Abstract
This chapter demonstrates the ways in which the press coverage of the Bulger and Redergård cases quantitatively and qualitatively differed, both among and between press formats and jurisdictions. It examines how the cases were contextualized, who most influenced how the events were framed in each jurisdiction, how experts in each jurisdiction were regarded in the coverage, and why the themes expressed in each jurisdiction differed so starkly. While the Redergård homicide was framed by experts as a tragic accident committed by normal children, the Bulger case was framed by politicians, columnists, and members of the public as a horribly brutal criminal event perpetrated by two evil boys.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
