Media Framing of Food Insecurity - Blake J Gruber · Scanlan writes, “Although there are micro-level considerations for food security/insecurity and many ‘faces of hunger,’

BATES COLLEGE

Media Framing of Food Insecurity A Comparative Analysis of Local News and Research by the

FrameWorks Institute

Blake J Gruber 5/26/2011

Gruber 2

Abstract: This study focuses on food insecurity around Auburn, Maine, paying particular attention

to how local newspapers frame food insecurity. The purpose of this study is to determine

whether or not the local newspaper frames food insecurity in a fashion that encourages the

appropriate corrective action. The analysis will rely heavily on quantitative data from a content

analysis of the Lewiston Sun Journal (LSJ) paper, using specific qualitative examples from the

articles to reiterate certain trends. Frames developed by the FrameWorks Institute in regards to

framing food insecurity as a problem with the broader food system will be used as a barometer to

test how well Lewiston media’s framing efforts are. The analysis reveals that local media sources

do a moderately well job touching on elements of the key concepts suggested by the

FrameWorks Institute, but fails almost entirely on the FrameWorks Institutes main point of

linking food insecurity to the broader food system. The issue of framing is of particular interest

to food insecurity because large scale social action will likely be necessary to ever address the

problems with the greater food system.

Gruber 3

Blake Gruber Soc s35: Community Based Research Methods Professor Kane Introduction

It is well established that food insecurity is a problem even within the borders of the

highly developed United States, but addressing problems with access to healthy, nutritionally

adequate, and culturally appropriate food continues to leave scholars, social workers, and the

food insecure alike at a loss for a comprehensive solution (Jacobson, 2007). Although certainly

due in part to the complexities and intricacies that are unique to each individual food problem

within a community at the local level, more recently scholars have began examining issues of

framing that could also be hindering progress towards sustainable food security across the nation

and globe for that matter (Scanlan, 2009). Framing is insurmountably important to how a

problem is addressed as it sets in context the sources of any given problem, and thus how that

problem will be approached. In regards to food insecurity, field experts concur the only way to

truly eradicate the problem will be through large scale social movements affecting not just local

food systems, but the greater national and international food system as well.

Given that in the US most individuals receive their news in highly fragmented bits

through different contemporary media outlets, television news and newspapers both play a

fundamental role in how society frames a particular issue (Gollust and Lantz, 2009). Using a

content analysis of the LSJ developed in a Bates College sociology class, in junction with

specific qualitative observations from the articles examined for emphasis, this research will

attempt to reveal the media construction of food insecurity in the Lewiston Auburn area. More

specifically, the research will be particularly interested in whether or not the LSJ depicts food

insecurity as an individual problem or one of the larger social community. Two ideal frames

Gruber 4

developed by the FrameWorks Institute in regards to the best way to frame food insecurity as a

social and larger food system issue will be used as a barometer to determine the quality of food

insecurity framing in the LSJ.

Argument

Given the question of how well the LSJ frames food insecurity in terms of the

FrameWorks Institute’s ideal frames, the importance of such an inquiry should be self evident.

Framing influences the way a problem is addressed, so in a city such as the Lewiston-Auburn

area, where food insecurity is a visible problem and can be easily witnessed from simply

spending time there, one would hope they frame the issue appropriately. The findings in this

study reveal that the LSJ does an adequate job of touching on key components suggested by the

FrameWorks Institute, particularly those issue related to farming, food stamps, social framing,

and collective action. However, the LSJ does a poor job of tying food insecurity back to the

broader food system and the health effects it causes. The following analysis will further flesh out

these concepts and back them with empirical and qualitative evidence.

Literature Review

Scholars define food security with some variation, but most tend to agree food security

occurs when all individuals at all times are able to access enough appropriate food in a socially

acceptable fashion to live a healthy and active lifestyle, food insecurity occurs then when any of

these conditions are lacking in a community (Jacobson 2007; Scanlan 2009). This problem can

be identified all over the world, but affects a surprisingly high number of US citizens as, “12.4

million children live in household with limited or uncertain access to a nutritionally adequate diet”

(Jacobson 2007, p. 38). Historically this problem has been both framed and addressed at the local

or individual level through emergency food providers and government programs such as food

Gruber 5

stamps; however having realized little progress towards food security experts now understand the

problem must be tackled on a systemic front (Jacobson 2007; Alkon and Norgaard 2009). As

Scanlan writes, “Although there are micro-level considerations for food security/insecurity and

many ‘faces of hunger,’ it is necessary to consider it as a macro-structural phenomenon tied to

the cultural, socio-economic, and political dynamics of an interconnected world system”

(Scanlan 2009, p. 297). Examples of this interconnected system attribute food insecurity to racial

and socio-economic disparities, urban living, culturally inappropriate food, the globalized agro-

market, the highly processed food in the food industry, and the degradation of the environment

(Jacobson 2007; Scanlan 2009; Gollust and Lantz 2009; Alkon and Norgaard 2009).

Social movements often provide the catalyst to create social change and are a product of

social framing; the binding element behind social movements are individuals and groups, “that

share a common belief about the nature of a problem [and] work to bring attention to the

problem and then propose and advocate solutions” (Stevenson et al. 2007, p.35). In essence,

sharing a common belief becomes a precursor to collective action, reiterating the importance of

framing or rather how one defines “the nature of the problem.” The framing process itself can be

more explicitly defined as, “the shared meanings and definitions that describe social problems,

identify the causes of those problems, suggest solutions, and mobilize adherents to action”

(Stevenson et al. 2007, p. 35). Furthermore, quantitative research suggests how people perceive a

problem can have a direct impact on who people attribute responsibility for the problem to

(Stone, 1989). Consequently, framing food insecurity as a social issue can have “profoundly

different policy actions,” than keeping it at the local and individual level, making it pressing for

society as a whole to accept this framework (Gollust and Lantz 2009, p. 1091). It should also be

noted that there can be systemic or social changes at the local level, but that too is inadequate for

Gruber 6

deafening food insecurity, the social approach needed must be at the national level addressing

the food system as a whole (FrameWorks Institute, 2008).

The media has a profound ability to, “shape the public’s opinions about what issues are

important and emphasize particular ways of thinking about a problem” (Gollust and Lantz 2009,

p. 1091). The media accomplishes this through their selection of what aspects they chose to

report on within a given issue, what is commonly referred to as media framing (Entman, 1993).

Gollust and Lantz’s work on diabetes framing becomes relevant to that of food insecurity

because of the similarities between the issues, not to mention that food insecurity is likely a

heavily contributing factor to who is affected by diabetes in this country. One impact of media

framing found in research, “demonstrates that frames that highlight a particular social group will

activate predisposing attitudes about that group,” and another problem with media framing arises

in the causes and whether or not they are perceived as individual or social as this impacts attitude

as well (Gollust and Lantz 2009, p. 1092). In the case of the former, highlighting socially and

economically disenfranchised citizens could ignite social justice activists, as it has, but it could

also lead to prejudiced or racially charged attitudes towards these groups. Even more

troublesome is the impact of the individual versus social frame which can lead to apathy when a

problem is perceived as the result of individual choices or necessary government policy action

when viewed as a larger social problem (Gollust and Lantz, 2009). Thus, the gravity of media

framing can clearly be identified; in fact it has become an issue particular groups have chosen to

address specifically in order to work towards food insecurity solutions.

The Frameworks Institute is one of the groups that focuses on the framing of food

insecurity (among other social issues as well). Through extensive rhetorical, psychological, and

sociological analyses of a vast body of media, personal interviews, and surveys/content analyses,

Gruber 7

the FrameWorks Institute has mapped out the framing landscape of food insecurity. To begin

with FrameWorks identifies two pitfalls that maintain unhelpful views of the food system,

consumerism and modernism. News stories, “Often focusing on food from a consumer

perspective that is unhelpful in a number of ways – in particular, the pieces support the illusion

that consumer choice is the driving force that shapes the food system, and obscure all other

causal forces” (Auburn et al., 2005, p. 3). The modernism component adds to the negative forces

behind the consumer frame by reinforcing that these problems with the food system are

inevitable with modern society, and from another angle in that modern can often be equated with

better or safer than “archaic farming methods” that may not even exist in our modernized world

(Auburn, Brown, et al., 2005). Despite these pitfalls the FrameWorks institute has tested a

variety of alternative frames to focus people more positively on the food system and what can be

done to improve it; they landed upon two frames that particularly stick with citizens, the

protection and legacy frames.

Currently it is suggested that the media may be open to new frames towards issues on

food, due in part to journalists and writers across the country making the food system their

“cause célèbre,” making it pertinent that the ideal frames penetrate the media (FrameWorks

Institute, 2008). Basing their frames off of the simplifying model of a “runaway food system,”

basically a depiction of the food system spiraling out of control into certain devastation, the

FrameWorks institute developed the “protection” and “legacy frames” to discuss food insecurity

in a way that benefits food activist’s causes. “The value of legacy, or what we would call the

legacy frame communicates the consequences of current food production choices for future

generations,” and the value of protection frame which, “highlights the dangers of current food

production choices and the actions needed to protect the public” (FrameWorks Institute, 2008, p.

Gruber 8

74,79). These frames focus on the food system as a whole and pay particular attention to the

following points: environmentally sound farming, changing agriculture subsidies to favor smaller

farms, increasing the amount of locally grown food, altering food stamps to allow for more

healthy food, increasing the number of community gardens, providing incentives for institutions

to promote healthy local food, nutrition, and progress over stagnation (FrameWorks Institute,

2008). Taking this simplifying model, the effective frames and the focus issues together create a

cohesive frameset that can alter an individual’s perceptions of the food system and what must be

done to it. The question now is if the media has begun adapting this prescriptive framing or if

they have remained stagnant with traditional coverage. The following section will outline a

methodology for testing this question.

Research Methods

The primary data source for this analysis consists of the Content Analysis Coding sheet

developed in Professor Kane’s Sociological Research Methods class at Bates College. As

discussed by Chambliss and Schutt content analysis almost function as a survey of texts,

“Content analysis is a research method for systematically analyzing and making inferences from

text” (Chambliss and Schutt 2010, p.85). The sheet contains 16 different coding questions with a

variety of responses to each question. The coding sheet was applied to 90 articles from the LSJ

over the last three years; the articles were sampled through a variety of search terms involving

food using a newspaper search engine, Lexis Nexus, confined to the LSJ. There are no relevant

ethical issues to this research method because all the information used is publicly published

articles. Each article was coded by two different individuals in an effort to correct for coding

errors and assure reliability (Chambliss and Schutt 2010). Given that the sample is limited to the

Lewiston and Auburn area through the Sun Journal, this sample may not be entirely

Gruber 9

representative of the greater United States. However, the prominence of food insecurity within

the L-A city limits makes this news production particularly interesting to look at because one

would hope regions especially affected by a problem would frame the problem in a way that

encourages the appropriate corrective action.

The questions found within the content analysis will provide a basis for both statistical

and textual examination. By examining the data statistically trends and more general

observations can be made from the collective group of 90 articles. Eight questions from the

content analysis will be used in the analysis, each should be represented here so as to fully

understand the data used. The first question asks, “Focusing on the content overall, how would

you rate the article on the scale below?” with coding answers, “Positive/focused on progress or

solutions or constructive efforts; Negative/ focused on documenting problems, difficulties,

distress, etc; Neutral or combination of positive and negative or not classifiable as positive vs.

negative; Other.” The second question of importance reads as follows, “Which, if any, of the

following specific terms appear in the article?” with the following relevant codes, “Community

Food Assessment, SNAP or Food Stamps, WIC, EFPs or Food Banks or Food Pantry or Soup

Kitchen, Farming/Farmers, Nutrition, Sustainability/sustainable/organic.” The third examined

question asks whether or not, “Is any reference made to the broader food system, such as food

production, processing, and distribution?” The fourth is on framing specifically, asking, “If food

insecurity/hunger are a topic, does the article frame that topic at the individual or social level?”

with the codes, “Framed as an individual problem, Framed as a social problem, and Not

applicable to this article.” The fifth question emphasizes causes, “Circle your overall sense of

what kinds of causes for food insecurity, if any, are emphasized most,” with the relevant codes,

“Primarily individual causes, Primarily structural causes, Both individual and structural about

Gruber 10

equally, Other, and No causes mentioned or implied.” The next question looks at solutions

asking, “Circle your overall sense of the kinds of solutions for food insecurity that are

emphasized most,” with relevant codes, “Government/government programs, Charitable

organizations serving low income people, Individual or group donations, Community

action/social movements, or No solutions mentioned.” The seventh question asks whether or not,

“The article mentions the health effects of food insecurity/poor nutrition?” The final question

under examination asks, “Overall, does the article represent food insecure as active agents who

have something important to offer in solving the problem of food insecurity or more as passive

recipients in need of help from others?” with the following codes, “Active agents, Passive

recipients, or Not applicable to this article.”

The previously listed questions will be examined using simple univariate statistics to

demonstrate the frequency and percent each of the codes were realized amongst the data set of 90

articles. These should provide a good sense to the general trends used in the LSJ when discussing

food insecurity, however, delving into particularly interesting articles from a qualitative

standpoint will serve in better reiterating the trends observed through the quantitative

examination. This will be done solely for a point of emphasis and the analysis will rest most

heavily on the quantitative work. Although this will provide a glimpse of how the LSJ frames

food insecurity, how can it be determined that this frame is beneficial? The framesets provided

by the FrameWorks Institute will be used as a barometer to indicate how closely the LSJ frame

fits with the ideal “legacy” and “protection” frames the institute developed. More specifically it

will compare the goals of the “legacy” and “protection” frames to what the LSJ talks about when

discussing food issues. The following points will constitute the comparison data:

environmentally sound farming, changing agriculture subsidies to favor smaller farms, increasing

Gruber 11

the amount of locally grown food, altering food stamps to allow for more healthy food,

increasing the number of community gardens, providing incentives for institutions to promote

healthy local food, nutrition, and progress over stagnation. This basic data analysis technique

should prove sufficient in providing some insights into the question of whether or not the media,

within L-A of course, frames food insecurity in a way that benefits food advocates actions, or a

frame that supports changing the whole food system rather than other corrective courses.

Data

The following are univariate tables of the eight questions outlined in the methods section

Q2: Term Appears Frequency Percent

SNAP or Food Stamps

Not mentioned 72 80

Mentioned 18 20

WIC

Not mentioned 84 93.3

Mentioned 6 6.7

Farming/Farmers


Mentioned 16 17.8

Nutrition


Mentioned 8 8.9

Sustainability


Mentioned 7 7.8

EFP terms


Mentioned 59 65.6

Total for all 90 100

Q1: Overall Content Positive or Negative?

Frequency Percent

Positive 56 62.2

Negative 14 15.6

Neutral 20 22.2

Total 90 100

Q3: Broader Food System Mentioned

Frequency Percent

No 69 76.7

Yes 21 23.3

Total 90 100

Gruber 12

Q6: Solution Mentioned

Frequency

Percent

Government


Mentioned 12 13.3

Charitable Organizations


Mentioned 37 41.1

Donations


Mentioned 17 18.9

Community Action


Mentioned 10 11.1

Total for all 90 100

Q5: Causes Mentioned

Frequency Percent

Individual


Mentioned 2 2.2

Structural


Mentioned 15 16.7

Both equally


Mentioned 3 3.3

Total for All 90 100

Gruber 13

Q4: Individual or Social Framing Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Individual 3 3.3 7.7

Social 36 40 92.3

Total Valid 39 43.3

Not applicable 50 55.6

System Missing 1 1.1

Total 90 100

Gruber 14

Q8: Food Insecure Active or Passive

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Active Agents 7 7.8 16.7

Passive Recipients 35 38.9 83.3

Total Valid 42 46.7 100

NA 48 53.3

Total 90 100

Q7:Mention Health Effects Frequency Percent


Mentioned 10 11.1

Total 90 100

Gruber 15

Results

The following will compare the univariate statistics to the key concepts the ideal frames

developed by the FrameWorks Institute suggest. The easiest way to discuss the results is by

question and then relating them to the key concepts. The first questions on content proved

promising with 62.2% of the articles having a positive tone and being focused on progress or

solutions and constructive efforts. This is important to framing food insecurity because to avoid

the pitfalls of modernism and consumerism, which render our food system helpless and put

society out of changes reach, because speaking negatively on food insecurity simply reinforces

this stagnant mindset. Only 15.6% were negative or focused on documenting problems,

difficulties and distress, while 22% were uncodable or neutral, suggesting that positive framing

certainly outweighs negative framing. While the tone of the articles may have been positive,

what they tended to mention was not as strongly in line with the FrameWorks message.

Throughout the sample set of articles 20% mentioned Food Stamps or Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance programs, 7% mention WIC, and 8.9% mentioned nutrition. Improving the

SNAP or Food Stamps programs (and WIC for that matter) to allow for the purchasing of more

healthy food is a key focus of the FWI (Frameworks Institute). However, this statistic doesn’t

demonstrate how the program or nutrition is talked about, bringing into play the need for

qualitative analysis. Taking the following quote from the LSJ, it can be observed that food

stamps and government programs are talked about as in need of improvement as the FWI

suggests it should be.

“Marcia Meyers, a social policy professor at the University of Washington, said most of America's poor "are not on the verge of literal starvation." But they may not get adequate nutrition, and if they're using food stamps, may not have access to high-quality foods, she said.” (LSJ).

Gruber 16

Talking about food stamps in this fashion is beneficial because it acknowledges that although the

program is helpful, it may not be helpful enough to provide nutritionally adequate food, which as

the scholarly definition of food insecurity suggests, isn’t necessarily helping the food insecure.

Farming and or farmers were mentioned in 17.8% of the articles and sustainability or

organic was mentioned in 7.8%. This is another positive aspect found in the LSJ content analysis,

as the FWI emphasizes sustainable farming, community gardens and sustainability and organic

produce as key concepts to working towards national food security. Similarly to the Food Stamps

though, the way farming and sustainability is talked about should be examined in the actual text

to be sure it is being reported on in a positive or beneficial manner to the cause. For the case of

farming and farmers the articles tended to mention good sustainable farming practice and

community gardens as the FWI would hope for. This quote from the LSJ on the Plant a Row for

the Hungry initiative by the Maine Cooperative Extension demonstrates how farming is talked

about,

“The Paris Extension office has about three-quarters of an acre of gardens, including an on-site greenhouse. Members harvest greens, summer squash, zucchini, beans, blueberries and cantaloupe, among other produce. Local farmers and gardeners donate corn, apples and other produce not easily grown on the small parcel of land.” (LSJ)

Articles mentioning community farming practices such as this convey the type of positive

message that will help motivate people towards collective action for ending food

insecurity.

A negative finding from the results was that Emergency food providers were mentioned

in a staggering 65.6% of the articles. Although this is likely due to the number of EFPs in the

Lewiston-Auburn area, the mere fact that over half of the articles relating to food over the past

Gruber 17

three years mention EFPs places far too much emphasis on short term solutions to the greater

problem of food insecurity. The FWI stresses a focus on society and the larger food system as a

whole as the only way to ever truly eradicate food insecurity, thus when most of the media

coverage emphasis EFPs they miss out on conveying the need to address the larger food system.

This is one area the LSJ could use improvement on and is further demonstrated in the next

question.

When coded for a reference to the broader food system, such as food production,

processing and distribution, 76.7% had no mention of the food system. This is terribly

problematic to the FWI ideal frames and key concepts as this is the root of their efforts. If three

quarters of the articles on food in the last three years have no mention of the broader food system,

one can assume people are receiving little information on the problems with the larger food

system from the media. This is perhaps the most problematic finding in this analysis, and

measures should most definitely be taken to attempt to give the greater food system more

mention in news coverage. If it is hardly ever reported on how will people ever link the broader

food system to the problems of food insecurity they witness in their city? Fortunately the next

question proves more positive in terms of framing.

Question 4 regarding whether the article frames food insecurity at the individual or social

level provided positive results in regards to the aims of the FWI. Of the valid cases, the cases that

indicated any sort of framing, 92% framed the problem as a social one focusing on social

patterns, costs, and society’s need to do something about it rather than the individual. However

out of all the cases only 40% mentioned this type of framing. Regardless, this is most definitely a

positive frame the LSJ has clearly adopted in its coverage of food. By making the issue a social

problem it takes the focus off of the individual, which as Gollust and Lantz suggest can create

Gruber 18

apathy, and rather places it on society as a whole. Although this doesn’t necessarily link to the

food system it is certainly better than individual level framing.

The next question was constructed in a list style similar to that of question 2. When asked

what kinds of causes for food insecurity are emphasized within the article only 2.2% suggested

individual causes, maintaining the positive social frame perspective. 16.7% of the articles

emphasized primarily structural causes such as broader patterns of unemployment, broad

economic crisis, social patterns in substance abuse, and lack of adequate government provisions.

Again although not focusing on the food system as a whole, it is better that these articles discuss

food insecurity from a social or structural standpoint in an effort to encourage collective action

towards fixing the problem. This does loosely link with the key concept of improving Food

Stamp purchasing power, but likely not as closely as the FWI would suggest it should.

Question 6 poses another list but this time asking about the kinds of solutions for food

insecurity the articles emphasize most. 13% emphasize government programs, like Food Stamps,

WIC, reduced price school lunches, and other non-food related government assistance programs,

while 11.1% emphasized community action or social movements like community food

assessments, neighborhood groups or the Maine People’s Alliance. Each of these categories fits

nicely with the FWI key concepts of providing incentives for institutions to promote healthy

local food, altering food stamps to allow for more healthy food, and collective action more

generally. Take for example this quote as a point of reiteration on the positive ways in which the

LSJ discusses these topics. The following quote on Lots to Garden emphasizes community action

and education towards sustainable local gardens.

“Sixteen-year-old Casey Paladino didn't know beans about how to raise vegetables, or why he should eat them, until this summer. On Friday, he was speaking publicly about the importance of eating fruits and vegetables in a variety of colors. Asha Hirsi, 15, said her attitude about food has changed too since

Gruber 19

participating in the Youth Gardeners Program. “Before it was, 'yeah, vegetables.' Now it's 'Vegetables! OK, let me try it!'” (LSJ)

Again, this quote demonstrates an ideal type of community action towards eradicating food

insecurity. It plays into education and sustainable farming, key aspects of the FWI frames.

However, the negative codes from this question appear to outweigh the positive elements.

Of the articles examined 41% emphasized charitable organizations serving low income

people such as EFPs as a solution, and 18.9% focused on individual or group donations as a way

to help food insecurity. Although positive in nature, this is terribly negative to the reframing

efforts of the FWI because it focuses on the individual and local level. Again, the stressing point

behind the FWI is that eradicating food insecurity necessarily requires a change in the broader

food system as a whole. The fact that over half of the articles emphasized donations and

emergency food providers as solutions reiterates in peoples’ minds that this is the best way to

help the food insecure. While this may be true in the short term, when looking towards the future,

it does little to help the food insecure’s problems and could in fact be detrimental to food system

advocate’s causes.

Unfortunately, question 7 also reveals some negative framing components within the LSJ.

94.4% of the articles fail to mention any health effects of food insecurity or poor nutrition. This

is problematic, especially to the “legacy” and “protection” frames because it does not tie food

insecurity to the problems it causes for adults, the youth, and future generations alike. Discussing

the health effects of our food system and food insecurity is necessary to turn people’s attention

the broader food system and remove focus and dependency on EFPs. Health effects are an easy

way to catch people’s attention, as the works of Michael Pollan and documentaries like Food Inc.

have recently demonstrated.

Gruber 20

Finally, question 8 also reveals rather bleak news from a framing perspective. Asking if

the articles represent food insecure people as active agents who have something important to

offer in solving the problem of food insecurity or more as passive recipients in need of help from

others, 83% found them as passive recipients. Although of the total articles only 38% regarded

the food insecure as passive, the valid percent suggests that the overwhelming majority of

articles that discussed this topic found the food insecure to not be active. This is problematic

because of the sense of apathy it likely creates as well as the lack of collective action it fails to

suggest.

To summarize these findings the positive and negative framing elements will each be

discussed collectively. From a positive perspective the LSJ tended to frame food insecurity

positively or with a positive tone on progress. Many of the articles discussed government

programs from a standpoint that encouraged them, but also pushed for programs allowing access

to healthier food. There were many articles on sustainable farming practices and community

gardens, each of which is helpful towards food security. The articles also framed food insecurity

from a social or structural standpoint, although not directly linking it to the broader food system,

they described the problem of food insecurity as one all society should bear rather than the

individual. Some of the articles also mentioned community action, which is fundamental in

generating collective social movement. These instances reinforced the key framing elements of

the FWI in regards to environmentally sound farming, increasing the amount of locally grown

food, altering food stamps to allow for more healthy food, increasing the number of community

gardens, progress over stagnation, and loosely reinforcing providing incentives for institutions to

promote healthy food.

Gruber 21

The negative aspects of framing from the LSJ were found in the following framing

problems. Most of the articles tended to focus on EFPs, although beneficial in the short run, this

should not be the focus of solutions according to the FWI. There was hardly any mention of the

broader food system throughout the articles, which is the fundamental core of the FWI message.

Health effects were rarely mentioned throughout the articles as well, a key element of the

“legacy” and “protection” frames. Finally, the food insecure were seen as passive recipients,

working conversely against collective action as a solution. In regards to the FWI key elements

the LSJ almost entirely missed the main point of addressing the broader food system as a

solution to food insecurity, failed to address nutrition as an effect of food insecurity, and by

regarding the food insecure as passive limited perceptions of collective action and progress over

stagnation. The key element of changing agriculture subsidies was neither positively nor

negatively addressed across the articles. The following discussions section will interpret these

results and discuss the limitations of this analysis.

Discussion

The findings of this analysis are optimistic in how much of the coverage in the LSJ

reflects the ideal frames and key concepts noted by the FWI. That being said, it is lacking in

perhaps the most important aspect of the FWI institute frame, linking food insecurity as a

problem with the broader food system. Their utter focus on EFPs certainly draws away from

suggesting policy action towards the greater food system because it reinforces attention on the

local, individual, short term solution. If there was one critical area of improvement for the LSJ it

would be framing food insecurity from their already social framework to a framework more

closely tied to the national food system and the problems with it. Regardless, the LSJ exhibited a

number of positive elements in regards to improving food stamps and encouraging farmers, local

Gruber 22

gardens, and community collective action. Their social framing also is a beginning step towards

generating a collective societal movement, but again more attention needs to be placed on the

food system as a whole. This analysis may not be the most representative or comprehensive

study given its obvious limitation.

When performing this analysis the content analysis form was used as a method to quickly

code the articles. Each article was not combed over in a qualitative sense, because the

quantitative data served as a more convenient way to assess the general trends within the LSJ. A

more comprehensive study would have been a fully qualitative analysis of the articles in junction

with the quantitative work for a variety of reasons. To begin with, many of the articles may not

have mentioned certain things simply because that is not what they were reporting on.

Newspapers often provide short pieces to publicize an event or cover a particular story. This is

likely why the number of EFP mentions found in the articles was so overwhelming. Regardless,

this does not negate the fact that the LSJ spends a lot of time discussing EFPs and very little time

discussing the broader food system, which as the FWI suggests is highly problematic. Also, it

should be mentioned that the work by the FWI is only suggestive, although backed by empirical

data; their frames can certainly not be considered the only way to get people to start thinking

about the greater food system as the cause of food insecurity.

The real conclusions that can be drawn from this study are the following. The LSJ does a

poor job of drawing attention to the broader food system because it hardly mentions the broader

food system and places most of its emphasis on EFPs. The LSJ also largely fails to address the

health concerns associated with food insecurity, of which mentioning can lead people to be more

concerned about food insecurity generally. However, the LSJ does a surprisingly good job of

advocating for better food stamp procedures, better farming practices, and a need for community

Gruber 23

gardens and local food, all of which are supported by the FWI. Still, the bottom line from this

analysis suggests the LSJ should place more emphasis on the broader food system and the work

that needs to be done to it, as media framing greatly influences people’s action and large scale

collective action is likely the only way the food system will see improvement.

Conclusion

The framing of a social problem greatly affects how that problem is perceived and thus

how it is addressed. For the case of food insecurity, scholars have begun to accept reaching a

state of food security will necessarily require a revamping of the broader food system. Thus

framing food insecurity in a fashion that directs people’s attention to the broader food system

and emphasizes the problem as a societal one becomes critically important to achieving the

appropriate corrective action. The FrameWorks Institute is a group that focuses on social issues

and the most effective frames to discuss them with in order to enhance activists’ efforts. For food

insecurity they highlight key elements revolving around a simplified model called the “runaway

food system” best established with the “legacy” and “protection” frames. When examining the

LSJ through a content analysis this analysis realized both positive and negative aspects of their

framing elements. The LSJ did a good job of advocating for better farming practices, enhancing

food stamps, social framing, and spurring community action. However, the LSJ did a poor job

communicating the health concerns of food insecurity, and an even poorer job linking food

insecurity to the broader food system which is perhaps the most critical component of the FWI

message. There is certainly room for improvement in the way the LSJ talks about food and food

insecurity, and they could most definitely benefit from the lessons taught by the FWI.

Regardless, the LSJ is a newspaper and not an activist group, therefore they shouldn’t

necessarily be demanded to advocate food and the food system in any particular way. That being

Gruber 24

said, in a food poverty ridden area such as Lewiston and Auburn, one would hope the media

frames the issue in a way that would create the most change. Given the obvious limitations of

this almost purely quantitative study, there is room for more research from a qualitative

standpoint and research from a national versus regional standpoint would also prove interesting.

Getting the media to reframe food insecurity in a way that highlights the broader food system

and its problems will be a huge element of creating the collective action necessary to generate

change; the real question is how does one get the media to frame food insecurity in this proactive

way?

Gruber 25

Bibliography

Alkon, Alison H., Kari M. Norgaard. 2009. “Breaking the Food Chains: An Investigation of

Food Justice Activism.” Sociological Inquiry 79(3): 289-305.

Auburn, Alex, Andrew Brown, and Joseph Grady. 2005. "Not While I’m Eating; How and Why

Americans Don’t Think About Food Systems Findings from the TalkBack Testing."

Prepared for the Frameworks Institute

Auburn, Alex, Andrew Brown, and Joseph Grady. 2005. "Harmful and Productive Patterns in

Newspaper Representations of Food Systems." Prepared for the Frameworks Institute

Chambliss, Daniel F., Russell K. Schutt. 2010. Making Sense of the Social World: Methods of

Investigation. 3rd edition. Los Angeles, Pine Forge Press.

Coleman-Jensen, Alisha J. 2009. “U.S. Food Insecurity Status: Towards a Refined Definition.”

Social Indicators Research 95(2): 215-230.

Entman, Robert. 1993. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of

Communication, 34(4), 51–58.

The Frameworks Institute. 2008. “How Did This Broccoli Get on My Plate? Framing Food as a

Public Issue.” A Frameworks Institute Learning Module.

Gollust, Sarah E., Paula M. Lantz. 2009. “Communicating Population Health: Print News Media

Coverage of Type 2 Diabetes.” Social Science and Medicine 69: 1091-1098.

Jacobson, Maxine. 2007. “Food Matters: Community Food Assessments as a Tool for Change.”

Journal of Community Practice 15(3): 37-55.

Rubin, Herbet J., Irene S. Rubin. 2005.Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. 2nd

edition, Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications.

Scanlan, Stephen J. 2009. “New Direction and Discovery on the Hunger Front: Toward a

Sociology of Food Security/Insecurity.” Humanity and Society 33: 292-316.

Stevenson, G.W., Kathryn Ruhf, Sharon Lezberg, Kate Clancy. 2007. "Warrior, Builder, and

Weaver Work: Strategies for Changing the Food System." Remaking the North American

food system : strategies for sustainability. Ed. C. Clare Hinrichs, Thomas A. Lyson.

Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press

Stone, Deborah A. 1989. Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science

Quarterly, 104(2), 281–300.

© www.blakejgruber.com | 2012 all rights reserved.

Documents

Media Framing of Food Insecurity - Blake J Gruber · Scanlan writes, “Although there are micro-level considerations for food security/insecurity and many ‘faces of hunger,’