Media framing of the illegal trading in ivory: a mixed method approach

Abstract

The illegal trading in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn is a pressing international issue with widespread consequences. Despite recognition and a range of preventative and regulatory measures the trade in ivory, which is defined in this study as elephant tusk and rhinoceros horn, is reportedly increasing at a rapid rate and is one of the most prominent aspects of the illegal wildlife trade in general. The media are undoubtedly becoming an increasingly trustworthy and reliable source of information for individuals around the world about pressing issues such as the illegal trading in ivory and thus it is important to understand the ways in which the media frame and portray the issue as a whole, the perpetrators, the consequences, the causes and the solutions. Based on media framing theory of mass communication, the aims of this dissertation were to explore how the news media framed and translated the illegal ivory trade and its perpetrators to a lay audience and into public discourse as well as who the news media blamed for the issue. This was explored through a mixed method approach using both a quantitative content analysis and a qualitative discourse analysis of English language newspaper articles between 4th of February 2015 and the 4th of August 2015. The main findings were that the illegal ivory trade was framed as an episodic crime issue to which there was often no solution and no cause. Despite the fact the illegal ivory trade has emerged as part of a sophisticated and organised worldwide criminal network, the news media on the issue maintain a fairly monolithic and provincial perspective and crucially frame the offenders as ‘typical’ poachers from Africa. Furthermore, the news media placed the blame for the illegal ivory trade on the poachers above all else. It is concluded that overall there is a persistent pattern of news coverage and that certain aspects of the illegal ivory trade were featured and emphasised over others and the hegemonic understanding of media power as an expression of elite interests was apparent during framing and blame placement.