Note: Headlines are the responsibility of the editor. Stewartb is innocent.

stewartb

The Herald article today on Scotland’s supposed ‘nasty side’ is framed in a very negative way. And I agree with John that there are indeed examples of ‘sarcasm’ which seem unnecessary in this context …. unless revealing of something else.

However, it is notable how the same journalist (as far as I can tell) writes about the same general issue, around the same point in time (17 February) but frames her writing in a completely different manner for a different publication.

See this from Holyrood Magazine:

https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,new-scots-meet-the-syrian-refugees-who-are-setting-up-businesses-in-a-small_15125.htm

Comparing and contrasting these two articles – on the same subject, by the same journalist – is to see in the starkest terms how the media may seek to influence readers by opting to use different framing.

What is also interesting here is to note which frame was used for which publication, and therefore what sort of readership is the target of the respecting frames. We probably have a good sense of The Herald’s readership. This is what Holyrood Magazine says about itself:

“The award winning magazine of the year is read by the country’s key legislators, Scottish parliamentarians, civil servants, Scottish Government agencies, political parties, 32 local authority chief executives, as well as individual departments within councils, trade unions, health boards, educational organisations, voluntary organisations and non-governmental bodies.”

So the positive frame is chosen when writing for the well-informed politically engaged readers. The negative frame is chosen for The Herald’s wider readership – the wider electorate. I wonder why!