Results

The reasons for analysing the media’s reporting of the rally is that, in most cases, they get to define how an event is packaged and relayed to audiences. That is why the study of mass communication is so important because, according to McQuail (1994:

55), the media have significant effects on the way news stories are perceived. Before this section examines how these methods relate to the research questions, the rationale behind the use of content analysis and media framing will each be explained in turn.

First, content analysis is a quantitative approach that examines texts and enables the researcher to quantify salient and manifest features of a large number of texts (Deacon et al 2007: 119). Thereafter, statistics are used to make broader inferences about the processes and politics of representation (Deacon et al 2007, Hansen et al 1998: 95).

During the study, texts are subjected to the same investigative procedures to ensure analytical consistency and reduce researcher influence over the results (Deacon et al 2007: 133). The background research and research questions help identify what to code prior to the analysis taking place. During the analysis, specific instances and occurrences of certain words or story themes are then recorded (Berger 1998: 23). It is important that each theme is clearly defined to ensure that it cannot be applied or coded to another category. For this study a coding sheet¹⁰ was applied to a pilot

10 Please find the coding sheet attached (Appendix B)

analysis of 15 articles to establish reliability, and also to improve the variable

questions by adjusting any apparent errors. Applying this method helped uncover the major themes evident in the media’s reporting of the rally and the people that

attended.

The media texts were taken from a comprehensive sample of global news stories which included newspapers, news magazines, Internet news, blogs and cable news shows that represented a broad spectrum of political affiliations. These were obtained from the online database LexisNexis. The sample date period was not

comprehensive, as the analysis was concerned with articles that commented prior to and after the rally. Consequently, the sample was taken from the 28^th of October, two days before the rally took place on the 31^st October 2010, and two days after that. The text sample was gathered by means of a specific search term which was: the ‘Rally to Restore Sanity’. A second sample was also obtained to address the aims of RQ6 regarding how the rally was perceived by sources in the aftermath of the event and what was its legacy and potential impact. This sample was taken from the 3^rd of November 2010 (3 days after the rally) up to April 2014, to ensure a large sample of articles. Unlike the first sample period that accumulated a total of 210 articles, the second analysis was inevitably low, with only 47 articles in total.

The content analysis then was used to statistically quantify a series of questions aimed at the sample of news media texts. This included questions that related to the type of sources that were featured, the type of publication, and other simple yes no questions, all of which can be found in the coding sheet (See Appendix B). The analysis also addressed RQ1 and RQ2 which were concerned with how the media attempted to report the rally and the people that attended. The issue with using content analysis alone is that it can only present an ‘overall’ picture of how the news media reported the rally. For example, Deacon (2007: 119) argues that “by looking at aggregated meaning-making across texts, the method tends to skate over complex and varied processes of meaning making within the texts”. As a result, content analysis is not always well suited to studying ‘deep’ questions about textual and discursive forms (Ibid). This argument was applicable to this study because content analysis could only account for major themes in the way the rally was reported i.e. that it was either politically motivated, a hybrid political/popular culture event or a popular culture

event. In order to unpack these themes in more detail it was necessarily to

supplement the content analysis study by incorporating framing analysis. According to Neunendorf (2002), “framing analysis is located somewhere between content and discourse analysis”. Therefore this method allowed me, the researcher, to unpack the themes gathered during the content analysis in more detail.

Framing analysis is specifically used to “examine news discourse with the primary focus of conceptualising news texts into empirically operationalisable dimensions so that evidence of the news media’s framing of issues can be gathered” (Pan & Kosicki 1993: 55). ‘Frames’ in this instance, are the “central organising idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding event and what it is about” (Gamson & Modigliani 1987: 143). Put simply, framing analysis provides analytical depth to the themes gathered during the content analysis with reference also made to the potential impact and outcome effects of such framing. According to Entman (1993: 52), this is because framing in news involves the selection and salience of “some aspects of a perceived reality to make them more visible in communication texts”. Frames then can define peoples interpretations of events based on what they omit, as well as what they include. Therefore, the exclusion of potential problem definitions, explanations, evaluations, and recommendations may be as critical as the inclusion in guiding the audience (Ibid). Consequently, framing was the most applicable method that could be used to answer the research questions that were concerned with the way the rally and the attendees were reported. Furthermore, it would also help determine how the rally was perceived in terms of its effectiveness and long-term impact.

A comprehensive research approach was used to identify the media frames for RQ1.

It started with the use of content analysis that formed a series of broad categories to capture the ways in which the rally was reported. As discussed earlier, these

categories fell into 3 areas which included: politically motivated, hybrid and popular culture¹¹. However, many of the news texts featured a number of thematic elements and framing interpretations of the event which could not be fully captured by the 3 broad category descriptions alone. This meant that when carrying out the analysis, I, the researcher, would firstly assign the broad category that the text belonged to i.e.

11 Please see Coding Manual (Appendix C) for comprehensive break down of the major categories and their definitions.

politically motivated, and then I would determine in what way it could be perceived as such. For example, was it politically motivated because the rally was framed as an activist event? Or, because it was reported as an event that would encourage voting?

Unlike content analysis, that would just count this information, by incorporating framing analysis, this study also gathered key quotes from the news texts that encapsulated the specific framing style. These quotes would then be featured and analysed in the results chapters to determine their broader meaning and impact.

The same process of analysis was used for RQ’s 2 and 5 but obviously the main category subject for each question differed to that of RQ1. The categories for RQ2 regarding the way the rallygoers were described was a lot more specific given the limited ways they could be characterised. This was necessary as, regardless of the depth offered within the news programme or article, the description of the

individual(s) could be undermined by factors including dress or behaviour (Gitlin 1980: 27).

RQ5 required a much broader collection of categories to capture the variety of themes that were present in peoples’ responses to the rally’s effectiveness. The categories for this question can be found in Question10c¹² in the Coding Manual which are clearly defined as optimistic, pessimistic and mixed reactions. These 3 categories include individual definitions so responses could be measured accurately. Again, once the broad category was recognised (e.g. pessimistic responses) and counted, the specific frame (e.g. that satire was an ineffective platform for political action), and quotes to support this were gathered and noted down in the comments and quotes section found under Q10c on the Coding Sheet¹³. The second part of RQ5 was concerned with the potential impact that the rally had in the months and years that followed. As a result, it was necessary to define how impact could be measured so that they could be easily categorised. Impact in this case, was measured in relation to responses detailing the legacy of the rally which are clearly defined in Q10d found in the Coding Manual.

This included categories relating to instances where the rally was linked to further political action, criticism and success for TDS brand.

12 Coding Manual found under Appendix C

13 Coding sheet found under Appendix B

A combination of both content and framing analysis were also used on RQ’s 2 and 5 which examined the motivations behind the rallygoers attendance and the ways in which they participated at the event. Undertaking these questions meant applying what Snow and Benford (1992: 137) refer to as a ‘collective action frame’. This approach is generally applied to the analysis of social movement groups to understand the collective experiences of those involved and to unify the meaning of the campaign they support (Ibid). When conducting the pilot analysis, there were a number of similarities that could be drawn from the attendees’ experience and the collective action frame work. This is because some of those interviewed by the media were keen to explain their reasons for attending, which, in some instances, resembled the aims of protesters and social movements.

The collective action frame was broken down into a series of levels to categorise the reasoning and issues that the attendees gave for their support of the rally which may have also impacted how they participated at the event. For example, those who attended the rally for activist reasons may have participated at the event by

encouraging others to take part in future acts of political action that supported the idea of civility in politics or other social issues. In contrast, the participatory behaviour of those who attended for fun might have been limited to just watching the event from the Mall. Because of the ambiguity surrounding peoples motivations for attending the rally and their possible behaviour at the event, not every participant featured in the media texts would specify a collective action response. Thus to accommodate for this, the framing analysis firstly allocated the exact reason for attendance into an initial category¹⁴. Once this had been established, and depending on the reason given by the rallygoer, a second separate question was applied to the study that utilised Entman’s diagnostic framework. Entman (1993: 52) states that the media typically frame news items in the following way:

Level 1: The overarching problem