Framing Surveillance in the Post 9-11 Era

Lemi Baruh – April 29, 2009Kadir Has University

Societies under Siege: Media, Government, Politics, and Citizens’ Freedoms in an Age of Terrorism Conference 1

Agenda Setting and Framing Research

Trigger Events September 11 Attacks

A frequently repeated theme about privacy: Conflict between privacy and other

social values and/or goals

2

Two Levels of Agenda Setting1. Agenda Setting of Objects: News tell the public what to think about

(Cohen 1963).2. News frames as organizing structures▪ Providing points of entry to the subject▪ Highlighting points of importance

The first level is more often than not interested in understanding the relationship between media coverage and public opinion

The second level treats media content as the result of an ideological contest (i.e. what are the power relationships?).

The ideological contest is often investigated using from media content along with information about structural/institutional factors. 3

For both levels, trigger events tend to play an important role in influencing coverage of issues:

Examples: The O.J Simpson events triggered an increase in the

visibility of other domestic violence cases/stories (Maxwell et al. 2000).

In the post 9/11 era, news about racial profiling making reference to “terrorism” as a justification has caught up with references to drug wars and policing (Domke et al. 2003).

The hypotheses tested in this presentation follow a similar logic.

4

H1: The number of privacy and/or surveillance related news articles, published in daily mainstream newspapers, will be higher in Post-September 11 period than in Pre-September 11 period (Agenda Setting & Public Arenas Model).

5

1970’s – 1980’s: Governments were seen as the major contributor to the “surveillance society”.

Deregulation and privatization of surveillance functions since the Regan/Thatcher era made the private sector an integral part of surveillance and meant that more attention was being paid to transgressions by private institutions (Laperriere 1999; Lyon 2001).

The private/government label that public associates with surveillance has effects on Public perceptions and/or criticism Legal remedies that are seen appropriate in terms of protecting privacy

▪ Not trusting government to protect citizens against government surveillance,▪ Focusing on contractual relations and market forces to “protect” individuals

against private misuses of personal information,▪ Treating personal information as a commodity

Life after PATRIOT ACT?

6

H2: Newspaper articles pertinent to privacy rights and/or surveillance of individuals will be more likely to focus on government institutions as constituencies that are undertaking surveillance and/or intruding on privacy in Post-September 11 period than in Pre-September 11 period.

RQ1: What is the nature of changes in the tendency of newspapers to identify private agencies as undertaking surveillance

RQ2: What is the nature of changes in the tendency of newspapers to identify private and government agencies together as undertaking surveillance

7

Framing research focuses on the ideological contest involved in selection of frames.

During times of conflict, the frames adopted tend to be narrower. This is especially the case for perceived “one-sided” conflicts (e.g. fight on “terror”).

We are likely to find “patriotic journalism”. Less criticism of government Media acting to reflect the “official view”

8

However, in the 2001 junction, a “war on terror” on the one hand and “small government” rhetoric of neoliberal government on the other meant that journalists were facing a dilemma about how to cover post 9/11 measures. Dual role of media: Assure the public that appropriate steps are being taken

(Waisbord 2002) Avoid the Orweillan association between big government

and surveillance. Although this dual role was somewhat expected

from all media institutions (Zelizer 2002), ideological slant may influence whether: Surveillance as a social trend without an identifiable

source rather than a government initiative

9

H3: Newspapers with a “conservative” slant will be less likely to exhibit an increase in number of articles that identify government agencies as constituencies that are undertaking surveillance.

10

Simple interrupted time series Pre: January-July 2001

Post: January-July 2001 Probability In Proportion to Size Sampling 27 Newspapers, 935 articles Content Analysis Variables: article type; article origin; type

of surveillance or privacy invading activity; institutions undertaking surveillance; reference to “terrorist” threats

Ideological Slant of a Newspaper determined by the editorial endorsement the newspaper gave during the 2000 presidential elections Endorsement given to Al Gore or Ralph Nader (n = 14) -> Not

conservative Endorsement given to George Bush (n = 13) -> Conservative

11

Pre 9/11 Period 88.2% were news, 9% were unsigned

editorials and 2.8% were

commentaries

Post 9/11 Period 87.3% were news, 7.2% were unsigned

editorials and 5.6% were

commentaries

12

13

Pre-Sept.11Post

Sept.11

2

Continuity Correction

Government Executive 14.1% 25.2% 17.23***

Government Legislative 2.8% 5.8% 4.26*

Government Judicial 3.2% 11.9% 22.89***

Government Military .2% 1% 1.09

Government Law

Enforcement

23.6% 28.4% 2.55

(N) 432 503

Note. Degrees of Freedom= 1, *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 (2- tailed)

14

Type of Surveillanc

e

Definition Occurrence Rate

Capture Any monitoring system that tracks and records activities of individuals.

50.4%

Info/Data Sharing The act of buying or selling captured information to other constituencies and issuing subpoenas to have access to

information that another constituency has captured

38.9%

Info/Data Use Using existing raw data to create databases, to mine data in order to create profiles. Publicizing private information

through media, using one’s likeness

43.3%

Captive Audiences Unsolicited commercial and/or political messages to audiences.

5.8%

Public Records Requesting or having access to public records such as court proceedings, information about parties involved in a

court case.

6.5%

Biometrics Use of biological recognition systems to identify individuals 9.1%

Identification Tokens

Creation and use of identification systems such as Social Security Numbers, drivers licenses, employee ID cards

5.1%

Personal Searches Corporal and property searches 9.9%

Note: A single article can be coded as making a reference to more than one surveillance activity

15

Private GovernmentPrivate &

Government

Capture .008 .153*** -.101**

Share .156*** -.284*** .160***

Use .111** -.089** .098**

Captive Audiences .221*** -.164** -.008

Public Information -.102** .052 -.032

Biometrics -.008 .082* .021

Identification -.026 .068* .003

Search -.238*** .185*** -.001

Note. N= 935; *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed)

Hypothesis 1: 16.35% increase in total number of articles focusing on privacy or surveillance from ...paired sample test of difference

approaching significance (n = 27, p = .78) H2:

Government as one of the agencies:▪ From 40.7% in pre 9/11 to 56.5% in post 9/11 (p

<.001) Government as the only agency:▪ From 21.8% in pre 9/11 to 37.8% in post 9/11 (p

<.001)16

Research Question 1 Private Insitutions as one of the

instiutions:▪ From 66.4% to 43.5% (p <.001)

Private Institutions only:▪ From 45.8% to 28.6% (p <.001)

Research Question 2 Private and Government together:▪ From 16.4% to 12.1% (n.s.)

17

18

Approximately 27% of the increase in number of articles that focus on government institutions as undertaking surveillance was related to a newspapers’ ideological slant

The difference between conservative papers v. not conservative papers remained significant after controlling for other newspaper structural factors such as market make-up, MSA, ownership structure and circulation number

Ideological Slant and Identifying Government as Surveillance Source

N

Change in Number of Articles by Newspaper

S.D s.e

Conservative Slant 14 1.43 4.670 1.295Not Conservative Slant

13 5.85 2.681 .716

Note. t = 3.043. (p<.01)

Hypothesis 1: The public arenas model

Hypothesis 2: Attention away from private institutions? Trust in government and regulation of privacy? Reversing commodification?

Hypothesis 3: Ideological Slant

19