朱思思

Human being is living in a modern society that is closed-connection by the media. Specifically， people access to information from the traditional media and new media in order to know the outline of the community. Meanwhile， they took advantage of interaction of new media to feedback positively. Thus， it is effective to form a healthy and circular information environment. It is hard to imagine the society without media. On the other hand， how should people treat media reports and the news media？ Moreover， how do these events become social problems and how were they been represented？ This essay will present different statements of frames and describe a framework of the constructionist perspective， then attempt to analyses what is the nature of news media， and the process of news reporting in the constructionist perspective. Finally， by examining those of media reports， this essay will evaluate the social roles of them.

It is worthy to mention that there are two major studies to defined social problems. One is named objectivist definitions and another is the constructionist perspective. As Best （1995） claimed that there are not two sides of a coin between objectivism and constructionism， it is a complete two thinking of social problems. For example， objectivist sociologists consider social problems are conditions which affect amount people harmfully； in contrast， constructionists argued that recognizing a social condition whether is a problem or not need some subjective judgment， and they define a social problem as a claims making activity. In fact， sociologists would not like to use the objectivist definitions identifying social problems because that there are little in common among those conditions of specific subjects. As a result， a more advance theory came out that is the constructionist perspective.

By analyzing the reporting of social problems， there is a key word， framework， has to be mention. It is better to state that framing is a worthy study than a pattern of news reporting （DAngelo， 2002； cited in Reese， 2007）. Reese （2007） supported DAngelos statement by pointing out that framing is a “provocative model”， as a bridge， to connect interdisciplinary parts. Furthermore， he said that the diversity of theory has benefited from the process of an integrated understanding. DAngelo （2002） also supplied that framing program is to follow the combinative perspective which constituted by cognition， constructivism， and critique.

It is remarkable that framing is popular in academic researches and public arena （Reese， 2007）. Reese （2007） claimed that framing is associated with framers and has a clear political tendency； however， people link it with media agenda setting quite often. Generally speaking， media agenda setting just focus on the selective content of reporting. Here is a statement can support that the media agenda setting is a fair function of communication. An early researcher， Bernard Cohen stated that it is more likely to achieve success “in telling people what to think about than what to think” （Cohen， 1963； cited in Hansen， 2010： p.19）.

Comparing with media agenda setting， framing focus more on the organized of issues， form of talk， and meanings evolved （Gamson， 1989， 1992； cited in Reese et al. 2001）. In order words， framing is not just telling people what to think about， it also by selecting and silencing reports to emphasize the issues. Hence， framing is playing a crucial actor in shaping the selective reality. In some extent， the audience members might feel less resistance because they find less bias in the news reporting. Moreover， faming is an especially way in getting know about the role of media in communication and news reporting （Reese， 2001）.

After understanding the frame is a tool to structure a series idea and concepts （Hertog and McLeod， 2001； cited in Reese et al. 2001） and to organize principles which are shared by the society （Reese， 2007）， then， the constructionist perspective claims that some problems become defined as social problems only when somebody claims in the public arena， such as the media hub， but not because of the objective conditions （Hansen， 2010； Best， 1995）. In this respect， the constructionist perspective presents a good frame for a theory of social problems whilst objectivism should present a case study to define a social problem （Best， 1995）. Moreover， Spector and Kitsuse （1977； cited in Best， 1995） said that social problems reported by media is a process of an activity and with no relationship with the existence of conditions. Therefore， Best （1995） also claimed that the constructionism provided a general frame for sociologies to analyze social problems. Additionally， Hansen （2010） stated that the constructionist perspective provides a useful framework to analyze the process of news reporting and the construction of social problem， and we should focus on the claims making and the claims makers rather than focus on social conditions. Specifically， what is the purpose of these claims making， how do these claims work， and whom are these claims makers making for.

Different from traditional recognition that the nature of news reporting is objective and accuracy， the constructionists bypass the discussion of news objectivity and accuracy. It is not difficult to imagine that， as Hansen （2010） stated， no one can report the news objective because everyone has own stance. He suggested that if the argument of constructionist perspective is accepted， there is obviously to know that “media， communication and discourse have a central role and should be a central focus for study” （Hansen， 2010： p.18）.

Obviously， people acquire most information is not direct （Adoni and Mane， 1984； Surette， 2007； cited in Hansen， 2010）. For instance， people get most information from books， televisions， Internet， and so on. In other words， the reality we know is represented by media. Media as a particular significant hub and public arena for claims making is playing a crucial role （Hansen， 2010）. However， the media it might be controlled by other power， such as economic， political and news worthiness， and so on. In other words， the media have own stances. Furthermore， the media are both primary claims makers and secondary claims maker who translating claims made by social activists and experts （Best， 1995）. Generally， there are usually three claims-makers， social activists， scientists， and the media， in social problems reporting. Scientists usually make claims to achieve audiences supporting their opinion easier than others because of Academic authority. The media and social activists also need scientists explain some statements which are good for their expectations to reach their goals. Specifically， social activists sometimes need scientists view to interpret their stances， because the opinion of scientists is usually convinced. The media， as claims-makers， often transmit and rebuild the opinion of scientists and social activists in a selective way to present their own willing.

The frequency of media reporting is another importing way for the media to make claims. Political scientists Roger Cobb and Charles Elder （1971， cited in Hansen， 2010） pointed out two or more than two controversial groups who can grasp more chances to claim their own position， who will take control of the situation. The constructionist perspective offers an influential framework for the public to know efforts of media reporting in social problems is also an important reason by attracting the public attention to the issues. For instance， coverage of climate-change and the public attention on climate change have a reasonable relationship （Trumbo， 1996； cited in Hansen， 2010）.

Ibarra and Kitsuse （1993， cited in Hansen， 2010） reiterated that Spector and Kitsuses opinion about social problems as process of claims-making， that language is an important part of reporting. For instance， in the same objective conditions， by using the different discourse and timing to construct social problems， however， there will be a completely different reporting.

This paragraph response to the question that how do claims-makes make claims. As Loseke （2003） stated that there are usually three claims making strategies of news reporting to make audience members to “evaluate a condition as a social problem. The first one is that telling typical stories is a fundamental part of social problems construction （Best， 1995）. For instance， claims-makers give a direction to a problem， and then let the audience members imagine the following blanks. Claims makers do not need to lie， however， the audience members will go straightly to the destination which is settled by claims-makers. The second one is that leading to outstanding consequences， which strategy is better than using typifying stories （Loseke， 2003）. Claims-makers attempt to persuade the audience members by constructing “conditions as containing only horrifying consequences” （Loseke， 2003： p.57）. The third one is making claims at the right time to gain the public and political attentions. It is no one is interested in which claims have been reported for nearly several weeks （Loseke， 2003）.

Finally， according to the framework that is provided by the constructionists， it is easy to see that the social roles of news media are both gate-keepers and claims-makers， and the news reporting are dynamic processes of claims-makings. The constructionist perspective framework offers a dimensional view， which is in claims-makers and claims respect， in dynamic claims-making process， in the way of constructing solutions， for studying the essence， procedures and social status of news media and news communication， Either news media or news reporting is an important element the process of communication. The constructionist perspective framework is really helpful in analyzing dynamics of reporting. Nevertheless， this essay lack of analyses about audience members， which can draw attention on cultural images， myths， metaphors， rhetorical devices.

Reference

[1]Hansen， A. （2010）. Environment， Media and Communication. London： Routledge.

[2]Loseke， D. R. （2003）. Thinking about social problems： An introduction to constructionist perspectives. （2nd ed.）. New York： Aldine de Gruyter.

[3]Best， J. （Ed.）. （1995）. Images of issues： typifying contemporary social problems （2nd ed.）. New York： Aldine de Gruyter.

[4]Reese， S. D. （2007）. The framing project： A bridging model for media research revisited. Journal of Communication， 57（1）， 148-154.