Stages after Shootings:

Media Framing and the Evolution of Salient Issues Following Tragic Events

Alexa Christine SykesMay 6, 2013

COM 495: CapstoneProfessor Glenn Scott

Abstract

The news media is the most powerful and influential force in shaping public

opinions and perceptions in society today. Media framing allows reporters to focus the

public’s attention on specific issues within a news event, which often leads to distorted or

swayed public opinions. This concept was examined in a 2006 study of nine school

shootings that occurred from 1997 to 2001 by concluding that a distinct media-framing

pattern exists in the coverage of mass shooting events over the course of the first month of

the event. This framing pattern begins with a strong focus on the individual level during the

initial week of coverage, followed by a societal discussion on topics ranging from gun

control to school safety during the second week, a lack of coverage during the third week,

and a renewed focus on the individual during the final week (Muschart and Char 2006).

The following research is a follow-up study to these conclusions that content analyzes the

New York Times coverage of three mass shootings: Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Sandy Hook.

While a consistent media-framing pattern was not found between the three shootings,

distinct framing attributes and common salient topics were evident within the coverage of

each event. These stories were ultimately concluded to strongly shape public perceptions

of gun violence and legislation, mental illnesses, and the predictors of colossal violence.

Introduction

Americans are no strangers to gun massacres and mass shootings. In 2012 alone, 16

mass shooting rampages were executed, leaving 88 people dead and hundreds of others

wounded. These incidents leave a sharp pang and heaviness in the hearts of millions of

Americans across the country as the details reveal themselves through the media. Several

studies show that while crime is a factor considered to indicate strong public interest, the

“best” crime stories are ones that are the most violent, unusual, dramatic, and sensational

(Macguire 2002). Therefore, the shootings we remember most are the ones with the

highest death tolls, most unusual killers, and that leave us with the most unanswered

questions.

With such strong influence, reporters have the ability to distort perceptions through

repetition and reframing – a tactic commonly employed by journalists to keep major

stories relevant over long stretches of time (Chyi & McCombs 2004). For example, after the

tragic events at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, a gallop poll was taken among

high school aged students to see how likely they felt it was for a similar situation to occur in

their own community. Sixty-seven percent responded that they believed a shooting might

take place in their own school, despite the fact that a mere one percent of gun crimes

among teenagers occur on school grounds. This skewed perception of gun violence and

school safety was then directly correlated to the excessive amount of time that the media

spent dissecting the events of Columbine in the weeks after the shooting (Birkland &

Lawrence 2009).

This research will explore the concept of media framing over the course of a news

event’s lifespan and its ability to shape and alter public perceptions of gun violence

following a mass shooting. This paper will focus specifically on three mass shootings:

Virginia Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook. Using a similar coding technique that Chyi and

McCombs constructed in 2004 when they analyzed the agenda setting theory as it

pertained to Columbine, this research will examine the shifting focus in attributes of each

story and ultimately discern if a distinct framing pattern exists among mass shooting

stories. Chyi and McCombs identified two dimensions – space and time – as the two prongs

for measuring media framing. Within the “space” dimension is the scope of who the story is

targeted to: the individual level, community level, regional level, societal level, or

international level. Within the “time” dimension is whether the story focuses on historical

implications of the past or preventative measures for the future (Chyi & McCombs 2004).

Utilizing this two-dimensional measurement scheme, this paper will determine the

number of New York Times articles published about each shooting during the first 30 days

after the event, and then analyze how and when the focus of the stories changes over time.

Ultimately, this paper will conclude whether or not a frame-changing pattern exists across

space and time frames, and what the implications of this framing pattern are in terms of

shaping public perceptions of salient issues in the media.

The following research questions were constructed to address this discussion:

1. How does the focus of a mass shooting story shift over 30 days in terms of space and time?

2. Does a distinct framing pattern exist between Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Sandy Hook coverage?

3. What does this framing pattern imply about the media’s portrayal of gun violence to the public?

Literature Review

Media coverage of mass shootings has long since been a hotly debated issue

between reporters, social scientists and public. The most relevant research on this topic

deals with media framing and agenda setting, two communication theories that explore the

extent to which the media controls public perceptions and how people formulate opinions

on gun control and school violence.

Birkland and Lawrence (2009) define media framing as the communicative process

of highlighting and focusing on certain aspects of reality. This disproportionately focused

attention on a certain topic within a news story then distorts the perceived prevalence of

the issue to the public. “The framing process is most visible when an issue or event is

controversial” (Birkland & Lawrence, 2009).

Birkland and Lawrence’s research specifically focused on the media framing of the

Columbine massacre in 1999 to reveal a strong correlation between policy development

and media framing. The media began to characterize Columbine and its predecessor events

as problems emerging as a result of inadequate gun control legislation (Muschart, 2007).

Muschart’s study analyzed Columbine media coverage by following the story for 30 days in

The New York Times and analyzing the content. He found two dominant media frames over

the month of coverage—first, the problem of guns, and second, the problem and influence

of pop culture on teenagers. Not ironically, these were the same themes emphasized by

Democratic and Republican politicians in the months following the Columbine shooting.

For pro-gun Republicans, the pop culture frame provided an outlet for the party to deflect

attention away from gun control laws and instead focus on the dangers of “liberal

Hollywood” (Birkland and Lawrence, 2009).

Additionally, the event spurred rapid implementation of policies relating to school

security, and the years 2000 and 2001 saw more articles on the subject of school violence

than any year prior or thereafter (Birkland and Lawrence, 2009). Birkland and Lawrence

then defined Columbine as a “focusing event,” one which focuses its attention on a single

issue and proceeds to clarify and narrow the range of possible policy responses as a result.

During the initial month of televised media coverage, it was reported that 68

percent of the public paid close attention to the story (Birkland and Lawrence, 2007). In

the immediate weeks following the Columbine shooting, the media framed Columbine as

the prime indicator of a growing national problem of school violence. They accomplished

this despite the fact that there was no statistical evidence that showed an increase in school

gun violence around the time of Columbine. In fact, one study revealed that school fatalities

are actually extremely rare, with only 1 in 2 million school-age children predicted to die

from homicide or suicide on school grounds, and less than 2 percent of child homicides

occurring on school grounds (Muschart, 2007).

Another important aspect of this research on media framing of mass shootings is the

idea of frame changing. This is a dynamic process that occurs over an extended period of

time and examines specific attributes of a story and then determines why they are so

important to the media. Additionally, certain aspects of a story are made more prominent

to viewers, which ultimately supplies context to the public and suggests what their issue of

focus should be. The purpose of frame changing is to increase salience or relevance to the

audience, and ultimately, increase network ratings (McCombs and Chyi, 2004). Examining

which attributes become salient at which times over a news story’s lifespan helps

researchers determine how and when a news story gains prominence in the media through

cumulative coverage.

As Columbine was the single highest public interest story of 1999, McCombs and

Chyi (2004) conducted a content analysis of the New York Times for the 30 days following

the event to discern how many articles were published on the shooting, what types of

media framing occurred, and at which points during the month the focus of the story

shifted. McCombs and Chyi discovered that during the first two weeks after the shooting,

Columbine comprised over 70 percent of content in the New York Times, but this figure

dropped dramatically after the third week, when only 12 percent of the total coverage was

dedicated to Columbine. During the initial coverage, the stories focused on vivid details of

the shooting, while subsequent coverage focused on the societal implications of the

shooting. Columbine slowly began to typify the phenomenon of school shooting and the

perceived “delinquency problem” in America (McCombs and Chyi, 2004).

The most prominent theme found in the content analysis was reactions to the

shooting from all over the country. During the first week of the shooting, only 33 percent of

coverage was devoted to reactions, but by the fifth and final week, about 60 percent of the

stories focused on reactions. Other themes included the exploration of possible causes for

the shooters’ actions, reactions from the Littleton and Columbine High School communities,

and the perceived consequences of the shooting. This focus on societal impact began the

trend of portraying tragic events in terms of their broader significance to society, rather

than the particular community that the crime actually occurred in. To the media, school

shootings became a national issue, rather than a community issue within Littleton,

Colorado (McCombs and Chyi).

Subsequent research by Muschart and Carr in 2006 analyzed nine major school

shootings between 1997 and 2001 and found a distinct pattern similar to the media

framing of Columbine; the initial emphasis of each of the news stories focused on the

individual aspects of who, what, when and how. Then, the story moved began to emphasize

the societal implications of the event in order for it to remain relevant in the news. The

final coverage of the stories tended to occur around the one-month anniversary of the

event, where another round of community or individual coverage would occur.

Methods

To address aforementioned research questions, news articles in The New York Times

written about each shooting on the day of and for the 30 days following the event were

content analyzed. Articles published during the initial month of the shooting were

retrieved by accessing the Lexis Nexis database with full-text keyword searches “Virginia

Tech shooting,” “Aurora shooting,” and “Sandy Hook shooting.” Following a coding strategy

that McCombs and Chyi crafted for a 2004 study of the effects of media framing on the

coverage of the Columbine massacre, space and time were utilized as the two overarching

frames that measure how a news event’s focus shifts during a 30-day lifespan.

The “space” frame consists of five distinct levels, each focusing on a different target

subject or audience within the news event. The first level is the individual level, where the

story’s main focus is on the key players in the event – the gunman and the victims – and

their actions and reactions to the events of the day. This level also includes background

information and context provided about the involved parties. The second level is

community, meaning the story focused on more than the directly involved parties, but the

entire community where the shooting took place. The third level is regional, where the

story’s relevance spans to the general population within an entire metropolitan area or

state. The fourth level is the societal level, meaning the story raised certain concerns that

society as a whole should address as a result of the shooting, such as gun laws, policy, and

school safety. Lastly, the fifth level is the international level, meaning the story was written

from the perspective of related phenomena or social problems seen in other countries.

The “time” frame was divided into past, present, and future. The story was

categorized as “past” if it provided a historical context by referencing similar shootings that

had occurred in prior years, or mentioned discussions that have occurred following other

mass shootings in the past. The “present” frame was applied to stories that focused

exclusively on the events of the current shooting, including the questions it should raise

and what should be done about the specific incident. The “future” frame was applied to

stories that made predictions about what would occur as a result of the shooting, whether

related to policy and gun law debates, or the potential for copycat attempts.

If more than one frame within the space and time frames was identified, the

dominant frame was recorded based on the headline of the story, the lead, and the

organizing ideas. After collecting all of the articles and recording the respective frames,

three main questions were utilized to analyze the content: 1) What is the distribution of

space frames across the 5 levels? 2) What is the distribution of time frames across the 3

levels? 3) What is the relationship between space and time frames? The researcher also

paid close attention to the key attributes and prominent topics within each story, in

addition to whether or not the story referenced the Columbine High School shooting or any

other mass shooting.

Findings

In 2006, Muschart and Carr analyzed nine major shootings between 1997 and 2001

and found the distinct pattern between all of the stories to be as follows: the initial

emphasis of the stories focuses on the community aspects of who, what, when, and how,

making individual-present the most prominent cross-frame. Then, after the first week of

coverage, the story’s focus shifts to societal implications of the shooting on a broad,

national level, with the prominent cross-frame being societal-future. Coverage then drops

off a little during week three with sporadic community-present framed stories that are

mostly updates on how the community is grieving their losses, but during the last few days

of week four, another round of personal accounts dominates the frame to conclude the

month, going back to individual-present. The findings from this research will address and

dissect this pattern as it applies or does not apply to the coverage of the Virginia Tech,

Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings. It will also discuss the shared salient attributes of each

story in addition to the individual, distinct patterns and frames within each story.

Virginia Tech

On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho went on a shooting rampage on the campus of

Virginia Tech University, killing 32 students and faculty and making it the deadliest school

shooting of all time. When the story broke, the first headline read: “32 Shot Dead in

Virginia; Worst U.S. Gun Rampage,” and focused exclusively on the bloody, horrifying

details of the tragedy – how many died, where they were, what was heard, and how quickly

it happened. This first story was flooded with personal accounts of bystanders and

survivors who were almost all quoted with saying that this day would haunt them forever.

With few specifics about the gunman himself and a devastated, bewildered community

searching for answers, the initial story served as a heart-wrenching reality check. By the

third paragraph, the Columbine High School shooting of 1999 was mentioned, immediately

implying parallels between the two shootings and the men responsible for them. However,

the focus of the story remained on the victims, their families, and the unfathomable – how

the Virginia Tech community could ever recover from this.

Week One

The first week following the shooting was the heaviest with coverage of the entire

month. Thirty-five of the 71 total stories written about Virginia Tech during the initial

month were written during the first week. The most prominent space frame was the

individual frame, as 14 of the 35 stories directly referenced the shooter and his family, the

victims and their families, and the survivors who vividly recounted what they witnessed.

The second most prominent space frame was the societal frame, as 13 of the 35 stories

referenced issues like the potential for copycat incidents to occur at other campuses

around the country, an increasingly heated partisan debate on gun control, and the general

sense of complacency that Americans nestle into once the dust settles from a tragic event.

The “present” time frame overwhelmingly dominated the first week of coverage, with 24 of

the 35 stories from the first week focusing on the continually evolving details and specifics

of what unraveled that day. The “past” time frame was applicable to seven stories, and four

of those seven mentioned Columbine at some point. The “future” time frame, only

applicable to four stories, was always in reference to the future of gun control or school

safety.

On April 20, the fifth day of coverage, one editorial titled “Building a Better

Lockdown” was the first to discuss what specifically needs to be done in the future to

prevent another Virginia Tech from happening again—building crisis response plans on all

campuses, constructing site blueprints for law enforcement to reference in the event of a

shooting, and regularly scheduled risk assessment. The editorialist heatedly wrote, “Why

are we still asking how a calamity like deaths at Virginia Tech could happen? The most

obvious reason, and one that’s been widely discussed in the day since the shootings, is

complacency. Well, we can wring our hands all we want, but to some extent complacency is

unavoidable: it’s what sneaks in after all the blame has been handed out, the news media

have disappeared, the critics have taken their shots and the political knees have stopped

jerking.” This type of societally framed editorial—making suggestions for what should

preventatively happen in the future—became much more prominent during the

subsequent weeks of coverage.

Week Two

While some days during the first week of coverage had as many as 11 stories in one

day, during the second week, the average hovered around two to three stories in a 24-hour

period. Twenty of the 71 stories were written during the second week, with only three of

them referencing Columbine. Another shift that occurred during the second week was a

switch from focusing on the individual to the community and society. As the realities of the

shooting really began to sink in, the Virginia Tech campus and surrounding community of

Blacksburg began to grieve, and many articles were written about the process of

recovering and returning to normal. Day 9 of the coverage was the first to reference that

first day back on campus after the events of April 16, and the subsequent days focused less

about how individual people were grieving, and more about how everyone as a whole

should grieve together. In terms of time, the present frame remained dominant during the

second week. However, while the present frame in the first week focused on details of the

shooting, during the second week its focused primarily shifted to details of mourning and

remembering the victims.

Another interesting finding from the second week was that the personal and

background details of the gunman drastically tapered off. In the initial stories, Cho’s name

was prominently in the headlines, and a video that he recorded and sent to NBC studios

that detailed his pent up frustrations and reasons for the shooting before killing himself

and 32 others was aired on several national networks and discussed at length in the New

York Times. Many editorials written during the second week expressed dissatisfaction with

the way the media handled this video, because by releasing it, they gave Cho the pseudo-

fame and attention he so desired. In an article titled “In the Wake of Campus Killings, Talk

Radio Tries for Humor and a Political Advantage,” Rush Limbaugh criticized NBC and other

networks for the irresponsibility in showing the clips, and explicitly stated that talk radio

would not do the same. In the article, he is quoted by saying, “if there are copycats who get

ideas from the constant playing of these video clips and photos, who’s going to be

responsible for this? It will not be the National Rifle Association. It will not be the fault of

the gun that the next user uses. And it will not be the fault of talk radio.” This article set the

trend for others whose focus was on the manner in which the media portrayed Cho, rather

than on Cho himself.

Week Three

Similar to the pattern that Muschart and Char theorized, stories began to drop off

during the third week. During three of the days, there was no coverage at all, and on the

days that there were, many times Virginia Tech was not even in the story’s lead. Only nine

stories were written during week three, with the societal frame leading in prominence in

respect to a particular gun law regarding mental health records. It was revealed during this

week that Mr. Cho was involuntarily institutionalized in 2005 for erratic behavior, and that

his classmates and teachers frequently found him to be an alarming disturbance in class.

Three of the nine articles referenced a law that is intended to prohibit mentally ill civilians

from purchasing guns through a National Instant Criminal Background Check System. In

Cho’s case, once receiving outpatient treatment, the state of Virginia did not report his

name to this background check system, which allowed him to circumvent the law and

purchase the firearms that he used to kill 32 people. On April 27, 2007, an article titled

“Virginia Ends A Loophole in Gun Laws” explained that only 22 states currently submit any

mental health records to this federal database, and Cho’s actions should raise a red flag for

the 28 other states that are not reporting mentally ill patient records either. This same law

was also referenced in regard to the Columbine shooters in 1999, and years later after

Aurora and Sandy Hook.

Week Four

Finally, week four was probably the least paralleled to Muschart and Char’s pattern,

since on five of the seven days there were no stories at all. The month of coverage

concluded with sporadic articles on how the Virginia Tech community was continuing to

grieve, and surprisingly, the one-month anniversary of the event was not acknowledged at

all. A few individual-present framed stories were written about students who would have

gradated that year from the university had they not been killed, and how the university is

honoring their memory.

Aurora

On July 20, 2012 during the midnight premier of The Dark Knight Rises, James

Holmes, as 22-year-old neuroscience dropout from the University of Colorado, opened fire

in theatre 9, killing 12 people and injuring 58. What is starkly different about this incident

from other mass shooting stories is that the gunman did not kill himself; he casually exited

the theatre once his mission was complete, and willfully surrendered to law enforcement.

When this story broke, accounts of Columbine immediately flooded the media, as Aurora is

only about a 30-minute drive from Columbine High School. As such, the early days of

coverage focused heavily on the proximity to Columbine, and on the state of Colorado’s

stance on gun control laws.

It is important to take into consideration the socio-political climate of America

during the time of the shooting. At the peak of campaign season for presidential candidates

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, it was abundantly apparent in their initial intentionally

broad statements about the shooting that neither candidate wanted to take a particular

stance on the issue of gun control and banning assault weapons. As such, only 47 stories

were published about the shooting over the course of 30 days, a much smaller figure than

the 71 stories published about Virginia Tech. Additionally, stories began to taper off as

early as halfway through the second week, and were overall much less politically charged

and action-oriented than in the Virginia Tech coverage.

Week One

There were 10 stories published in the New York Times on the first day, and five of

them were framed as societal-present, with the focus of the stories being on the

presidential candidates expressing their deepest condolences for the lives that were lost. In

stark contrast to the Virginia Tech coverage, specific details of the shooting were not

discussed in the first day – the who, what, when, and how remained a secondary thought to

the nation coping with yet another mass shooting in a seemingly safe public place. It was

not until day three of coverage that the names of the victims were mentioned, as well as

speculation about the intentions of the shooter and how he was able to accomplish what he

did. From day three and throughout the duration of the first week, societal-future

discussions on gun laws were a prominent theme, but specific legislation was never

mentioned. At most, the idea that “something needs to change” was emphasized, but

without the context when and how that will happen, it seemed as though that was said

simply because it was the proper and respectful stance to take at the time.

Of the 47 total stories written in the 30 days following the shooting, 31 of them were

written during the first week. That is, nearly 70 percent of the coverage occurred during

the first even days, and as a result, became very scarce during the subsequent weeks.

Week Two

It was during the second week that the shooter’s face, painted with a dazed, wide-

eyed expression and a fiery orange hair became prominent in the media. Societal-present

discussions on mental illness and the impact that Hollywood and video games can have on

unstable, disturbed young adults became the prominent focus of these stories, as this is

what was deemed a tipping point for the gunman. Unlike in Virginia Tech, the gunman’s

name rarely accompanied headlines or was mentioned in leads – the stories were more

about his mental instability than any personal details or accounts of his life.

While the first week of coverage drew strong parallels between this shooting and

Columbine, only one story mentioned Columbine during the second week, and that same

story also mentioned Virginia Tech. Again, rather than mentioning specific details of the

shooting, the discussion was strongly centered around mental health and the dangers that

arise from it when it goes untreated or unnoticed. The urgency of “what should we do next”

that was very prominent during the second week of Virginia Tech coverage was completely

absent in the Aurora coverage. Eighty percent of the stories written during the second

week were categorized as present time frames, and none of them were categorized as

future.

Weeks Three & Four

During 11 of the last 15 days of coverage, no stories were written about Aurora at

all. In the four days that did cover the shooting, it was often only mentioned as a reference

point to another salient issue being discussed. For example, discussions on The Dark Knight

Rises not being as lucrative of a movie because of the shooting in Aurora, or debates on

whether or not Hollywood should continue to make movies that might influence a mentally

unstable or clinically insane individual to imitate the Aurora shooting. Unlike Virginia Tech,

the victims of the shooting were seldom mentioned—especially during the final days of

coverage—along with the vivid details of gun shot sounds and frantic patrons making their

exit strategies, were completely absent from the few individual-present stories that were

written. Instead, the two individual-present stories written on the last day were about the

gunman’s trial and his complete emotional disconnect from his actions that was evident in

the courtroom.

Sandy Hook

On the morning of December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza wrestled his way

past the security guards in Sandy Hook Elementary School, where he proceeded to spray

the hallways and classrooms with bullets from an assault rifle that tragically killed 20

children and 7 adults. This was the first mass shooting in American history that specifically

targeted children, and as a result, immediately spurred serious conversations about gun

control, mental illness, and school safety, and for the first time, put the National Rifle

Association on the hot seat. As the Sandy Hook massacre occurred only five months after

the movie theatre shooting in Aurora, the Obama administration received heavy criticism

the media and the public for putting the gun control conversation on the backburner.

The Sandy Hook shooting was and continues to be one of the most heavily discussed

news events in recent American history. Compared to the 71 articles written about Virginia

Tech and the 47 articles written about Aurora in a 30-day period, 117 stories were written

about Sandy Hook, with an overwhelming focus on finally making some drastic policy

changes in how people purchase guns. The gunman, Adam Lanza, was far from the focal

point of any story during the first month after the shooting. Instead, memories of each

fragile, young life that was lost dominated the coverage, with specific details mentioned

about the funeral arrangements and grieving families. Of the 117 stories that were written,

58 of them focused exclusively on gun legislation. President Obama, for the first time in his

presidency, was forced to firmly make his stance on expanding gun background checks, an

issue that had been shelved continuously since the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007. A

prominent theme in the coverage was to not ignore the issues that arise anytime a tragic

shooting like this happens in America. This time, the government and media alike seemed

to agree that if there was any time to truly change the status quo, it is after 20 first graders

lose their lives to senseless gun violence. Undoubtedly, the young ages of the victims and

the fact that the shooting occurred in an elementary school contributed to such a high

frequency of stories each day.

Week One

Of the 117 stories that were written about Sandy Hook in a 30-day period, 56 of

them were written during the first week. The very first story was a detailed, hour-by-hour

breakdown of the events of the morning, including corrections on information that was

released prematurely before all of the details were sorted out. Devastating interviews with

parents who will never reunite with their children again, quotes from first and second

graders who heard every gunshot and every scream, and hopeless explanations from law

enforcement and government officials who could not possibly make sense of the day’s

events dominated first-day coverage. On the second day, the international-present frame

was very prominent, as reporters and editorialists explained how gun violence does not

seem to be as prominent of an issue in any other industrialized, wealthy nation besides

America. Stories about mass shootings that have taken place in Australia and Scotland but

were immediately followed by strict laws banning guns and resulted in a near extinction of

gun violence as a societal issue were discussed at length, in addition to why America cannot

seem to do the same. Throughout the first week, 25 of the 56 articles were focused on

societal-future framed gun debate—what we should have done before, and what needs to

be done now. Unlike Aurora, very few articles referenced Columbine or any other previous

mass shooting. The stance taken by the Times appeared to be that this event could not be

compared to any other because of how young the victims were. In Virginia Tech and

Columbine, the behavior of the gunmen was explained by depression and aggression

toward feeling like an outsider among their peers. In the case of Adam Lanza, though, the

children slain were young, innocent strangers, taking the focus off of him, and on the guns

he used. Therefore, unlike the Muschart and Char study, the first week of Sandy Hook

coverage primarily consisted of societal-future frames rather than individual-present

frames.

Week Two

Media coverage continued to be heavy during the second week of coverage. Thirty-

six of the 117 stories were written during week two, with the societal-future framed gun

debate persisting as the dominant frame. Fifteen of the 36 articles written were categorized

as societal-future, and another eight were categorized as societal-present. Nineteen of the

36 articles focused exclusively on the evolving gun legislation, with 17 of the 19 being

editorials about the unwillingness of the NRA to and House Republicans to compromise at

all. The other prominent frame was the individual-present, as most of the funerals of the

children lost in the shooting occurred during the second week and were covered in

sensitive detail. Adam Lanza’s name and family continued to not make headlines, as

regulation debates and articles on lessons to learn from Newtown remained prominent.

The same FBI database mentioned during the first week and throughout the coverage of

Virginia Tech in 2007 was mentioned in 11 stories during the second week, each with more

details on the carelessness of states and federal agencies to update it and use it to prevent

mentally ill people from purchasing guns.

Week Three

Similar to the pattern that was identified by Muschart and Carr in 2006, the

coverage began to taper off during the third week following the shooting. The last day of

week three was the first time that a story on Sandy Hook did not appear in the times, and

only seven stories total were published during the week. Throughout this week, all other

frames besides the societal-future frame were absent; discussions focused exclusively on

expanding background checks for gun purchases, as well as how to diminish partisan

biases and come to an agreement that is in the best interest of the American people. While

half of the articles focused on the NRA and their proposal to arm school officials and

teachers with concealed weapons as a means to prevent another Sandy Hook tragedy from

happening, the other half of the articles focused on the liberals’ response to this

proposition. Every so often, a story would mildly reiterate the number of deaths from the

Sandy Hook shooting and the specific rifles that were used, but only as secondary details.

Week Four

Finally, during the last week of coverage, the number of stories increased again,

similar to the Muschart and Carr model, but this time, they were overwhelmingly regional-

future framed. This became was the trend as different state governments began to mandate

their own laws on purchasing and carrying concealed weapons. Of the 16 articles that were

written during the fourth and week of coverage, eight of them were regional-future, and the

remaining eight were societal-future. Similar to the previous week of coverage, the topics

discussed were almost exclusively on gun control, gun shows, and gun sales. Twelve of the

stories focused exclusively on the issues surrounding guns, while the remaining four were

on subjects like violence in the media and the stages of grieving. The abundance of policy

discussions that arose from the Sandy Hook shooting is arguably a result of the lack thereof

following the Aurora shooting, as well as the sensitivity of the victims being elementary-

aged children.

Conclusions

The researcher content analyzed three mass shootings—Virginia Tech, Aurora, and

Sandy Hook—in the New York Times for four weeks each. The purpose of this analysis was

to discern if a distinct media framing pattern exists in the coverage of all mass shooting

events throughout the course of a month that holds true to the findings from a 2006 study

by Muschart and Char on mass shootings from 1997 to 2001. The pattern observed in that

study was a focus on the individual-present frame during the first week, followed by

societal-future during the second week, sporadic community-present framed stories during

the third week, and back to the individual-present during the fourth week as the one month

anniversary of the event approaches (Mushcart & Char, 2006).

The findings from this research indicate that although a consistent media framing

pattern is not prominent between the coverage of the three mass shooting stories, there is

certainly a distinct pattern in the distribution of space and time frames that exists within

each story. The patterns that were identified were determined to be heavily reliant on the

socio-political climate of the nation at the time of the shooting, particularly in terms of

initial coverage and overall salience throughout the progression of the month.

The Virginia Tech massacre of 2007 was the first school shooting of its caliber since

the Columbine shooting in 1999, and immediately made headlines at the deadliest school

shooting of all time. As a result, the initial week of coverage very closely followed the

individual-present pattern that Muschart and Char identified, as the media’s main

obligation was to release as much information about the shooter and the casualties as

possible. The coverage of this shooting continued to follow the Muschart and Char pattern

during the second week of coverage as the focus of the story shifted to a societal discussion

on gun control, mental illness and campus safety. This was likely a result of the acutely high

death toll from the incident, with memories and references to Columbine High School

flooding the media, drawing distinct parallels between the two events. The remainder of

the month did not breed any distinct pattern other than the fact that coverage all but

dropped off after day 18.

The New York Times coverage of the Aurora shooting was much less detailed and

more scattered compared to the other shootings analyzed in this study. Given that the

shooting took place in July 2012, the peak of campaign season for President Obama and

Governor Romney, neither candidate decided to take a strong public stance for or against

gun control laws most likely to appease swing states—Colorado being one of them. As such,

the Muschart and Char pattern was completely irrelevant to this story coverage, as almost

all of the initial coverage consisted of personal apologies to the families of the victims on

behalf of public figures like the governor of Colorado, Obama, and Romney. After the

second week, the story barely made headlines as election coverage proceeded to dominate

the media.

A perceived result of the minimal coverage of the Aurora shooting, the Sandy Hook

shooting received the most coverage of all the stories analyzed by over 40 stories. In

addition to the fact that the Obama administration received heavy criticism from gun

control advocates for not acting immediately and intentionally after the events of Aurora,

this shooting was the only mass school shooting in recent American history that directly

involved young children, making it a special interest story with a completely different angle

than the other shootings—after 20 innocent children get murdered in a school, if we have

never acted before, we must act now. This angle persisted for the duration of the month,

with all attention on the need to enact new gun legislation that would ease the fears of

parents sending their children to school, and end the terror of mass gun violence once and

for all. As such, the societal-future frame dominated the coverage of this story for all four

weeks, especially during the final week of the month as Sandy Hook families sent their

children back to school after the holiday break.

Another variable that this researcher observed was how often other mass shootings

were mentioned, which ones they were, and at which point during the month it was most

prominent. Overwhelmingly, reference to the Columbine High School shooting was most

common among all three shooting stories analyzed. Both Virginia Tech and Aurora drew

parallels to the Columbine shooting in nine different articles during the initial week of

coverage. For Virginia Tech, this was most likely because it was the first mass school

shooting since Columbine; for Aurora, it was probably a result of the geographic proximity

between Aurora and Columbine. While the Virginia Tech coverage drew parallels between

the shooters, the parallels between Columbine and Aurora primarily pertained to

Colorado’s stance on gun control and the implications of another mass shooting occurring

in the state of Colorado might have on which way the state would vote in the upcoming

election.

Research Limitations

The researcher content analyzed the one-month coverage of the Virginia Tech,

Aurora, and Sandy Hook mass shootings in the New York Times. In order to improve this

research and fully determine if a media-framing pattern exists that might predict how mass

shooting stories unravel over time, the researcher might have looked at shootings that have

more variables in common. For example, the age and background of the shooter, the

location of the shooting, and whether or not the shooter committed suicide are each

important factors. If there were more similarities between the attributes of each shooting

event, perhaps detecting a clear media-framing pattern would be more feasible.

Another way to improve this research would be to only analyze mass shooting

stories that occurred within a certain time frame, so as to eliminate secondary variables

like election season. For instance, the coverage of the Aurora shooting was noticeably

skewed because of the need for each presidential candidate to appear bipartisan and

diplomatic on the issues surrounding gun legislation.

Ultimately, this study showed that the frame of focus in the coverage of mass

shooting stories certainly does shift over the story’s lifespan in order to keep it relevant for

an extended period of time. The coverage is not limited to the actual events that took place

or the people who were directly involved. Instead, these stories serve as politically charged

discussion points to debate gun control, to dissect mental illness and neurological

disorders, and to predict future acts of colossal violence.

Works Cited

Agger, B (2008). There is a Gunman on Campus: Tragedy and Terror at Virginia Tech. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Birkland, T.A., & Lawrence, R.G. (2009). Media Framing and Policy Change After Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1405-1421.

Bixler, E.O., Kettl, P.A., Kotinsky, S. (2001). Threats of School Violence in Pennsylvania After Media Coverage of the Columbine High School Massacre: Examining the Role of Imitation. American Medical Association. 155, 994-1001.

Calvert, C. (2000). Media Bashing at the Turn of the Century: The Threat to Free Speech After Columbine High and Jenny Jones. Law Review of Michigan State University. 151-163.

Chyi, H.I., & McCombs, M. (2004). Media Salience and the Process of Framing: Coverage of the Columbine School Shootings. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 81, 22-35.

Consalvo, M (2003). The Monsters Next Door: Media Constructions of Boys and Masculinity. Feminist Media Studies, 3(1), 27-45.

Kubrin, C.E. & Pollack, J. (2007). Crime in the News: How Crimes, Offenders and Victims are Portrayed in the Media. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 14(2), 59-83.

Lawrence, R., & Mueller, D. (2003). School Shootings and the Man-Bites-Dog Criterion of Newsworthiness. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1. 330-343.

Macguire, B., Mathers, R.A., Weatherby, G.A. (2002). Network News Coverage of School Shootings. The Social Science Journal, 39. 465-470.

Schildkraut, J. (2012). Media and Massacre: A Comparative Analysis of the Reporting of the 2007 Virginia Tech Shooting. Fast Capitalism, 9(1). 1-26.