Framing Contests 1

This is a preprinted version of an article published in International Journal of Strategic

Communication.

For complete citation with link to published article:

Ihlen, Ø., & Nitz, M. (2008). Framing contests in environmental disputes: Paying attention to

media and cultural master frames. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 2(1), 1-

18

Framing Contests in Environmental Disputes:

Paying Attention to Media and Cultural Master Frames

Øyvind Ihlen

University of Oslo

&

Mike Nitz

Augustana College

Abstract: Few researchers have studied the contests between organizational

sponsors’ different frames and their reception in the media. This paper builds on a

case study that illustrates a potential problem for strategic communicators: The media

largely ignored the frames of the organizational actors. Instead a typical media frame,

the “horse race frame,” was used. Communications professionals have to pay

attention to such media frames, but it is also suggested that practitioners are more

likely to succeed if it is possible to strategically construct master frames, that is,

frames with a wider cultural resonance than issue-specific frames.

Framing Contests 2

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few decades, the concepts of frames and framing have gained popularity

in social science as a way of analyzing media content and media impact (Entman, 2003;

Gamson, 1992; Iyengar, 1991; Johnson-Cartree, 2004; Reese, Gandy, & Grant, 2001/2003, p.

73). The basic idea is that a frame provides context and promotes a certain understanding of a

phenomenon.

Framing theory has also been applied in analyses of strategic communication (i.e.,

Andsager & Smiley, 1998; Chapman Perkins, 2005; Hallahan, 1999, 2004; Hiebert, 2003;

Knight, 1997; Lundy, 2006; Reber & Berger, 2005). As phrased by Hallahan, “the

establishment of common frames of reference about topics or issues of mutual concern is a

necessary condition for effective relations to be established” (original emphasis) (1999, p.

207). Still, as the latter author also points out, knowledge about the dynamic nature of such

framing processes is scarce. Even less is known about framing contests in which

organizations compete to get their frames across on the media arena and how the media treat

these frames and framing efforts. With the help of a case study we analyze the “clash”

between the different frames of the involved actors, including the media. The following

research questions are asked: How did the Norwegian petroleum industry and the

environmental movement frame the debate over access to two particular contested areas?

How did the media portray these frames?

The first part of the paper is a theoretical discussion that gives a short overview of the

framing literature and the approach that will be followed in this paper. The second part

discusses the methodology, before the case itself is analyzed. The last part of the paper is a

discussion that summarizes the analysis, links it to the broader discussion on framing, and

points to further avenues for research.

Framing Contests 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

The concept of frames has been used in a whole range of academic disciplines,

including psychology, sociology, political science, communication, and media studies. It

originated within psychology and cognitive theory in the 1970s (Bateson, 1972), was

introduced in sociology by Erving Goffman (Goffman, 1974/1986), and in media studies by

Gaye Tuchman and Todd Gitlin (Gitlin, 1980; Tuchman, 1978/1980). During the 1990s and

2000s, there was a dramatic growth in framing studies. A search within Communication

Abstracts showed that during 2001–2005, 165 articles focused on framing (Weaver, 2007).

Below follows a discussion of some of the definitions and suggestions in this literature.

Definitions

Scholars typically talk about how “a frame” organizes and renders meaning to

information, and how this process might be called “framing” (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987;

Goffman, 1974/1986; Pan & Kosicki, 2001/2003; Reese, 2001/2003). Beyond this agreement,

however, there is an array of different definitions and uses. Frames have been studied as

dependent and independent variables, and have been sought at the level of both the media (as

media frames) and the audience (as audience frames) (Scheufele, 1999). Others prefer to

operate with frames at the level of the communicator, the text and the receiver, corresponding

to input, process, and output (Entman, 1993). There is also a strand of research that links the

concept to a cognitive approach where a text is seen as providing contextual cues, which

affects activation and modification of mental schemas (Pan & Kosicki, 1993, 2001/2003).

Others again focus on the discourse itself, and whether the content in news reports provides a

context for the reported events (Iyengar, 1991).1

Some lament that framing research is a fractured and weak paradigm due to the

Framing Contests 4

diverse use of the concept. It is argued that there is little cumulative learning that takes place

and relatively little theory building. Most analyses are ad hoc and based on definitions of

frames that are only used in single studies (Entman, 1993; Hertog & McLeod, 2001/2003;

McCombs & Ghanem, 2001/2003; Scheufele, 2000; Tankard, 2001/2003). Others, however,

have protested that “there is not, nor should there be, a single paradigm of framing”

(D'Angelo, 2002, p. 871).

It is postulated that the diversity within framing research has led to a comprehensive

view, encompassing cognitive, constructionist, and critical outlooks (D'Angelo, 2002). In this

paper, we argue for such a comprehensive view. Frames will be understood as “organizing

principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to

meaningfully structure the social world” (original emphasis) (Reese, 2001/2003, p. 11).

Following the call to bring “culture back in” (Van Gorp, 2007, p. 60), we will conceptualize

frames at two different levels: Master frames that are used on many different issues and have

wide cultural connections, and issue-specific frames that are only applicable to, for instance,

nuclear power or abortion.

Framing, on the other hand, is seen as structuring the perspective on an issue by the

active processes of selection and salience. It is argued that 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” (original emphasis) (Entman, 1993, p. 52).

This definition indicates intentionality and the political and social significance of frames, and

hence the necessity to study power and sponsorship of frames.

Frame Sponsorship and Media Frames

Frames are not constant entities, but rather are reinterpreted and negotiated through

Framing Contests 5

the media. Strategic communicators strive to have their organizations’ frames become

featured in news accounts of events. In essence, a contest or competition for frame

sponsorship takes place. This important frame-building process has been neglected in the

framing literature (Callaghan & Schnell, 2001; Carragee & Roefs, 2004; Gamson,

2001/2003; Gandy, 2001/2003; Hallahan, 1999; Johnson-Cartree, 2004; Pan & Kosicki,

2001/2003; Scheufele, 1999).

As organizations try to promote their frames, they also have to work within the

interpretative frames of journalism in order to get coverage (Dunwoody & Griffin, 1993;

Hertog & McLeod, 2001/2003). These frames can also be likened to what we called master

frames in the previous section. A group of studies has identified five typical frames used by

the media: the conflict frame, the human interest frame, the economic consequences frame,

the morality frame, and the responsibility frame (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). Other

studies have focused on what seems to be a recurrent media frame used to cover political

elections in particular: the so-called horse race frame (e.g., Cappella & Jamieson, 1997;

Hertog & McLeod, 2001/2003; Norris, Kern, & Just, 2003). The metaphor of a horse race is

used to describe coverage that focuses on who’s ahead, and who’s behind in the race, while at

the same time providing little or no information on the issues themselves, the policy

platforms, or the background of the candidates or the issues. One of the first studies to

employ the horse race metaphor was probably one published by Anthony C. Broh in 1980,

analyzing how the media reported on the polls in the 1976 US presidential election. Broh

discussed the pros and cons of this type of reporting:

For journalists, the horse-race metaphor provides a framework for analysis. A

horse is judged not by its absolute speed or skill but in comparison to the

speed of other horse, and especially by its wins and losses. … With the horse-

Framing Contests 6

race metaphor journalists can generate interest among voters, most of whom

don’t get the chance to observe the candidates in person. [The problem is that]

important issues of public policy may go unnoticed if the candidates agree on

a position, and conversely, seemingly unimportant issues may receive undue

attention because they fit the horse-race metaphor. (Broh, 1980, p. 515)

More recently, writers have noticed how use of the horse-race frame has spread

beyond election coverage to coverage of governance and discussion of public policy issues.

The focus is on strategy, and the actors are judged by their performance and style, and the

media is preoccupied with winners and losers and uses language of wars, games and

competition. It is argued that this type of coverage is actually breeding a spiral of cynicism

about public life (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997).

Empirical Analysis of Frames

Most scholars suggest an empirical program that starts with reading up on the specific

issue that actors try to frame. Secondly, the analyst should identify what seem to be the

important frames, and thirdly, he or she should develop lists of key terms and symbols that

make up the frames (Hertog & McLeod, 2001/2003; Tankard, 2001/2003).

The so-called “media package” approach of Gamson and colleagues goes beyond

listing the elements of the news format and points to different devices used by an actor

(Gamson, 1992; Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes, & Sasson, 1992; Gamson & Lasch, 1983;

Gamson & Modigliani, 1987, 1989). It is suggested that the analyst should look for five

typical framing devices: metaphors, exemplars, catchphrases, depictions, and visual images.

In addition, a text contains so-called reasoning devices--roots, consequences, and appeals to

principles that constitute and justify a position on an issue. Together, the framing and

reasoning devices are said to form a “media package.” We argue that it is possible to use this

Framing Contests 7

approach to analyze the frames of both actors and journalists.

As with most approaches, it is possible to talk about strengths and weaknesses.

Among the latter is that Gamson and his colleagues do not always operationalize the

mentioned devices. Furthermore, the suggested framing devices do not seem to provide an

exhaustive list. It does seem strange if analysts were to focus only on metaphors and ignore

other rhetorical tools and tropes like similes (where the comparison between two elements are

made explicit: “X is like Y”) or synecdoche (where a part is mentioned and said to represent

the whole, like when a crown is meant to represent the king) (Ihlen & Andersen, 1999).

Still, the media package approach has strong heuristic qualities. In the following

analysis, a possible combinatory approach is offered. We will talk about frames as composed

of a core frame or framing devices consisting of tropes, examples, catch phrases and

depictions; a core position or reasoning devices that include roots analysis, perspectives on

consequences and appeals to principles; and key words in the media texts. This approach

attempts to interpret and reconstruct which frames are privileged.

METHODOLOGY

This qualitative case study is focused on 2003 and the texts published by a selection

of organizational actors and newspapers. This year the Norwegian government was to decide

on whether to lift the two-year old moratorium on petroleum exploration activity in Lofoten

(in the Norwegian Sea) and the Barents Sea on the Norwegian Continental Shelf.

The government had commissioned an impact assessment report that was sent on a

hearing round. Textual analysis is carried out of three text corpuses published ahead of the

government decision on the issue: First, the 35 texts regarding the issue presented on the

website of the Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF) during 2003 (www.olf.no). OLF

Framing Contests 8

was the most important lobbying vehicle of the petroleum industry in its attempt to get access

to the two disputed areas. Quotes are translated from Norwegian by the authors.

Secondly, it is focused on the hearing statements from two environmental

organizations--Nature and Youth and Bellona (the texts are available at http://odin.dep.no/-

odinarkiv/norsk/dep/oed/2003/annet/026031-990031/dok-bn.html). Quotes are translated

from Norwegian by the authors. Both organizations condone use of civil disobedience and

had carried out actions against the petroleum activity in the areas previously.

Thirdly, it is focused on the media coverage of the issue in six central Norwegian

newspapers in the period September 1—December 15, 2003. The newspapers are

Aftenposten, Dagbladet, Bergens Tidende, Adresseavisen, and Dagens Næringsliv, which are

the five largest newspapers in Norway that are accessible through the online archive

http://atekst.mediearkivet.no. In addition, the newspaper Nordlys is included since it is the

largest one in the part of Norway where the two contested areas are located. These

newspapers carried 85 stories about the issue in the mentioned period.

Granted, this selection of texts gives only a partial presentation of the frames that

were used. In addition, there is the problem of causality. It is possible that the politicians, the

media and the organizational actors were influencing each other’s frames mutually, or that

the organizations were adapting to frames that already existed in the political arena. The best

way to respond to these challenges is probably to check for alternative explanations, allow for

additional explanatory factors, and to be careful not to overstate the findings.

THE CASE: NATURAL RICHES OR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS?

Oil companies struck oil on the Norwegian Continental Shelf in 1969 and only a few

years after, petroleum production had become a cornerstone in the Norwegian economy.

Framing Contests 9

During most of the 1970s, the petroleum activity was confined to the sector below the 62

Longitude, that is, the North Sea. In January 2002, the work started on the impact assessment

report for the Northern regions, and a summary report was sent on a hearing round in July

2003 with a deadline in October this year. The government announced its decision in

December 2003. Here it is first focused on the frames constructed by the petroleum industry.

The Petroleum Industry: “Co-existence”

The petroleum industry decided to speak with one voice in this debate, through the

Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF). During 2003, 35 texts dealing with the access

issue were published on the web-site of the association (www.olf.no). The most important

frame that was in use could be called the “co-existence frame.” The core frame here indicated

that petroleum activity posed no threat to the fishing industry or the environment. The core

position was thus that the companies should be given access to the badly needed new areas.

Table 1 summarizes the most important elements of this frame, while more details follow

below.

Interestingly enough, OLF chose an aggressive line in relation to the environmental

issue. The association argued that petroleum activity would reduce the environmental risk.

OLF pointed to the increasing traffic of Russian oil tankers along the Norwegian coast, and

argued that if the petroleum industry was given access to the areas, this would improve the oil

spill protection systems, which in turn would be helpful if a Russian oil tanker experienced

trouble (Oljeindustriens Landsforening, 2003d).

The word co-existence was used eight times in the published texts, and in September,

the association also issued a six page fact sheet titled co-existence (Oljeindustriens

Landsforening, 2003e). The director of the board of OLF:

From the industry’s side we do hope and believe that the conditions will be

Framing Contests 10

improved to facilitate investment in our northern sea areas, and that the oil and

gas activity might be developed as an important industry for the region. We

are looking to comply with the strict environmental regulations and to find

solutions that secure a good co-existence with the fisheries and other users of

the sea. (Oljeindustriens Landsforening, 2003c)

The co-existence point was also emphasized by the phrase “good neighbors” which

was used to indicate the relationship between the petroleum industry, the fishing industry and

the aqua-culture industry. The slogan “room for both oil and fish in the North” was also

repeated. The Norwegian Fishermen’s Association was enrolled as an ally. OLF argued that

the safety of the fishermen would be improved since the petroleum industry would have

helicopters in the area that could offer assistance in emergencies. In the beginning of

December 2003, the oil companies also announced that they would use NOK 4.5 billion to

reach the goal of causing zero harm on the environment within the end of 2005.

Another important element of the co-existence frame was to point to the history of co-

existence in the North Sea, which is also an important area for the petroleum industry and the

fishing industry: “Nearly 40 years of activity on the Norwegian Shelf has proven that the

activity is environmentally sound and run in good co-existence with the fisheries”

(Oljeindustriens Landsforening, 2003c).

The core position of OLF was that Lofoten and the Barents Sea should be opened in

order to secure the activity level in the petroleum industry, create jobs, to secure the welfare

state and the patterns of settlements along the coast. A positive effect of the co-existence

would be that the petroleum resource could provide the foundation for “considerable

industrial development in Northern Norway” (Oljeindustriens Landsforening, 2003c). The

word “jobs” also appeared a total of 11 times in the texts on the website.

Framing Contests 11

Although a moratorium had been declared on petroleum activity in the areas, one

exception had been made: Production on the gas field Snow White in the Barents Sea was

approved. It was argued that this did not pose the same environmental threat as production on

an oil field. This afforded OLF with a success story, as the association claimed that this

development had created “new optimism in the north” (Oljeindustriens Landsforening,

2003c). Even before the government published the impact assessment report, OLF argued

that the association thought the report provided sufficient information to reach a decision.

And the industry was ready to create more Snow White success stories, if given the chance

(Oljeindustriens Landsforening, 2003b).

Towards the end of September, OLF sent its hearing statement, and on October 1, the

association teamed up with the Federation of Norwegian Manufacturing Industries (TBL) and

held a press conference with jobs as the main theme. OLF appealed to how value creation is

an ultimate good, and that the welfare state, jobs, and settlement patterns should be

preserved:

The Norwegian Society and the public are best served if measures are taken

now that can turn the development and improve the exploitation of the

remaining resources on the shelf. To argue that the activity level first and

foremost concerns the oil companies is to turn the issue upside down. … Oil

production has provided the foundation for the welfare state we have today. If

the value creation from Norwegian oil and gas activity shall continue to

provide the foundation for Norwegian welfare, we need political decisions that

secure the Norwegian Shelf as an attractive area for investment.

(Oljeindustriens Landsforening, 2003a)

To sum up, the industry pointed to the possibility for co-existence with other

Framing Contests 12

industries and creation of jobs. Environmental problems were primarily discussed in relation

to the fishing industry, and OLF had secured support from the Norwegian Fishermen’s

Association. Indeed, the newly elected chairman of the board stated that there could be no

professional dispute about the issue since no discharge to the sea would be allowed and the

fishing industry would not be disturbed since only sub-sea installations would be built

(Werner, 2003). The issue of climate change was not touched at all.

The Environmental Organizations: “Knowledge Gap”

Bellona published its 44-page hearing statement on October 1, 2003, while Nature

and Youth waited until October 15, 2003, and then issued an 18-page statement (Bellona,

2003; Nature and Youth, 2003). Although the texts differ somewhat in tone and length, it is

argued that they shared a quite similar frame. The organizations also have a history of

cooperation and the principal author of the Nature and Youth-statement was a co-author of

the Bellona-statement.

The environmentalists framed the issue as dealing with the potential for climate

change and environmental catastrophes. Two positions could be recognized: First, that it

would be unacceptable to increase the emissions of CO2 since this leads to climate change;

second, that it would be irresponsible to open up the areas in question since far too little was

known about the consequences (see Table 1). To emphasize the latter point, the metaphor

“knowledge gap” was used in the hearing statements (Bellona, 2003; Nature and Youth,

2003). Hence, we call the environmentalists’ frame the “knowledge gap frame.”

It was also argued that reopening the areas would be a “gamble.” The seriousness of

the situation was pointed out with reference to how the environment is “rich and fragile” and

the fish stocks are under “heavy pressure.” To exemplify, it was pointed to how researchers

“as recently as 2002” had discovered the world’s largest deep-sea coral reef in this area.

Framing Contests 13

Furthermore, the CO2-emssions were quantified and demonstrated by a comparison with cars.

Petroleum activity in the Barents Region would emit as much CO2 as 1,5 million cars. This

comparison had been used to great effect during previous environmental conflicts (Ihlen,

2006).

No particular slogans were constructed in the texts, but in the media, organizational

representatives characterized the opening of the areas as a “betrayal of the environment.” In

the hearing statement, Nature and Youth argued that “already today 160 000 people die in the

poor parts of the world as a result of human induced climate change” (Nature and Youth,

2003, p. 1). Bellona stated “if production starts with today’s technology, this means that we

are using one of the world’s most resources rich areas as a laboratory for testing of new

technology” (Bellona, 2003, p. 5). Both organizations talked about “dangerous climate

change” (emphasis added).

The causal analysis underpinning the environmentalist frame was that petroleum

production leads to emission of CO2, which in turns creates climate change. The increase of

emissions would have to be seen in connection with the Kyoto agreement that Norway has

signed. In addition it was pointed out that the technology that promises zero environmental

damage does not exist, and that there would be an intolerable danger of oil spills and

blowouts.

It was also stated that a consequence of increased Norwegian petroleum activity

would be that “more people in the poor parts of the world will suffer as a result of more

extreme weather” (Nature and Youth, 2003, p. 1). Both organizations also pointed to how a

large oil spill or blowout could potentially wipe out marine life and have severe economic

consequences for tourism and the fishing industry.

As for appeals to principles, Nature and Youth in particular called for solidarity with

Framing Contests 14

the less fortunate. The organizations also appealed to the precautionary principle that was

touted towards the end of the 1980s and early 1990s. By arguing that the authorities did not

have enough information, the environmentalists tried to appeal to the principles that solid

knowledge should inform decisions, gambling should be avoided, and expertise should be

heeded. A basic environmental appeal was that the environment should be protected and

renewable resources should be prioritized.

The Media Coverage and the Political Decision

From September 1 until December 18, 2003, the newspapers included in the analysis

carried a total of 85 stories (see Table 2), of which 80 percent were published in December.

OLF was only cited seven times, and the journalists made more use of the different

spokespersons of the largest Norwegian petroleum company--Statoil--which was cited 20

times, more than any other source in the material. Hydro, the other large Norwegian

petroleum company was cited nine times (see Table 3). This points to how Statoil is seen as

the most important petroleum company in Norway, and that OLF might have been chosen to

front the issue on behalf of the industry, but that the journalists prefer the “real” players as

sources.

As for the environmental opposition, Bellona was the most frequently cited

organization with a total of 14 stories that contained quotes from this organization.

Representatives of Nature and Youth were quoted seven times, and were outnumbered by the

spokesperson from the World Wildlife Fund-Norway that was mentioned eight times. This

result can largely be explained by the reputation of Bellona’s president as a well-spoken

source. The leadership position in Nature and Youth, on the other hand, circulates every

second year, which makes relationship building with the media more cumbersome.

The most important finding regarding the media coverage is that it was mostly

Framing Contests 15

concentrated on the political struggle in the coalition government that consisted of the

Christian Democratic Party, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party. The media

adopted a horse race frame, analyzing the power struggle between the actors, rather than the

issue in question. This finding is consistent with work in environmental communication that

has discovered a broad set of socio-political frames that appear in media coverage of such

issues (Nitz, 2000; Nitz & West, 2004). These frames are potentially very powerful in

impacting both portrayal and understanding of environmental issues. For example, policy-

makers cannot communicate the stance of an organization to the public if media coverage

inadequately addresses the nature of a problem by providing conflicting information.

Historically, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have differed on

environmental issues, whereas the Christian Democrats have occupied the middle ground. In

this conflict too, the Conservatives could be trusted to support the interests of the petroleum

industry, while the Liberals sided with the environmentalists. An important backdrop,

however, was that the previous coalition government that was led by the Christian Democrats

had stepped down over an environmental issue--gas-fired power plants in 2000 (Ihlen, 2006).

The tension within the government resulted in what Iyengar (1991) would have called

episodic coverage, as little issue background was given in each story. Such political conflict

is often the name of the game in environmental news coverage (Nitz, 2000). Most often the

organizations were given a role as opposing or supporting the different political actors. For

instance, in a story in Aftenposten September 28, a representative of Nature and Youth was

interviewed (Mathismoen, 2003). The story pointed out that Nature and Youth was against a

reopening, and the representative “reminded” the Liberals about previous promises that this

party had given. Still, the environmental organizations only filled the role of providing

temperature in the debate. They “raged against” proposals or were “saddened” by decisions.

Framing Contests 16

No elaborate reasons were given for their positions on the issue.

The environmentalists’ two most important arguments related to climate change and

what they called a “knowledge gap.” These frame-elements were, however, largely absent in

the coverage. Only three stories included discussion of the problems of CO2-emissions

(Andersson, 2003; Jakobsen, 2003; Sneve, 2003). Only seven stories dealt with the issue of

whether the authorities had enough information to reach a conclusion (Alstadheim, 2003;

Ask, 2003a, 2003b; Jakobsen, 2003; Kaarbø, 2003; Nielsen, 2003a, 2003b). In these stories,

the knowledge-frame was sponsored by the Institute of Marine Research (Jakobsen, 2003),

the Directorate for Nature Management (Kaarbø, 2003) and the Pollution Control Authority

(Alstadheim, 2003). Bellona was used as a source for this frame in four instances (Ask,

2003a, 2003b; Nielsen, 2003a, 2003b). Furthermore, only two of the stories used the

metaphor knowledge gap (Alstadheim, 2003; Nielsen, 2003a), and only one story contained

the laboratory metaphor (Nielsen, 2003b).

On the other hand, the co-existence frame sponsored by the petroleum industry was

not much in use either. Only one story contained the word “co-existence” (Rugland, 2003),

and just one story used the metaphor “crossroads” (Garvik, 2003).

As for the political arena, on December 12, 2003, the coalition government

announced a compromise: the Barents Sea would be opened, but the Lofoten area should

remain closed for petroleum activity. This compromise was likely due to the fact that the

government needed a result that could satisfy all the parties and their constituencies. Quite

tellingly the parties attempted to frame the final decision as a victory for their position. The

Conservatives issued a press release where they argued that they had prevailed since the

Barents Sea was opened, whereas the Liberals maintained that they had won the conflict

since Lofoten remained closed (Haugli & Grande, 2003).

Framing Contests 17

The decision of the government to open the Barents Sea, but to bar access to Lofoten

gave several strategic advantages for the politicians. On the one hand, they gave something to

the region and to the petroleum industry. On the other hand, they listened to the opinion of

the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association that was against opening up the Lofoten area. This

way, they were able to isolate the opposition from the environmentalists.

CONCLUSION

This article has analyzed how different organizational actors were competing to frame

an issue, and how the media covered this issue. Neither the environmentalists nor the

petroleum industry were particularly successful in getting their frames across. The media

coverage largely took the form of episodic journalism, seldom referring to why the industry

thought access was needed or why the environmentalists opposed reopening of the areas. The

media instead focused on the tensions within the government and relegated the organizations

to commentating roles offering support or criticism. Such episodic coverage makes it more

difficult for policy-makers and stakeholders to come together to make decisions on complex

environmental issues. The horse race frame seems to be popular in the media. A cynical

viewpoint would be that organizational and political actors that can fuse their case specific

issue frames with typical media frames (conflict, personalities, etc.) are more likely to

succeed than their competitors (Ihlen & Allern, 2005; Johnson-Cartree, 2005). Such media

frames can be likened to master frames that are applicable to a whole range of different

issues. With basis in the case study it might also be speculated that communication

professionals stand a better chance to succeed if they are able to tie into larger master or

cultural frames, be it the belief in a progressive world or that individuals are masters of their

own faith. Cultural frames might interact with cognitive schemata that helps individual

Framing Contests 18

stakeholders “fill in the blanks” and constitute a shared repertoire in a given society (Van

Gorp, 2007, p. 73). Frame sponsors need to give their frames a certain cultural resonance

(Gamson & Lasch, 1983; Gamson & Modigliani, 1987, 1989; Van Gorp, 2007).

Although the organizational actors in this particular case largely failed in their efforts

to get the media to adopt their frames, this should by no means lead to the conclusion that

framing is unimportant for strategic communicators. This study illustrates how frames are

social constructs, but also how frame building and sponsorship might meet structural

difficulties. Still, framing should not be ignored by professional communicators due to huge

potential power of a successful frame; be it the communicators’ own or an adversaries’. A

successful frame furthers a particular understanding of an issue, at the cost of other

explanations or alternative perspectives. Frames can direct and limit interpretations, not at

least when the audience has no direct personal experience with the issue (Carragee & Roefs,

2004; Entman, 2004). In other words, professional communicators ignore the importance of

framing at their own peril.

One of the potential contributions of this research is that it uncovered the possibility

that cultural frames held by petroleum companies and environmentalists (as well as

journalists and politicians) may have influenced their perceptions about the issue in question.

Culture can be seen as a shared system of beliefs, and the different cultural perceptions

certainly may have led to conflicts. The political system is capable of handling certain levels

of such political conflicts and diverging interests. However, Banks (1995) asserts that

competing cultural narratives may need to be “reconciled” by having the various groups, and

more importantly, by having the journalists in their coverage, focus on ways to co-create

shared meaning between the groups.

It has been argued that true strategic communications professionals try to analyze a

Framing Contests 19

client’s social, political, and economic contexts (Culbertson and Jeffers, as cited by, Banks,

1995). Social contexts are comprised of cultural beliefs. Future research on framing in

organizational communications should try to uncover these cultural frames to examine both

their overlap with, and divergence from, each other. The strategic communicator who can

make efficient use of such cultural frames stands to benefit the most. We argue that the

empirical approach suggested in this paper is well suited for this purpose.

REFERENCES

Alstadheim, K. B. (2003, October 2). Miljøslakt av oljeutredning [Environmental slaughter of

oil assessment report]. Dagens Næringsliv, p. 17.

Andersson, A. (2003, December 10). Oljeindustrien klarer ikke utslippsmål [The oil industry

does not reach their emission targets]. Bergens Tidende, p. 8.

Andsager, J. L., & Smiley, L. (1998). Evaluating the public information: Shaping news

coverage of the silicone implant controversy. Public Relations Review, 24(2), 183–

201.

Ask, A. O. (2003a, October 16). Bellona: Steensnæs skjønnmaler oljevirksomhet i nord

[Bellona: Steensnæs sugarcoats oil industry in the North]. Aftenposten, p. 21.

Ask, A. O. (2003b, September 2). Korallrev kan stanse oljeleting [Coral reefs might stop oil

development] Aftenposten, p. 12.

Banks, S. (1995). Multicultural public relations: A social-interpretive approach. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of the mind. New York: Ballantine.

Bellona. (2003). Utredning av konsekvenser av helårig petroleumsvirksomhet i området

Framing Contests 20

Lofoten – Barentshavet, sammendragsrapport [Impact assessment of year-round

petroleum activity in the region Lofoten – the Barents Sea, summarizing report].

Oslo, Norway: Bellona.

Broh, C. A. (1980). Horse-race journalism: Reporting the polls in the 1976 presidential

election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(4), 514–529.

Callaghan, K., & Schnell, F. I. (2001). Assessing the democratic debate: How the news media

frame elite policy discourse. Political Communication, 18, 183–212.

Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Carragee, K. M., & Roefs, W. (2004). The neglect of power in recent framing research.

Journal of Communication, 54(2), 241–233.

Chapman Perkins, S. (2005). Un-presidented: A qualitative framing analysis of the NAACP's

public relations response to the 2000 presidential election. Public Relations Review,

31, 63–71.

D'Angelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to

Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870–888.

Dunwoody, S., & Griffin, R. J. (1993). Journalistic strategies for reporting long-term

environmental issues: A case study of three superfund sites. In A. Hansen (Ed.), The

mass media and environmental issues (pp. 22–50). Leicester, UK: Leicester

University Press.

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of

Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

Entman, R. M. (2003). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign

policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Framing Contests 21

Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign

policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gamson, W. A. (2001/2003). Foreword. In S. D. Reese, J. O. H. Gandy & A. E. Grant (Eds.),

Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world

(pp. ix–xi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gamson, W. A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social

construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373–393.

Gamson, W. A., & Lasch, K. E. (1983). The political culture of social welfare policy. In S. E.

Spiro & E. Yuchtman-Yaar (Eds.), Evaluating the welfare state: Social and political

perspectives (Vol. 95, pp. 397–415). Paris: Academic Press.

Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action.

Research in Political Sociology, 3, 137–177.

Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear

power. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1–37.

Gandy, J. O. H. (2001/2003). Epilogue–framing at the horizon: A retrospective assessment.

In S. D. Reese, J. O. H. Gandy & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life:

Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 355–378).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Garvik, O. (2003, December 9). Unge tripper etter å få bore i nord [Young people are eager

to drill in the North]. Bergens Tidende, p. 13.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the

New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Goffman, E. (1974/1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.

Framing Contests 22

Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205–242.

Hallahan, K. (2004). Framing theory. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations

(pp. 340–343). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haugli, Å., & Grande, A. (2003, December 16). Høster storm fra alle kanter [Criticism from

all sides]. Dagens Næringsliv, p. 14.

Hertog, J. K., & McLeod, D. M. (2001/2003). A multiperspectival approach to framing

analysis: A field guide. In S. D. Reese, J. O. H. Gandy & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing

public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp.

139–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hiebert, R. E. (2003). Public relations and propaganda in framing the Iraq war: A preliminary

review. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 243–255.

Ihlen, Ø. (2006). Substitution or pollution? Competing views of environmental benefit in a

gas-fired power plant dispute. Environmental Communication Yearbook, 3, 137–155.

Ihlen, Ø., & Allern, S. (2005, July). This is the issue: Framing contests, public relations and

media coverage. Paper presented at the 2005 International Association of Mass

Communication Research (IAMCR) Conference, Taipei, Taiwan.

Ihlen, Ø., & Andersen, E. W. (1999). "Rammer", "posisjoner" og Romeriksporten:

"Mediepakker" som praktisk-analytisk verktøy ["Frames," "positions" and

Romeriksporten: "Media packages" as a practical-analytical tool]. Norsk

medietidsskrift, 6(1), 19–39.

Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Framing Contests 23

Jakobsen, O. (2003, December 12). Nei til Lofot-gass, ja til Barents-olje ['No' to gas from

Lofoten, 'yes' to oil from the Barents Sea]. Dagbladet, p. 17.

Jasperson, A. E., Shah, D. V., Watts, M., Faber, R., J., & Fan, D. P. (1998). Framing and the

public agenda: Media effects on the importance of the federal budget deficit. Political

Communication, 15(2), 205–224.

Johnson-Cartree, K. S. (2004). News narratives and news framing: Constructing political

reality. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Johnson-Cartree, K. S. (2005). News narratives and news framing: Constructing political

reality. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Kaarbø, A. (2003, October 5). Ny kritikk mot oljeutredning [New criticism against oil

assessment report]. Aftenposten, p. 2.

Knight, M. G. (1997). Getting past the impasse: Framing as a tool for public relations. Public

Relations Review, 25(3), 381–398.

Lundy, L. K. (2006). Effect of framing on cognitive processing in public relations. Public

Relations Review, 32(3), 295-301.

Maher, T. M. (2001/2003). Framing: An emerging paradigm or a phase of agenda setting? In

S. D. Reese, J. O. H. Gandy & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives

on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 83–94). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mathismoen, O. (2003, September 28). Regjeringen strides om oljen i Barentshavet [The

Government fights over oil in the Barents Sea]. Aftenposten, p. 2.

McCombs, M. E., & Ghanem, S. I. (2001/2003). The convergence of agenda setting and

framing. In S. D. Reese, J. O. H. Gandy & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life:

Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 67–81).

Framing Contests 24

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nature and Youth. (2003). Utredning av konsekvenser av helårig petroleumsvirksomhet i

området Lofoten – Barentshavet. Høringssvar fra Natur og Uugdom [Impact

assessment of year-round petroleum activity in the region Lofoten – the Barents Sea.

Hearing statement from Nature and Youth]. Oslo, Norway: Nature and Youth.

Nielsen, S. A. (2003a, November 20). Barentshavets skjebne avgjøres [The faith of the

Barents Sea is settled]. Nordlys, p. 22.

Nielsen, S. A. (2003b, October 1). Skjebnetid for Lofoten og Barentshavet [Vital hour for

Lofoten and the Barents Sea] Nordlys, p. 9.

Nitz, M. (2000). The media as a tool for communication on the environment and

sustainability. In W. Filho (Ed.), Communicating Sustainability (pp. 45–69).

Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.

Nitz, M., & West, H. (2004). Framing of newspaper news stories during a presidential

campaign cycle: The case of Bush-Gore in Election 2000. In S. Senecah (Ed.),

Environmental Communication Yearbook (pp. 205–227). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Norris, P., Kern, M., & Just, M. (Eds.). (2003). Framing terrorism: The news media, the

government and the public. London: Routledge.

Oljeindustriens Landsforening. (2003a). Aktivitet viktig for velferdsstaten [Activity

important for the welfare state] [Electronic Version] from http://www.olf.no.

Oljeindustriens Landsforening. (2003b). Norge må satse aktivt på petroleumsvirksomhet i

nord [Norway must actively increase petroleum activity in the North] [Electronic

Version] from http://www.olf.no.

Oljeindustriens Landsforening. (2003c). Olje og gass kan bli viktig næring i nord [Oil and

Framing Contests 25

gas can become an important industry in the North] [Electronic Version] from

http://www.olf.no.

Oljeindustriens Landsforening. (2003d). Rom for olje og fisk i nord [There is room for both

oil and fish in the North] [Electronic Version] from http://www.olf.no.

Oljeindustriens Landsforening. (2003e). Sameksistens – faktaark [Coexistence – fact sheet].

Stavanger: Oljeindustriens Landsforening.

Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse.

Political Communication, 10, 55–75.

Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (2001/2003). Framing as a strategic action in public deliberation.

In S. D. Reese, J. O. H. Gandy & 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.

Reese, S. D. (2001/2003). Prologue––framing public life: A bridging model for media

research. In S. D. Reese, J. O. H. Gandy & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life:

Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 7–31).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reese, S. D., Gandy, J. O. H., & Grant, A. E. (Eds.). (2001/2003). Framing public life:

Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rugland, I. (2003, November 26). Steensnæs tenker på Lofoten [(The Minister for Petroleum

and Energy) Steensnæs thinks about Lofoten]. Dagens Næringsliv, p. 12.

Framing Contests 26

Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication,

49(1), 103–122.

Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at

cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society, 3(2),

297–316.

Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The

evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20.

Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis

of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50, 93–109.

Sneve, S. (2003, December 16). Lofoten kan vente [Lofoten can wait]. Nordlys, p. 16.

Tankard, J. W. J. (2001/2003). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In S.

D. Reese, J. O. H. Gandy & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on

media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 95–106). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tuchman, G. (1978/1980). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York:

Free Press.

Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in.

Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60–78.

Weaver, D. H. (2007). Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming. Journal of

Communication, 57(1), 142–147.

Werner, K. (2003, December 1). Hydro: Symboldebatt om olje i nord [Hydro: Symbolic

debate about oil in the North]. Nordlys, p. 8.

Framing Contests 27

Framing Contests 28

FOOTNOTE

1 Framing has also been seen as a form of media effect and a logical extension of the

research on agenda setting (Jasperson, Shah, Watts, Faber, & Fan, 1998; McCombs &

Ghanem, 2001/2003; Scheufele, 2000; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). The first level of

agenda setting is said to be the transmission of object salience, whereas the second level is the

transmission of attribute salience. This addresses the charge that the agenda setting studies do

not say anything about what the audience thinks about the issues or how the issue is defined.

The mass media do tell people how to think about issues. Critics, however, claim that the

agenda setting scholars forget that the studied frames are composed by how a text’s author

has organized textual elements. Furthermore, agenda-setting scholars tend to ignore that it is

interesting to look at what elements are omitted from frames. Framing includes a wider range

of factors (Maher, 2001/2003; Van Gorp, 2007).

Framing Contests 29

Table 1

The Frames Used by the Petroleum Industry and the Environmentalists

Industry: Co-existence Frame Environmentalists: Knowledge

Gap Frame

Core Frame Petroleum activity creates values,

secures the welfare state, jobs and

settlement patterns, and does not

represent a major threat against the

environment or the fishing industry.

On the contrary, the security will

increase, which is also illustrated by

public reports.

Petroleum activity creates

environmental risks for the eco-

system and emission of CO2

contributes to climate change

Tropes There is “room” for both oil and

fish, the petroleum companies, the

fishing industry and the aqua culture

industry are “good neighbors,”

“activity on the Shelf is declining’

There is a “knowledge gap” about

petroleum activity in the areas;

opening up the areas is a

“gamble;” the fish stocks are under

“heavy pressure;” the environment

is “rich and fragile”

Examples Peaceful co-existence with the

fishing industry in the North Sea for

almost 40 years; the development of

the Snøhvit field has generated jobs

and economic growth

In 2002, researchers identified the

world’s largest deep sea coral reef

in this area; petroleum activity in

the Barents region will emit as

much CO2 as 1,5 million cars

Framing Contests 30

Catch

phrases

Room for fish and oil; the petroleum

industry is at a crossroads

Betrayal of the environment

Depictions “The petroleum industry, the fishing

industry, and the aqua culture

industry have to live together as

good neighbors outside Northern

Norway, as we have proven we are

able to through several years in the

North Sea”

“Already today 160 000 people

dies in the poor parts of the world

as a result of human induced

climate change;’’ if production

starts with today’s technology, this

means that we are using one of the

world’s most resources rich areas

as a laboratory for testing of new

technology”

Core

Position

The petroleum companies should be

given access to Lofoten and the

Barents Sea and to help boost the

activity level in the petroleum

sector, create jobs, secure the

welfare state and the settlement

patterns along the coast. The

government report supports this by

concluding the risk of oil spills is

low.

It would be irresponsible to open

up the vulnerable Lofoten and the

Barents Sea because it will

contribute to climate change and

since we do not have enough

knowledge about the possible

impact of petroleum activity

Roots The history and the impact

assessment show how a co-

Petroleum activity leads to

emission of CO2 which in turns

Framing Contests 31

existence between the different

users of the sea is possible, and this

is crucial in order to create value for

society; the industry is in need of

new areas

creates climate change, in

addition, there are dangers of oil

spills and blowouts; the

technology that promises zero

environmental damage does not

exist

Con-

sequences

If the industry does not get access to

new areas, society stands to lose

huge revenues, this will influence

the welfare state, the employment

level will drop, and the settlement

patterns along the coast; on the

other hand, if the companies are

given access, new needed jobs will

be created and the industries will

enjoy mutual benefit

People in poor parts of the world

will suffer as a result of more

extreme weather, and a large oil

spill or blowout can potentially

wipe out marine life and have

severe economic consequences for

tourism and the fishing industry

Appeals to

principles

Secure the welfare state; values and

resources should be realized; it is

important to preserve competence,

employment levels and settlement

patterns

The precautionary principle should

be implemented; gambling should

be avoided; solid knowledge

should inform decisions;

renewable resources should be

prioritized; environmental experts

should be heeded; rich nations

Framing Contests 32

should show solidarity with poor

nations

Keywords “Co-existence,” “jobs,” “value

creation,” “competence,”

“crossroads,” “growth”

“Climate change,” “knowledge

gap,” ”gambling,” “risk”

Framing Contests 33

Table 2

Newspaper Stories About the Conflict over Lofoten and the Barents Sea 11.1.--12.18.2003

Newspaper Number of stories

Aftenposten 25

Dagbladet 5

Bergens Tidende 12

Adresseavisen 8

Dagens Næringsliv 13

Nordlys 22

Total 85

Table 3

Sources in the News 11.1.--12.18.2003

Organization Number of Citations

OLF 7

Statoil 20

Hydro 9

Bellona 14

Nature and Youth 7

World Wildlife Fund 8