newspapers 1900-2013: same animals, different framings? dr. Hens - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Badgers in Dutch newspapers 1900-2013:

same animals, different framings?

• dr. Hens Runhaar,

Marjolein Runhaar M.Sc., BA, Hans Vink

Contents

• 1. Background and objectives
• 2. Analytical framework
• 3. Method
• 4. First results
• 5. Preliminary conclusions

• 1. Background
• Badgers in the UK: very controversial:
• Badgers as ‘reservoirs’ of bTB
• Culling of badgers to reduce bTB among cattle
• Controversy since the 1970s

• Cassidy (2012): controversy explained by

two opposing badger framings:

• ‘Good badger’: strong, brave, aesthetically pleasing

animals that symbolise the typical English countryside

• ‘Bad badger’: behaviours that bring them into conflict

with humans (digging, damage to crops, violent behaviour etc.)

• Framings have historical roots
• bTB debate triggered their manifestation,

perhaps intensified framings, but did not create them

• Badgers in the Netherlands:
• Population at risk in 1960 due to prosecution; despite

more protection another 30% reduction until 1980

• Since the 1980s gradual recovery and since 2000,

substantial increase

• NL: no bTB, but other confrontations with humans
• Overall attitude and behaviour towards badgers

nowadays seems positive (literature, newspapers)

• Poaching, digging, and baiting seldom reported anymore
• Active protection against ‘new’ threats (road kill)

Objectives

• Questions that emerged
• Are badger framings in NL different from those in UK?
• Have badger framings in NL changed over time?
• Have framings of different actor categories changed
• ver time?
• What explains differences/changes?
• What influences do badger framings have on how

people behave towards badgers?

• Aims
• Explore badger framings and how they change over

time, and explore the social consequences

• 2. Analytical framework
• Framings (or frames)
• Selection devices with which people interpret and

give meaning to particular phenomena

• Origin in various disciplines, many approaches
• Usually presented as concepts or storylines, that

reflect the most salient aspects of the subject at issue

• What is framed?
• Subtopics/aspects
• Tone
• Placement (situation, actor involved)

• Framings in Cassidy’s (2012) paper
• Not so much badgers in themselves, but more about badgers in

relation to humans

• Placement: bTB, other situations? (farming, traffic, …)
• Actors
• Tone (positive, neutral, negative)
• Explaining framings
• Human-wildlife literature: framings influenced by information,

gender, age, location (familiarity), personal experiences

• Consequences of framings
• ‘Good badger’  protect, ban on culling
• ‘Bad badger’  vermin, cull, manage, control
• Irreconcilable framings  controversy and

deadlock

• 6. Method
• Steps:
• Identification of framings
• Exploring the consequences of framings
• Explaining (changes in) framings
• Step 1-2: newspaper article analysis
• Newspaper articles 1900-2014
• 1900-1990: personal archive Hans Vink
• 1980-2014: LexisNexis
• More or less complete since the 1980s (we think)

• 6. Method
• Newspaper articles:
• Potentially biased
• May influence framings rather than neutrally

presenting these + Allow for systematic, replicable, comparable and longitudinal data collection ‘Check’ by literature and personal experiences Hans Vink (additional interviews needed?)

• 6. Method
• Step 3: explanations:
• Literature (in part ‘grey’)
• Personal experiences Hans Vink (backed up with

examples if possible)

• 6. Method
• Coding newspaper articles

(1,184 articles; 1,478 frames)

• Consistency in coding important
• Two researchers
• Iterative development of coding book
• Eventual inter-rater reliability

Situation Actor Aspect Claim % 79% 91% 74% 79% Kappa .745 .819 .668 .699

• 6. Method
• Coding book

• 7. Results
• Newspapers do no show radical changes in

badger framings over time, but:

• Since 1980s (we need to

cluster older articles differently)

• Overall picture

(biased by dominance Das en Boom)

Framings of nature conservationists

Framings of public actors

• Changes over time:
• More often negative
• Badgers hindering

spatial developments

• r protection too

expensive?

• Have to check notes

Framings of farmers

• Big difference with conservationists
• But small n
• Direct contact with

(negative aspects of) badgers

Framings of farmers

Aspects focused on, in general

• Aspect that is focussed on, changes over

time:

• Mostly about ‘damage

done to badgers’

• Incidents versus

structural damage (A73)

• Increasingly about

recovery of badger population

Claims (what is/should be done?)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% F a r m e r s , g r

• w

e r s H u n t e r s , g a m e k e e p e r s P

• a

c h e r s N a t u r e c

• n

s e r v a t i

• n

i s t s P u b l i c a u t h

• r

i t i e s C i t i z e n s O t h e r Kill, catch Remove, replace Protect Compensate Raise interest Convict (morally) No/unclear

1918 1949

Claims and framings from the past?

• 8. Preliminary conclusions
• The two framings comparable to UK
• NB: large part of the NL population

probably has no framing of badgers at all

• Less barbarian framings/behaviour, why?
• Extra laws and Das en Boom as a watchdog
• Civilisation?
• Urbanisation/distance?
• Current trend: badgers ‘urbanise’
• Our impression: mixed picture, but not often welcome
• Placement seems to matter for framings!

End

• Thanks for your attention!
• Questions? Hints?
• See www.dassenwerkgroeputrecht.nl for
• ur work

• 4. Badgers in NL: a brief introduction
• About 5,000 now
• 1,200 in 1960, 400

setts in 1980

• Hunting, digging,

and baiting until 1960s

• Traffic and habitat loss since 1980s
• Legal protection since 1947 (setts 2003)
• 1981: foundation of Das en Boom