Session 18, Oegema

1

Friederike Schultz, VU University AmsterdamJan Kleinijenhuis, VU University AmsterdamSonja Utz, VU University AmsterdamDirk Oegema, VU University AmsterdamWouter van Atteveldt, VU University Amsterdam

Qualifying and Quantifying Frames in the BP CrisisOrganization, Media, and the Natural Environment

2

Theory & Contribution

Deficit 1: Research on Crisis Communication

•Crises studied in Mass-Communication (media-centered) or Public Relations and Management Studies (organization centered, static)

•Contribution: Examining dynamics and differences between crisis constructions in US news, UK news and PR

THE „BP“

CRISIS

SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011

3


Deficit 1: Research on Crisis Communication

•Crises studied in Mass-Communication (media-centered) or Public Relations and Management Studies (organization centered, static)

•Contribution: Examining dynamics and differences between crisis constructions in US news, UK news and PR

Deficit 2: Research on Agenda Building, Agenda Setting and Framing

•lack of complexity; empirical & theoretical vagueness of framing (Scheufele, 1999)

•Meaning of objects or concepts derive from their multiple relations and integration into meaning networks (Cassirer, 1944; Geertz, 1973; Eco, 1979)

•Contribution: Alternative perspective of associative frames as complex, semantic networks with multi-dimensional links between issues, actors, attributions (causes, consequences, solutions).

Aim: Examining dynamics and differences of agenda and semantic frames between US news, UK news and PR in the BP crisis.

RQ: How do the agenda and associative frames differ and change between news and press releases over time?


4


Attention for Issues and Actors in News and Public Relations

•Attention for causes, consequences and solutions changes over time (Schultz & Raupp 2010)

•Differences in crisis constructions in news and public relations• PR gives more attention to solutions, news more to consequences and causes (Heath 2004, Staab

1990)

• Certain actors like political actors are driving the agenda

SRQ1: Which differences can be observed in the attention for frame-elements (issues, actors) between news and public relations over time?


5


Dynamics of Associative Frames in News and Public Relations

•To keep control corporations might avoid link between political actors and solution, whereas news emphazise a link between political actors and solutions and between the crisis corporation and cause

•Associations might change over time (crisis dynamics, inter-media-agenda-setting)

SRQ2: Which differences can be observed in the associative frames between news and public relations over time?

Measured via “asymmetric conditional probability” (Ruigrok & Van Atteveldt 2007): Whether a person associates a (BP) with b (Oil Spill) is a conditional probability


6

Method

• Quantitative content analysis (AMCAT): Attention for actors/issues, asymm. cond. prob.

• UoA from 20th of April – 27th of August)

• Multi-level process for keyword-List: • frequency analysis of UoA

• event chronology and qualitative reading

• frequency / correlation analysis keywords

• AmCAT-test

126 Press Releases

From BP Website

BP Press Releases

Financial NP: Wall Street J.(n= 371)

Elite NP:New York Times(n= 774)

Popular NP:USA Today(n= 257)

From Lexis Nexis

Financial NP: Financial Times(n= 1117)

Elite NP:Times(n= 1053)

Popular NP:Independent(n= 343)Sunday Times(n= 346)

US-News UK-News


7

20thof april: Crisis startGas, oil and concrete explodesfrom the Deepwater Horizon.DeepwaterHorizon sank April 22.

3rd of May: Obama flies toLouisana as fears grow over oil-spill desaster.4thof May: Firstpeak

26thof May: Top Kill Solution27th of May: Obama announcessix-month moratoriumon permits28thof May: Obamas second visitin Louisana.

15h of June: Obama in firstspeech from Oval Office ofPresidency focuseson spill .16th of June: Secondcontainment system installed ; BPagrees on $20 billion escrowaccount (fund).

15h of July : stop oil pouring intoGulf

27th of July: announcement thatCEO Hayward will be replaced byBob Dudley.28thof July: High peak.

20th of August: The administratorof the Gulf oil spill compensationfund released set of guidelines foremergency payments paid in theinterim to victims of the spill .

Phase 1: Politisation & Mediatisation

20th of April – 10th of May

Phase 2: Phase Institutionalization &

Legislation 11th of May – 3rd of July

Phase 3: Normalization

4th of July –15th of August

29h of June: lowest point andturning point in share movement

Results: Phases


8

A Vector AutoRegression model for the BP oil spill crisis


9

Attention for actors and frame-elements in per medium

BP USA (total) UK(total)press

releases NYT USA

TodayWSJ Sunday

TimesThe

TimesInde-

pendantFinancial

TimesActors White House, Obama 26% 59% 69% 62% 38% 37% 36% 33% 37% 40%

Court 2% 19% 26% 15% 6% 12% 15% 12% 10% 13%Politics 2% 34% 46% 31% 14% 27% 29% 24% 32% 28%EnvironmentProtest 6% 21% 27% 28% 5% 12% 12% 9% 22% 12%

Frame elementsProblem: Oil Spill 74% 84% 85% 83% 83% 63% 55% 59% 59% 69%Cause 1% 12% 16% 11% 4% 4% 12% 4% 4% 2%Consequence 57% 76% 88% 90% 44% 79% 75% 69% 88% 87%Solution 66% 66% 78% 71% 38% 53% 59% 43% 56% 59%

N (# items with BP included) 125 1427 782 261 384 2869 346 1055 344 1124

10

Results

US MEDIA

BP

UK MEDIA


11

Results

US MEDIA

BP

UK MEDIA


12

Results

US MEDIA

BP

UK MEDIA


13

Results

US MEDIA

BP

UK MEDIA


14

Results

US MEDIA

BP

UK MEDIA


15

Results

US MEDIA

BP

UK MEDIA


16

Results

BP PR US Media


17

Results

US MEDIA

BP

UK MEDIA


18

Results

US Media UK Media


19

Discussion & Conclusion

Discussion

•BP’s “decoupling strategy”: BP dissociated itself from being responsible for the cause and at the same time presented itself as solvent of the crisis.

•Resonance: strong resonance of BP frame in US news; political actors did not succeed in presenting themselves as the provider of the solution

•Frame-Dynamics: Reduction of frame-complexity over time

Further research

•Quantification, time-series-analysis

•Sentiment-analysis, evaluation analysis


20SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011

p1bp Consequence ProblemOilSpill WhiteHouse BP Solution Politics

Consequence - 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.54 0.97

ProblemOilSpill 0.98 - 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.97

WhiteHouse 0.66 0.62 - 0.64 0.69 0.70

BP 1.00 0.98 1.00 - 1.00 1.00

Solution 0.84 0.61 0.66 0.61 - 0.00

Politics 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 - p1us Consequence ProblemOilSpill WhiteHouse BP Solution Politics Court EnvironmentProtes

t Cause

Consequence - 0.78 0.81 0.76 0.82 0.77 0.90 0.92 0.77

ProblemOilSpill 0.79 - 0.85 0.77 0.85 0.83 0.76 0.76 0.93

WhiteHouse 0.58 0.60 - 0.55 0.63 0.74 0.62 0.74 0.70

BP 0.86 0.86 0.88 - 0.86 0.90 0.99 0.87 0.98

Solution 0.68 0.70 0.74 0.63 - 0.77 0.76 0.84 0.83

Politics 0.25 0.27 0.35 0.26 0.31 - 0.31 0.35 0.39

Court 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 - 0.25 0.18

EnvironmentProtest

0.19 0.16 0.22 0.16 0.21 0.23 0.38 - 0.15

Cause 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.16 -

p1uk Court Solution ProblemOilSpill BP Consequence WhiteHouse Cause EnvironmentProtest

Politics

Court - 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.29 0.11 0.22

Solution 0.68 - 0.63 0.51 0.54 0.79 0.86 0.82 0.71

ProblemOilSpill 0.83 0.81 - 0.66 0.66 0.88 0.96 0.69 0.71

BP 0.95 0.95 0.95 - 0.92 0.98 0.99 0.94 0.93

Consequence 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.82 - 0.89 0.82 0.89 0.91

WhiteHouse 0.56 0.64 0.56 0.43 0.44 - 0.74 0.56 0.67

Cause 0.24 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.20 - 0.17 0.18

EnvironmentProtest

0.06 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 - 0.09

Politics 0.34 0.27 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.32 0.32 0.29 -

p2bp

ProblemOilSpill

BP Solution Consequence

WhiteHouse EnvironmentProtest

Court Cause

ProblemOilSpill - 0.79 0.85 0.87 0.78 0.91 1.00 1.00

BP 0.99 - 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00

21

Quantifying frames

- Non directional- Co-occurrences

- Directional- Asymmetrical conditional probabilities

- probability of Y given X- Semantic Network Analysis: (hand)coding triplets- Subject Predicat Object


22

Frame characteristics

• number of objects (agenda, or nodes in the network)

• complexity• number of arrows versus number of possible arrows (entropy)

• more news more complexity

• crisis less complexity?

• conflict less complexity?

• Network characteristics (network of actors and/or issues)• indegree

• outdegree

• centrality

• betweenness

• Relations between two media or sources: dynamics• use time series and show frame setting and frame building

• autocorrelation!

• similarity, causal relations

• convergence/divergence over time

• what parts of the frame are simplified, or get more complex?


23

• Do frames predict above agenda’s?• any proof?

• is all variance in time series explained by agenda setting and priming?

• if so, why bother about framing?

• How and where to test?• time series

• X Y

• dependent variables:

• amount of publicity

• price of shares

• attention of the public


24

Further research

Any suggestions?


Technology

Session 18, Oegema