Topic: framing and agenda setting theory

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277597950

REVISITING ENTMAN'S CASCADING ACTIVATION MODEL

Conference Paper · May 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2770.7761

CITATIONS

0 READS

1,431

1 author:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

islamophobia View project

Ahmet Faruk Cecen

Istanbul University

6 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmet Faruk Cecen on 17 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

357  

REVISITING  ENTMAN'ʹS  CASCADING  ACTIVATION MODEL

Ahmet  Faruk  Çeçen Istanbul  University,  Turkey [email protected]  

Ahmet   Faruk   ÇEÇEN,   graduated   in  Marmara   University   Faculty   of   Communications   in   2012,   has   earned  his  master   degree   in   2014   in   Istanbul  University  Faculty   of  Communications   for  which  he   has   been  working  as  a  research  assistant  since  2012  and  continues  his  Ph.D.   in  the  same   faculty  under  the   journalism  department.  He  has  focused  foreign  news  in  American  Media  in  his  master  thesis  “Evaluating   American  Media  in  The  Context  of  Media  Politics  Relation  in  Foreign  News:  An  Analysis  of  2013  Egypt   Military   Intervention   in   New   York   Times   Sample.”   He   is   the   editor   of   the   “Communication   Books   Series”   in   Turkey,   an   enterprise   mainly   focusing   on   trying   to   turkify   concepts   and   have   a   common   language   between   Turkish   communication   scholars   by   translating   books   one   of   which,   “Projections   of   Power:   Framing   News,   Public   Opinion,   and   U.S.   Foreign   Policy”     belongs   to   Robert   Entman   who   developed  the  Cascading  Activation  Model.  

Abstract  

Entman,   criticizing   hegemony   and   indexing   models   presents   an   important   model   in   media   policy   relation,  relating  to  foreign  news,  especially  emphasizing  what  has  changed  after  Cold  War  paradigm  and   policy  uncertainty.  It  can  be  considered  that  there  might  be  transformations  even  more  effective  than  Cold   War   phenomenon   some   of   which   seems   to   be   missing   in   Entman’s   model.  With   the   emergence   of   the   internet  and  social  media  it  would  seem  hard  for  any  top-­‐‑down  model  to  survive  considering  we  witness   the  decline  of  the  mediating  effect  of  media  and  individual  form  their  own  frames.  It  would  be  exaggerated   to   claim   that  mainstream  media  would  disappear  but   as   already  witnessed   there   is   a   convergent  media   environment  which  is  not  only  dominated  by  the  Western  based  news  organization  but  also  various  ones   like  a  Middle  East-­‐‑based  news  organization,  Al  Jazeera.  It   is  an  environment  which  also  gives  audience   the   chance   to   be   exposed   to   foreign   news   sites   and   other   perspectives   throughout   the   world.   In   this   complex  media   environment  we   can  hardly   claim   that  Entman’s   concept   cultural   congruence,   schemas   and  journalistic  motivations  or  American  government  would  have  the  same  effect  for  an  American  based   news  organization  as  there  had  in  the  past.  

Keywords:  Cascading   activation  model,   Foreign   news,   Framing,  Media   policy   relation,   Social   media,  Internet  

REVISITING  ENTMAN'ʹS  CASCADING  ACTIVATION  MODEL  

INTRODUCTION  

The   literature   in   international   communication   and   foreign   news   is   composed   of   approaches   grouped  under   some  basic  areas   such  as   the  unbalanced  news   flow  approach,  manufacturing   consent-­‐‑propaganda   model,   indexing   hypothesis,   cnn   effect   and   orientalism.   Criticizing,   in   particular   manufacturing   consent-­‐‑propaganda   model   and   indexing   hypothesis   for   being   too   hegemonic   approaches,   arguing   things   actually   have   changed,   Entman   (2003)   asserts:   “The   media   are   less  dependably  deferential   as   they  operate   in   the  new,   still   evolving   international   system,   a   system   that   is   far   more   complicated   and  much  more   unpredictable   than   was   true   during   the   Cold   War.”   Entman'ʹs   (2004)   cascading   activation   model   differs   from   the   abovementioned  approaches  in  the  way  that  news  organizations  react  to  government’s  actions,  

To cite this article, Cecen, A. F. (2015). Revisiting Cascading Activation Model, Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium Communication in the Millennium, pp. 357–371. Pdf file, CD.

 

358    

emphasizing   that   there   is   a   sequential   interaction   between   different   actors   unlike   hegemonic   approaches’  claim  that  there  is  government  hegemony  on  foreign  news.  .”    

UNDERSTANDING  FRAMES  AND  THE  MODEL  

According   to   Entman,   (2004,   5)   the   first   step   in   building   the   cascade   model   is   to   develop   a   clearer   conceptual   grasp   of   the   framing   which   he   defines   as   “selecting   and   highlighting   some   facets   of   events   or   issues,   and   making   connections   among   them   so   as   to   promote   a   particular   interpretation,   evaluation,  and/or   solution.”    Saying   that   the  words  and   images   that  make  up   the   frame  can  be  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the  news  by  their  capacity  to  stimulate  support  of  or   opposition  to  the  sides  in  a  political  conflict,  Entman  introduces  two  concepts  which  are  cultural   resonance  and  magnitude   letting  us  measure   the  abovementioned  capacity.  To  Entman   (2003,   417)  cultural  resonance  and  magnitude  work  this  way:  

Those  frames  that  employ  more  culturally  resonant  terms  have  the  greatest  potential  for  influence.   They   use   words   and   images   highly   salient   in   the   culture,   which   is   to   say   noticeable,   understandable,   memorable,   and   emotionally   charged.     Magnitude   taps   the   prominence   and   repetition  of  the   framing  words  and  images.  The  more  resonance  and  magnitude,  the  more  likely   the  framing  is  to  evoke  similar  thoughts  and  feelings  in  large  portions  of  the  audience.  

Another  important  concept  in  Entman’s  (2004,  7)  model  is  schemas  which  are  proposed  by  him   as   clusters   or   nodes   of   the   connected   ideas   and   feelings   stored   in   memory.   For   example   a   schema   for  September  11th  might   include   the  World  Trade  Center,   airplane  hijackers,  Osama   bin   Laden,   the   New   York   fire   department,   and   New   York   mayor   Rudolph   Guiliani   (among   others).    

Having  used  the  cultural  and  psychological  concepts  such  as  cultural  resonance  and  schemas  to   have   a   clearer   understanding   of   framing,   Entman   (2004)   explains   the  model   by   saying:   “The   cascading   activation   model   is   designed   to   help   explain   how   thoroughly   the   thoughts   and   feelings   that   support   a   frame   extend   down   from   the   White   House   through   the   rest   of   the   system-­‐‑  and   thus  wins   the   framing   contest   and  gains   the  upper  hand  politically.”         Figure   1   illustrates  the  cascading  flow  of   influence  linking  each  level  of   the  system:  the  administration,   nonadministration  elites,  news  organizations,  the  texts  they  produce,  and  the  public.  

Figure  1:  Cascading  Network  Activation  (Entman;  2004,  11)  

 

 

359    

According  to  Stolle  and  Hoogle  (2005),  citing  Robinson,  Entman’s  model  is  the  modified  version   of  Herman  and  Chomsky’s  direct  impact  model,  the  well-­‐‑known  manufacturing  consent  thesis   which  is  the  first  example  of  top-­‐‑down  models  government-­‐‑media  relations  which  they  define   as   “emphasize   the   ability   of   governments   and   state   agencies   to   influence   the  way   journalists   view  and  report  about  the  world,  particularly  with  respect  to  foreign  policy.”  By  not   ignoring   the  concrete  differences  such  as  Entman’s  model  being  less  deterministic,  between  Herman  and   Chomky’s  propaganda  model   and  Entman’s   cascading   activation  model,   I   should   accept   that   both  of  them  are  top-­‐‑down  models.  

The  reason  why  I  stand  by  the  top-­‐‑down  claim  of  Stolle  and  Hoogle  (2005)  can  be  seen  through   the   exact   words   of   Entman’s:   “Figure   1   suggests   how   ideas   cascade   downward   from   the   administration’s   first   public   expressions   about   an   event…   the   metaphor   of   the   cascade   was   chosen  in  part  to  emphasize  that  the  ability  to  promote  the  spread  of  frames  is  stratified;  some   actors  have  more  power  than  others  to  push  ideas  along  to  the  news  and  then  to  public  (2004,   9).”  

Contrary   to  Stolle  and  Hoogle  and  Albeit  Entman’s   criticism   towards  propaganda  model  and   indexing  hypothesis,  Thune  (2009,  51)  found  his  model  close  enough  to  be  criticized  for  being  a   version   of   indexing   hypothesis:   “Entman   does   not,   in   an   epistemological   sense,   profoundly   contradict  the  indexing  paradigm.  What  his  model  seems  to  suggest  is  simply  that  international   relations,   particularly   after   the   end   of   the   Cold  War,   have   entered   a   phase  marked   by   deep   policy  uncertainty,  and   lack  of  elite   consensus  and  clearly  defined   interests  or   strategies.  This   lack  of   an  overarching  global   strategic   and   ideological   climate   inflates   the  ability  of   the  news   media  to  independently  frame  and  define  the  problems  facing  US  foreign  policy-­‐‑makers,  as  well   as  enabling  the  media  to  criticize  the  policy  establishment.” Entman  in  his  book  (2004,  12)  says  something  similar  to  what  Thune  suggested  above  about  his   model’s   being   close   to   indexing   hypothesis:   “By   no   means   always   a   unified   actor,   the   administration  includes  a  variety  of  players  and  disunity  and  ineptitude  can  significantly  affect   media  coverage.”     As   a   top-­‐‑down  model   cascading   activation   tries   to   understand   activation   and   spread   of   the   White   House’s   preferred   frame   to   other   elites,   to   news   texts,   and   to   the   public   through   the   interaction  of  four  important  variables:  motivations,  cultural  congruence,  power,  and  strategy.   The  first  and  the  second  of  them  work  internally  to  “pull”  mental  associations  into  individuals’’   thinking.   Power   and   strategy,   on   the   other   hand,   operate   from   the   outside   to   “push”   consideration  of  frames(ibid,  13).  Motivation  belongs  not  only  to  administration  or  other  elites   but   also   belongs   to   the   journalists   and  public.   The   importance   of   the  motivations   for   current   article  lies  under  this  statement  of  Entman’s:  “News  organizations  and  personnel  are  driven  by   economic  pressure  and  incentives;  professional  customs,  norms,  and  principles;  and  normative   values.  The  latter  include  self-­‐‑images  as  guardians  of  democracy,  and  they  may  at  times  modify   or  overcome  the  restraining  force  of  the  economic  pressures  and  professional  norms  (2003,  422).     As  will  be  explained  below  news  organization  depending  on  its  type  needs  circulation,  hit  rate   or   audience.   On   the   condition   that   they   get   more   global,   it   would   be   an   understandable   motivation  that  they  need  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  global  audience  considering  they  earn   money  from  foreign  audience.  And  to  maintain  the  image  of  guardian  of  democracy  seems  even   harder  than  ever  considering  global  news  organization  such  as  the  New  York  Times  and  CNN   are  not  only  judged  as  a  channel  mediating  events  to  people  but  also  they  are  thought  of  as  the   real  actors  of   the  events,  a  point  of  view  that  can  be  exemplified  by  “Gezi  Park  Protests”  and   “2013  Egypt  Military  Intervention.”

 

360    

The   idea   of   Entman’s   that   the   more   congruent   the   frame   with   schemas   that   dominate   the   political  culture,  the  more  success  it  will  enjoy  (ibid,  422)  can  be  the  best  way  to  explain  cultural   congruence.   While   hitting   the   right   notes   with   the   explanation,   Entman   misses   some   points   such  

as   the   different   environment   developed   thanks   to   emergence   and   wide   acceptance   of   the   internet,  exposure  to  various  sources  like  foreign  news  sites  (Best,  Chmielewski  and  Krueger  et   al,  2005   )  and  the  so-­‐‑called  Al   Jazeera  Effect   (Seib,  2008)   .  Thanks   to   the  cumulative  effects  all   these  factors  we  can  claim  that  cultural  congruence  cannot  be  described  the  way  it  was   in  the   time  when  Entman  proposed  his  model  or  before  the  wide  acceptance  of  internet  as  it  is  not  as   domestic  as  it  was  back  then.  

WHAT  THE  MODEL  SUGGESTS?

Entman’s   (2004,   17)   model   suggests   that   the   media   should   provide   enough   information   independent   of   the   executive   branch   that   citizens   can   construct   their   own   counterframes   of   issues  and  events,  seeking  how  much  and  what  kind  of  counterframing  information  the  media   supply.   The   point   Entman   made   needs   to   be   thought   over.   In   an   environment   changed   by   internet  and  other  factors,  it  would  be  considered  that  citizens  have  enough  tools  to  use  both  to   get   informed   to   construct   their   counterframes   and   as   a   weapon   to   pressure   especially   mainstream  news  organizations.  

Entman(ibid,   17)   suggests   that   the   model   produces   new   insights   about   the   relationships   between  White   House’s   preferred   framing   and   the   frames   that   actually   appear   in   the   news,   adding  that  five  propositions  arise  from  the  model:

1:   Presidential   control   over   framing   of   foreign   affairs  will   be   highest   when   dealing  with   the   culturally  congruent  or  incongruent…  

Entman   adds   that   Elite’s   quiescence   allows   the   administration’s   claims   to   flow   unimpeded,   directly  through  the  media.  In  these  instances,  the  predictions  of  the  hegemony,  indexing,  and   cascade  models  will  be  similar.  However,  according   to   the  model  many  events  and   issues  are   not  readily  fit  and  schemas  often  conflict  with  each  other.  Such  ambiguous  circumstances  open   more  space  for  elites  and  journalist  to  express  dissenting  views.    To  win  the  frame  contests  over   these   ambiguous   matters   depends   on   motivation,   power,   and   strategy   deployed   by   the   administration   and   other   elites,   and   on   journalist’s   own   motivations.   Hence   the   following   propositions.

2:   Journalists  have  strong  professional  motivations  to   include  oppositional  readings  of   foreign   policy   in   their   stories,   and   enjoy   the   greatest   opportunity   to   satisfy   these  motives   when   the   event  or  issue  is  ambiguous.  Even  when  U.S.  elites  fail  to  challenge  the  White  House,  the  motive   leads  journalists  to  convey  a  surprising  amount  of  dissenting  news.

3:   Elites-­‐‑especially   members   of   Congress-­‐‑have   strong   motivations   of   their   own   for   political   survival.  This  leads  them  to  heed  indicators  of  lopsided  or  intense  public  opinion.  When  a  large   majority  appears  positively   inclined  toward  the  president,  other   leaders  tend  to  fall  silent  and   coverage  of  opposing  views  is  unlikely  to  generate  a  coherent  counterframe.  But,  when  public   opinion   appears   split   over   ambiguous   matters,   elite   motivations   can   spur   opposition,   and   strategy  and  power  come  to  the  fore  in  determining  who  wins  the  frame  contest.

4:   In   the   post-­‐‑Cold  War   period,   if   the  White  House  mismanages   its   relationships  with   other   elites   and   journalists,   especially   if   it   cannot   find   compelling   schemas   that   support   its   line,   a   president  may   lose   control   of   the   frame.   For   ambiguous  matters,   under   some   circumstances,  

 

361    

elite   opponents,   journalists,   and   indicators   of   public   opinion   may   together   attain   as   much   influence  over  framing  as  the  administration.

5:  The  decline  and  disappearance  of  the  Cold  War  paradigm  has  made  the  public’s  responses  to   foreign   affairs   less   predictable,   and   this   heightens   the   media’s   role   in   representation.   In   unsettled  times,  politicians  and  news  organizations  monitor  indicators  of  public  sentiment  more   carefully  than  before  indicators  bound  to  frames  in  the  media.

WHAT  HAS  CHANGED  SINCE  THE  MODEL  WAS  PROPOSED?

Entman  himself  as  abovementioned  emphasizes  the  decline  of  the  Cold  War  paradigm  marked   an   epoch,   setting   the  media   free   from   the  Cold  War   frame   and   letting  public  perceive   things   differently   than   ever.   It   can   be   argued   that   as   already   stated   by   Entman   and   contrary   to   Manufacturing   Consent-­‐‑Propaganda  Model   and   Indexing   Hypothesis`   claim,   it   is   harder   for   American   government   to   control   news   organizations   and   their   frames.   However,   the   environment  or  with   the  exact  words  of  his   `still   evolving   international   system’  Entman   talks   about  has  clearly  changed  and  evolved  since  the  time  when  he  suggested  in  his  model.  

It   is   interesting   that   Entman  did   not   attach  much   importance   to   internet   considering   that   his   model  was  proposed  in  2004,  a  time  when  internet  was  highly  popular  already.  Entman  (2004,   152)   says   that   internet  and   infotainment   just   like   the  Cold  War  disrupted   familiar  network  of   association  among  ideas  and  participants.  It  can  be  understood  that  internet  can  be  at  most  as   important  as  the  rise  of  infotainment  is  for  Entman.    

However,  there  is  a  similar  approach  to  what  the  current  article  suggests  in  Entman’s  book  by   Patrick  Tyler   in  his   column   in  New  York  Times   “A  New  Power   in   the   Streets:  A  Message   to   Bush   Not   to   Rush   to  War”   describing   according   to   Entman   that   the   impact   of   international   public  opinion  on  George  W.  Bush’s  Iraq  policy.  But  Entman  finds  his  words  “there  may  be  still   be   two   superpowers   on   the   planet:   the   United   States   and   world   public   opinion”   to   be   exaggerated.   In   spite   of   downplaying   internet’s   importance   by   finding   Tyler’s   word   exaggerated  Entman(ibid,  153)  admits   that  even   if   foreign  sources  enjoy  scant  credibility  with   most  Americans,  overseas  opposition—more  accessible  than  ever  because  of  the  Internet—may   stimulate   more   independent   counterframing   by   journalists,   and   that   can   reinforce   dissent   among  U.S  citizens.  

Although   he   shows   little   interest   to   internet,   I   should   admit   that   his  model   is   a   limited   one   focusing   on   generally   mainstream   media.   One   year   later   the   model   was   proposed   David   Holmes   (2005)   published   his   book   “Communication   Theory   Media,   Technology,   Society”   in   which   he   emphasizes   the   differences   between   first   and   second   media   age.”   The   way   he   tabulates  the  historical  distinction  between  the  first  and  second  media  age  can  be  seen  in  figure   2  below.  

 

Figure  2:  The  historical  distinction  between  the  first  and  second  media  age  (Holmes,  2005,  10)  

First  media  age  (broadcast)                                                                            Second  media  age  (interactivity)  

 

 

Centred  (few  speak  to  many)                                                                      Decentred  (many  speak  to  many)  

One-­‐way  communication                                                                                    Two-­‐way  communication  

Predisposed  to  state  control                                                                  Evades  state  control  

An   instrument  of  regimes  of                                                                        Democratizing:   facilitates  universal  

 

362    

                                                               stratification  and  inequality                                                                              citizenship  

Par  ticipants  are  fragmented  and                                                            Par  ticipants  are  seen  to  retain  their  

                                                             constituted  as  a  mass                                                                                          individuality  

Influences  consciousness                                                                                Influences  individual  

                                                                                                                                                                                 experience   of   space   and   time  

 

Holmes’   contributions   challenge  Entman’s   top-­‐‑down  model  by  emphasizing   the  properties  of   second   media   age.     A   medium   judged   as   decentered,   evading   state   control,   and   facilitating   universal  citizenship  can  hardly  be  seen  as  one  letting  direct  impact  of  government,  a  top-­‐‑down   model.      

It   is   highly   important   to   notice   that   Holmes’   work   does   not   incorporate   social   media   age   exemplified   by   Facebook   and   Twitter   so   this   is   another   vital   point   which   is   understandably   missing  in  the  Entman’s  model  that  I  will  discuss  below.  It  is  also  important  that  accompanied   by   internet   and   social  media,   from   interhuman   relations   and   associations'ʹ   public   relations   to   diplomacy  much  has  changed.  

In  a  world  the  way  the  public  perceive  things  has  changed  thanks  to  internet  and  social  media   we   can   claim   that   it   has   also   changed   the   way   diplomatic   affairs   are   conducted,   especially   adding   the   effect  WikiLeaks   created   in   both   conducting   diplomacy   and   securing   diplomatic   correspondence.  

WHAT  IS  MISSING  IN  THE  MODEL?

Entman  again  helps  us  in  our  way  to  express  what  the  public  opinion  is  or  if  it  ever  exists  or  to   what   extent   it   exists.   Based   on   the   data   received   from   the   University   of   Maryland   Center’s   survey  in  which  they  gave  people  a  set  of  arguments  pro-­‐‑going  to  war  soon  and  anti-­‐‑going  to   war  soon.  And   the   interesting   finding   is   that  very  strong  majorities  of   the  public  agreed  with   both  sides  of  the  argument,  he  asks  if  it  is  difficult  to  say  in  a  case  like  this,  which  is  incredibly   well  known,  debated  for  months  and  months,  covered  ad  nauseam,  of  course  how  much  more   difficult   is   it   to   figure  out  what   the  public   really   thinks  when   it   comes   to   less-­‐‑publicized,   less   thoroughly  debated  issues  (2003b).  According  to  Entman’s  model  schemas,  nodes,  and  cultural   congruence  are  concepts  that  have  something  to  do  with  public.  On  the  condition  that  what  the   public   thinks  were  ambiguous,   framing  would  be  a  hard  practice   to  do.  One  can  easily   claim   that   some   event  would   not   ever   be   ambiguous   as  America   or   any   other   nation  would   share   common   believes   which   are   incontestable,   that   is   in   America’s   case   would   the   Cold   War   paradigm.  However,  as  the  creator  of  the  model,  Entman  (2004,  2)  himself  asserts  that  America   could   not  wage   a   unilateral  war   against   Saddam  Hussein   by   autumn   2002   because   terrorism   could  not  provide  as  unifying  a  framework  as  the  Cold  War  mindset  once  did.

September  11  attacks  not  only  became   the   leading   factor   to  bring  up   terrorism   to   the  agenda,   but   also   according   to   Best   and   Chmielewski   (2005)   it   led   U.S.   residents   increasingly   to   use   online   foreign   news   sites.   Their   research’s   result   indicates   that   approximately   one-­‐‑fourth   of   Internet   news   consumers   use   foreign   sites,   also   stating   those   most   opposed   to   the   Bush   administration   possess   the   greatest   likelihood   of   supplementing   their   domestic   online   news   with  an  online  foreign  source.  Their  claim  that  the  consumption  of  online  foreign  news  sources   may  damage  societal cohesion by further fragmenting the media environment is the answer we look for to challenge Entman’s concepts schemas,  nodes,  and  cultural  congruence  which  all  have   something   to   do  with   domestic   logic,   that   is   all   of   them   are   concerned  with   ideas   generated   locally(just  in  America).  They  show  that  mainstream  media  cannot  be  considered  as  powerful  as  

 

363    

it  was  in  the  past  and  American  people  can  be  exposed  to  ideas  generated  by  sources  outside  of   America  thanks  to  internet  so  public  can  get  rid  of  partisan  news  made  by  the  media  under  the   effect   of   the   government.   Their   research   is   an   example   showing   public   opinion   cannot   be   considered  as  local  as  it  was  in  the  past.  

It  might  now  be  the  right  time  to  bring  up  an  important  concept  “global  public  sphere”  used  by   (Sparks,  2001)  and  (Volkmer,  2003)  first  of  whom  has  an  negative  point  of  view  about  the  idea   of     the   globally   emerging   conscious   around   the   world   politics   thanks   to   information   and   communications  technologies  and  the  latter  of  whom  emphasizes  the  importance  of  it.  Having   written  his  article  “Is  there  a  global  public  sphere  (1998)“  Sparks  wrote  an  article,  “The  Internet   and   the   Global   Public   Sphere,”   in   “Mediated   Politics   (2001)”   a   book   edited   by   Entman   and   Bennent   who   say   in   their   book   that   mediated   politics   explores   the   changing   media   environments   in   contemporary  democracy:   the   Internet,   the  decline  of  network  news  and   the   daily   newspaper.   However,   considering   what   Sparks   says   below   about   the   internet   and   its   possibility   to   be   a   global   public   space,   emphasizing   digital   divide,   it   is   not   surprising   that   Entman  did  not  include  it  in  his  model.  

Sparks  (2001)  in  his  article  in  Mediated  Politics,  cites  Rheingold,  the  new  media,  and  in  particular   computer  mediated  communication  (CMC)  as  embodied  in  the  Internet,  hold  out  the  promise  of   overcoming  many  of  the  limitations  of  the  existing  mass  media  and  questions    if  it  is  in  principle   possible  to  conceive  of  the  Internet  constituting  the  vehicle  for  a  global  public  sphere.,  then  the   key  question   is   the  empirical  one  of  discovering  how  far   the   ideal  of  every  citizen  having   the   power  to  communicate  with  every  other  citizen  is  being  realized  in  which  he  emphasizes  digital   divide,  a  topic  about  which  he  wrote  a  recent  article  in  2014,  “What  is  the  “Digital  Divide”  and   why   is   it   Important?”   When   it   comes   to   global   dimension,   according   to   Sparks   it   becomes   impossible   to   consider   the   Internet   as   anything   remotely   resembling   a   public   sphere.   The   exclusions   are   too   great   and   too   obvious   to   be   ignored   by   serious   social   theorists   and   Dismissing   the   experience   of   the   vast   majority   of   the   world’s   population   has   little   to   recommend  it   from  the  point  of  view  of  democratic  theory,  he  also  emphasizes,   in  order  for  a   genuinely   global   public   sphere   to   evolve   that   apart   from   the   cluster   of   technologies   to   be   in   place,   there   should   be   a   common   language   of   communication.   Sparks   states   the   limits   preventing  internet  from  being  global  public  sphere  

..despite   their   international   nature,   despite   their   riches   of   information,   and   despite   the   glorious  abundance  of  debate,   the  global  media,   both  old  and  new,   fall   a  very   long  way   short  of  the  ideal  notion  of  a  public  sphere.  They  have  clear  limits  that  exclude  the  voices   and  the  interests  of  a  majority  of  the  world’s  population.  These  exclusions  operate  every  bit   as  completely  and  permanently  as  did  the   laws  of  Athenian  citizenship.  Unless  and  until   these  limits  are  overcome,  there  will  be  no  sign  of  a  global  public  sphere  (89).  

Contrary  to  Spark,  Volkmer  (2003)  otlines  “  the  new  ‘flow’  of  political  information  that  enables   us   to   become   informed   about   issues   of   global,   regional   as   well   as   local   relevance.   The   new   media  infrastructure  allows  an  eyewitness  view  of  events  taking  place  in  worldwide  locations.   These  global  processes,  in  which  information  and  knowledge,  political  values,  ethics,  aesthetics   and  lifestyles  are  exchanged,  are  becoming  increasingly  autonomous  from  nationstate  contexts   and   are   beginning   to   shape   a   politically   relevant   ‘global’   public   sphere.”     Volkmer   not   only   emphasizes   internet   but   also   the   developments   in   broadcast   by   giving   the   example   of   TRT   International  the  Turkish  state-­‐‑run  broadcaster,  being  able  to  be  accessed  via  cable  and  satellite   by   audiences   within   Germany   parallel   to   German   channels(ibid,   11).   So   if   we   seek   to   apply   Entman’s   model   in   Germany   we   would   be   mistaken   by   just   taking   into   account   German   mainstream   news   organizations   and   therefore   thinking   Turkish   community   are   informed   by  

 

364    

just   them  whereas   in   Germany   there   are   not   just   TRT   International   but   also   many   different   Turkish  television  channels  addressing  and  affecting  Turkish  audience.    

Volkmer  in  his  book  “The  Global  Public  Sphere:  Public  Communication  in  the  Age  of  Reflective  

Interdependence”   emphasizes   the   difference   in  what   has   been   called   a   part   of   digital   divide,   internet  users  by  region,  e.g.  the  difference  between  Europe  and  Asia:  “  Statistics  show  that  not   only  has  one-­‐‑third  of  the  world’s  population  access  to  the  web  but  –  and  this  is  a  change  from   about  a  decade  ago  –  the  majority  of  users  are  now  located  in  Asia,  followed  by  Europe,  Latin   America,   North   America   and  Africa   (2014,   1).   Bringing   to   the   fore   the   convergence   between   digital,   cyber   communication   and   mass   media,   asserting   that   converging   media   spaces   are   embedded  in  content  threads,  which  often  resurface  on  social  media  platforms  available  almost   anywhere   in   the   world   (a   point   of   view   that   will   help   us   understand   social   media   effect)   Volkmer  points  out  that  media  organizations  are  searching  for  new  ways  to  ‘connect’  directly  to   their  users  –  wherever  they  live  and  Newspaper  sites  are  becoming  multi-­‐‑media  platforms;  for   example   the   Guardian   in   London   has   launched   such   a   platform,   Guardian   Witness,   encouraging   readers   across   the   world   to   upload   information   as   well   as   images   and   to   collaborate   closely   with   Guardian   journalists   to   identify   and   unfold   stories(ibid,   2).   What   Volkmer  describes  us  does  not  seem  overlap  Entman’s   top-­‐‑down  model  as  people   themselves   can  be  part  of  the  process  of  manufacturing  information.  

Spark   is  not   the  only  one  who   judges   the  capacity  of   internet   to  be   an  undemocratic  area.  As   another  example,  it  can  be  understood  from  Morozov’s  book  (2011)  that  internet  not  only  can  be   used  by  revolutionaries  but  also  by  and  authoritarian  governments.  Morozov  goes  on  claiming   it  is  cyber-­‐‑utopianists  who  fail  to  anticipate  how  authoritarian  governments  would  respond  to   the  Internet,  not  being  able  to  predict  how  useful  it  would  prove  for  propaganda  purposes,  how   masterfully   dictators   would   learn   to   use   it   for   surveillance,   and   how   sophisticated   modern   systems  of  Internet  censorship  would  become.  Instead  most  cyber-­‐‑utopians  stuck  to  a  populist   account   of   how   technology   empowers   the   people,   who,   oppressed   by   years   of   authoritarian   rule,  will  inevitably  rebel,  mobilizing  themselves  through  text  messages,  Facebook,  Twitter,  and   whatever  new  tool  comes  along  next  year.  

By  means   of   but   all   the   literature   on   internet   cited   above  we   can   see   that   there   is   a   dissent   between   scholars.  But   there   seems   to  be  one   thing   for   sure  between   them  which   is   that   all   of   them  agree  that  no  matter  what  internet  is  really  important,  that  is,  it  is  a  tool  to  shape  society   and  drive  politics.  So  Entman’s  choice  to  exclude  it  from  his  model  seems  controversial  because   as  abovementioned  it  is  tool  for  administrations,  newspapers  and  public  to  express  themselves,   to   be  more   specific  we   can   claim   that   all   agents,   including  public   come   to   find   the   chance   to   form  their  own  frames.  

Although   accepting   that  Web’s   appeal   has   extended   to  marginalized   individuals  which   have   traditionally   enjoyed   little   in   the  way  of   political   influence   or   sympathetic   coverage   from   the   mainstream  media,  Marmura  (2010),  also  adds  that  internet  allows  “extremist”  groups  in  which   the  mainstream  media   is   not   interested   either,   such   as   racist   organizations,   religious   “cults,”   and  militia  groups,   to   those  espousing  such   ideologies  as  deep  ecology,  radical   feminism,  and   anarchism,  to  disseminate  their  messages  and  address  a  potentially  vast  audience  with  little  fear   of  censure,  a  similar  approach  to  Morozov’s.  

Marmura   (2010)   questioning   mainly   “Do   understandings   of   cultural   hegemony   and   propaganda  developed  during  the  era  of  print  and  broadcast  media  provide  a  suitable  basis  for   assessing   the   ideological  character  and  authoritative  status  of   information  circulating  online?”   cites   to   give   the   positive   take   on   this   point,   Urry’s   observation   that   the   internet   has   created   conditions  whereby   states   and   corporations   can   no   longer  monopolize   the   information  made  

 

365    

available   to   the  public   and  Castells’   suggestion   that  both  politicians  and   the  dominant  media   must  take  account  of  the  (frequently  accurate)  alternative  sources  of  information  put  online  by   independent,  politically  motivated  citizens  and  grassroots  organizations  if  they  hope  to  remain   credible  in  the  eyes  of  the  public.  While  accepting  arguments  made  by  these  scholars  doubtless   hold  some  merit,  Marmura  claims  that:  

It  also  glosses  over  a  number  of  important  realities.  Most  importantly,  Castells  ignores  the   fact   that   mainstream   political   and   moral   values   are   largely   sustained   and   promoted   through   the  workings   of   the  mass  media   and   not  merely   reflected  within   them.   This   is   hardly  a  minor  point,  since  the  dominant,  agenda-­‐‑setting  news  media  remain  profit-­‐‑driven   enterprises  positioned  within   larger  networks  of   corporate  and  political  power.  That   this   reality   has   significant   consequences   in   terms   of   how   controversial   issues   and   events   are   represented   in   the   news,   and   hence   understood   by   the   public…   Whether   or   not   mainstream  media   commentary   occasionally   takes   the   form   of   partisanship   at   the  more   superficial  level  of  party  politics  is,   in  this  sense  at  least,  a  much  less  significant  issue.  As   Castells   (2004,   375)  himself   admits,   the  media   in  democratic   countries  are  “as  plural  and   competitive  as  the  political  system  is.  That  is  not  much  (ibid,  14).”    

What  Marmura  claimed   is  not  surprising,  compared   to  Entman’s  model,  especially  him  citing   Said’s  argument  that  a  tradition  of  imperialism  continues  to  shape  popular  attitudes,  influence   art  and  literature,  and  guide  Western  perceptions  of  world  events  as  depicted  in  the  dominant   mass  media   bears   a   resemblance   to   Entman’s   concepts   cultural   congruence   and   schemas.  He   defends   that  argument  by   focusing  on  CNN.com   in  Arab/Israeli   conflict  which  he   shows   that   dominant  ideological  frames  which  have  long  characterized  reporting  on  this  issue,  and  which   ultimately   serve   to   legitimate   American   policies   in   the  Middle   East,   continue   to   shape   news   products  online(ibid,15)

Exampling  “Kahane.org”,  an  internet  site,  with  the  duty  of  fighting  to  eliminate  Israel’s  “Arab   cancer”  and  “radioislam.org”  another  one  with  the  duty  to  defend  Islam  and  the  West  from  the   “Jewish   threat”,  Marmura   shows   that   individual   including   extremist   ones   can   gain   attention   with   their   marginal   opinion   on   internet.   But   this   can   also   be   seen   the   sign   of   people’s   echo   chambers”  namely  selective  exposure  to  partisan  sources.  

Similarly,  citing  Singer  saying  “Compared  to  its  traditional  counterparts,  however,  the  internet   is  different  in  content  and  structure,  and  is  particularly  amenable  in  its  use  to  a  high  degree  of   selectivity”  Mccabe   (2010)   gives   some   research   as   examples   and   claims   that   individuals  who   primarily   access   online   newspapers   for   their   news   are   very   selective,   choosing   to   expose   themselves  to   information  and  stories  which  relate  to  personal   interest  and  pre-­‐‑existing  views   (3).

There  is  a  vital  phenomenon  which  has  something  to  do  with  both  internet,  selective  exposure   and  political  communication  (media  policy  nexus),  namely  diaspora.  But  before  taking  a  look  its   relation  with  internet  I  opt  for  delving  into  its  connection  between  mass  media.  Marmura(ibid,   2)  giving  example  of  Ellul’s  book    “Propaganda,  the  Formation  of  Men’s  Attitudes”  claims  that   he   directs   attention   to   the   widespread   use   of   community-­‐‑based   (i.e.   “alternative”)   media   by   minority   groups   within   modern   “technological   societies,”   arguing   that   such   use   serves   to   reinforce  the  ideological  boundaries  which  already  separate  them:

Those   who   read   the   press   of   their   group   and   listen   to   the   radio   of   their   group   are   constantly   reinforced  in  their  allegiance.  They  learn  more  and  more  that  their  group  is  right  and  that  its  actions   are   justified;   thus   their   beliefs   are   strengthened.   At   the   same   time,   such   propaganda   contains   elements  of  criticism  and  refutation  of  other  groups,  which  will  never  be  read  or  heard  by  a  member   of  another  group.  (Ellul,  cited  in  Marmura)  

366  

Then,  it  would  be  argued  that  even  without  internet,  diasporas  or  other  communities  seek  to  be   exposed  to  their  media  regardless  of  its  type.    

On   the   effect   of   internet   for   diasporas   Alonso   and   Oiarzabal   (2010,   8)   claims   that   small   communities,   isolated   individuals,  and  marginalized  groups  can  use   it  as  a  platform   to  easily   raise  their  voices  and  increase  their  possibility  of  being  heard.  They  go  on  saying:  

The   Internet   as   a   post–geographically   bounded   global   communication   system   has   significantly   provided   the   ability   for   dispersed   groups   such   as   diasporas   to   connect,   maintain,   create,   and   re-­‐‑ create   social   ties   and   networks  with   both   their   homeland   and   their   codispersed   communities.   The   Internet   offers   the   ability   for   diasporas   to   exchange   instant   factual   information   regardless   of   geographical  distance  and  time  zones.  Again  time  and  space  shift  meanings;  there  are  no  constraints   on   synchronicity   or   locality.   That   is,   the   Internet   offers   the   possibility   to   sustain   and   re-­‐‑create   diasporas  as  globally  imagined  communities  (9).  

But  what  we  should  focus  on  when  it  comes  to  the  internet  is  not  just  if  the  exposure  is  selective   or  not  or   the  extensions  of   the  mainstream  media   like  CNN.  com  which  might  misleads  us   in   our  way   to   understand   the   new   relation   of   the  media   policy   but   a   new   relation   between   the   policy  and  media  in  which  we  can  talk  about  the  great  possibility  for  anyone  to  be  exposed  to   the  different   sources   other   than  mainstream  media,   that   is   no  matter  what   how  one   tends   to   expose   oneself   to   any  media,   admitting   internet   is   powerful   actor   to   shape   society   and  drive   politics   and   a  person’s   ability   to   form   their   own   frames  which  obliges  us   to   judge   the  media   concept  differently  than  it  was  in  the  past.

Internet   is   an   important   factor   which   can   change   the   way   information   flows   between   organizations   and   individuals.   But   it   is   not   the   only   difference  we   should   take   into   account.   Something  that  is  part  of  internet,  that  has  something  to  do  with  it  and  that  is  more  suitable  to   the  abovementioned  idea  that  a  person  is  being  able  to  form  their  own  frames  is  Social  media.  In   an  environment,  the  president  Obama  having  an  Twitter  account  with  approximately  59  million   followers  we  can  hardly  claim  that  Entman’s  top-­‐‑down  model  would  be  valid.  According  to  the   model  there  must  be  hierarchy  between  administration,  other  elites,  media,  media  frames  and   public.  But  when  the  president,  at  least  his  Twitter  account  director  tweets  something,  ignoring   the   media’s   mediated   effect   and   anyone   following   the   president   can   directly   see   what   the   statement  is,  it  seems  too  hard  to  claim  that  the  so-­‐‑called  hierarchy  still  exists.    

Stating  that  Papacharissi  and  de  Fatima  Oliveira  has  described  how  people  are  taking  to  Twitter   to   learn   the   latest   news   and   to   acquire   information,   Gleason   (2013)   gives   us   Constructivist   account   (“the   mind   actively   constructs   relationships   among   objects   or   events,   bits   of   information,  etc  )  on  the  learning  process  through  Twitter:

Indeed,   recent   discoveries   in   neuroscience,   developmental   psychology,   and   sociology   suggest   that   learning   is   an   active   process   in   which   learners   bring   prior   knowledge   to   bear   on   their   current   knowledge-­‐‑building   scenario   (National   Research   Council,   cited   in   Gleason).   Constructivist   researchers  have  proposed  that  learners  are  able  to  apply  their  knowledge  most  readily  when  multiple   perspectives  from  real-­‐‑world  situations  are  presented  (Spiro,  Jehng,  cited  in  Gleason).  For  example,   the  Occupy  Wall  Street  hashtag  #OWS  offers  users  multiple  perspectives  about  Occupy  Wall  Street.   #OWS  tweets  may  contain  links  to  a  number  of  different  platforms:  a  photo-­‐‑sharing  site  with  user-­‐‑ generated   images   that   display   opposition   to   the   movement;   a   video-­‐‑sharing   site   with   videos   that   protest,  explain  video,  or  critique;  a  Google  map  that  demonstrates  the  location  of  protests  across  the   United  States;  or  an  essay  that  explores  the  historical  reasons  behind  the  Occupy  movement.  

We   can   find   some   significant   points   on   Gleason’s   approach   to   have   something   to   do   with   Entman’s  (2004,  7)  schema  concept,  “the  clusters  or  nodes  of  connected  ideas  and  feelings  stored  

 

367    

in  memory.”  For   foreign  policy,  Entman  suggests   some  schemas,  defined   for  our  purposes  as   networks  of  linked  ideas  and  feelings  that  provide  people  their  major  templates  for  interpreting   foreign  policy,   readily   come   to  mind   for  most  Americans   in   response   to   foreign  events(148).”   Entman(ibid,   7)   says   Kintsch   suggests   schemas   are   connected   in   knowledge   network,   continuing   to   say   that   a   schema   for   September   11th  might   include   the  World   Trade   Center,   airplane   hijackers,   Osama   bin   Laden,   the   New   York   fire   department,   and   New   York   mayor   Rudolph  Guiliani   (among  others).  So,  as   far  as   I   can  understand   from  the  Entman’s  approach   about  the  relation  between  a  schema  and  a  mass  media  product  (e.g  an  image  of  the  destructed   twin  towers)  thanks  to  Fiske  and  Taylor  cited  in  Entman’s  book  (2004)  I  can  state  that  schemas   as   cognitive   structures   get   triggered   by   a   mass   media   product.   To   Gleason,   a   hashtag   for   example  #OWS  can  not  only  contain  links  to  different  sources  but  they  also  can  help  users  get   informed  and   learn.  To  be  more   specific,  we   can   consider   that   a  news  aritcle   in   a  newspaper   with   the  headline  “Violence   in  Wall  Street  Protests”  of   course  with  no  hyperlink   to   let  us   see   different  perspectives  which   stimulates   the   already   constituted   “Wall   Street  Protests   schema”   by  the  news  media.  Then  it  is  so  likely  that  Entman’s  model  would  make  sense.  But  it  would  be   hard   to   claim   that   someone   exposed   to   information   produced   on   Twitter   by   its   users,   experiencing   a   new   psychological   learning   process   and   getting   informed   by   its   users,  would   have  the  same  schema  as  she/he  would  have  if  she/he  were  to  be  exposed  to  just  mass  media.    

Meraz  and  Papacharissi  (2013)  emphasizing  Twitter’s  role  to  let  independent  bloggers  use  it  to   promote   each   other’s   or   their   own   content,   and   journalists   use   it   to   supplement   their   own   reporting,  citing  Ryan  claim  that  their  findings  revealed  a  number  of  important  implications  for   contemporary   journalism,   including   the   increased   prominence   of   citizen   and   individual   journalists,  the  peripheral  positioning  of  mainstream  media  outlets,  and  the  introduction  of  new   or  remediation  of  older  news  values   in  ways  that  permit  and  legitimize  collaborating  filtering   and  cocreation  of  news  content(158).  

They  suggest  that  they  found  that  influential,  central  figures  wielded  inordinate  influence  over   a   crowd   that   both   promoted   and   spread   elite   influence   in   a   contagious   manner   through   cascading  waves  of  retweets  and  mentions  which  has  similarity  with  Entman’s  model.  But  they   also  emphasize  a  difference  between  their  approach  and  Entman’s  model:  

The  battle  for  hashtag  traction  can  be  compared  with  the  dynamic  competition  for  frame  ascendancy   among   elites   (government   officials   and   journalists)   in   the   cascading   activation   model.   However,   unlike  Entman’s  model,  hashtag  competition  in  networked  environments  like  Twitter  involves  both   elites   and   nonelites,   who   symbiotically   make   popular   a   select   group   of   hashtags   (Meraz   and   Papacharissi,  2013,  144).  

The   adverb   “symbiotically”   is   what   that  makes   the   difference   between   Entman’s  model   and   their   perspective.   Based   on  Meraz   and   Papacharissi’s   analysis   we   can   repeat   again   the  most   important  hypothesis  of  the  current  article  which  is  that  the  relation  between  media  and  policy   cannot  be  considered  as  top-­‐‑down  as  it  is  in  the  model  but  this  does  not  mean  that  governments   cannot   be   effective   through   internet,   especially   considering   recent   examples   of   troll   accounts   driven   by   governments.   Another   hypothesis   would   be   that   not   only   White   House   and   journalists   frame   event   but   also   anyone   connecting   to   internet,   using   a   social  media   account   does.  

The  model  might   fall   short  of   the  most   for   its   limited   interest   in   the   foreign  effect  although   it   incorporates  the  possibly  growing  impacts  of  foreign  leaders  on  U.S   .  news  (2004,  13),  putting   them  among  other  elites.  Entman  states  emphasizing  journalist  motivations:  

Although  journalists  have  less  ability  to  shape  news  frames  than  members  of  the  administration  or   elite  networks,   they  do  have  some   independent  power,  arising   from  their  capacity   to  ask  questions  

368  

and   to   decide   precisely   which   words   and   images   to   assemble   and   transmit.   This   and   their   motivations  to   fulfill   the  “watchdog”  role  often   lead   journalists   to  seek  out  and  publish  dissenting   views  from  foreign  leaders  even  when  American  elites  fall  silent  (91).  

But   it   is  not  enough  to  consider  foreign   leaders  as   the  only  foreign  agent  which  can  affect   the   news,  the  information  flow  or  the  discourse  in  a  country.  Long  before  the  model  was  proposed   in  their  article  “Public  relations  efforts  for  the  third  world:  Images  in  the  news”  Albritton  and   Manheim  (1985)  says  that  after  Argentina,  Indonesia,  South  Korea,  the  Philippines,  and  Turkey   hired  U.S.  public  relations  consultant,  the  positive  coverage  for  each  country  in  the  New  York   Times   improved.   Infact   in   Entman’s   model(2004,   11)   public   relations   firms   are   categorized   among  other  elites  referring  to  Washington  elites  about  which  Entman  tells  that:  “  To  be  part  of   this  ‘Washington’  network  it  is  no  longer  necessary  (if  it  ever  was)  to  actually  live  in  D.C.”  He   emphasizes  communication  technology  making  it  easy  for  everyone  connect  each  other  but  also   says  that  to  win  acceptance  as  a  full-­‐‑fledged  member  of  the  network,  one  does  have  to  reside  in   Washington   for  a   few  years,  working   in   the  government  or  at  a   think   tank,  going   to  cocktails   parties  and  conferences  that  are  the  currency  of  networking  in  the  popular  sense  of  the  term.”   Although   he   directs   anyone   interested   in   the   influence   of   strategic   public   relations   on  media   coverage   of   foreign   nations   and   events   to  Manheim’s   book   “Strategic   Public   Diplomacy   and   American  Foreign  Policy:  The  Evolution  of   Influence,”  he  does  not   include   the   effect  of   these   firms  in  his  model.          

Another  thing  which  seems  to  be  missing  in  the  model  is  the  effect  of  a  Middle  East-­‐‑based  news   organization,  Al  Jazeera  which  is  defined  by  el-­‐‑Nawawy  and  Iskandar  (2003)  as  “a  network  that   is  rattling  governments  and  redefining  modern  journalism.”  In  their  book  published  a  year  ago   than  Entman’s,  they  emphasize  its  importance  by  saying:    

In  the  initial  stage  of  the  Afghanistan  crisis,  American  audiences  received  a  daily  dose  of  Al-­‐‑Jazeera.   In   covering   this   crisis,  CNN  and   other   news   stations   that   normally  might   have   broken   the   news   themselves   used   Al-­‐‑   Jazeera   footage.   In   fact,   many   U.S.   broadcasters   simply   showed   Al-­‐‑Jazeera   broadcasts  live  during  their  own  programming,  together  with  translations  (ibid,  22).  

As  it  can  be  understood  from  their  perspective  Al  Jazeera  seems  to  be  very  effective  power  even   for  American   audience.   But   the   first   use   of   the   term  by  Henderson   (2000)  was   not   about   the   American  audience  but   the  risk  for   the  Arab  Middle  East  governments  to   lose  their  control  of   information.  Seib  is  the  first  one  to  use  the  term  in  academy  but  as  Power  (n.d)  states  he  uses  the   Network'ʹs   name   metaphorically   to   reference   the   broader   consequences   of   new   media   on   contemporary  politics.  Nawawy  claims  that  just  as  the  CNN  effect  was  used  as  a  paradigm  for   media  influence  in  general,  the  “‘Al-­‐‑Jazeera  effect’  [concept  reflects]  much  more  than  the  Qatar-­‐‑ based  media  company  (2010,  7)  citing  Seib:    “it  encompasses  the  use  of  new  media  as  tools   in   every   aspect   of   global   affairs,   ranging   from   democratization   to   terrorism   and   including   the   concept   of   “virtual   states.”   It   is   obvious   that   what   Seib   (2008)   proposes   includes   both   mainstream  and  new  media:    

To   varying   degrees   throughout   the  world,   the   connectivity   of   new  media   is   superseding   the   traditional  political  connections  that  have  brought  identity  and  structure  to  global  politics.  This   rewiring  of   the  world’s  neural   system   is  proceeding  at   remarkable   speed,  and   its   reach  keeps   extending   ever   farther   It   changes   the  way   states   and   citizens   interact  with   each   other   and   it   gives   the   individual   a   chance  at   a   new   kind   of   autonomy,   at   least   on   an   intellectual   level,   because  of  the  greater  availability  of  information(175).  

Seib  (2011)  about  the  effect  of  the  Arap  Spring  on  Al  Jazeera  goes  on  stating  that  it  is  just  not  a   classic  network  just  providing  its  own  reporting:  

 

369    

In  addition  to  providing  its  own  reporting,  throughout  the  Arab  Spring  Al  Jazeera  made  a  point   of   aggregating   social   media   content,   repurposing   YouTube   video,   reproducing   Facebook   material,  and  delivering  Twitter  messages  to  its  TV  viewers.  Because  many  countries  across  the   Arab  world  still  have   limited   internet  access  –  but  boast  very  high  percentages  of  satellite  TV   viewers  –  Al  Jazeera  bridged  a  vital  communications  gap.  

What  Seib  has  suggested  helps  us  easily  understand  that  we  don’t  live  in  the  old  world  which   the   America   based   news   organizations   driven   by   American   government   (if   it   ever   was)   can   manipulate  their  audience  from  inside  or  outside  of  the  America.  There  are  too  much  parameter   one  of  which  is  related  to  a  concept,  the  journalistic  motivation  in  Entman’s  model.  According   to   Vice   President   Corporate   Communications   of   New   York   Times   E.   M.   Murphy   (personal   communication,  May,   07.   2015)  more   than  30%  of   their  digital   audience   is  outside  of   the  U.S.   Considering   Entman’s   concept,   journalistic   motivation;   advancing   career   interest,   journalist   seeking   professional   success   (2004,   13)   and   news   organizations   and   personnel   are   driven   by   economic  pressure  and  incentives;  professional  customs,  norms  and  principles;  and  normative   values,  I  can  claim  these  about  New  York  Times:  

1:     New   York   Times,   as   an   economic   organization   and   personnel   of   it   do   have   to   try   to   be   objective   to   persuade   its   foreign  digital   subscribers   to   be   loyal   to   it   not   just  American  public   which   originally   creates   Entman’s   cultural   congruence   so   it   is   not   so   surprising   in   a   global   environment  to  suggest  that  even  cultural  congruence  has  evolved.  

2:   In   social   media   age   its   coverage   about   any   news   can   be   compared   by   other   news   organizations   like   Al   Jazeera   and   be   challenged   by   thousands   so   it   has   to   try   to   follow   professional  customs,  norms  and  principles.  

DISCUSSION  

We  have  been  witnessing  massive  transformations  some  of  which  have  already  been  predicted   by  scholars   long  before  the  possible  effects  of   internet  or  social  media  such  as  communication   scholar  Marshall  Mcluhan   and   international   relations   scholar   Burton   (1972)  whose   “cobweb”   concept  emphasizes  the  interaction  between  actors  in  a  complex  international  area,  criticized  for   not   being   able   to   explain  which   actors   are   the  most   powerful   and   influential.   Their   concepts   were  too  controversial  considering  the  time  they  were  proposed  but  now  maybe  the  right  time   to  think  that  there  is  a  really  complex  global  sphere  full  of  different  actors  (other  strong  or  even   peripheral   countries)  who  can  get   the  hang  of  using  modern   tools   such  as   internet  and  social   media,   and   old   but   developed   tools   such   as   mass   media   and   propaganda   together   with   so-­‐‑ called  more  stronger  and  aware  global  public  thanks  to  internet.  What  was  written  above  might   be  exaggerated,  as  the  author  of  it  I  cannot  state  that  it  is  the  reality  considering  that  I  suggest   the  new  system  is  too  complex,  then  it  is  understandable  that  it  cannot  be  explained  thoroughly   for   the   time  being.  Not  matter  how  exaggerated  what  was  written,   I   and  Entman  at   least   are   agreed   on   the   evolving   system,   as   Entman   (2003b)   states:     “the   media   are   less   dependably   deferential   as   they   operate   in   the  new,   still   evolving   international   system,   a   system   that’s   far   more  complicated  and  much  more  unpredictable  than  was  true  during  the  Cold  War.”  Entman,   criticizing  hegemonic  models  showed  us  that  the  media  policy  relation  is  not  supposed  to  be  so   simple  but  on  the  contrary  he  proved  that  it  can  be  pretty  complex.    

Having   introduced   his   model   I   tried   to   show   “What   has   changed   since   the   model   was   proposed”  similarly  what  he  has  done  with  Cold  War  paradigm.  As  can  be  seen  Entman  did  not   prefer  to  attach  a  big  importance  to  internet  which  was  effective  even  the  model  was  proposed.   As  Holmes   proposed  with   a  medium   letting   Two-­‐‑way   communication   and   being   decentered   (2005)  I  would  not  expect  the  media  policy  relation  to  be  the  same  as  it  was  in  the  past.  I  should   emphasize   that   it   gives   anyone   the   opportunity   to   be   exposed   to   various   sources   e.g   foreign  

 

370    

news  organization’s  frames  in  the  form  of  internet  sites  which  seemed  but  all  impossible  in  the   past,  especially  considering  how  hard  it  is  to  reach  a  foreign  newspaper  or  a  foreign  television   station  both  of  which  are  also  more  available   through  the   internet.  Having  said   that,   I   should   admit   that   of   course   internet   has   also   the   ability   for   individuals   to   be  more   selective   in   their   news   choices.   One   of   the   most   important   thing   about   internet,   especially   social   media   is   its   ability   for   especially   an   individual   to   form   their   frames.   Regardless   of   its   being   abused   by   governments   or   other   elites   we   should   admit   that   this   feature   is   something   we   have   never   encountered  in  global  communication.  Model  also  seems  to  be  lacking  for  its  limited  interest  in   the   foreign   effect   which   especially   through   public   relations   firm   seems   to   be   affecting   information  flow  and  news  organizations  frames.  There  are  some  vital  parameters  missing  the   model   which   are   the   internet   and   social   media   effect,   Al   Jazeera   effect   and   journalistic   motivations,  %30  percent  of  New  York  Times’  digital   subscription   is   foreign   subscribers.   So   I   can   state   that   in   this   evolving,   too   complex   global   sphere   news   organizations   like  New  York   Times  which  I  claim  that  turns  out  to  be  not  only  informant  but  also  one  of  actors  especially  in   important   foreign   social   protests   like   Gezi   Park.   Abovementioned   parameters,   especially   journalistic   motivations   affected   by   counterframes   coming   from   social   media   and   Al   Jazeera   type   news   organizations   can   constitute   a   massive   element   of   oppression   even   bigger   than   government’s  or  can  change  the  cultural  congruence  and  the  schemas  for  a  news  organization.     As  Entman  said  counterframes  are  so  important  for  democracy  so  it  can  be  considered  as  vital   for  individuals  to  get  exposed  to  other  perspective  through  abovementioned  new,  still  evolving   and  complex  environment.  

 

REFERENCES  

ALBRITTON,  R.  B.  &  MANHEIM,  J.  B.  (1985).  Public  relations  efforts  for  the  Third  World:   Images  in  the  news.  Journal  of  Communication,  35(1),  43-­‐‑59.  

ALONSO,  A.  &  OLARZABAL,  P.  (2010).  The  immigrant  worlds’  digital  harbors:  An   introduction.  Diasporas  in  the  new  media  age:  Identity,  politics,  and  community,  1-­‐‑18.  

BENNETT,  W.  L.  &  ENTMAN,  R.  M.  (Eds.).  (2001).  Mediated  politics:  Communication  in  the  future   of  democracy.  Cambridge  University  Press  

BEST,  S.  J.  &  CHMIELEWSKI,  B.  &    KRUEGER,  B.  S.  (2005).  Selective  exposure  to  online  foreign   news  during  the  conflict  with  Iraq.  The  Harvard  International  Journal  of   Press/Politics,  10(4),  52-­‐‑70.  

BURTON,  J.  W.  (1972).  World  society.  Cambridge  University  Press.   EDGERLY,  S.  &  VRAGA,  E.  &  FUNG,  T.  &  MOON,  T.  J.  &  YOO,  W.  H.  &  VEENSTRA,  A.  

(2009).  YouTube  as  a  public  sphere:  The  proposition  8  debate.  In  Association  of  Internet   Researchers  Conference,  Milwaukee,  WI.  

EL-­‐‑NAWAWY,  M.  (2010).  The  2009  Iranian  presidential  election  in  the  coverage  of  CNN  and   Al-­‐‑Jazeera  English  websites.  Media,  Power,  and  Politics  in  the  Digital  Age:  The  2009   Presidential  Election  Uprising  in  Iran,  3-­‐‑14.  

EL-­‐‑NAWAWY,  M.  &  ISKANDER,  A.  (2003).  Al-­‐‑Jazeera:  The  story  of  the  network  that  is  rattling   governments  and  redefining  modern  journalism.  Basic  Books  

ENTMAN,  R.  M  (2003b)  Presentation  given  at  the  “American  Media  and  Wartime  Challenges   Conference”  

ENTMAN,  R.  M.  (2003).  Cascading  activation:  Contesting  the  White  House'ʹs  frame  after   9/11.  Political  Communication,,  20(4),  415-­‐‑432.  

ENTMAN,  R.  M.  (2004).  Projections  of  power:  Framing  news,  public  opinion,  and  US  foreign  policy.   University  of  Chicago  Press.  

371  

GLEASON,  B.  (2013).  #  Occupy  Wall  Street:  Exploring  informal  learning  about  a  social   movement  on  Twitter.  American  Behavioral  Scientist,  0002764213479372.  

HOLMES,  D.  (2005).  Communication  theory:  Media,  technology  and  society.  Sage.     MARMURA,  S.  M.  (2010).  Hegemony  in  the  digital  age:  The  Arab/Israeli  conflict  online.  

Lexington  Books.     MCCABE,  J.  (2010).  Online  news  media  use  and  political  tolerance.   MERAZ,  S.  &  PAPACHARISSI,  Z.  (2013).  Networked  gatekeeping  and  networked  framing  on#  

Egypt.  The  international  journal  of  press/politics,  1940161212474472.   MESSING,  S.  &  WESTWOOD,  S.  J.  (2012).  Selective  exposure  in  the  age  of  social  media:  

Endorsements  trump  partisan  source  affiliation  when  selecting  news   online.  Communication  Research,  0093650212466406.  

MOROZOV,  E.  (2012).  The  net  delusion:  The  dark  side  of  Internet  freedom.  PublicAffairs.   POWERS,  S.  (2008).  Phillip  Seib’s  The  Al  Jazeera  Effect  Washington  DC:  Potomac  Books,  Inc.  

References   S.  HENDERSON.  The  Al  Jazeera  effect  Arab  Satellite  Television  and  Public  Opinion  

(http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-­‐‑analysis/view/the-­‐‑al-­‐‑jazeera-­‐‑effect-­‐‑arab-­‐‑ satellite-­‐‑television-­‐‑and-­‐‑public-­‐‑opinion),  (accessed  04/01/2015)  Seib,  P.  (2008).  The  Al   Jazeera  effect:  How  the  new  global  media  are  reshaping  world  politics.  Potomac  Books,  Inc..  

SEIB,  P.  (2011).  Why  the  Arab  Spring  was  the  best  and  worst  thing  to  happen  to  Al  Jazeera   [Internet],  Atlanta,  CNN.  Available  from:   http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/why-­‐‑the-­‐‑arab-­‐‑spring-­‐‑was-­‐‑the-­‐‑best-­‐‑and-­‐‑ worst-­‐‑thing-­‐‑to-­‐‑happen-­‐‑to-­‐‑al-­‐‑jazeera/  (Accessed  05.07.15).  

SPARKS,  C.  (1998).  Is  there  a  global  public  sphere.  Electronic  empires:  Global  media  and  local   resistance,  108-­‐‑24.  

SPARKS,  C.  (2001).  The  Internet  and  the  global  public  sphere.  Mediated  politics:  Communication  in   the  future  of  democracy,  75-­‐‑95.  

SPARKS,  C.  (2013).  What  is  the  “Digital  Divide”  and  why  is  it  Important?  Javnost-­‐‑The   Public,  20(2),  27-­‐‑46.  

VOLKMER,  I.  (2003).  The  global  network  society  and  the  global  public  sphere.   Development,  46(1),  9-­‐‑16.  

VOLKMER,  I.  (2014).  The  global  public  sphere:  public  communication  in  the  age  of  reflective   interdependence.  John  Wiley  &  Sons  

View publication statsView publication stats