Framing Protest and Insurrection

<p>Media framing exerts a profound influence on public perception of political unrest. This study examines how twelve widely circulated US media outlets—four left-leaning, four centrist, and four right-leaning—framed two pivotal events: the protests following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 and the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Drawing on the scholarship of framing, agenda-setting, and protest-paradigm, I analyze lexical choices (e.g., “riot” versus “protest,” “insurrection” versus “demonstration”), visual imagery (property damage versus peaceful assembly versus police presence), and verbal–visual alignment. Results demonstrate consistent partisan asymmetries: left-leaning outlets more frequently described the Floyd events as “protests” and January 6 as an “insurrection,” whereas right-leaning outlets more often framed Floyd’s as “riots” and January 6 as “protests” or “demonstrations.” Centrist outlets adopted intermediate framings yet tended toward law-and-order discourse after January 6. Verbal–visual dissonance—most salient in coverage that paired text minimizing disorder with imagery of flames or looting—appears to have fueled distrust by sending contradictory cues. I contend that the language and imagery of news coverage of these events constructed meaning, shaped memory, and channeled political interpretation across time. Together, these devices contributed to segmented publics with polarized understandings of these acts of civil disobedience. The findings underscore the political power of media frames and motivate future audience research on sequential framing effects.</p>