way news is framed can be an outcome of professional routines of reliance on routine sources, such as government officials, press releases, and press conferences. This routine can lead to lack of diversity in news coverage and a failure to consider external factors as causes/solutions for public health issues. Another routine is the frequent use of episodic framing. Episodic framing is relatively easier to prepare than thematic framing, which requires a significant amount of background research and data collection. For journalists operating under tight time constraints, episodic framing is the preferred way to prepare a story. Episodic framing is also preferred because it often includes human interest stories, an easier way to attract large audiences.
The characteristics of individual reporters must be taken into consideration when examining the framing of health issues. How journalists frame issues is influenced by such elements like social and political ideologies, attitudes, and professional norms. These factors are often reflected in the way journalists understand an issue and construct the frame about the issue (Kim, Carvalho, & Davis, 2010). As journalism professors teaching framing theories to undergraduate journalism students, we have been struck by how many students perceive thematic framing (discussion of societal blame and policy solutions) as bias compared to discussing the experience of one individual. Studies show health journalists often think of themselves as promoters for behavior change or motivators to action, a role that differs substantially from the objective information provider (Tanner, Friedman, & Sheng, 2015). Research shows health journalists comprehend and take seriously their roles in improving quality of life by disseminating public health messages from practitioners to the public (Logan, 1991; Hinnant & Len-Rios, 2009). Most importantly, health journalists have indicated an interest in developing ←26 | 27→and improving partnerships with public health officials, instead of continuing to remain independent from their audiences. This would improve the public health information they provide to their audiences (Friedman et al, 2015). Health communication scholars have an important role to play in this process as well.
This leads us to the next area of consideration as we examine the reasons why health communication researchers have conducted most of the research on episodic and thematic frames in news for the last two decades—the growth of health communication research programs.
Health communication research has developed over the last 35 years as a vital and significant field investigating the roles performed by human and mediated communication in health care delivery and health promotion and journalism. Health communication research involves analyzing a broad range of communication channels, including face-to-face communication between providers and consumers, members of health care teams, and support group members. A broad range of personal (cell phone, social media, and email) and mass communication media, including news, are also the focus of health communication inquiry.
As Kreps et al. noted in 1998, there are two branches of health communication research found within the larger discipline of communication: the health care delivery branch, and the health promotion branch. The first drew “communication scholars who have primary interests in the ways interpersonal and group communication influence health care delivery, focusing on issues such as the provider/consumer relationship, therapeutic communication, health care teams, health care decision-making, and the provision of social support” (Kreps, 1998, p. 3). The health promotion and communication branch includes mass communication researchers who are involved with the development, implementation and evaluation of persuasive health communication campaigns to prevent major health risks and promote public health.
For example, health communication scholars have developed campaigns for preventing public risks for contracting diseases such as HIV/AIDS, heart disease, and cancer. Many health promotion scholars are also concerned with evaluating the use of mediated channels of communication to disseminate relevant health information, as well as in examining the ways that health and health care are portrayed by the media, including the news media.1
←27 | 28→
We stated earlier that the relationship between the news media and public health practitioners and scholars promoting a social determinants approach to health—thematic frames—generally cannot be described as productive or harmonious. On the other hand, the relationship between health communication framing scholars, public health practitioners, and the news media barely exists. As we will show, many health communication scholars who study thematic and episodic framing make recommendations about what journalists and public health scholars and practitioners could or should do, but very few have done much beyond the act of recommendation.
In this chapter, we addressed three reasons we believe research on episodic and thematic frames in news for the past twenty-five years has been dominated by health studies. In the mid-60s, framing studies in mass communication began to increase, especially with the introduction of emphasis framing. The introduction of episodic and thematic as a way to categorize news frames and the connection to attribution of responsibility appealed to health communication scholars as public health issues could be reframed as issues of societal responsibility with the possibility of being addressed through policy, such as seat belt laws or smoking bans to protect against second hand smoke. Health news increased in quantity and popularity. While numerous individuals across the globe can perform online searches 24/7 for health information, studies show news remains an important source for the public, especially older adults. Finally, health communication research has been funded through internal and external funding at a higher level than many other types of communication research for the past couple of decades. This has led to health communication programs at universities in countries around the world being created at the undergraduate and graduate levels. These universities hired health communication scholars for growing programs.
We have demonstrated why health journalists, health communicators, and health communication researchers have found thematic and episodic frames to be useful frames for health communication. Within thematic and episodic frames, these communicators have found frames that strike at the heart of the battle over the assignations of responsibility for problem causation as well as solutions. As we continue through this book, we will show research in health news framing ←28 | 29→continues to puzzle over a consistent, complete, and organized approach to the process and effects of thematic and episodic framing; however, we will work to untangle some of the research surrounding these health frames and propose a potential way forward.
References
Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating Frame Strength: The Case of Episodic and Thematic Frames. Political Communication, 28(2), 207–226. https://doi-org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/10.1080/10584609.2011.568041 accessed on March 12, 2019.
Ardèvol-Abreu, A. (2015). Framing theory in communication research in Spain. Origins, development and current situation. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 70, 423–450. http://www.revistalatinacs.org/070/paper/1053/23en.html doi:10.4185/RLCS-2015-1053 accessed May 20 2019.
Barry, C.L., Brescoll, V.L., & Gollust, S.E. (2013). Framing childhood obesity: How Individualizing the problem affects support for prevention. Political Psychology, 34(3), 327–349. doi:10.1111/pops.12018
Bellah, R., Masden, R., Sullivan, W., Swindler, A., & Tipton, S. (1986). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper & Row.
Berlo, D. (1960). Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston: University of Michigan.
Blum, H. (1980). Social perspectives risk reduction. Family and Community Health, 3, 41–61. doi:0160.6379/80/0031.0041
Cacciatore, M.A., Scheufele, D.A., & Iyengar, S. (2016). The end of framing as we know it … and the future of media effects. Mass Communication