Framing Famine: An Analysis of U.S. Media Coverage of the 2011 Famine in the Horn of Africa By: Lauren McCarty A Capstone Project Presented to the Faculty of the AU School of Communication in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Public Communication Supervisor: Professor Caty Borum Chattoo April 24, 2013 Copyright © 2013 Lauren C. McCarty All rights reserved. To obtain permission to use material from this work, please submit a written request via email to laurencmccarty@gmail.com. 2 ABSTRACT On July 20, 2011, the United Nations declared famine in several areas of southern Somalia, while additional regions in the Horn of Africa suffered from serious drought conditions. According to the communication theories of agenda setting and framing, whether a news article makes publication and how the article is written will affect public perception of the article’s issues. Thus, media portrayals of the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa may affect what audiences know about the famine and if they take action to help with relief efforts. This study takes a deep look into content in U.S. newspaper articles published about the famine to discover the common frames and assess whether this content relates to frames that encourage disaster relief assistance. A qualitative content analysis of six major U.S. newspapers was employed to gather data and results. Key findings include a low article quantity and an abundance of frames that do not typically indicate giving behaviors. The results of this study shed light on the complex relationship between news content and humanitarian crises in order to generate future solutions to support aid and understanding. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 5 LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................................... 8 Background on the Horn of Africa Famine............................................................................................ 8 Agenda Setting Theory................................................................................................................................... 10 Framing Theory................................................................................................................................................. 11 Frames Common in Humanitarian Crises.............................................................................................. 13 Frames Correlating with Giving Behavior.............................................................................................. 17 METHODS............................................................................................................................................ 21 RESULTS.............................................................................................................................................. 24 Articles.................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Dominant Article Frame................................................................................................................................ 26 Causes................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Blame..................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Solutions............................................................................................................................................................... 31 Who is Quoted?.................................................................................................................................................. 32 U.S. Foreign Policy............................................................................................................................................ 34 How to Help........................................................................................................................................................ 35 DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................ 37 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................... 42 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................... 45 APPENDIX (CODEBOOK)................................................................................................................ 50 4 INTRODUCTION Currently, the number-­‐one health risk to individuals around the world is hunger (World Food Programme [WFP], 2012). Specifically, in 2012, more than 870 million people, or one in every eight individuals on the planet, did not get enough nutrition to live normal, active lives (WFP, 2012). However, more than enough food is produced to feed each person around the world every year (WFP, 2012). So, the factors that cause these limitations on resources must be examined to see why some people are hungry and some people have more than enough food to fill their plates. The vast majority of the world’s hungry people live in developing countries (WFP, 2012). Of these, nearly 75 percent live in rural regions in Africa and Asia. These individuals are often small-­‐operation farmers, who have no other source of income or employment than food production (WFP, 2012). Often, the lands these rural farmers use to grow crops are overused and prone to natural disasters such as floods, drought or pestilence. When disaster does strike, these individuals often have no other way to obtain their own food resources and local food situations can deteriorate quickly turning into crisis. Drought is now the world’s most common cause of food shortages (WFP, 2012). In regions where rainfall is typically sparser, drought conditions can make farming and growing crops impossible. With no plants to grow livestock can starve to death, which also eliminates dairy and protein food products for local farmers. Issues of drought and natural disasters may also be compounded by human conflict. In warzones, food may be used as a weapon. Soldiers may seize crops and livestock, poison wells and restrict aid for struggling local farmers (USAID, 2013). 5 When so many horrific factors come together to create a desperate food situation, famine may be declared. Although the term “famine” is often used in general, colloquial terms, it is actually an official designation that is determined and declared only when a food shortage scenario meets particular criteria. Specifically, famine, as declared by the United Nations, is the highest classification of food shortage for a given location. Basic qualifications must be met for a famine declaration including 20 percent of area households facing extreme food shortage, acute malnutrition exceeding 30 percent and death rates due to hunger and starvation exceeding two per every 10,000 people in the affected region (WFP, 2012). In the Horn of Africa in July 2011, several factors – including drought and human conflict – came together, leading to a desperate food shortage and an official declaration of famine. However, while hunger and famine may cause dire crisis situations, global audiences are often not aware of disaster declarations and the scope of the tragedies until the news media begin reporting on these distant disasters. Attracting media attention and gaining coverage is vital to generating substantial emergency assistance for humanitarian crises, especially when the disaster is in a part of the developing world (Joye, 2009). According to Quarantelli (1991), “What average citizens and officials expect about disasters, what they come to know of ongoing disasters, and what they learn from disasters that have occurred, are primarily although not exclusively learned from mass media accounts” (p. 2). Thus, not only is attracting media attention to humanitarian disasters a primary importance, but the information media outlets collect and the subsequent information that is placed in news articles may have extensive ripple effects reaching not only residents in the crisis regions, but the emergency assistance that is allocated and 6 distributed – as well as the response from individuals who may wish to contribute. When people become aware of humanitarian disasters through mass media accounts or, to a lesser extent, first-­‐hand experience, they often want to support their fellow human beings in distress in some way possible. According to Giving USA, a report from the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, private American citizens donated more than $217 billion to charity in 2011 (Giving USA, 2011). Clearly, Americans can be generous and have many of the resources necessary to fund and support crisis relief around the world. Many of those in the developed world also have the training and support necessary to send tactical assistance and relief workers to regions struck by crisis. However, if news outlets do not adequately cover global humanitarian disasters, the extent to which countries and residents with available resources decide to allocate funding and assistance towards these recovery efforts is greatly minimized. The news coverage itself must also contain story elements that entice individuals to help with relief and recovery efforts. This study will not focus directly on crisis news reports making the media agenda, but instead examine the information contained in news reports about the recent famine in the Horn of Africa. Thus, this study examines how the news media framed the 2011 Horn of Africa famine, and whether the prevailing frames encouraged giving behaviors. In this study, “humanitarian disaster” or “crisis” refers to situations in which weather phenomena, war, political or religious conflict, or similar extreme circumstances, cause large portions of a region’s population to be unable to meet their basic needs without assistance. However, the famine in the Horn of Africa in 2011 will be the prevailing point of study. “Giving behavior” refers to all actions taken to support relief efforts, including 7 monetary donations and volunteering. Additionally, the news outlets specifically studied are The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. The following literature review sections of this report will examine the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa and how it is portrayed in a select group of U.S. newspapers through the framework of framing theory. First, an overview of the 2011 Horn of Africa famine will be provided. This will be followed by a discussion on agenda setting theory and framing theory. The final section in the literature review will discuss frames in humanitarian crises and frames that affect giving behavior. BACKGROUND ON THE HORN OF AFRICA FAMINE In late 2010 into 2011, countries in the Horn of Africa – which include Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Kenya and Sudan – experienced record low levels of rainfall (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, [OCHA], 2011). The continued dry weather pattern caused crops to shrivel and livestock to pass away. As a primarily agricultural region, the loss of crops and livestock led to dangerous drought conditions in much of the Horn of Africa (OCHA, 2011). However, while lack of rainfall may have led to drought conditions, human conflicts in Somalia led to famine declarations in several regions in southern in Somalia. On July 20, 2011, famine was declared in two regions in Somalia, followed by additional famine declarations in areas of southern Somalia through September 2011 (OCHA, 2011). While these southern Somali regions had roughly the same weather issues as other nearby areas, 8 militant groups in control of these locations pushed them into chaos, putting malnutrition and starvation death levels beyond the famine threshold. For decades, Somalia has been engulfed in civil war and struggles for government control. In recent years, the militant Al-­‐Shabaab group controlled many areas in southern Somalia (UN News Centre, 2011). Humanitarian aid groups struggled to operate in Somalia prior to drought conditions because of the risk of violence or death. The Executive Director of the UN World Food Programme (WFP), Josette Sheeran said, “Operations in Somalia are among the highest risk in the world, and WFP has lost 14 relief workers there since 2008. We will aggressively pursue efforts to mitigate against risk, through robust assessments and monitoring, but I am calling on all sides to stand together in recognizing the inevitable risks that will be present in southern Somalia,” (UN News Centre, 2011). The dangers of operating in Somalia stemming from militant control of the region are the key reasons famine was declared in several regions of southern Somalia. Not only were the militants inhospitable to foreign aid workers, but they also blocked attempts at getting aid into the area and trapped native Somalis in their homelands without access to clean water or enough food (UN News Centre, 2011). As the food situation deteriorated and the global news media took notice, the militant group began to back down allowing aid to reach starving Somalis. By, mid-­‐
February 2012, conditions in southern Somalia had lowered below famine levels (USAID, 2013). However, even at the lifting of famine conditions, more than 625,000 Somali refugees were living in camps in Ethiopia and Kenya. Additionally, thousands of Somalis were still in their own country, desperately needing assistance to recover losses and restart 9 food production in a drought-­‐ravished and conflict-­‐ridden region (UNICEF, 2012). AGENDA SETTING THEORY Before humanitarian disasters, including famine, are able to receive assistance or attract other giving from individuals, information about these disasters must make the news agenda. “Through their day-­‐to-­‐day selection and display of the news, journalists focus our attention and influence our perceptions of the most important issues facing the country (...) This ability to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda has come to be called the agenda-­‐setting role of the news media,” (McCombs & Reynolds, 2007, p. 1). Thus, agenda setting theory claims that through daily story selection, members of the media determine what issues the general public will find most important. By calling attention to some issues and choosing to ignore others, journalists focus the public’s attention on the issues that make publication (McCombs & Reynolds, 2007). When choosing to cover humanitarian disasters in Africa and other developing nations, western journalists often reflect current foreign policy agenda items. Jan Egeland, former UN Under-­‐Secretary-­‐General for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, said, “I don't know why one place gets attention and another not. It's like a lottery, where there are 50 victimized groups always trying to get the winning ticket, and they play every night and they lose every night,” (Hoge, 2004, para. 19) In this statement, he is referring to the various crises in the developing world that need assistance, yet most will never make the news agenda. Unlike a lottery, U.S. media selection 10 of agenda items is often not random and instead follows policy interests (Hawkins, 2011). For humanitarian crises in the developing world, these missed shots at media coverage can mean the difference between getting aid and pulling the area out of crisis, or continued crisis for an extended period of time (Hawkins, 2011). Thus, adding humanitarian crises to the news agenda in the western world is vital to achieving aid and assistance. FRAMING THEORY After making the media agenda, the content in stories about humanitarian disasters must also resonate with audiences. The theory of framing contends that the way a story is told influences perception of the story’s issues. Entman (1993) described framing as “selecting some aspects of a perceived reality and making them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (p. 52). This definition suggests the content included or omitted to describe an event impacts an individual’s perception and evaluation of the event. The framing used in a particular story tells individuals how to think about a specific issue or topic. However, the effects of framing are not absolute. Kahneman (2003) explained in his work that all “perception is reference dependent” (p. 459). Thus, when individuals consume news, their perception of story frames will vary depending on beliefs and knowledge. Generally, frames will have a greater impact on those with less specific knowledge of the topic and lesser impacts on individuals with high levels of specified knowledge on a topic (Kahneman, 2003; Entman 1993). In the case of this paper, knowledge may refer to a wide range of understandings from African politics to famine aid. 11 While most people perceive common framing effects, the influence of framing may again be overruled in some people based on particular beliefs and convictions, especially those just described for humanitarian disasters. Entman (1993) further clarifies this idea by stating, “Framing determines whether most people notice and how they understand and remember a problem, as well as how they evaluate and choose to act upon it. The notion of framing thus implies that the frame has a common effect on large portions of the receiving audience, though it is not likely to have a universal effect on all” (p. 54). Understandings of stories conveyed in mass-­‐mediated news thus depend on individual knowledge and convictions, but will generally appeal to most audience members in a similar fashion. An additional core aspect of framing is its time limitations. The effects of framing are only salient across time until a different influencer adjusts perception. However, some frames are repeatedly used, especially in the case of humanitarian disaster coverage, so continuous framing effects may continue to take place for some people. Frames that help describe raw events in single stories may also vary across news outlets, from event to event or even during various stages of disaster events. Framing is based on “the assumption that how an issue is characterized in news reports can have an influence on how it is understood by audiences” (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007, p. 11). Each event, then, creates its own series of frames that audiences must interpret. In terms of this research report, U.S. coverage of humanitarian disasters creates a series of similar frames, but each individual event tends to use some frames or common themes more than others to describe specific aspects of that particular event. 12 In their Nobel Prize winning framing research, Kahneman and Tversky (1979) explain how the concept of framing works by discussing how the same option or outcome can be described different ways. Kahneman and Tversky (1984) give this example, “the framing of outcomes of therapies for lung cancer in terms of mortality or survival is unlikely to affect experience, although it can have a pronounced influence on choice” (p. 350). By this, the authors show that when a momentous event, in this case developing lung cancer and needing treatment, is described people often prefer the choice that highlights positive impacts (survival) over negative impacts (mortality) even if the actual outcomes are exactly the same. While mortality and survival are fairly clear-­‐cut alternatives, some aspects of frames may not be as clear-­‐cut, or may depend more on societal cues and personal beliefs. A key aspect of frame building and frame understanding is societal understanding (Sei-­‐Hill et al., 2010; Scheufele, 1999). For an American audience, frames must attune to the needs of U.S. society or the framing will potentially be lost or misunderstood. As mentioned earlier, U.S. news outlets often tailor stories about distant humanitarian crises to fit American foreign policy agendas. However, these frames may not translate well in regions of the world where similar foreign policy interests are not shared. By tailoring stories to interest U.S. audiences, media outlets have a greater chance of conveying the gravity of humanitarian disasters and contributing to giving behaviors. FRAMES COMMON IN HUMANITARIAN CRISES As humanitarian disasters are unfolding, including the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa, journalists and others working in the media must scramble to gather information on 13 the disastrous events and turn them into communicative packages. In order to create news messages, journalists must encode the raw events of a natural disaster into some form of communicative story. “A ‘raw’ historical event cannot, in that form, be transmitted by, say, a television newscast [...] To put it paradoxically, the event must become a story before it can become a communicative event” (Hall, 2001, p. 167). Thus, the journalist must turn the information of the raw event into a story before the story may be published and passed along to the public. By translating raw events into stories, journalists and their news outlets create differing versions of humanitarian disasters through unique word and image choices. Additionally, Gitlin (1980) writes, “framing is unavoidable because at the institutional and individual journalist level, framing is necessary to interpret, organize and understand large amounts of information” (p. 8). Thus, the stories translated from raw humanitarian disaster events and published in the news must have frames. The routes taken by individual journalists to create stories and their frames often vary, allowing for many interpretations of one “raw event.” Several factors affect how individual journalists or whole editorial staffs choose to translate humanitarian disaster raw events and construct frames. Scheufele (1999) asks “what kinds of organizational or key structural factors of the media system, or which individual characteristics of journalists, can impact the framing of news content?” (p. 115). Scheufele calls the answers to these key questions he poses and their impacts, “frame building” (1999, p. 115). The main pressures and structures leading to frame formation include social and cultural norms, organizational pressures and constraints, interest group pressures, professional journalism routines, and the individual journalists themselves (Scheufele, 1999). To expand upon these ideas, first, journalists must take cues from their 14 and their audience’s culture in order to resonate with them. This action could potentially create frames that may be understood differently by those in other cultures, especially if the humanitarian disaster being described takes place in a separate part of the world (Sei-­‐
Hill, Carvalho & Davis, 2010). Additionally, organizational pressures and constraints convey the fact that American news outlets are for-­‐profit and must write frames that entice a large, profit-­‐generating audience. Journalists typically follow similar patterns of gaining information through press releases, story-­‐related organizations, officials and experts, and press conferences that all deliver separate details and versions of the raw event (Sei-­‐Hill et al., 2010). Individual journalists are then left to put these pieces together to construct a story and frame for each raw event. With all of the pressures influencing members of the news media to build frames in certain ways, it is important to assess whether or not the frames commonly constructed in humanitarian disaster coverage correspond with the major details of the raw disaster events themselves. When humanitarian disaster events in developing areas such as Africa take place, scholars show similar frames appear in U.S. media (Gitlin 1980; Kothari, 2010; Sorenson, 1991). However, these events have a variety of causes and implications, so simplification may prevent the full story from reaching audiences. As Liu (2009) mentions, news outlets often reuse the same frames “for quickly telling disaster stories, (that) at best fail to adequately accommodate the complexity of disasters. At worst, they misrepresent the impact of disasters” (p. 270). However, as crisis events unfold, common frames often change throughout the duration of the humanitarian disaster event. “When issues and events are covered in the news, the frames used generally 15 change so that different aspects of the issues or events are emphasized at different points in time [...] Frames tend to change because there are different orientations toward public issues and events depending on how well those issues and events are known” (Houston, Pfefferbaum & Rosenholtz, 2012, p. 609). Keeping in mind that frames may change over the course of humanitarian disasters, may be prone to simplification and may be subject to several external and internal forces pressuring frame construction, journalists and others in the U.S. news media tend to utilize similar disaster frames, especially pertaining to crises in Africa and other parts of the developing world. Synthesizing previous studies on African humanitarian crises, scholars show the West as charitable savior, ethnic conflict, and natural disaster causation as common frames in U.S. media outlets (Gitlin 1980; Kothari, 2010; Sorenson, 1991). Additionally, frames describing African disasters tend to support the ideals of U.S. foreign policy during the time of the event (Gitlin 1980; Kothari, 2010; Sorenson, 1991). Due to language and safety barriers, many U.S. journalists struggle to gain information from local African sources, and instead obtain their information from U.S. government officials and western aid workers. This source bias often leads to the previously mentioned frame of “West as charitable savior,” (Kothari, 2010; Sorenson, 1991). The ethnic conflict frame type often simplifies local conflict, portraying African nations as constantly fighting, whereas the natural disaster causation frame ignores many of the conflicts causing natural disasters to tip to extreme crises (Gitlin 1980; Kothari, 2010; Sorenson, 1991). 16 FRAMES CORRELATING WITH GIVING BEHAVIOR Since the most common frames used during humanitarian disaster coverage and some of the reasons for those frames have been established, it is important to assess whether any prominent African crisis frames relate to giving behavior. As a major humanitarian disaster, the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa left millions of people without adequate food supplies or the resources to obtain more sustenance. To combat this famine, millions of dollars in global assistance for food, water, aid worker training and support were necessary. The frames present in the news surrounding disaster coverage can play a role in determining the amount of donations generated. Certain frame types elicit responses favorable to giving behaviors more than other frames. This paper will break down major categories of frame types in order to assess which frames may relate to giving behavior, and the cognitive processes underlying possible giving motivation. Episodic and thematic framing refer to two categories of frame types that may cover a variety of topics. Episodic frames present issues by telling individual stories, specific examples or case studies. Thematic frames, however, present issues by placing them into a broader context and giving facts and figures to describe the issue (Gross, 2008). Both episodic and thematic frames help convey issues in ways that may be beneficial or detrimental to the issue. In terms of addressing root causes or linking related topics, thematic framing often tells a more complete story with facts and figures on the full issue (Iyengar, 1991). However, episodic framing may appeal to audiences’ emotions, making the issue impactful to audience members (Gross, 2008). Previous literature shows episodic frames are likely to engender sympathy or empathy for the person or individuals discussed, often leading individuals to react positively to the issue addressed. (Gross, 2008; 17 Dickert, Sagara & Slovic, 2010). These feelings elicited by episodic frames, “can actually increase persuasion if the individual’s story is compelling enough to generate intense emotional reactions from a significant portion of the audience,” (Gross, 2008, p. 184). This persuasion may be a call to giving behavior or other behaviors depending on the issue addressed in the frame. However, in processing stories in episodic frames, individuals consider their own emotions before empathy persuades them. In other words, if individuals feel positively about the issue in the frame, the empathy or sympathy elicited may move individuals to consider helping or participating in some form of giving behavior (Dickert et al., 2010). “When confronted with someone else in need, people first consult their own emotional state before deciding to help. Only later do they take empathetic feelings into account,” (Dickert et al., 2010, p. 372). Research suggests personal feelings are easier to access than empathy, thus making empathy a secondary consideration when cognitively processing information in frames and deciding whether or not to participate in giving behavior (Dickert et al. 2010). Since cognitive processing of information in frames plays such an important role in whether actions may be taken to consider helping, a deeper look at the processing of information in frames must be taken. People have limited cognitive capacities for processing information, especially information that includes high levels of emotional, conflicting or confusing content (Kinnick, Krugman & Cameron, 1996). Thus, news stories with frames that play into human cognitive processing strengths instead of weaknesses are more likely to increase willingness to assist in humanitarian disaster relief support than the frames that require additional processing. Scholars suggest individuals who experience 18 the strongest feelings of empathy and distress after viewing certain story frames are most likely to engage in giving or helping behaviors such as volunteering or donating (Popova, 2008). “Helping behavior is best predicted by compassion, a multi-­‐dimensional phenomenon consisting of emotions of sadness, distress and empathy” (Popova, 2008, p. 16). When news frames elicit the strongest compassion emotions in their audience members, the audience members then look to support the event to balance their emotions. This phenomenon falls in line with the previous research on cognitive dissonance, action taken to reduce inconsistent mental states, whereby donors who feel distress feelings for others, but are comfortable themselves, will consider supporting disaster relief to restore mental balance (Waters, 2009). By engaging in giving behaviors, individuals who feel strong senses of compassion are able to not only restore mental balance, but also free their limited cognitive processing resources for other tasks. Beyond saving appropriate mental capacity for giving behaviors, information included in some news story frames creates a greater need to restore mental stability and act upon feelings of compassion. The information in these stories tends to resonate with the largest amount of news consumers who feel compassion in some story frames. First, people gravitate and tend to feel the most sympathy or empathy towards “ideal victims” (Hoijer, 2004). “Witnessing remote suffering on television, we are thus especially moved by pictures of children, women and elderly victims. A child is, however, the most ideal victim in the perspective of compassion” (Hoijer, 2004, p. 522). While this paper is not specifically studying images on television, one can argue an “ideal victim” translates to text just as easily. When journalists use episodic frames in translating the raw events of a disaster, writing a story around women, children or the elderly will often generate the most 19 support amongst readers. Additionally when using episodic frames, research shows news articles that profile a smaller amount of humanitarian disaster victims tend to generate more support than larger numbers (Dickert, Kleber, Peters & Slovic, 2011; Slovic, 2007). “When larger numbers are involved, running into thousands or millions, instinctively empathy evaporates further. With it goes people’s willingness to do something about a tragedy, whether by giving to charity or lobbying politicians to take action. Psychic numbing is one explanation for the West’s inaction over the genocide in Rwanda and the present crisis in Darfur,” Professor Slovic said (Henderson, 2007, para. 4). Thus, as news stories profile larger numbers of victims, ability to comprehend and feel empathy for the victims often declines. As humans, the vast majority of people are not hardwired to immediately understand the magnitude of large numbers. Even when statistics are given human faces, they are difficult for most people to process in larger quantities (Dickert et al., 2011; Slovic, 2007). The incomprehensibility of large numbers creates more cognitive work, thus leaving fewer resources to consider supporting the victims of the disaster. When the numbers shrink, donations increase. In his work, Slovic (2007) conducted one of many similar experiments that allowed participants to choose between donating to a group of eight sick children, or one sick child where an equal amount of money would save the group or the one child. Results showed most people chose to donate to the one child whose story was highlighted as opposed to the other group of eight children. Thus, this research shows the human capacity to process tragedies diminishes after just one additional person is added to the mix. From a story framing perspective, writing episodic pieces around just one individual, and preferably an “ideal 20 victim,” will garner the greatest feelings of compassion. As discussed earlier, greater feelings of compassion correlate with the need to restore cognitive balance and often result in giving behaviors. Thus, if the frames present in the 2011 Horn of Africa famine are episodic in type and focus on high emotional responses with “ideal victims,” these frames are likely to show a trend toward willingness to participate in giving behaviors. Since frames are arguably present in all news stories (Gitlin, 1980), this report will utilize the theoretical framework of framing theory to assess the types of frames present in news content published surrounding the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa. Of these, this research will highlight whether frames that typically relate to giving behaviors were prominently featured in U.S. coverage. Since the U.S. and other developed nations often have the capacity to deliver necessary aid, focusing on frames that relate to giving behaviors may describe the level of assistance generated. METHODS This research utilized quantitative content analysis in order to examine the variety of information present about the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa in six top agenda-­‐
setting, high-­‐circulation U.S. newspapers. Specifically, this research focused on two main objectives. First, which frames are most salient in U.S. newspaper coverage of the 2011 Horn of Africa famine and second, do these salient frames correspond to frames that typically indicate giving behavior? This research utilized framing theory to analyze the content in six U.S. newspapers for information that influences how readers understand the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa. 21 Six U.S. newspapers were selected for analysis based upon their circulation and readership. According to “The State of the News Media 2012,” an annual report on American journalism from the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and The New York Times are the top three U.S. newspapers based on circulation (Pew Research Center [Pew], 2012). These three newspapers were selected for analysis due to their high circulation alongside the Los Angles Times, Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune. The Los Angeles Times ranked in fourth place, followed by the Washington Post in eighth place and the Chicago Tribune in ninth place. The Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune each wrote more stories discussing the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa than other higher-­‐ranking sources that wrote zero to only a few related articles (Pew, 2012). The Washington Post was selected since it often offers in-­‐depth coverage of political and foreign affairs topics, such as the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa. A total of 160 articles from the previously mentioned U.S. newspapers were collected and analyzed for content. To find these articles, the researcher utilized the Lexis Nexis, Factiva and ProQuest Newsstand databases to review previously published articles. In order to generate articles that related to the 2011 famine in Horn of Africa, the following search terms were utilized for each newspaper: ((Horn of Africa) AND (famine OR drought OR crisis OR food supply)), ((Somalia) AND (famine OR drought OR crisis OR food supply)), (Kenya AND famine) and (Ethiopia AND famine) 22 Three distinct timeframes were also used in conjunction with the search terms; the timeframes follow the events of the actual famine as it unfolded, from initial news through the official declaration of famine and acute crisis, through the aftermath of the famine designation. Each timeframe is described below: •
Timeframe 1 – “Pre-­‐Famine Declaration” (April 2, 2011 through July 19, 2011): This timeframe indicated any articles published after the World Food Programme Director began releasing press releases on the crisis in the Horn of Africa and before an official famine declaration. •
Timeframe 2 – “Famine & Acute Crisis” (July 20, 2011 through August 31, 2011): This timeframe begins on the day the United Nations officially declared the scenario a famine in several areas of southern Somalia. It also includes the following six weeks, a time of intense crisis. •
Timeframe 3 – “Famine Aftermath” (September 1, 2011 through July 19, 2012): This timeframe represents the media coverage issued in the year following the initial famine declaration and acute crisis. Once keyword and timeframe searches generated a list of articles, the articles were reviewed for relevance. All analyzed articles were between 100 and 3,000 words or included at least one minimum 100-­‐word paragraph describing the 2011 famine. All article types except wire service stories or images were used in this research. A codebook was then crafted to analyze 63 different data points within the articles. A copy of the codebook is included in the Appendix on page 50, but highlights from the analysis included: •
Basic article information (headline, timeframe) 23 •
Causes of the famine •
Blame for the famine •
Solutions to ending the famine •
Related U.S. foreign policy topics •
Individuals quoted •
Dominant episodic or thematic framing •
Specific call to action/charity RESULTS After coding the 160 relevant articles used in this research, SPSS was used to interpret data and cross-­‐tabulate between related data points. The following results address articles used in the research according to source and timeframe, dominant episodic or thematic framing, causes, blame, solutions, U.S. foreign policy, individuals quoted and “call to action” mentions. Articles After scanning for relevance, 160 articles from six newspapers (Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune) were coded in the research. The following graphic (Figure 1) shows the number of articles attributed to each newspaper. 24 Figure 1: The majority of analyzed articles, 45 percent, came from The New York Times. Following this, 17 percent of the articles came from the Los Angeles Times, 13 percent were from the Wall Street Journal, 12 percent came from the Washington Post, 11 percent were from the Chicago Tribune and 2 percent of the articles were collected from USA Today. Articles were also coded for one of three specific timeframes in which they were published. The following graphic (Figure 2) shows the percentage of articles found and analyzed during each timeframe. 25 Figure 2: During the pre-­‐famine declaration timeframe, April 2, 2011 through July 19, only five articles or 3 percent of the sample was collected. In the famine and acute crisis timeframe, July 20, 2011 through August 31, 2011, 56 articles or 35 percent of the sample was collected. In the famine aftermath timeframe, September 1, 2011 through July 19, 2011, 99 articles or 62 percent of the sample was collected. Dominant Article Frame Each article was analyzed for a dominant episodic or dominant thematic frame type, using the understanding of “episodic” as frames that present issues by telling individual stories, specific examples or case studies and “thematic” as frames that present issues by placing them into a broader context and giving facts and figures to describe the issue (Gross, 2008). To determine dominance, articles either had to contain elements of an episodic or thematic frame throughout the text, or if one frame type was not pervasive, the dominant frame is listed as the frame established within the first third of the article. The following chart (Figure 3) compares the breakdown of episodic versus thematic framed articles. 26 Figure 3: A dominant episodic frame was featured in 37.5 percent of articles. However, 62.5 percent of the articles sampled featured a dominant thematic frame. The following graph (Figure 4) will show the relationship between dominant thematic or episodic frame types and the timeframe in which the articles were published. Figure 4: During the pre-­‐famine declaration timeframe, April 2, 2011 -­‐ July 19, 2011, three articles had dominant episodic frames and two articles had dominant thematic frames. In the famine and acute crisis timeframe, July 20, 2011 – August 31, 2011, 15 articles showed 27 dominant episodic frames whereas 41 articles showed dominant thematic frames. In the famine aftermath timeframe, September 1, 2011 – July 19, 2011, 42 articles used a dominant episodic frame and 57 articles used a dominant thematic frame. Additionally, articles containing a dominant episodic frame were coded for specific elements of episodic framing including focusing on one victim, one small group of victims or an “ideal victim” considered the elderly, women or children. Episodic articles did not have to feature any of these specific elements as not all episodic framed articles focused on victims, but could also feature one, two or all three of these elements. The graph below (Figure 5) shows the breakdown of episodic elements within the articles coded as dominant episodic frames. Figure 5: Of the 60 dominant episodic framed articles, 17 percent featured one single victim, 28 percent featured a small (less than five) group of victims and 32 percent predominantly featured an “ideal victim.” 28 Causes A number of causes can be linked to the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa. This research coded for causes that can be described as “contributing factors” to the famine. The following graph (Figure 6) shows the percentage of articles that mentioned any of nine different options as causes contributing to famine conditions. Articles could mention one, none or several of these factors as contributing to the famine. Figure 6: Of the 160 articles analyzed, 44 percent mentioned environmental/weather causes. Poor land use/farming causes were mentioned in 8 percent of articles. Ethnic or clan conflict causes were mentioned in 12 percent of articles. Local government failure causes were mentioned in 22 percent of articles. Extremist or terrorist group causes were mentioned in 24 percent of articles. U.S. government causes were mentioned in less than one percent of articles -­‐ 0.6 percent. U.S. aid group or NGO causes were mentioned in 1.3 29 percent of articles. Food supply or lacks of food causes were mentioned in 28 percent of articles. Finally, poverty or poor resident causes were mentioned in 1.3 percent of articles. Blame While a variety of factors may have contributed to famine conditions, the articles analyzed mentioned specific factors as “at-­‐fault” for continuing or worsening of famine conditions. The following graph (Figure 7) shows the percentage of articles that mention any one of nine factors as blame for the famine. Articles could mention one, none or a variety of these factors. Figure 7: Of the articles analyzed, 6 percent of articles blamed environmental or weather factors. Four percent blamed poor land use or farming factors. Ethnic or clan conflict was blamed in 9 percent of articles. Local government failure was blamed in 27 percent of articles. Extremist or terrorist groups were blamed in 59 percent of articles. Less than 1 percent -­‐ 0.6 percent – of articles blamed U.S. government actions and 0.6 percent of articles blamed U.S. aid groups or NGOs. Food supply or lack of food was blamed in 9 30 percent of articles. Poverty or poor residents themselves were blamed in 3 percent of articles. Approximately 3 percent of articles listed other factors at blame including individuals, groups or practices not already detailed. Solutions The analyzed articles listed a variety of factors as part of the solution to end the famine in the Horn of Africa. The researcher coded for 11 different solution factors. The percentages of articles that list a particular solution are detailed in the graph below (Figure 8). Articles could mention one, none or several of these factors as solutions to the famine. Figure 8: U.S. financial aid (from individuals or entities other than the government) was mentioned as a solution in 21 percent of articles. U.S. government involvement or 31 monetary aid was mentioned as a solution in 23 percent of articles. U.S. aid groups or NGOs were mentioned as solutions in 41 percent of articles. Weakening of extremist of terrorist groups were mentioned as a solution in 54 percent of articles. Strengthening of extremist or terrorist groups was not mentioned as a solution in any articles. Weakening of local African governments was mentioned as a solution in about 2 percent of articles. Strengthening of local African governments was mentioned in 42 percent of articles. Strengthening of local African aid groups or NGOs was mentioned in 33 percent of articles. Individual responsibility of local African victims was mentioned in 13 percent of articles. Individual responsibility of local Africans who were not victims was mentioned in 18 percent of articles. Finally, 1.3 percent of articles listed other solutions including environmental and land use practices. Who is Quoted? This research tracked the various individuals or groups who were quoted in the articles analyzed. The chart (Figure 9) below reflects the percentage of different groups or individuals quoted in the articles. 32 Figure 9: African NGO or aid workers were quoted in 8 percent of articles. African government officials were quoted in 17 percent of articles. African doctors or medical workers were quoted in 3 percent of articles. Local African residents who were not victims were quoted in 16 percent of articles. Local African victims themselves were quoted in 19 percent of articles. U.S. NGO or other aid workers were quoted in 14 percent of articles. U.S. doctor or medical workers were quoted in less than one percent -­‐ 0.6 percent -­‐ of articles. U.S. government officials were quoted in 16 percent of articles. International NGO or aid workers (United Nations or other internationally-­‐based NGO) were quoted in 25 percent of articles. Members of extremist or terrorist groups were quoted in 9 percent of articles. Other sources representing African military members or individual American citizens not affiliated with any previously mentioned groups were quoted in 4 percent of articles. 33 U.S. Foreign Policy Many of the analyzed articles mentioned topics relating to larger U.S. foreign policy issues in 2011. The following graph (Figure 10) showcases the percentages of some foreign policy topics addressed in the analyzed articles on the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa. Articles may mention one, none or several foreign policy items. Figure 10: Mentions of terrorism, terrorists or the “War on Terror” were included in 18 percent of articles. Explicit mentions of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda linked groups were included in 39 percent of articles. Global food prices were mentioned in 11 percent of articles. Climate change was mentioned in 6 percent of articles. Refugee status or relevant legislation was mentioned in 18 percent of articles. Ethnic violence was mentioned in 6 percent of articles. The other column represents regional security or economic concerns that do not explicitly relate to the other factors addressed. The other category included 17 percent of articles. 34 How to Help The final broad category coded for in the content analysis covers calls to action and mentions of how to help with famine relief. The following graph (Figure 11) shows the percentage of articles that feature one of six different calls to action. Articles could mention one, none or several of these options. Figure 11: Calls for non-­‐government financial donations were mentioned in 23 percent of articles. Calls for donations of food or other nutrient supplies were mentioned in 7 percent of articles. Calls for volunteer help in Africa were mentioned in 2 percent of articles. Calls for volunteer help in the U.S. were mentioned in less than one percent -­‐ 0.6 percent -­‐ of articles. Calls for advocacy or to support U.S. government legislation were mentioned in 8 percent of articles. Non-­‐specific calls for famine relief help were mentioned in 9 percent of articles. 35 The final graph (Figure 12) represents a cross-­‐tabulation between episodic and thematic dominant frames and the calls to action present in the two different frame types. Figure 12: For financial donations, 17 percent of episodic articles and 27 percent of thematic articles mentioned this specific way to help. Food or nutrient supplies donations were mentioned in 8 percent of episodic articles and 6 percent of thematic articles. Volunteer opportunities in Africa were mentioned in 1.7 percent of episodic articles and 2 percent of thematic articles. Volunteer opportunities in the U.S. were mentioned in 1.7 percent of episodic articles and not mentioned in any thematic articles. Government advocacy was mentioned in 1.7 percent of episodic articles and 12 percent of thematic articles. Non-­‐
specific calls for famine relief were mentioned in 8 percent of episodic articles and 9 percent of thematic articles. The following section will highlight the major findings in this research and describe the implications of these findings. 36 DISCUSSION This study looked at the how the 2011 famine in Horn of Africa was framed in U.S. newspapers and whether these frames relate to content that typically indicates giving behavior. The following discussion will take a deeper look at the agenda setting factors at play surrounding the famine coverage, as well as key framing patterns and their relationship to giving behavior for the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa. Agenda Setting For the approximately 16-­‐month period during the height of the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa, the researcher only found 160 articles to analyze from six of the top U.S. newspapers. Additionally, while the World Food Programme Director, alongside other humanitarian aid organizations, began sounding the alarm for the potential for famine conditions in early April 2011, the researcher could only find five articles in six of the top U.S. newspapers that mentioned the crisis brewing in the Horn of Africa prior to official famine declaration. Thus, this research shows the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa barely made the U.S. news media’s agenda. In fact, a report from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that the food crisis in the Horn of Africa accounted for less than one percent -­‐ 0.7 percent -­‐ of U.S. news stories in July and August of 2011, the height of the famine (Pew Research Center, 2011). Unfortunately, this lack of news coverage meant that the more than ten million people struggling to feed themselves and their children in the Horn of Africa did not capture the attention of most Americans (Fahn, 2011). “The overwhelming problem is that the American public is not seeing and feeling the urgency of this crisis,” said Caryl Stern, chief executive of the United States Fund for UNICEF, in response to discussions on the lack 37 of famine donations (Strom, 2011, para. 6). After declaring famine on July 20, 2011, the United Nations Secretary-­‐General, Ban Ki-­‐moon, said approximately $300 million would be required to meet the needs of starving people in the next two months (UN News Centre, 2011). As of August 2011, the famine in the Horn of Africa had raised only a fraction of the funding necessary to provide immediate aid, let alone funding for long-­‐term solutions. Specifically, by August 2011, UNICEF had collected only $5.1 million of the estimated $300 million necessary to ease suffering and prevent starvation for people in the Horn of Africa (Strom, 2011). This is in stark contrast to the funding raised by U.S.-­‐based aid groups for other recent foreign disasters that generated more news coverage, including the 2004 Asian tsunami that raised $1.9 billion in cash and in-­‐kind gifts, and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti that received $1.4 billion in the year following the disaster (Indiana University, 2011). However, while the famine received a paltry response from individual donors, anecdotal evidence shows the U.S. government response was less affected by lacking news coverage. “Certainly the U.S. government has made it clear that it will not allow its aid funds to help people in areas controlled by the al-­‐Shabaab rebels in Somalia. That said, government support seems to be less affected by media coverage” (Fahn, 2011, para. 9). Thus, the U.S. government still donated $431 million in 2011 to famine relief in the Horn of Africa despite poor media coverage and complications with rebel groups in Somalia. One key component of many of the newspaper articles analyzed in this report is inclusion of U.S. foreign policy agenda items. Of the famine articles that made the U.S. media agenda in 2011, nearly half explicitly mentioned the terror group Al Qaeda or made non-­‐specific mentions to terrorists or terrorism. According to the research in this report, it seems evident that the ability to link the famine and concurrent humanitarian crisis to 38 other items already on the news agenda – U.S. foreign policy items – increased the likelihood of getting a famine story in the news. Frame Patterns While the overall amount of newspaper articles about the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa may have been low, several common themes emerged within the articles that made publication. First, the dominant cause attributed to famine declaration was environmental or weather causes, mostly having to do with drought conditions. Similarly, food supply or lack of food was the second most dominant contributing factor to the famine. Thus, U.S. newspapers most often portrayed the famine as caused by dry weather patterns that made an existing low food supply sink even lower. Terror or extremist groups and local government failure were also among the causes or contributing factors to the famine. However, as evidenced by the high amount of articles tying in the foreign policy themes of Al Qaeda and terrorism, terror or extremist groups were the top attribution blamed for the continuation of famine conditions. Many articles sited the fact that the areas of Somalia officially declared famine zones by the United Nations were under control of the militant Al-­‐Shabaab rebel group with ties to Al Qaeda. The second-­‐highest blame attribution for famine conditions went to the failure of the local African government to maintain control of its lands and ensure its people had avenues to meet their basic needs. The dominant solution suggested in the majority of the analyzed articles was weakening of terror or extremist groups. In a distant second and third place, strengthening of local African governments and help from U.S. aid groups or NGOs, respectively, were most commonly listed as solutions to ending the famine. Thus, the dominant solution 39 frame in U.S. newspapers surrounded the need to weaken terror or extremist groups while concurrently strengthening local governments to improve conditions. American audiences were also told U.S. aid groups or NGOS could help offset some of the famine victim’s basic needs while governance issues were settled. This research also accounted for the persons quoted in each newspaper article. The most commonly quoted sources were international NGO or aid workers. Closely following, famine victims and both African and U.S. government officials were quoted. This represents a well-­‐rounded account of the events of the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa from multiple points of view. Giving Behavior As previously noted, the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa generated significantly less donations than similar recent foreign disasters. The results of this research give some insight on how the articles that made publication often did not strongly encourage giving behaviors. The majority of articles contained a dominant thematic frame, which describes types of articles that present issues by placing them into a broader context and giving facts and figures to elaborate on the issue. The remaining articles utilized a dominant episodic frame, which presents issues by telling individual stories, specific examples or case studies. Previous research shows that articles with episodic frames tend to generate more emotions related to giving behaviors than articles with thematic frames (Gross, 2008). Additionally, within the minority episodic articles, less than half featured the stories of elderly, female or child victims, often known as “ideal victims” (Hoijer, 2004). Research shows these “ideal victim” personal stories often have the most success at generating compassion, which often leads to giving behaviors among readers (Hoijer, 2004). Since the minority of articles was 40 dominated by individual stories, specific examples or case studies, and less than half of these focused on women, children or the elderly, the reduced amount of U.S. individual donations corresponds with these findings. Additionally, the largest discrepancy between episodic and thematic articles was found during the famine declaration and acute crisis timeframe. Thus, when the famine crisis peaked and locals in the Horn of Africa had the greatest need, the most commonly used article frame – presenting issues in broad context through facts and figures – did not support giving behaviors. In other words, by using large statistics to convey the extent of crisis rather than focusing on individuals’ plights, the analyzed articles did not connect with readers in a manner that would encourage giving during the height of the crisis. This research also analyzed calls for assistance within the text of articles about the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa. A minimal amount of articles asked for volunteer or food donation support, most likely due to the safety and logistical concerns. However, the most common support item mentioned in the analyzed articles was calls for individual financial donations. The majority of articles with a dominant thematic frame, placing information in a broad context with facts and figures, featured the most calls for financial aid. According to scholars, more people tend to donate when explicitly asked for donations or they are told how to donate, rather than conjuring the idea to donate on their own (Ledingham, 1993). Again, this discrepancy between the dominant article frame contents and likely support of giving behaviors was found in most articles directly asking for financial assistance. By drawing on the results of this research, the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa may have raised more funds through the articles that made publication if the contents of the articles were altered. If these articles more commonly featured a dominant 41 episodic frame – presenting issues by telling individual stories, specific examples or case studies – in the same articles that called for financial aid, especially in the weeks following the official famine declaration, different aid amounts may have resulted. CONCLUSION Hunger is currently the top risk health risk for individuals around the world, and drought is the number one cause of global food shortages (WFP, 2012). When drought mixes with an unstable food supply in a region with a lack of clear governance, a large-­‐scale humanitarian crisis is possible. This is the scenario present in the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa. In such a dire situation, assistance from individual and government donors worldwide is necessary to provide help ranging from food products to medical care. However, most global donors – including Americans – only learn about the details of distant, foreign crises by watching or reading about them in the news. Thus, the amount and content of news coverage about humanitarian disasters, such as the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa, can greatly impact Americans’ understanding of the disasters and willingness to help. Using framing theory as a guide, this report set out to discover the types of frames present in articles about the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa in high-­‐
circulation, U.S. newspapers. Additionally, this research looked into whether the salient frames were associated with frames that typically indicate giving behaviors. To conduct this research, a content analysis of six top agenda-­‐setting U.S. newspapers was completed. The researcher pulled articles from three distinct timeframes including the time period before the famine, during the height of the famine and in the famine’s aftermath. These articles were analyzed for a variety of high-­‐level data points 42 including causes, blame and solutions. Additionally, this research coded for specific dominant frames, including episodic and thematic framing elements. Among the major findings was a lack of substantial coverage by U.S. news media outlets on the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa. While this research set out to determine how the salient frames in newspaper articles about the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa relate to giving behavior, the sheer lack of newspaper stories turned the agenda setting function of the news media into an obvious topic of analysis. In addition to a lack of coverage, the coverage that did make the news agenda often contained components of U.S. foreign policy. Elements relating to terrorism or terrorist organizations were most often blamed for famine conditions, and the elimination of these groups was the most common solution attribution. However, environmental phenomena and a low food supply were often listed as causes, or two of many contributing factors to the famine declaration. Finally, the majority of articles utilized a dominant thematic frame, which places issues in a broad context, often through use of facts and figures. The use of thematic over episodic frames was most distinct during the acute crisis timeframe and in articles that asked for financial assistance. In combining this type of dominant frame – use of facts and figures in a broad context – with calls for help during the height of the famine, the articles’ contents were not indicative of article types that often relate to giving behaviors. One limitation of this study was the lack of a second coder to analyze the articles and confirm the reliability of the results. Additionally, the low number of newspaper articles about the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa meant a larger sample was not readily available for trend and pattern analysis. While numerous studies on the news coverage of disasters or humanitarian crises 43 have been completed, relatively few have taken a deep look into the news coverage on the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa. Since this study only looked at six, high-­‐circulation U.S. newspapers, future researchers may want to review a variety of newspapers both domestic and foreign, as well as analyze the content in television news, magazines or images from the famine. A more in-­‐depth analysis of episodic and thematic framing elements within news content about the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa would also be useful to determine specific elements that may encourage a variety of behaviors, including giving behaviors. By adding more research on the complex relationship between humanitarian crises and news content, solutions for successful disaster prevention and recovery may surface. 44 REFERENCES American Association of Fundraising Counsel. (2011). Giving USA. Retrieved from http://store.givingusareports.org/2012-­‐Giving-­‐USA-­‐The-­‐Annual-­‐Report-­‐on-­‐
Philanthropy-­‐for-­‐the-­‐Year-­‐2011-­‐Executive-­‐Summary-­‐P43.aspx Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-­‐58. Dickert, S., Kleber, J., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2011). Numeracy as a precursor to pro-­‐social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions. Judgment & Decision Making, 6(7), 638-­‐650. Dickert, S., Sagara, N., & Slovic, P. (2010). Affective motivations to help others: a two-­‐ stage model of donation decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 361-­‐376. Fahn, J. (2011, September 13). Starving for Coverage. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/starving_for_coverage.php?page=all Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World Is Watching. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169-­‐192. Hall, S. (2001). Encoding/Decoding. In M. G. Durham, & D. M. Kellner, (Eds.) Media and cultural studies: KeyWorks (pp. 166-­‐176). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers. Hawkins, V. (2011). Media selectivity and the other side of the CNN effect: the consequences of not paying attention to conflict. Media, War & Conflict, 4(1), 55-­‐68. Henderson, M. (2007, February 17). Why we’re keener to help one hungry child than 45 save 1,000 lives. The Times (London). Retrieved from http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/article1966288.ece Hoge, W. (2004, July 10). Rescuing Victims Worldwide From the Depths of Hell. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/10/world/the-­‐saturday-­‐
profile-­‐rescuing-­‐victims-­‐worldwide-­‐from-­‐the-­‐depths-­‐of-­‐hell.html Höijer, B. (2004). The discourse of global compassion: the audience and media reporting of human suffering. Media, Culture & Society, 26(4), 513-­‐531. Houston, J., Pfefferbaum, B., & Rosenholtz, C. (2012). Disaster News: Framing and Frame Changing in Coverage of Major U.S. Natural Disasters, 2000-­‐2010. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(4), 606-­‐623. Indiana University Lilly School of Philanthropy. (2011). Disaster Giving. Retrieved from http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/disaster-­‐giving Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Joye, S. (2009). The hierarchy of global suffering: A critical discourse analysis of television news reporting on foreign natural disasters. Journal of International Communication, 15(2), 45-­‐61. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. In T. Frangsmyr (Ed.), Les Prix Nobel: The Nobel Prizes 2002 (pp. 449–489). Stockholm: Nobel Foundation. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-­‐292. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984) Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 46 39(4), 341-­‐350. Kinnick, K., Krugman, D., & Cameron, G. (1996). Compassion fatigue: Communication and burnout toward social problems. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(3), 687-­‐707. Kothari, A. (2010). The framing of the Darfur conflict in The New York Times: 2003-­‐2006. Journalism Studies, 11(2), 209-­‐224. Ledingham, J. (1993). The kindness of strangers: predictor variables in a public information campaign. Public Relations Review, 19(4), 367. Liu, B. (2009). An analysis of US government and media disaster frames. Journal of Communication Management, 13(3), 268-­‐283. McCombs, M., & Reynolds, A. (2007). How the News Shapes Our Civic Agenda. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 1-­‐16). New York: Routledge. The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2011). Little Coverage of Sub-­‐Saharan Africa. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/numbers_report/little_coverage_subsaharan_africa The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2012). The State of the News Media 2012. Retrieved from http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/newspapers-­‐
building-­‐digital-­‐revenues-­‐proves-­‐painfully-­‐slow/newspapers-­‐by-­‐the-­‐numbers/ Popova, L. (2008). How Mass Media Communication About Natural Disasters Facilitates Helping Behavior: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis. Conference Papers-­‐
International Communication Association, 1-­‐29. Quarantelli, E. (1991). Lessons from Research: Findings on Mass Communication System 47 Behavior in the Pre, Trans, and Postimpact Periods of Disasters. Newark: University of Delaware Disaster Research Center. Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122. Scheufele, D., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-­‐20. Sei-­‐Hill, K., Carvalho, J., & Davis, A. (2010). Talking about poverty: news framing of who is responsible for causing and fixing the problem. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(3/4), 563-­‐581. Slovic, P. (2007). When compassion fails. New Scientist, 194, 18-­‐18. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200439237?accountid=8285 Sorenson, J. (1991). Mass media and discourse on famine in the Horn of Africa. Discourse & Society. 2(2), 223-­‐242. Strom, S. (2011, August 1). Off Media Radar, Famine Garners Few Donations. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/world/africa/02donate.html?_r=1& Tewksbury, D., & Scheufele, D. (2009). News framing theory and research. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 17-­‐33). New York: Routledge. United Nations News Centre. (2011, July 20). UN declares famine in two regions of southern Somalia. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39086#.UXcd_rRD3dl United Nations News Centre. (2013, February 1). Somalia: UN relief official cautions against 48 complacency on food security. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44053&Cr=somalia&Cr1
=#.USq3CLShDFK United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (2011, September 25). Horn of Africa summit calls for joint action to help millions. Retrieved from http://www.unocha.org/top-­‐stories/all-­‐stories/horn-­‐africa-­‐summit-­‐calls-­‐joint-­‐
action-­‐help-­‐millions United States Agency for International Development. (2013). Horn of Africa. Retrieved from http://www.usaid.gov/crisis/horn-­‐africa United States Fund for UNICEF. (2012). Horn of Africa. Retrieved from http://www.unicefusa.org/work/emergencies/horn-­‐of-­‐africa/ Waters, R. (2009). Examining the role of cognitive dissonance in crisis fundraising. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 139-­‐143. World Food Programme. (2012) Hunger. Retrieved from http://www.wfp.org/hunger 49 (Appendix) 2011 HORN OF AFRICA FAMINE CODING INSTRUMENT General Information: Articles picked from U.S. newspapers for this report will meet the following basic requirements: 100-­‐3,000 words; must be articles, blogs, or opinion pieces, not wire stories or images. These articles will be pulled from Lexis Nexus, Factiva and ProQuest Newsstand under a variety of keyword searches. 1. Article Headline 2. Exact Publication Date 3. Publication: 1 – The New York Times 2 – The Washington Post 3 – The Wall Street Journal 4 – USA Today 5 – Los Angeles Times 6 – Chicago Tribune 4. Article Publication Date: 1 – April 2, 2011 through July 19, 2011 2 – July 20, 2011 through August 31, 2011 3 – September 1, 2011 through July 19, 2012 Lead Frame/Story Focus Article fits into any of the following lead frame categories. (Lead frame is defined as the dominant frame pervasive throughout the article or the dominant frame established within the first 1/3 of the article if the frame is not pervasive throughout.) 1. Episodic (1 2) 2. Thematic (1 2) Presence of Specific Episodic Frame Elements: Article features theme: No – 1 Article focuses on the plight of any of the following: Yes -­‐ 2 Episodic Frames: 3 One individual victim (1 2) 50 Article features theme: No – 1 Yes -­‐ 2 4. Small Group of individual victims (1 2) 5. Elderly/Child/Female “victim” (1 2) Causes of Famine: Article mentions any of the following as a cause (contributing factor) of the famine: 1. Environmental/weather (1 2) 2. Poor land use/farming practices (1 2) 3. Ethnic/clan conflict (1 2) 4. Local government failure (1 2) 5. Extremist/terrorist groups (1 2) 6. U.S. government actions (1 2) 7. U.S. aid groups/NGOs (1 2) 8. Food supply/lack of food (1 2) 9. Poverty/poor residents (1 2) Blame for Famine: Article mentions any of the following as “at fault” for the famine and continuation of famine conditions: 1. Environmental/weather (1 2) 2. Poor land use/farming practices (1 2) 3. Ethnic/clan conflict (1 2) 4. Local government failure (1 2) 5. Extremist/terrorist groups (1 2) 6. U.S. government actions (1 2) 7. U.S. aid groups/NGOs (1 2) 8. Food supply/lack of food (1 2) 9. Poverty/poor residents (1 2) 10. Other:______ (1 2) Solutions/Ending the Famine: Article suggests any of the following are responsible for helping to lessen or end the famine: 1. U.S. financial aid (1 2) 2. U.S. government involvement/monetary aid (1 2) 3. U.S. aid groups/NGOs (1 2) 4. Weakening of extremist/terrorist groups (1 2) 5. Strengthening of extremist/terrorist groups (1 2) 6. Weakening of local African governments (1 2) 51 Article features theme: No – 1 Yes -­‐ 2 7. Strengthening of local African governments (1 2) 8. Strengthening of locally based African NGO/aid groups (1 2) 9. Individual responsibility from local Africans (victims) (1 2) 10. Individual responsibility from local Africans (non-­‐victims) (1 2) 11. Other: ______ (1 2) Who is Quoted? Article quotes or cites any of of the following individuals/groups: 1. African NGO/aid worker (1 2) 2. African government official (1 2) 3. African doctor/medical worker (1 2) 4. Local African citizen (non-­‐victim) (1 2) 5 Local African victim of famine (1 2) 6. American NGO/aid worker (1 2) 7. American doctor/medical worker (1 2) 8. American government official (1 2) 9. Intenational NGO/aid worker (UN/Global NGO) (1 2) 10. Member of extremist/terrorist group (1 2) 11.Other: _____ (1 2) Foreign Policy: Article mentions any of the following topics in relation to U.S. foreign policy/U.S. government agenda items: 1. War on Terror (article references terrorists, terrorism) (1 2) 2. Al Qaeda linked terror groups (specific mention of Al Qaeda) (1 2) 3. Global food prices (1 2) 4. Climate change (1 2) 5. Refugee status/legislation (1 2) 6. Ethnic violence (1 2) 7. Other: ______ (1 2) How to Help/Charity Article mentions any of the following topics surrounding how U.S. individuals can support famine relief: 1. Financial donation (1 2) 2. Food/nutrient supplies donation (1 2) 3. Volunteering in Africa (1 2) 52 4. Volunteering in U.S. (1 2) 5. Government advocacy (Includes supporting legislation, writing letters to legislators – suggests need to support government response) (1 2) 6. Non-­‐specific (mentions help needed, but not monetary or otherwise specific)(1 2) 53