who elaborate the pieces of news and of the spectators and readers-, but also the sociological aspects of the newsroom where the news are elaborated and the society to which the means of communication addresses. This psichosociological perspective helps to understand that while Framing is a comprehensive theory, both Agenda-setting and Priming are theories of effects that deal with the impact the media agenda exerts on the public. Another key difference between Framing and Agenda Setting and Priming is that the former considers the impact of media on the individual to go through the filter of the receivers’ own frames. These frames are active and soften the media impact on the audience. This theory can be empirically tested by applying a combination of content analysis, public opinion polls and either newsroom observation and/or in depth interviews to the journalists and chief editors of the media being researched. 65 FRAMING, AGENDA SETTING AND PRIMING: DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS 1. KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING THE FRAMING THEORY1 The theory of Framing is not new and has been the object of numerous works over the past years. Many definitions have been proposed and descriptions offered regarding the dynamics of this theory and the application and effects of its tool, the frame. Nevertheless, a specific definition of the theory has not yet been attained. Research on Framing offers a diverse -and sometimes confusing- number of explanations. Although these theoretical works do not generate open discussions, in some points they offer practically opposite arguments and propositions. In the first place, the same concepts of Framing and frame are interpreted differently, depending on the meaning of the word the scholars intend to privilege. In fact, the words naming the theory (Framing) as well as its key element (frame) have broad meanings. According to The Oxford English Dictionary (2005), the term frame means “the supporting structure that gives something its shape” or “the general ideas or structure that form the background to something.”. As a verb, to frame means, among other things, to give shape to ʺto put or make a frame or border around something” or “to express something in a particular way”. When the time comes to work with the word, the ambiguity and broad meaning of those concepts make each author adopt one meaning over the others. In 1955, Bateson (1972: 186) proposed the concept of ʺframeʺ as a useful instrument for psychology in order to explain how and why people direct their attention to certain aspects of reality and not on others. The term was selected two decades after by Goffman (1974), the sociologist whose work largely influenced Tuchman (1978), the first author to interpret the news as frame. As from that date, following approximately one hundred researches, the term was no longer considered to be an isolated concept, but a theory with a great variety of facets. In the second place, while some authors prefer studying both theoretical concepts together, that is frames and framing, others only concentrate on the frame. Those who study frame define it as an ecstatic entity with characteristics of its own (see Gitlin 1980; Cohen & Wolsfeld 1993; Meyer 1995; Chen 1996; Nelson et al. 1997), whereas those who analyse framing observe the process of transmission of information established between the media and society through the news (see Entman 1991 and 1993; Fuller 1997; Ghanem 1997; Yows 1997; Jasperson et al. 1998). 1.1 The stages of communication research The definition of framing poses some problems. Authors tend to refer to the scope and form of application of these frames, but they do not explain what exactly frames are. Differences arise even among those who claim that framing is a theory. Some of these authors state that it is a broad theory which explains the whole process of media communication, while others have a more restricted view and consider Framing to be a useful theory to analyse what takes place at one or several of the communication stages or levels. A researcher attributes functions and specific characteristics to frames depending on the specific “stage” of the communication which he thinks they are placed. The first stage is the making and 66 treatment of news -the production of the information by journalists and the media. The second stage is the message -that is to say the contents of news itself-, and the third stage is the reception of the message by the audience -the effect frames exert on those who receive them. Some authors deal with the concepts of frame and framing at more than one of those communication stages simultaneously, while others sustain that the framing process comprises the three stages of communication. This, therefore, calls for a new classification, the one which understands framing as a communication process embracing the three previous steps. This new “level” of communication allows us to grasp the connections which interact through all the transfer of meaning, thus going beyond the idea that frames are different from the rest of the process. The fact that some authors analyse framing at more than one stage hints at the fact that there is an underlying weave of relations connecting all and each one of the phases in the communication stages taken as reference. The frames used at each phase of communication are interdependent. Actually, they explain each other. Thus, journalists as individuals follow certain social and professional criteria in order to choose and elaborate the information to be reflected in a text, which will eventually be read, seen or listened, by receivers. The latter, in turn, will recognise the news in this text, interpret its content and act following their own norms. 1.2 Different approaches to Framing The above mentioned definitions can be grouped differently. In 1993, Pan and Kosicki brought to light the existence of two conceptions of frame, a sociological one and a psychological one. These authors state that the former considers the social meaning of an event to be defined by the framing process, whilst the latter, the psychological one, centres on the cognitive processes the individuals apply when they face a piece of news (Pan & Kosicki 1993:56-57). Some years later, Toshio Takeshita (1997: 23) stressed this classification, although he warned against the risk of oversimplification. According to Takeshita, ʺthose who have a sociological perspectiveʺ mainly try to analyse media contents -what the journalist means, why and how he says it and, eventually, they also analyse the possible impact on the members of the audience or on societyʹs groups of interest. On the other hand, ʺthose having a psychological perspectiveʺ focus on the study of the effects of message framing on the members of the audience (see Takeshita 1997: 23-24). When analysing the authors proposed by Pan and Kosicki and Takeshita, another key element, which these articles did not stress, became evident. It has been said that authors having a psychological perspective pay attention basically to the effects of frames, but they are not the only ones to do this; there are those who have a sociological perspective and are also interested on the effects of frames. The real difference between these two groups of researchers -and a point which has not been dealt with thoroughly- is the question of who these frames affect. In fact, Framing research shows that frames can affect a person in particular, or society in general. Those defining Framing from a psychological viewpoint look for their influences on specific social groups -government, economic groups, religious groups, among others-, or on social dynamics in general. Scheufele (1999) thinks of these perspectives of framing as “microlevel” –describing how people use information and presentation features regarding issues as they form impressions- and “macrolevel” –anaylizing how the way an issue is 67 presented by journalists resonates with existing underlying schemas among their audience (Scheufele, 2007: 12). Nevertheless, it is not possible to ensure that all authors are classifiable under one of these two streams of research. In fact, Takeshita (1997) shows that such authors as Entman (1993), or the already mentioned Pan and Kosicki (1993), have tried to integrate concepts from both perspectives, like two compatible aspects which go hand in hand. Not all authors seek to follow one approach or another; quite on the contrary, there are researchers who resort to elements of a sociological and group nature as much as of a psychological and individual one in order to develop their theories. Through the conjunction of both kinds of elements, they explain the process of frame elaboration and the influence they have on the interpretation of reality. On the other hand, the sociological approach helps researchers to consider frames beyond elements of cognitive psychology. The latter refer to the internal process of discerning the meaning of information, a process which takes place in the mind of individuals. Considering a more sociological approach to Framing also helps to understand this theory as a process of interaction of concepts. The social reality is no longer understood as an ecstatic frame and is now regarded as a dynamic of interchange - and even of confrontation – the meanings of public facts. Therefore, rather than an effort, reading these authors implies an intrinsic connection between these two currents. These researchers employ arguments and terms from both perspectives, without revealing any essential difference between them. It is due to this strong interrelation of approaches that it is better to analyse the studies of Framing from a theoretical position that can use these common tools. We could then state, and in a conciliatory manner, that we are handling a psycho-sociological approach. In this way, the concept of framing expands beyond the sole mind of the receiver or the issuer to society, but without forgetting its individuals. This is far more beneficial for the cultural dimension of frames. Some elements of this integrating discipline allow us to study how the connection between frames at different communication levels occurs. Far from being denied, both traditions are accepted and assumed as a whole, allowing us to understand the connection between the individual and the society he belongs to. The joint analysis of the research stages in which researchers state framing is applied and the theoretical perspectives from which they work -psychological and sociological- allows us to appreciate the broadness of the Framing theory. Proof of this is that, when making news, journalists resort to shared symbols which relate to images and meanings shared by society. Indeed, the use and elaboration of symbols journalists take up from society, are added to the receiver’s. And this receiver is, at the same time, conditioned by his situation and his individual experience as well as by the definition of facts he has absorbed from society. Therefore, the framing process is the result of the interaction of all the players taking part in this process of making and keeping meanings. The theory of Framing is no longer the mere explanation of isolated communication processes. It is a very wide theory, so much so, that it leads Entman to suggest it as a possible 68 communication paradigm (Cfr. Entman, 1993). This proposal is consistent with that put forward by those authors who declare the existence of frames in the three stages of the study of communication. Framing research shows a solid network of transmission of social meanings throughout the whole communication process. Nevertheless, some aspects of the dynamics of the transmission of meanings from society to the media and vice versa still remain be looked into. Future research should be focused on how the frames in the different levels of communication interact with each other. 2. FRAMING AS COMPARED TO OTHER THEORIES Very many authors tend to compare or to relate Framing to the theories they do research on. Some of them regard Framing as a theory related to the newsmaking process, while others see it either as a theory of effects or as a mere formal description of the news contents’ aspect. And the fact that these scholars make reference to only one, or at most two, of these phases of research in communication, makes it necessary to review different theories in order to establish the singularities of the Framing theory. It is precisely this wide range of action that differentiates Framing from Agenda-setting and Priming theories. The wide variety of theories compared or related to Framing run from general –as the theory of Mediation- to more specific ones. Among the latter, some deal with the elaboration of the news –like the theories of Objectivity and Indexing-, while others are theories of effects –such as Priming and, of course, Agenda-Setting2. As these are the theories authors most frequently relate to Framing, it deems useful to analyse how they are connected. On this occasion we will focus on the relationship between Framing and theories of effects, namely Agenda-Setting and Priming. 2.1 Theories of effects By the end of the 1920s, in the wake of communication research, metaphors such as “the hypodermic needle” or “the magic bullet” referred to the theories that assessed the overwhelming impact mass media had on public opinion. According to these, what the media stated was registered and reproduced exactly by the individuals who, helpless before that power, adopted the opinions the media conveyed. However, as from 1940, a second stage in the communication effects research, more sceptical regarding the influence of the media, took into account a more active and demanding audience. Thus, the analysis of selective exposure, of the group’s norms, and of the existence of public opinion leaders –among other researches– gave way to a series of theories to be grouped into “the model of limited effects”. Around 1965, massive access to television reconfirmed the existence of media effects, –although this time more moderately– through theories such as Two Steps Flow and Knowledge Gap. Since 1970, however, research on communication has shown a growing interest in ‘very strong media effects’ (see Klapper, J. 1974; Severin & Tankard 1992: 261; Muñoz Alonso et al. 1992; McLeod et al. 1996) including Agenda-Setting, posed by McCombs and Shaw in 1972 (McCombs & Shaw 1972), and Priming, elaborated by Krosnick and Kinder in 1990. 69 Some scholars have treated the theory of Framing as theory of the effects exclusively, considering frames to be persistent standards of cognition and interpretation deeply rooted in society (Gitlin 1980: 7) and, as such, they influence the audience’s interpretation of the media contents. In this way, diverse researches try to measure the public’s perceptions on different subjects like the characteristics of politicians (Iyengar, 1991), the election campaigns (Rhee, 1997), racial problems (Nelson et al., 1997) or the importance of the state budget deficit (Jasperson et al., 1998), among others. 2.2 Agenda Setting and Framing The idea that citizens are driven to focus on some issues –rather than on others– as a result of how those issues are treated by the media, is not new. It steadily developed from the end of the 19th century until it took its final shape in 1972 when McCombs and Shaw coined the concept of the agenda-setting, the name of the theory that studies the impact of the media selection of issues on the public agenda (Dader 1992: 295-297). Research on Agenda-setting has greatly evolved since its early days. In its seminal stage, attention was driven to the relationship between the media issues agenda and the public issues agenda (McCombs & Shaw 1993: 59). In 1995 Holli Semetko explained that research on Agenda-Setting had strongly developed in width and depth, giving rise to several related theories. This theory’s development in width has resulted from first studying the connection between the media agenda and the public agenda, and then analysing agenda building –the process through which the media agenda is built– and its relationship with the public agenda. On the other hand, the development in depth of the Agenda-Setting theory started with mere interest in the list of issues proposed by the media, moved on to the analysis of the audience’s attitudes and opinions, and continued as an attempt to understand how people framed and interpreted public matters3. The Framing theory is generally related to this latter stage of Agenda Setting. Indeed, following 20 years of Agenda-Setting researches that supported the theory, some authors turned their attention not only to the issues themselves but also how they were dealt with. Giving priority to the issues was, of course, relevant to understand the media’s influence on public opinion. But the aspects attributed to those issues seemed to be as important as the issues themselves. This led McCombs and Evatt to state there was a second level of Agenda-setting, which no longer focused on the issues. It was concerned with the influence the presentation of some attributes or specific aspects of any issue might have. According to the authors, the media can exert an influence on which issues should be included in the public agenda. But maybe it is more important to bear in mind that the media can influence the way people think about the issues of the public agenda” (McCombs & Evatt 1995: 9). During the following decade collateral subjects aroused interest among scholars. Interested in understanding who set the agenda of the media, some authors also devoted part of their analyses to intermedia agenda setting (Peresón, 2003; Shoemaker & Reese, 1991). Others 70 considered that the agenda setting function of the media not only influenced the issues and attributes the public remembered, but also their attitudes and patterns of behavior. These authors stated that the media could not only tell us what to think about and how to think about it, but also what to do as a reaction to it (McCombs and Estrada, 1997; Skousis, 2003). Finally, in the last few years a few articles have been written on Agenda-cutting, and have defined it as “the reverse process whereby problems or issues have attention directed away from them by receiving little or no media coverage” (Wober & Gunter, 1988; Colistra, 2006). Ever since the advent of the second level of Agenda-setting, Framing has often been confused with the setting of the agenda of attributes (Wanta & Hu 1993). The differences between framing and the second level of agenda-setting became clearer as new research models were proposed to analyse and explain the transfer of contents from the media to the audience by combining both theories (Jasperson et al. 1998). The initial confusion demands, however, a more subtle analysis of the differences between both theories. The closeness of Framing and Agenda Setting misleads authors such as Takeshita into concluding that Framing, as well as Agenda-setting, explore practically the same problem –the function the media have on the definition of reality (Takeshita 1997: 24) -, although this is not entirely true. 1. The first difference between the theories lies in the fact that Framing is a comprehensive theory that goes beyond the theories of effects, while Agenda Setting studies the degree of influence a message or set of messages has on the public opinion. The steps to be followed in order to exercise that influence are analysed by Framing. 2. The second dissimilarity is that, among other details, Framing analyses the process through which the precognitions of individuals help them interpret every new situation the media present to them (Jasperson et al 1998: 206). The Agenda-setting theory, on the other hand, does not explain this process: it analyses its result. 3. The third difference is that whilst Agenda-setting centres on the impact of the media contents on public opinion, Framing studies the underlying frames in the media contents (Ghanem 1997: 7-8). 4. Another key element that easily leads to confusion is that frames are neither attributes the media give to an issue nor their influence on public opinion. The attributes are traits of the issues or of the individuals mentioned in the news; they are characteristics arising from the cognitions transferred by the media. Frames are more than that. They exist at a level broader than that of agenda of issues or attributes: frames are deeper underlying ideas explicit or implicit in the whole discourse and conveyed by the text –whose influence will later be studied by Agenda-Setting. When mass media describe a political candidate, for example, they focus on some of his attributes –traits, characteristics. Let us imagine for a minute an article that stresses the candidate’s having charisma or a lack of it. While the attribute is limited to the candidate’s mentioned or suggested qualities –and is evaluated by the second level of Agenda Setting-, the Framing theory will analyse the underlying shared social values about which there is hardly any discussion –if none at all. 71 Thus, in that same imaginary article, the frame used would not be the enumeration of the candidate’s virtues or flaws, but the accepted social idea that this individual is undergoing a pre-established democratic process of selection in order to become the following legitimate President in office. Frames help present both the issues and the attributes according to the underlying ideas shared by all the members of the society the media serve. 5. Scheufele (2007:13) states two more differences between these theories. In the first place, “is the amount of attention to news messages required for the two effects to occur”. Although these theories may seem to operate by similar mental processes, “attention to messages may be more necessary for a framing effect to occur than an agenda-setting effect. Mere exposure may be sufficient for agenda setting, but it is less likely to be so for framing effects… Framing effect occurs when audiences pay substantial attention to news messages”. 6. The second difference this author highlights is the locus of effect. Agenda-setting effect lies on the accessibility an issue receives from its treatment in the news, it derives from the fact that the issue has received a certain amount of processing time and attention that carries the effect. In contrast, the locus of framing effect lies in the applicability of the description news coverage make of an issue (Scheufele, 2007: 14-15). 7. This last difference leads to the seventh and clearest one. The very name of Agenda-setting indicates that it supposes that the media set, in an almost determinant way, the list of issues, aspects or attitudes in the minds of individuals. The Framing theory considers that the individual who reads a piece of news is not passive. He unconsciously checks the information with his own inner frames. The broadcast report does not enter his mind and settle according to the place or the relevance the media attribute to them. The information settles according to the individual’s frames, according to how he himself frames the issue. 6. As for the methodological differences, Agenda Setting has been proved right through content analysis combined with public opinion polls. Framing, on the other hand, needs one additional methodological input to measure the newsmaking process and the frames the medium and the journalist bear in mind when covering a piece of news. Thus, either newsroom observation and/or in depth interviews with the journalists and chief editors of the media being researched are required. The connection of these sets of data provides a thorough understanding of the interaction of the values, norms and shared perspectives between media and society. 72 2.3 Priming and Framing The theories of Framing and Priming analyse some questions the theory of the Agenda-setting leaves unresolved. Among other things, they both study the process through which media helps a person to change his opinions. In the Oxford Dictionary, the definitions for the verb “to prime” is “to fill, charge, load”, verb whose second meaning refers to the loading of a gun. The third meaning, though, associates this word with communication research. In this sense, prime means “to charge, fill, or fully furnish (a person) beforehand with information which he may subsequently give forth or otherwise use”4. Krosnick and Kinder (1990) proposed the theory of Primingin an attempt to provide a wide and psychologically possible explanation on how citizens formulate and review their own points of view regarding an issue. The core idea of the theory of Priming is that when it comes to expressing an opinion, an individual does not make long disquisitions, but rather “takes a short cut”, for or against the issue in question. One of such short cuts is to resort to the information he has at hand in his memory, information he remembers spontaneously and effortlessly. The authors consider that the information provided by mass media is, by far, the most accessible one to individuals. Hence, the criteria citizens use to evaluate a politician are determined by the news the media decide to cover. The more attention paid by the media to a 5 specific issue – or particular aspect of an issue – the more prepared the minds of the citizens will be to be influenced by that issue at the time of taking some position (Krosnick & Kinder 1990). Following the definition of prime above mentioned, the mind is loaded with more information on this issue, which will later be used to support its future judgements. The Priming theory states that television coverage of the news not only develops individuals’ knowledge of on specific issues, but also affects the criteria applied to assess political leaders (Willnat, 1997). Therefore, we understand that the difference between the theories of AgendaSetting and of Priming is that while the former reflects the impact of the news contents on the importance the public attributes to specific political issues, Priming refers to the impact which that same coverage has on the elaboration of a judgement on their political actors (Iyengar, 1987). It could be concluded then, that priming is a process of activation of judgement, thanks to which the information the media prioritize exerts an influence on the valuation on an issue. Despite this, there is a relationship between the second level of Agenda Setting and the theory of Priming: the former deals with the effects of the attributes while the latter makes reference to the expression of judgements. Priming goes beyond cognition, observes the process by which the information is activated and gives way to the expression of opinions, to the attribution of characteristics or values. Following Canel’s appreciations, Priming poses a step further up Agenda-setting in the sense that whilst agenda-setting explains the effects of the media on the information the individuals prioritize, priming explains the judgements and the cognition arising from the news. That is to say, priming deals with the impact a piece of information exerts on the feelings and affections a citizen might have towards, say, a candidate (Canel, 1998: 59). 73 As for the relationship between the theories of Priming and of Framing, they both aim at exploring beyond the theory of Agenda-setting by looking into the individual’s process of interpretation of the news. But this only makes the first difference between them evident. In the first place, unlike Priming, Framing does not seek to pinpoint which person or characteristic of the text has more influence than the other, instead it seeks to understand which are the psychological processes through which this influence takes place. On the other hand, Framing is not a purely psychological theory. In addition to cosidering the psychological dimension of individuals, it gives key importance to their social dimension. In this sense, framing does not content itself with understanding which steps an individual’s mind follows in order to process, assimilate and retain some information; it also studies in what way those news contribute to the conformation of society as a group, ruled by shared values. In this way, the theory of framing surpasses the excessive psychologism which Canel identifies in the studies on effects, a trait made evident in the scant attention investigators pay to the media’s cultural reality (Canel 1998: 66). 3. (STILL OPEN) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS As we have seen, Framing, Agenda Setting and Priming differ in many ways. Despite the fact that some scholars that state that framing is the mere application of frames to a piece of news paving the way to the second level of agenda setting-, or that priming is only an attitudinal effect of Agenda Setting, Priming, Agenda Setting and Framing are communication theories, none of which is subsumed by the other. Agenda Setting originally described the correlation between the media agenda and the public agenda. Later on, it showed that together with the issues agenda there was an agenda of attributes, and an intermedia agenda setting function. Agenda cutting and behavioural influences have also been referred to. The Priming theory attempts to explain in which way the individual processes information in order to elaborate a predisposition towards the issue under consideration. The audience also resorts to previously stored information in order to elaborate an opinion through a conceptual short cut. Priming is not interested as much in the intensity of the media impact –how much of the media agenda is reflected in the public agenda- as it is in the way the pieces of news lead the individual in his perception of public issues. Framing differs from the former theories in that it does not research the impact of media contents on the audiences’ agenda. As a comprehensive theory, it deals with the underlying set of values shared by the members of the community -and, therefore, by the media in that community. The framing theory explains the transfer, strengthening and modification of the shared social values, symbols and norms from the media to society and, vice versa. When analizing the frames in the audiences, Framing tries to describe how it is that the mentioned agenda correlations take place. This theory is interested in understanding why some issues receive no coverage in the news and how the media agenda becomes part of the public agenda. 74 While Agenda Setting researchers wonder in what way and how much of the media agenda reflect on the public agenda, and Priming studies look into the attitudinal changes in the audience’s minds, Framing focuses on the primary social and psychological causes that explain and shape this transfer of contents from society to the media and from media to society. REFERENCES Amadeo, B. (in print). “Framing: Teoría para armar”. Teresa Riccitelli, Alicia C. de Peresón (eds.) Teorías de la comunicación. Universidad Católica Argentina, Buenos Aires. Amadeo, B. (2002). “Los medios de comunicación y la transmisión de significados”. Revista de la Facultad de Comunicación, 1, 6-32. Universidad de Piura. Perú. Translated into English as “Towards a frame for Framing” Amadeo, B. (1999). La aplicación de la teoría del Framing a la cobertura de la corrupción política en Argentina. 1991-1996.” Unpublished doctoral thesis. Facultad de Comunicación, Universidad de Navarra, Spain. Amadeo, B. (1998), Una aproximación a la teoría del Framing. Departamento de Comunicación Pública. Facultad de Comunicación, Universidad de Navarra, Spain. Bateson, G. (1972). “A Theory of Play and Fantasy”, in Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology, pp.177-193. San Francisco, Chandler Publishing. Canel, M.J. (1998). “Los efectos de las campañas electorales”. Comunicación y Sociedad. 11,1:4767. Universidad de Navarra, Spain. Casermeiro de Peresón, A. (2003). Los medios en las elecciones. Agenda Setting en la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires, EDUCA. Chen, C.H. (1996). La teoría del framing en la cobertura de las elecciones europeas. Unedited thesis for Masters Degree. Departamento de Comunicación Pública. Facultad de Comunicación, Universidad de Navarra, Spain. Cohen, A. & Wolsfeld, G. (1993). Framing the Intifada: People and Media. Norwood, N.J. Ablex Colistra, R.F. (2006). “Agenda Cutting: New Theoretical Developments in the Agenda-Building and Agenda-Setting Processes. Keynote speech, 4th International Symposium Communication in the Millenium, Eskisehir, Turkey. Dader, J.L. (1992), ʺLa canalización o fijación de la ʹagendaʹ por los mediosʺ, en A. Muñoz Alonso et al. (eds.), Opinión pública y comunicación política, pp.294-318, Madrid, Eudema Universidad. Diez Nicolás,J. and Semetko, H. (1995) ʺThe television and the elections of 1993” in A. MuñozAlonso and J. I. Rospir (eds.), Political Communication, 1995: 221-242 Madrid, Ed. Universitas. Entman, R. (1991). “Framing US Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents”, Journal of Communication 41,4: 6-27. Entman, R. (1993). “Framing: Toward Clarificatoin of a Fractured Paradigm”. Journal of Communication, 43,4: 51-58. Fuller, J. (1997). News Values. Ideas for an Informaton Age. (2nd ed.)Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Ghanem, S. (1997). “Filling in the Tapestry: The Second Level of Agenda Setting” in M.E. Mc Combs, D. Shaw & D.Weaver (eds.), Communicaton and Democracy. Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 3-14. Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World is Watching. Berkeley, University of California Press. 75 Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. (1st ed 1986). Boston, Northeastern University Press. Hassencahl, F. (2006). ʺFraming the Death of Yasser Arafat: Conspiracy or Natural Causes”. 4th International Symposium Communication in the Millenium, Eskisehir, Turkey. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? (How TV frames political issues). Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Jasperson, A.E. et al. (1998). “Framing and the Public Agenda: Media Effects on the Importance of the Federal Budget Deficit”, Political Communication, 15: 205-224. Klapper, J., 1974, Effects of mass communication: power and limitations of the modern diffusion media, Madrid, Aguilar. Krosnick, J. and Kinder, D. (1990). “Altering the Foundations of Support for the President through Priming”. American Political Science Review, 84, 2: 497-512. McCombs, M.E. & Shaw, D. (1972). “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 2: 176-187. McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. (1993). “The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Research: Twenty-Five Years in the Marketplace of Ideas”. Journal of Communication, 43, 2: 58-67. McCombs, M. & Evatt, D. (1995). “Los temas y los aspectos: Explorando una nueva dimensión de la Agenda-setting”. Comunicación y Sociedad, 8, 1: 7-32. Universidad de Navarra, Spain. McCombs, M.E. & Estrada, G. (1997). “The News Media and the Pictures in our Heads”, in S. Iyengar y R. Reeves (eds.), Do the Media Govern?, Sage, London. Meyer, D. (1995). “Framing National Security: Elite Public Discourse on Nuclear Weapons During the Cold War”. Political Communication, 12, 173-192. Nelson et al. (1997). “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance”. American Political Science Review, 91,3: 567-583. Pan, Z., and Kosicki, G.M. (1993). “Framing analysis: An Approach to News Discourse”. Political Communication, 10: 55-75. Rhee, J.W. (1997) “Strategy and Issue Frames in Election Campaign Coverage: A Social Cognitive Account of Framing Effects”. Journal of Opinion Quarterly, 32,4: 26-48. Sádaba, T. (2006) Framing. Una teoría para los medios de comunicación. Pamplona, Ulzama Ediciones. Scheufele, Dietram A. y Tewksbury, David (2007). “Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models”, Journal of Communication 57 (1), 9–20. Shoemaker, P.& Reese, S. (1991). Mediating the Message. Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. New York, Longman. Skousis, K. (2003). “Consecuencias cognoscitivas, actitudinales y conductuales del agendasetting”, in M. McCombs, I. Luna Pla, Agenda-Setting de los Medios de Comunicación. Universidad Iberoamericana, México, pp. 121-137 Strömbäck, J. & Luengo, O. (2006). “Framing and Election News Coverage in Spain and Sweden”. 4th International Symposium Communication in the Millenium, Eskisehir, Turkey. Takeshita, T. (1997). “Exploring the Media’s Roles in Defining Reality: From Issue-Agendasetting to Attirbute-Agenda-setting” in M.E. Mc Combs, D. Shaw & D.Weaver (eds.), Communicaton and Democracy. Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 15-29. Tuchman G. (1978). News Making. A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York, The Free Press. 76 Wanta, W. & Hu, Y. (1993). “The Agenda-setting Effects of International News Coverage: An Examination of Differing News Frames”, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5, 3: 250-263. Willnat, L. (1997). “Agenda-setting and Priming: Conceptual Links and Differences” in M.E. Mc Combs, D. Shaw & D.Weaver (eds.), Communicaton and Democracy. Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 51-66. Wober, J.M. & Gunter, G. (1988). Television and Social Control. New York: St.Martinʹs Press. Yows, S.R. (s.d. 1996?). “Towards Developing a Coherent Theory of Framing: Understanding the Relationship between News Framing and Audience Framing”. School of Journalism and Mass Communication. University of Madison, Wisconsin. NOTES This and other aspects of the Framing theory have been dealt with in Amadeo (2002), and translated into English as “Towards a frame for Framing”. That article, as well this one, is part of the author’s doctoral research “Una aproximación a la teoría del Framing”. Departamento de Comunicación Pública. Facultad de Comunicación, Universidad de Navarra, Spain. 1 2 The relationship of Framing with the above mentioned theories has been tackled in B. Amadeo, 1998 and 2007 (in print). We shall define issue following Takeshita (1997: 22) who suggests that, in the context of the theory of agenda setting, an issue is more than an issue, it is what is in conflict regarding a particular issue. 3 4 Voz “prime”, The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd. Edition, 1989, vol XII (Poise-Quelt). 1. trans. To fill, charge, load. 2.a. To supply (a fire-arm of old-fashioned type, or more strictly its pan) with gunpowder... 2.b. To put powder in the touch-pan. 3. fig. and transf. a. To charge, fill, or fully furnish (a person) beforehand with information which he may subsequently give forth or otherwise use 5 The term “to prepare” is chosen by Díez-Nicolás and Semetko in the first theoretical work on priming, translated into Spanish. Cfr. Diez Nicolás,J. and Semetko, H., ʺThe televisión and the elections of 1993 in A. Muñoz-Alonso and J. I. Rospir (Eds.), Political Communication, 1995: 221-242 Madrid, Ed. Universitas. 77