Interest group representation and framing in the media: A policy area perspective

1.1 Media appearance and frames: Concepts and the role of the policy area

Although most framing studies use Entman's definition, there is much variation in the nature of the frames studied. Some focus on issue-specific frames where all or most aspects in the definition are invoked (Baumgartner et al., 2008), others study more narrowly defined frames for example, whether news stories focus on political processes or policy content (Binderkrantz & Christoffer, 2009). This study focuses on an aspect of interest group framing that has been central in recent scholarship: Do groups portray their policy positions as furthering the interests of their membership, other societal groups, or broader societal interests (Binderkrantz, 2019; Boräng & Naurin, 2015; Bruycker, 2016; Klüver et al., 2015)? This is consistent with Entman's emphasis on promoting a particular problem definition but does not necessarily include all aspects in the definition. Central to the distinction is that the same policy position can be portrayed differently—by pointing to the interests of group members or by emphasizing broader consequences.

Schattschneider (1975 [1969]) famously asserted that politics is about affecting the scope of conflicts. By pointing to broader consequences of policies, interest groups may enlist support from other groups and convince policymakers that the preferred policy of the group is beneficial from a larger perspective. A group of farmers may, for example, argue that restrictive environmental regulation of agriculture is detrimental to the societal economy rather than point to the costs of individual farmers. When participating in public debates, policy actors thus face incentives to frame their views in public terms (Ihlen et al., 2018; Rommetvedt, 2002, 2005).

A number of mechanisms may, on the other hand, lead groups to emphasize the concerns of their own membership or other specific societal groups. First, the political leverage of groups is related to their representation of constituencies such as workers, industries, or individuals. In many situations, groups may therefore gain from pointing to the direct effect of policies for members—especially when they represent constituencies that are likely to be seen as deserving fair treatment. In addition, interest groups do operate according not only to a “logic of influence” but also to “a logic of membership” (Berkhout, 2013). When groups appear in the news media, they are therefore seeking not only to affect politics but also to demonstrate to their members that they are pursuing their interests—and this may push them towards arguments of direct relevance for their members (Binderkrantz, 2019; Naurin, 2007).

The analytical framework for analyzing frames draws on previous work (Binderkrantz, 2019; Boräng et al., 2014) by distinguishing between (a) member-regarding frames, where groups point to the benefits or costs of their own membership; (b) other-regarding frames, where effects for other specific societal groups are in focus; (c) economy-regarding frames with a focus on broad economic aspects of policy; and (d) public-regarding frames addressing general societal consequences. The distinguishing factor is thus whether the group stresses concerns for its membership or other clearly identifiable societal groups or broader societal concerns. The last two categories both relate to the public good but distinguish between economic concerns and concerns of a more idealistic character.

1.2 The role of the policy area: Group appearances and frame use

This section discusses expected differences in the media presence of groups across policy areas. From the perspective of organized interests themselves, it is evident that their political activity relates to policy areas or even to more narrow issues. Although groups differ in the range of policy areas they engage in, all groups care more about some issue areas than others (Halpin & Binderkrantz, 2011). Most groups are established with a view to affect the public debate and policy decisions made within specific policy areas, and even the names of groups often indicate their specialization. After all, why would an association of tobacco companies seek influence on the school system, or a group of cancer patients try to affect immigration politics? A policy area perspective is thus important for understanding the political role of groups (Binderkrantz & Pedersen, 2015).

The emphasis on issue dynamics echoes Lowi's (1964) classic statement that policy determines policy—political mobilization depends on the type of policy in question. Wilson (1980) also emphasized this point in his discussion of the nature of costs and benefits associated with different types of policies. Typologies of policy areas inspired by this work have been used in the interest group literature to explain, for example, differences in group influence (Binderkrantz, Christiansen, & Pedersen, 2014). Although including typologies in empirical studies facilitates overall conclusions about policy-related dynamics, it only captures part of the policy-related variation in group mobilization and representation. As argued by Grossman (2013), issue areas may be hard to place in boxes, and differences in the politics of issue areas cannot readily be distilled into a few dimensions.

Policy dynamics affect group media representation as well as framing. Mobilization reflects the set of interests affected by policies as well as their ability to organize. Early scholars predicted that group mobilization would be most likely where costs were concentrated (Olson, 1965; Wilson, 1980), but later work has demonstrated how diffuse interests have also succeeded in mobilizing (Berry, 1999). Still, business interests are likely to be highly mobilized where policy is mainly about regulating business sectors. These may be opposed by, for example, environmental interest groups focusing on the societal benefits related to regulating business. Other policy areas may see labor and business mobilizing to affect, for example, labor market regulation, and yet other mobilization patterns are likely to characterize policy areas where the public sector is main responsible for production.

Patterns of media attentions are partly an effect of group mobilization and partly of media logics. Access to the news media has been described as based on an exchange logic—groups seek media attention, and reporters seek news stories and sources to include (Binderkrantz et al., 2015). Here, groups are at an advantage if they have a professional organization and an insider position in the political system because this provides them with relevant information and credibility (Thrall, 2006). Patterns of group appearance in the news media will thus not reflect the set of mobilized groups in any simple manner but will rather show concentrated attention on the most professional and privileged groups.

When it comes to frame use, two previous studies have found variation across policy areas. A study by Klüver and colleagues find differences in frame use depending on the EU Directorate General targeted by groups, and an aggregate analysis of framing in Denmark and the United Kingdom finds an effect of the type of policy domain (Binderkrantz, 2019; Klüver et al., 2015). These patterns partly reflect group mobilization as a relation between group type and frame use is also found. Groups that organize specific groups such as business firms, employees, or patients are more prone to frame their concerns with respect to these membership groups, whereas public interest groups—attracting members among those supporting group goals—are more likely to point to broad societal concerns (Binderkrantz, 2019; Boräng & Naurin, 2015; Klüver et al., 2015). To the extent that the groups appearing in the news media differ across policy areas, the dominance of different framing references will therefore differ.

In addition to the differences reflecting mobilization of different group types, the collective framing in each policy area is likely to reinforce differences across policy areas. Baumgartner and Mahoney (2008) have pointed to the dual levels of framing. Framing can be analyzed from the perspective of the individual actor and also at the aggregate level with a focus on how an issue is collectively defined. The nature of the policy in question may therefore shape not only group mobilization but also the types of frames seen as appropriate. As some areas, for example, come to be seen as about securing the rights of specific groups, this creates an incentive for all policy actors to frame their concerns in this direction. Based on this, it is expected that framing vary across policy areas beyond the effect associated with variation in the type of organized interests active in the areas.

2.1 Analyzing organized interests in the news media: Representation and framing

The empirical analysis focuses on two related questions: (a) the types of groups appearing in the news media in each of the selected policy areas and (b) the framing references made by the groups. For each policy area, the results of the quantitative content analysis are presented in tables, and the subsequent discussion provides illustrative examples of the frames used by groups. Table 2 presents results for the first three policy areas: labor market policy, business and consumer policy, and environmental and energy policy.

It is evident from the table that labor market policy is an issue mainly debated by trade unions and business groups. These types of groups account for more than 90% of all media attention. In addition, institutional groups have some presence in this area—most likely in their capacity as employers in the public sector. Trade unions mainly framed their concerns as related to membership interests but also occasionally used references to other groups or the economy at large. Business groups diversified their arguing to a larger extent and frequently referred to both membership concerns, other groups and the economy.

Among the issues debated in this area were the wage negotiations for the private sector. These were affected by the economic crisis, and employers stressed the need to constrain wages to secure the competitiveness of Danish companies. This exemplifies the use of a framing emphasizing broad economic aspects of a position that also directly benefits business group members. Trade unions on their side largely accepted the agenda of limited pay raise and turned their attention to other issues such as protecting their members from competition from nonorganized labor and the negotiation rights of unions—issues they framed as discriminating their membership: “Our members will simply not accept this discriminating rule, and this vote is a strong reprimand to employers who categorically and stubbornly refused to negotiate our demands” (Trade union chairperson). 0

A different pattern of interest group representation characterizes news stories about business and consumer issues. Here, business groups dominate with about 70% of all appearances, whereas public interest groups account for 13.5% and trade unions for 10% of attention. Across all policy areas, this is the area where business groups are most likely to point to membership interests—in 55% of the cases. In a debate about tax credits for companies, business associations, for example, pointed to the risk of their members going out of business: “Some firms may go bankrupt, and others will have to say no to possible customers.” as expressed by a representative of Danish Industry. 1 Although this could also have been framed with focus on the detrimental consequences for the economy at large, the group emphasized the immediate effects for members.

On their side, public interest groups were most likely to point to consequences for nonmember groups. For example, the Danish Consumer Council pointed out how families with kids might benefit from liberalizing regulation of business hours. When trade unions entered these debates, their arguments usually took their members as the point of departure. Their emphasis in the discussion of business hours was, for example, on the negative effects for union members working in the sector.

In news stories about environment and energy, public interest groups account for half of all group appearances and are most often accompanied by business interest—37%— whereas institutional groups appear in about 8% of the cases. Environment and energy stands out as the policy area where public interest frames are most commonly used. Environmental groups are frequent participants in these debates stressing concerns related to the environment and climate. Interestingly, business groups also use public-regarding framing in almost 40% of the cases. This indicates how group type and policy area interact in shaping framing. Still, the most common frame used by business is member-regarding. In many instances, it is evident that business groups seek to balance these concerns as exemplified by the Danish Shipowner's Association stressing its support for environmental regulation—as long as it applies also to competing companies from other countries. 2

Table 3 presents group appearances and frame use for educational policy, health policy, and justice and rights policy. Education and health are among the key areas of the welfare state, and in Denmark, public providers are responsible for most activity in these areas—although private alternatives exist. In both areas, three types of groups are most visible: institutional groups, trade unions, and identity groups. Together, these represent the authorities responsible for welfare delivery, the employees in the sector, and the beneficiaries of welfare services.

In educational policy, trade unions frequently refer to other societal groups. In a heated debate about the use of national test in schools, the chairperson of the school teachers association argued: “It's better to let teachers evaluate the level of pupils because they can choose the test that works best for each individual pupil.” 2 Here, the professional discretion of teachers is described as a means to help children. On their side, the institutional groups—with Local Government Denmark as the main actor—also present most of their suggestions as raising the quality of the education of each individual kid. Identity groups active in this domain include associations of parents as well as students, and among these, the most dominant frame is simply to point to the interests of their own membership.

Debates about health care are relatively similar to the educational area. Trade unions appear less often in this area, but when they do, they are more likely to point to the interests of their membership. In health care, the concerns of health care professionals and patients are often portrayed as interlinked as when a report found 40% of younger doctors to have increased their workload: “We are asked to produce more and more, without necessarily getting more resources […]. Of course this affect treatment of patients” (Chairman of Young Doctor's Association). 3 Among the analyzed policy areas, identity groups have their highest presence in this area. These groups point mainly to their own membership interests or to other specific groups.

In justice and rights policy, all group types appear at least 5% of the time, but the most frequent participants are trade unions and public interest groups. This reflects that both individual and collective rights are regularly debated. Trade unions participate in debates, for example, about whistleblowers, criminal sanctions, and legal protection of minorities, where they express concerns related to their own membership. This is also the case for most business groups appearing in this area. The most active public interest groups in these debates are groups working with social affairs or human rights. These groups typically act as advocates for vulnerable individuals or groups when participating in these debates—as demonstrated by the high share of other-regarding frames in their communication.

The analysis has demonstrated variation in group representation and frame use between policy areas. To test the extent to which variation in frame use is related to variation in the types of groups active or to policy area dynamics, a multivariate analysis of frame use is conducted. Here, control variables at the group level are included: group resources, the level of privileged position, and the amount of conflict with other groups experienced. Figure 1 displays the predicted probabilities of frame use for each policy area on the basis of a multinomial logistic regression. Because each group may appear multiple times in the analysis, standard errors are clustered with respect to individual groups. Table A1 reports regression results.

The analysis confirms the patterns described above. Some policy areas—notably labor market politics and business and consumer politics—are mainly discussed with references to group members contrasting, for example, the interests of business and labor. Environmental and energy policy stands out as more prone to public-regarding arguments than any other policy area, although membership concerns are also voiced most often here. The remaining areas—education, health, and justice and rights—are characterized by much focus on the societal groups in focus of, for example, welfare state production. The analysis thus demonstrates that even when controlling for group type, differences across policy area persist.