Sources (Terrorism Coverage)

Abstract

Sources describe the actors quoted by journalists to support or refute their argumentation or to introduce new aspects into a discussion. Sources might be used for direct or indirect quotes and can be attributed to a variety of actors, such as government officials, witnesses or PR sources. In terrorism coverage, the media tends to mostly rely on official sources such as the government or police officials. Field of application/theoretical foundation: Content analyses focus on journalistic sources beyond terrorism coverage. Such analyses are often based on “Agenda-Setting” theories (McCombs & Shaw, 1972), models conceptualizing the relationship between journalists and PR, power hierarchies, or studies on working routines of journalists. References/combination with other methods of data collection: Similar analyses in the context of “Automated Content Analysis” try to grasp news “Actors”, of which news sources might be one, automatically (for example Burggraaf & Trilling, 2020). In addition, interviews with journalists can shed light on their sourcing routines (Larsen, 2018). Two studies are of particular value when analyzing sources used in terrorism coverage since they analyze a large variety of different sources and will hence be discussed in the following section. Example studies: Larsen (2019); Venger (2019) Information on Larsen, 2019 Author: Larsen (2019) Research question: How are radicalization and violent extremism framed in the news, including the sources used in these articles? Object of analysis: Online news from four Norwegian news outlets (Aftenposten, NRK, TV2, and VG) Time frame of analysis: 2014–2015 Info about variables Variable name/definition: Sources Level of analysis: News stories Variables and values: 27 different values, namely (1) no source, (2) police, (3) security services, (4) national politician in position, (5) national politician in opposition, (6) local politician, (7) bureaucracy/administration, (8) lawyer, (9) military/intelligence, (10) expert/researcher, (11) journalist/editor, (12) “extreme Islamist”, (13) “right-wing extremist”, (14) acquaintances, (15) NGOs, (16) international organizations, (17) religious leaders/spokespersons, (18) members of the public, (19) health, (20) education/school, (21) private sector/business, (22) prison administration, (23) affiliation not mentioned (i.e. anonymous), (24) think tank, (25) public prosecutors, (26) judge/court of Justice, (27) other Reliability: Cohen’s kappa: .895 Information on Venger, 2019 Authors: Venger (2019) Research question: How did the use of sources in news on the London bombings differ across newspapers published in countries with different media systems? Object of analysis: Newspaper coverage in the UK (The Guardian, The Times), the US (The Washington Post, The New York Times), and Russia (Izvestiya) Time frame of analysis: July–August 2005 Info about variables Variable name/definition8 different values, including (1) local government officials of the newspaper’s country, (2) foreign government officials, including officials of international agencies, (3) local experts, (4) international experts, (5) foreigners not associated with any government, (6) private citizens (of the newspaper’s country), (7) citations for local newspapers, (8) citations for international newspapers. Reliability: Rust and Cohen’s PRL reliability index, minimal value of any variable in study: .85 Table 1. Measurement of “Sources” in terrorism coverage. Author(s) Sample Manifestations Reliability Codebook Bennett (2016) Online news articles 12 different sources, ranging from “domestic media” to “eyewitnesses” Not reported Not available Douai & Lauricella (2014) Newspaper articles 5 different sources, ranging from “Western media sources” to “official/government Muslim sources” Percent agreement across all variables: 94.25 Not available Du & Li (2017) Online news articles 7 different sources, ranging from “NGOs” to “laws, orders, and documents” Scott’s pi for all variables in study: between .798 and 1 Not available Fahmy & Al Emad (2011) Online news articles 5 different sources, ranging from “US sources” to “Al Qaeda sources” Scott’s pi: .92 Available Gardner (2007) Newspaper articles 7 different sources, ranging from “analyst/academic” to “friends and family of the terrorist” Holsti across all variables: .87 Not available Larsen (2019) Broadcasting programs and online news articles 27 different sources, ranging from “security/intelligence” to “religious spokespersons” Cohen’s kappa: .895 Available Li (2007) Broadcasting programs 10 different sources, ranging from “airlines officials” to “witnesses” Scott’s pi: .84 Not available Matthews (2013) Newspaper articles 16 different sources, ranging from “police sources” to “experts” Minimal value for all variables in study: .8 Available Matthews (2016) Newspaper articles 7 different sources, ranging from “friends” to “survivors and witnesses” Not reported Not available Venger (2019) Newspaper articles 8 different sources, ranging from “local experts” to “citations for international newspapers” Rust and Cohen’s PRL reliability index, minimal value of any variable in study: 85 Not available Zhang & Hellmüller (2016) Online news articles 10 different sources, ranging from “ISIS/insurgent groups” to “ordinary people” Krippendorf’s alpha: .8 Available