Abstract
The work of correctional officers (COs) is essential yet remains largely hidden from society. As such, media framing plays an important role in shaping public perceptions of COs and their work. COs encounter adverse events over the course of their occupational work and are legally—and sometimes publicly—held accountable. In the current study, we first present a text-based frame analysis of local news media published between January 2019 and December 2019 to see how COs are represented in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). We then draw from 25 interviews with COs employed at Her [His] Majesty’s Penitentiary in St. John’s, NL, to learn how the officers interpret the media’s framing of their occupation. Grounded emergent theme analyses of interview data reveal officers share concerns about what they perceived as unfair negative media framing. COs more often feel like objects of media framing with little agency to shape media narratives about their work. COs’ lay theories about their representation in mainstream news media illuminate a misalignment between media framing and their own work experience. This misalignment is a source of anxiety and additional job strain.
Keywords
“What is interesting is that you can save a thousand people. And if one dies, the media knows”—Correctional officer at Her [His] Majesty’s Penitentiary—St. John’s, Newfoundland, 2019.
The intrinsically hidden nature of the prison environment and its operations (Pratt, 2013; Ricciardelli, 2019), means that media play integral roles in constructing the social meanings of prison, prisoners, and correctional officers (COs) for bystander publics. While COs are responsible for the care, custody, and control for prisoners (Ricciardelli, 2014, 2019), their work usually takes place hidden from the public view, unlike more publicly-visible elements of the criminal justice system like the police or judiciary processes (Liebling, 2000; Tracy and Scott, 2007). The hidden nature of prison work, alongside the need to protect prisoner confidentiality, leaves COs voiceless and vulnerable to media representations that may not reflect the realities and intricacies of COs’ professional lives. This media image contributes to a sense of “resentment and disappointment” that the public does not understand or value their work (Crawley, 2004: 150).
We use interview data from the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) to explore COs interpretations of their media coverage. Our motivating research question is: To what degree is media framing aligned or misaligned with COs interpretations of media coverage their work? Relatedly, we ask how media coverage is interpreted in ways that affect COs work experience?
Our analysis is motivated by Earl’s (2009) call for a “sociology of trouble” to bridge conceptual contributions across criminology, legal studies, and social movement studies. As Earl notes, these different fields are concerned—to varying degrees—with how troubles are defined, interpreted, and acted upon (or socially accepted through inaction). As such, there are theoretical benefits to greater conceptual cross-pollination among these various fields through the prism of a sociology of trouble. Taking up this call, we use a framing approach to examine the main discourses that circulate about CO work in provincial media, which complements prior scholarship that uses the sociology of trouble lens to examine prisoners’ use of grievance processes in the California prison system (Calavita and Jenness, 2013), or to examine the “inner life” of internal challenges and crises inside mental health organizations in the United Kingdom (Fischer, 2012). We couple this with the social movement studies key concept of “lay theories” of media (McCurdy, 2013), which refers to how subjects of media coverage interpret how the media works, to examine CO interpretations of media coverage and how these interpretations influence their work experience.
Media framing reflects, contributes to, and reinforces collective understandings of reality. Public understandings of circumstances or social groups shape the solutions deemed acceptable or appropriate to resolve societal troubles (Earl, 2009). At the same time, a limitation of textual-based studies of media framing is they rely heavily on inferring how framing is interpreted by various audiences. As such, we draw on interviews with 25 COs to examine how they make sense of media framing and how these interpretations—or their lay theories of how media operate—shapes their work experience, thereby giving voice to a population that is often absent in media framing of correctional service work.
Theoretical framework
Motivating our analysis is Earl’s (2009) call for a focus on “trouble” as an overarching concept that can bridge diverse research fields, including law and society, media framing, social movement studies, and studies of organizational conflict. In our frame analysis of media coverage of COs’ work, we see how media position prisons and COs as sources of trouble that require public attention. Conversely, in our interviews with COs, we see how this framing is interpreted as troublesome because the framing is misaligned with COs’ experiences and interpretations of their work. With this overarching framework in mind, we provide an overview of the framing perspective and its application to media and correctional services. We then introduce McCurdy’s (2013) concept of “lay theories of media,” which enables us to connect our text-based frame analysis with our interview data with COs.
Various scholars have written about correctional services as a “tainted” or “dirty” occupation that carries a social stigma due to COs proximity to stigmatized and criminalized individuals (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999; Eriksson, 2023; Garrihy, 2022; Tracy and Scott, 2007). The psychological stresses of prison work contribute to occupational burnout and “corrections fatigue” (Denhof et al., 2014; Finney et al., 2013; Lambert et al., 2012). Prior research has focused on how prison workers adopt various management strategies to deal with the social and psychological costs of doing tainted work, which includes reframing to accentuate the contributions of under-valued work, like the everyday work of maintaining a safe and secure prison environment, as well as refocusing on positive aspects of prison work that are under-recognized by the public, such as supporting prisoner rehabilitation and social re-integration (Garrihy, 2022; Tracy and Scott, 2007). Another strategy for managing the taint of correctional work is to “differentiate” from outsider critics by “condemning the condemners” and asserting their misunderstanding of correctional work (Eriksson, 2023). However, little scholarship on occupational stigma and related job stress is conducted in relation to prisons, incorporates media framing, or, most specifically, CO interpretations of media framing—as part of these processes. COs are foundational in this context; they work in a setting the public knows little about beyond the often negative representations circulated through the media (e.g. Bennett and Knight, 2021).
Media framing and correctional services
Framing refers to how media make social issues—or troubles—comprehensible by conveying their causes, impacts, and potential solutions (Snow et al., 2014). Criminal justice news frames are articulated by news sources from a variety of affiliations (governments, representatives of the police or courts, and social movements, such as prisoner support or victims’ rights organizations) and woven into news narratives by journalists and editors (e.g. Stanbridge and Kenney, 2009). Frames are also articulated by those affiliated with news outlets, such as columnists or in op-ed pieces. Media frames can be diagnostic (what is the nature of the problem), prognostic (what are the potential or preferred solutions to the problem), or motivational (encouraging bystander publics to take some form of action on the problem) (Entman, 1993; Snow and Benford, 1988). The concept of frame resonance refers to how frames connect with audiences (Benford and Snow, 2000). Higher frame resonance is facilitated by the use of familiar storylines that are more easily comprehensible for audiences. More resonant frames tend to recur more often.
One of the criticisms of the framing approach is how the approach objectifies frames as static, unchanging objects that are used by news sources, rather than actively crafted and subject to change through time (Conley, 2015) As such, it is beneficial to consider how framing intersects with journalistic practices and norms (Callison and Young, 2020). For example, Mason (2003) highlights the journalistic tendency to select news that has entertainment value. This tendency is not merely a conscious choice to effectively market news media, but also reflects complex organizational practices and the nature of the job. For example, with regard to criminal justice news, this includes journalists’ time constraints and quotas, coupled with the fact that crime news is nearly always available and relatively easy to write about (Mason, 2003: 55).
Two other arguments are worth noting here, as they help create understanding of the work involved in framing activities. Ericson et al. (1989) elaborate the notion of the media “hierarchy of credibility” to talk about how criminal justice news routinely over-represents those in positions of authority as news sources, more so than those with lived experience. In criminal justice news, this means the framing is most often done by governmental justice ministers, police media representatives, or lawyers, and less often by those who are inside the criminal justice as criminalized individuals or victims. Overall, Ericson et al. (1989) argue, this framing creates a media environment that favors criminal justice agencies, voices, and interests.
However, an important counterpoint to this argument comes from the political sociology of Duyvendak and Jasper’s (2015) Breaking Down the State, which is critical of researchers’ tendencies to conceptualize “the state”—or “the criminal justice system”—as something homogeneous that operates in a harmonious effort to maintain social order (also see Doherty and Hayes, 2015). The heterogeneity of factions of the state—including the police, courts, or correctional system—may be either downplayed or amplified through differential media framing of different state agencies or factions. Following this line of argument, we should not assume that the distinct agencies of the criminal justice system are treated the same by media. For example, prosecutors in the courts determine who is incarcerated, however correctional services are then held accountable for who is imprisoned in their facilities. As such, we should approach media framing of these agencies as separate areas of research inquiry.
Previous literature on mass media representations of prisons and correctional services highlights media framing that portrays COs as disgruntled, hard, and uncaring (Bennett and Knight, 2021; Mason, 2003, 2006; McCormick, 2010; Wilson and O’Sullivan, 2004). Elsewhere, Smyth’s (2011) Prison Rape: Law, Media, and Meaning looks at a media explosion surrounding COs and rape—a news cycle spun directly from the implementation of legislation making sexual encounters between COs and prisoners illegal (as it was not until the 1990s). Smyth notes that COs are occasionally represented as indifferent or inept individuals, but his findings showed that COs being called out individually in relation to prison rape was exceptional (Smyth, 2011). Vickovic et al. (2013) conducted a widespread content analysis of the representation of COs in news media, finding that negative portrayals of COs prevail. While media is not the major focus of Crawley’s (2004) Doing Prison Work, she likewise finds that the media tendency to focus on bad news stories of “the brutal and insensitive guard,” “reports of prison officer abuses” (p. xiii) and headline-making failures within the prison system contributes to COs’ sense that they are subject to a “stereotypical and skewed” public image (p. 150). This work highlights how criminal justice perspectives do not always translate into positive framing that reinforces correctional authority, as Ericson et al.’s (1989) hierarchy of credibility might predict. Rather, this literature reinforces the point that the various agencies that constitute the criminal justice system are heterogeneous and therefore may be subject to quite different forms of media framing.
Lay theories of media
Framing studies of media are most often limited to text-based approaches to analyzing a set of texts or documents. A limitation of this approach is that researchers must infer how meaning is “encoded” into these texts by journalists or editors, and how it is “decoded,” or understood by various audiences (Hall, 1980). Our analysis moves beyond a text-based approach by drawing on interviews with COs about their interpretations of media framing, thereby following other work (largely from social movements studies) that connects text-based approaches with analyses of the interpretations of those who are the subjects of media framing (Lester and Hutchins, 2009; Mattoni, 2012; Stoddart et al., 2015).
McCurdy’s concept of “lay theories” of media—which is grounded in research with anti-globalization movement protesters—is productive for examining the relationship between news media framing and COs’ “lay theories” of how they are represented by local media sources (McCurdy, 2013). In essence, lay theories are the understandings of how media works that are shared by a social group that is subject to media framing. The lay theory lens is a foundational tool for moving toward a more relational approach to frame analysis: Lay theories of news media are defined as theories or understandings (. . .) concerning the functions and motivations of news media, how news media operate, what drives them, and theories concerning how the logic of news influences the representation of reality (. . .). Thus, the objective is not necessarily to give credibility to ‘lay theoretical frameworks,’ but to recognize that they may exist and may inform the actions of (. . .) actors (McCurdy, 2013: 62–63).
Although the lay theories may not be completely accurate, how subjects of media coverage understand media framing can have a dramatic effect on how they subsequently view and adapt their social practices to seek positive media attention or to avoid negative media attention (McCurdy, 2013). In transporting this concept to the criminal justice system, lay theories about media framing may shape how COs understand their job experience.
Current study
In the current study, we illuminate how COs—including when subjected to media framing—experience and interpret media representation.1 Drawing on the media framing approach and the concept of lay theories of media, we link textual analysis with interview data to reveal how COs view their own media representation. Relatedly, we ask how media framing is interpreted by COs in ways that may further impact their work experience.
Methods
We first draw from a content analysis of provincial news media published between January 2019 and December 2019 to see how COs are represented in local media. Next, we analyze 25 interviews with COs employed at Her [His] Majesty’s Penitentiary (HMP) in St. John’s, NL, to learn about how officers interpret media and public perceptions of their work. The period for media data collection is structured to coincide with the period of the interviews. Our methods are structured such that we explain our processes for the context analysis, then turn to our interviews.
The media framing focus of this article initially emerged out of Ricciardelli’s interviews with COs. While the interviews did not originally have an explicit media focus, media framing was brought up repeatedly by research participants as a reality affecting their work experience. The emergence of the theme led to the collaboration and co-authorship for our analysis. Ricciardelli has an established understanding of correctional services and the work experiences of COs. The emerging themes around media framing led to conversations with co-author Stoddart—whose expertise includes media and social movements—about how to interpret and theorize the interview results, as well as discussions about conducting the media frame analysis. Co-author Austin was involved as an MA student research assistant whose interests include media framing, social inequality and social control, and social movements. She participated in the interview and media coding and analysis under the supervision of the other authors. As such, while the genesis of the project comes from the voices of COs as research participants, the project evolved as a conversation across criminology and social movement/media studies scholars very much along the lines suggested by Earl’s (2009) conception of a sociology of trouble.
Content analysis
We used a purposive sampling method to select prominent news articles over the year 2019. On three news outlet websites (VOCM, St. John’s Telegram, CBC-NL) we searched for articles using the key terms “correctional officers,” “prisons,” “HMP,” “Her Majesty’s Penitentiary,” “prisons Newfoundland,” “prisons Labrador.” These media outlets are all legacy media—long established mainstream media outlets—that maintain websites and have significant social media followings. The media outlets all provide specific coverage for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, although their content is also available outside the province. VOCM and the St. John’s Telegram newspaper are local media outlets, while CBC-NL is the provincial branch of the national public radio and television broadcaster. VOCM radio, arguably, the most liberal of the media outlets, has “millions of page views each week” (VOCM.com/advertise-with-us/). Available in print and online, the readership of St. John’s Telegram is about 24,500 on weekends and 38,000 on weekends. CBC-NL does not report local readership statistics, but their linked social media accounts have thousands of followers (e.g. 58.1K on Instagram, 144.1K on Twitter in January of 2023). As such, these outlets are all important parts the provincial hybrid media landscape of social media and legacy media.
We located 29 news articles that met the inclusion criteria, (i) published in 2019; (ii) talked about prisons in NL. We excluded articles that simply noted length of sentence awarded to a criminalized person. We employed a semi-grounded analysis (Ricciardelli et al., 2010), as we coded each article into themes around context, COs mentioned, and qualities attributed to COs. All three co-authors conducted the content analysis and discussed articles to ensure consistent coding, thereby adopting a “group consensus” approach to inter-coder reliability (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011). Each code was reviewed for mutual exclusivity and comprehensiveness.
Interviews
After ethical approval was granted, we conducted, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, semi-structured in person interviews with COs (n = 25) actively employed at HMP, onsite at the prison. An email inviting participants for an interview was shared across the institutional listserv (e-mail list for employees). In addition, beyond scheduled interviews with interested COs, COs on shift while we were visiting the prison to conduct interviews were also invited to participate. There were no access barriers, although restrictions in access occurred whenever the institution was overly short-staffed. We conducted interviews in private locations within the prison, such as an interview room, and program room—thus, privacy was not a concern and participation remains confidential. This is central as COs are often not allowed to talk to media or share information about the prison, thus, the authors were keen to give COs a voice. The interviews were digitally voice recorded, and transcribed verbatim.
Participants included 25 COs, eight of whom identified as women and 17 as men. Occupational tenure ranged from two to 29 years, with most having worked at HMP over their career. Participants ranged in age from 26 to 63, with a mean age of 41.
After interviews were transcribed, we used a semi-grounded approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), to inductively code each interview for manifest and latent themes. Themes emerged from the data, but theorization was also based on our own prior knowledge. We employed axial coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The upper-level code “media relations” was applied to any excerpt that directly addressed the issue of how HMP and/or COs are depicted through local news media. In the current article, we drew from data that was coded within this upper-level theme, which we further recoded into tertiary themes about how COs feel portrayed in local media.
Results
We reviewed content (n = 29) from three local news sources (see Table 1). The fact that only 29 media article met the inclusion criteria, despite the array of incidents at the prison (e.g. in custody deaths, lack of recreation), suggests prisons tend to feature sparsely across a full year. This is arguably indicative of the relative indifference of the media and their audiences to prisons and COs. Nevertheless, key stories include deaths in custody (i.e. prison homicide or suicide) and prison conditions. In addition, while COs were mentioned in 17 articles, they were never interviewed or given voice. They were either framed negatively (n = 10; e.g. “Doug Neary’s family says it was prison staff and management’s fault that he died while behind bars, and they want the government to pay” (Mullaley, 2019)) or framed neutrally (n = 10; e.g. discussion about CO presence). There were only two positive mentions (e.g. “Corrections Week events began Monday with the presentation of honour guard services medals during a ceremony at Government House, and has seen officers participating in physical challenges, visiting local schools to serve breakfast, and being recognized with an appreciation lunch at HMP” (Bradbury, 2019)). Thus, our overarching finding about news media framing is that it generally omits any coverage that reveals the lived experience of COs at HMP or any prison in NL. Our analysis shows that COs are often spoken for, and of, but not spoken to. As such, we see how COs are treated as subjects of media framing with limited opportunities to actively shape media framing. In the next part of our analysis, we turn to COs’ lay theories to better understand their interpretations of media framing and how these lay theories impact their work experience.
News media frame analysis.
Correctional officers’ lay theories
Our interview data sheds light on COs’ lay theories about how media framing works and with what social impacts. COs are aware of how media representations affect their public image. In our data, COs employed at HMP in 2019 often drew attention to media representation without being directly asked. In total, 17 (68%) participants mentioned media representation in relation to their professional lives. Discussion about media representation stemmed predominantly from questions about COs’ understandings and feelings toward the public’s perception of them and/or their work environment. Many felt their media representation was damaging: (B)ut if you’re just someone that just follows the news, you’ll probably hate us because in the media we’re portrayed in such a way. (W)e’re constantly under scrutiny constantly in the news.
As these participants’ words reveal how the negative media presentations resonate with COs, who in response feel that public perceptions of them and their work is undesirable. Of course, this is not solely the result of news representations given the internalization of the taint of prison and thus prison work.
COs as hidden (even forgotten) public safety personnel
Despite the public perceptions that COs associate with media framing, participants in our study were proud of their role in public safety. They felt hidden in society, but understood their role as central to the preservation of public safety and thus societal well-being—public safety can be understood as providing a sense of “mission” despite the often-hidden nature of this work (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999; Garrihy, 2022).
2
Jess, an HMP officer, said: I mean I’m proud as in like I know what I do but I don’t feel like nobody knows. Nobody knows what goes on here. . . They only see what comes out on the news. . . And that’s what I meant about the pride thing right . . . it would be great to be recognized for work you do.
Jess expresses pride in their work but also feels unrecognized—disgruntled by how COs are portrayed in media, arguably made to manage a work identity within a stigmatized and stigmatizing occupation. Similarly, Pat feels forgotten: “I find this place to the public is forgotten about like unless you drive by it most of the public don’t even care.” The hidden nature of their work thus leaves COs dependent on media representation for public awareness; yet they continue to feel forgotten and underappreciated for their efforts. Jordan, explains: So it’s kind of sad that way. If we were seen in a more positive light then that would reflect a more positive attitude. And that’s really a snowball effect. . . This is the most thankless job, without a doubt. . . But if you don’t see any positive feedback and you don’t see anything positive out there, it reflects in here. . . And it beats everybody down in there. . . you need that recognition. Everybody needs that recognition. Because it perks you back up, makes you feel like you’re on the right track. It makes you feel like what you’re doing is worth it and valued.
Jordan expresses the tangible impact on self, the stigma management, which is, at least in part, a consequence of negative media portrayals. Feeling appreciated has obvious benefits for self-esteem, job performance, and healthier working environments. The role of media, given the hidden nature of prison work, is pivotal role in instilling public appreciation and respect for COs. Ember describes resultant frustration, explaining “the frustrating part is. . . We’re saving lives, we’re cutting stuff off, we’re having that conversation, we’re running the code and nobody knows how many lives have been saved here.” Highlighting the value of correctional work, Finn expresses a sense of injustice in relation to the fact that the public seem to be unaware of how hard they work to preserve the lives of prisoners at HMP. The consequence is also a moral injury, as despite all lives saved, COs are crucified in the public eye for lives lost. Moreover, they express what they describe as a lack of public understandings of the interworking of correctional work—a lay theory that suggests they are underappreciated: I don’t think we’re appreciated. I don’t think by, by, I’m gonna say uhm, by the majority of the public. I don’t think they understand what goes on down there. What like certain shifts, what we go through and what we’re dealing with down here.
This officer feels the tribulations faced by COs are unseen and misunderstood by the public, which is related to their media framing. Moreover, participants felt the public perceived COs and their work as either “a joke” or “bad.” Here, Sade said: “I think a lot of people see it as a bit of a joke, to be honest with ya. . . that’s no new story though. We’re always kinda painted as the bad guys and most people think you’re just like a fucking turn-key type thing.” Another HMP officer, echoing others, describes the disrespect that arises from unfair and inaccurate portrayals—again feeling occupational taint. They assert that COs are viewed as inferior public safety personnel (e.g. “the general public look at us as the bottom of the barrel when it comes to the justice system. . . we’re goons and we’re animals, and we’re down here beatin’ up inmates which is totally untrue”). The notion that COs are portrayed as “goons” or “animals” causing harm to prisoners resonates in the participant’s words. This media framing negatively impacts CO morale and illustrates “the media’s potential contributions to officers’ job stress, burnout, and job dissatisfaction” (Vickovic et al., 2013: 455).
Participants also create lay theories regarding a perceived presentation in media that positions COs as lower than other public safety personnel, such as police, on a hierarchy of public perceptions. Evident here is the perception that police being viewed positively, as “protectors,” while COs are left to the “wayside”: But it’s like the police are always held as the protectors and we’re always the bad people that look after the bad men. (A)lot of people in the public don’t look at us, they see the cops in the news all the time positivity and stuff, but they miss like you know we do a lot of good deeds down here too for the public and stuff and that goes by the wayside.
COs put forth lay theories suggesting they are portrayed as inferior agents of the state when compared to police officers in media, claiming that “you know like every time the [Royal Newfoundland Constabulary] helps a lady cross the road, it’s in the news,” while they in turn “have to beg social media, we have to beg news, to try to put to come follow us to do that positive thing.” In essence, COs feel that whereas the police receive media publicized recognition for their good deeds in the community as well as negative realities, they do not receive comparable recognition or media coverage. Here is a clear-cut example of how COs compare themselves to police and feel themselves at a disadvantage in terms of the “hierarchy of credibility” of voices and interests that shape media coverage of the criminal justice system (Ericson et al., 1989).
Focusing on the negative and ignoring the positive: Lives lost as opposed to lives saved
COs describe, via a lay theory, a focus on the negative and a lack of recognition for the positive elements of their work—for instance the rehabilitative influence COs may have in the lives of those in their custody (e.g. “Realizing that you did make a difference in somebody’s life, even though it won’t hit the media”). Specifically, COs theorized that attention from media was focused on lives lost in prison, altercations (e.g. the riot), or the physical condition of the institution, and the impact of the structure on prisoners while ignoring the impact on staff. For instance, participants said: You just want to get on CBC one day and say you’re focusing on that ‘oh, we’re not doing our jobs, but do you know – here is a stat for you. We lost 4 [prisoners], but we saved 40. (Jay) We had an inmate overdose and we saved, I saved, we did save his life because of that [training] and that never got to the news. (Jazz) They [the public] hear about the inmates that have died and we couldn’t save them. They don’t hear about all the ones that we did save. They don’t hear about how we prevented a fight where someone was about to get or had already been stabbed with a broken off broom and we ran in there and pulled them apart. You don’t hear about the inmate that sat there and cried his eyes out and thanked you for sitting and talking with him. . .They don’t get that. People don’t understand that. They just hear the bad shit. (Jones) That’s one thing that pisses us off here too is something happens here, I found a guy hanging recently in the wing and we saved him, and he was gone first and brought him, [back] and that doesn’t make the news. . .. (Vic)
Across all excerpts, the participants voice frustration that the media focuses on lives lost rather than those saved in prison work. Jay compares the tragedy of four lives lost with the value of the 40 lives saved by COs and staff. Jazz draws on gratitude for training received because the training allowed the officers to save an overdosing prisoner; but laments the lack of news coverage. Jones speaks to the rehabilitative and public safety roles of COs, who intervene in altercations and also listen to prisoners undergoing difficult life experiences. The final quote from Vic speaks again to the realities of intervening in attempted death by suicide, losing a prisoner, and reviving the prisoner. Overall, these participants are speaking to the positives of the CO role and feel what could constitute a moral injury in that they received little if any recognition for the prosocial work in which they engage. The lay theory of media coverage regarding COs is largely they are viewed harmfully, even adversely, despite their rehabilitative and public safety function, which therefore remains unrecognized by the public. The shared perception that the prevention of crimes or death is not newsworthy is troublesome for our participants and signals media are failing to provide a balanced representation of COs and their work environments (McCormick, 2010: 169). COs also spoke about their (and that of prisoners) sense of a lack of recognition for the constructive and helpful community engaged work that occurs in prison: Many people don’t know what good is being done down here, the [spaces removed], all that furniture that was used in the inquires was all built here in the prison [by prisoners] . . . and our staff that worked there. All the Adirondack chairs downtown, all built here. All the picnic tables down in [places removed], all built here. [Place], dressers and bureaus, there’s so much good going on here and very little information reaches the public. . . All they hear is the bad stuff. . .. (Max)
Max speaks to the hidden progressive work occurring among staff and prisoners at HMP, the community impact such work has, and how such efforts are under—if ever—acknowledged. Again, lay theories serve to help interpret why negative coverage dominates news about HMP. Of note, COs explicitly expressed desire for more well-rounded media representation: But I just wish there was more understanding on what actually happens inside those walls. And one of my main things was to get us out in the public. . . Get our public perception up. . . Like we’re all individuals, all just people doing a job. We’re not those big bad security guards down there beating up inmates . . . Get our pictures out there, show the work–the good work that we’re doing inside and outside . . . Volunteering and stuff . . . I think it’s huge for the people here.
Participants articulate a lay theory that being able to better communicate a holistic picture of their jobs and the prison environment to the public through the media can improve morale and deepen public understanding.
Being without a voice
COs lamented or found it frustrating they did not have the ability to voice their views on challenges and occurrences, particularly to the public through the media. They experienced moral injury for how they were being portrayed despite their best intentions. Moreover, they felt they had no way to share their voice amongst the public, to defend themselves, to clarify their actions, or to correct misinformation in the media. Included here is how COs felt they had no voice on issues regarding their work life and no agency in how the prison environment in general is portrayed in media discourse, and these were areas in which their voices should be included: I just seen an interview on TV for the announcement for the new prison. . . That was kind of like a smack in the face just from the media. When they announced the penitentiary was going to be built, there was not one person that was even, our union was there, and he didn’t even speak to any correctional officers or members of our union or even the [superintendent] or [chief superintendent]. I mean somebody should have been consulted.
In this instance regarding the new prison to be built to replace HMP, COs felt the lack of consultation about the realities of the prison environment was offensive to their person and lived experience. They knew prisons and lived learning about what could improve their own work space—and the living space for prisoners. A moral injury again emerges as COs felt they were not acknowledged as “authorized knowers” (Tuchman, 1978) to speak to prisons and prison work.
Participants also discussed the advantages of having a representative from HMP act as an intermediary for news media information. Ideally, this would be someone with a realistic and well-rounded understanding of what happens inside the institution, and the challenges faced and met by COs in a demanding work environment: We can’t talk to the media, we’re not allowed. . . We can’t do certain things that – we’re not saying ‘oh we want a voice outside of here.’ We’d love to have a media relations officer . . . Because that person is what we need to feed the information back to the community. (Mac) We need a public relations officer, which they say is going to happen, but I don’t know if it will or not but. (Reilly)
In the first excerpt, Mac explains how they are barred from speaking to media, while both participants clearly desire a media relations person to help tell “their side” of the happenings at HMP. COs see the potential value in helping the public learn about the nature of their work and the prison environment. This speaks to a lay theory of media in which COs are excluded from media framing of correctional services, which creates a misalignment between perceived negative framing and the work experience of COs. At the same time, COs articulate a lay theory of media in which greater media access is seen as an avenue to better communicate the nature of their work and thereby shape or change public perceptions. A caveat is that media may also under-report on the negative behaviors, attitudes, and delegitimizing practices that also occur in day-to-day prison operations (e.g. Sparks and Bottoms, 1995), but the impression remains about COs that the media rarely, if ever, report on the positives.
The uniform
Negative media framing can be experienced as harmful to COs (and their loved ones). Wearing a uniform publicly creates a potential harmful atmosphere where the “taint” or “stigma” (Goffman, 1963) can affect how the CO is treated, perceived, and interpreted. While Eriksson’s (2023) research illustrates how COs may see the uniform as a “shield” from the dirty aspects of correctional work, by contrast our participants often talked about the effect of media depictions in their avoidance of wearing their uniform in public: That’s how long it’s been since I’ve wore a uniform home. And I just, when you leave and you drive home and you’re passing cars and you’re driving, nobody is looking over at ya and wondering what you are or where you work or what you do. (Sid) This is a weird place, if you’re leaving your house with your uniform on, everybody knows where you work . . . And it’s like, sometimes you feel people are looking at you differently cause of where you work. (Sal) Even our uniform is not as well respected. . . Tim Horton’s. Everybody gets free coffee if you’re a cop. Not us. For the longest time, people said we weren’t even first responders. . . If we have to go out in uniform, society’s always, there’s always a stigma around it. (Sam) It makes it a little bit hard to wear our uniforms when we go to lunch. I’ve noticed in the past when something has happened, major thing on the news, staff just didn’t go to lunch that day. We just kind of hung out in our staff house. . . Or brought our lunches, but some days it’s easier to wear our uniforms than others. (Jonie)
In the first and second excerpt, the participant feels the impact of the stigma of the uniform in his concern about his occupational work being recognized and known. Sid worries about being recognized when driving and Sal implies they do not want their neighbors to know where they work because of “people are looking at you differently,” reinforcing prison work as a stigmatizing taint. Sam speaks to the stigma of the uniform directly as well as the lack of respect the public has for the uniform, while Jonie speaks to how the taint of the uniform can impede daily routines—when particularly forceful. As a qualification, not all officers felt the uniform was stigmatizing, a few felt pride and perceived public respect when wearing the uniform (e.g. “there’s a bit of respect especially when we go outside in the gates with the uniform on”), which echoes Eriksson’s (2023) analysis of the uniform as a potential “shield” from the taint of prison work. However, most COs who discussed appearing in public in uniform expressed a reluctance to do so, or at least a perceived lack of respect associated with the uniform—which at least in part was attributed to how the media presents their occupational work and role.
Discussion
Our analyses of media framing and interview data focuses on the Atlantic Canadian province of Newfoundland of Labrador (NL). Despite the widespread recognition of unfit and ill-equipped working conditions (Poirier et al., 2008), individual COs create “lay theories” (McCurdy, 2013) that suggest they are often held publicly accountable for injuries and deaths occurring in prison—anything negative is attributed to them but the positives are largely ignored in the media. This is consistent with Crawley’s (2004) research with COs in the United Kingdom, who likewise attributed negative public perceptions of their work to stereotypical and negative media coverage.
Research on prison work as “tainted” or “dirty” work argues one way of managing the stigma of prison work is to “condemn the condemners” and to claim critics are uninformed about the nature of prison work (Eriksson, 2023). While COs’ lay theories of media are consistent with this strategy for managing stigma, our content analysis also suggests this lay theory is—at least in part—supported by textual evidence on media framing. When COs are mentioned in provincial news stories, it is often negatively or neutrally at best. Thus, COs are not wrong when feeling their media image is often negative and ignores the positives of their role. Of the 29 news articles analyzed, only two were coded as positive. Thus, negative representations were dominant, which is consistent with prior literature on media framing of prisons and correctional services (Bennett and Knight, 2021; Mason, 2003, 2006; McCormick, 2010; Smyth, 2011; Vickovic et al., 2013; Wilson and O’Sullivan, 2004).
COs articulate lay theories to conceptualize how media represent their occupational roles. These media frames are interpreted as troublesome by COs, as media framing impacted their personal lives and created distress due to a sense of chronic public negativity. COs felt both hidden and forgotten in their role in public safety and as public safety personnel. They felt at the bottom of a pseudo hierarchy of public safety personnel—with police and others at the “top,” while they are the forgotten other. Regarding public perceptions, they felt villainized by the media and their lay theories suggested that they were recognized only for lives lost and challenges and never were their positive contributions to society and public safety acknowledged. Despite adopting “re-framing” strategies and expressing pride in their work—a common strategy for managing the stigma of prison labor (Garrihy, 2022; Tracy and Scott, 2007)—COs felt frustrated about how they were publicly viewed, finding their representation unfavorable and troublesome. Moreover, in all that was presented of the COs in media, they are voiceless. COs are barred from talking publicly about the prison. Without a communications person their perspectives are omitted from the story the media presents. Thus, they desired communication and having a voice that could correct the troublesome nature of media framing. This echoes Crawley’s (2004) findings on the United Kingdom prison system, which similarly argues for more proactive media-work by prison representatives to counter a stereotypical and largely negative media image. The accumulation of their lay theories shape their sense of how they are publicly perceived, resulting in concerns about even wearing their uniform in public—creating a space where they felt underappreciated, unrecognized, and negatively perceived.
Much of the literature on prison work as tainted or stigmatized labor focuses on the organizational and institutional dynamics of prison work and how these may contribute to occupational stress and burnout (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999; Eriksson, 2023; Garrihy, 2022; Tracy and Scott, 2007). However, little of this research focuses squarely on the role of media framing—and COs interpretations of media framing—as an additional source of occupational stress, stigma, or trouble. As our interviews demonstrate, media farming did impact COs’ sense of self and created distress. More research is necessary to determine how the media impacts COs’ sense of self, as well as the diverse ways distress is created by media coverage and how media framing is internalized and managed by COs. As our research indicates, this is a line of inquiry deserving greater attention. 3
Certainly, at times COs will err, and errors can and do have dire consequences. Our intention is not to suggest a CO is not to be accountable for their individual actions. Instead, we argue that the actions and efforts of COs do contribute to public safety and the rehabilitation of criminalized people. The failure to publicly recognize these aspects of correctional work perpetuates a negative representation of COs—one that is found throughout popular culture as well as news media (Bennett and Knight, 2021; Crawley, 2004). A more holistic, multi-dimensional view of COs includes news coverage that illuminates the complexity of the challenges they face. More broadly, well-rounded journalism can highlight how systemic failures affect prisoners as well as COs, creating space for progressive rehabilitative attitudes toward incarceration in the public mind. Moreover, there is the aforementioned need to implement a public relations/communication position for correctional services that provides the CO “side” of stories.
COs’ lay theories suggest they are on the low end of the “hierarchy of credibility” (Ericson et al., 1989), removed from informing who gains access to the news media as cultural and social capital. They are not “authorized knowers” on prison related issues in the province, despite their knowledge and first-hand experience in localized prisons. Without a public relations officer to intelligently contextualize the events occurring in prison COs remain the “ghosts of penalty” (Liebling, 2000: 337), voiceless in their lives and that of prisoners. Future research, we suggest, may seek to explore if having a media relations officer would balance perspectives or instead would offer another partial or skewed view with more favoritism to the organization, prison or staff. Put differently, would such a position constitute another arm of state-sponsored perspectives while not being forthcoming on less favorable aspects such as rights violations, policies, and CO practices? What remains, however, is the present reality that COs are limited from talking to news media directly, which is problematic in that COs are made occupationally voiceless.
Given that COs are unable to comment on events or issues at their prison for confidentiality reasons, then there is a critical gap in communication with the media that is potentially harmful. Proactive, constructive interaction with the media by someone with an understanding of journalistic practices and culture (Solomon, 2013), as well as prison dynamics and issues could help counteract the predominantly negative portrayal of COs. Changing the idea of the CO may also feed into changing society’s ideas about the nature of punishment and rehabilitation.
The assumptions that are built into participants’ lay theories are: (1) that increased media access for CO or insider voices will help give COs greater agency in shaping news framing than the current pattern of exclusion; and (2) that greater agency in shaping news framing will subsequently engender more positive public perceptions and attitudes. As a lay theory, neither of these assumptions are necessarily true, but they do shape how COs make sense of the troublesome nature of media framing and their appearance as subjects of media coverage. At the same time, the provincial correctional service lacks a public relations officer, which means that COs often have no voice to defend against negative public perceptions. In comparison, the local police service does employ a public relations officer to mitigate the effects of media representation on public image through professionally commenting on police misconduct, as well as relating events and sharing stories where police officers are humanized and revered.
Limitations
The study is limited in that we only conducted 25 interviews. However, we did reach thematic saturation in our analysis. As such we balance participant fatigue with the need for theme saturation in keeping our sample small but in-depth. We also did not conduct a longitudinal analysis of media framing over a longer time period. Future research could conduct a systematic and longitudinal content analysis of the representation of COs in NL in provincial media outlets. Additional needs for future research include: (1) understanding the impacts of media representations on COs health and well-being; (2) unpacking how a communications/media relations position for NL prisons could benefit COs and other institutional or community correctional staff; (3) developing understanding of how CO families are impacted by the negative media portrayals; (4) analyzing the multiple perceptions and meanings attached to the CO uniform, which is rich with the symbolism of dirty work and taint, but which may also work as a “shield” against the stigma of prison work (Eriksson, 2023); and (5) examining the potential sources of inaccuracies in CO lay theories, which would further shed light on the complex and nuanced ways in which COs understand their media representation. In addition, we recommend reconsiderations about how invisible and voiceless COs remain in media and how society can, while continuing to protect prison confidentiality, do more to give COs a voice in their own representation.
Conclusion
Overall, grounded emergent theme analysis of interview data revealed COs create lay theories about perceived unfair negative media framing and the tangible occupational, social, and personal effects thereof. Our frame analysis supports COs’ shared lay theory that local news media representation of COs working at HMP in St. John’s, NL is marginalizing. The nature of the coverage works to further create a representation of COs who are notably the only individuals who are sometimes held publicly accountable for largely systemic and institutionalized problems at HMP (without being given direct voice) and by the omission of media coverage that constructs a holistic picture of the exceptionally challenging work performed by COs. A holistic idea of NL prison operations and the COs that work therein necessarily lessens the negative representation associated with the job—a representation that impacts how COs feel about their work and themselves—thus improving mental health and job performance. More broadly, a public relations officer could deepen and diversify the public’s understanding of prison environments, the events that occur, and the people who live and work therein. More well-rounded and informed media framing of COs and prison dynamics would likely help reduce COs sense of misalignment between media framing (and related public perceptions) and their work experience, which is a source of anxiety and job strain.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
