- Email: [email protected]
Framing political public relations: Measuring success of political communication strategies in Germany
Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
Framing political public relations: Measuring success of political communication strategies in Germany Romy Froehlich ∗ , Burkhard R¨udiger 1 Institut fuer Kommunikationswissenschaft, University of Munich, 80538 Muenchen, Germany Received 17 December 2004; received in revised form 15 October 2005; accepted 29 October 2005
Abstract The main goal of political public relations is the use of media outlets to communicate specific political interpretations of issues in the hope of garnering public support for political policies. This study elaborates on the question how successful political PR is at bringing its specific perspectives into the media. It uses the ‘framing’ concept to analyse the meanings and contexts of media coverage and political PR during the national debate on immigration in Germany between May 2000 and March 2002. The results show a high level of correlation between the preferred thematic and position frames of the political players and those in the press coverage. Yet, the media examined clearly did not have a passive relationship to PR. The findings indicate that journalists tend to use their power to alter PR messages when the communications from political players do not have a distinct focus and/or when the PR focuses were not among the (mainstream) aspects dominating the general political debate. © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Political communication; Political campaigning; Communication strategies; Framing; PR influence; PR success; PR evaluation
1. Introduction Public relations, and in particular political public relations, performs a public service by bringing issues to the public’s attention. Decades of research have shed light on this function of public relations and its success in shaping the topic selection and production of news media (for example Berkowitz, 1993; Cameron, Sallot, & Curtin, 1997; Cohen & Young, 1973; Curtin, 1999; Curtin & Rhodenbaugh, 2001; Davis, 2000; Macnamara, 1993; Shoemaker & Reese, 1991; VanSlyke Turk, 1988; see also Zawawi, 2001). However, the goals of political PR extend beyond bringing attention to or away from political issues. Instead, the main goal of political PR is the use of media outlets to communicate specific political views, solutions and interpretations of issues in the hope of garnering public support for political policies or campaigns. Political PR follows not only thematic strategies, but also persuasion strategies, as described by Neidhardt (1994): “Statements must seem correct, explanations must seem plausible, evaluations must seem legitimate, and actions must seem necessary and advantageous” (p. 18). Thus, a content-based evaluation of political PR cannot be reduced to an analysis of themes or issues alone. Instead, the aim of advanced PR evaluation research should be to examine the complex perspectives, interpretations and contexts of issues in the PR source material and in media coverage. The framing concept is an ideal method for this ∗ 1
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 89 2180 9454/9457; fax: +49 89 2180 9014. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Froehlich), [email protected] (B. R¨udiger). Tel.: +49 89 2180 9454/9457; fax: +49 89 2180 9014.
0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.10.003
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
19
task. This contribution tries to show how the framing theory can be applied to the evaluation of political communication strategies. 2. The framing concept in public relations research The framing concept is used increasingly in public relations research (see for example Callaghan & Schnell, 2001; Knight, 1999; Reber & Berger, 2005). Nevertheless, it is still what Entman (1993) has referred to as a “fractured paradigm”, being used differently in different scientific contexts and areas, ranging from economical research to sociology, from psychology to communication science (Scheufele, 2000). This study is based on the sociological perspective of Goffman’s (1974) ‘Frame Analysis’: Frames are patterns used to categorize experience and information. Put differently, frames are “interpretative packages” (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989) that establish the perimeters, which give a discussion directions, positions and a specific purpose. The framing concept assumes that the presence, emphasis on, or combination of the various aspects of an issue influences the way it is perceived by journalists and the public (Iyengar, 1991). In sociology, framing is used to study the communication of modern social movements (Benford & Snow, 2000; Snow & Benford, 1988). Framing is seen as a mobilisation strategy: Organisations attempt to bring their frames on an issue into public debate, in the hope of winning public support and action. Politicians, too, have to campaign for the sympathy and support of the public. Therefore, the goal of political PR is to gain as much support for a specific political position/frame as possible (Pan & Kosicki, 2001). In other words, the political players have to establish “common frames of reference” with their target groups (Hallahan, 1999, p. 207). The prerequisite for this is to effectively communicate the frames––that is, to be related to these frames in the media coverage. Therefore, the ability of the political players in bringing their frames unaltered into the media is an indicator of PR success. This study compares the frames communicated by political players with the frames the media relate with these political players. The frame analysis distinguishes two levels of framing: First, thematic frames look at which thematic aspects or subtopics of an issue are brought into focus by PR and press coverage. By emphasizing certain aspects of an issues while ignoring others, thematic frames provide an interpretation on how an issue should be seen and discussed in public debate. The analysis of thematic frames was conducted as a detailed analysis of subtopics. The second type of frames are position frames. Position frames encompass the specific political definitions of the problem, the positions that are connected to an issue or subtopic along with political plans or solutions to issue related problems and a specific ideological or political outlook taken on the issue. As public support for political ideas and programs largely depends on a consensus about how a problem is to be defined and solved, and how it is to be interpreted from an ideological point of view, position frames are especially interesting for the study of success of political PR. 3. Methodology and layout of the study 3.1. Sample This study compares frames in press releases and media coverage based on a case study of the political debate over immigration policy in Germany from May 2000 and March 2002. This subject was selected because it generated a very controversial, ideological public debate with extensive media coverage and the political parties taking clear, well-defined positions. During the period of time examined, samples from the press releases and newspaper reports were collected one week before and after relevant events, during so called “critical discourse moments” (Gamson, 1992, p. 26)––that is, events likely to change the course of the whole debate and generating high media interest. Eighteen such events were identified, most of them important parliamentary debates and the releasing of position papers on the issue by the different parties. The PR materials used in the study were press releases from the major German political parties represented in the German parliament (‘Bundestag’) and from the German Interior Ministry (‘Bundesministerium des Innern’, BMI). The analysed news material came from the politics sections of Germany’s two most respected newspapers, the more conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) and the more liberal S¨uddeutsche Zeitung (SZ). In total, 138 press releases and 273 newspaper reports were analysed.
20
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
3.2. Identification of frames Preliminary to the quantitative analysis, the specific frames used in the political debate on immigration policy had to be identified. Therefore, a qualitative content analysis of policy documents of the parties and newspaper editorials on this topic was conducted. The journalistic articles of the two newspapers were included to identify specific frames constructed by the media. The statements found in these documents were assembled and melted down into clearly differing statements, standing for a certain frame on the subject. Each frame was defined by typical statements, keywords and catchphrases. Overall, seven thematic frames and nine position frames were identified. 3.3. Coding categories To facilitate the quantitative analysis, the statements referring to the identified frames were divided into the three frame categories ‘diagnosis’, ‘prognosis’ and ‘motivation’. These categories were deducted from the research on social movements (Benford & Snow, 2000, pp. 615–618). Diagnosis refers to statements identifying the nature of the problem. Prognosis statements offer solutions for the identified problem. Motivational statements identify which goals are pursued with the proposed solution. All three-frame categories were coded separately for each frame. Every statement in these categories could be related to a specific thematic and position frame. For example the quote ‘we are competing internationally for the best’ would be put into the thematic frame ‘labour migration’ and the position frame ‘economic interests’. A new frame was recorded when at least one of three general frame categories (diagnosis, prognosis, motivation) changed. For every article and press release as many as five frames were noted. For each frame, the source of the frame was recorded. In the data analysis, the three frame categories were connected again in order to make conclusions about the frames as a combination of the three categories. They were merged by defining them as a set of ‘multiple responses’. This assured that every category was considered at equal weight in the analysis. However, this caused certain restrictions in the data analysis, as statistical tests such as χ2 could not be used. The coding was conducted by one researcher. Intra-coder reliability was tested by a second coding of 20 articles, showing a coefficient of 0.87 for the frame categories. 4. Results 4.1. Thematic frames: public relations frames in the press coverage related to subtopics and thematic aspects In order to influence which aspects of an issue are given attention during a political and/or public discussion, political players put the issue into certain thematic frames. Seventy percent of the frames in the newspaper articles were cited as statements from politicians or political parties. Only 23% of the frames were statements from journalists themselves. Other players, for example churches, civic organizations and NGOs, were only cited as sources in 7% of the frames. This shows that during the immigration debate the examined media relied heavily on the information of the political players in the German administration and in the major political parties. The political players dominating the debate were the government (22%), the major party of the governing coalition, SPD (22%), and the two major opposition parties, the conservative ‘union’ parties (the Union 11%, CDU 20%, CSU 13%). The small parties were, compared to the bigger political players, far less often cited as frame sources (Greens 7%, FDP 6%, PDS 3%). This means that they were probably less able to bring their perspectives and positions on immigration into the media and to the public’s attention. The results show that in their PR material, the political players divided the general issue of ‘immigration’ into different thematic frames (Table 1). While the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Free Democratic Party (FDP) focused on the issue of labour migration, the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Green Party (B90/Gruene) and Party of Democratic Socialists (PDS) gave particular attention to the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. Over against these issues, the German Interior Ministry and the CDU focused on the subtopic of the integration of immigrants into German society. Overall, the majority of the political players in the study gave most of their attention to four subtopics of the immigration issue: immigration in general, labour migration, refugees, and the integration of immigrants into German society. The three remaining thematic frames tended to receive far less attention than the others (Table 1). Only the
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
21
Table 1 Thematic frames in press releases (PR material) Thematic frames
Immigration (general) Migration of labour Refugees/asylum seekers Integration of immigrants Family reunions Ethnic German immigrants (‘Aussiedler’) Illegal migrants Totalc
Government and ruling coalition (%)
Opposition (%)
BMI (n = 75)
CDUa
SPD (n = 142)
27 7 16 29 6b 14
25 38 13 20 4 X
1b
–
100
B90/Greens (n = 79)
(n = 133)
18 18 40 16 7 –
18 23 15 31 7 6
2b
100
101
CSU (n = 75)
FDP (n = 146)
25 10 25 21 7 11 1b
– 100
100
PDS (n = 79)
26 44 16 12 – 2b
18 8 53 16 2b –
–
2b
100
99
Total (n = 729)
22 24 22 21 5 3 2 99
Basis: all frame categories (diagnostic, motivational, prognostic; multiple response) in the press releases of political parties. X = less than 0.5%. a Figure includes press releases from the CDU/CSU parliamentary faction. b Less than five occasions. c Totals less or greater than 100% result from rounding.
German Interior Ministry and the CSU party went against this trend. Both the BMI and the CSU additionally gave a relatively large amount of attention to the issue of the ‘Aussiedler’, immigrants of German ethnic descent, and far less attention to the issue of labour migration. They emphasized an aspect of the immigration debate that was outside of an issue consensus seen in the communications of the other political players. We will discuss this finding in more detail later. In a second step, we looked at how often the political players were directly associated with their preferred frames in the media coverage. To measure the extent to which the media frames corresponded to the original PR messages, the frames were ranked according to how often they appeared in the material. The rankings on the basis of the PR material was compared to the ranking on the basis of party-related media coverage by using Spearman’s rho coefficient. Table 2 shows a strong correlation between the ranking of frames in the original PR material and in news articles where the political players were cited. As mentioned earlier in this study, each of the political players focused on the different aspects of ‘immigration’. The correlation level of subtopics was between 0.7 and 0.95 percent for most of the political players which indicates that the media often used the players’ perspectives to construct their frames. Only two political players, the PDS and the BMI, were shown to have significantly lower levels of correlation than the others. In the case of the PDS, one of the smaller parties, the low level of correlation may result from the low number of articles dealing with the policy of this party. In the case of the BMI, it may result from the fact that this political player emphasized an aspect of the immigration debate that was outside of the general issue consensus among the other players. But this was also true for CSU (see Table 2). However, the CSU had a higher level of correlation between thematic frames in its PR and the media coverage than the BMI. Overall, one gets the impression that the BMI, unlike the political parties, was ineffective at communicating its preferred thematic frames into the media.
Table 2 Correlation between thematic frames in PR and media coverage (ranked according to Spearman’s rho) Government and ruling coalition BMI FAZ SZ
0.57 0.43
Opposition
SPD
B90/Greens
0.86c 0.86c
0.76 0.76
Number of ranking positions: n = 7. a Includes the combined CDU/CSU parliamentary faction. b Very low number of frames in the media coverage (FAZ: n = 12; SZ: n = 12). c Double-sided significance, p < 0.05.
CDUa 0.71 0.95c
CSU
FDP
PDSb
0.7 0.81c
0.7 0.71
0.67 0.49
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
22
The correlation levels between the two national newspapers SZ and FAZ were similar and in some cases almost identical. This does not necessarily mean that the two newspapers focused on exactly the same thematic frames. It does however indicate that both newspapers generally accepted and transported the frame preferences of the political players—even if these newspapers have a different editorial policy. As mentioned earlier, the FAZ has a more conservative orientation, while the SZ is more liberal and slightly left-wing orientated. Whether or not the political players were also able to go beyond this ‘thematic’ success and effectively promote their positions and solutions to the issue of immigration is the next question to be discussed. 4.2. Position frames: public relations frames in the press coverage related to positions and solutions While an analysis of thematic frames can provide us with information about which aspects of a general issue are dominating a debate, position frames tell us which positions or plans for solutions the political players try to communicate. Concerning these position frames, the political players show significant differences. They can be divided into two groups (Table 3). Most of the political players including the BMI positioned themselves as supporters of a change of German immigration laws, while the two right of centre “Union” parties did not. And while the parties of the ruling coalition government, SPD and the Green Party, expressed their belief in the benefits of integrating immigrants, the positions of the two major opposition parties CDU and CSU (=the Union) was more restrictive. Within their position-frames, they emphasized restrictions on immigration, the precedence of other issues (such as unemployment and family values for example) over immigration, and the difficulties and problems of integrating immigrants into Germany’s society in their positions. For the Green Party, the PDS and also BMI, the dominant aspect of their positions on immigration as presented in their PR-material was support for Germany’s humanitarian responsibility to aid refugees and ‘Aussiedler’. The FDP’s position was centred primarily on two factors, ‘economic interests’ (30%) and ‘administrative questions’ and procedures leading to immigration reform (27%). Unique among the political players was the position of the Social Democrats (SPD). Their communication was less focussed. They gave four separate frames almost equal attention in their communication (‘precedence of other issues’, ‘economic interests’, ‘humanitarian responsibilities’, and the ‘benefits of integration’) and stressed the importance of introducing a new immigration policy while at the same time emphasizing the precedence of other issues. While the other parties had clearly polarized positions on the issue, the SPD seemed to try addressing different target groups at the same time––even at the price of a contradictory communication. Next we examined how the position frames in the political players’ PR-material correlated to the frames used in the newspaper articles. For most parties, a strong correlation between these two sets of frames was discovered (Table 4). Table 3 Position frames in press releases (PR material) Position frames
New policy necessary Economic interests Humanitarian responsibility Benefits of integration Precedence of other issues Restrictive approach Difficulties of integration Administrative questions Policy on European level Totalc
Government and ruling coalition (%)
Opposition (%)
BMI (n = 75)
CDUa (n = 133)
17 5b 24 15 – 15 8 15 1b 100
SPD (n = 142) 23 14 14 16 16 3b 4 10 – 100
B90/Greens (n = 79) 16 13 42 9 – 1b 3b 16 – 100
3b 8 7 8 14 32 13 13 2b 100
CSU (n = 75) 7 1b 8 8 10 48 8 11 – 101
FDP (n = 146)
PDS (n = 79)
24 30 7 6 3b 1b 1b 27 1b 100
19 5b 55 14 – – – 8 – 101
Basis: all frame categories (diagnostic, motivational, prognostic; multiple response) in the press releases of political parties. a Includes press releases from the CDU/CSU parliamentary faction. b Fewer than five cases. c Figures greater than 100% result from rounding.
Total (n = 729)
16 13 19 11 7 13 5 15 1 100
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
23
Table 4 Correlation between position frames in PR and press coverage Government and ruling coalition
FAZ SZ
Opposition
BMI
SPD
B90/Greens
CDUa
CSU
FDP
PDSb
0.68 0.71c
−0.03 0.2
0.93c 0.67
0.55 0.85c
0.58 0.85c
0.66 0.81c
0.77c 0.72c
Number of ranking positions: n = 9. a Includes the combined CDU/CSU parliamentary faction. b Very low number of frames related to politicians (frames) in the media coverage (FAZ: n = 12; SZ: n = 12). c Double-sided significance, p < 0.05.
Once again, the political players were quite successful at placing their preferred frames (in this case position frames) into the media. This is true of all the political players except for the SPD. The SPD showed only a marginally positive correlation value in one of the newspapers, the S¨uddeutsche Zeitung, and an even slightly negative value in the other paper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. An explanation of this may be the fact that the SPD, as already mentioned, chose not to focus on specific frames, but instead to take a broader position. This strategy, if it was an intentional strategy, was clearly ineffective. The correlation analysis has shown that the frame preferences of the political players were in most cases taken over by the newspapers. However, to go beyond the restrictions of the correlation analysis, the position frames in press releases and newspaper articles related to the two most important political parties CDU and SPD were analysed in detail. This can show to what extent the journalists used their power as gatekeepers to alter the meanings of the original messages from these two political players (Table 5). Some of the position frames demonstrate clear differences between the PR of the two political players and the partyrelated media coverage. The SPD’s and CDU’s position frames did not always make their way through the gatekeepers and into the media unaltered. To the contrary, in some cases the media coverage seemed to emphasize the opposite position of the PR material: The frame ‘New policy necessary’ was a significant part of the SPD’s communication but it played only a minor role in the two newspapers’ coverage of the SPD. In contrast to this, while the CDU did not stress the necessity of changes in immigration law in its press releases, the FAZ newspaper emphasized this position frame in its party coverage and it also played a certain role in the SZ coverage. Clearly, the SPD was more often affected by this reversal of ranking in its position frames than the CDU, more so in the conservative FAZ than in the SZ. For this finding there are several possible explanations. One explanation may be the SPD’s position in its PR material, which was less focused than that of the CDU. Table 5 Position frames connected to the SPD und CDU, taken from press releases and media coverage Position frames
PR (n = 142) New policy necessary Economic interests Humanitarian responsibility Benefits of integration Precedence of other issues Restrictive approach Difficulties of integration Administrative questions Policy on European level Totalc
CDU framesa (%)
SPD frames (%)
23 14 14 16 16 3b 4 10 – 100
FAZ (n = 84) 5b 20 7 11 12 15 11 19 – 100
SZ (n = 77)
PR (n = 133)
5b
3b
10 29 8 10 8 7 21 3b
8 7 8 14 32 13 13 2b
101
100
FAZ (n = 142) 21 6 1b 2b 15 32 10 10 3 100
SZ (n = 107) 9 8 2b 5 16 23 13 23 – 99
Basis: all three framing categories (diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational; multiple response) found in the media coverage of the FAZ and SZ. a Includes the CDU/CSU parliamentary faction. b Fewer than five cases. c Figures less or greater than 100% result from rounding.
24
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
Another explanation may be differences between the parties’ preferred position frames on the one hand and the newspapers’ editorial orientation on the other: journalists and editors may have attempted to show the individual political players in a particular (positive or negative) light to support or to downplay the parties’ positions, for example when the more conservative FAZ connected the CDU with immigration law reform and the SPD with restrictive approach to immigration. One final explanation for the difference between the big parties’ position and the media coverage may be independent research done by the journalists. It is quite possible that journalists hoping to bring something new or surprising into the news may have intentionally or unintentionally come across facts beyond of the respective mainstream positions of the two largest political players. This is what Shoemaker, Chang, and Brendlinger (1987) termed “deviance as a news factor.” 5. Discussion This study has found a high correlation between PR messages and media content. A correlation generally does not allow to establish a causal relationship. Even though, it can be considered as an indicator that this causal linkage exists in this case, whereas PR messages are the cause and media content the effect. Taking the following into account, such a causal linkage appears to be very pausible: Political parties establish their programmatic agenda and manifesto through a long and intensive internal policy negotiation process. This process can be influenced by media coverage or by public opinion, respectively. This, however, does not mean that political parties derive their manifesto from the media coverage. Thus, the programmatic agenda of political parties communicated in PR material like press releases represents the official political positions of these parties rather than a respective media opinion or public opinion. The parties in turn try to insert their programmatic agenda into the media. The ability to effectively communicate a programmatic agenda to the public via the media is an important prerequisite to garnering public support for a political player and, thus a first indicator of PR success. However, it remains difficult to analyse the transfer of information from PR to press. The main problem is the lack, in both PR research and practice, of a clear concept on how to quantify PR success. For example, as a previous study of the authors on the same debate on immigration policy has shown (Fr¨ohlich & R¨udiger, 2004), unaltered messages from the press releases were seldom directly used in the press coverage, meaning press releases were not a significant source of direct quotes during the debate. This could be hastily taken as a sign for the failure of political PR. Instead, this study shows how the framing concept can be applied as a gainful approach to measure the level of effectiveness of PR actions in more detail and beyond the search for directly quoted PR material. Consequently, this study regards press releases as a PR tool used to communicate positions and perspectives (=frames) into the media. It compares the political frames of the PR material and the press coverage. In doing so, the findings of this framing study suggest that the political players in the German immigration debate were effective in placing their preferred frames in the media and, respectively, being related to these frames. In general, both the thematic frames as well as the position frames of the political players were reflected in the media coverage of the FAZ and SZ. This can be considered an indicator or measurement of PR success. However, the detailed frame analysis of the PR and news coverage of the two major parties, SPD and CDU, showed that journalists by no means merely assimilate the frames they receive from political PR. They alter the focuses of some frames or add their own focuses. The amount of these alterations seems to be connected to two factors: One factor is the general thematic consensus in public debate: Positions outside this general consensus will often be ‘framed out’ by journalists. The second factor is the more or less clearly expressed focus of positions in the political players’ PR: When political players choose to communicate broad and unfocused positions (like the Social Democratic Party in this case study), they obviously run a greater risk that the messages in media coverage related to them will not correspond to their very own perspectives. This study indicates that it is worthwhile to invest in developing a framing-based instrument for the measurement of PR success. Such a framing-based instrument would also benefit the ‘Siamese twin’ of PR evaluation research, namely research investigating whether and in what ways PR influence might threaten free and independent media coverage. References Benford Robert, D., & Snow David, A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
25
Berkowitz, D. (1993). Work rules and news selection in local TV: Examining the business–journalism dialectic. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 67–81. Callaghan, K., & Schnell, F. (2001). Assessing the democratic debate: How the news media frame elite policy discourse. Political Communication, 18, 107–122. Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Curtin, P. A. (1997). Public relations and the production of news: Critical review and theoretical framework. Communication year book, 20, 111–115. Cohen, S., & Young, J. (1973). The manufacture of news, deviance, social problems and the mass media. Newbury Park: Sage. Curtin, P. A. (1999). Reevaluating public relations information subsidies. Market-driven journalism and agenda-building theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, 53–90. Curtin, P. A., & Rhodenbaugh, E. (2001). Building the news media agenda on the environment: A comparison of public relations and journalistic sources. Public Relations Review, 27, 179–195. Davis, A. (2000). Public relations, news production and changing patterns of source access in the British national media. Media, Culture & Society, 22(1), 39–60. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. Fr¨ohlich, R., & R¨udiger, B. (2004). Determinierungsforschung zwischen PR-“Erfolg” und PR-“Einfluss” [Determination research between PR success and PR influence]. In J. Raupp & J. Klewes (Eds.), Quo vadis public relations? (pp. 125–141). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row. Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205–242. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Knight, M. G. (1999). Getting past the impasse: Framing as a tool for public relations. Public Relations Review, 25, 381–398. Macnamara, J. (1993). Public relations & the media. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Deakin University, Australia. ¨ Neidhardt, F. (1994). Offentlichkeit, o¨ ffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen [The public, public opinion, and social movements]. In F. Neid¨ hardt (Ed.), Offentlichkeit, o¨ ffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen [The public, public opinion, and social movements] (pp. 7–14). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (2001). Framing as a strategic action in public deliberation. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life. Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 35–65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Reber, B. H., & Berger, B. K. (2005). Framing analysis of activist rhetoric: How the Sierra Club succeeds or fails at creating salient messages. Public Relations Review, 31, 185–195. Scheufele, B. (2000). ‘Scattered’ or related – clarifying the framing concept by integrating related approaches? In H.-B. Brosius (Ed.), Kommunikation u¨ ber Grenzen und Kulturen [Communication across borders and cultural divides] (pp. 381–396). Konstanz: UVK. Shoemaker, P., Chang, T. -K., & Brendlinger, N. (1987). Deviance as a predictor of newsworthiness: Coverage of international events in the U.S. media. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 10, pp. 348–365). Newbury Park: Sage. Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1991). Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content. New York: Longman. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–218. VanSlyke Turk, J. (1988). Public relations’ influence on the news. In R. E. Hiebert (Ed.), Precision pubic relations (pp. 224–239). New York: Longman. Zawawi, C. (2001). Feeding the watchdogs—An analysis of relationships between Australian public relations practitioners and journalists. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Queensland University of Technology.
Framing political public relations: Measuring success of political communication strategies in Germany Romy Froehlich ∗ , Burkhard R¨udiger 1 Institut fuer Kommunikationswissenschaft, University of Munich, 80538 Muenchen, Germany Received 17 December 2004; received in revised form 15 October 2005; accepted 29 October 2005
Abstract The main goal of political public relations is the use of media outlets to communicate specific political interpretations of issues in the hope of garnering public support for political policies. This study elaborates on the question how successful political PR is at bringing its specific perspectives into the media. It uses the ‘framing’ concept to analyse the meanings and contexts of media coverage and political PR during the national debate on immigration in Germany between May 2000 and March 2002. The results show a high level of correlation between the preferred thematic and position frames of the political players and those in the press coverage. Yet, the media examined clearly did not have a passive relationship to PR. The findings indicate that journalists tend to use their power to alter PR messages when the communications from political players do not have a distinct focus and/or when the PR focuses were not among the (mainstream) aspects dominating the general political debate. © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Political communication; Political campaigning; Communication strategies; Framing; PR influence; PR success; PR evaluation
1. Introduction Public relations, and in particular political public relations, performs a public service by bringing issues to the public’s attention. Decades of research have shed light on this function of public relations and its success in shaping the topic selection and production of news media (for example Berkowitz, 1993; Cameron, Sallot, & Curtin, 1997; Cohen & Young, 1973; Curtin, 1999; Curtin & Rhodenbaugh, 2001; Davis, 2000; Macnamara, 1993; Shoemaker & Reese, 1991; VanSlyke Turk, 1988; see also Zawawi, 2001). However, the goals of political PR extend beyond bringing attention to or away from political issues. Instead, the main goal of political PR is the use of media outlets to communicate specific political views, solutions and interpretations of issues in the hope of garnering public support for political policies or campaigns. Political PR follows not only thematic strategies, but also persuasion strategies, as described by Neidhardt (1994): “Statements must seem correct, explanations must seem plausible, evaluations must seem legitimate, and actions must seem necessary and advantageous” (p. 18). Thus, a content-based evaluation of political PR cannot be reduced to an analysis of themes or issues alone. Instead, the aim of advanced PR evaluation research should be to examine the complex perspectives, interpretations and contexts of issues in the PR source material and in media coverage. The framing concept is an ideal method for this ∗ 1
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 89 2180 9454/9457; fax: +49 89 2180 9014. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Froehlich), [email protected] (B. R¨udiger). Tel.: +49 89 2180 9454/9457; fax: +49 89 2180 9014.
0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.10.003
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
19
task. This contribution tries to show how the framing theory can be applied to the evaluation of political communication strategies. 2. The framing concept in public relations research The framing concept is used increasingly in public relations research (see for example Callaghan & Schnell, 2001; Knight, 1999; Reber & Berger, 2005). Nevertheless, it is still what Entman (1993) has referred to as a “fractured paradigm”, being used differently in different scientific contexts and areas, ranging from economical research to sociology, from psychology to communication science (Scheufele, 2000). This study is based on the sociological perspective of Goffman’s (1974) ‘Frame Analysis’: Frames are patterns used to categorize experience and information. Put differently, frames are “interpretative packages” (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989) that establish the perimeters, which give a discussion directions, positions and a specific purpose. The framing concept assumes that the presence, emphasis on, or combination of the various aspects of an issue influences the way it is perceived by journalists and the public (Iyengar, 1991). In sociology, framing is used to study the communication of modern social movements (Benford & Snow, 2000; Snow & Benford, 1988). Framing is seen as a mobilisation strategy: Organisations attempt to bring their frames on an issue into public debate, in the hope of winning public support and action. Politicians, too, have to campaign for the sympathy and support of the public. Therefore, the goal of political PR is to gain as much support for a specific political position/frame as possible (Pan & Kosicki, 2001). In other words, the political players have to establish “common frames of reference” with their target groups (Hallahan, 1999, p. 207). The prerequisite for this is to effectively communicate the frames––that is, to be related to these frames in the media coverage. Therefore, the ability of the political players in bringing their frames unaltered into the media is an indicator of PR success. This study compares the frames communicated by political players with the frames the media relate with these political players. The frame analysis distinguishes two levels of framing: First, thematic frames look at which thematic aspects or subtopics of an issue are brought into focus by PR and press coverage. By emphasizing certain aspects of an issues while ignoring others, thematic frames provide an interpretation on how an issue should be seen and discussed in public debate. The analysis of thematic frames was conducted as a detailed analysis of subtopics. The second type of frames are position frames. Position frames encompass the specific political definitions of the problem, the positions that are connected to an issue or subtopic along with political plans or solutions to issue related problems and a specific ideological or political outlook taken on the issue. As public support for political ideas and programs largely depends on a consensus about how a problem is to be defined and solved, and how it is to be interpreted from an ideological point of view, position frames are especially interesting for the study of success of political PR. 3. Methodology and layout of the study 3.1. Sample This study compares frames in press releases and media coverage based on a case study of the political debate over immigration policy in Germany from May 2000 and March 2002. This subject was selected because it generated a very controversial, ideological public debate with extensive media coverage and the political parties taking clear, well-defined positions. During the period of time examined, samples from the press releases and newspaper reports were collected one week before and after relevant events, during so called “critical discourse moments” (Gamson, 1992, p. 26)––that is, events likely to change the course of the whole debate and generating high media interest. Eighteen such events were identified, most of them important parliamentary debates and the releasing of position papers on the issue by the different parties. The PR materials used in the study were press releases from the major German political parties represented in the German parliament (‘Bundestag’) and from the German Interior Ministry (‘Bundesministerium des Innern’, BMI). The analysed news material came from the politics sections of Germany’s two most respected newspapers, the more conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) and the more liberal S¨uddeutsche Zeitung (SZ). In total, 138 press releases and 273 newspaper reports were analysed.
20
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
3.2. Identification of frames Preliminary to the quantitative analysis, the specific frames used in the political debate on immigration policy had to be identified. Therefore, a qualitative content analysis of policy documents of the parties and newspaper editorials on this topic was conducted. The journalistic articles of the two newspapers were included to identify specific frames constructed by the media. The statements found in these documents were assembled and melted down into clearly differing statements, standing for a certain frame on the subject. Each frame was defined by typical statements, keywords and catchphrases. Overall, seven thematic frames and nine position frames were identified. 3.3. Coding categories To facilitate the quantitative analysis, the statements referring to the identified frames were divided into the three frame categories ‘diagnosis’, ‘prognosis’ and ‘motivation’. These categories were deducted from the research on social movements (Benford & Snow, 2000, pp. 615–618). Diagnosis refers to statements identifying the nature of the problem. Prognosis statements offer solutions for the identified problem. Motivational statements identify which goals are pursued with the proposed solution. All three-frame categories were coded separately for each frame. Every statement in these categories could be related to a specific thematic and position frame. For example the quote ‘we are competing internationally for the best’ would be put into the thematic frame ‘labour migration’ and the position frame ‘economic interests’. A new frame was recorded when at least one of three general frame categories (diagnosis, prognosis, motivation) changed. For every article and press release as many as five frames were noted. For each frame, the source of the frame was recorded. In the data analysis, the three frame categories were connected again in order to make conclusions about the frames as a combination of the three categories. They were merged by defining them as a set of ‘multiple responses’. This assured that every category was considered at equal weight in the analysis. However, this caused certain restrictions in the data analysis, as statistical tests such as χ2 could not be used. The coding was conducted by one researcher. Intra-coder reliability was tested by a second coding of 20 articles, showing a coefficient of 0.87 for the frame categories. 4. Results 4.1. Thematic frames: public relations frames in the press coverage related to subtopics and thematic aspects In order to influence which aspects of an issue are given attention during a political and/or public discussion, political players put the issue into certain thematic frames. Seventy percent of the frames in the newspaper articles were cited as statements from politicians or political parties. Only 23% of the frames were statements from journalists themselves. Other players, for example churches, civic organizations and NGOs, were only cited as sources in 7% of the frames. This shows that during the immigration debate the examined media relied heavily on the information of the political players in the German administration and in the major political parties. The political players dominating the debate were the government (22%), the major party of the governing coalition, SPD (22%), and the two major opposition parties, the conservative ‘union’ parties (the Union 11%, CDU 20%, CSU 13%). The small parties were, compared to the bigger political players, far less often cited as frame sources (Greens 7%, FDP 6%, PDS 3%). This means that they were probably less able to bring their perspectives and positions on immigration into the media and to the public’s attention. The results show that in their PR material, the political players divided the general issue of ‘immigration’ into different thematic frames (Table 1). While the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Free Democratic Party (FDP) focused on the issue of labour migration, the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Green Party (B90/Gruene) and Party of Democratic Socialists (PDS) gave particular attention to the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. Over against these issues, the German Interior Ministry and the CDU focused on the subtopic of the integration of immigrants into German society. Overall, the majority of the political players in the study gave most of their attention to four subtopics of the immigration issue: immigration in general, labour migration, refugees, and the integration of immigrants into German society. The three remaining thematic frames tended to receive far less attention than the others (Table 1). Only the
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
21
Table 1 Thematic frames in press releases (PR material) Thematic frames
Immigration (general) Migration of labour Refugees/asylum seekers Integration of immigrants Family reunions Ethnic German immigrants (‘Aussiedler’) Illegal migrants Totalc
Government and ruling coalition (%)
Opposition (%)
BMI (n = 75)
CDUa
SPD (n = 142)
27 7 16 29 6b 14
25 38 13 20 4 X
1b
–
100
B90/Greens (n = 79)
(n = 133)
18 18 40 16 7 –
18 23 15 31 7 6
2b
100
101
CSU (n = 75)
FDP (n = 146)
25 10 25 21 7 11 1b
– 100
100
PDS (n = 79)
26 44 16 12 – 2b
18 8 53 16 2b –
–
2b
100
99
Total (n = 729)
22 24 22 21 5 3 2 99
Basis: all frame categories (diagnostic, motivational, prognostic; multiple response) in the press releases of political parties. X = less than 0.5%. a Figure includes press releases from the CDU/CSU parliamentary faction. b Less than five occasions. c Totals less or greater than 100% result from rounding.
German Interior Ministry and the CSU party went against this trend. Both the BMI and the CSU additionally gave a relatively large amount of attention to the issue of the ‘Aussiedler’, immigrants of German ethnic descent, and far less attention to the issue of labour migration. They emphasized an aspect of the immigration debate that was outside of an issue consensus seen in the communications of the other political players. We will discuss this finding in more detail later. In a second step, we looked at how often the political players were directly associated with their preferred frames in the media coverage. To measure the extent to which the media frames corresponded to the original PR messages, the frames were ranked according to how often they appeared in the material. The rankings on the basis of the PR material was compared to the ranking on the basis of party-related media coverage by using Spearman’s rho coefficient. Table 2 shows a strong correlation between the ranking of frames in the original PR material and in news articles where the political players were cited. As mentioned earlier in this study, each of the political players focused on the different aspects of ‘immigration’. The correlation level of subtopics was between 0.7 and 0.95 percent for most of the political players which indicates that the media often used the players’ perspectives to construct their frames. Only two political players, the PDS and the BMI, were shown to have significantly lower levels of correlation than the others. In the case of the PDS, one of the smaller parties, the low level of correlation may result from the low number of articles dealing with the policy of this party. In the case of the BMI, it may result from the fact that this political player emphasized an aspect of the immigration debate that was outside of the general issue consensus among the other players. But this was also true for CSU (see Table 2). However, the CSU had a higher level of correlation between thematic frames in its PR and the media coverage than the BMI. Overall, one gets the impression that the BMI, unlike the political parties, was ineffective at communicating its preferred thematic frames into the media.
Table 2 Correlation between thematic frames in PR and media coverage (ranked according to Spearman’s rho) Government and ruling coalition BMI FAZ SZ
0.57 0.43
Opposition
SPD
B90/Greens
0.86c 0.86c
0.76 0.76
Number of ranking positions: n = 7. a Includes the combined CDU/CSU parliamentary faction. b Very low number of frames in the media coverage (FAZ: n = 12; SZ: n = 12). c Double-sided significance, p < 0.05.
CDUa 0.71 0.95c
CSU
FDP
PDSb
0.7 0.81c
0.7 0.71
0.67 0.49
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
22
The correlation levels between the two national newspapers SZ and FAZ were similar and in some cases almost identical. This does not necessarily mean that the two newspapers focused on exactly the same thematic frames. It does however indicate that both newspapers generally accepted and transported the frame preferences of the political players—even if these newspapers have a different editorial policy. As mentioned earlier, the FAZ has a more conservative orientation, while the SZ is more liberal and slightly left-wing orientated. Whether or not the political players were also able to go beyond this ‘thematic’ success and effectively promote their positions and solutions to the issue of immigration is the next question to be discussed. 4.2. Position frames: public relations frames in the press coverage related to positions and solutions While an analysis of thematic frames can provide us with information about which aspects of a general issue are dominating a debate, position frames tell us which positions or plans for solutions the political players try to communicate. Concerning these position frames, the political players show significant differences. They can be divided into two groups (Table 3). Most of the political players including the BMI positioned themselves as supporters of a change of German immigration laws, while the two right of centre “Union” parties did not. And while the parties of the ruling coalition government, SPD and the Green Party, expressed their belief in the benefits of integrating immigrants, the positions of the two major opposition parties CDU and CSU (=the Union) was more restrictive. Within their position-frames, they emphasized restrictions on immigration, the precedence of other issues (such as unemployment and family values for example) over immigration, and the difficulties and problems of integrating immigrants into Germany’s society in their positions. For the Green Party, the PDS and also BMI, the dominant aspect of their positions on immigration as presented in their PR-material was support for Germany’s humanitarian responsibility to aid refugees and ‘Aussiedler’. The FDP’s position was centred primarily on two factors, ‘economic interests’ (30%) and ‘administrative questions’ and procedures leading to immigration reform (27%). Unique among the political players was the position of the Social Democrats (SPD). Their communication was less focussed. They gave four separate frames almost equal attention in their communication (‘precedence of other issues’, ‘economic interests’, ‘humanitarian responsibilities’, and the ‘benefits of integration’) and stressed the importance of introducing a new immigration policy while at the same time emphasizing the precedence of other issues. While the other parties had clearly polarized positions on the issue, the SPD seemed to try addressing different target groups at the same time––even at the price of a contradictory communication. Next we examined how the position frames in the political players’ PR-material correlated to the frames used in the newspaper articles. For most parties, a strong correlation between these two sets of frames was discovered (Table 4). Table 3 Position frames in press releases (PR material) Position frames
New policy necessary Economic interests Humanitarian responsibility Benefits of integration Precedence of other issues Restrictive approach Difficulties of integration Administrative questions Policy on European level Totalc
Government and ruling coalition (%)
Opposition (%)
BMI (n = 75)
CDUa (n = 133)
17 5b 24 15 – 15 8 15 1b 100
SPD (n = 142) 23 14 14 16 16 3b 4 10 – 100
B90/Greens (n = 79) 16 13 42 9 – 1b 3b 16 – 100
3b 8 7 8 14 32 13 13 2b 100
CSU (n = 75) 7 1b 8 8 10 48 8 11 – 101
FDP (n = 146)
PDS (n = 79)
24 30 7 6 3b 1b 1b 27 1b 100
19 5b 55 14 – – – 8 – 101
Basis: all frame categories (diagnostic, motivational, prognostic; multiple response) in the press releases of political parties. a Includes press releases from the CDU/CSU parliamentary faction. b Fewer than five cases. c Figures greater than 100% result from rounding.
Total (n = 729)
16 13 19 11 7 13 5 15 1 100
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
23
Table 4 Correlation between position frames in PR and press coverage Government and ruling coalition
FAZ SZ
Opposition
BMI
SPD
B90/Greens
CDUa
CSU
FDP
PDSb
0.68 0.71c
−0.03 0.2
0.93c 0.67
0.55 0.85c
0.58 0.85c
0.66 0.81c
0.77c 0.72c
Number of ranking positions: n = 9. a Includes the combined CDU/CSU parliamentary faction. b Very low number of frames related to politicians (frames) in the media coverage (FAZ: n = 12; SZ: n = 12). c Double-sided significance, p < 0.05.
Once again, the political players were quite successful at placing their preferred frames (in this case position frames) into the media. This is true of all the political players except for the SPD. The SPD showed only a marginally positive correlation value in one of the newspapers, the S¨uddeutsche Zeitung, and an even slightly negative value in the other paper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. An explanation of this may be the fact that the SPD, as already mentioned, chose not to focus on specific frames, but instead to take a broader position. This strategy, if it was an intentional strategy, was clearly ineffective. The correlation analysis has shown that the frame preferences of the political players were in most cases taken over by the newspapers. However, to go beyond the restrictions of the correlation analysis, the position frames in press releases and newspaper articles related to the two most important political parties CDU and SPD were analysed in detail. This can show to what extent the journalists used their power as gatekeepers to alter the meanings of the original messages from these two political players (Table 5). Some of the position frames demonstrate clear differences between the PR of the two political players and the partyrelated media coverage. The SPD’s and CDU’s position frames did not always make their way through the gatekeepers and into the media unaltered. To the contrary, in some cases the media coverage seemed to emphasize the opposite position of the PR material: The frame ‘New policy necessary’ was a significant part of the SPD’s communication but it played only a minor role in the two newspapers’ coverage of the SPD. In contrast to this, while the CDU did not stress the necessity of changes in immigration law in its press releases, the FAZ newspaper emphasized this position frame in its party coverage and it also played a certain role in the SZ coverage. Clearly, the SPD was more often affected by this reversal of ranking in its position frames than the CDU, more so in the conservative FAZ than in the SZ. For this finding there are several possible explanations. One explanation may be the SPD’s position in its PR material, which was less focused than that of the CDU. Table 5 Position frames connected to the SPD und CDU, taken from press releases and media coverage Position frames
PR (n = 142) New policy necessary Economic interests Humanitarian responsibility Benefits of integration Precedence of other issues Restrictive approach Difficulties of integration Administrative questions Policy on European level Totalc
CDU framesa (%)
SPD frames (%)
23 14 14 16 16 3b 4 10 – 100
FAZ (n = 84) 5b 20 7 11 12 15 11 19 – 100
SZ (n = 77)
PR (n = 133)
5b
3b
10 29 8 10 8 7 21 3b
8 7 8 14 32 13 13 2b
101
100
FAZ (n = 142) 21 6 1b 2b 15 32 10 10 3 100
SZ (n = 107) 9 8 2b 5 16 23 13 23 – 99
Basis: all three framing categories (diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational; multiple response) found in the media coverage of the FAZ and SZ. a Includes the CDU/CSU parliamentary faction. b Fewer than five cases. c Figures less or greater than 100% result from rounding.
24
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
Another explanation may be differences between the parties’ preferred position frames on the one hand and the newspapers’ editorial orientation on the other: journalists and editors may have attempted to show the individual political players in a particular (positive or negative) light to support or to downplay the parties’ positions, for example when the more conservative FAZ connected the CDU with immigration law reform and the SPD with restrictive approach to immigration. One final explanation for the difference between the big parties’ position and the media coverage may be independent research done by the journalists. It is quite possible that journalists hoping to bring something new or surprising into the news may have intentionally or unintentionally come across facts beyond of the respective mainstream positions of the two largest political players. This is what Shoemaker, Chang, and Brendlinger (1987) termed “deviance as a news factor.” 5. Discussion This study has found a high correlation between PR messages and media content. A correlation generally does not allow to establish a causal relationship. Even though, it can be considered as an indicator that this causal linkage exists in this case, whereas PR messages are the cause and media content the effect. Taking the following into account, such a causal linkage appears to be very pausible: Political parties establish their programmatic agenda and manifesto through a long and intensive internal policy negotiation process. This process can be influenced by media coverage or by public opinion, respectively. This, however, does not mean that political parties derive their manifesto from the media coverage. Thus, the programmatic agenda of political parties communicated in PR material like press releases represents the official political positions of these parties rather than a respective media opinion or public opinion. The parties in turn try to insert their programmatic agenda into the media. The ability to effectively communicate a programmatic agenda to the public via the media is an important prerequisite to garnering public support for a political player and, thus a first indicator of PR success. However, it remains difficult to analyse the transfer of information from PR to press. The main problem is the lack, in both PR research and practice, of a clear concept on how to quantify PR success. For example, as a previous study of the authors on the same debate on immigration policy has shown (Fr¨ohlich & R¨udiger, 2004), unaltered messages from the press releases were seldom directly used in the press coverage, meaning press releases were not a significant source of direct quotes during the debate. This could be hastily taken as a sign for the failure of political PR. Instead, this study shows how the framing concept can be applied as a gainful approach to measure the level of effectiveness of PR actions in more detail and beyond the search for directly quoted PR material. Consequently, this study regards press releases as a PR tool used to communicate positions and perspectives (=frames) into the media. It compares the political frames of the PR material and the press coverage. In doing so, the findings of this framing study suggest that the political players in the German immigration debate were effective in placing their preferred frames in the media and, respectively, being related to these frames. In general, both the thematic frames as well as the position frames of the political players were reflected in the media coverage of the FAZ and SZ. This can be considered an indicator or measurement of PR success. However, the detailed frame analysis of the PR and news coverage of the two major parties, SPD and CDU, showed that journalists by no means merely assimilate the frames they receive from political PR. They alter the focuses of some frames or add their own focuses. The amount of these alterations seems to be connected to two factors: One factor is the general thematic consensus in public debate: Positions outside this general consensus will often be ‘framed out’ by journalists. The second factor is the more or less clearly expressed focus of positions in the political players’ PR: When political players choose to communicate broad and unfocused positions (like the Social Democratic Party in this case study), they obviously run a greater risk that the messages in media coverage related to them will not correspond to their very own perspectives. This study indicates that it is worthwhile to invest in developing a framing-based instrument for the measurement of PR success. Such a framing-based instrument would also benefit the ‘Siamese twin’ of PR evaluation research, namely research investigating whether and in what ways PR influence might threaten free and independent media coverage. References Benford Robert, D., & Snow David, A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
R. Froehlich, B. R¨udiger / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 18–25
25
Berkowitz, D. (1993). Work rules and news selection in local TV: Examining the business–journalism dialectic. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 67–81. Callaghan, K., & Schnell, F. (2001). Assessing the democratic debate: How the news media frame elite policy discourse. Political Communication, 18, 107–122. Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Curtin, P. A. (1997). Public relations and the production of news: Critical review and theoretical framework. Communication year book, 20, 111–115. Cohen, S., & Young, J. (1973). The manufacture of news, deviance, social problems and the mass media. Newbury Park: Sage. Curtin, P. A. (1999). Reevaluating public relations information subsidies. Market-driven journalism and agenda-building theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, 53–90. Curtin, P. A., & Rhodenbaugh, E. (2001). Building the news media agenda on the environment: A comparison of public relations and journalistic sources. Public Relations Review, 27, 179–195. Davis, A. (2000). Public relations, news production and changing patterns of source access in the British national media. Media, Culture & Society, 22(1), 39–60. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. Fr¨ohlich, R., & R¨udiger, B. (2004). Determinierungsforschung zwischen PR-“Erfolg” und PR-“Einfluss” [Determination research between PR success and PR influence]. In J. Raupp & J. Klewes (Eds.), Quo vadis public relations? (pp. 125–141). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row. Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205–242. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Knight, M. G. (1999). Getting past the impasse: Framing as a tool for public relations. Public Relations Review, 25, 381–398. Macnamara, J. (1993). Public relations & the media. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Deakin University, Australia. ¨ Neidhardt, F. (1994). Offentlichkeit, o¨ ffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen [The public, public opinion, and social movements]. In F. Neid¨ hardt (Ed.), Offentlichkeit, o¨ ffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen [The public, public opinion, and social movements] (pp. 7–14). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (2001). Framing as a strategic action in public deliberation. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life. Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 35–65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Reber, B. H., & Berger, B. K. (2005). Framing analysis of activist rhetoric: How the Sierra Club succeeds or fails at creating salient messages. Public Relations Review, 31, 185–195. Scheufele, B. (2000). ‘Scattered’ or related – clarifying the framing concept by integrating related approaches? In H.-B. Brosius (Ed.), Kommunikation u¨ ber Grenzen und Kulturen [Communication across borders and cultural divides] (pp. 381–396). Konstanz: UVK. Shoemaker, P., Chang, T. -K., & Brendlinger, N. (1987). Deviance as a predictor of newsworthiness: Coverage of international events in the U.S. media. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 10, pp. 348–365). Newbury Park: Sage. Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1991). Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content. New York: Longman. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–218. VanSlyke Turk, J. (1988). Public relations’ influence on the news. In R. E. Hiebert (Ed.), Precision pubic relations (pp. 224–239). New York: Longman. Zawawi, C. (2001). Feeding the watchdogs—An analysis of relationships between Australian public relations practitioners and journalists. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Queensland University of Technology.