Mediating the Red Zone: Tracing Sports Media’s Coverage of the
Ray Rice Case and the Continued Influence of Traditional Media
Paper prepared for presentation at
Midwestern Political Science Association Annual Conference
Chicago, IL
April 13­16, 2015

Please do not cite without permission from the authors.

Holly Jeanine Boux 
Georgetown University 
Hjb22@georgetown.edu 
Megan Ruxton
Colorado State University
Shirley Adelstein
Georgetown University

 Mediating the Red Zone: Tracing Sports Media’s Coverage of the Ray Rice Case and the
Continued Influence of Traditional Media
“This is not sports, it’s storytelling” – Larry Novenstern1

Introduction
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 the National Football League ran a public service 
announcement during the first break of the second quarter of NFL Super Bowl XLIX. This 
public service announcement was composed entirely of the following dialog, set over the scene 
of the interior a house in disarray: 
“I’d like to order a pizza for delivery.”
“Ma’am, you’ve reached 911. This is an emergency line.”
“Yeah, a large with half pepperoni, half mushrooms.”
“Um, you know you’ve called 911? This is an emergency line.”
“Do you know how long it will be?”
“OK, ma’am, is everything OK over there? Do you have an emergency or not?”
“Yes”
“...and you’re unable to talk because?”
“Right, right.”
“Is there someone in the room with you? Just say 'yes' or 'no.'”
“Yes.”
“OK, um, it looks like I have an officer about a mile from your location. Are there any weapons
in your house?”
“No.”
“Can you stay on the phone with me?”
“No. See you soon. Thank you.”2
Though the woman speaking in the commercial initially appeared to be ordering a pizza, it 
quickly became clear that she was reaching out to 911 for help and pretending to order a pizza so
that her abuser would not be aware of what she was actually doing. This commercial ran in stark 
contrast to the other Super Bowl ads, which one usually thinks of as centering around such 

1 This quotation is from Larry Novenstern, whose Deutsch Inc. advertising agency bought significant
Olympic time from CBS (as quoted in Martzke, 2004, 7F)
2 Transcript of this commercial from Huffington Post, 2014.

1

 weighty topics as beer, fast food, and horsepower (using female­nudity as a frequent sales tool 
for all of the aforementioned categories).3 The airing of the No More domestic violence PSA was
particularly extraordinary because it marked the first time ever that a commercial had run during 
the Super Bowl addressing domestic violence and sexual assault (No More, 2015a). Even a year 
before, this would have been a profoundly surprising event. However by the time Super Bowl 
XLIX rolled around, few who had been paying attention to football during the 2014­2015 season 
were particularly startled that the NFL chose to address this issue in such a high profile way. 
The airing of the NFL’s No More campaign ad during Super Bowl XLIX – as well as 
other ads aired as part of the No More campaign – marked a stark recognition on the part of the 
NFL that domestic violence is not just a problem for the individual victims of this type of crime, 
or even just the perpetrators. Instead, these ads adopted a frame that depicted domestic violence 
as a larger cultural issue. This campaign also clearly made the case that those who need to 
concern themselves with solving the problem of domestic violence are also not just women 
and/or victims, but all of us.4 This series does not only highlight the use of the “societal” frame, 
but the use of NFL players in the “Speechless” PSAs also underscores the NFL’s complicity in 
the adoption of this frame.
As studies of the media’s coverage of domestic violence have demonstrated, this 
“cultural” framing of domestic violence is rare. Typically, media discussions of domestic abuse 
3 Indeed, in at least one media market, this sobering look at domestic violence was followed by an 
insurance ad joking about “deflategate” and testicles. It was centered on a blue rubber ball joking that, 
“So, I heard that guys balls were deflated. At least they didn’t look like me.” The insurance company in
question was Cure.com, which ran two ads during the game, both referencing “deflategate” and testicles
(NJ.com, 2015) and was obviously and deeply incongruous with the tone of the domestic violence PSA 
that had run immediately before it (Jezebel, 2015). 
4 It did so quite explicitly in the “Speechless” series of PSAs, which depicted current and former NFL 
players rendered speechless by the domestic violence information, in order to highlight “the powerful
impact these issues have on everyone, and underscore why we, as a society, must start the conversation
about these issues to end them for good” (No More, 2015b).

2

 use an “individual” frame, which places “responsibility for domestic violence on one or more 
individuals in the abusive relationship or on the relationship itself” (Berns, 1999, 89). Since the 
NFL­supported No More campaign deviates so sharply from conventional coverage, we 
wondered: how did we get to a point where domestic violence, NFL players, and the handling of 
the nexus of the two by the NFL itself has become the topic of such widespread conversation – 
not only among feminists, but also by members of prominent sports and regular news media 
outlets – that the NFL felt the need to run a commercial during the Super Bowl condemning this 
type of violence? And how did the “cultural” frame5 – which focuses on how “social attitudes, 
sexism, socialization, violence in the media, societal tolerance of violence, poverty, and family 
structure all help to foster an environment that may encourage or at least tolerate violence” 
(Berns, 1999, 97) – become such an ingrained part of the discussion, that it was the backbone of 
the NFL’s campaign on the issue? 
This paper begins to answer these questions by looking at how similar frames to that 
eventually were used by the No More Campaign emerged across the media over the course of 
2014. It explores these key questions by looking at the attention a single case of domestic 
violence received by traditional media, sports media, and online sources: Ray Rice’s 2014 
domestic violence case. Taking this as our starting point we examine the way that powerful elites
within media outlets framed issues of gender, violence, and race over time in this single case, 
and postulate that the way non­sports media outlets framed this case spread to sports media – 
basically, that in this case study we can see directional intermedia agenda­setting of attribute 
salience. We argue that initially, sports media covered the Ray Rice case largely using the 
“individual” frame. But, after the adoption of more critical frames – including the “sociological” 
5 Rather than the more common “individual” frame.
3

 frame – by other media bodies (including traditional and “new” media), this change in coverage 
changed the media agenda for how this case was going to be covered. Looking at shifts over time
and across media types, we argue that this process pushed the dominant sports media (ESPN, in 
particular) to incorporate cultural, rather than, exclusively individual, frames to their coverage. 
By looking at the shifts in framing that occurred at several critical junctures in this case 
from February to October 2014 we test two hypotheses: firstly, that we will see a shift over time 
in how the media framed the Ray Rice case, and that they coverage will evolve from primarily 
using frames that depicted the incident of violence as one that was largely an individual matter, 
to incorporating discussions of societal and cultural factors in addition to an individual centered­
focus. Secondly, following research on intermedia agenda­setting and the uniquely gendered 
attributes of sports media as compared to other media, we predict that other news sources 
(including well­read blogs as well as more “mainstream” news sources) will be the first ones to 
have adopted these broadened frames and that the sports media’s inclusion of these frames will 
have occurred after the rest of the media set the agenda about the usage of these frames. In doing 
so we make several key contributions to the literature. We build upon the extant literature on 
framing by incorporating a gendered analysis, which examines how media frames change over 
time. Further, we analyze how this change can be traced across media types and how frames 
spread from one type of media to another, and in doing so we incorporate new media types – the 
sports media – into the literature on intermedia agenda­setting. Further, we highlight how in 
today’s fracturing media landscape although sports media’s huge and loyal audience gives them 
increasing influence, when it comes to how an issue is going to be covered, traditional media 

4

 outlets continue to have an important agenda­setting power, and that they continue to powerfully 
transmit attribute salience to other media outlets.
Literature Review 
In this paper, we test the hypotheses that a) the frames used in the coverage of this case 
evolved from a focus on the individuals involved in the case to a more broad focus on society 
and sports as they are implicated in the culture that fails to challenge violence against women 
(VAW), and b) that specific media types (mainstream and major online news blogs – our “new 
media” sources) were the first media institutions to adopt these broader frames while sports 
media’s adoption of broader frames lagged behind. To do so, we investigate media discourse as 
it depicted and described the Ray Rice domestic violence case, and we examine how some media
outlets set the intermedia agenda for other media outlets by leading the way in the usage of the 
types of coverage – or frames – that are used to discuss this story. In forming our first 
hypothesis, about overall media frame change over the course of media coverage of the Ray Rice
domestic violence story we draw together several key bodies of literature: that examining 
gendered frames used by the media to cover VAW, and that which examines media frame 
changing over time. By connecting these literatures, we contribute to them by examining Berns’ 
(1999) “frames of responsibility” not as static, but as evolving over time, and in patterns 
analogous to the spatial frame evolution found by Chyi and McCombs (2004). 
Framing and the Media
A number of definitions of “framing” exist in the extant literature on this issue, but a 
commonly used definition which we also adopt states that a frame is “a central organizing idea or
story line to a controversy that provides meaning to an unfolding series of events, suggesting 

5

 what the controversy is about and the essence of the essence of the issue” (Nisbet, Brossard, and
Kroepsch, 2003, 38 & 42; paraphrasing Gamson and Modigliani, 1989). With the Ray Rice 
domestic violence case, we employ this concept by analyzing how the frames used by the news 
media over the course of 2014 provided evolving story lines to the viewing/reading public and 
also influenced others within the media through intermedia agenda­setting. In focusing upon the 
process of framing we build upon a rich theoretical tradition that emphasizes the power that 
framing has in a variety of institutional locations, including the printed media, television 
(Iyengar, 1994) the judiciary, and others. Within these diverse locations, framing is a process in 
which many actors engage, including government and industry sources, those in the media, and 
other social elites (Nisbet, Brossard, and Kroepsch, 2003). While framing is a useful conceptual 
tool through which to understand how issues are discussed in a variety of institutions, and to 
study the discursive hegemonic power that dominant frames can have within and across these 
locations, in this study we focus primarily upon framing and the news media. Many scholars 
have previously highlighted how “[t]he news is a highly refracted version of reality” (Patterson,
1993, 29) and have used the concepts of framing and agenda setting in order to better understand 
these refractions. Following this literature we conceptualize media influence “in terms of telling 
people what issues to think about and how to think about those issues by presenting them within 
certain frames” (Easteal, Holland, and Judd, 2015, 104).6  In particular, we examine how during 
several critical periods in 2014, certain parts of the American media told other people – including
others in the media – not only that they should think about the Ray Rice case and also told them 
how to think about these issues. McCombs, Lopez-Escobar, and Llamas (2000) illustrate the
6 As others have argued, agenda setting and framing are linked, and “[t]hinking of frames as attributes of
an object [or, in this case, a story] provides the theoretical link between agenda-setting and framing
research” (Chyi and McCombs, 2004, 24).

6

 difference between these two levels of media agenda setting, describing the former as the
transmission of “object salience” (highlighting issues as visible). They describe the latter as the
transmission of “attribute salience,” which highlights certain aspects of these issues as
particularly important for understanding these issues. Because the Ray Rice case was so widely
covered in all types of media during 2014, it is the latter form of agenda setting – intermedia
attribute salience agenda-setting – with which we are most concerned. And, in exploring this 
process with a study of the media’s treatment of the Ray Rice case, we demonstrate that over the 
course of the year, the salient attributes of this story, as highlighted by the media shifted from a 
focus on individual frames to broader cultural ones, and that this was driven by certain media 
outlets while others followed. 
Ultimately, the way issues like these are framed is important because “[b]y selecting 
certain facts from a continuous flow of information, emphasizing specific issues or events over 
others, and presenting issues or events in specific orders, journalists have the ability to influence 
attitudes, beliefs, and behavior in a number of ways” (Li, 2007, 672; Carlyle, Slater, and
Chakroff, 2008; Easteal, Holland, and Judd, 2015).7 The news’ ability to shape popular opinion 
is well­documented (Sellers et al., 2014) as in a “‘mediated democracy,’ the events that take 
place in the policy sphere and the groups that compete in the political system are not only 
mirrored8 (or covered) in the media, but also shaped by the media” (Nisbet, Brossard, and
7 Though we examine these effects as they occur within the media, the effects of framing are as 
widespread as the actors who engage in framing are diverse. Much has been written about the importance 
of this process for ensuring a well­informed population and electorate, and for democracy more generally.
For instance, “[t]heorists posit that a public—unlike a mass of individuals—forms its opinions through a
communicative action (Habermas 1984). Whereas a mere aggregate of individuals forms its political
preferences privately without any necessary awareness of others’ choices, a public forms its preferences
by airing disagreements over collective courses of action, through societal-level discussion” (Nir, 2011,
504).
8 Indeed, they may not only be mirrored, but others have observed how “the process is cyclical in nature:
Public interests and attitudes influence media coverage, and media coverage, in turn, influences public

7

 Kroepsch, 2003. See also Bennett and Entman, 2001). Beyond the media’s effects on public 
opinion, the media’s use of frames and agenda setting is critical because “media logic becomes 
central in the definition of social issues and the practices of other social institutions in such a 
way that the reality that is presented in the media is taken­for­granted as representing the way 
things are and/or what is to be done about them” (Easteal, Holland, and Judd, 2015, 104. See also
Altheide & Snow, 1979). When it comes to gendered issues in particular, certain framings that 
replicate hegemonic patriarchal institutional understandings can be seen as normatively 
problematic, because media storytelling occurs within a gendered landscape and can be 
influenced by cultural gender biases (Easteal, Holland, and Judd, 2015). Building on this, we 
now turn to an examination of how this is profoundly true for the impact that framing has on the 
way we understand violence against women and who is responsible for dealing with VAW, in 
particular. 
News Coverage and the Framing of Violence Against Women9
Previous research has begun to examine how news reports frame issues of domestic 
violence and violence against women (Berns, 1999; Bullock & Cubert, 2002; Carlyle et al.,
2008; McManus & Dorfman, 2003; Wozniak & McCloskey, 2010; Sellers et al., 2014). 
Reflecting the more general findings about the iterative process of framing and the impact it can 
have on society explored above, studies such as Bullock (2007) and Berns (1999) have 
importantly highlighted how media content echoes broader societal beliefs about intimate partner
interests and attitudes; however, framing defines the ways in which these issues are presented in the
media.” (Sellers et al., 2014, 261. See also Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007).
9 It is important to note that, “both men and women engage in a range of abusive behaviors in intimate
relationships, consistent with IPV [intimate partner violence]” (Sellers et al., 2014, 260). However, in this
paper we will frequently be using gendered terms for victims – hence the focus on violence against
women – not only because this reflects the majority of incidents of domestic violence and because the
specific case study we are examining herein (the Ray Rice domestic violence case) is gendered in this
way, where Ray Rice was the aggressor and his wife the victim of physical abuse.

8

 violence (Sellers et al., 2014, 262. See also Bullock, 2007; Demers, 1996; Dunwoody & Griffin,
1999; Easteal, Holland, and Judd, 2015). Ultimately, understanding the ways that the media 
frames violence against women is particularly important because “it tells us how society views 
male acts of violence directed at women, delimiting what may be acceptable or unacceptable 
behavior” (Meyers, 1997, 3 as cited in Rothman et al., 2012, 734) and because “news media 
reporting contributes to the cultural context in which judges, other legal and law enforcement 
professionals, victims/survivors and the wider community negotiate and seek to advance their 
particular frames and viewpoints” (Easteal, Holland, and Judd, 2015, 105).10 
Overall, the American news media has been framing VAW since at least the mid­1970s. 
When social awareness of domestic violence started growing as domestic violence shelters were 
established in the US alongside a feminist push to get these issues on the media agenda, it 
culminated in “news media’s ‘discovery’ of domestic violence in 1973” (Enck-Wanzer, 2009, 4).
During the 40­year period since this “discovery,” a multitude of frames have been used by 
various media outlets to explore this issue, as “journalistic accounts of domestic violence have 
surfaced in news sections spanning from ‘human interest’ to the ‘crime beat’” (Enck-Wanzer,
2009, 4) reflecting how “[e]ven within patriarchal systems, competing views exist” (Bullock,
2007, 34).

10 Other scholars have noted that the impacts of media framing as it relates to domestic violence and
violence against women, in particular, go beyond the ones noted above. Bullock (2007) makes the case
that problematic or inaccurate coverage “may serve as a comforting signal to readers that domestic
violence couldn’t happen to them, that the proper authorities already have domestic violence under
control, and that no individual or public action is necessary” (Bullock, 2007, 52-53) – and thus undermine
efforts to build a more effective and strong response to this problem. Similarly, Sellars et al. (2014)
effectively points to the diffuse impact this might have in noting that this type of coverage could well
“undermine efforts to change public policy and consciousness and potentially reduce funding for IPV
research and prevention campaigns…[and for readers who are victims of IPV] victim blaming through
individually framed newsprint reports can only serve to reduce the likelihood they will seek help” (Sellers
et al., 2014, 273; see also Bullock & Cubert, 2002; Carlyle et al., 2008; McManus & Dorfman, 2003).

9

 Despite this wide variance, and the variety of frames that could be used to frame 
domestic violence, scholars studying how the media frames the issues of VAW and domestic 
violence have converged upon the importance of several key frames related to violence against 
women: those that relate to culpability, or that frame the issue in a way that points to who bears 
responsibility for domestic violence.11 This is a particularly important frame to explore because it
is reflective of how all discussions of violence against women incorporate “implicitly or 
explicitly, specific ideas about who is responsible for domestic violence and what, if anything, 
should be done in response to the violence” (Berns, 1999, 86). In his analysis, Berns notes that 
there are four different ways to attribute responsibility for domestic violence, and lists four 
corresponding frames examined in his analysis, which broaden from least inclusive (attributing 
responsibility for domestic violence solely to the individuals involved) to the most inclusive 
(attributing a wider range of actors responsible for domestic violence to include not only the 
individual, but also more societal level institutions). 
“Those four frames are: (1) individuals, i.e., the victims and/or abusers involved, (2) 
institutions, such as the legal and medical systems, (3) cultural and structural factors, 
such as societal attitudes, gender role socialization, and the economy, and (4) an 
integrated analysis focusing on the interactions among individual, institutional, and 
cultural and structural factors. I use the term “frame of responsibility” to describe the way
responsibility is assigned in these articles” (Berns, 1999, 87)12
11 It should be noted that these are not the only frames related to media coverage of violence against
women that have been explored in the literature. For instance, an alternate set of frames is identified by
Bullock (2007), who found “three frames used by the media in its storytelling: a dry and impersonal ‘law
enforcement/legal system’ frame; a second frame suggesting ‘those involved in domestic violence are
inherently different from other people’; and a third frame which ‘emphasises that these deaths affect
people other than the victim and perpetrator, such as their children, other family members, and friends as
well as members of their community’ (Bullock, 2007: 46–49; cited by Easteal, Holland, and Judd, 107).
Similarly, Rothman et al. (2012), “conducted a content analysis of the media frames of the articles using 5
frame categories: (a) abuse is objectionable, (b) victim-blaming, (c) abuse is sexualized/romanticized, (d)
myths about abuse perpetration, and (e) abuse is normalized” (Rothman et al., 2012, 733). We focus upon
Berns (1999)’s frames in this analysis because of how commonly they are used in the extant literature,
and because they are particularly relevant to the Ray Rice case.
12 The use of these frames is not only illuminating as far as understanding media portrayals of domestic
violence are concerned, they’re also important for praxis, as “[t]he frame of responsibility impacts what

10

 Importantly, for the purposes of this study, Berns (1999) explicitly includes sports culture in the 
third type of frame – those that hold “culture and structural factors” responsible for domestic 
violence: 
“Another theme in the cultural frame of responsibility is the “sports culture.” In the midst
of the media blitz regarding the O.J. Simpson case, Redbook featured an article on 
athletes and wife abuse. In “Why Sports Heroes Abuse Their Wives,” Joan Ryan reports 
cases of prominent athletes involved in domestic violence and the connection between 
their professional and private behaviors. She also points out that the sports culture makes 
it easier for abusers to “get away with abuse” because of their celebrity status.” (Berns, 
1999, 98)
Berns’ research into culpability­related frames found that these four frames of responsibility are 
not distributed equally among news coverage. Rather, these stories overwhelmingly tend to 
frame gendered violence using individual frames, as they simultaneously obfuscate the 
institutional components of this violence (Enck-Wanzer, 2009).13 
Since Berns (1999) published his seminal exploration into these culpability frames, much
of the research focusing on the media’s framing of violence against women as a private, rather 
than a societal problem, has followed suit. Berns (1999) looked exclusively at the coverage this 
issue received in women’s magazines and, as noted above, demonstrated that the majority of 
articles in these types of magazines depict domestic violence as a private problem.14 But this 
finding – that the individuals involved in the specific cases (victims and assailants) of domestic 
violence are the overwhelming focus of news reports on VAW, rather than underlying cultural or
solutions are suggested (e.g., women leaving the abusive relationship, tougher punishment for abusers).
Therefore, even though there may be similarities in articles across the frames, the solutions that are called
for-either explicitly or implicitly-point to who is being held responsible for stopping domestic violence”
(Berns, 1999, 87).
13 They usefully reformulate this to note that “news accounts typically minimize any focus on hegemonic
masculine entitlement and thus, deny a demand of wider cultural urgency” (Enck-Wanzer, 2009, 4).
14 Berns (1999) found three quarters of the articles used the individual media frame, only a fifth used an
institutional frame, a paltry 5 articles used the cultural/structural frame and only 2 the integrated frame.

11

 institutional factors – has been echoed across several studies that look at other types of media 
(Bullock and Cubert (2002); McManus and Dorfman (2003); Bullock (2007); Rothman et al. 
(2012); Sellers et al. (2014); Easteal, Holland, and Judd (2015)). Following the findings of these 
studies, we examine the prevalence of these four culpability­related frames: the individual frame,
the institutional frame, the cultural and structural factor frame, and the integrated frame as they 
were used by the news media as it covered critical junctures15 in the Ray Rice domestic violence 
case during 2014. In doing so, our analysis, for the first time, addresses the way that sports 
media, in particular, has framed issues of domestic violence using culpability frames. While we 
examine other types of media as well, the investigation of this specific type of media contributes 
to the literature built by those such as Berns (1999), Bullock (2007), Sellers et al. (2014). It also 
expands the current literature by looking not only at the use of these frames at a single point in 
time as Berns (1999) and others do, but by assessing their use over time. Thus, this paper 
expands upon previous findings by looking at how traditional and sports­related media used 
these four specific frames in a way that changed and evolved over time. 
Frame Evolution in the Media
Recently, the literature on framing and the news has begun to look at frames not as a 
constant, but, recognizing that journalists apply different frames over the life­span of a story, as 
evolving over time through a process known as “frame changing” (Muschert and Carr, 2006; Li, 
2007). This nascent research has examined media frame changing as is has occurred on a variety 
of newsworthy issues, including police brutality (Lawrence, 2000) and key public policy issues 
15 The use of critical junctures in this coverage, rather than looking at the entirety of 2014 reflects
previous the episodic coverage that this story received. Indeed, as 2014 wore on, the Ray Rice case came
into and out of media attention, generally as key pieces of information about the case – particularly, the
release of videos of the incident – were released to the public, and as the NFL responded to these events.

12

 (Gilens, 1999; Jacobs & Shapiro, 2000). Specifically relevant to media framings of VAW, 
several studies have found that coverage of this issue has changed over time. For instance, in 
examining how the use of a “best practices handbook on reporting domestic violence murders 
affected the coverage of this topic [Ryan, Anastario, and DaCunha (2006)]…found that the 
handbook helped media portrayals increase their depiction of IPV as a social problem warranting
public intervention (Ryan et al., 2006, as cited in Sellers et al, 2014, 263). Other research has 
similarly found that “patterns of sexist discourse in news media reporting of rape may be 
changing as a result of more gender­sensitive journalism training and the presence of female 
journalists, but that problems persist (Worthington, 2008)” (Easteal, Holland, and Judd, 2015, 
108). Results such as these importantly highlight how media treatment of VAW is not always 
unified, but that instead the “media can express alternative ideas about domestic violence and 
draw attention to it as a broader social issue” (Bullock, 2007, 41). However, this research has not
examined this type of frame changing during the reporting of a single story, rather, it has focused
upon broad VAW­related coverage over a significant amount of time. We, instead, focus upon 
shifting frame dynamics as they occur within coverage of a specific news event. While scholars 
of VAW have generally focused on framing at a single point in time or over the issues general 
evolution within the American media, they have largely ignored the temporal evolution of these 
frames as they relate to a single story. 
In focusing our analysis upon frame evolution during a single news story, we build upon 
several key studies that have examined the dynamics behind media frame changing. Following 
Downs’ early study of the “issue­attention cycle,”16 scholars such as Muschert and Carr (2006) 
16 Downs’ “issue-attention cycle” (Downs, 1972) described how “topics/problems emerge, gain public 
interest, and fade away, only to be replaced by other topics capturing the public interest” and is 
considered to be an early examination of “the temporal element in issue salience within the news” 

13

 and Chyi and McCombs (2004) have built upon this work, finding that the news media frames 
and reframes a news event over the course of it’s coverage, and arguing that this process is 
critical to understand because “by selecting and changing frames of coverage among and within 
news events, mass media producers influence the nature of reality presented to the public” 
(Muschert and Carr, 2006, 748). In this literature several classifications have been used to 
describe how frames evolve over time,17 but in this article we build upon Chyi and McCombs’ 
scheme for analyzing the frame changing process. It examines how news frames of an event 
change over time along two continua – spatial and temporal18 (Chyi and McCombs, 2004).  They
originally built this scheme to examine variations in coverage of school shooting events, and 
found, looking at the New York Times’ coverage of these types of events19 that it used a variety of
frames over time, and engaged in frame­changing to keep the story fresh (Chyi and McCombs, 
2004). Rather than examining both dimensions Chyi and McCombs use, we focus on the “space 
dimension” in our analysis. This is because it most clearly relates to the literature on media 
framing of VAW’s findings about the frequency of usage of culpability frames, and because the 
attribution of responsibility and risk mitigation for the future are also implicitly a part of the 
Berns (1999) frames. Specifically, Chyi and McCombs’ space dimension includes the following 
frames:
(Muschert and Carr, 2006, 748). 
17 Iyengar, for instance, discussed frame evolution over time using episodic and thematic framing of 
public issues (Iyengar, 1994).
18 Though we will not incorporate it into our analysis, for readers that are curious: the “time dimension
referred to the temporal focus of the discourse, whether an article discussed the past, present, or future
relevance of a shooting event. Categories included the past orientation, including discussions of past
events and history; discussion of present events, such as the incidents themselves or their immediate
impacts; and predictions about future developments, including future steps that might be undertaken to
mitigate the risk of additional incidents. Taken together, the spatial and temporal dimensions allow for the
examination of changing frames of coverage over time” (Muschert and Carr, 2006, 750).
19 The New York Times is the only new source analyzed in Chyi and McCombs (2004).

14

 “The space dimension referred to the spatial focus of the discourse, which ranged 
potentially from a micro focus on an individual to the macro scale of focusing on the 
international. For its application to school shooting incidents, the individual focus 
referred to a discussion of the individual participants such as perpetrators and victims. 
The international focus applied to discussions of the impact of the incident on countries 
outside the U.S. In addition to the micro and macro extremes on the space dimension, 
there were three intermediary categories, including, from smallest to largest, community, 
regional, and societal. These three categories applied to discussions involving their 
respective spatial foci.” (Muschert and Carr, 2006, 749­750)
Applying this scheme to an analysis of news reports about school shootings, they find a 
frame­changing pattern which “indicates a shift in focus from the specific to the general – from 
reports on personal details to discussion of violence as a social problem” (Chyi and McCombs, 
2004, 29).20  These frames – ranging from the narrow individual frame, and expanding to 
community, region, and societal, and to international – align elegantly with Berns’ (1999) frames
about attribution of responsibility. In light of this, Chyi and McCombs’ findings, that the media’s
usage of these frames is uneven as individual frames dominate at the start of coverage but other 
frames are increasingly used over time, lead us to ask the question of whether we will see a 
similar evolution when media framings of the Ray Rice case are analyzed. As such, we use Berns
(1999) frames to build upon Chyi and McCombs findings, and our first hypothesis, also 
visualized in Figure 1, is the following: 
H1: across news coverage, we will see an overall frame­changing pattern where initially 
individual frames are used, but later in the coverage of the Ray Rice case, broader frames 
will be adopted (though we also expect that there will be continued usage of the 
individual frames in later coverage)
**Figure 1 about here**

20 This is supported by Muschert and Carr (2006), who similarly found that “[t]he pattern of frame­

changing suggests that immediately following a school shooting incident the media focus equally on the 
individuals involved, the community, and the social importance of the event, but over time, the focus 
increasingly shifts away from individuals to the societal level” (754).

15

 Framing and Sports Media 
Our first hypothesis tests the overall trajectory of media coverage of the Ray Rice story 
and whether we see a dominance of individual frames at the start of this coverage, followed by a 
shift over time to a greater focus on societal frames. Our second hypothesis builds upon this 
preliminary question. Here we take a more nuanced look at media frame change by 
disaggregating our data by media type in order to assess which media was responsible for driving
the overall changes in coverage examined in Hypothesis 1. In formulating this second 
hypothesis, we turn to two main literatures: that which examines the gendered institutional 
culture and coverage of several prominent types of media (including “new” and “old” non­sports 
media and “new” and “old” sports media21), and the nascent literature on intermedia agenda­
setting. 
Gender and the culture of media institutions
Previous evidence assessing media coverage has found that it is often profoundly 
gendered (Devere and Davies, 2006), 22 and that in particular, this is the case with coverage of 
women seeking public office (Kahn, 1994a; Kahn, 1994b; Kahn and Goldenberg, 1991; Aday 
and Devitt, 2001; Banwart, Bystrom, and Robertson, 2003; Gidengil and Everitt, 2000). This 
body of evidence has also demonstrated how this biased coverage is normatively problematic 
because it can reinforce preexisting gender stereotypes (Atkeson and Krebs, 2008; Carlin and 
Winfrey, 2009). Looking across media types, evidence is mixed concerning whether the 
traditional media bias against female candidates has been improving. Some studies indicate that 
21 Definitions vary of what counts as “new” versus “old” media (for instance some studies make this
division only according to method of access – online versus print; while others include level of editorial
filtration (Heldman, Oliver, and Conroy, 2009). For the purposes of this study, we include newspapers and
television broadcasts in the “old” media category, and internet-only news sources as “new” media.
22 Following Devere and Davies (2006) we define “gendered” coverage as that which highlights “a
person’s gender, when this is not particularly relevant to the context” (Devere and Davies, 2006, 65).

16

 while “media biases toward women candidates still exist, it does appear that coverage is
becoming more equitable” (Banwart, Bystrom, and Robertson, 2003, 660; Rausch et al., 1999;
Smith, 1997; Jalazai, 2006; Kittilson and Fridkin, 2008). Conversely, others have found that
evidence of media gender bias remains (Cantrell and Bachmann, 2008; Ross, 2002; Fowler and
Lawless, 2009). Reflecting the arguments of the latter, when looking at studies that assess
gendered coverage of specific types of media, we continue to see evidence of gender-bias. For
instance, in covering the 2008 presidential campaigns, both television and print journalists (“old”
media) used problematically gendered language to discuss both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin,
as anchors on CNN, ABC, and CNBC, as well as columnists from The Washington Post, all
fixated on these candidates’ physical appearance rather than their policy positions (Carlin and
Winfrey, 2009; see also Fortini, 2008). This gendered coverage was also found in “new” media
coverage of this campaign, indicating that gendering of the news persists across media platforms
(Heldman, Oliver, and Conroy, 2009). Indeed, though the most extreme sexist coverage that
Sarah Palin received during the 2008 campaign was found in old media, the sexist coverage she
received in the new media’s coverage of the 2008 election let Heldman, Oliver, and Conroy
(2009) to remark that
“the advent of New Media is not a good omen for female candidates. Without editorial
filters and the outward pursuit of objectivity, the misogyny quotient in new media
increases significantly. Overt, antagonistic sexism and negative coverage are amplified
for female candidates in this medium compared to print media coverage” (Heldman,
Oliver, and Conroy, 2009, 25).
Thus, we can see gendered coverage in both “old” and “new” media, especially when it comes to
the coverage of female candidates for office (upon whom much of this research is focused). 
While both old and new non­sports media display problematic gender biases in their 
coverage, sports media has been found to be even more gender biased in its reporting (Scott­

17

 Chapman, 2012).23 Critically, those researching gendered agenda setting and framing within the 
sports media underline that they seem to be the product of a cultural issue within the sports 
media establishment, rather than just caused by a few sexist reporters. Eastman and Billings 
(2000) perhaps put the systematic underpinnings of this sexist coverage of the sports media in 
the starkest of terms when they note that, “[a]lthough sexism of any kind is increasingly less 
acceptable in public discourse in America, there are sportscasts that seem to speak a private, 
male­only language and operate rather as private clubs for men” (192). Gendered inequities have
been found in both the amount of coverage female vs. male athletes receive (object salience) as 
well as in the way that these athletes are covered (attribute salience). Regarding the former, a 
clear gap in the coverage of women’s versus men’s sports has been extensively documented, as 
women’s sports receive very little coverage compared to the huge amount of coverage men’s 
sports receive (Hardin & Shain, 2005; Women’s Sports Foundation, 2011; Duncan & Messner, 
1994; Messner & Cooky, 2010; Schmidt, 2013).24 Specifically, during ESPN’s SportsCenter and 
CNN’s SportsNight women’s sports only received 5% of all coverage within both programs 
(Tuggle, 1997).
As with non­sports media, the transmission of object salience (here, the salient objects 
being male athletes and men’s athletic competition, rather than all athletics and athletes) is not 
the only way that the sports media tells those that consume its products what to think. Evidence 
of framing effects (or attribute salience) as sports media organizations and journalists guide 

23 This is not only true for sports media but also for American sports themselves, which have been found 
to be very androcentric, as “athletics represents a sexist male view of the world, thereby pontificating 
certain claims of male supremacy and perpetuating masculine hegemony” (Welch, 1997, 394).
24 To quantify this more specifically, a Pew Research study found that on an average day, a mere 3% of 
newspaper sports stories are about women’s sports teams, while 5% focus on individual women athletes 
(Pew Research Center, 2005). 

18

 public interpretation of sports­related events has also been found (Eastman and Billings, 2000; 
Bishop, 2005; Sanderson, 2010). The effect of this type of framing is especially evident when it 
comes to sports media’s coverage of gendered issues. Scholars of sports media and framing have 
observed that media attention to women athletes often forces them into stereotypical gender roles
(Schmidt, 2013), and supports the maintenance of sport as a masculine domain (Creedon, 1994; 
Toffoletti, 2007; Messner et al., 2000)25 which empowers male perspectives while subordinating 
female ones (Scott­Chapman, 2012).26 This type of gendered framing effect also extends to 
sports media’s coverage of “off­the­field” issues, like athletes who are accused of committing 
acts of violence against women. 
The Framing of Violence Against Women and In Sports Media
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the strict gender roles reinforced by traditional sports 
media establishments, this media has not always been at the forefront of the ongoing public 
debate that has occurred in recent years related to the seeming frequency with which male 
athletes assault women (Crosset et al., 1996)27. Much of the popular debate on the nexus of VAW
and sports has been driven by high profile cases of VAW committed by famous athletes that 

25 The enforcement of traditional gender roles is not exclusive to the way that female athletes are framed,

this process also extends and boxes in male athletes. Observing this, Messner et al. (2000) have argued 
that, in particular, “televised sports, and their accompanying commercials, consistently present boys with 
a narrow portrait of masculinity, which we call the Televised Sports Manhood Formula…[that] presents 
boys with narrow and stereotypical messages about race, gender, and violence” (381).
26 Other researchers have also confirmed these findings. For instance, Eastman and Billings (2000) found
that “personalities are attributed to men athletes, and thus they get nicknames, whereas women athletes
usually do not” (206-8), “men’s failure is proportionately more often attributed to a supposed lack of
athletic skill, whereas women’s failure more often (proportionately) was attributed to alleged lack of
commitment” (208) and “the dating habits and families of women athletes were referred to more often
than those of men” (208). Similarly, Daddario (1994) found that when discussing female athletes
sportscasters used stereotypical descriptors that ultimately denigrated and undercut the athletic
performances and achievements of these women.

19

 have made headlines over the past couple of decades (Welch, 1997).28 Observing the intersection
of physical sports with off­the­field violence against women, scholars have argued that, 
“[b]eyond a focus on athletes, what is needed is a thorough examination of the relationship 
between athletics and violence against women. Such an investigation, we believe, should situate 
the problem in its historical, institutional, and interactional contexts” (Crosset et al., 1996, 175). 
Enck­Wanzer (2009) makes a similar argument, which connects sports to broader patriarchal and
racist structures, and highlights how professional sports and sports media are “specific arms of a 
larger misogynist (and racist and classist) structure that serve to undermine women’s abilities to 
escape abuse on a variety of levels” (14). Here, Crosset et al. (1996) and Enck­Wanzer (2009) 
are fundamentally advocating for the adoption of the cultural frame on the part of the sports 
media in its discussions of violence against women. But, the sports media hasn’t picked up this 
torch29 to critically investigate the way that sports culture has reinforced this violence against 
27 This study usefully notes that this is not a phenomenon made up by the media. It argues instead, “the
contention that athletes’ violence against women only appears by the media is not supported by the
findings. The findings of this research indicate the existence of a problem” (Crosset et al., 1996, 175).
28 By focusing on these cases, rather than other cases of athlete violence against women, “news accounts
of offenders focus largely on instances of black male sports figures who physically abuse their female
(and often white) partners” (Enck-Wanzer, 2009, 2). This not only problematically allows white
aggressors to often fly under the radar when they commit VAW, but further, “when black men and male
athletes are cast repeatedly in the media as naturally more aggressive, a particular cultural production of
knowledge about domestic violence is generated at the nexus of racism and sport as they are
circumscribed onto the convenient villain of the black male athlete” (Enck-Wanzer, 2009, 3). We focus on
a single, extremely high profile case of VAW in this paper, which has the effect of holding race constant.
However, we note that the victim and perpetrator in what was undoubtedly the most highly discussed case
of athlete-perpetrated VAW in 2014 were both African American, and that the media’s focus on this case
in particular, while there were several noted cases where white players committed VAW were the source
of almost zero media attention is, inherently, problematic because of the way that it reinforces the
incorrect, and racist perspective that certain men “fit the mold of pathologized monster much more 
readily than others. And those who are left beyond suspicion in this model are those who embody 
hegemonic (white) masculinity” (Enck­Wanzer, 2009, 13).
29 Conversely, the sports media has sometimes used almost comically poor framings when discussing
VAW. As Enck and Wanzer (2009) observed, “[i]n an effort to contextualize domestic violence for sports
enthusiasts, a Sports Illustrated special report notes, ‘For years battering was perceived not as a criminal
matter, like mugging and armed robbery, but as a phenomenon that belonged in the intimate realm of the
hearth, like making love or Christmas cookies’” (7).

20

 women. Conversely, sports media at home and abroad have excused male violence against 
women – including both domestic and sexual violence30 – depicting violence as a largely 
excusable quality inherent to male athletes (Easteal et al., 2015), and an individual, rather than 
cultural phenomenon (Toffoletti, 2007). 
While little research into the way that the sports media has framed specific incidents of 
male athlete violence against women has been conducted in the American context, several 
Australian studies are illuminating for their analysis of this matter. In particular, Toffoletti’s 
(2007) study of the media coverage of Australian Rules football players who committed a high 
profile incident of sexual violence against women usefully depicts how sports media 
problematically treats not only female athletes, but also other women – which is relevant to the 
Ray Rice case as the victim in the case was his wife, and not an athlete. Looking at frames 
similar to Berns’ (1999), she finds that, as was the case with types of media, including women’s 
magazines (Berns, 1999), daily newspapers (Consalvo, 1998), and local t.v. news (Meyers, 
1997), in the coverage of this incident of VAW, sports media’s coverage was largely focused 
upon individuals and their responsibility, rather than changing broader attitudes towards VAW in
sports (Toffoletti, 2007). 
Taken together, we use this research to make predictions about when and why the four 
relevant media types – “new” and “old” non­sports media, and “new” and “old” sports media – 
will use Berns’ (1999) frames of responsibility. We predict that the old non­sports media’s shift 
away from individual frames will occur before new media outlets of both the sports and non­
sports variety, though because of these media types’ gendered structure of news production (van 
Zoonen, 1994; Gidengil and Everitt, 2003), we do not think the adoption of the institutional, 
30 Which can obviously, but do not necessarily, overlap.
21

 cultural/social, or integrated frames will be immediate. Because of sports media’s even more 
gendered news production environment we predict that it would be even more reticent to adopt 
these critical frames. Furthering the sports media’s reticence to adopt a frame of responsibility 
that places blame for VAW going unchallenged upon sports culture or sports institutions is the 
“symbiotic relationship” (Pedersen, 2002, 304 as cited in Scott­Chapman, 2012, 109) between 
sports organizations and the sports media. Sports events – like NFL games – have become very 
lucrative for the media (Scott­Chapman, 2012). While their popularity means that they are 
important for drawing in viewers and readers to non­sports media (Rowe, 2007), for media 
organizations this importance is intensified. Sports media rely on their access to athletes, sports 
venues, and coaches in order to be able to report the stories which make up the bulk of their 
business, and as such, the economic imperatives to not lay blame for violence against women at 
the feet of those granting them this access is obvious.
Intermedia agenda setting 
The literature on gendered media coverage and institutional structure, allows us to predict
that sports media will be most reticent to incorporate frames other than the “individual” frame 
into their coverage of the Ray Rice story. Historically, this seems to have been the approach to 
covering VAW that the sports media has taken, as ESPN’s coverage of VAW as it relates to 
prominent athletes has been problematic or minimal, and anecdotal evidence points to a 
predominant “individual” frame in their coverage.31 Yet, by September 2014 an ESPN-hosted
31 One particularly egregious example of this in relation to another high profile athlete (allegedly) 

assaulting a woman was the following comment from Skip Bayless: “Remember Kobe pre­Eagle, 
Colorado? He failed in his first sneaker deal because he was just too clean cut and I think it was Adidas 
that had him first, correct me if I’m wrong, but he couldn’t sell sneakers because he didn’t have enough 
edge,” Bayless said. “But then post­Eagle, Colorado it brought a little attention to him, like it gave him a 
little bit of sizzle.” (Waldron, “ESPN Commentator: Rape Allegation Gave Kobe Bryant ‘Sizzle’” 
ThinkProgress, Oct. 21, 2014)

22

 “NFL Sunday Countdown roundtable addressed the league’s responsibility in addressing
domestic violence Sunday morning” (McMurry, 2014). Though problematic, this was a marked
shift to the cultural/structural frame, and away from earlier coverage, where Stephen A. Smith
discussed the case by blaming victims of domestic violence and noting that “[w]e also have to
make sure that we learn as much as we can…about elements of provocation" (Ley, 2014). So, 
what changed during the Ray Rice case that caused the sports media to change it’s framing? 
Why, despite the incentives to stay away from these broader frames (noted above) do we predict 
that the sports media eventually incorporated the institutional, cultural/social, and integrated 
frames into their coverage?32 In evaluating this question we follow others, who have argued that 
“[a]udience size and exposure may be less the issue than the kind of subtle modeling that occurs 
within the field of journalism” (Eastman and Billings, 2000, 210). More specifically, we argue 
that the answers to these questions lie in the power of intermedia agenda setting.
Intermedia agenda setting is based on the idea that there is no single media agenda, rather
there are many (Walgrave et al., 2004), yet some media outlets are able to more powerfully 
shape these agenda than others. At its most basic, intermedia agenda setting “explains the flow of
influence among media entities” (Meraz, 2011, 178). Studies have found that elite news outlets –
particularly the New York Times – function as agenda setters for less elite outlets such as national
television news (Reese and Danielian, 1989; Bartels, 1996; Golan, 2006; Atkinson et al., 2014),
local television and print news (Protess and McCombs, 1991), and can even spill over to agenda
setting in politics. Intermedia agenda setting can also function across the “new”/”old” media

32 Besides the well-publicized anecdotal evidence of this frame-change, like the ESPN round table,
mentioned above.

23

 divide; generally traditional media (newspapers, etc) set the agenda for non-traditional (e.g.
“new” media like blogs), but studies have also found the reverse (Meraz, 2011; Wallsten, 2007).33
As with media influence more generally, intermedia agenda setting can also happen at
both the issue salience and attribute salience stages, though little research has been done in
relation to the latter. Here, Denham (2014)’s exploration of intermedia attribute salience agenda
setting in relation to coverage of horseracing is particularly instructive. Denham (2014) looked
not only at which stories were being reported across media outlets, but at how prominent news
organizations influenced the way that this story was covered in other outlets. Examining the way
that coverage in the New York Times influenced reporting in the Albuquerque Journal, the Los
Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, as well as broadcast radio and television outlets (CNN,
NBC, and NPR), he found that the New York Times not only transferred object salience but it also
affected how news organizations frame their stories, and ultimately offered “some evidence that a
prominent news organization can transfer attribute salience to other outlets” (Denham, 2014, 30).
Curiously, though Denham (2014) investigated intermedia agenda setting on a story
about sports, none of the news outlets examined in his analysis were sports media outlets. None
of the influence measured was on horseracing – or other sports – news outlets. This is an
important difference, because horseracing (and general sports) media probably have substantially
more expertise in reporting issues related to horseracing, and thus potentially could have relied to
a far lesser extent on the New York Times for information on this issue than the media sources
Denham examined. He does, very briefly, mention that writers for both Sports Illustrated and
ESPN cited the Times in online commentaries, which provides very anecdotal evidence that a
similar exploration that includes sports media could be warranted, but does not look further into
33 That there is much correlation and agenda setting found between “old” and the largest of “new” nonsports media outlets is perhaps unsurprising, as many former journalists have become bloggers in some of
the most prominent online news sources, such as the Huffington Post (Meraz, 2011; Heim, 2010).

24

 this expanded media landscape. Indeed, no research could be found on how non-sports media
does or does not set the intermedia attribute salience agenda for sports media. Does the New York
Times’ agenda setting power carry over to sports stories and sports media, who are arguably more
experienced reporters of this type of news than the Times? Currently, this is an unknown. Our
study fills this gap in the literature by examining the influence of non-sports media (both “new”
and “old”) on sports media outlets that, at least in theory, should have greater expertise in
reporting on sports-related stories, such as those that involve star football players like Ray Rice,
and therefore should be more resistant to the Times’ hegemony.
Intermedia attribute salience agenda setting and changing sports coverage 
While not directly addressing intermedia attribute salience agenda setting, the work of 
scholars who study gendered sports media reporting leads us to be optimistic that old media’s 
agenda setting power could impact sports media reporting. Some scholars, such as Eastman and 
Billings (2000) are not optimistic about sports media following other media’s reporting to 
becoming less gender­biased.34 However, it makes economic sense that the sports media would 
be sensitive to this type of reframing, and of criticisms that they are being gender­insensitive (to 
put it mildly). For one, women comprise a significant and increasing segment of the sports­
viewing population (Hardin & Shain, 2005; Schmidt, 2013), so sports media outlets would be 
concerned at this potential loss of viewership. Further, though it may be even more gendered in 
its coverage than non­sports reporting, there are no overwhelming reasons to think that sports 
media – uniquely – won’t evolve in their coverage of gendered issues. For instance, we predict 
34 They specifically note that the influence of some media coverage should influence other journalists to 
take a more gender­sensitive approach “except perhaps on certain programs with narrowly defined target 
audiences. Although ESPN claims that a large portion of SportsCenter’s viewers are women, the presence
of this audience has not yet influenced the little­boy’s club attitude revealed on SportsCenter” (Eastman 
and Billings, 2000, 210­211).

25

 that like sports media, The New York Times’ reporting of the Ray Rice story will also begin with 
predominant use of the individual frame. This reflects previous findings about frame­change, and
which changes are typically used first, and the fact that like the sports media, the Times coverage
of sports and gender has been sexist in its coverage of female athletes – in one study, it was 
found that “men received almost 5 times as much space as women in USA Today and a 
staggering 10 times as much space as women in The New York Times” (Eastman and Billings, 
2000, 202). But, though the sports media has more incentives to avoid the use of broader frames 
than the Times, like the Times, sports media institutions and stories have been found to be 
flexible, and “can also function to resist, interrogate and transform dominant beliefs and 
attitudes” (Toffoletti, 2007, 435), rather than just reinforcing these narratives. 
Based on the literatures about the gendered nature of media institutions – particularly 
sports media institutions – and about the powerful influence of intermedia agenda setting, we 
predict that forms of media outside the sports media will be the first to incorporate frames that 
hold others than the individuals involved with the specific case (the Rices) responsible for VAW,
but that large sports media institutions will eventually follow suit. Further, based on Meraz’s 
arguments that “though many elite political bloggers now gain first-hand access to sources, most
elite traditional media entities still remain in a better structural position to break news and
conduct investigative reporting on their online news websites due to their professional affiliation
to the newsroom.” (Meraz, 2011, 179), we expect traditional non-sports news sources –
particularly newspapers – to be the first to adopt cultural/social and institutional frames, and that
because of the intermedia agenda setting power of these outlets, this framing will be adopted by
“new” media sources (both sports and non-sports “new” media), followed by the eventual

26

 adoption of these broader frames by the sports media. As such, our second hypotheses are the 
following: 
H2a: Compared to other news, we expect non­sports “old” news outlets to be the first to shift 
away from an exclusive use of the individual frame of analysis, and to adopt broader frames 
earlier than the sports media. 
H2b: We expect new media sources (both sports and non­sports) media to follow the 
incorporation of Berns (1999)’s broader frames by old non­sports media. 
H2c: We expect old sports media to be the last of the 4 types of media outlet examined to adopt 
Berns’ (1999) broader frames (but we do expect these frames’ eventual adoption by old sports 
media). 
**Figure 2 about here**
Data
At the time of writing, the Ray Rice story continues to unfold, and new information
emerges and is covered by various media outlets on at least a monthly basis. Because of the
dynamic nature of the story, and the continued attention of the media, we decided to undertake a
smaller, preliminary examination of the media’s coverage in order to assess whether our
hypotheses appeared valid before beginning a final exploration of the questions posed above. For
initial hypothesis testing we chose to evaluate media coverage that occurred during the first six
months of the story, beginning on February 15, 2014, and running through September 14, 2014.
Because of the high profile nature of the case, particularly as additional information was
released, there was an extremely high volume of articles focusing on Ray Rice that were
published during this time period. Fluctuations depended on the salience of new information or
events, such as press conferences and major decisions coming from the NFL, as well as reactions
to these events coming from the public as well as media and sports elites. This episodic coverage
of the ongoing story led us to identify several “critical junctures” (or key events and turning
points in the story) to use as reference points for data collection. These events are outlined in
27

 Table 1. They begin with the initial arrest of Ray Rice and his then-fiancé Janay Palmer (his
now-wife, Janay Rice) on February 15, 2014 in an Atlantic City casino, and continue through the
events surrounding the September 8, 2014 release of a graphic video of the assault including the
subsequent reactions of the NFL and media.
**Table 1 about here **
In order to create a sample representing the four categories of media we wished to test,
five media sources were chosen to represent traditional (or “old”) non-sports media, new nonsports media, traditional sports media and new sports media. The goal was to include media
outlets serving as opinion leaders within each category, an easy task for traditional non-sports
media because of the well-established use of such leaders as the New York Times, Washington
Post and USA Today. This became more difficult as we moved to other categories because there
lacks a single source ranking the popularity of primarily online sources for new non-sports
media, traditional sports media and new sports media. The sports media sources – both
traditional and new – were chosen based on an assortment of online articles ranking sports
websites by the number of page hits on their respective websites. This included well-known
outlets such as ESPN, Yahoo Sports and CNN Sports, as well as the largest new media sources
SB Nation and Bleacher Report. Our goal was to assess five sources per media category so that
we would not pick a single source without knowing whether or not their coverage was
representative of the genre. For instance, did the framing used by the Times’ deviate sharply from
that of the Post, making its coverage unrepresentative of “old” or traditional non-sports media?
In examining five sources, we attempted to mitigate this possibility. In order to achieve this
number, the most popular sources that had already been identified were cross-checked for
references to other sports media sites, with those most mentioned used to fill out the remaining

28

 spots. New non-sports media was more difficult still, because of the dynamic nature of new and
emerging news sources that do not fit the traditional model of news reporting, as well as the
complicated web of ownership that connects many traditional and new media sources. A key goal
of this paper was to observe a diverse group of sources in order to best identify whether our
hypotheses could meet the bar of face validity, and the meeting of this goal would be
questionable if all sources shared a parent company. Based on a report from the Pew Research
Center on the growth in digital reporting, five new media sources were chosen based on their
level of growth and their general news focus (rather than a more narrow focus, such as Business
Insider). The media sources chosen for each category are outlined in Table 2.
**Table 2 about here**
From these twenty media sources, articles were collected via LexisNexis for the New
York Times, Washington Post and USA Today. For all other sources, an advanced Google search
was utilized, an option which allows isolated searches within a specific website as well as within
a specific date range. For each critical juncture, articles were collected within four days of the
event, based on literature showing that within the episodic news cycle, new episodes in an
ongoing story typically receive four days of attention from the media (Muschert and Carr, 2006).
The sole search term used for both LexisNexis and Google was “ray rice,” and articles were
included for analysis if the focus was on the Ray Rice domestic case specifically, or if Ray Rice
was discussed in terms of domestic violence more generally. Most articles during this timeframe
met these criteria, with only a handful eliminated for lacking a domestic violence context (e.g.
Rice’s on-field talents without any mention of “off the field” or “off season” issues).
Including the articles collected from all twenty media sources, a total of 423 articles was
compiled. Data collection consisted of the media source, date, article headline, critical juncture

29

 with which it was associated, primary frame, secondary frame (if applicable), gender of the
journalist listed in the byline (if available), and whether there was any mention of race in the
article35.
The frames utilized come from Berns (1999) and include Individual, Institutional,
Cultural/Structural and Integrational. Articles were labeled with the Individual frame when the
focus of the article was on Ray Rice and his fiancé/wife Janay, the details of the incident at the
casino, questions of who was at fault, and often a discussion of the couple having “issues” they
needed to work on and how they were doing so through counseling. Individually framed stories
also often focused on the impact of the incident on Ray Rice’s career in the NFL, with references
made to his “off the field” or “off season” troubles. An Institutional frame was applied when the
focus of the article was on the legal system, and articles with this focus primarily concentrated
on Rice’s entrance into a pre-trial intervention program that avoids time in prison without
admission of guilt. These stories were critical of Rice’s inclusion in this program, noting it was
intended for non-violent crimes, and all institutionally framed articles suggested Rice had been
allowed to enter into this program because of his wealth and fame. The Cultural/Structural frame
focused on domestic violence as a larger issue within a society that glorifies violence and
reinforces traditional gender roles and sexism within a patriarchal culture. Interestingly, this took
one of two iterations: in the first, the frame focused on modern society in general, and the
gendered treatment of domestic violence (“Why did she stay?”) while placing the responsibility
of a solution on the victim; in the second, these issues were brought up completely in the context
of the NFL as a cultural institution, treating the NFL as a culture in and of itself that reflects
societal norms and values. This divergence of the Cultural/Structural frame prompted the
35 Gender of the reporter and mentions of race were collected, but not analyzed for the preliminary
analysis. These will be analyzed and discussed in future iterations of this study.

30

 inclusion of a secondary frame while collecting data, where the NFL-specific “Institutional”
frame was coupled with the Cultural/Structural. This frame was seen across all media types, and
became most prominent following the release of the full video of the Rice incident, from within
the elevator where it occurred, with a focus on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, his view on
women and domestic violence as minor issues (particularly in comparison of how players found
to be using illicit drugs were given harsher punishments than domestic abusers), and in general a
discussion of who knew what and when about the Rice case, with a suggestion there had been a
cover-up of the full details, or gross negligence on the part of the NFL, which the articles
suggested was indicative of the League’s dismissive view of the significance of domestic
violence36. Lastly, the Integrational frame was applied when multiple frames were used within
one article, such as criticisms of the handling of the Rice case by the NFL as a “family affair”
that placed blame on both Ray and Janay Rice.
Preliminary Analyses and Findings
Our preliminary analysis focused on descriptive comparisons of the distribution of frames
by media source and critical juncture in the news narrative of the Ray Rice case. These
comparisons support the expectations that 1) the dominant frame used in coverage of the Rice
case shifted over time from an individual to a cultural/structural framing, and 2) traditional
media sources are more likely than sports media sources to utilize the cultural/structural frame
when reporting on domestic violence incidents. Subsequent analysis will delve further into these
findings by examining variation across old and new media and temporal patterns in framing
shifts over time.

36 This divergence in the Cultural/Structural frame was not anticipated prior to constructing our current
hypotheses, but is an area of interest which will be explored in future iterations of this study.

31

 Table 4 shows the distribution of frames over the entire study period by news media
source (traditional/“old” non-sports, new non-sports, traditional/“old” sports, and new sports).
Out of a total of 423 articles, 91 are “old”/traditional non-sports, 103 are new non-sports, 125 are
“old”/traditional sports, and 104 are new sports. For each source, the distribution of frames is
presented both as a raw number and as a percentage within that source. When all sources are
combined to show the total number of each frame throughout the study period, the
Cultural/Structural frame is clearly dominant (54 percent of all stories) and this includes both the
overall societal iteration and the NFL iteration of this frame. This dominance is followed by the
prevalence of the Individual (27 percent), Integrational (17 percent), and Institutional (1 percent)
frames. As expected, “old” sports media are generally most likely to utilize the Individual frame.
This frame was used in 34 percent of old sports media and 33 percent of new sports media, as
compared to 23 percent of old non-sports media and 17 percent of new sports media coverage.
Also consistent with expectations, old sports media sources are the least likely to utilize the
Cultural/Structural frame (44 percent of articles) and the most likely to use the Individual frame
(34 percent of articles). Somewhat surprisingly, new sports media sources lead slightly in the use
of the Cultural/Structural frame (59 percent of articles).
**Table 4 about here**
One explanation for this surprising finding is that Table 1 combines all coverage over the
course of the study period. Tables 5 and 6 address this by disaggregating the distribution of
frames for all news sources combined over time based on month (Table 5) and juncture (Table 6).
Turning first to Table 5, there is a clear, striking pattern in the distribution of frames over time.
Coverage clearly increases dramatically as the story progresses. There were only 27 articles in
February, three articles in March, and 8 articles in May. By summer, coverage had increased to

32

 39 articles in July, 40 articles in August, and a very large spike to 305 articles in September.
Similarly, the distribution of frames shifted dramatically over time. From February to May, the
Individual frame was clearly dominant (93 percent in February, 100 percent in March, and 63
percent in May). In contrast, the Cultural/Structural frame became dominant in the July to
September period (64 percent in July and 58 percent in August and September).
**Table 5 about here**
**Table 6 about here**
A similar pattern emerges when coverage is disaggregated by critical juncture in the
narrative of the story. As shown in Table 6, the Individual frame dominated early coverage –
which is associated with junctures in February, March, and May. The Institutional and
Integrational frames are essentially absent during this time. A major shift occurred, however,
when Ray Rice received his initial two-day suspension on July 24. The Individual frame
predominantly characterized coverage of the preceding juncture, Ray Rice’s news conference on
May 23 (63 percent of articles). In comparison, coverage following the July 24 suspension
shifted to the Cultural/Structural frame (63 percent of articles). In addition, after the suspension
there was a notable increase in the use of Integrational frames. These trends peaked after the
release of the second video of the incident, which the media received and began to cover on
September 8. By this point, only 20 percent of articles utilized the Individual frame compared
with 58 percent utilizing a Cultural/Structural frame and 19 percent utilizing an Integrational
frame. Overall, we clearly see the frame shift that would be expected of an ongoing story based
on the work of Chyi and McCombs (2004), and are able to clearly see the frame shift over time
when assessing the Individual versus Cultural/Structural frames, which were developed by Berns
(1999) to describe media coverage of VAW.

33

 In Table 7, these patterns are further disaggregated by media source (traditional and new
non-sports versus traditional and new sports). It is evident that while both media sources shifted
the framing of the Rice story as it progressed, non-sports media sources were more likely in
general to utilize the Cultural/Structural frame. Looking at coverage following Rice’s July 24
suspension, 71 percent of non-sports media articles utilized a Cultural/Structural frame compared
with 57 percent of sports media articles. By September, when the second video of the incident
was released, this 14-point gap had narrowed to only 4 percentage points (61 percent of nonsports media articles and 57 percent of sports media articles). Figure 3 provides a visual
depiction of these trends. This figure shows that while there was a shift towards increased use of
the Cultural/Structural frame over time, there is also considerable variation in the distribution of
frames by juncture. While these results do not definitively support our second hypotheses, it does
provide initial observations that would indicate additional data from an expanded timeframe (i.e.
beyond the critical junctures) may provide information regarding whether each of the four media
sources serve as leader or follower of this shift.
Discussion
Our preliminary analysis provides some support for our expectations. Firstly, it
demonstrates that in reporting the Ray Rice story, there was an overall shift in the distribution of
frames towards an increased use of a Cultural/Structural frame and away from the Individual
frame, which predominated at earlier stages of coverage. Previous studies have examined news
coverage of VAW cases at single points in time, or generally over a period of time but
independent from the narrative of a particular story, and have found that generally the Individual
frame is overwhelmingly used. We add to this literature by looking at the coverage of a story of
VAW over time, and find that (as the work of Chyi and McCombs, 2004 would predict) we no

34

 longer see this stagnant pattern; in face, we see frame change occur in the case of media reports
of VAW, and as the coverage of this case progressed, broader frames were adopted by the media.
This is a critical finding, because a focus on the Individual frame by the media is not only
discursively hegemonic, it is also normatively problematic. This is so because “[b]y framing IPV
as a private problem and ascribing responsibility to the individuals, the media neglects an
opportunity to expose broader institutional failures among law enforcement agencies, the courts,
corrections, education, and medical and mental health services that contribute to IPV” (Sellers et
al., 2014, 272), and allows the role played by patriarchal cultural attitudes to be dismissed.
However, it seems that with continued media coverage of a case of VAW, rather than merely
episodic coverage, the possibility exists that media will evolve in their coverage.
In addition to this finding about frame change over time, this preliminary analysis
showed that traditional, non-sports media sources were more likely to utilize this frame at each
juncture in the Rice story than were the other types of media outlets examined. But, equally
importantly, there are indications that as the story wore on, that sports media outlets also adopted
these broader frames in covering the story. However, these preliminary analyses mark only the
first step in evaluating our hypotheses, and we plan to use the evidence gathered to propel our
further inquiries into the questions raised. Regarding our first hypothesis, because we were able
to see a frame shift over time using the limited and episodic data explored herein, we plan to
focus our future analyses over the summer months of the study period because this is when the
frame shift seems to have begun to occur. We will gather more stories published during the MaySeptember 2014 time period so we can see precisely when these shifts occurred, and what
unfolding events or published reports seemed to be the antecedents to the broader changes found
in this paper. In order to make this more nuanced data gathering and the coding of this new data

35

 manageable, the next step of our analysis will be to compare coverage from sources within media
outlets – is ESPN’s coverage largely similar to that of other traditional sports media? Similarly, is
The Washington Post’s coverage similar to that of the New York Times? If inter-media type frame
shifts seem to have occurred at the same time, we will select the most prominent source within
the 4 types examined and look at the universe of coverage given to the Ray Rice story, rather
than sampling from all twenty sources used herein. We will also involve a second coder at this
stage in order to ensure intercoder reliability.
While the above next steps will build importantly on the work we have done so far, the
bulk of our plans for the expansion of this project relate to trying to more conclusively assess our
second set of hypotheses – those that disaggregate between media types and which explore
intermedia agenda setting. In this paper we have only begun the project of teasing out which
types of media set the media agenda for attribute salience in the reporting of the Ray Rice story.
The analyses completed up to this point highlight that the above-described frame changes do,
indeed, seem to be occurring over time. But, the limited data explored do not allow us to
determine with any level of conclusiveness if, as hypothesized, the “traditional” media, is indeed
“setting the agenda.” This prediction reflects a) Bullock (2007)’s arguments that “newspaper
content reflects the way journalists and news organizations work within and interact with the
greater social structure” (38; See also Sanderson, 2010; Carruthers, 2000; Wolfsfeld, 1997), b)
the reality that these organizations have varied – and gendered – institutional cultures, and c) that
“new,” “old,” and sports media outlets have differing incentives to go easy – or not – on
professional sports organizations. In all three of these ways, the culture in which sports media
reporters operate is different than that of, for instance, The New York Times. We hypothesized
that this will condition their use of Berns’ (1999) frames of responsibility, and in particular that

36

 old sports media outlets will be disincentivized from adopting these broader frames. From these
very preliminary analyses, however, it does appear that the “traditional” (or “old, non-sports”
media) seems to be leading the way in terms of the adoption of these frames and thus that these
are questions that merit further exploration.
In order to determine if we are truly seeing intermedia attribute agenda setting on this
issue, we plan to conduct further analysis to examine these patterns at a more granular level by
day of coverage. Building on these results, going forward we will gather data that allows us to
track the the day-to-day coverage from May until September 2014 from the four primary sources
discussed above, rather than focusing on the episodic coverage from all twenty. We expect that
doing so will show clearer patterns in the shifting distribution of frames as well as a temporal lag
whereby sports media coverage follows traditional media coverage. In addition, we expect that
additional analysis of old and new media sources within media type (“sports” versus “nonsports”) will show that old sports media lagged behind all other media sources in shifting to a
Cultural/Structural frame. This more nuanced analysis will allow us to also explore the four
frames in more detail. In particular, by examining more closely the cultures and structures held
responsible for VAW when the Cultural/Structural frame was used, we will evaluate whether
sports culture itself, the NFL in particular, or society more broadly, are held to account by those
reporting the Ray Rice story, and whether this was different between old/new and sports/nonsports media. Finally, we will explore possible alternate discussions for the frame shifts we found
herein. Most critically, here we will assess whether shifts over time in attribute salience were not
due to intermedia agenda setting, but rather driven by the gender of the reporter writing the story,
or (by looking at social media sources like Twitter) if the media examined was instead
responding to reframings occurring elsewhere.

37

 Ultimately, an exploration of the media’s evolving coverage of the Ray Rice case is
important for two key reasons. Firstly, for those interested in the continuing influence of
media sources such as the New York Times, it allows us to determine if their agenda-setting
role continues even as media diversifies and responds to the Internet age, and whether this
agenda setting influence extends to media outlets such as ESPN, which are highly
experienced in covering sports-related news and may thus be more resistant to this type of
agenda setting. And secondly, by continuing this project we can evaluate whether we see
frame change over time when it comes to coverage of the critical political issue of violence
against women, a question on which currently the literature is silent.

38

 Figure 1. Primary Visualization of Hypothesis One.

Hypothesis 1: Predicted frame change over time
[dominant frame used, across all media]

Predominant frame used
[Individual] [Institutional] [Cultural/Structural] [lntegrational]

Time in coverage ofthe Ray Rice domestic violence story.r
[Early in coverage] [Later in coverage]

Figure 2. Primary Visualization of Hypothesis Two.

Hypothesis 2: Predicted frame change over time
[dominant frame, disaggregated media]

 

Predominant frame used
[Individuaal] [Institutional] [Cultural/Structural] [Integrational]

 

Time in coverage of the Ray Rice domestic violence story
[Early in coverage] [Later in coverage}

?"Traditional" news media ?"New" media "New" sports media ?Sports Media

Table 1. Timeline of critical junctures in Ray Rice story
Date (2014)
February 15
February 19
February 21
March 5
May 23
July 24
August 1
August 28
September 8
September 9
September 10

Event
Ray Rice and Janay arrested after physical altercation at
Revel Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey
TMZ releases footage of Rice dragging limp body of Palmer
from elevator
Rice defended by Ravens Coach John Harbaugh in press
conference: states couple is in counseling, working on “a
couple of issues they have to work through”
Ravens press conference where Harbaugh again defends
Rice
Assisted by Ravens, Ray and Janay Palmer (now Janay
Rice) hold press conference, where both apologize for the
incident
Ray Rice suspended for 2 games by NFL
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell addresses media in
Canton, Ohio, responds to criticism for Rice only being
suspended 2 games, defends decision
NFL admits missteps, announces new domestic violence
policy: 6 game suspension without pay for first domestic
violence offense, lifetime ban for second offense
Video showing full incident released by TMZ; NFL denies
ever having seen the tape; Ravens terminate Rice’s
contract, NFL hands down indefinite suspension from
league
Janay releases statement admonishing media;
Commissioner Goodell denies having seen the full video,
claims Rice was not truthful in his account of what
happened; Ravens owner apologizes for team’s initial
response
Associated Press reports NFL received full video in April;
Ravens General Manager Ozzie Newsome claims Rice was
truthful in giving his account of the incident; NFL
announces investigation by former FBI Director to
ascertain the status of the video within the NFL

 Table 2. Media sources by category
Traditional nonsports media
New York Times
Washington Post
USA Today
CBS (online)
CNN (online)

New non-sports
media
Vice
Huffington Post
Politico
Buzzfeed
Mashable

Traditional
sports media
ESPN
CBS Sports
Sports Illustrated
Yahoo Sports
Fox Sports

New sports
media
Bleacher Report
SB Nation
Rant Sports
Deadspin
Black Sports
Online

 Table 3. Media frames used for the Ray Rice story
Frame
Individual

Focus
Individuals within
the relationship;
victim and/or
abuser

Institutional

Legal system

Cultural/Structu Reinforcement of
ral
gender roles
within a
patriarchal and
sexist society
that glorifies
violence
Cultural/Structu Treating NFL as
ral –
“microcosm” of a
Institutional
society that
diminishes
severity of
domestic abuse
Integrational

Combination of
Individual,
Institutional and
Cultural/Structura
l

Adapted from Berns (1999), Table 1, p. 88

Example
“Why didn’t she
leave?”
Couple is
“working through
their issues”
Abuse of wealth
and fame to
avoid legal
repercussions
Discussing the
#WhyIStayed
response to
criticism of Janay
Rice for marrying
her abuser

Solutions
Counseling;
ending the
relationship

New domestic
violence policy as
a public relations
effort to repair
image of a league
that does not
appreciate
women
Ravens
supporting Rice
and efforts to
deal with “family
problems”

Harsher
penalties; the
resignation of
Commissioner
Roger Goodell.

Limitation of
privileges for
abusers within
the legal system
Public awareness
of domestic
violence,
particularly in
response to
victim blaming

Combination of
above solutions

 Table 4. Distribution of Frames by News Source.
Institutiona
Individual
l
All (n=423)
115
6
%
27%
1%
Old (n=91)
21
3
%
23%
3%
New (n=103)
17
1
%
17%
1%
Old Sports (n=125)
43
1
%
34%
1%
New Sports (n=104)
34
1
%
33%
1%
Note: Percentages are computed within media source.

Cultural/Structur
al
229
54%
53
58%
60
58%
55
44%
61
59%

Integrational
73
17%
14
15%
25
24%
26
21%
8
8%

 Table 5. Distribution of Frames by Month.
Individual Institutional
February (n=27)
25
0
%
93%
0%
March (n=3)
3
0
%
100%
0%
April
%
May (n=8)
5
0
%
63%
0%
June
%
July (n=39)
11
0
%
28%
0%
August (n=40)
9
0
%
23%
0%
September (n=305)
62
6
%
20%
2%
October
%
November
%
Note: Percentages are computed within month.

Cultural/Structural
2
7%
0
0%

Integrational
0
0%
0
0%

1
13%

2
25%

25
64%
23
58%
178
58%

4
10%
8
20%
59
19%

 Table 6. Distribution of Frames by Juncture.
Arrest (Feb. 15) (n=11)
%
First video (Feb. 19) (n=13)
%
Harbaugh defense (Feb. 21) (n=3)
%
Harbaugh conference (Mar. 5) (n=3)
%
Rice conference (May 23) (n=8)
%
Suspension (July 24) (n=40)
%
Goodell conference (Aug. 1) (n=18)
%
New DV policy (Aug. 28) (n=22)
%
Second video (Sept. 8) (n=305)
%
Note: Percentages are computed within juncture.

Individual
10
91%
13
100%
2
67%
3
100%
5
63%
11
28%
3
17%
6
27%
62
20%

Institutional
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
6
2%

Cultural/Structural
1
9%
0
0%
1
33%
0
0%
1
13%
25
63%
9
50%
14
64%
178
58%

Integrational
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2
25%
4
10%
6
33%
2
9%
59
19%

 Table 7. Distribution of Frames by Juncture and Media Source.
Traditional Media
Cult./
Struct
Indiv.
Inst.
.
Integ.
Arrest (Feb. 15) (n=11)
2
0
0
0
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
First video (Feb. 19) (n=13)
2
0
0
0
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
Harbaugh defense (Feb. 21)
(n=3)
0
0
1
0
%
0%
0%
100%
0%
Harbaugh conf. (Mar. 5) (n=3)
0
0
0
0
%
Rice conference (May 23) (n=8)
0
0
0
0
%
Suspension (July 24) (n=40)
2
0
12
3
%
12%
0%
71%
18%
Goodell conf. (Aug. 1) (n=18)
1
0
5
3
%
11%
0%
56%
33%
New DV policy (Aug. 28) (n=22)
1
0
6
2
%
11%
0%
67%
22%
Second video (Sept. 8) (n=305)
20
1
80
31
%
15%
1%
61%
23%
Note: Percentages are computed within juncture for each media type.

Sports Media

Indiv.
8
89%
11
100%

Inst.
0
0%
0
0%

Cult./
Struct.
1
11%
0
0%

Integ.
0
0%
0
0%

2
100%
3
100%
5
63%
9
39%
2
22%
5
38%
42
24%

0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
5
3%

0
0%
0
0%
1
13%
13
57%
4
44%
8
62%
98
57%

0
0%
0
0%
2
25%
1
4%
3
33%
0
0%
28
16%

 Figure 3. Distribution of Frames by uncture and Media Source.

 

PercertafArlides

 

 

2/15 2/19 2/21 7/24 8/1 8/28 9/8
Ju1ctu'e

Intega?onal
Cultural/ Structural
I Institutional

I Individual

 

PercertafArlides

 

 

 

2/152/192/21 3/5 3/237/24 8/1 8/28 9/8
Ju?lctu'e

Intega?onal
Cultural/ Structural
I Institutional

I Individual

 

 

44

Bibliography
Aday, Sean and James Devitt. 2001. “Style over Substance: Newspaper Coverage of Elizabeth
Dole’s Presidential Bid.” The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 6(2): 53-73.
Altheide, D., & Snow, R. (1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Atkeson, Lonna Rae and Timothy B. Krebs. 2008. “Press Coverage of Mayoral Candidates: The
Role of Gender in News Reporting and Campaign Issue Speech.” Political Research Quarterly
61(2): 239-252.
Atkinson, Mary Layton, John Lovett and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2014. “Measuring the Media
Agenda.” Political Communication 31(2): 355-380.
Banwart, Mary Christine, Dianne G. Bystrom, and Terry Robertson. 2003. “From the Primary to
the General Election: A Comparative Analysis of Candidate Media Coverage in Mixed-Gender
2000 Races for Governor and U.S. Senate.” The American Behavioral Scientist 46(5): 658-676.
Bartels, Larry. 1996. “Politicians and the Press: Who Leads, Who Follows?” Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, September 1996.
Bennett, L.W., and R.W. Entman. 2001. “Mediated Politics: An Introduction.” In Mediated
Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy. Ed. L.W. Bennett and R.W. Entman.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Berns, Nancy. 1999. “ ‘My Problem and How I Solved It’: Domestic Violence in Women’s
Magazines.” The Sociological Quarterly 40(1): 85-108.
Bishop, R. 2005. “The Wayward Child: An Ideological Analysis of Sports Contract Holdout
Coverage.” Journalism Studies 6: 445-459.
Bullock, Cathy Ferrand. 2007. “Framing Domestic Violence Fatalities: Coverage by Utah
Newspapers. Women’s Studies in Communication 30(1): 34-63.
Bullock, C. F and J. Cubert. 2002. “Coverage of domestic violence fatalities by newspapers in
Washington state.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 17: 475-499.
Cantrell, Tania H. and Ingrid Bachmann. 2008. “Who is the Lady in the Window? A comparison
of International and National Press Coverage of First Female Government Heads.” Journalism
Studies 9(3): 429-446.
Carlin, Diana B. and Kelly L. Winfrey. 2009. “Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary
Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage.” Communication Studies 60(4):
326-343.
Carlyle, Kellie E., Slater, Michael D., & Chakroff, Jennifer L. 2008. “Newspaper coverage of

45

 intimate partner violence: Skewing representations of risk.” Journal of Communication 58: 168–
186.
Carruthers, S.L. 2000. The media at war: Communication and Conflict in the Twentieth Century.
New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Chyi, Hsiang Iris and Maxwell McCombs. 2004. “Media Salience and the Process of Framing:
Coverage of the Columbine School Shooting.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly
81(1): 22-35.
Consalvo, Mia. 1998. “‘3 Shot Dead in Courthouse’: Examining News Coverage of Domestic
Violence and Mail-order Brides.’’ Women’s Studies in Communication 21: 188-211.
Creedon, Pamela J. 1994. Women, Media and Sport. California: Sage.
Crosset, Todd W., James Ptacek, Mark A. McDonald, and Jeffrey R. Benedict. 1996. “Male
Student-Athletes and Violence Against Women: A Survey of Campus Judicial Affairs Offices.”
Violence Against Women 2(2): 163-179.
Daddario, G. 1994. “Chilly scenes of the 1992 Winter Games: The mass media and the
marginalization of female athletes.” Sociology of Sport Journal 11: 275–288.
Demers, D. P. 1996. The menace of the corporate newspaper: Fact or fiction? Ames, IA: Iowa
State University Press.
Denham, Bryan E. 2014. “Intermedia Attribute Agenda Setting in the New York Times: The Case
of Animal Abuse in U.S. Horse Racing.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(1):
17-37.
Devere, Heather and Sharyn Graham Davies. 2006. “The Don and Helen New Zealand Election
2005: A media a-gender?” Pacific Journalism Review 12(1): 65-85.
Downs, Anthony. "Up and Down with Ecology: The 'Issue-Attention Cycle,'" The Public Interest
28: 38-50.
Duncan, Margaret Carlisle and Michael A. Messner. 1994. Gender stereotyping in televised
sports: A follow-up to the 1989 study. Los Angeles: Amateur Athletic Foundation.
Dunwoody, S., & Griffin, R. J. 1999. “Structural pluralism and media accounts of risk.” In D.
Demers & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Mass media, social control, and social change: A macrosocial
perspective (p. 139–158). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Easteal, Patricia, Kate Holland, and Keziah Judd. 2015. “Enduring themes and silences in media
portrayals of violence against women.” Women’s Studies International Forum 48: 103-113.

46

 Eastman, Susan Tyler and Andrew C. Billings. 2000. “Sportscasting and Sports Reporting: The
Power of Gender Bias.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 24(2): 192-213.
Enck-Wanzer, Suzanne. 2009. “All’s Fair in Love and Sport: Black Masculinity and Domestic
Violence in the News.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 6(1): 1-18.
Fortini, A. 2008. “The feminist reawakening: Hillary Clinton and the fourth wave.” New York.
Published April 13, 2008. http://nymag.com/news/features/46011/ (Accessed April 9, 2015).
Fowler, Linda L. and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2009. “Looking for Sex in All the Wrong Places: Press
Coverage and the Electoral Fortunes of Gubernatorial Candidates.” Perspectives on Politics 7(3):
519-536.
Gidengil, Elisabeth and Joanna Everitt. 2000. “Filtering the Female: Television News Coverage
of the 1993 Canadian Leaders’ Debates.” Women & Politics 21(4): 105-131.
Gidengil, Elisabeth and Joanna Everitt. 2003. “Talking Tough: Gender and Reported Speech in
Campaign News Coverage.” Political Communication 20: 209-232.
Gilens, M. 1999. Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty
policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Golan, Guy. 2006. “Inter-media Agenda Setting and Global News Coverage.” Journalism
Studies 7(2): 323-333.
Hardin, M., & Shain, S. 2005. “Strength in numbers? The experiences and attitudes of women in
sports media careers.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 82(4): 804-881.
Heim, Kyle. 2010. “The Boys on the Blogs: Intermedia Agenda Setting in the 2008 U.S.
Presidential Campaign.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.
Heldman, Caroline, Sarah Oliver, and Meredith Conroy. 2009. “From Ferraro to Palin: Sexism in
Media Coverage of Vice Presidential Candidates.” Paper delivered at the American Political
Science Association Conference (Toronto, ON, Canada, September 3 – 6, 2009).
Huffington Post. 2014.“This Chilling PSA Will Be The First To Ever Address Domestic Violence
During the Superbowl” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/27/super-bowl-ad-domesticviolence_n_6557996.html (Accessed February 24, 2015)
Iyengar, Shanto. 1994. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Jacobs, L.R. and R. Y. Shapiro. 2000. Politicians don’t pander: Political manipulation and the
loss of democratic responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

47

 Jalazai, Farida. 2006. “Women Candidates and the Media: 1992-2000 Elections.” Politics &
Policy 34(3): 606-633.
Jezebel. 2015. “NBC Affiliate Follows Super Bowl Domestic Violence PSA with Balls Joke”
http://jezebel.com/nbc-affiliate-follows-super-bowl-domestic-violence-psa-1683146463
(Accessed February 24, 2015)).
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1994a. “The Distorted Mirror: Press Coverage of Women Candidates for
Statewide Office.” The Journal of Politics 56(1): 154-173.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1994b. “Does Gender Make a Difference? An Experimental Examination of
Sex Stereotypes and Press Patterns in Statewide Campaigns.” American Journal of Political
Science 38(1): 162-195.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin and Edie N. Goldenberg. 1991. “Women Candidates in the News: An
Examination of Gender Differences in U.S. Senate Campaign Coverage.” Public Opinion
Quarterly 55: 180-199.
Kittilson, Miki Caul and Kim Fridkin. 2008. “Gender, Candidate Portrayals, and Election
Campaigns: A Comparative Perspective.” Politics & Gender. 4: 371-392.
Lawrence, R.G. 2000. The politics of force: Media and the construction of police brutality.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ley, Tom. 2014. “First Take Discusses A Woman’s Responsibility to Avoid Being Beaten.”
Published July 25, 2014. http://deadspin.com/first-take-discusses-a-womans-responsibility-toavoid-b-1610831462. Accessed March 26, 2015.
Li, Xigen. 2007. “Stages of a Crisis and Media Frames and Functions: U.S. Television Coverage
of the 9/11 Incident During the First 24 Hours.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
51(4): 670-687.
Martzke, R. 2004. (August 20, 2004). “Ratings bonanza will pay off for NBC.” USA Today, 7F.
McCombs, Maxwell, Esteban Lopez-Escobar, and Juan Pablo Llamas. 2000. “Setting the Agenda
of Attributes in the 1996 Spanish General Election.” Journal of Communication Spring 2000: 7792.
McManus, John and Lori Dorfman. 2003. “Distracted by drama: How California newspapers
portray intimate partner violence.” Berkeley Media Studies Group 13: 1–24.
http://www.vawnet.org/domestic-violence/summary.php?doc_id=637&find_type=web_desc_GC
(Accessed April 9, 2015).
McMurry, Evan. 2014. “ESPN Roundtable Clashes over Due Process: NFL Should ‘Be Above
Judicial System.’ Published September 14th, 2014. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/espn-roundtableclashes-over-due-process-nfl-should-be-above-judicial-system/ (Accessed March 26, 2015).

48

 Meraz, Sharon. 2011. “Using Time Series Analysis to Measure Intermedia Agenda-Setting
Influence in Traditional Media and Political Blog Networks.” Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly 88(1): 176-194.
Messner, Michael A., and Cheryl Cooky. 2010. "Gender in Televised Sports: News and
highlights shows, 1989-2009." Center for Feminist Research.
Messner, Michael A., Michele Dunbar, and Darnell Hunt. 2000. “The Televised Sports Manhood
Formula.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 24(4): 380-394.
Meyers, M. 1997. News coverage of violence against women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Muschert, Glenn W. and Dawn Carr. 2006. “Media Salience and Frame Changing Across Events:
Coverage of Nine School Shootings, 1997-2001.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
83(4): 747-766.
Nir, Lilach. 2011. “Motivated Reasoning and Public Opinion Perception.” Public Opinion
Quarterly 75(3): 504–532.
Nisbet, Matthew C., Dominique Brossard, and Adrianne Kroepsch. 2003. “Framing Science: The
Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics. Press/Politics 8(2): 36-70.
NJ.com. 2015. “Super Bowl commercials 2015: Watch the ads here”
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/02/super_bowl_2015_commercials_super_bowl
_ads.html (Accessed February 24, 2015)
No More. 2015a, “No More’s Official Super Bowl Ad” http://nomore.org/no-more-official-superbowl-ad/ (Accessed February 24, 2015).
No More. 2015b. “NFL Players Say No More to Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault in New
PSA.” http://nomore.org/nflplayerspsa/ (Accessed March 13, 2015)).
Patterson, Thomas. 1993. Out of order. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Pew Research Center. 2005. “Box scores and bylines: A snapshot of the newspaper sports page.”
Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media. Published August 22, 2005.
http://www.journalism.org/2005/08/22/box-scores-and-bylines/ (Accessed April 9, 2015).
Protess, David and Maxwell McCombs. 1991. Agenda Setting: readings on media, public
opinion, and policymaking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Rausch, John David Jr., Mark J. Rozell, and Harry L. Wilson. 1999. “When Women Lose: A
Study of Media Coverage of Two Gubernatorial Campaigns.” Women & Politics 20: 1-12.
Reese, S. D.,& Danielian, L. 1989. “Intermedia influence and drug influence: Converging on

49

 cocaine.” In P. Shoemaker (Ed.), Communication campaigns about drugs: Government, media,
public (pp. 29–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ross, Karen. 2002. Women, Politics, Media: uneasy relations in comparative perspective.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Rothman, Emily F., Anita Nagaswaran, Renee M. Johnson, Kelley M. Adams, Juliane Scrivens,
and Allyson Baughman. 2012. “U.S. Tabloid Magazine Coverage of a Celebrity Dating Abuse
Incident: Rihanna and Chris Brown.” Journal of Health Communication 17: 733-744.
Rowe, D. 2007. “Sports journalism: Still the `toy department' of the news media?” Journalism
8(4): 385-405.
Sanderson, Jimmy. 2010. “Framing Tiger’s Troubles: Comparing Traditional and Social Media.”
International Journal of Sport Communication 3: 438-453.
Scheufele, Dietram A., and David Tewksbury. 2007. “Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming:
The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models.” Journal of Communication 57 (1): 9–20.
Schmidt, Hans C. 2013. “Women, Sports, and Journalism: Examining the Limited Role of
Women in Student Newspaper Sports Reporting.” Communication and Sport 1(2): 246-268.
Scott-Chapman, Susan. 2012. “The gendering of sports news: An investigation into the
production, content and reception of sports photographs of athletes in New Zealand newspapers.”
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Sellers, Brian G., Sarah L. Desmarais, and Melissa Tirotti. 2014. “Content and Framing of Maleand Female-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence in Print News.” Partner Abuse 5(3): 259-278.
Smith, Kevin B. 1997. “When All’s Fair: Signs of Parity in Media Coverage of Female
Candidates.” Political Communication 14: 71-82.
Toffoletti, Kim. 2007. “How is gender-based violence covered in the sporting news? An account
of the Australian Football League sex scandal.” Women’s Studies International Forum. 30: 427438.
Tuggle, C. A. 1997. “Differences in Television Sports Reporting of Men’s and Women’s
Athletics: ESPN SportsCenter and CNN Sports Tonight.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media 41(1): 14-24.
Van Zoonen, L. 1994. Feminist media studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Waldron, Travis. 2014. “ESPN Commentator: Rape Allegation Gave Kobe Bryant ‘Sizzle’”
ThinkProgress, Published on October 21, 2014.

50

 Walgrave, Stefaan, Michiel Nuytemans, and Lieven De Winter. 2004. “Specifying the media’s
political agenda-setting power: Media, civil society, parliament and government in a small
consociational democracy (Belgium, 1991-2000)” Prepared for delivery at the ECPR joint
sessions of workshops, Uppsala (Sweden), 13-18 April 2004.
Wallsten, K. 2007. “Agenda setting and the blogosphere: An analysis of the relationship
between mainstream media and political blogs.” Review of Policy Research 24(6): 567-587.
Welch, Michael. 1997. “Violence Against Women By Professional Football Players: A Gender
Analysis of Hypermasculinity, Positional Status, Narcissism, and Entitlement.” Journal of Sport
& Social Issues 21(4): 392-411.
Wolfsfeld, G. 1997. “Promoting peace through the news media: Some initial lessons from the
peace process.” The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 2: 52–70.
Women’s Sports Foundation. 2011. Q and A: Media coverage of women’s sports.
http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/home/advocate/q-and-a-media-coverage-of-womenssports (Accessed April 9, 2015).
Wozniak, J. A. and McCloskey, K. A. (2010). “Fact or fiction? Gender issues related to
newspaper reports of intimate partner homicide.” Violence Against Women 16: 934–952.

51