In this chapter I will analyse the four frame functions of the above defined frames. In his article about framing, Entman (1993: 52) describes that the four functions of frames include identifying problems and the causes behind them, making moral evaluations of the causal forces
and the consequences they have, and, finally, making suggestions on how the problems could be solved and evaluate the potential implications of these solutions. When examining these functions in the frames discovered in my data, it seems that some of the frames do indeed highlight the functions, while others do not. Moreover, when I mention one of the two newspapers in my analysis, I am discussing the identified frames only in the context of that newspaper.
In the Victim frame identified both in Helsingin Sanomat and The New York Times, the problem is defined to be sexual harassment. In the case of both newspapers, the victims’ experiences of sexual harassment are described. The cause of the problem is sexual harassers who subject other people to sexual harassment. In addition, in the The New York Times’ Victim frame, another cause for this problem could also be the insufficient reporting systems that make reporting sexual harassment incidents more difficult. Moreover, the moral evaluations made in frames also include the possible consequences the forces behind the problem cause (Entman 1993: 52).
In the Victim frame, both newspapers describe these effects to be the possible negative consequences to the victims. Sexual harassers place people in situations which can cause victims to feel distressed, confused, ashamed, and unable to react. Both newspapers also include descriptions on how sexual harassment has affected victims’ lives in general, for example, had effects on their careers. Moreover, in the Victim frame of The New York Times, another effect includes survival strategies, for example, in some cases women have begun to warn each other about certain individuals. Regarding the last frame function, solutions to the problem, I could not identify that any are presented in this frame in either newspaper.
In the Power frame identified both in Helsingin Sanomat and The New York Times, the problem is that sexual harassment often happens from a position of power. In the articles from both newspapers, harassers were often persons with more power than the victims. In addition, particularly in The New York Times the individual alleged harassers are mostly described as prominent and powerful men. One cause for the problem in this frame in both newspapers includes gender: men are often the ones having these powerful positions. This is also especially highlighted in the texts from The New York Times. In addition, only in the Power frame used in The New York Times it is mentioned that one cause for the problem is the lack of women in high positions. Thus, due to gender, there is a power difference between men and women. In addition, in both newspapers this frame also portrays how in many cases there has been an age difference in which the victim has often been younger than the harasser, which could be
considered another cause for the problem as it creates another level of power difference between the harasser and harassed. The moral judgment in the Power frame used in Helsingin Sanomat is that sexual harassment has become a form of power use. In the Power frame identified in The New York Times, on the other hand, the moral judgment includes the predator metaphor, which describes harassers as dangerous, powerful, and merciless As with the Victim frame, I could not identify any solutions for the named problem in this frame when it comes to Helsingin Sanomat. However, in The New York Times, one suggested solution for the problem is increasing the number of women in leadership positions. Another suggestion made in this frame in The New York Times is that men need to work together with women in eradicating sexual harassment.
In the Prevalence frame used in both Helsingin Sanomat and in The New York Times, the problem is that sexual harassment is pervasive. Both newspapers suggest that sexual harassment is a widespread phenomenon: it is present in different fields of work as well as in society in general. One cause for the problem in this frame in both newspapers is how sexual harassment has existed for a long time. When it comes to moral judgments made in this frame, one consequence of this pervasiveness in both newspapers is that many people have suffered from sexual harassment, and the phenomenon has become a common occurrence and even an everyday experience for some. Also with the Prevalence frame I could not identify any solutions for the identified problem in either newspaper.
The functions in the Silence frame are also similar in both newspapers. Both in the frame used in Helsingin Sanomat and the one used in The New York Times the problem is that silence surrounds sexual harassment. In the frame used in Helsingin Sanomat one cause for this problem is that victims find telling about their experiences difficult. Other causes for the problem in this frame from Helsingin Sanomat include silent approval and a culture of silence that are present in some cases, as well as that sexual harassment is a somewhat hidden issue. In the same way as in the frame in Helsingin Sanomat, the Silence frame identified in The New York Times considers that one cause for the problem is that victims have not told about their sexual harassment experiences or have not been able to come forward, for example, due to fear of negative consequences to their careers. Another cause for the problem in the Silence frame used in The New York Times is the inaction related to sexual harassment, for example, some people might have witnessed sexual harassment but have not addressed the issue. In the frame used in Helsingin Sanomat I could not identify any moral evaluations, but in the frame from
The New York Times the moral evaluation includes the consequence in which sexual harassment has become an open secret in many places, an issue that people know to exist, but it has not been dealt with. The solution for the problem offered in both newspapers is speaking out. In other words, the silence can only be lifted once people start to discuss and can speak up on sexual harassment.
In the Gender frame that I identified only in the texts from Helsingin Sanomat, the problem is that women are most often subjected to sexual harassment. The cause for the problem is sexual harassers who most often in the texts are men and who target women. I could not identify a moral judgment for this frame, but one suggested solution is that men join women in fighting sexual harassment.
As can be seen from above, most of the frames identified in both newspapers contain at least three of the four functions. My result is also in accordance with Entman’s (1993: 52) remark in his article about framing that not all frames always contain all the four functions. However, there are also two frames, the Harasser frame identified only in Helsingin Sanomat and the Unique Moment frame identified only in The New York Times, in which I was not able to observe any of the four functions. In the following chapter I will discuss in more detail the differences and similarities between the frames found in the newspapers.