Thoughts and Comments on the Importance of Framing in Regard to Inside Sources
Curd Knüpfer, May 30 2013
Journalists are notoriously interested in obtaining “the inside scoop.” To do so, they rely on sources to provide information which they might then pass on to the public. In recent years, inside sources have often come to be referred to as leaks or as whistleblowers. These two terms that might at first glance appear to be somewhat interchangeable and to a certain degree even synonymous, on further inspection turn out to have very different definitions and connotations: The term leak suggests something is spilling out, whereas whistleblower refers to the process of drawing attention to something.[1]
This difference in meaning ties them to very different framing patterns. Political communication scholarship sees a typical and complete “frame” as fulfilling four basic functions, namely: problem definition, causal analysis, moral judgment, and remedy promotion.[2] Conceptualizing leaks and whistleblowers as two competing frame elements quickly illustrates a differentiation in regard to defining a specific problem. Contexts in which the term whistleblower is used will refer to a problem that is external, meaning that the actual reason that caused the metaphorical whistle to be blown will be problematized. The problem, in other words, is the institutional practice. The whistleblower has acted on conscience rather than duty (morally commendable) and the assumption would be that the institution would need to change its practices once these become public.
Contexts in which the term leak is used are suggestive of a problem affecting the institution itself – like a sinking ship – the problem defined here is not the institution or its practices, but rather a matter of faulty construction. Leak therefore might have a higher potential for providing a frame that problematizes the act itself: a leak is something that is potentially dangerous. It is therefore something that aught to be repaired.
It is no wonder then to come across two very different op-ed pieces in The New York Times, both written in response to recent revelations about the White House’s and Department of Justice’s aggressive policies against journalists and their sources.
In a piece that appeared on May 20 2013, three former Justice Department officials defend the Obama administration’s actions and call for policies to “stop the leaks.”
One week later, the writer and journalist Eyal Press refers to the Obama administration’s policies as an attempt to “silence the whistle-blowers.”
These articles present two lines of argumentation which may essentially be referring to the same policies. They do so, however, from different perspectives and thereby advocate competing frames: The perspective of the institution (in this case the DOJ and the US government) sees information that becomes public as a breach in national security. At its worst, this view equates leaking with treason and as directly aiding a, for the most part, unspecified enemy. The other perspective sees transparency of information as a vital precondition to any watchdog or checks and balance role other institutional actors might be able to fulfill in the interest of the public. The question which arises out of this observation is how will journalists refer to these sources in the near future? This is interesting mainly for three reasons:
First of all, the degree to which these two terms, leaks and whistleblowers, are used in similar contexts helps us understand which problems are defined and whose perspectives and interests are more dominant within the public sphere. Secondly, this is an important and interesting issue for political scientists and communication studies, since journalists are not neutral observers in this case. Professional journalists have an active stake in the game, since the type of journalism they produce depends in large parts on the types of sources they have access to. The media might therefore behave differently than models predicting adherence to institutional forms of power might predict. (Put in other words: does the media’s self-interest trump their tendency to “play it safe”?)
Lastly, this seems to be an issue, where framing is immensely consequential:
Consider the different implications of the following two sets of polling questions, which could be posed in assessing public opinion:
- Should the government aim to protect and encourage whistleblowers?
- Should the government aim to protect and encourage leaks?
- Should the government aim to stop the whistleblowers?
- Should the government aim to stop the leaks?
“Silencing whistleblowers” is a narrative that invokes agency: somewhere out there is a person whose intentions were good and whom the government now wants to seek out and punish. “Stopping the leaks,” on the other hand, seems to refer more to fixing a structural problem. While the policy options available in both of these scenarios will be more or less the same, the question of whether or not the public will support such policies, might ultimately be a question of how they are framed.
An additional note on self-labeling and leaks as acts of cyber-anarchy
While journalism has always relied on sources to some degree, in recent years web-based projects like WikiLeaks or, more recently, OffshoreLeaks have provided online platforms for whistleblowers to interact with and publish their data, in effect acting as a second intermediary (next to the media), between sources and the public.
In regard to the possible ongoing frame competition explained above, it is interesting to note that these sites themselves refer to their sources as “leaks.” Leaker, hacker, net-punk (even the term pirate) become intermingled and are transformed, appropriated and worn as badges of honor, signifying that one takes a radical stance on cyber-political issues. But this sociological dimension is not of interest here.
Instead I would like to briefly focus on a context of political communication and public discourse. From this perspective, self-labeling by Internet and transparency-activists willing to facilitate the process of whistleblowing at times seems somewhat problematic, as they will often refer to their activities as leaking or hacking, when, for the most part, their motives are not really as radical as their image might suggest: to promote openness in governmental and commercial institutions. Within a democratic society, there is (or should be) nothing at all deviant about demanding government accountability and institutional transparency, along with more accessible democratic structures.
To be clear: This is not meant to suggest that protesters generally should adhere to any norms of conformity in order to be taken seriously; I am not asking anyone to put on a suit and tie in order to promote their political agenda. What should be noted, however, is that whistleblowers tend to be people who are, not just metaphorically speaking, already wearing suits and ties. They are, by definition, insiders who want to make inside information public. Net-activists like Julian Assange, Adrian Lamo or Daniel Domscheit-Berg generally “only” provide technical aid for them in this process. Attributing a cyber-punk image to such sources is at the very least simply inaccurate.
Furthermore, celebrating whistleblower activities as acts of cyber-anarchy, meant to purposefully sabotage institutional structures as an end and not a means, might send the wrong message to more moderate social forces. Ultimately, this kind of self-labeling might make it additionally hard for mainstream journalism to portray “leakers” as non-deviant, while making it easier for institutional actors to promote exactly this preferred framing of whistleblowers.
Additional Reading Material:
For anyone interested in how to leak to the press in today’s day and age, I recommend this recent, highly entertaining piece by Nicholas Weaver on Wired.com:
Hear Ye, Future Deep Throats: This Is How to Leak to the Press
A comprehensive list of websites and media outlets that reach out to potential leakers/whistleblowers can be found here.
For an interesting look at modern whistleblower-journalism, linked to the OffshoreLeaks project, visit: www.icij.org/
And for recent works on the culture and ideology of modern Hackers, see:
Brooke, Heather (2011): The Revolution Will be Digitized: Dispatches from the Information War. William Heinemann.
Greenberg, Andy (2012): This Machine Kills Secrets: How Wikileakers, Cypherpunks, and Hacktivists Aim to Free the World’s Information. Penguin Group US.
As well as the somewhat more skeptical writings of Evgeny Morozov, such as:
Morozov, Evgeny (2012): The Net Delusion. How Not to Liberate the World. London: Penguin.
* EDIT (06/03/13)*
There is an excellent piece in The New Yorker, on the role of various institutions in regard to the protection of journalists and their sources:
https://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/06/10/130610taco_talk_coll
[1] I am referring to the noun forms of the two words when they are used interchangeably. Whistleblowers can, for lack of better words, leak information to the press, for example.
[2] Entman, Robert M. (1993): Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. In Journal of Communication 43 (4), pp. 51–58: 52.
Die
Am 7. Juni 2013 um 08:35 Uhr
For a fresh example of institutional framing and subsequent press coverage, head over to Fox News‘ report on the NSA’s surveillance program:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/07/intelligence-officials-reportedly-mining-data-from-us-internet-companies/