More or Less Strangers Social distance to the old, the young, the ethnic and the non-ethnic Dutch as reflected in the news media reporting. by Dorota Lepianka,

More or Less Strangers

Social distance to the old, the young, the ethnic and the non-

ethnic Dutch as reflected in

the news media reporting.

byDorota Lepianka, AIAS

Agenda

• Why media analysis?• Research questions• Research design• (Preliminary) results• Conclusions• Follow-up

• Theoretical model:

• Basic assumption:People’s perceptions of various social groups are reinforced, if not shaped, by the media portrayal of those groups.

Why media analysis?

benefactor

beneficiary

media

perception

Aim of the study

The aim of the studyThe reconstruction of the (dominant) representations of the young, the old, the allochthon and the autochthon in Dutch media (press and tv).

Social distance

• Definition

degree of (perceived) seperateness between individuals and groups acknowleged/seen as different

• Aspects - examples• Affective • Interactive• Normative

Research question

Research questionHow do media convey/map social distance with respect to ‘minority’ groups: the old, the young and the allochthon?

Strategies of distancing

• Othering via:

• denial of visibility • denial of uniqueness• denial of knowledge and voice• overgeneralisation of the negative

• What may convey social distance in the media?

• (in)visibility/lack of attention• (lack of) prominence: role in the news• degree of homogeneity in presentation• nature of evaluation

Study design: material

• Media• Newspapers: de Volkskrant, de Telegraaf• Tv: NOS Journaal, RTL4 nieuws• Internet: www.nu.nl

• Research periods• Crisis news reporting: pre-election campaign (May

2010)• Routine news reporting (November 2010)

• Sampling• all relevant articles/news messages • focus on the actor

Results: visibility

Categories Sample(N = 555)

Share in population aged15-35 and 55+

Young (N= 434) 78.2%

52%

  Young autochthon 11.9% 38%

  Young allochthon 11.2% 14%

Young “generic” 55.1%

Old (N= 121) 21.8%

48%

  Old autochthon 3.4% 41%  Old allochthon 0.5% 7%

Old “generic” 17.8%

Results: prominence

• position within the news (edition)• within-news importance• amount of attention received• voice?• expert status?

Results: prominence

    YOUNGER (15 – 35)    Older

(55+)(N=118)

Younger (15 – 35)(N=372)

Autochthon(N=66)

Allochthon(N=62)

Prominence          % headline/

front page news

4.2 4.6 6.1 21.0***

  Mean within-story prominence

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.1

  Index of prominence

-press

8.8

10.2 17.4

10.6**- tv 1.8 3.7 3.7 4.6

  % actors with voice

31.4 37.9 75.8 38.7***

  % experts 13.5 22 36.0 8.3**

Results: homogeneity

    YOUNGER (15 – 35)    Older

(55+)(N=114)

Younger (15 – 35)(N=331)

Autochthon(N=52)

Allochthon(N=60)

Homogeneity          % of individual

actors among non-institutional actors

30.7 25.7 61.5 55.0

  % of group actors among non-institutional actors

62.3 67.1 3.8 26.7**

% of individuals-exemplars, typical representatives of a group

7.0 7.3 34.6 18.3**

Results: evaluation

• explicitly negative evaluations• (ratio of negative and) positive

evaluations• compilation of negative attributes– perpetrators– association with negative social

phenomena– (ab)user of social security

Results: evaluation

    YOUNGER (15 – 35)    Older

(55+)(N=118)

Younger (15 – 35)(N=372)

Autochthon(N=66)

Allochthon(N=62)

Evaluation          % threatening

theme

- broad 27.1 31.5 24.2 46.8**- narrow 15.3 24.2* 22.7 30.6

% perpetrators 2.6 11.5*** 7.8 32.2**  % victims 19.3 11.8* 13.7 8.5

% beneficiaries 50.9 25.2*** 21.6 11.9% negative evaluations

21.1 32.8* 19.6 52.5***

  % positive evaluations

32.5 30.6 66.7 23.7***

16

More or less stangers?

Follow-up?

• De-construction of the negative• competence vs. warmth• who is the speaker?

• De-construction of the ethnic (allochthon)

• Differences between outlets