You Vote What You Read News Coverage Before The Two Irish Referendums On The Lisbon Treaty 1st Edition Fabian Reichert

You Vote What You Read News
Coverage before the two Irish

Referendums on the Lisbon Treaty 1st
Edition Fabian Reichert
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/you-vote-what-you-read-news-coverage-before-the-tw
o-irish-referendums-on-the-lisbon-treaty-1st-edition-fabian-reichert/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
One Vote, Two Votes, I Vote, You Vote (The Cat in the
Hat's Learning Library) Bonnie Worth
https://ebookmeta.com/product/one-vote-two-votes-i-vote-you-vote-
the-cat-in-the-hats-learning-library-bonnie-worth/
Literary Libations What to Drink with What You Read 1st

Edition Amira Makansi
https://ebookmeta.com/product/literary-libations-what-to-drink-
with-what-you-read-1st-edition-amira-makansi/
This Is What It Sounds Like What the Music You Love

Says About You Susan Rogers
https://ebookmeta.com/product/this-is-what-it-sounds-like-what-
the-music-you-love-says-about-you-susan-rogers/
Read If You Dare 1st Edition Catt Dahman
https://ebookmeta.com/product/read-if-you-dare-1st-edition-catt-
dahman/
100 Books You Must Read Before You Die volume 1 newly
updated Pride and Prejudice Jane Eyre Wuthering Heights
Tarzan of the Apes The Count of The Greatest Writers of
All Time 1st Edition Lewis Carroll
https://ebookmeta.com/product/100-books-you-must-read-before-you-
die-volume-1-newly-updated-pride-and-prejudice-jane-eyre-
wuthering-heights-tarzan-of-the-apes-the-count-of-the-greatest-
writers-of-all-time-1st-edition-lewis-carrol/
Tools for Survival What You Need to Survive When You re

on Your Own Rawles James Wesley
https://ebookmeta.com/product/tools-for-survival-what-you-need-
to-survive-when-you-re-on-your-own-rawles-james-wesley/
What You See Is What You Hear Creativity and

Communication in Audiovisual Texts Dario Martinelli
https://ebookmeta.com/product/what-you-see-is-what-you-hear-
creativity-and-communication-in-audiovisual-texts-dario-
martinelli/
Where on Earth Geography As You ve Never Seen It Before

Second Edition Dk
https://ebookmeta.com/product/where-on-earth-geography-as-you-ve-
never-seen-it-before-second-edition-dk/
Researching the law finding what you need when you need
it 3rd Edition Amy E. Sloan
https://ebookmeta.com/product/researching-the-law-finding-what-
you-need-when-you-need-it-3rd-edition-amy-e-sloan/
Fabian Reichert
You Vote What You Read?
News Coverage before the two

Irish Referendums on the Lisbon Treaty
Copyright © 2013. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.
Anchor Academic Publishing

disseminate knowledge
You Vote What You Read? News Coverage before the two Irish Referendums on the Lisbon Treaty, Diplomica Verlag, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
Reichert, Fabian: You Vote What You Read? News Coverage before the two Irish
Referendums on the Lisbon Treaty. Hamburg, Anchor Academic Publishing 2013
Original title of the thesis:
Buch-ISBN: 978-3-95489-055-2
PDF-eBook-ISBN: 978-3-95489-555-7
Druck/Herstellung: Anchor Academic Publishing, Hamburg, 2013
Additionally: Universität Konstanz, Konstanz, Deutschland, Bachelorarbeit, 2010
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek:

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen
Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über
http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar
Bibliographical Information of the German National Library:

The German National Library lists this publication in the German National Bibliography.
Detailed bibliographic data can be found at: http://dnb.d-nb.de
All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.
Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung
außerhalb der Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages
unzulässig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen,
Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Bearbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in
diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme,
dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei
zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.

Die Informationen in diesem Werk wurden mit Sorgfalt erarbeitet. Dennoch können
Fehler nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden und die Diplomica Verlag GmbH, die
Autoren oder Übersetzer übernehmen keine juristische Verantwortung oder irgendeine
Haftung für evtl. verbliebene fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen.
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
© Anchor Academic Publishing, ein Imprint der Diplomica® Verlag GmbH

http://www.diplom.de, Hamburg 2013
Printed in Germany
Contents
List of Tables and Figures III
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Research Question and Procedure 1
1.2 The Treaty of Lisbon 2
2. Theory 4
2.1 EU Referendums 4
2.2 The Media 6
2.3 Framing 8
2.4 Framing Effects 10

2.4.1 Equivalency Framing Effects 10
2.4.2 Emphasis Framing Effect 12
2.5 Framing EU Referendums 13

2.5.1 Equivalency Framing of the Lisbon Treaty 13
2.5.2 Emphasis Framing of the Lisbon Treaty 15
3. Method 15
3.1 Newspapers 17
3.2 Article Selection Process 17
3.3 Measuring Frames 18
3.4 Methodological Problems 21

I
4. Results 22
4.1 Presentation of the Results 22
4.2 Discussion of the Results 26
5. Conclusion 27
Appendix 29
Examples of negative framing statements 29
Complete List of Framing Issues 31
Bibliography 33
II
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Results of the Article Selection Process 18
Figure 1: Figure 1: The multiplicity of possible relationships between the framing

concepts 9
Figure 2: The complete explanation of the influence of framing of the treaty in the
news coverage on the referendum result 16
Figure 3: Percentage of positive and negative framing statements 22
Figure 4: Percentage of the 1a and 1b framing strategy for positive framing statements
and of the 0a and 0b framing strategy for negative framing statements during the first
and the second period 23
Figure 5: The percentage of the framing statements referring to the most important
issues in the first and the second period 24
III
1. Introduction
We voted No to divorce, then Yes. The Nice Treaty was rejected first time around,
but was turned around by a newly humbled Bertie Ahern who effectively said: "What
you really meant to say was Yes!" (As one No voter told me at the time: "Maybe I
should have said: 'No, thank you'.") (Fottrell 2008:3)
1.1 Research Question and Procedure

On June 12, 2008 over 53% of the Irish voters rejected the Lisbon treaty in a nationwide
referendum. On October 3, 2009, only 17 months later, 67% of the Irish electorate voted
in favor of a ratification of exactly the same treaty. These occurrences are the starting
point for this study.
These have not been the first referendums on European integration and scholars
already developed very sensible explanations for the voting behavior in the EU. Most
prominent is the discussion between the advocates of the second-order theory, which
assumes that voters make their decisions in EU referendums in order to punish
incumbent governments (Franklin 1995, Schneider and Weitsman 1996) and the issue-
voting theorists, who stand that voters decide on the issue of the referendum, whether
they are in favor of it or not (Svensson 2002, Downs 1957). But as recent research has
shown, both theories can explain some of the referendums, but not all of them. It seems
that voters sometimes want to punish their government, and sometimes make their
decision on the issue of the referendum (Marsh 2007).
Therefore, a branch of research shed some light on the question why voters vote on
different issues on similar referendums. The characteristics of the referendum
campaigns and the framing of referendums in the news have been identified as
important determinants to explain different voting behavior on similar topics (de Vreese
2007, Hobolt 2006a).
The Eurobarometer (2007) recently showed that for 41% of EU citizen daily
newspapers are the main source of information about European topics. Also for those
citizens, who decided on the adaption of the Lisbon treaty in the two nationwide
referendums in Ireland. But as many media researchers showed, news coverage is

biased (Entman 1993, Scheufele 2003). It has to be biased, because it is simply not
possible to report the whole reality in one article (Downs 1957).
One aspect of news bias is known under the term framing. Entman (1993: 52) defines
to frame as follows “to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more
salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem
1
definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation.”
A different framing of the same ballot can induce individuals to make different choices.
Such effects are known as framing effects (Scheufele 2003, de Vreese 2005a).
This paper follows these hints and examines the news coverage before the two Irish
referendums on the Lisbon treaty. Applying a content analysis of the two most selling
Irish newspapers, The Irish Times and the Irish Independent, it aims to make statements
about the framing of the treaty in the news and to give evidence if the question in the
title just sounds good or contains some truth.
In the theoretical part I give an overview of the theoretical landscape dealing with
EU referendums. Then I specify the function of the media in society and their
relationship. After that I introduce the concept of framing and framing effects. The
theoretical part concludes with a transfer of this framework to the study of voting in EU
referendums to deduce expectation about the framing of the treaty in the news before
the two referendums. The empirical part contains the content analysis. It gives further
information about the article sampling, the coding procedure and discusses
methodological shortcomings of the approach. The fourth chapter presents the results,
discusses and analyses them. On the basis of the results the conclusion answers the
question, if the treaty was framed differently in the news coverage before the two
referendums and if therefore the platitude: “You vote what you read” can be justified to
some degree.
1.2 The Treaty of Lisbon

At July 18, 2003 the Convent for the Future of Europe, assigned the „Treaty
establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE), to the Italian Council Presidency. After a
negotiating process the treaty was subscribed in Rome on October 29, 2004 (Weiner
2008).
After the two negative referendums on the constitutional treaty in France and the
Netherlands, the European Council entered a period of reflection in June 2005. The
period took over two years. In this period, the treaty was redesigned mostly during the
German Presidency into a reform treaty on the basis of the already existing treaties. This
new Treaty was subscribed in Lisbon on December 12, 2007 and was therefore called
the “Treaty of Lisbon” (Maurer 2009).
France and the Netherlands renounced to hold a referendum on the treaty. Therefore,
Ireland was the only of the 27 EU member states to hold a referendum on the treaty.
According to the Irish constitution, the Irish government needs to have referendums on
every new treaty concerning an EU integration topic. The first referendum was held on
June 12, 2008. In this referendum 53% of the Irish voters voted against the treaty, with a
turnout of 53%. This result would have meant a final failure of the treaty in whole
Europe, but the government decided to ask to vote a second time on the treaty.
Immediately after the first referendum the EU Representation in Ireland requested a
Flash Eurobarometer (2008) to find out the reasons for non-participation and a ‘yes’ or
a ‘no’ vote. The Irish Taoiseach1, Brian Cowen, set out the main concerns of the Irish
people, identified by public opinion polls, to the Council of the European Union
(Council), in order to negotiate special concessions for Ireland as a part of the treaty.
This process ended up in a protocol to the treaty that sets out guarantees for the Irish
people, concerning the main arguments for a ‘no’ vote. But as the Council (2009) stated,
the guarantees clarify but do not change either the content or the application of the
treaty. The content of the Lisbon treaty was the same in the first referendum as in the
second one. On October 3, 2009 the Irish electorate voted a second time on the treaty.
This time 63% of the voter voted ‘yes’, the turnout was around 58% this time.
1
The Taoiseach is the Irish Prime Minister(Constitution of Ireland §13.1)
3
2. Theory
2.1 EU Referendums
The literature about European integration referendums arranges around two different
theories concerning the explanation of voting behavior (see Hobolt 2006b: 155). The
first one is the second-order theory. This theory attests that voters in EU referendums
merely vote on national issues and domestic party politics. This can be either a positive
vote to express a approval to the government or a negative vote in order to punish the
domestic government. (Franklin 1995). Schneider and Weitsman (1996) describe
referendums as “punishment traps”, in which voters punish governments for bad
economic performance (see Hobolt 2006a: 626)
The second theory assumes that voters make their choices on the basis of their
general attitudes towards European integration, often described as attitude voting
(Svensson 2002). Because there are only two possibilities to vote in European
referendums, a ‘yes’ vote or a ‘no’ vote, it is very close to “issue voting”, which
evolved from the American two-party system (Downs 1957). Voters vote for the option
which is closest to their own ideal point.
But the voter is confronted with a fundamental problem. European legislation is
complicated. To find out which choice is closer to his ideal point the voter needs
information about the consequences of a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ vote (Alvarez 1997, Down
1957). To avoid these efforts he could simply rely on what his favored national party
recommends him to vote for, so called “partisan voting”. But this does not seem to be
the case for the Irish referendums on Lisbon treaty. The government as well as the
largest opposition parties recommended a ‘yes’ vote. These parties together held over
80 per cent of the votes in the 2007 Irish parliament elections (van der Eijk and Marsh
2009).
Otherwise voters could vote according to their basic attitudes about Europe and
European integration, ignoring the content of the treaty (Franklin et al 1994). According
to the fact that the Eurobarometer constantly indicates a widespread support for the EU,
even among the ‘no’ voters of the first referendum 59 per cent support the statement
that Ireland will benefit in the future from EU membership, this explanation seems
inappropriate (Eurobarometer 2007, Leahy 2008).
Therefore, it is unclear on what kind of standards the Irish citizen made their
decisions on the Lisbon referendums, have they punished their political class as a
whole, that is government and the main opposition parties or have they made their
decisions on the treaty itself and their general attitudes towards European integration?
As the results of Garry, Marsh and Sinnot (2005) show for the case of the two Irish Nice
referendums, both explanations are right to some degree. In the negative first
referendum some voters punished the government; others were against the perceived
consequences of the treaty. In a more successful second campaign the pro side managed
to decouple the unambiguous issues from the treaty and managed it to persuade voters,
that the referendum is mainly about the enlargement of Europe and not an evaluation of
the Irish government or a question on Ireland´s neutrality (Marsh 2007, Garry et al.
2005).
This shows that the electorate is heterogeneous. Not only in its underlying voting
explanation, but also between the first and the second Irish referendum on the Nice
treaty people had a different idea what they are voting about. They changed their
opinion about the treaty without changing their general attitudes. Marsh (2007: 81)
concludes: “To understand why people vote as they do […] it is vital to understand what
people think they are voting about.” And he points to Cohen (1963: 13) who stated, that
the media cannot tell people what to think, but what to think about.
Hobolt (2006a) shows that the framing of the referendum can play a pivotal role for
the voters´ choice. Being one of the main information providers parties “can frame the
meaning of the choice that voter face in referendums” and therefore, they “can convince
voters to vote in favor of (or against) a ballot proposal by framing the ballot proposal as
close to the ideal point of the median voter and the reversion point as more extreme.”
(ibid. p.641). In Europe the main source of information is the media. Thus, the next two
chapters examine the role of the media in referendum campaigns and introduce the
concept of framing and framing effects.
2.2 The Media
As society has outgrown the town meeting, questions have arisen as to how far
democratic communication is possible in a mass society. In our society, extension of
the political debate far beyond the limits of face-to-face contact is made possible by
the existence of the mass media. Newspapers, magazines, radio, and now television
are essential for the process of “making sense of the meeting” when the meeting
involves more than fifty millions participants. (Berelson et al. 1957: 234)
What Berelson, Lazarsfeld and Mc Phee (1957) assure for their study of different US
presidential election campaigns between 1940 and 1952, still stays true for the first
decade of the 21st century. Of course the internet joined the list, but like the
Eurobarometer (2008) recently showed newspapers are still the most important source
of information for European citizens, concerning EU topics.2
Of course, every European treaty is available in the internet and can be ordered as a
hardcopy, so they are available for everybody, but treaties are written in a formal,
juridical language and therefore difficult to read. Even the Irish EU Commissioner
McCreevy admitted these difficulties when he said that he does not expect “any sane
and sensible person” to read it cover by cover (Independent 24.5.2008). Newspapers
inform the voter about the object of the referendum.
But the media has to filter the information of the treaty or change the form of the
information. Otherwise the newspaper has to print the full treaty, which probably would
not be very sales promoting and impossible because space in newspaper is limited. This
gets more obvious for reports on events during the referendum campaign. The reporter
cannot report any detail of the reality. He has to simplify, interpret and select the reality
and its information to produce an article. A second selection step takes place in the
editorial department. The next chapter discusses these selection criteria as “input
frames” (Scheufele 2003, de Vreese 2005).
Every reporting has to be biased because there always has to be a selection of the
reality. For the news coverage on the Lisbon treaty this means that there cannot be a full
presentation of all possible consequences of a ’yes’ or a ‘no’ vote, or a complete
presentation of the positive and negative aspects of the treaty. But this does not
necessarily mean that the reporter propagates one interpretation or another: “When we
speak of reporting as biased, we are not implying, that the data therein are false, since
2
The terms media and newspaper are from now on used as synonyms.
6
we have assumed all data are accurate, nor that the reporter is immoral, since bias
cannot be avoided.“ (Downs 1957: 212).
This quota implies a rather functional understanding for the relationship between
media and society. This means that the media does not have an own agenda to show a
biased coverage. It needs neither to be in favor or against the treaty, nor does it need to
be seen as an instrument to any kind of elite as some critical analysts suggest (Murdock
and Golding 1995, Bonfadelli 2002).
Of course, one cannot separate the elite, the media and the voters. There are many
connections and intersections between them. But a theoretical simplification is
necessary for the purpose of this paper. System theory offers a fruitful starting-point. I
follow Barker (1951) who arranges all parts of society in a “system of discussion”
(Barker 1951: 41). This does not imply that they are autonomous subsystems as
Luhmann (1995) suggests. On the contrary: They are interdependent. The elite, such as
political parties and interest groups give the input, the media serves as a “stage” to
present this input and the audience consist of the general citizen. (see Berelson et al.
1957: 234)
Of course, everyone who holds a specific opinion on the treaty or has a certain
interest in a specific referendum result wants to be visible on this stage in order to
promote his opinion and to persuade voters. But as already mentioned above a selection
takes place and, to speak in the stage-metaphor not everybody has the same time on this
stage.
It is likely that the more often opinions, arguments, evaluation and interpretation are
present in the media, the higher is the probability that voters take them into
consideration for their opinion building. But also the other way around, the dominant
public opinion can serve as an input and enter the media stage.
Until now I only spoke very vague about biased reporting. The next chapter
introduces the concept of framing to give a more precise understanding of biased news
coverage and its possible effects.
2.3 Framing
This chapter has a closer look on the concepts of framing. It gives a simplified overview
of the different applications of frame concepts, by arranging them into different stages.
Having its origin in the study of human psychology the term “frame” has made an
interdisciplinary academic career (Bonfadelli 2002). Thus, it is not surprising that a
number of definitions are in use. In a rough outline, the research focusing on the
framing of news has three different research agendas and different definitions of frames.
For a better understanding how they are linked, I arrange them into three stages: The
input stage, the output stage and the outcome stage.
The first concept emphasizes the input to the media. On this stage frames play an
important role for the mobilization of social movements. A frame for these researchers
is a schemata which “is an interpretation that enable individuals to locate, perceive,
identify and label occurrences within their life space and the world at large” (Snow et al.
1986: 464, quote from Scheufele 2003). In this vein a frame is a necessary prerequisite
in order to mobilize possible supporters and to get the frame into public discourse and in
the media (Benford and Snow 2000, Scheufele 2003).
Another aspect of the input stage is the journalist centered approach. It describes in
which way the cognitive habits, constraints and routines of journalists result in a
selection of certain themes. Frames allow journalists to handle the flood of information
in their everyday work (see Gitlin 1980: 7). Through categorization and typologies
journalists classify events and produce “news-themes”: “A news theme allows
journalists to cast an incident as an instance of something.” (Fishman 1978: 534, quote
from Scheufele 2003 (italics in original)). This branch of research examines frames
mainly as a dependent variable (de Vreese 2005).
The second stage is the media coverage itself, so to speak the output stage. Frames
on this stage “describe an attribute of the news itself” (Entman 1991: 7). Because
articles in newspapers are direct results of the journalists´ working process, the output
frames cannot be strictly separated from the input frames. But because this paper only
deals with the effects, not with the “production” of news, it is analytically necessary to
separate them. So I only consider the output stage, consequently the news coverage.
Frames on this stage merely serve as an independent variable for research. For this
purpose the definitions given above are unwieldy, although they are not unimportant (de
Vreese 2005, Scheufele 2003).
I apply a definition of framing given by Entman (1993: 52) for the study of news
coverage: “To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them
more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem
definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation.”
A frame is the readable or visible (if pictures are included) result of this process.
Although Entman´s (1993) research design identifies descriptively different frames in
news coverage and does not use them as a variable, the definition is working to identify
and use frames as an independent variable, too.
On the outcome stage these communicating frames can influence the individual
frame in thought of the consumer, which can be a reader, a listener or a viewer. Of
course, this individual frame can become a communicating frame again (Scheufele
1999, Druckman 2001).
Figure 1: The multiplicity of possible relationships between the framing concepts
Source: Compiled by the author

2.4 Framing Effects
This chapter presents the most essential theories and findings of framing effects to
underline the argument that framing of the treaty and the referendum in the news
coverage is able to influence the voter´s choice.
If a media frame or any other communicating frame influences an individual frame
or thought frame, this process is usually called a framing effect (Druckman 2001: 228).
The research on framing effects mainly focuses on two types of effects. According to
Druckman (2001) the first one is best described as equivalency framing effect, the
second one as emphasis framing effect (Druckman 2001, Scheufele 2003).
2.4.1 Equivalency Framing Effects

Equivalency framing effects appear if one situation or an issue is framed in two
different but logically equivalent ways. I use the typology of Levin et al. (1998) to
distinct these types of effects into three subtypes: Attribute framing, risky choice
framing and goal framing.
The most basic form of an equivalency framing effect is the attribute framing.
Attribute framing effects occur, when the evaluation of an object differs, whether the
information given about it is framed positive or negative. An example gives the
‘baseball player experiment’ (Levin 1987). People have to evaluate the performance of
a baseball player. Some get information about the percentage of shots made, others
about the percentage of shots he missed. The players were significantly better rated by
people given positively framed information (Levin et al. 1998: 159).
Another effect in the typology of Levin et al. (1998: 151) is the “standard view of
framing” described as the risky choice frame. As the term suggests it mainly focuses on
the choice a proband makes, given the same, but differently framed risky alternatives.
The probably most quoted example in the framing effect literature is the so called Asian
Disease Problem (ADP), an experiment originally carried out by Kahnemann and
Tversky (1981). Nearly all replications of the study support the results. But none of
them finds such a clear result (Levin et al. 1998, Stocké 2002, Scheufele 2003, Matthes
2007, Druckmann 2001). In this experiment two groups were confronted with the
following story:
Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease,
which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease
10
have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences
of the programs are as follows:
After that each group has to choose between to alternative programs(A and B,
respectively A´ and B´). The numbers in parentheses are the percentage of the groups
favoring the program. The first group:
A: If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. (72%)

B: If Program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved,
and a 2/3 probability that no people will be saved. (28%)
The second group:
A´: If Program A is adopted, 400 people will die. (22%)

B´: If Program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and a 2/3
probability that 600 people will die. (78%)
Because both groups know that 600 people are expected to kill, both face the same
alternatives. Program A has exactly the same outcome as program A´, 200 people will
be saved and 400 people will die. Just as program B is equivalent to B´, a 1/3
probability that all people will be saved and a 2/3 probability that all people will die.
But they differ in their framing. A and B are framed in positive terms (“will be saved”),
A´ and B´ in the negative equivalent (“will die”). Albeit the programs are equivalent in
their outcome people change their preferences because of a different framing of
equivalent consequences.
The experiment also shows that people are risk avoidant. They prefer a save gain (A)
to an uncertain higher gain (B). But they change their preferences to avoid a perceived
loss (A´) and take the uncertain loss (B´).
Prospect theory (Tversky and Kahnemann 1981) „assumes that the framing
manipulation determines whether outcomes are evaluated in terms of gains or losses and
that most subjects have an S-shaped subjective value function that is concave in the
domain of gains (supporting risk aversion in the positive framing condition) and convex
in the domain of losses supporting risk seeking in the negative framing condition)”
(Levin et al. 1998: 152).
Goal framing effects are slightly different to risky choice framing effects. While
attitude framing focuses on the evaluation of an object and risky choice framing on the
differences in risk aversion effected by framing, goal framing asks about the
persuasiveness of framing strategies. Typically goal framing deals with gain and loss
11
frames. Thus, it has similarities to risky choice framing. But the difference is that goal
framing does not rely on the presence of risk (Levin et al. 1998). An early example is
the work of Meyerowitz and Chaiken (1987). They show that women are more likely to
engage in breast self-examination (BS) when they are confronted with information
about the negative consequences (“a decreased chance of finding a tumor in the early
more treatable stages of the disease”) of not engaging in BS than with the positive
consequences of engaging (“increased chance of finding a tumor in the early more
treatable stages of the disease”) Both are positive frames for BS, but with different
framing strategies (Levin et al. 1998: 168).3
This means that losses have more persuasive power than gains. This is consequently
an element of prospect theory, like already mentioned above, but because there is no
defined dimension of risk, goal framing effects can be separated from risky choice
framing effects. If one would suggest a perceived dimension of risk, this would lead to
the confusing conclusion, that engaging in BS is riskier as not engaging in BS because
less people engage in BS when its consequences are framed in positive terms (see Levin
et al 1998: 176).
2.4.2 Emphasis Framing Effect

This type of framing effect focuses on the dominant emphasis of one issue dimension of
an object. When certain frames are used during a communicative process about an
object, the evaluation of the object is mainly based on these reference frames. Berelson
et al. (1954: 267) find for the US presidential election campaign of 1948, that the
support for Truman roses with positive relationship to the saliency of “economic labor-
consumer “class” issues”, even among voters “who had not previously liked him, nor
did they like him even when they changed to his side”. They conclude that “people can
differ from one another, and within themselves from time to time by emphasizing
different dimensions of things they perceive” (ibid. 271).
Like equivalency framing effects, emphasis framing effects direct the attention to
several dimensions of an object and ignore others, but unlike equivalency framing
effects the aspects are not logically identical. One cannot assume that economic policy
is the logical equivalent to social policy (see Druckmann 2001: 230).
3
Because both given information support BS, it would be inaccurate to speak of a negative framing when
talking about the loss frames, the term reversed, positive frame is appropriate.
12
2.5 Framing EU Referendums
What implications does this have for the role of the news coverage before the two EU
referendums? First of all it is likely to assume that the framing of news coverage can
have an effect on voters´ decision in referendums, also on the decisions of the Irish
voters in the two referendums on Lisbon treaty. As described in chapter 2.2 there is no
need to insinuate that the media has a conscious agenda because it acts as a stage for the
opinion leaders in a system of discussion (Barker 1951, Downs 1957, Berelson et al.
1954).
Taking the view that the framing of a referendum has an effect on the decision of the
voter it is not the crucial point to distinguish between a vote on the issue of the
referendum and a vote on the domestic government (Franklin 1995, Svensson 2002).
Because both alternatives just are different frames of the referendum, so to speak two
sides of the same coin. They can be reduced to two different issue frames among many
others possible (Marsh 2007, Garry et al. 2009, Hobolt 2006a, Berelson et al 1954,
Druckmann 2001).
In chapter 2.3, I developed a typology of different concepts of the term framing. I
apply a definition, which only considers communicating frames in the media (media
frames). All the concepts are highly interconnected, but I only focus on the effects that
media frames can have on individual decisions, so called framing effects (Bonfadelli
2002, Scheufele 2003, Entman 1993, de Vreese 2005).
Researchers already identified and successfully tested a number of framing effects,
which chapter 2.4 presents. Following the typology of Druckman (2001) they are
arranged into two types: Equivalency framing effects and emphasis framing effects.
Three subtypes of equivalency framing effects are prescribed: Attribute framing, risky
choice and goal framing framing (Levin et al. 1998). In the following two chapters
(2.5.1 and 2.5.2) I formulate expectations about the framing of the Lisbon treaty in the
media on the background of the described framing effects.
2.5.1 Equivalency Framing of the Lisbon Treaty

Findings of attribute framing effects show that people tend to evaluate objects negative
if they are confronted with negatively framed information (0) and positive, if the
logically equivalent information is framed positively (1).
13
Thus, I expect a mainly negative framing (0) of the Lisbon treaty in the news coverage
before the first referendum and a relatively higher degree of positive framing (1) of the
Lisbon treaty in the news coverage before the second referendum.
This implies the assumption that the information provided in a negative frame in favor
for a ‘no’ vote is the logically equivalent to information provided in a positive frame in
favor for a ‘yes’ vote. Of course, this assumption can be debated. But because the
arguments and information of both sides rely to the same object, this assumption can be
justified. The treaty, its content and its consequences are the same, for its supporters and
its opponents. They just can put the same information in either a positive frame,
supporting a ‘yes’ vote or a negative frame, supporting a ‘no’ vote.
According to emphasis framing both sides can frame the treaty in different issue
dimensions, but this does not hurt the assumption, as every argument made on a certain
issue again has its logical counterpart.
According with the explanation offered by prospect theory and the results described
as risky choice framing effects, people decide risk averse, if the decision consequences
are framed in terms of gains and decide risk seeking in a negative framing condition.
Unfortunately, this type cannot be adequately transferred to the voting alternatives in
EU referendums, since there are no defined levels of risks for the alternatives of
ratification or rejection. They can be framed in terms of gains or in terms of losses, but
then it is goal framing.
A positive goal framing can be done in two strategies. One can highlight in a straight,
positive framing strategy, the gains of a yes vote (1a) or the losses of a ‘no’ vote in a
reversed, positive framing strategy (1b). Equivalent the ‘no’ side can frame the treaty
negatively by pointing to the gains of a ‘no’ vote (0a), or to the negative consequences
of a ‘yes’ vote (0b). The study of goal framing effects shows that people rather try to
avoid losses than to achieve gains.
Thus, I expect a mainly reverse, negative framing of the treaty, which points to the
negative consequences of the treaty ratification (0b) in the news coverage before the
first referendum and a mainly reverse, positive framing of the treaty, which points to the
negative consequences of a treaty rejection (1b) in the news coverage before the second
referendum.
14
The argument that a rejection of the Lisbon treaty cannot bear any losses because the
consequence would be the lasting existence of the status quo and a loss would mean a
situation inferior to the status quo, is right and wrong simultaneously. De jure it is right,
but up to now, truth is not a necessary prerequisite for an opinion or an argument or as
Chong and Druckman (2007: 111) put it: “Strong frames should not be confused with
intellectually or morally superior arguments. They can be built around exaggerations
and outright lies playing on the fears and prejudices of the public.”
2.5.2 Emphasis Framing of the Lisbon Treaty

Emphasis framing means that an object can be framed in different issues. People
evaluate objects different by emphasizing different issue dimensions of the object.
Thus, I expect a framing of the Lisbon treaty that emphasis different issues in the news
coverage before the first referendum as before the second referendum.
3. Method
The theoretical framework outlined above has one basic assumption: There is a
relationship between the framing of the news coverage and the referendum results.
According to Boudon (1979) there have to be a micro foundation to explain the
referendum outcomes because they are a result of aggregated individual voting
decisions (Coleman 1990). The micro foundation is the effect of the framing of the on
the individual evaluation of the treaty (framing effect). Furthermore voters rely on this
evaluation to make their voting decisions and the decisions of all voters are the
referendum result. The following depicts the complete explanation (see Schnell et al.
2005: 108).
15
Figure 2: The complete explanation of the influence of framing of the treaty in the
news coverage on the referendum result
Framing of the
Treaty in the News Referendum Result
Coverage
Individual
Evaluation of the Voting Decision
Treaty
Source: Own illustration following Coleman (1990)
Unfortunately my research design cannot fulfill this theoretical prerequisite. I can only
include the framing of the treaty in the news coverage and the referendum results and
presume the other steps.
Because the referendum results are self-explaining in their operationalizations, I
restrict the methodological explanations to the framing of the treaty. Through a
standardized content analysis I isolate framing statements in the selected articles. The
selected newspapers and the article selection procedure are described in the next two
chapters. The statements are subsumed in the theoretical developed categories (1a, 1b,
0a, 0b) and each statement is assigned to an issue frame. The coding procedure for the
framing statements is depicted in chapter 3.3. Therefore, the highest possible standards
of a comprehensible and repeatable data collection procedure for a content analysis are
ensured (Mayring 2000, Bonfadelli 2002). The issue frames are identified inductively
and are not limited beforehand. At the end the framing statements are added up in order
to make a stated view about the framing of the treaty in the news coverage.
16
3.1 Newspapers
In order to identify and quantify frames in the news coverage, a content analysis of the
news coverage is necessary. I restrict the analysis on the two most important and most
read Irish newspapers, the “Irish Independent” (Independent) and “The Irish Times”
(Times). With a daily circulation of 159.363 exemplars (1.1.-30.6.2008) the
Independent is the most selling national, daily newspaper in Ireland
(http://www.nni.ie/v2/broad/; last visit on March 3, 2010). It has a conservative
reputation (Hogan 2001, Mead 2008), launched in 1905. In its early days it labeled itself
as the “favorite daily of the catholic clergy” (O´Donnel 1945: 388, quote from Meade
2008).
The Irish Times had a daily net circulation of 116.009 in June 2004, that makes it to
the second most selling national, daily newspaper in Ireland. According to Corcoran
(2004) it is the only Irish newspaper that is “classifiable as a liberal organ” (Meade
2008). A content analysis of these two most important daily Irish newspapers, including
a conservative and a liberal one should give a stable impression of the framing of the
Lisbon treaty.
3.2 Article Selection Process

The Lexis/Nexis database provides a complete archive of the most European
newspapers (www.lexisnexis.com). For both referendums all articles published during a
time period of 74 days before the referendum day are considered. This is the period
from the April 1, 2008 until June 12, 2008 for the first referendum and from July 22,
2009 until October 2, 2009 for the second referendum. All types of articles, no matter
how many words, which sort of article (opinions, letters, interviews, etc.) or on which
page they are published (front page, last page…), are included. This selection is further
specified. For both newspapers and both periods the selection criteria are exactly the
same.
In a first step all these articles are filtered for “Lisbon treaty”. The searching
algorithm detects all articles that contain expressions in which these two words stand
closely together (“Treaty of Lisbon”, “the treaty signed in Lisbon”, etc.). During the
first period 355 articles of the Independent and 711 of the Times, during the second
period 242 articles of the Independent and 517 articles of the Times fulfill these criteria.
17
The search for “good OR bad OR yes OR no” in a second step raises the possibility
that they contain a definite frame. At least one of these words contain 322 articles of the
Independent and 632 of the Times during the first period and during the second period
219 articles of the Independent and 471 articles of the Times fulfill these criteria.
In a third step every tenth of these articles are selected for the content analysis,
beginning with the recent one. As a result the sample of articles for the content analysis
contains during the first period 32 articles of the Independent and 63 of the Times,
during the second period 21 articles of the Independent and 47 articles of the Times.
Table 1: Results of the Article Selection Process

Period Times Independent
1. Step 1. 711 articles 355 articles
2. 517 articles 242 articles
3.3 Measuring Frames

The crucial point of the analysis is the encoding of a frame. Like the definition suggests,
frames are not easy to catch, and the framing research literature is far away from
something like a standard operationalization of frames (Scheufele 2003). Because a
positive or negative framing of the treaty has many similarities to a legitimization or
delegitimization of the treaty, I apply a method, originally developed for the analysis of
legitimacy discourses (Faiclough 2003, Hurrelman et al. 2007) and modify it for my
purpose. According to that a frame consists of the following parts:
[ Object] is [Evaluation] because of [Argument].

Of course, frames in newspaper articles seldom match this form. The parts can be
spread all over the article, only logically connected.
18
Object
Only frames that are directly connected to the treaty are coded. Apart from the treaty
these can be single parts of the treaty, the framing of a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ vote, the
consequences of a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ vote, the referendum, persons in relationship to the
treaty, the campaign or frames of the ‘yes’ or the ‘no’ side.
Examples: [The treaty, a yes vote, the consequence of a ‘no’ vote, a ratification, the
‘no’ side, the lies of the ‘no’ campaign…] is [Evaluation] because of [Argument].
Evaluation
A frame in the news coverage advocates a moral evaluation and/or a treatment
recommendation. Thus, every frame needs a statement, giving an moral evaluation of
the treaty or a treatment recommendation:
[Object] is [good, fair, well elaborated, right, necessary, bad, unfair , badly thought
through, dangerous, unnecessary] because of [Argument].
Very often the evaluation and the object are symbiotically, mostly in the form of
treatment recommendations:
[Vote ‘yes’, Vote ‘no’], because of [Argument].
In order to guarantee the highest possible level of objectivity and reproducibility,
statements that do not give an explicit evaluation or treatment recommendation, are not
coded:
A ratification [object] means a more open economy [Argument]
Although the statement is a clear economic framing of the treaty, it would be a
subjective interpretation to decide, whether a more open economy is a good or bad
thing.
Argument
All treatment recommendations or moral evaluations are usually based on arguments
that implicate problem definitions or the causal interpretations for the evaluation. The
arguments can refer to different issues related to the treaty and include a certain issue
frame:
[Object] is [Evaluation] because of [it creates jobs, serves national interests, a loss
of sovereignty, allows abortion,…].
Because the chapters 2.4 and 2.5 outlined that different types of frames and framing
strategies exist they have to be defined for the coding procedure.
19
A positive framing of the treaty can be done by two strategies (1a,1b). The first strategy .
(1a) points to the positive consequences of the treaty:

“What we have to do is make sure we get a 'Yes' vote for Lisbon [Evaluation,
Object] so we will have a Minister for Agriculture who will be able to build the
alliances as we have done in the past, [Argument]” (Independent 24.05.2008,
parentheses added)
The reversed, positive framing strategy 1b points to the negative side of the opposite:
"I would love to know what the Plan B is. I see [a rejection] as very chaotic at a time
when we don't need chaos. (Times 29.05.2008, parentheses in original)
The strategies work respectively for a negative framing of the treaty. The negative
framing strategy 0a points to the advantages of a rejection:
“The first step in securing that better deal for Europe is voting No to the Lisbon
Treaty on Friday.” (Times 28.9.2009)
Focusing on a negation of the pro-side arguments or the perceived bad consequences of
its ratification, the treaty also can be framed negatively (0b):
„We are being asked to transfer yet more of the sovereign powers of governance of
this country to institutions in which we have very little representation, and to do so in
exchange for the legal equivalent of magic beans.” (Independent 10.6.2008)
Every element of an article that corresponds to these criteria is regarded as a frame. The
last example would be coded as follows:
1. A negative framing of the treaty. [in exchange for the legal equivalent of magic
beans]
2. Framing strategy focuses on the negative side of a ratification [are being asked to
transfer]
3. The framing issue is the national sovereignty [sovereign powers of governance
this country]
So this example would be a “0b national sovereignty” frame.4
Every framing statement of an article is coded, except an article has several variations
of the same statements, which are logically identical in their evaluation, framing
strategy and their framing issue, the statement is only coded once. Headlines are
excluded, except the statements refer to different sources, like different politicians or
4
For further examples of framing statements see Appendix A.
20
interest groups. If several framing issues occur in one statement, the most important one
regarding the article is coded.
3.4 Methodological Problems

Of course, such an approach suffers from several methodological shortcomings that
restrict the generalizations of the results. The weightiest problem is the possibility of
mutual influence between the media and the voters. Because both take part in a “system
of discussion”, not only the newspaper frames influence the voters´ opinion on the
treaty and their voting decisions, also the public opinion on the treaty can be part of the
news coverage and influence the framing of the treaty in the news, or as Chong and
Druckmann (2007: 117) formulate it: “frames are chosen with the audience in mind”. In
this vein the causality is questionable and the causal direction is not unambiguous. In
the worst case this ambiguity can reach the borders of a measured tautology, when the
published opinion simply mirrors the predominant public opinion.
Also newspaper readers do not randomly choose a newspaper. One can assume that
for instance a nationalist, conservative voter who strictly opposes European integration
tends to read a newspaper which has mainly an anti-European coverage and a negative
framing of the treaty. Because the newspapers want to satisfy their readers and do not
want to put off their clients by a positive framing of the treaty, the news coverage just
mirrors the readers´ attitude.
This problem of readers´ self-selection can be tackled by the fact that the
Independent and the Times together hold over 40% of the daily national newspaper
circulation, in the time between January and June 2008 (http://www.nni.ie/v2/broad/;
last visit February 25, 2010).
Another problem is the fact that there is no data used for the voting decision on an
individual level. If there were any differences in the news coverage, this would not
necessarily mean that it had any influence on an individual voting decision. But as the
results of the studies on framing effects suggests, there are strong evidences that it could
have some effects.
Another problem can be that the narrow focus on newspaper framing ignores several
other variables, which are possibly influential for the voting decision, and cannot be
assumed constant between the two periods. But this is not the case because society is
theoretically described as a system of discussion, other variables e.g. the financial and
21
economic crisis, are discussed in this subsystem and therefore, can enter the stage of
news coverage as a frame in the public discourse about the treaty. Thus, they are not
ignored, but measured in an inconvenient way, as a frame among others.
Completely ignored are explanations that focus on the institutional background of the
referendum (e.g. if the referendum is constitutionally required or the results are legally
binding) (Hug 2002), as the institutional background is constant. Of course, one can
argue that the public perception of the institutional referendum characteristics differ
because of the electorate´s experiences with the referendums on the Nice treaty. But
then it is not neglected, but one issue frame among others.
4. Results
In the content analysis n=255 framing statements were coded, 139 during the first
period, and 116 during the second period.
4.1 Presentation of the Results

The proportion of negative and positive framing statement was similar in both periods,
as figure 3 shows:
Figure 3: Percentage of positive and negative framing statements

22
Surprisingly, there was a mainly positive framing of the treaty in the first period, as well
as in the second. The level of positive framing was five percents higher in the second
period, but this is a very small difference. Supporting news coverage seems not to be
sufficient to persuade the voters in favor of a positive vote.
Figure 4: Percentage of the 1a and 1b framing strategy for positive framing statements
and of the 0a and 0b framing strategy for negative framing statements during the first
and the second period
In both periods, a reverse, negative framing strategy of the treaty is in the majority. This
is congruent with the fact that the ‘no’ campaign, which is responsible for the most
negative frames in the coverage, consisted mainly of groups from a wide spectrum of
ideologies, unified only in the opposition to the treaty. Accordingly the positive framing
merely focuses on the gains of the treaty.
There has been a different framing strategy in the second referendum. Although in
both periods a positive framing strategy, highlighting the benefits of the treaty, prevails,
the share on reverse, positive framing was clearly higher in the news coverage before
the second referendum. This is in favor with the expectations made in 2.5.1, because
voters try to avoid losses and the framing strategy 1b focuses on the losses coming
along with a ‘no’ vote. Positive frames, which point to the perceived negative
consequences of rejection (1b), should have more persuasive power than frames which
highlight the possible benefits of the treaty (1a).
The framing statements in the news coverage before the first referendum shared
among 33 issues and among 32 issues before the second referendum. For both periods
23
only the top issue frames, to which over 50% of framing statements refer, are
presented.5
Before the first referendum the framing statements refereed in over 50 percent of all
framing statements to the following issues:
Figure 5: The percentage of the framing statements referring to the most important
issues in the first and the second period
Before the first referendum the treaty was merely discussed in an economic frame. The
‘economy’ frame was mostly used for a positive framing. With framing statements like:
“This treaty is a vote for jobs, growth and investment. Let's keep winning in Europe by
supporting this treaty” (Independent 6.6.2008), the ‘economy’ frame was a draughthorse
of the treaty supporters. In the second period the ‘economy’ frame was still important,
still for the pro-treaty argumentation, but with statements like: “Rather than help our
economy recovery, the Lisbon Treaty will, in my view, make recovery more difficult.”
(Times 28.09.2009) the ‘economy’ frame was also adopted for a negative framing.
The ‘democracy’ frame was the main frame of the treaty opponents. The
`democracy´ frame was rather a democratic deficit frame, as the following example
shows:
5
A complete list of all framing issues is presented in Appendix B
24
Madly, the very people who propose it in the campaign would fight to the death
against it coming into Ireland, if that preposterous possibility were on the cards,
because they are democrats and it is undemocratic. Do we really want to turn Ireland
on its head? God forbid (Independent 31.5.2008).
The ‘democracy’ frame only was of very small interest during the second period.
A very interesting insight into the framing of the treaty offers the ‘Ireland´s position
in the EU’ frame, which became increasingly important between the two periods. Being
one issue among others before the first referendum, it was the crucial frame before the
second referendum. Almost exclusively applied by the pro-treaty side it managed to get
a broad visibility in the news coverage and framed the treaty as a decision of being a
first-rate or a second-rate member in the EU:
In response to the contention that there would be no adverse consequences for
Ireland if it rejected the treaty, the group s chairperson, Prof Brigid Laffan, argued
that a rejection would result in a well of frustration on the continent and to the
establishment of a two-tier, two-speed Europe in which at least nine countries
would proceed with further policy co-operation. If we vote No, I have no doubt
which of those speeds and which of those tiers Ireland would be in. So this is an
absolutely vital vote for our future, and the only way we can guarantee our control
over our future in the EU is by voting Yes, Prof Laffan said (Times 7.9.2009).
The framing strategy of ‘the Ireland´s position in the EU’ frame was mainly a 1b
strategy, focusing on the negative consequences of a no vote.
The ‘renegotiate’ frame was created by the treaty opponents, urging for a ‘no’ vote as
a possibility to get a better deal, the pro-treaty side had no better choice but to defend
“the treaty as the best possible deal for Ireland”. (Times 10.06.2008)
The ‘interest’ frame was exclusively applied by the treaty supporters in the first
period, and lost its importance in the second period. It assumed that the treaty is good
for Irish interests and protects them. These interests were not further specified:
This is a skilfully negotiated treaty. All our interests are protected. No international
treaty has borne the mark of Irish involvement as this one has," he adds, crediting a
slew of politicians from all parties. "No treaty has been so well designed for Irish
interests (Times 2.6.2008).
The ‘World Trade Organization (WTO)’ and the ‘taxation’ frame had both some
importance in the first period but lost it in the second period. The ‘WTO’ frame
occurred, because the WTO deals felt into the period of the referendum campaign. The
farmer association linked their voting recommendation to the government position in
the WTO deals. There also was a discussion started by the ‘no’ campaigners that a
25
ratification of the treaty would put an end to Irish veto-rights in WTO decisions. The
‘taxation’ frame was “absorbed” by the ‘guarantee’ frame, in which the pro-side pointed
to the guarantees given by the European Council before the treaty.
In the ‘scaremongering’ frame both side accused the other side to built their
arguments on exaggerated lies, or made extreme statements without further
specification about the consequences of the treaty like the following example: “'No 'vote
would be "catastrophic" (Independent 6.6.2008)” in a negative framing statements
resemble the following example: "We are seeing on a weekly basis a parade of
European leaders being flown in for photo-ops, issuing carefully worded statements
approved by the Yes campaign which are shamelessly designed to scare the Irish people
into supporting this treaty," (Times 14.4.2008)
The ‘sovereignty’ frame got some attention before the second referendum, too. It was
mainly framed negatively and dealt with concerns that the EU takes over more and more
of the Ireland´s sovereignty, it was partly reframed during the second period in terms of
the Irish independence from England:
A second vote against Lisbon would be a vote of no confidence in ourselves. It
would also be, whether consciously or otherwise, a vote to return to the days of
submissive dependence on Britain, with all that that entailed, as in the Ireland of the
1950s, in terms of humiliation, poverty, emigration and authoritarian hopelessness.
It would be throwing away the freedom we have won since 1973, the first real
freedom we have enjoyed since independence. (Independence 15.9.2009)
Also the guarantees which clarified most of the topics related to sovereignty (e.g. tax
autonomy, the legislation on abortion) took away much of the persuasiveness of the
‘sovereignty’ frame.
4.2 Discussion of the Results

Surprisingly, the share of positive and negative framing statements in the news coverage
was approximately equal in the period before the first and the second referendum, what
contradicts the expectations formulated in chapter 2.5.1. A mainly positive evaluation of

the treaty in the news does therefore not seem to make a strong impression on the
electorate and the decision. But there were notable changes in the positive framing
strategies. While most framing statements were framed in a 1a strategy during the first
period, there was a gradient of approximately 20% for the 1b strategy which should
26
have more persuasive power, because people rather tend to avoid losses than to achieve
gains. This result supports the theoretical expectations.
The shift in the framing strategy, together with clear changes of the issue frames of
the treaty characterized the news coverage before the second referendum. The
alternations of the most important issue frames support the expectations made in chapter
2.5.2. The guarantees, given by the European Council enabled the treaty supporters to
reframe many negative frames into positive frames, for instance the `taxation´ frame.
The finding that the treaty was mainly discussed in the ‘Ireland´s position in the EU’
frame and not on certain contents of the treaty any more, could serve as an explanation
for the contradicting decisions of the Irish electorate in the referendums. Therefore, the
second referendum was not a decision on the treaty, rather was it a referendum on
Ireland´s position in Europe. It was not only a new frame for the treaty it was a new
frame for the referendum.
The 1b framing strategy of the ‘Ireland´s position in the EU’ also altered the
perceived consequences of a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’ vote. It shaped the outcome of a ‘no’ vote
into a situation inferior to the status quo, being a second-rate member of the EU would
be a loss. The treaty itself was just a means to an end.
5. Conclusion
This paper analyzed the news coverage before the two Irish referendums on the Lisbon
treaty. It argued that a different framing of the treaty and the referendum in the news
coverage can explain the different referendum results. It discussed the two main theories
for the explanation of voting behavior in EU referendums and showed of why a focus
on the framing of the treaty in the news coverage can make fruitful amendments to this
debate. It clarified the usage of the different framing concepts and portrayed the
findings of framing effects research which are important for decisions similar to EU
integration referendums. On the background of these findings expectations concerning

the degree of positive and negative frames, different framing strategies and the issues
used for the framing of the Lisbon treaty in the news coverage were formulated.
In a content analysis of the two most selling, daily national Irish newspapers 253
framing statements concerning the treaty were identified and analyzed. Not all
expectations proved to be right. The most important insight offered the focus on the
27
different framing strategies and the issue frames. It emerged that a clearly higher share
of a reversed positive framing strategy occurred before the second referendum, than
before the first referendum. Besides the most important issues, framing the treaty
differed between the two periods. During the first period most positive and negative
framing statements made on the treaty referred to the economy and democracy. During
the second period the ‘economy’ frame was still important, but the most statements
were made in a relationship to Ireland´s position in Europe. Thus, the referendum was
framed as a referendum on Ireland´s position in Europe, neglecting the content of the
treaty.
In this vein the framing of the treaty in the news coverage could influence the voting
decision. The framing can go beyond the discussion of an incumbent government and
the referendum`s issue. A multiplicity of framing issues is possible. Considering these
findings the slogan “You vote what you read” needs a modification to the slogan “You
vote about what you read about”.
28
Appendix
Examples of negative framing statements
(in square parentheses are the framing strategy and the framing issue)
[0a souvereignity]
May the people of Ireland rally to reject this further encroachment into our countries'
liberty to enact our own 'key' laws and display a spirit of leadership which will be for
the benefit of millions of others who have been denied the right to decide for themselves
(Independent 27.3.2008).
[0a renegotiate]
[…]it might help to consider what some wise people tell us about making decisions, that
is, when there are only two choices, always look for a third option.In this case with two
boxes on the ballot paper the only possibility to promote a third option is to vote 'No' or
else not vote at all (Independent 5.6.2008).
[0a Ireland´s position in the EU]

There was no penalty clause for not supporting the treaty. Amazing then that the vested
interests supporting it are attempting to scare and bully us into voting for it. They are
suggesting unspecified penalties, hinting darkly at some sort of EU revenge against us,
and insinuating that we will pay dearly if we do not do what we are told (Times
21.9.2009).
[0b WTO]
He accused the commissioner of displaying "breath-taking arrogance" in demanding
people vote for the Lisbon Treaty, when the "undeniable fact" was the WTO deal would
wipe out 50,000 farmers and cost the economy EUR4bn. "I want to remind the British
commissioner that there is a strong link between his WTO concessions and the Lisbon
Treaty," Mr Walshe said (Independent 07.05.2008).
[0b militarization]
The second stressed the role of MEPs in adding democratic legitimacy to EU military
operations, and proposed "to place EUROCORPS as a standing force under EU
command and invites all member states to contribute to it". Only straws in the wind, of
course, but enough to show which way the wind will be blowing once the Lisbon Treaty
has been ratified (Independent 10.06.2008).
[0b economy]
Mr Walsh's Fine Gael may find itself having to defend its decision to endorse a treaty
that served the European project well, but had a devastating impact upon the economic
and social fabric of this country (Times 24.4.2008).
[0b democracy]
Changed economic circumstances have led Mr Adams to support the European project
while continuing to oppose the Lisbon Treaty as a dilution of democracy (Times
11.8.2009).
29
Examples of positive framing statements (in square parentheses are the framing strategy
and the framing issue)
[1a reform]
The treaty will make the EU more effective, more democratic and more responsive to
the needs of businesses and citizens alike (Independent 2.4.2008).
[1a economy]
Vote 'Yes' to Lisbon on June 12, and secure Ireland's economic future (Independent
5.6.2008).
[1a renegotiate]
[…]the Taoiseach defended the treaty as the best possible deal for Ireland, saying that
the argument of the No side that the Government could negotiate a better deal did not
stand up to scrutiny (Times 10.6.2008).
[1a environment]
Mr Stewart emphasised that the treaty would enable the EU to combat climate change
(Times 11.6.2008).
[1b sovereignty]
But the real -- as opposed to the judicial -- consequencesof a second 'No' vote will be
inevitable, devastating and irreversible for our political independence and for our
prosperity (Independent 15.9.2009).
[1b guarantees]
Irish farming representatives have all the skills, ability and a brilliant track record in
building the most effective relationships in Brussels, he saidThat should not be
undermined by another No vote to an EU treaty especially since our EU partners have
listened to Irish voters concerns and addressed them with legally-binding guarantees
(Times 12.9.2009).
[1b Ireland´s position in the EU]

Voters would merely damage the EU and Ireland s role within it by voting No to Lisbon
(Times 14.9.2009).
[1b Ireland´s position in the EU]

At a time when Ireland needs more than ever to be at the heart of Europe, the danger is
that rejection will qualitatively change that relationship. There is no such thing as a free
lunch. There will be a price. This is not the time for Ireland to be isolated, to go it
alone.At the very least Ireland would pay through its relative marginalisation politically,
institutionally and economically (Times 30.9.2009).
[1b economy]
[…] from an economic perspective, voting No in the Lisbon Treaty would be an
additional self-imposed policy mistake (Times 12.9.2009).
30
Complete List of Framing Issues
All issue frames of framing statements of the first period and the number and percentage
of their mentioning in framing statements:
Issue Number Percentage

economy 18 13,1%
democracy 12 8,8%
Ireland´s position in the EU 9 6,6%
interests 8 5,8%
renegogiate 8 5,8%
taxation 7 5,1%
WTO 7 5,1%
moral 6 4,4%
national worker rights 6 4,4%
truth 6 4,4%
reform 5 3,6%
scaremongering 5 3,6%
doubt and uncertainty 5 3,6%
agriculture 4 2,9%
sovereignity 4 2,9%
environment 3 2,2%
miltarization 3 2,2%
personal 3 2,2%
citizen rights 2 1,5%
colonial heritage 2 1,5%
impossible to understand 2 1,5%
already voted no 1 0,7%
benefits 1 0,7%
commissioner 1 0,7%
english language 1 0,7%
legality 1 0,7%
national Brian Owen 1 0,7%
no other referendum 1 0,7%
no reason for yes 1 0,7%
peace 1 0,7%
philosophy 1 0,7%
security 1 0,7%
yes important 1 0,7%
31
All issue frames of framing statements of the second period and the number and
percentage of their mentioning in framing statements:
Issue Number Percentage

Ireland´s position in the EU 22 19,0%
economy 18 15,5%
souvereignity 10 8,6%
guarantees 7 6,0%
scaremongering 6 5,2%
workers rights 6 5,2%
borrowing costs 5 4,3%
agiculture 4 3,4%
already voted no 3 2,6%
benefits 3 2,6%
commissionar 3 2,6%
doubt and uncerntanty 2 1,7%
human rights 2 1,7%
militarization 2 1,7%
minimum wages 2 1,7%
moral 2 1,7%
personal 2 1,7%
taxation 2 1,7%
truth 2 1,7%
democracy 1 0,9%
EU elite project 1 0,9%
EU elite project 1 0,9%
EU good for ireland 1 0,9%
Treaty illegal 1 0,9%
immigration 1 0,9%
international 1 0,9%
no wrong 1 0,9%
peace 1 0,9%
public services 1 0,9%
reform 1 0,9%
renegogiate 1 0,9%
WTO 1 0,9%
32
Bibliography
Alvarez, M.R. (1997) Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press
Benford, R.D. and Snow, D.A. (2000) Framing Processes and Social Movements: An
Overview and Assessment, Annual Review of Sociology 26: 11–39.
Barker, E. (1951) Principles of Social and Political Theory. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Berelson, B.R., Lazarsfeld P.F. and McPhee W.N. (1954) Voting: A Study of Opinion
Formation in a Presidential Campaign, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Bonfadelli, H. (2002) Medieninhaltsforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen,

Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft
Boudon, R. (1979) Widersprüche sozialen Handelns. Darmstadt: Luchterhand
Chong, D. and Druckman, J. N. (2007) Framing Theory, Annual Review of Political

Science 10:103–26
Cohen, B. (1963) The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press
Council of the European Union (2009) Presidential Conclusion 18/19 June 2009.
Brussels
De Vreese C.H. (2005b) News Framing: Theory and typology, Information Design
Journal + Document Design 13 (1); 51-61
De Vreese, C. H. and Boomgaarden, H.G. (2005a) Projecting EU Referendums - Fear of

Immigration and Support for European Integration, European Union Politics Volume 6
(1): 59–82
De Vreese, C. H. (2007) Context, Elites, Media and Public Opinions in Referendums:

When Campaign Really Matter, in De Vreese, C. H. (ed) The Dynamics of Referendum
Campaigns – An International Pespective. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Downs, A. (1957) An Economc Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper & Row
Publishers
Druckman, J. N. (2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence.

Political Behavior 23: 225–56
Entman, R.M. (1991) Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in

Narrations of the KAL and the Iran Air Incidents, Journal of Communication (41) 4: 6-
27
33
Entman, R.M. (1993) Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm, Journal
of Communication 43(1): 51–8.,
Eurobarometer 67 (2007) Public Opinion in the European Union. European

Commission available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb67/eb67_en.pdf
Fairclough, N. 2003: Analyzing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research.

London: Routledge.
Fishman, M. (1978) Crime Waves as Ideology, Social Problems 25(5): 531-543
Flash Eurobarometer 245 (2008) Post-referendum Survey in Ireland - Preleminary

Results, European Commission available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf
Fottrell, Q. (2008) If you want a Yes vote just tell us we're great, The Irish Times
24.5.2008
Franklin, M., Marsh, M and Wlezien, M. (1994) Attitudes towards Europe and
Referendum Votes: A Response to Siune and Svensson, Electoral Studies 13: 117–21.
Franklin, M., van der Eijk, C. and Marsh, M. (1995) ‘Referendum Outcomes and Trust
in Government: Public Support for Europe in the Wake of Maastricht’, West European
Politics 18(3): 101–127.
Garry, J. Marsh, M., and Sinnot, R. (2005) ‘Second-order’ versus ‘Issue-voting’ Effects
in EU Referendums Evidence from the Irish Nice Treaty Referendums, European
Union Politics Vol. 6 (2): 201–221
Gitlin, T. (1980) The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and
Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hug, S. (2002) Voices of Europe: Citizens, Referendums, and European Integration.

Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield
Hobolt, S.B. (2006a) How Parties Affect Vote Choice in European Integration
Referendums Politics, Party Politics (12) 5; 623-647
Hobolt, S.B. (2006b) Direct Democracy and European Integration, Journal of European
Public Policy (13); 153-166
Hurrelmann, A., Schneider, S.; and Nullmeier, F. (2007): Exploring the Communicative
Dimension of Legitimacy: Text Analytical Approaches, in: Hurrelmann, A. Schneider,
S. und Steffek, J. (eds): Legitimacy in an Age of Global Politics, Houndmills,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, S. 126-155.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., and Gaeth, G. J. (1998) All frames are not created equal:
a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 76: 149–188.
34
Leahy, P. (2008) Even `No´ voters positive on EU, in The Sunday Business Post June
22, 2008
Luhmann, N (1995) Die Realität der Massenmedien. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag
Matthes, J. (2007) Framing Effekte - Zum Einfluss der Politikbericherstattung auf die
Einstellung der Rezipienten, München: Verlag Reinhard Fischer
Marsh, M. (2007) Referendum Campaigns: Changing What People Think or Changing

What They Think About, in De Vreese, C. H. (ed) The Dynamics of Referendum
Campaigns – An International Pespective. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Mayring, P. (2000) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse - Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim:

Deutscher Studien Verlag
Maurer, A (2009) Von Laeken bis Lissabon – die Entstehung des EU Reformvertrags:
Reflexionsphase und Regierungskonferenz 2007 , SWP Dossier available at: http://vt-
www.bonn.iz soz.de/swpthemen; last visit 1.3.2010
Meyerowitz, B.E. and Chaiken and Chaiken, S. (1987) the effects of message framing
on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions and behavior, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 52: 500-510
Meade, R. (2008) Mayday, Mayday! Newspaper framing anti-globalizers!: A critical

analyisis of the Irish Independent's anticipatory coverage of the `Day of the Welcomes ´
Demonstrations, Journalism 9(3): 330-352
Murdock, G. and Golding, P. (1995) For a Political Economy of Mass Communication

in Boyd-Barret and Newbold C. (eds) Approaches to Media. A Reader London: Arnold
Publshers
O´Donnel, D. (1945): The Irish Independent: A Business Idea, The Bell (9)5: 386-394
Scheufele, B. (2003) Frames - Framing - Framing Effekte – Theoretische und

Methodische Grundlegung des Framing-Ansatzes sowie Empirische Befunde zur
Nachrichtenproduktion, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of

Communication 49: 103–122.
Schneider, G. and Weitsman, P. (1996) The Punishment Trap: Integration Referendum

as Popularity Contests, Comparative Political Studies 28(4): 582-607
Schnell, R., Hill, P., Esser, E. (2005) Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung.
München: Oldenburg Wissenschaftsverlag
Snow, D. A., Rochford, Jr., Burke, E., Benford, R. D. (1986) Frame Alignment Process,
Micromobilization, and Movement Participation, American Sociological Review 51:
464-481
35
Stocké, V. (2002) Framing und Rationalität: Die Bedeutung der Informationsdarstellung
für das Entscheidungsverhalten. Oldenburg: Scientia Nova
Svensson, P. (2002) Five Danish Referendums on the European Community and Union:
A Critical Assessment of the Franklin Thesis, European Journal of Political Research
41(6): 733–50
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1981) The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology
of Choice, Science 211 (4481); 453–58.
Van der Eijk, C. and Marsh, M. (2009) Exploring the Irish vote on Lisbon, Paper
prepared for presentation at the meeting of the Elections, Public Opinion and parties
Group of the Political Studies Association, Glasgow August 28-30, 2009 available at:
Weiner, M. (2008) Laeken bis Lissabon – die Entstehung des EU Reformvertrags: Der
Weg zum Verfassungsvertrag, SWP Dossier available at: http://vt-www.bonn.iz
soz.de/swpthemen; last visit 1.3.2010
Newspaper articles
Irish Independent (27.3.2008) Referendum may be last stand
Irish Independent (2.4.2008) Treaty will boost Irish business
Irish Independent (7.5.2008) Mandelson accuses farmers of lying over treaty
Irish Independent (24.5.2008) McCreevy: you must be insane to read the treaty
Irish Independent (31.5.2008) We must not surrender our democracy to a faceless EU
Irish Independent (2.6.2008) Support for treaty muted even in Cowen country
Irish Independent (5.6.2008) Taxation issue is a red herring
Irish Independent (6.6.2008) Ireland's special role threatened
Irish Independent (10.6.2008) Delusions of EU grandeur
Irish Independent (15.9.2009) 'No' vote on Lisbon would throw us back to the '50s
The Irish Times (14.4.2008) Merkel to address National Forum on treaty
The Irish Times (24.4.2008) Lisbon treaty referendum
The Irish Times (29.5.2008) Green Party Minister warns of EU 'chaos' if treaty lost
The Irish Times (2.6.2008) Support for treaty muted even in Cowen country
The Irish Times (10.6.2008) Ratification of treaty a 'political priority'

36
The Irish Times (11.6.2008) Second Lisbon vote would be insult to citizens - Quinn
The Irish Times (11.8.2009) Sinn Féin's travails
The Irish Times (7.9.2009) Referendum is 'about our soul as a nation'
The Irish Times (12.9.2009) Economic balance of advantage tends to a Yes
The Irish Times (14.9.2009) What are the legal and constitutional implications of the
Lisbon Treaty?
The Irish Times (21.9.2009) Will workers have greater rights if treaty is ratified?
The Irish Times (28.9.2009) Government has secured no changes to original treaty
The Irish Times (30.9.2009) The importance of a Yes vote

37
If you are interessted in publishing
your study please contact us:
lektorat@diplomica.de
Anchor Academic Publishing

disseminate knowledge
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“What is it?” responded Nick.
“Catch him when he comes around!” came from Chick.
“Stop, or I’ll plug you!” roared Captain Douglas at somebody.
It was just as this threat emanated from the chief of police that a
man came tearing across the deck, in the shadow of the
smokestacks, and made a leap for the gangway, where the ladder
hung.
The ladder was a perfectly straight one, the sort of things to be
negotiated only by a nimble person, whose head was cool and level.
But John Garrison Rayne was both nimble and unterrified.
He gave one glance at the ladder, saw that the motor boat was
made fast to it at the bottom, and over he went!
He was not quick enough to elude Nick Carter, however.
The detective surmised what he intended to do before he did it.
So it came about that, when Rayne was nearly at the bottom of the
ladder, the detective had already begun to climb down, and was
three or four rungs on his way.
Rayne feverishly began to untie the painter.
“Ha! ha!” he shouted, with laughter that had a touch of hysteria in
it. “Fooled you again, Carter!”
“Not yet, my friend!” was the detective’s rejoinder. “Look out! I’m
coming!”
“If you do you’ll drop into the water!”
Rayne had the boat loose by this time. Then, turning the engine
over, he got it to moving as he took the wheel to steer toward the
shore.
Again the rascal laughed loudly, while Chick and Patsy, on the
deck above, screamed warnings to their chief.
“Look out!” begged Patsy. “Better let him go than you tumble into
the sea. Don’t take the chance!”
“That’s so. Keep back!” added Chick.
Paul Clayton and Douglas were both standing near the side of the
ship, looking over.
The former did not speak, while the chief of police contented
himself with pointing his revolver at John Garrison Rayne, in the
motor boat, and threatening to fill him so full of lead that he would
weigh a ton.
It was just now that Nick Carter took the chance which his
assistants pleaded so hard with him not to attempt.
He saw that there was a considerable width of open water
between him and the motor boat. On the other hand, he was far
enough up the ladder to be able to make a considerable broad jump.
The thought of this scoundrel getting away, now that he was so
nearly caught, maddened him. So, judging his distance carefully, he
leaped out from the ladder with all the power he could summon.
It was a risky performance. But luck reënforced judgment, and the
detective came plump down into the waist of the little craft,
immediately behind Rayne, who stood at the wheel, with his feet far
down in the well.
The motor boat rocked dangerously from the concussion when
Nick Carter dropped. Before it could quite recover, it was caught in a
cross sea that tested it a little more.
Only the most skillful manipulation by Rayne prevented it
capsizing.
Nick gave him just time to get the boat on an even keel. Then he
fell upon the rascal with both hands!
A rough and tumble in a motor boat is necessarily full of risk. It is
always likely to end in a ducking for both combatants.
How Nick Carter and John Garrison Rayne escaped this
unpleasantness is not to be explained. Only the fact can be stated.
Perhaps it was because Nick Carter was so dexterous in putting
on the handcuffs when the Apache was not looking.
At all events, in less than two minutes, after a hard fight, John
Garrison Rayne lay in the bottom of the dinky little craft, handcuffed,
and with the detective sitting on him.
The boat was steered back to the ship, and the others came
aboard.
“See if he has got the jewelry, Chick,” ordered Nick Carter. “I’ll hold
him.”
“Get back there, Chick!” commanded Patsy, grinning. “I’m the boy
that can frisk him.”
“Here’s two bags,” announced Chick, as he brought them forth
from the rascal’s inside pockets.
“Let Mr. Clayton look at them and see what’s inside.”
The bags were given to Clayton, and while he went hastily through
their contents and saw that they made up a large part of the Stephen
Reed booty, including the sultan’s pearls, Patsy found the flat
packing inside Rayne’s shirt.
“That about makes the tally,” said Clayton. “How can I ever thank
you, Mr. Carter?” he added, with something like a sob.
“Nonsense,” was Nick Carter’s reply. “It was all in the day’s work.
Now that we’ve got the jewelry, we’ll watch it closer than we did
before.”
“When are we going to New York?” asked Patsy.
“As soon as we can get a ship to take us,” said Nick earnestly.
“What are you going to do with this fellow?” asked Captain
Douglas, stirring John Garrison Rayne with his foot. “Do you want to
take him to New York to answer to this charge of stealing the jewelry,
or will you leave him in San Juan, to be put through in our criminal
courts?”
“You can have him,” laughed Nick Carter.
THE END.
“The Clew of the White Collar; or, Nick Carter on a Twisted Trail,”
will be the title of the long, complete story which you will find in the
next issue, No. 144, of the Nick Carter Stories, out June 12th. In
the forthcoming story you will read of the further adventures of the
famous detective with the clever John Garrison Rayne.
Where’s the Commandant?
By C. C. WADDELL.
(This interesting story was commenced in No. 140 of Nick Carter Stories.
Back numbers can always be obtained from your news dealer or the publishers.)
CHAPTER XII.
IN THE ATTIC.
There is little to be gained, however, from regrets over lost
opportunities, and Meredith, as befitted the daughter of an officer
rated one of the most resourceful in the service, turned very speedily
from that bootless pursuit to consider what advantage she still might
glean from the information which had come her way.
One point she settled without delay; she would not hold to her
intention of leaving the roof she was under immediately after
breakfast. On the other hand—distasteful as the experience might
prove—she would remain until she had successfully ferreted out the
true cause of all the mystery which seemed to envelop the place and
its occupants. Heedless of her obligations as a guest, she would
watch with unremitting vigilance every move of her host and hostess.
A higher law than that of hospitality now demanded her allegiance;
for, convinced that Mrs. Schilder was concerned in the colonel’s
abduction, or at least friendly to the abductors, she was prepared to
cast off all restraints, and stand solely on the principle. “All is fair in
war.”
Also she realized that she must communicate her discoveries
promptly to Grail. The intelligence might very readily dovetail in with
what he already had, and aid him materially in his task.
Therefore, as soon as the morning had sufficiently advanced to
make her appearance seem natural to any servants who might be
about, she arose, and, leaving Mrs. Schilder still soundly asleep,
hastened to her own room, with the idea of dressing, and proceeding
to the nearest telephone station. There were telephones in the
house, of course, but she did not care to use any of them at the risk
of being overheard.
On arriving at the chamber she had left in such panic the night
before, she looked vainly about for the frock she had taken off,
which, owing to the haste of her departure from Chicago, was the
only one she had brought with her.
Hurriedly she rang the bell to summon Marie, and institute
inquiries.
“Pardon, ma’mselle.” The maid shrugged her shoulders. “Ze skirt
had rubbed against ze w’eel of ze motor, and was in a condition
deplorable—all covered wiz grease and dust down ze side. I took ze
liberty, ma’mselle, to have eet sent to ze cleanair’s, and eet weel not
be back before twelve o’clock. Naturally, I did not anticipate zat
ma’mselle would arise so early.”
Meredith gave a gasp. She herself had not noticed that the dress
was soiled on removing it, although she was fair enough to admit
that in her preoccupation at that time she might have overlooked
even more serious damage. Still, that was not the point. Was she to
be held prisoner for any such absurd cause until noon?
“But I wish to go out, Marie,” she expostulated, “now, at once! You
must get me something to wear.”
The girl again shrugged helplessly. “Pardon once more,
ma’mselle, but Madame Schildair’s figure is so tall and slendair zat I
fear eet would be impossible for ma’mselle to wear any of her
gowns. Her waist ees only twenty-two inch, w’ereas ma’mselle”—she
cast a calculating glance—“must be fully twenty-six.”
“Then get me something of yours,” it was on Meredith’s lips to
demand; “something of somebody’s, if even only a raincoat to cover
me with.” But she checked herself in time. It would not do to attach
too much importance to her errand; already Marie was beginning to
eye her curiously.
“Very well, then,” she said carelessly. “I suppose I shall simply
have to wait. Fortunately, it does not make any especial difference.”
After all, the thought had struck her, there would be very little risk
in telephoning from the house, provided she used the main
instrument in the library downstairs, and saw to it that all the
extensions were switched off.
But when, with this project in view, she repaired to the library, she
found, to her disgust, that Schilder was ensconced there, going over
some papers, and she had to fabricate a hasty and rather feeble
excuse to account for her intrusion.
Moreover, a second visit, a half hour later, found him still there;
and when a third trip revealed him seemingly anchored to his chair,
and she ventured to inquire, in a casual way, what time he usually
departed for business, he informed her, rather shortly, that he was
not going to the office that morning. He had matters to attend to at
home.
A messenger call box in the hall seemed to offer her recourse,
and, grasping at the suggestion, she gave the handle a twist which
almost jerked it off; then hastened to her room to write a note to
Grail.
But, with the note finished, the slow minutes passed without any
response to her ring, until it seemed certain that even the most
tortoiselike messenger ought to have arrived, and she started an
investigation, only to learn that the boy had come and been sent
away again, since she had failed to apprise the man at the door of
having sent in a call.
Swallowing her chagrin as best she could, she gave another twist
to the knob, and this time not only gave notice of her action, but
seated herself at the window to watch for the messenger.
Presently a blue-uniformed boy hove in sight down the street, and
turned his bicycle into the drive leading up to the door. Meredith,
note in hand, lost no time in getting downstairs; but it was only to see
the servant on guard turning back from the entrance.
“Boy hasn’t showed up yet, ma’am,” he assured her unfalteringly.
“Wonderful how long them little rascals does take sometimes to get
around.”
Meredith realized now, with a sick feeling, what she had begun to
suspect for an hour or more past—that she was being deliberately
thwarted and baffled in her attempts to communicate with Grail,
probably under instructions from Mrs. Schilder herself.
The incident of the dress, the palpable falsehood in regard to the
coming of the messenger boy; more than all, the constant if
unobtrusive surveillance exercised by Marie, all assured her that she
was making no mistake. Now that she came to think of it, she could
not recall a time that morning when the maid, with her sly, watchful
eyes, had not been hovering close at hand, apparently absorbed in
her duties, yet always in a position to note everything that Meredith
might do.
Did it mean, then, that she was to be cut off from all intercourse
with the outside world? If she should assert herself, and insist on
using the telephone, would the polite evasions and lies she had
hitherto met change to harsher and more restrictive measures?
For a moment she was tempted to put the matter to the test; then,
with more sober second thought, she decided to wait. To provoke a
scene at this juncture, or to display any undue eagerness to get
away, would be but to disclose her hand to Mrs. Schilder. It was not
by force, but by craft, and a pretense of innocence, that she must
undermine her wily antagonist. She must match her wits against
those of the other woman and overcome.
Suddenly, like a flash of inspiration, there came to her mind the
recollection of the wireless telephone apparatus which her father had
once rigged up for experimental purposes in the attic of this very
house. The colonel had become very friendly with Otto Schilder, and,
being an enthusiastic electrician, had suggested the installation of
the wireless apparatus, with which they might hold experimental
conversations, and had forthwith secured the instruments and
arranged them in the Schilders’ attic. Meredith was not especially
interested in such experiments, but she had often seen her father
use the apparatus at the fort, and believed she could manage it in
such an emergency.
The door leading up to the attic from the third floor was unlocked,
but how to escape the sharp espionage of Marie presented a
difficulty, and after vainly trying a number of ruses, she almost
despaired of accomplishing it, until at last, about noon, hope was
revived by the ringing of a bell summoning Marie to her mistress.
The maid who took her place on guard, a stupid sort of girl,
Meredith had little difficulty in disposing of; then, the coast clear at
last, she hurried to the floor above.
The place, lighted only from above by small skylights, stretched
away, dim and shadowy, into the recesses and corners under the
eaves. There were boxes and packing cases all around, behind
which anything might be lurking. The silence, too, was a little
fearsome; the only sound to break the stillness was the buzzing of a
fly.
Meredith did not falter long, however, but turned to the business
before her, and, lightly threading her way between the boxes,
reached the table, with its black cabinet on top, and the wires
running up to the mast on the roof.
Instrument, table and all were covered with the dust of long
disuse, but when she had slipped the receiver on over her ears, and
had touched a knob or two on the box, she was delighted to find that
the instrument had lost none of its efficiency.
CHAPTER XIII.
WIRELESS TALK.
At first, a mere jumble of indistinguishable sounds greeted her,
punctuated by the sharp crack-crack from two amateur wireless
telegraphers holding conversation across her field of hearing; but
soon she had remedied all that, and had her apparatus tuned down
to the wave lengths of the instrument at the post.
“Hello, there!” she broke in heedlessly on some practice work
being given a couple of recruits by a sergeant instructor. “This is
important,” she said, as the sergeant advised her, rather brusquely,
not to “butt in.” “I wish to speak to Adjutant Grail at once!”
“And who are you?” the sergeant demanded, still truculent over
the interruption.
“Miss Vedant!”
“Oh!” The voice, borne on the wings of the air, was now smooth
and soft as oil. “Excuse me, miss, for speaking as I did. I mistook
you for one of those amateurs that’s always bothering around. I’m
sorry, miss, but Captain Grail ain’t at the post just now.”
“Do you know where he is, then? Or could you get hold of him for
me?”
“I haven’t the slightest idea where he is, ma’am.” The sergeant’s
stiff tone seemed also to indicate that neither did he care. Evidently
he was of the party to whom Grail’s very name had become hateful.
Recollecting, however, to whom he was talking, he added, less
churlishly: “The adjutant, ma’am, as I understand it, hasn’t been on
the reservation since seven o’clock last night, and he left no word
where he was going.”
“Nor when to expect him back?”
“Nor when to expect him back,” the sergeant echoed, a trifle
cynically, for it was a matter of general belief at the barracks that
Grail, unable to face the charges against him, had skipped out. Still,
it was not for him to voice any such rumor to the colonel’s daughter,
and he inquired diplomatically: “In case he does come in, ma’am, is
there any message you wish to leave for him?”
“No; I guess not.” She hesitated. “No. I will try to call him up later
in the day.”
Bitterly disappointed at the failure, and doubtful whether another
opportunity would be granted her to reach the attic, she leaned her
head in her two hands over the table, and tried to decide what to do.
Might it not be better, now that she was here, to remain beside the
instrument until she could effect communication with Grail, rather
than to risk the very dubious chances of again eluding the vigilance
belowstairs? But she shook her head. Her absence, once
discovered, and with the certainty that she could not have left the
house in dishabille, they would never rest until they had ransacked
the place from cellar to roof. Her retreat could not fail to be
discovered, unless she were able to hide from the prying eyes of the
searchers.
The suggestion drew her glance to a closet or compartment at one
side of the attic, which, sheathed with iron, and having a combination
lock on the door, had been fitted up as a sort of strong room. She
had heard it spoken of, and remembered hearing that it was now in
disuse and unlocked.
It was the very place. No one would ever dream of her being
secreted inside, and she would be almost as safe from discovery as
in a burglar-proof vault; yet there was a window at one side to give
her light and air, and she could be just as comfortable there as in the
wider spaces of the attic outside.
She stepped quickly to the door, but as she paused to fumble with
the latch there reached her from within a faint sound of rustling and
scratching.
Rats! The idea of opening that door, or seeking refuge in the
strong room, died abruptly. With a timorous gasp, she fled down the
attic steps as fast as her feet could carry her.
Fortunately, there was no one on the third floor to witness her
breathless exit, and, recovering somewhat from her panic, she
managed to close the attic door and regain her own room without
detection.
Hardly was she safe, however, before Marie made her
appearance, looking distinctly worried and upset.
“Where has ma’mselle been?” she demanded, almost crossly. “I
have been looking everywhere for her to serve her ze luncheon.”
“I?” Meredith found it hard work not to pant. “Oh, I have just been
strolling about the house. By the way, Marie,” deftly turning the
subject, “has not that frock of mine come back from the cleaner’s
yet?”
Marie was apologetic. The “pig of a cleaner” had deceived her
outrageously; she had just sent over for the frock, only to be
informed that it would not be finished until four o’clock.
“Oh, well, it really makes no difference,” Meredith assured her
carelessly. “Since I have given up the idea of going out to-day.
Indeed, I think I shall try to take a long nap this afternoon. I did not
sleep at all well last night.”
With this plausible excuse, she managed to throw the sentinel
maid off guard, and, as Mrs. Schilder went out in the automobile,
was able to effect two more trips to the attic undiscovered, although,
unfortunately, without result. Each time she was informed that
Captain Grail had not yet returned to the post.
So the long afternoon wore away fruitlessly, and with the passing
of the hours passed also that feeling of buoyancy which Meredith
had experienced in the morning, and which, no doubt, was largely
due to the excitement of finding herself actively involved in the game.
Now, with the reaction, she was growing dispirited and
apprehensive once more. Nothing seemed to have been
accomplished. Her father’s whereabouts still continued a mystery;
and, in addition, she now began to worry over Grail’s protracted
absence. What if something had happened to him, too? Indeed, was
it not almost certain that something must have happened to him?
Darker and darker grew her misgivings as she gave rein to her
imagination, until, when Mrs. Schilder at last came in, she found the
poor girl a picture of disconsolate woe.
“Is there no news?” Meredith raised her wan face in piteous
question. Even from this deceitful source she might gather
something in the way of a glance or expression.
But Mrs. Schilder’s countenance revealed nothing.
“I am sorry,” she said, “but the investigation seems to have come
to a standstill. Every clew has been carefully worked out, the officers
tell me, but to absolutely no avail. However,” she dropped her gloved
hand on Meredith’s shoulder, “you must not let that discourage you,
my dear. No news is always good news, remember; and no one
concerned is lacking in activity in any direction. Mr. Schilder, indeed,
is so deeply concerned that he has invited all the officers of the post
to meet him here to-night and discuss what measures shall next be
undertaken, and he says that unless they can show him a
reasonable promise of success he will report the disappearance to
the civil authorities.
“He told me to tell you of this conference, my dear,” she went on,
“and ask you if you did not want to be present; although I told him
that I hardly deemed it wise, since theories and conjectures are sure
to be advanced which cannot help but be harrowing to you.”
“No.” Meredith’s tremors ceased with the offer of a change of
action. Major Appleby might be bombastic, and Lieutenant
Hemingway a fool, but surely there was some one among the
officers—blunt old Dobbs, the surgeon, maybe—to whom she could
whisper her suspicions.
“No,” she repeated, with decision, “there can be nothing said to
cause me more apprehension than the possibilities I have already
pictured to myself. Thank Mr. Schilder for me, please, and tell him
that I shall certainly attend the conference.”
First, however, she determined to call up Grail once more; then, if
she failed to find him at the fort, she would be satisfied that some
calamity had befallen him, and that both for his sake and her father’s
she would have to resort to another ally.
Accordingly, an opportunity arising for her to slip away just as
Major Appleby and his associates commenced to arrive, she stole
once more to the attic.
Confronted by the darkness and the possibility of scampering rats,
she halted for a moment, strongly tempted to turn and flee; then,
nerving herself to the effort, although still quaking with trepidation,
she dashed up the steps and over toward the wireless instrument.
Halfway across the space, her wild rush was abruptly stayed, and
she came to her knees, a stifled shriek of terror on her lips.
She had stumbled over the body of a man, bound and gagged,
lying directly in her path.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE MARKED NAMES.
As Grail turned back into his quarters, after seeing Meredith off,
that night of her arrival from Chicago, his face had fallen into lines of
troubled solicitude, and he gave an ominous shake of the head, for it
was idle to deny that the startling news concerning Sasaku had filled
him with the gravest sort of misgivings. Indicating that this was no
ordinary game of hide and seek, such as the gumshoe men of the
various powers are accustomed to play with each other, but a
sinister intrigue, prepared to balk at nothing to gain its ends, it raised
a serious question as to the possible fate which had befallen the
colonel.
Hurriedly summoning his “striker,” he sent him out for a copy of the
extra Herald containing an account of the murder; then, when the
paper had arrived, he devoted himself to a careful perusal and
analysis of the details.
There was really but little to be gleaned. The body of the Japanese
had been found on the stairs of a rooming house for laboring men,
down near the river front, and, as Grail noted, not more than a block
or two away from the Dolliver Foundry. Struck evidently from behind,
by an unexpected knife thrust, as he was starting to go out, he had
lurched forward, clutching at the banister, then sagged down lifeless
on the third step from the top, his straw hat rolling on down the flight,
and, by exciting the curiosity of a lodger on the floor below, leading,
later on, to a discovery of the dead man.
Life had not been extinct more than half an hour when he was
found, it was stated, and thus the time of the murder was definitely
fixed at about two o’clock in the afternoon; yet, although a number of
the occupants of the place had been in their rooms at that hour, no
one could be unearthed who had heard any outcry or sound of
altercation.
Indeed, there seemed an utter lack of any clew to indicate the
motive or perpetrator of the crime. The door of the house was
usually left open, all kinds of people coming and going at will; so it
was assumed that the murderer must have entered deliberately,
gained the third floor, then laid in wait in the dark hallway until
Sasaku, all unsuspecting, came out. That the assassin did not
belong in the house seemed certain, from the fact that the Japanese
was an utter stranger in the place, having only engaged his room the
afternoon before, and being, so far as could be learned,
unacquainted with any of the other tenants. Besides, all those at
home at the time of the affair were able to account satisfactorily for
their movements.
Some significance, at first, was attached to the circumstance that
the door of the room directly across the corridor from Sasaku’s was
found ajar, whereas the man to whom the room belonged, a foundry
worker by the name of Marice Matschka, was known to be very
circumspect about keeping his door locked, and one of the fourth-
floor lodgers, who had come in at noon, asserted that when he
passed by the door had undoubtedly been closed.
Matschka, however, was able to prove conclusively that he himself
had not been back to the place since leaving for work at six o’clock
that morning, and also stoutly denied having given up his key, or
sent any one else there. He was confident, he said, that he had
locked the door behind him, as usual, that morning, but, of course,
might be mistaken, and in that case it would have been an easy
matter for the unlatched portal to have swung open in the draft.
There was, moreover, no reason to believe that he had known the
Japanese, or could have harbored ill will against him for any cause,
so this line of investigation was very speedily abandoned.
In short, the case was a puzzle, looked at from any angle.
Sasaku’s scanty effects, consisting chiefly of his clothes, a few
letters, and a notebook containing a few names and addresses,
offered nothing in the way of a clew; nor did his history, so far as it
could be traced out, disclose the existence of any enemies. He had
been an affable, friendly sort of a little chap, generally well liked.
Finally, it was plain that robbery was not the cause, since a diamond
ring, a gold watch and chain, and some fifty dollars in his pocket, had
been left untouched.
The police, all at sea for an adequate motive, had to fall back on
the fantastic theory that he had been the victim of some sort of
Oriental vendetta at the hands of his own countrymen; and, with
great pretense at secret knowledge, made significant allusions to
oath-bound clans and mysterious brotherhoods.
Grail had just about completed his reading of the newspaper
narrative, digesting carefully not only what appeared, but also what
lay between the lines, when Sergeant Cato entered and saluted him.
The sergeant was dusty and perspiring from what had evidently
been an arduous day, but his beaming expression showed that his
efforts had not been in vain.
“You’ve found out what I wanted, eh?” Grail glanced up eagerly.
“I think I’ve got it all, sir.”
“Good!” The adjutant nodded toward a chair, and extended a cigar.
“Sit down and make yourself comfortable, sergeant, and let’s have
the story as quickly as possible. I would tell you to go and get
something to eat first, but things have been happening since you’ve
been away that make haste imperative.”
“Oh, I’m not hungry, sir,” Cato assured him. “This beats a meal any
old time”—puffing luxuriously at the perfecto—“and, besides, I had a
sandwich over at Sunset Bluffs.”
“Sunset Bluffs, eh? Then you did have time to look up the motor-
boat business for me?”
“Sure, sir. It came in yesterday morning, just as you said, billed to
Otto Schilder, and was taken out on his order late yesterday
afternoon by Mike Flannery, a truckman over there on the other side
of the river.”
“And you talked to Flannery, of course?”
“No.” Cato shook his head. “He was out with his wagon. But I did
better, sir. I had a chin with Flannery’s kid, a boy about ten years
old.”
“Ah!”
“Yes, sir. He and I took in a moving-picture show together”—the
sergeant grinned—“and before it was over I guess he had told
enough to earn him the licking of his life, if the old man should ever
find it out. His father, it seems, intended to haul the boat out to the
lake last night, but just as he was getting ready to start out a stranger
came around to engage him for an immediate moving job. A big,
dark-eyed man, the boy said he was, who gave the name of Dabney,
and seemed to be in a great hurry.”
“A big, dark-eyed man, who gave the name of Dabney,” Grail
echoed. “Go on!”
“Well sir, Flannery, seeing a chance to squeeze in some extra
money, took him up, and, leaving the boat there in his stable yard,
went off with his truck and horses, expecting to be back and start for
the lake about one o’clock, Dabney telling him that his job wouldn’t
take more than that long. What with one thing and another, though,
he didn’t get back until the six-o’clock whistles were blowing, and
then, according to the kid, he sure turned the air blue. Somebody
had borrowed the motor boat during his absence, for a joy ride—his
yard is only a stone’s throw from the river—and it was a sight to look
at, all covered with river mud and grease, and dripping wet inside
and out. He was in an awful sweat for fear Schilder would find out
about it, and he worked like a nailer for over two hours, cleaning it up
and polishing the brasswork, before he dared set out with it for the
lake. Funny thing, though,” Cato concluded, “he doesn’t suspect this
man Dabney in the matter at all. He blames a gang of young roughs
who live in the neighborhood.”
Grail smiled. “As you infer, sergeant, it was Dabney, all right,” he
said. “He had need for a swift boat on the river last night, and he
didn’t want the hiring of one to be traced to him. Consequently, he
adopted this rather elaborate ruse to get hold of the one in
Flannery’s care. Dabney, although passing himself off as an
Englishman, and ostensibly conducting a real-estate office, is, I may
as well tell you, the man tipped off to me by Sasaku as a Russian
spy, and the leader of the operations to which Colonel Vedant has
fallen victim.”
“Then you think,” Cato inquired quickly, “that the colonel was
carried off in this motor boat?”
“Assuredly,” Grail answered, and briefly explained his theory of the
seizure, and the employment of the electric crane to convey the
prisoner and his captors outside of the inclosure.
“The next thing, of course,” he concluded, “was to get their man
away as quickly and quietly as possible, and, naturally, the river
suggested itself as the most convenient avenue.”
“That sounds plausible enough.” Cato thoughtfully scratched his
head. “But what gets me, captain, is how did they know so much
about the motor boat, and just how to get hold of it? Is this Dabney-
ovitch, or whatever his real name is, a pal of Mr. Schilder’s?”
“No,” the adjutant admitted. “On the other hand, I think he has
taken especial pains to avoid meeting Schilder, or coming under his
eye. But”—he hesitated slightly—“the point you raise offers no
difficulty. Take my word for it, sergeant, there was a way for Dabney
to find out with absolute certainty anything he wanted.”
“And now,” he broke off, rather abruptly, “tell me what you
discovered in regard to the cigarette?”
“Oh, that was easy.” Cato’s brows cleared. “I scored a bull’s-eye
the second place I went into. It’s a little tobacco and stationery shop
down on Third Street, and the old fellow who runs it is one of the
talkative kind. He said he’d laid in a stock of these cigarettes for four
customers of his who get their newspapers there every morning, and
who live at a rooming house just around the corner. Here, I have the
names.” He produced a card on which he had jotted a memorandum.
“Miller Vance——”
“Ah!” Grail interrupted sharply. “The man who operated the crane. I
had a very strong suspicion that he was Russian, for all his alias,

You Vote What You Read News Coverage Before The Two Irish Referendums On The Lisbon Treaty 1st Edition Fabian Reichert

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

You Vote What You Read News Coverage Before The Two Irish Referendums On The Lisbon Treaty 1st Edition Fabian Reichert

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You Vote What You Read News

Coverage before the two Irish

Literary Libations What to Drink with What You Read 1st

This Is What It Sounds Like What the Music You Love

Read If You Dare 1st Edition Catt Dahman

Tools for Survival What You Need to Survive When You re

What You See Is What You Hear Creativity and

Where on Earth Geography As You ve Never Seen It Before

You Vote What You Read?

News Coverage before the two

Anchor Academic Publishing

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek:

Bibliographical Information of the German National Library:

zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.

© Anchor Academic Publishing, ein Imprint der Diplomica® Verlag GmbH

List of Tables and Figures III

1.1 Research Question and Procedure 1

1.2 The Treaty of Lisbon 2

2.2 The Media 6

2.4 Framing Effects 10

2.5 Framing EU Referendums 13

3.2 Article Selection Process 17

3.3 Measuring Frames 18

3.4 Methodological Problems 21

4.1 Presentation of the Results 22

4.2 Discussion of the Results 26

Table 1: Results of the Article Selection Process 18

Figure 1: Figure 1: The multiplicity of possible relationships between the framing

Figure 3: Percentage of positive and negative framing statements 22

1.1 Research Question and Procedure

referendums in Ireland. But as many media researchers showed, news coverage is

1.2 The Treaty of Lisbon

Figure 1: The multiplicity of possible relationships between the framing concepts

Source: Compiled by the author

2.4.1 Equivalency Framing Effects

A: If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. (72%)

The second group:

A´: If Program A is adopted, 400 people will die. (22%)

2.4.2 Emphasis Framing Effect

2.5.1 Equivalency Framing of the Lisbon Treaty

2.5.2 Emphasis Framing of the Lisbon Treaty

Source: Own illustration following Coleman (1990)

3.2 Article Selection Process

Table 1: Results of the Article Selection Process

3.3 Measuring Frames

[ Object] is [Evaluation] because of [Argument].

(1a) points to the positive consequences of the treaty:

3.4 Methodological Problems

4.1 Presentation of the Results

Figure 3: Percentage of positive and negative framing statements

Source: Compiled by the author

Source: Compiled by the author

Source: Compiled by the author

4.2 Discussion of the Results

contradicts the expectations formulated in chapter 2.5.1. A mainly positive evaluation of

integration referendums. On the background of these findings expectations concerning

[0a Ireland´s position in the EU]

and social fabric of this country (Times 24.4.2008).

[1b Ireland´s position in the EU]

[1b Ireland´s position in the EU]

institutionally and economically (Times 30.9.2009).

Issue Number Percentage

Issue Number Percentage