For the three selected years there were a total of 163 news articles of which 100 were randomly selected proportional to the total articles per year (30 of 55 for 1996, 20 of 30 for 2006, and 50 of 83 for 2014.) Selections were made using the random number generator randomizer.org. These articles were the read using the coding rules found in Appendix One. These codes …show more content…
Framing helps define an issue and is an important step in the process of conceptualizing and establishing public problems. In this paper, two frames will be examined, victim blaming and education. Victim blaming is when a victim of a crime (sexual assault) is held responsible (completely or partially) for the crime committed against them. Education demonstrates attempts to inform the public on sexual assault to improve understanding of sexual assault or provide resources/information to the public. Both frames are further defined in Appendix One with complete coding rules. Given the trajectory of discourse as of 2016, it is apparent that there is a small shift from victim blaming to an educational frame. However, victim blaming has not been entirely erased and as such can still be found in news articles, but at a lower rate than previous …show more content…
It is also an interesting year as the scandal was later proven to be built on false accusation and no crime was committed. 2006 saw a 3 percent increase in educational framing and a 5 percent decrease in victim blaming. However, as discussed previously, this also occurred during a decline in media attention to sexual assault. As such, there was not as much significant variance as may have been expected in years of higher reporting levels. Victim blaming often occurred in conjunction with articles on the Duke team and much other discussion was focused on sexual assault in general. The media was centered on this episodic framing but did try to build a narrative of educational framing with it. This changes in 2014 representation the most dramatic growth in framed