Files
Abstract
Framing, both within a social movement and in the media, is a key part of the development of social problems. Within newspaper coverage, research has shown that reporting about protests often presents protestors in an unfavorable manner that delegitimizes and marginalizes participants' views. This type of coverage has been termed the protest paradigm. This study employs a qualitative frame analysis to examine framing and the presence of the protest paradigm within Indigenous and mainstream newspaper coverage of the 2016-2017 demonstrations surrounding the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Results suggest that mainstream reporting more frequently employed paradigmatic coverage, emphasizing conflict, confrontation, and sensational elements. Indigenous newspapers cited Native American individuals as claims-makers more often, tended to favor Indigenous perspectives, and provided more context and background information on the situation at hand. Framing within Native American reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline also emphasized treaty rights and sovereignty more than mainstream coverage.