The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Content Analysis of Media Frames: Toward Improving Reliability and Validity
Abstract
The main purpose of this study was to shed light on methodological problems in the content analysis of media frames. After a review of 5 common methods, we will present an alternative procedure that aims at improving reliability and validity. Based on the definition of frames advanced by R. M. Entman (1993), we propose that previously defined frame elements systematically group together in a specific way. This pattern of frame elements can be identified across several texts by means of cluster analysis. The proposed method is demonstrated with data on the coverage of the issue of biotechnology in The New York Times. It is concluded that the proposed method yields better results in terms of reliability and validity compared to previous methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm
Entman, R. M. (1993) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x · Cited by 16,203
Cited by
Shifting the refugee narrative? An automated frame analysis of Europe’s 2015 refugee crisis
Greussing, E., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2017) · Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2017.1282813 · Cited by 464
Negativity in political news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings
Lengauer, G., Esser, F., & Berganza, R. (2012) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/1464884911427800 · Cited by 287
Making sense of text: artificial intelligence-enabled content analysis
Lee, L. W., Dabirian, A., McCarthy, I. P., & Kietzmann, J. (2020) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-02-2019-0219 · Cited by 103
I am not your metaphor: frames and counter-frames in the representation of disability
Goethals, T., Mortelmans, D., Van den Bulck, H., Van den Heurck, W., & Van Hove, G. (2022) · Disability & Society · doi:10.1080/09687599.2020.1836478 · Cited by 38
Between calls for action and narratives of denial: Climate change attention structures on Twitter
Meyer, H., Peach, A. K., Guenther, L., Kedar, H. E., & Brüggemann, M. (2023) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v11i1.6111 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Matthes, J., & Kohring, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 258-279
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2466
- OpenAlex
- W2017878501
- Cited by
- 1,020
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 83.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Content Analysis of Media Frames: Toward Improving Reliability and Validity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x
- The paper
- Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The Content Analysis of Media Frames: Toward Improving Reliability and Validity. Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
