Table of Contents

Abstract 4

Introduction. 5

Methods. 8

Data Analysis and Summary. 9

Discussions. 17

Conclusion. 20

References. 22

A Final Reflection on Doing this Group Project 23

Appendix A..

Web-Based Internet Sites: The Washington Post, American Civil Liberties Union, LawFare. 24

Appendix B..

Liberal and Conservative Blogs. 38

Appendix C

Cable Television: CNN, Fox News, MSNBC. 5

Appendix D..

News Magazines: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report.

Appendix E.

Newspaper: Wall Street Journal.

Appendix F.

Newspapers: New York Times and New York Post 108

Appendix G..

Newspapers: Chicago Tribune & LA Times.

 

 

 

 

 

Tables and Figures

Table 1: Overall Data by Media Outlet, Social Actor and Tone. 11

Table 2: Old and New Media – Social Actors and Tones. 12

Table 3: Old Media by Outlet, Social Actor and Tone. 13

Table 4: New Media by Outlet, Social Actor and Tone. 14

Figure 1: Old and New Media. 16

Figure 2: Tone. 16

Figure 3: Tone: New Media by Affiliation. 17

 

Abstract

The WikLeaks saga is perhaps one of the more interesting subjects in present day studies of crime, media and justice. However, research on this topic and within this discipline is limited, if not non-existent. The purpose of this research was to examine the content of various forms of media with the ongoing WikiLeaks story. We seek to identify the type of social actor frames used to present the story to the public and explore the differences in content and frames between “old” or established media sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) and “new” media sources (blogs, more recent television sources). As a secondary concern, we ask if this content is framed in a manner consistent enough to result in the creation of a moral panic according to Cohen’s 1972 model. A quasi-content analysis of 360 media sources reveals that 77.2% did not represent WikiLeaks as a folk devil, although nearly half of the content examined depicted WikiLeaks and/or Julian Assange in a negative manner. As such, an assumption is made that a moral panic is not present, nor was there a media-wide attempt at the creation of one. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

In the study of the intersection of crime & media studies, there is perhaps a no more fascinating subject than that of the ongoing WikiLeaks saga. WikiLeaks, a non-profit online publisher of leaked documents from anonymous whistleblowers, has found itself in the center of a highly divisive international debate about transparency in business and government versus corporate and government’s right to keep secrets. The controversy stems primarily from two highly controversial raw document caches published on the WikiLeaks website in 2010. One, a string of military intelligence reports from US troops in Afghanistan dubbed the “Afghan War Diary”, and the other, a series of highly sensitive diplomatic cables from various government embassies around the world.  Fundamentally, WikiLeaks serves as an innovative, secure, and anonymous process for sources to leak information to the public. Its founder, Julian Assange, has said that WikiLeaks "creates a better society for all people ... [producing] reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organizations.” (WikiLeaks, 2011) The affected governments have predictably taken the opposite position, saying that the leaked documents have harmed international relations and compromised undercover agents. It is notable that Assange, shortly after the dust-up of the leaked cables, found himself facing charges of sexual assault and possible extradition from the U.K. to Switzerland to stand trial. 

Currently, WikiLeaks is among the most preeminent issue in media studies. Its continued existence or eventual demise has the potential to change the landscape of media and internet publishing, the use of confidential sources, and the treatment of whistleblowers (and their facilitators) internationally. As a social issue, the case of WikiLeaks is complex with issues of moral ambiguity and individual perception of events, and is subject to ideological and political leanings. Therefore, a content analysis of WikiLeaks’ media coverage during this time of large-scale interest and coverage may reveal some of the reporting tendencies of media sources in regard to framing and tone, as well as ideological underpinnings. By examining the content of various forms of media with the ongoing WikiLeaks story, we seek to identify the type of frames used to present the story to the public. As a secondary concern, we ask if this content is framed in a manner consistent enough to result in the creation of a moral panic.

In analyzing the coverage of WikiLeaks, we wanted to explore the differences in content and frames between “old” or established media sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) and “new” media sources (blogs, more recent television sources). As an expansion of the established media apparatus, new media sources are gaining credibility and viewership. By 2014, it is estimated that 150 million Americans, 60% of the U.S. internet population, will read blogs on a monthly basis (eMarketer, 2010). How these new media sources differ in their framing and coverage of the WikiLeaks story is of particular concern for this paper.

Central to our research question is the concept of news framing introduced by Tuchman (1978) to allude to media sources and the production of news stories. “Framing refers to the way an issue is presented to the public. Framing involves calling attention to certain aspects of an issue while ignoring or obscuring other elements” (Bonn, 2010: 23). Colloquially known as spin, framing can have a demonstrable effect on the contextual understanding of the exact same event, depending on which frames are placed within the story. In the case of Julian Assange, his sexual assault proceedings can be presented either as the man who leaked government secrets also turning out to be a sick, sexual deviant, or as the whistleblower transformed into a political target, resulting in trumped up charges at the behest of irate international leaders. The tone of the stories is of particular importance as well. Tone refers to the ideological leaning of a story’s coverage: in other words if the frame or presentation of the story is pro-WikiLeaks, anti-WikiLeaks, or is simply neutral. We are specifically concerned with identifying, counting, and analyzing the different frames of these stories to compare them between media sources for frequency and overall trend.

The media has the ability to shape public discourse through their coverage of particular news stories. Bonn (2010) argued that media outlets are core mechanisms in setting the agenda for public discourse. Specifically, they are able to transfer the salience of an issue from the press to the public based upon their coverage, or lack of coverage. Furthermore, Bonn wrote of a second level of agenda setting. This level refers to the influence of news media’s coverage of actors or issues and the public’s perception of these issues or individuals. It is these concepts that make the argument for the importance of a news content analysis, and the framing of that coverage. Singular news framing can shape or sway public opinion, and to a large degree create ideological consensus.

            Framing can furthermore play a major role in the creation of what Cohen (1972) calls a moral panic. Moral panic can be defined as a "condition or situation in which public fears and state interventions greatly exceed the objective threat posed to society by a particular group that is claimed to be responsible for the condition” (Bonn, 2010, 5).  In sum, an individual or group becomes socially defined as being responsible for creating a threat to society.  This scapegoating is also known as manifesting a “folk devil” and is integral in the creation of moral panic. A folk devil is “stripped of all favorable characteristics and imparted with exclusively negative ones” (Goode & Ben-Yehuda, 1994, 28). The threat posed by the folk devil is greatly exaggerated or distorted by other actors, including the news media, to serve as the object of public scorn for the moral panic. Because moral panics cannot exist without a folk devil, it is, it is imperative that the WikiLeaks organization and/or Julian Assange be subjected to that role. This study will include an examination of news stories that vilify the WikiLeaks founder or the organization itself. Because of the powerful forces involved in the WikiLeaks saga, this research fits best into the context of the elite-engineered model of moral panic. An elite-engineered moral panic occurs when an elite group deliberately undertakes a campaign to generate and sustain concern or fear on the part of the public over an issue that is not as intensely threatening as it is presented (Bonn, 2010). Given that the goals of WikiLeaks are largely antithetical to those in power, and that its continued existence is a threat to secretive states, we feel it is worthwhile to explore this moral panic model. Through our analysis of the Wikileaks coverage, we aim to discover whether the framing of these stories is such that it is aimed at, or apt to, create moral panic amongst the public.

As an aside, there is a branch to the WikiLeaks story in the fate of Private First Class Bradley Manning, allegedly the leaker of the Afghan War Diary documents. In selecting articles for this analysis we chose not to include stories or articles primarily concerned with Manning. Since they most often did not concern WikiLeaks as an entity, we found them largely irrelevant to this study.

Methods

            A content analysis was conducted to provide an overview of the media coverage of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.  From November 2010 to February 2011, three hundred sixty articles/editorials, blogs, newsletters, and news videos were collected and analyzed from various media outlets.  These media outlets included: New York Times, New York Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Newsweek, US News and World Report, Washington Post, Liberal Blogs, Conservative Blogs, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, ACLU Online, and Lawfare Blog.  The media collected was then separated into five categories based on the dominant social actor portrayed.  The five social actors used were first identified by Cohen (1972) as:

1) Folk devils: those individuals who are socially defined or alleged to be responsible for                         creating a threat to society.

2) Rule or law enforcers: the police, the prosecutors and the military

3) The media: news media coverage, specifically those which exaggerate the threat of folk devils/ attempt to create a moral panic

4) Politicians: those who operate within the public sphere and act as the protectors of moral high ground

5) The public: public agitation, concern, and outrage over the actions of folk devils

(Bonn, 2010)

 When multiple social actors were present, the most dominant actor was used for categorization.  In addition to categorizing media by the dominant social actor, the media was also classified as having a Positive, Negative, or Neutral tone.  Positive toned media took a pro-WikiLeaks and/or pro-Assange stance; negative, an anti-WikiLeaks and/or anti-Assange stance; and neutral, an informational, unbiased position.

Data Analysis and Summary

As previously discussed, the data was collected by applying a quasi-content analysis coding procedure. Overall, 16 media channels were examined for articles/editorials, blogs, newsletters, and news video with a relationship to WikiLeaks and/or Julian Assange. The data sources (N=360) represent a broad range of web-based media providers, such as newspapers, magazines, blogs, and cable news. Even though the majority of the media channels are American based; it is appropriate to consider the world-wide range and popularity of these outlets since the source material is web-based. The newspaper and cable news organizations were considered for their readership volume and geographic location, such that spatial influences could be reflected upon as well. Liberal and conservative cable news outlets and blogs were identified and analyzed as well. Additionally, the sources were categorized as old media (N=198) and new media (N=162) to determine if one form of media appeared more influential in promoting a moral panic and/or designating WikiLeaks/Julian Assange as a folk devil.

Tables 1 – 4 provide an overall interpretation of the collected data (respectively – overall group; new and old media; old media only; and new media only).  The overall data reveals the media depicting WikiLeaks/Assange as a folk devil in 32.8% of the sources as well as framing him negatively in 48.3% of the sources.  An assumption can be made that these two variables are related. Sources with neutral or positive tones do not present the information in such a way that would result in the folk devil label which characterizes the folk devil label as a dependent variable contingent on the use of frames.  Only 14.2% of this body of media had ‘politician’ as a dominant social actor which diminishes the relevance of the ‘elite-engineered” model of moral panic to WikiLeaks. 

The data analysis for old and new media provided interesting statistical trends (Table 2). Old media provided 55% of the data, in which 37.8% of the data sources categorized WikiLeaks/Julian Assange as a folk devil. Conversely, 26.5% of new media placed WikiLeaks/Julian Assange in the folk devil category. The most prevalent category for new media

Table 1: Overall Data by Media Outlet, Social Actor and Tone

Media Outlet	Social Actor												Tone
	Folk Devil		Politician		Rule/Law Enforcer		Media		Public		Totals		Positive		Negative		Neutral		Total
Old Media	(N)	(%)	(N)	(%)	(N)	(%)	(N)	(%)	(N)	(%)	(N)	(%)	(N)	(%)	(N)	(%)	(N)	(%)	(N)	(%)
NY Times	11	14.7%	8	26.7%	2	8.3%	4	7.4%	2	13.3%	27	13.6%	1	5.6%	24	22.6%	2	2.7%	27	13.6%
NY Post	29	38.7%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	1	6.7%	30	15.2%	1	5.6%	29	27.4%	0	0.0%	30	15.2%
LA Times	0	0.0%	2	6.7%	2	8.3%	8	14.8%	0	0.0%	12	6.1%	3	16.7%	3	2.8%	6	8.1%	12	6.1%
Chicago Tribune	3	4.0%	3	10.0%	2	8.3%	8	14.8%	2	13.3%	18	9.1%	2	11.1%	8	7.5%	8	10.8%	18	9.1%
Wall Street Journal	18	24.0%	7	23.3%	6	25.0%	15	27.8%	2	13.3%	48	24.2%	1	5.6%	16	15.1%	31	41.9%	48	24.2%
Time	2	2.7%	0	0.0%	2	8.3%	2	3.7%	1	6.7%	7	3.5%	2	11.1%	1	0.9%	4	5.4%	7	3.5%
Newsweek	3	4.0%	2	6.7%	0	0.0%	9	16.7%	4	26.7%	18	9.1%	5	27.8%	5	4.7%	8	10.8%	18	9.1%
US News and World Report	6	8.0%	5	16.7%	3	12.5%	8	14.8%	3	20.0%	25	12.6%	2	11.1%	14	13.2%	9	12.2%	25	12.6%
The Washington Post	3	4.0%	3	10.0%	7	29.2%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	13	6.6%	1	5.6%	6	5.7%	6	8.1%	13	6.6%
Total	75	37.9%	30	15.2%	24	12.1%	54	27.3%	15	7.6%	198	100.0%	18	9.1%	106	53.5%	74	37.4%	198	100.0%
New Media	Folk Devil		Politician		Rule/Law Enforcer		Media		Public		Totals		Positive		Negative		Neutral		Total
Liberal Blogs	1	2.3%	11	52.4%	0	0.0%	10	15.6%	17	63.0%	39	24.1%	16	37.2%	10	14.7%	13	25.5%	39	24.1%
Conservative Blogs	18	41.9%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	2	3.1%	6	22.2%	26	16.0%	0	0.0%	23	33.8%	3	5.9%	26	16.0%
MSNBC	3	7.0%	5	23.8%	1	14.3%	20	31.3%	1	3.7%	30	18.5%	15	34.9%	6	8.8%	9	17.6%	30	18.5%
FOX	15	34.9%	1	4.8%	0	0.0%	14	21.9%	0	0.0%	30	18.5%	1	2.3%	20	29.4%	9	17.6%	30	18.5%
CNN	6	14.0%	3	14.3%	0	0.0%	18	28.1%	3	11.1%	30	18.5%	4	9.3%	9	13.2%	17	33.3%	30	18.5%
ACLU Website	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	3	42.9%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	3	1.9%	3	7.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	3	1.9%
Lawfare Blog	0	0.0%	1	4.8%	3	42.9%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	4	2.5%	4	9.3%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	4	2.5%
Total	43	26.5%	21	13.0%	7	4.3%	64	39.5%	27	16.7%	162	100.0%	43	26.5%	68	42.0%	51	31.5%	162	100.0%
Old & New Media Total	118	32.8%	51	14.2%	31	8.6%	118	32.8%	42	11.7%	360	100.0%	61	16.9%	174	48.3%	125	34.7%	360	100.0%

 

 

Table 2: Old and New Media – Social Actors and Tones

Media Outlet	Social Actor
	Folk Devil					Politician							Rule/Law Enforcer					Media			Public		Total
Old & New Media Totals	M (N)		M2 (%)			M (N)			M2 (%)				M (N)			M2 (%)		M (N)		M2 (%)	M (N)	M2 (%)	M (N)	M2 (%)
Old Media	75		63.6%			30			58.8%				24			77.4%		54		27.3%	15	35.7%	198	55.0%
New Media	43		36.4%			21			41.2%				7			22.6%		64		39.5%	27	64.3%	162	45.0%
Total	118		32.8%			51			14.2%				31			8.6%		118		33.4%	42	11.7%	360	100.0%
	Tone
	Positive			Negative						Neutral							Total
Old & New Media Totals	M (N)	M2 (%)		M (N)				M2 (%)		M (N)					M2 (%)		M (N)		M2 (%)
Old Media	18	29.5%		106				60.9%		74					59.2%		198		55.0%
New Media	43	70.5%		68				39.1%		51					40.8%		162		45.0%
Total	61	16.9%		174				48.3%		125					34.7%		360		100.0%
M = Media type
M2 (%) = M (N) / Total (unweighted)
M2 (%) Total = M (N) Total / 360

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Old Media by Outlet, Social Actor and Tone

Media Outlet	Social Actor
	Folk Devil		Politician		Rule/Law Enforcer			Media		Public		Total
Old Media	S (N)	S1 (%)	S (N)	S1 (%)	S (N)		S1 (%)	S (N)	S1 (%)	S (N)	S1 (%)	S (N)	S2 (%)
NY Times	11	40.7%	8	29.6%	2		7.4%	4	14.8%	2	7.4%	27	13.6%
NY Post	29	96.7%	0	0.0%	0		0.0%	0	0.0%	1	3.3%	30	15.2%
LA Times	0	0.0%	2	16.7%	2		16.7%	8	66.7%	0	0.0%	12	6.1%
Chicago Tribune	3	16.7%	3	16.7%	2		11.1%	8	44.4%	2	11.1%	18	9.1%
Wall Street Journal	18	37.5%	7	14.6%	6		12.5%	15	31.3%	2	4.2%	48	24.2%
Time	2	28.6%	0	0.0%	2		28.6%	2	28.6%	1	14.3%	7	3.5%
Newsweek	3	16.7%	2	11.1%	0		0.0%	9	50.0%	4	22.2%	18	9.1%
US News and World Report	6	24.0%	5	20.0%	3		12.0%	8	32.0%	3	12.0%	25	12.6%
The Washington Post	3	23.1%	3	23.1%	7		53.8%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	13	6.6%
Total	75	37.9%	30	15.2%	24		12.1%	54	27.3%	15	7.6%	198	100.0%
Media Source	Tone
	Positive		Negative			Neutral		Total
Old Media	S (N)	S1 (%)	S (N)	S1 (%)		S (N)	S1 %)	S (N)	S2 (%)
NY Times	1	3.7%	24	88.9%		2	7.4%	27	13.6%
NY Post	1	3.3%	29	96.7%		0	0.0%	30	15.2%
LA Times	3	25.0%	3	25.0%		6	50.0%	12	6.1%
Chicago Tribune	2	11.1%	8	44.4%		8	44.4%	18	9.1%
Wall Street Journal	1	2.1%	16	33.3%		31	64.6%	48	24.2%	S = Source, Article, or Blog   S1 (%) = S (N) / S (N) Total (for individual media source) S2 (%) = S (N) Total (by individual media source) / 198
Time	2	28.6%	1	14.3%		4	57.1%	7	3.5%
Newsweek	5	27.8%	5	27.8%		8	44.4%	18	9.1%
US News and World Report	2	8.0%	14	56.0%		9	36.0%	25	12.6%
The Washington Post	1	7.7%	6	46.2%		6	46.2%	13	6.6%
Total	18	9.1%	106	53.5%		74	37.4%	198	100.0%

Table 4: New Media by Outlet, Social Actor and Tone

Media Outlet	Social Actor
	Folk Devil		Politician			Rule/Law Enforcer			Media		Public		Total
New Media	S (N)	S1 (%)	S (N)		S1 (%)	S (N)		S1 (%)	S (N)	S1 (%)	S (N)	S1 (%)	(N)	S2 (%)
Liberal Blogs	1	2.6%	11		28.2%	0		0.0%	10	25.6%	17	43.6%	39	24.1%
Conservative Blogs	18	69.2%	0		0.0%	0		0.0%	2	7.7%	6	23.1%	26	16.0%
MSNBC	3	10.0%	5		16.7%	1		3.3%	20	66.7%	1	3.3%	30	18.5%