Framing the mass media: Exploring ‘fake news’ as a frame embedded in political discourse Jan R. Riebling* University of Wuppertal, Germany Ina von der Wense* University of Bamberg, Germany The recent growth of alternative media sites and sources has also seen the rise of an aggressive rhetoric decrying mass media or parts thereof as being untrustworthy and politically biased. While it is unclear whether the ‘fake news’ debate is directly connected with this, it is surely a framing of mass media. In this article, we use techniques of quantitative text analysis in order to analyse how the ‘fake news’ frame is structured and to understand its central determinants in terms of social context and political orientation. Using quantitative text analysis, we analyse the frame usage and semantic embeddedness in eight blogs. We find evidence for a generalised frame that tends to be independent of political orientation of the blog. Keywords Alternative media, embedded frames, fake news, quantitative text analysis, structural embeddedness Introduction The mass media are currently facing a crisis of trust (e.g. Denner & Peter, 2017; Schultz et al., 2017; Ziegele et al., 2018). Terms like ‘fake news’ and, in German media, the infamous ‘Lügenpresse’ have seen increased usage in public discourse and in the media (e.g. Bernhard, 2018; Denner & Peter, 2017). While a rational media critique based on a scientific foundation is helpful to improve functional and democratic mass media, spreading conspiracy theories and baseless allegations enlarges the social divide and increases the mistrust in established media (Schultz et al., 2017). In their study about the crisis of trust in German media, Ziegele and colleagues (2018) discovered a deficiency in knowledge about media and their mode of operation – for example, selection of issues, claim for balance and so on – which further increases scepticism towards the German media. This mistrust and disenchantment have led some activists to create their own alternatives to the established mass media (Downing, 2003). This growing divide, coupled with the overall growth of alternative media and sources of information, leads to the question of the state of this relationship. What are its determining factors? Does the social context matter? We try to shed some light on the semantic structure of this possibly antagonistic relationship by trying to reconstruct the framing of mass media from the perspective _______________________________________ * Email: [email protected] * Email: [email protected] 58 Journal of Alternative and Community Media, vol. 4 (2019) of alternative online media. Our central assumption is the dependence of this relationship on the social context of the relationship. This question is addressed using weblogs as a data source and techniques of quantitative text analysis as a methodology. The study is based on the fundamental concept of framing as developed by Erving Goffman (1986) and extended by Robert Entman (e.g. 1993). We supplement this concept by asking how a frame can be thought of and operationalised as being situated within a broader social context as well as embedded within the semantics of an already established discourse. By taking the words and concepts used in the same venue as ‘fake news’ and ‘Lügenpresse’ accusations, we focus on a pretty clearly delimited frame almost exclusively targeted at the mass media. This provides us with a relatively stable and easily identifiable frame, which we then use to develop our methodology for the analysis of the semantic embeddedness of frames. Working from the idea of frames embedded in a broader semantic space, we use a vector space model of text (Salton, 1979) and the spatial technique of latent semantic analysis (Deerwester et al., 1990) to operationalise our central concepts. Two working hypotheses are formulated in order to guide our research effort. First, we assume that the specific structural position in which alternative media sources find themselves with regard to the mass media and each other leads to a common frame that sees little differentiation, depending on who is employing it. Second, pre-existing social and political differentiations should make a difference in terms of framing, how the frame is used and how it is embedded. The role of frames in media research The concept of framing is a relatively new approach in media research and has received increasing attention, particularly in communication studies and in the research into media impacts over the last two decades (e.g. Bonfadelli, 2015; Matthes, 2007, 2014; Pürer, 2014; Scheufele, 1999). When talking about frames and framing, researchers usually refer to Entman’s (1993: 52) widely accepted definition of this concept: To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. Framing thus means to highlight specific aspects while others get pushed to the background. Frames can therefore be seen as offering ‘interpretation patterns’ (Scheufele, 2003: 46) that facilitate the processing of new information and affect the perception of the framed information (e.g. Bonfadelli, 2015; Pürer, 2014; Scheufele, 1999). The way a message is communicated influences how we react to it. Meanwhile, several studies confirm this effect (e.g. Simon & Jerit, 2007; Tversky & Kahneman, 1986). Simon and Jerit (2007), for example, analysed the impact of different wording concerning recipients’ attitudes. They determined that ‘exposure to articles featuring the exclusive use of “baby” or “fetus”, respectively, increased or decreased support for banning abortion’ (Simon & Jerit, 2007: 254). This effect consequently means that frames can be used for strategic purposes. In particular, political actors try to convey and establish their own perspective or interpretation by using specific frames (Matthes, 2007). This is often described as frame-building (e.g. Bonfadelli, 2015; Scheufele, 1999). Despite the tremendous increase in frame research, there is still no consensus concerning theory, and especially methodology (e.g. Jecker, 2014; Matthes & Kohring, 2004, 2008; Scheufele, 1999; Scheufele & Scheufele, 2010). While this line of inquiry has undoubtedly been one of the most productive in media research, recent studies have remarked critically on the lack of social context (Scheufele & Scheufele, 2010). Two dimensions of this critique are of interest to our discussion. First, it has been suggested that the scope of the theory needs to be widened by Riebling and von der Wense: Framing the mass media 59 including political power as a central dimension (Entman, 2007) as well as the multi-level effects produced by the interaction of framing and politics as a form of ‘cascading hierarchies’ (Entman, 2004: 9–13). Second, beyond the political context and power structures, a general lack of social context and a connection to sociological theories have been noted (Entman, 2010; Jecker, 2014). We are trying to address these desiderata by providing a quantitative methodology for the analysis of an embedded frame by focusing on the semantic and social context. From ‘Lügenpresse’ to ‘fake news’ frame In the last few years, the term ‘Lügenpresse’1 has become more important in the political discourse. Particularly due to its popularisation by the PEGIDA movement, ‘Lügenpresse’ turned into a central notion in the political fight for opinion. The right-wing populist PEGIDA movement is a grassroots movement that protests against German and EU immigration policies. Since 2014, it has organised demonstrations in Dresden and other German cities. The concept of ‘Lügenpresse’ can be defined as a term for a general mistrust of the media: it includes mistakes made by journalists as well as accusations of news outlets taking unilateral perspectives or of journalists telling lies and of potential or supposed influence of political or economic players (Ziegele et al., 2018). Donald Trump’s statements and acts against the press in the context of the US election – especially his ‘fake news’ accusations – strengthened this anti-media atmosphere. The German media then intensified their reporting of ‘fake news’ and ‘Lügenpresse’ (Denner & Peter, 2017), and there was talk of a crisis of confidence in the media (e.g. Denner & Peter 2017; Schultz et al., 2017; Ziegele et al., 2018). Most of this criticism lacks any scientific foundation or empirical evidence (Schultz et al., 2017). Recent studies even reject the assumption that confidence in Germany’s media is decreasing (e.g. Schultz et al., 2017; Ziegele et al., 2018). Beyond these current examples, we find a broad range of expressions and terms related to the same underlying idea. Parts (or all) of the media cannot be trusted since they are reporting falsely and are corrupted through political power or ideologies. Therefore we take these words and their attached meanings as a concrete example of an underlying frame, which we venture to call the ‘fake news’ frame. It will serve as our example of the embeddedness of a frame within a broader social context. Compared with media in other countries, the German media are significantly more trusted. This concerns in particular public service broadcasting and (regional) newspapers. At the same time, there is little trust in the internet and especially alternative news media and blogs (Schultz et al., 2017; Ziegele et al., 2018). Yet a significant number of people are still fundamentally opposed to mass media (Ziegele et al., 2018), and they try to convince others that they are being lied to by the media (Schultz et al., 2017). These oppositionists attempt to resist opposite views and negative media reports, and tend to over-estimate the effects of media on attitudes (Neumann, 2015). By concentrating on this media-critical minority, media and public discourse tend to make them appear much more important than they actually are. Schultz and colleagues (2017) see an inherent danger in such a distorted perception (pluralistic ignorance).