The gates of op-ed diplomacy

Abstract

The op-ed section of the newspaper is unique in that it allows experts to articulate their opinions regarding salient issues without editorial interference. The current study builds upon previous research on the op-ed through the analysis of the op-ed articles that were published in two European newspapers during the Egyptian revolution of 2011. The content analysis focused on the identity of the op-ed contributors, their use of sources, and their selection of frames as highlighted in their opinion articles. The results of the study indicate that the majority of contributors were American newspaper columnists and that the op-eds in the two newspapers focused on similar issue frames but discussed them from different perspectives.

Keywords

Advocacy Arab Spring editorial Egyptian revolution international communication op-ed opinion journalism political communication public diplomacy strategic communication

Introduction

During the early months of 2011, the Middle East was forever transformed by a wave of citizen-led demonstrations that would come to be known as the ‘Arab Spring.’ Ambiguous in nature, the wave of Arab protests left many international policy makers, journalists, and ordinary citizens unsure of how best to react to the events on the ground. During the early months of the Arab Spring, the world watched as hesitant western leaders tried to position themselves between the democratic aspirations of ordinary citizens and such historic allies as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak or Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. International debate over official government policy took place in media outlets across the United States and Europe. One particular vehicle through which policy positions were articulated and debated was the op-ed section of the newspaper.

Although traditionally looked at from a journalistic point of view (Hallock and Rodgers, 2003; Song, 2003), research on the op-ed has at times also focused on public relations and issue advocacy (Muggli et al., 2001).

The current study examines how two elite newspapers interpreted and advocated divergent policy stances regarding the demonstrations in Egypt for western readers. Building upon previous framing research concerning the op-ed section, the current study examines the authors, the sources, and the key frames that were presented in the opinion section and considers their implications for international public opinion.

Literature review

The op-ed

The op-ed section of The New York Times was first introduced in 1970 as a forum for the articulation of divergent opinions absent of institutional connections (Shipley, 2004). Strategically located across from the editorial section (Opposite-Editorial), the op-ed section of most daily newspapers aims to attract new readers and advertisers while at the same time improving the quality of elite debate and informing readers about salient issues (Rosenfeld, 2000). Historically, it has been argued, that The New York Times has been successful in creating a thriving public sphere that was both evocative and profitable (Socolow, 2010). However, recent studies identified several limitations regarding the diversity of op-ed contributors and of ideological diversity (Day and Golan, 2005; Sommer and Maycroft, 2008; Song, 2004).

As explained by Golan and Wanta (2004), there are two types of op-ed contributors, columnists and guest contributors. The former are selected and paid by the editorial staff of the newspaper. In most instances, they enjoy complete editorial freedom over the content of their articles with the exception of the headline. The latter group, the guest contributors, typically includes experts who express their opinion about a salient issue within their field of expertise. These typically include academics, politicians, issue advocates, and organizational leaders.

Framing of international issues

As noted by Ciofalo and Traverso (1994), research on the op-ed section is scant. The majority of published academic articles have focused on the nature of issue-framing within these opinion articles. Framing has been defined in various manners by different scholars (Hallahan, 1999; Pan and Kosicki, 1993; Scheufele, 1999). As noted by de Vreese et al. (2001: 108) issue-specific news frames: ‘may capture specific aspects of selection, organization, and elaboration that are present in news coverage and pertain specifically to a well-defined issue.’

One of the most applicable definitions of framing is drawn from Entman (2004), who defined framing as: ‘selecting and highlighting some facets of events or issues, and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, and/or solution’ (2004: 4). As such, in the context of the op-ed section, framing can be viewed from two different perspectives. In the macro-perspective, framing can help explain how op-ed editors promote an interpretation of a salient issue via the selection of authors and their op-eds that collectively may highlight a certain perspective. At the micro-level, framing can help explain the individual selection of issues and attributes within an op-ed article.

Many academic studies focused on the framing strategies of op-ed editors regarding domestic issues such as affirmative action (Richardson, 2005; Richardson and Lancendorfer, 2004), immigration (Greenberg, 2000), medical marijuana (Golan, 2010), gay rights and the death penalty (Day and Golan, 2005). In addition, a few studies examined op-ed framing of international events including the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (Golan and Wanta, 2003), the Contras in Nicaragua (Bennett, 1990), and the US-led war on terror (Ryan, 2004).

The op-ed as an advocacy tool

While the majority of studies on the op-ed approached the subject matter from a journalistic perspective, the current study argues that the op-ed article can in fact be a tool of international public relations. As previously mentioned, op-ed contributors do not have to conform to editorial standards regarding the content of their articles. Therefore, one could argue that the op-ed can virtually be considered as a form of controlled media (see Newsom et al., 2004: 387). Furthermore, articles published in the op-ed represent a form of earned media (see Jeffery et al., 2006), since the source of the content does not have to pay for the inclusion of their article in the publication. Largely absent of editorial control over content, the op-ed allows for organizational leaders to articulate their positions to the masses at no cost.

The identification of op-ed articles as a public relations tactic is widely reflected in the fact that the op-ed is identified as such in many public relations textbooks (see Newsom and Haynes, 2011; Wilcox, 2009; Zappala and Carden, 2009). Ironically, a review of public relations academic scholarship does not identify a single study that examined the use or role of the op-ed as a strategic communication tactic. The only op-ed campaign that was examined in a public relations or mass communication journal focused on the use of advertorials on the op-ed pages by Mobil Oil (Brown and Waltzer, 2005; Smith and Heath, 1990).

Op-ed and public diplomacy

The emergent field of public diplomacy examines how government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and issue advocacy groups communicate, persuade, and build relationships with foreign publics (see Cull, 2008; Dutta-Bergman, 2006). Indeed, some have argued that public diplomacy is closely related to international public relations and as such can be treated as a form of strategic communication (Gilboa, 2008; Signitzer and Wasmer, 2006). Often used as an advocacy platform by corporate leaders, the op-ed section of newspapers has also been strategically applied by leaders of nations as a public relations written tactic used to articulate their governments’ position on salient issues to both domestic and foreign publics.

Leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev of the former Soviet Union (2008), Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority (2002), Tony Blair of the UK (2008), Shimon Peres of Israel (2004), Yukio Hatoyama of Japan (2009) have all published op-ed articles in elite American newspapers.

However, op-ed contributions are not limited to foreign government officials. Rather, the platform gives international issue advocates and experts the ability to reach divergent publics with a single article. Known for its elite readership, the op-ed is a premier tool for the advocacy of policy positions (Sommer and Maycroft, 2008) and therefore useful in influencing public officials. At the same time, since the op-ed is published in a national newspaper, it has the potential of influencing the news agendas of other media outlets (Golan, 2006; McCombs,1997), impacting political socialization (de Vreese, 2005), and of shaping international public opinion (Wanta and Hu, 1993; Wanta et al., 2004).

As argued by Gilboa (2005), journalists also engage in what he referred to as ‘Op-Ed diplomacy’ in an attempt to influence government policy or international public opinion. Gilboa explains that ‘Bridging through “Op-Ed diplomacy” occurs when an editor or a commentator campaigns on behalf of an idea or plan’ (2005: 106). Indeed, newspaper columnists from many of the world’s leading newspapers were instrumental in not only drawing attention to international issues but also in influencing government elites into taking action.

One of the most famous examples of the strategic application of the op-ed as an advocacy tool is American columnist Thomas Friedman’s (2002) op-ed that outlined the specifics of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah’s proposed Middle East peace plan. The op-ed received much attention from both the international media and world leaders. The article gave birth to what would later come to be known as the Saudi Initiative that was adopted as an official peace plan by the Arab League (Halim, 2002).

The current study examines the overall framing of the 2011 Egyptian revolution in two leading western newspapers. Based on previous research on framing of both domestic and international issues, the study presents the following research questions:

RQ1: Who were the authors that wrote the op-ed articles for the two newspapers?

RQ2: What were the dominant frames of the op-eds regarding the Egyptian revolution?

RQ3: Did the two newspapers cover the Egyptian revolution in a similar manner in their op-ed sections?

Methods

The current study employed a content analysis of op-ed articles published in the International Herald Tribune (IHT) and the European edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). The two newspapers were selected for analysis based on their prominence as European editions of two influential American dailies (Hachten, 2001) that many have suggested hold bias toward distinct ideological perspectives (Groseclose and Milyo, 2005). The period of analysis ranged between 25 January 2011, which represents the first day of major protests, and 7 March 2011, when the majority of the protests subsided. A LexisNexis search was conducted using the keywords: ‘Egypt,’ ‘revolution,’ and ‘opinion.’ An additional search on the Factiva database was also conducted to make sure that no op-ed was left out of the analysis. The initial search results yielded 182 articles. After discarding editorials, letters to the editor, and irrelevant articles, a total of 84 op-eds were included in the analysis. A total of 57 op-eds were from the IHT and 29 came from the WSJ. It should be noted that the number of articles analyzed in the study is consistent with previous published studies on the framing of salient issues in the op-ed section (Golan, 2010; Richardson and Lancendorfer, 2004; Ryan, 2004).

The unit of analysis in the study was the individual op-ed article. Each article was coded for the following variables.

Attributes of the contributor

Each article was coded with a dichotomous variable that represented whether the contributor was a columnist (such as Friedman in the International Herald Tribune) or a guest contributor. The gender of the contributor was also coded using a dichotomous male and female value. Each article was also coded for the nationality of the contributor. Nation coding included the United States, Egypt, the European Union, Arab nation (not Egypt), and other. Each article was also coded for the profession of the contributor. The variable included codes for a newspaper columnist, journalist, academic, government official or politician, military expert, issue advocate, opposition member, protester, or other.

Attributes of sources

Each op-ed article was analyzed for the sources that were quoted in it. If more than one source appeared in the op-ed, he or she was coded as a secondary source under a new variable. The nation from where the source came included United States, Egypt, the European Union, Arab nation (not Egypt), and other. The gender of the source was the dichotomous male–female. Each source was also coded as a journalist, academic, government official or politician, military expert, issue advocate, opposition member, protester, or other.

Framing

Each op-ed was coded for the key frames that were discussed or highlighted in the article. Each frame was coded as primary frame, secondary frame, or not mentioned. Coding was not mutually exclusive as more than a single frame was likely discussed in the majority of op-ed articles. Frames included the role of social media/Internet in the revolution, the Arab Spring rolling frame, the Muslim Brotherhood/fundamentalism, the role of military (previous, now, and after), the day after revolution frame, previous US policy in Egypt, historical perspective/causes, implication of revolution on Middle East, and personal accounts from the protesters.

In order to check the reliability of the content analysis, a second coder was assigned 12 op-ed articles (six from each newspaper) to code based on the coding sheet instructions. Results of the Holsti (1969) reliability test produced reliable alpha scores for all variables: social media/Internet in the revolution (.71), the Arab Spring rolling frame (.84), the Muslim Brotherhood/fundamentalism (.83), the role of military (.79), the day after revolution (.72), previous US policy in Egypt (.74), historical perspective/causes (.86), implication of revolution on Middle East (.77), and personal accounts (.79).

Qualitative analysis

In order to better understand the research findings and best identify the qualitative dimensions of the key arguments as articulated in the op-ed articles, the current study conducted a textual analysis of the op-ed articles. Each op-ed was coded for the key themes as presented by the contributors. As argued by Fürsich (2009), textual analysis is a very appropriate methodological approach for the analysis of journalistic text. Indeed, textual analysis has been widely used in framing studies regarding foreign affairs (Fowler, 1991; Papacharissi and Oliveira, 2008). The current study combines quantitative and qualitative methodology in an attempt to provide an all-encompassing approach to the data.

Results

The analysis of the op-ed sections of both the IHT and the WSJ points to a lack of diversity in terms of the op-ed contributors. Newspaper columnists accounted for nearly 56% (48 out of 86) of the op-eds, followed by academics with nearly 27% (23 out of 86). Our analysis indicates that there were only a limited number of op-ed articles written by members of the Egyptian opposition, politicians, authors, and journalists. Furthermore, the vast majority of op-ed articles were written by males. Female contributors accounted for a mere 3.5% of all op-eds. Additionally, American contributors dominated the discussion, accounting for 73% of all op-ed articles (63 out of 86), followed by Egyptian authors who accounted for nearly 12% (10 out of 86), and European contributors who accounted for nearly 10% (8 out of 86). In relation to RQ1, the study results indicate that the authors who dominated the opinion discussion on the Egyptian revolution were primarily American male newspaper contributors. The opinions of guest contributors were mostly dominated by American and western academics and authors.

The results of the analysis also indicate that the majority of op-eds did not include a quote from the source (57 out of the 86). Those articles that did include a source quote mostly cited ordinary Egyptians (20 out of the 86). The vast majority of all sources quoted in the op-ed articles were male (28 out of 30).

The current study examined the issue framing of the Egyptian revolution from both a quantitative and a qualitative perspective. Results indicate that the two newspapers discussed many of the same key frames but presented them in a very different manner.

The results as presented in Table 1 outline the key frames that are presented in the op-ed articles published in the IHT. With regard to RQ2, the results show that the day after the revolution frame was discussed in nearly 39% of the op-ed articles. A common theme among the contributors was the future democracy that would result from Mubarak’s (potential/subsequent) departure from power. Collectively, the IHT contributors painted a cautious picture of what Egypt’s potential democracy might look like. For example, columnist Roger Cohen (6 February, p. 9) wrote: ‘There is a better way forward. It begins with Mubarak’s departure. It involves the installation of a three-member presidential council, including a representative of the army, and a caretaker government of respected figures to oversee constitutional and other reforms needed for free elections a year from now.’ Columnist Friedman (12 February, p. 6) expressed similar concerns: ‘Egypt has before it only two paths, and both are unstable. One is where this democracy movement falters and Egypt turns into an angry Pakistan.’

Table 1.

Issue frames presented in the op-ed articles (International Herald Tribune).

Issue	IHT primary	IHT secondary	IHT combined
Day after	13 (22%)	9 (16%)	22 (39%)
Historical causes	14 (25%)	5 (9%)	19 (34%)
Muslim Brotherhood	12 (21%)	6 (11%)	18 (32%)
Regional implications	10 (18%)	7 (12%)	17 (30%)
US policy	8 (14%)	7 (12%)	15 (26%)
Arab Spring	15 (26%)	0 (0%)	15 (26%)
Personal accounts	6 (11%)	9 (16%)	15 (26%)
Role of military	9 (16%)	4 (7%)	13 (22%)
Social media	6 (11%)	2 (4%)	8 (14%)

Notes: Percentages rounded up or down the .05 level (57 IHT op-eds).

The causes of the Egyptian revolution were focused upon in 34% of the op-ed articles in the IHT. Opinion writers focused largely on the dictatorial nature of the Mubarak regime, its oppression of citizens, and the lack of basic freedoms. As articulated by Human Rights Watch’s researcher for Egypt, Heba Morayef (28 January, p. 6): ‘We have grown used to repressive tactics of the security forces: The hundreds of riot police circling demonstrations, the arrests and incommunicado detention of protest leaders at unknown locations, the general use of police brutality to intimidate, disperse and punish protesters. But on Tuesday, the protesters vastly outnumbered the state security forces.’ Bulgarian author Nikolai Grozni added (12 February, p. WK9): ‘After living in oppression for so long, Egyptians have already achieved what matters most: They have regained their dignity.’

One of the key frames that were discussed in the op-ed articles (32%) was the role of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement in the revolution and in post-Mubarak Egypt. The IHT columnists presented a careful assessment regarding the danger and opportunity of political integration of the Brotherhood within mainstream Egyptian politics. Several op-ed contributors in the IHT seemed to undermine the threat posed from the Brotherhood. Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Store wrote (14 February, p. 7): ‘We need to actively refute the popular stereotype that all contemporary political movements in the Arab world contain dangerous Islamist sentiments.’

Anthropologist Scott Atran from France’s National Center for Scientific Research wrote (2 February, p. A27): ‘But there is little reason for the United States to fear a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood. If Egypt is allowed to find its own way, as it so promisingly began to do over the past week, the problems of violent extremism and waves of emigration that America and Europe most fear from this unhappy region could well fade as its disaffected youth at last find hope at home.’

The IHT gave stage to several contributors linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Brotherhood council member Essam El-Errian wrote (10 February, p. A25): ‘We do not intend to take a dominant role in the forthcoming political transition. We are not putting forth a candidate for the presidential elections scheduled for September.’ Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al- Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928, is professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford. He wrote (9 February, p. 6): ‘Respect for democratic principles demands that all forces that reject violence and respect the rule of law (both before and after elections) participate fully in the political process. The Muslim Brotherhood must be a full partner in the process of change – and will be, if a minimally democratic state can be established in Egypt.’

Concern over the future of Israeli–Egyptian relations and the future of regional peace were key themes reflected in the op-ed articles (30%). IHT contributors articulated great concern about the aftermath of the Egyptian protests especially in the wake of Mubarak’s departure, as reflected in the following quotes. Cohen (1 February, p. 8): ‘A representative Egyptian government … will talk about Israel one day and may be less pliant to America’s will.’ Friedman added (1 February, p. A23): ‘I’m meeting a retired Israeli general at a Tel Aviv hotel. As I take my seat, he begins the conversation with: “Well, everything we thought for the last 30 years is no longer relevant”.’

Unlike the IHT, the Wall Street Journal’s European edition provided a more limited scope of frames regarding the Egyptian revolution as presented in its op-ed section. The results as shown in Table 2 indicate that discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood, the historical causes of the revolution, US policy, and the day after scenario dominated the opinion discussion.

Table 2.

Issue frames presented in the op-ed articles (Wall Street Journal Europe).

Issue	WSJ primary	WSJ secondary	WSJ combined
Muslim Brotherhood	7 (24%)	7 (24%)	14 (48%)
Historical causes	10 (34%)	1 (3%)	11 (38%)
Day after	3 (10%)	5 (17%)	8 (28%)
US policy	6 (21%)	2 (7%)	8 (28%)
Role of military	5 (17%)	2 (7%)	7 (24%)
Regional implications	6 (21%)	0 (0%)	6 (21%)
Arab Spring	5 (17%)	1 (3%)	6 (21%)
Social media	3 (10%)	2 (7%)	5 (17%)
Personal accounts	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	1 (3%)

Notes: Percentages rounded up or down the .05 level (29 WSJ op-eds).

Contrary to the IHT, the WSJ raised grave concerns over the potential role that the Muslim Brotherhood would play in a post-Mubarak era. Columnist Bret Stephens wrote (2 February, p. 15): ‘If the Brotherhood has its way, Egypt will become a Sunni Theocracy modeled on Iran.’ Former Dutch parliament member Ayyan Hirsi Ali wrote (18 February, p. 15): ‘Anyone who believes that a truly democratic outcome in Egypt is the real goal of the Muslim Brotherhood has failed to understand – or purposefully ignored – the group’s motto.’ Kenneth Pollack, the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, wrote (10 February, p. 13): ‘Although the Muslim Brotherhood likely represents only a minority of Egyptians, it probably would dominate any early elections.’

Not all WSJ contributors viewed the danger from the Muslim Brotherhood as imminent. Maajid Nawaz from a counter-terrorism think-tank wrote (2 February, p. 15): ‘In a post-Mubarak Egypt, the Brotherhood would likely increase its presence in parliament, but no Brotherhood figure is likely to win the presidency or a key cabinet post.’ WSJ columnist Matthew Kaminski wrote (15 February, p. 13) that ‘Egyptians demanded dignity and democracy, not Islam. Their weapons were the Tweet and the peaceful rally, not the terrorist suicide belt.’

The second most salient frame in the WSJ op-eds was the cause of the revolution frame (38%). Most contributors attributed the causes of the revolution to a failed Mubarak regime that has denied its own citizens basic human rights. Johns Hopkins professor Fouad Ajami wrote (29 January, p. 13): ‘There has always been an Egyptian pride in their country – even as Egypt tried and failed to modernize, even as its Sisyphean struggle broke its heart and engendered a deep sense of disappointment – and Mr. Mubarak came to offend that sense of national pride.’ American author Zachary Karabell (1 February, p. 13) added: ‘The young in Egypt – two thirds of the population is under the age of 30 – believe that they have no future, and in many ways they are correct. Under Mr. Mubarak, their food and housing is subsidized and they are placed in jobs or left in unemployed limbo, not starving but without any hope of anything but years of numbing sameness.’

Concerns over possible outcomes of the Egyptian revolution were key frames in WSJ op-ed columns (28%). Less concerned with Israeli–Egyptian relations, op-ed contributors wrote much more about the threats that face a post-Mubarak/post-revolution Egypt. Israeli military analyst and author Ronen Bergman wrote (2 February, p. 14): ‘Past experience suggests that if Mr. Mubarak’s regime is toppled, not only will American interests suffer, but the cause of freedom in Egypt could be set back dramatically. And the U.S. will have contributed to a Middle East that is less stable and more dangerous than it is today.’ Egyptian journalist Amir Bargisi (2 February, p. 12) added: ‘What is clear is that Egypt lacks the sort of political culture that can sustain a liberal democratic regime. The superficiality of the opposition’s demands is matched only by the absurdity of the regime’s discourse. Without knowledge of the likes of Locke and Burke, Hamilton and Jefferson, my country is doomed to either unbridled radicalism or continued repression.’

The results of the textual analysis with regard to RQ3 clearly indicate that the two newspapers offered different frames to their readers as reflected in the op-ed articles. While the op-ed contributors touched on many similar themes and key frames, they focused their attention on different sub-issues within the dominant frames.

Discussion

As a multitude of ordinary Egyptians flocked to Tahrir Square in protest of their authoritarian government, many people in the West were unsure of how to interpret the events that would later come to be known as the Arab Spring. One key platform for the articulation of opinion concerning the meaning and potential consequences of the Egyptian protests was the op-ed sections of leading western newspapers. The current study analyzed how the International Herald Tribune and the European edition of the Wall Street Journal framed the Egyptian revolution through the selection of contributors and the presentation of competition issue frames. Such framing strategies had the potential of setting the agenda for the readers (McCombs and Shaw, 1972) and the potential to influence the news agenda for other news outlets (Reese and Danielian, 1989).

Recognizing the salient role of the op-ed as a platform of journalism and advocacy, the current study aimed to build upon the scant academic literature regarding the framing of salient international political issues in opinion journalism.

Key findings to emerge from the current study should be considered in the greater context of their implications for the role that the op-ed plays in the global political and democratic process.

The first major finding is that while the Egyptian revolution was a matter of global consequence, the presentation of opinion was mostly limited in terms of authorship. The results of the analysis indicate that a handful of newspaper columnists, mostly Americans, accounted for a large percentage of the overall op-ed authorship.

Left out almost entirely from the important opinion section were female contributors who accounted for a mere 3.5% of all op-ed contributions. These findings are consistent with previous studies of opinion journalism that show that female contributors are few, especially when it comes to international policy issues (Columbia Journalism Review, 2005; Sommer and Maycroft, 2008; Tenore, 2011). The absence of meaningful female representation from the opinion section had been noted several years ago by industry officials and has led to the creation of such initiatives as ‘The Op-Ed Project’ that provides opinion writing training and mentorship to women around the world.¹

In addition, the results indicate that the opinions presented in the op-ed section were mostly those of newspaper columnists and of academics. Underrepresented in the debate over the Egyptian revolution and its implications were Arab opinion leaders, non-westerners, opposition leaders, and ordinary citizens. As such, the current study provides support for previous studies that point to a limited range of authorship regarding salient issues in op-ed articles (Golan, 2010; Greenberg, 2000; Richardson and Lancendorfer, 2004). The fact that the majority of op-ed articles regarding the Egyptian revolution were written by a handful of American columnists raises great concern over the ability of the op-ed platform to live up to its designated role of enhancing diversity of perspectives over consensus (Rosenfeld, 2000). The growing body of research on the op-ed section provides consistent evidence of the failure of newspaper gatekeepers to offer a platform for diverse expressions of opinion regarding salient issues.

Finally, the results of the content analysis outline two distinct framing strategies as presented in the two newspapers. It is important to note that the IHT allowed for much greater presentation of opinion regarding the Egyptian revolution than did the European edition of the WSJ (almost double in number). Both newspapers focused on the historical causes of the revolution, the potential day-after scenarios, and the Muslim Brotherhood as the most commonly mentioned frames. However, the results of the textual analysis provide evidence of differences in the interpretations of the three frames. More specifically, the IHT columnists presented a more careful assessment of the potential threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and its capabilities to take over Egypt in a post-Mubarak scenario. The WSJ columnists were more outright in presenting such a scenario and in integrating the Muslim Brotherhood frame into the day-after and regional implication frame.

While no one issue frame or opinion column represents the framing strategy of the newspapers op-ed editorial board, the articles collectively paint a picture of the dominant opinions that were put forward by the newspaper gatekeepers. There is no doubt that op-ed contributors face limited editorial interference (Shipley, 2004). Yet, it can be argued that in the context of the op-ed section, the gatekeeping selection process (see Shoemaker and Reese, 1996) can promote one perspective over another through the choice of authors. The results of the current study indicate that the two newspapers had presented two distinct perspectives regarding the major frames of the Egyptian revolution.

As argued by Entman (2008), public opinion regarding international issues is shaped and influenced by elite discourse. As a platform designated to bolster elite public discourse on salient topics, the op-ed plays an active role in the democratic process (Ciofalo, 1998). The results of the current study build upon previous studies that indicate that elite American newspapers fail to provide diverse perspectives regarding salient international affairs. Potential explanations for these findings include Bennett’s indexing theory (1990), which argues that the news media tend to limit the scope of their coverage to that of elite consensus. The results of our study raise concern about newspaper gatekeepers and their op-ed selection process along with the potential influence that this process may have on the public’s understanding of foreign affairs.

Limitations and future research

The current study was undermined by several limitations. One of its key limitations was the mostly descriptive nature of the nominal data. Largely based on nominal level variables, the current analysis offered a limited level of analysis. Furthermore, the study results offer a general description of the Egyptian revolution frames as presented in the op-ed but failed to explain why such framing strategies took place. Qualitative interviews with such experts as op-ed editorial staff or contributors may have provided a better understanding of the strategic gatekeeping selection process and its influence over opinion journalism. The study is also limited by its focus on two European editions of American newspapers. A cross-national content analysis of European op-ed sections may have presented a more global perspective regarding the interpretation of the Egyptian revolution and its potential outcome.

Future studies can build upon these limitations by expanding the analysis of op-eds beyond American and western publications. As such, emerging nations such as China, Turkey, and Brazil continue to establish their roles as nations of influence in global affairs. Media scholarship should not limit its investigation nor should it aim to generalize patterns based on an American perspective. As stated by Gurevitch and Blumler (1990: 308), the tendency to generalize based on a singular case is likely to result in ‘naive universalism.’

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Note

References

Ajami

(2011) Rebellion in the land of the Pharaohs, The Wall Street Journal, 29 January, 13.

Ali

(2011) The Quran is our law; jihad is our way. The Wall Street Journal, 18 February, 15.

Arafat

(2002) The Palestinian vision of peace. The New York Times, 3 February. Available at: www.nytimes.com (accessed 17 November 2011).

Atran

(2011) Egypt’s bumbling brotherhood. The New York Times, 2 February, A27.

Bargisi

(2011) Egypt doesn’t have a democratic culture. The Wall Street Journal, 2 February, 12.

Bennett

(1990) Toward a theory of press-state relations. Journal of Communication 40: 103–125.

Bergman

(2011) Lesson on Egypt from Carter and the Shah. The Wall Street Journal, 2 February, 14.

Blair

(2008) We can help China embrace the future. The Wall Street Journal, 26 August, A21.

Brown

Waltzer

(2005) Every Thursday: Advertorials of Mobil Oil on the op-ed page of The New York Times. Public Relations Review 31: 197–208.

10.

Ciofalo

(1998) Survey probes status of op-ed journalism and practices of op-ed editors. Newspaper Research Journal 19(2): 18–30.

11.

Ciofalo

Traverso

(1994) Does the op-ed page have a chance to become a public forum? Newspaper Research Journal 15(4): 51–63.

12.

Cohen

(2011a) A republic called Tahrir. The New York Times, 6 February, 9.

13.

Cohen

(2011b) Exit the Israel alibi. The New York Times, 1 February, 8.

14.

Columbia Journalism Review (2005) Where the girls aren’t: Population trends in op-ed land [Editorial]. 44(1): 7.

15.

Cull

(2008) The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American Propaganda and Public Diplomacy, 1945–1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Day

Golan

(2005) Source and content diversity in op-ed pages: Assessing editorial strategies in The New York Times and The Washington Post. Journalism Studies 6(1): 61–71.

17.

De Vreese

(2005) News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal + Document Design 13(1): 51–62.

18.

De Vreese

Jochen

Semetko

(2001) Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: A crossnational comparative study of frames in the news. Political Communization 18: 107–122.

19.

Dutta-Bergman

(2006) The demographic and psychographic antecedents of attitude toward advertising. Journal of Advertising Research 46 (1): 102–112.

20.

El-Errian

(2011) What the Muslim Brothers want. The New York Times, 10 February, A25.

21.

Entman

(2004) Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Entman

(2008) Theorizing mediated public diplomacy: The U.S. case. International Journal of Press/Politics 13(2): 87–102.

23.

Fowler

(1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.

24.

Friedman

(2002) An intriguing signal from the Saudi Crown Prince. The New York Times, 17 February. Available at: www.nytimes.com (accessed 17 November 2011).

25.

Friedman

(2011a) B.E., before Egypt. A.E., after Egypt. The New York Times, 1 February, A23.

26.

Friedman

(2011b) They did it. The New York Times, 12 February, WK8.

27.

Fürsich

(2009) In defense of textual analysis. Restoring a challenged method for journalism and media studies. Journalism Studies 10(2): 238–252.

28.

Gilboa

(2005) Media-broker diplomacy: When journalists become mediators. Critical Studies in Media Communication 22(2): 99–120.

29.

Gilboa

(2008) Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (March): 55–77.

30.

Golan

(2006) Inter-media agenda setting and global news coverage. Journalism Studies 7(2): 323–333.

31.

Golan

(2010) Editorials, op-ed columns frame medical marijuana debate. Newspaper Research Journal 31(3): 50–61.

32.

Golan

Wanta

(2003) International elections on US network news: An examination of factors affecting newsworthiness. Gazette 65(1): 25–39.

33.

Golan

Wanta

(2004) Guest columns add diversity to NY Times’ op-ed pages. Newspaper Research Journal 25(2): 70–82.

34.

Gorbechev

(2008) Russia never wanted a war. The New York Times, 19 August, A23.

35.

Greenberg

(2000) Opinion discourse and Canadian newspapers: The case of the Chinese boat people. Canadian Journal of Communication 25(4): 517–529.

36.

Groseclose

Milyo

(2005) A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 120(4): 1191–1237.

37.

Grozni

(2011) The ghost of revolutions past. The New York Time, 12 February, WK9.

38.

Gurevitch

Blumler

(1990) Comparative research: The extending frontier. In: Swanson

Nimmo

(eds) New Directions in Political Communication: A Resource Book. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

39.

Hachten

(2001) The Troubles of Journalism: A Critical Look at What’s Right and Wrong with the Press, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

40.

Halim

(2002) The unique role of moderate Arab states. The Washington Quarterly 25(4): 187–197.

41.

Hallahan

(1999) Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 11: 205–242.

42.

Hallock

Rodgers

(2003) The paradox of editorial diversity: A content analysis of the Cincinnati Enquirer and Cincinnati Post. In: Annual Meeting of the Newspaper Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, MO, August.

43.

Hatoyama

(2009) A new path for Japan, The New York Times, 26 August. Available at: www.nytimes.com (accessed 17 November 2011).

44.

Holsti

(1969) Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

45.

Jeffrey

Michaelson

Stacks

(2006) Exploring the link between volume of media coverage and business outcomes. Institute for Public Relations. Available at: www.instituteforpr.org (accessed 17 November 2011).

46.

Kaminski

(2011) Looking into the Egyptian crystal ball. The Wall Street Journal, 15 February, 13.

47.

Karabell

(2011) The economic roots of the revolt. The Wall Street Journal, 1 February, 13.

48.

McCombs

(1997) Building consensus: The new media’s agenda-setting roles. Political Communication 14(4): 433–443.

49.

McCombs

Shaw

(1972) The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2): 176–187.

50.

Morayef

(2011) The view from Liberation Square. The New York Times, 28 January, 6.

51.

Muggli

Forster

Hurt

Repace

(2001) The smoke you don’t see. American Journal of Public Health 91(9): 1419–1423.

52.

Nawaz

(2011) The Muslim Brootherhood lacks a Khomeini figure. The Wall Street Journal, 2 February, 15.

53.

Newsom

Haynes

(2011) Public Relations Writing: Form and Style, 9th edn. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

54.

Newsom

Turk

Kruckeberg

(2004) This is PR: The Realities of Public Relations. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

55.

Pan

Kosicki

(1993) Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication 10(1): 55–75.

56.

Papacharissi

Oliveira

(2008) News frames terrorism: A comparative analysis of frames employed in terrorism coverage in U.S. and U.K. newspapers. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 13(1): 52–74.

57.

Peres

(2004) Reasons of hope in Israel, The Boston Globe, 21 October.

58.

Pollack

(2011) Could al Qaeda hijack Egypt’s revolution? The Wall Street Journal, 10 February, 13.

59.

Ramadan

(2011) Whither the Muslim Brotherhood? The New York Times, 9 February, 6.

60.

Reese

Danielian

(1989) Intermedia influence and the drug issue: Converging on cocaine. In: Shoemaker

(ed.) Communication Campaigns about Drugs: Government, Media, Public. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

61.

Richardson

(2005) Switching social identities: The influence of editorial framing on reader attitudes toward affirmative action and African-Americans. Communication Research 32(4): 503–528.

62.

Richardson

Lancendorfer

(2004) Framing affirmative action: The influence of race on newspaper editorial responses to the University of Michigan cases. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 9(4): 74–94.

63.

Rosenfeld

(2000) The op-ed pages as a step to a better democracy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 5(1): 7–12.

64.

Ryan

(2004) Framing the war against terrorism: US newspaper editorials and military action in Afghanistan. Gazette 66(5): 363–382.

65.

Scheufele

(1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49(4): 103–122.

66.

Shipley

(2004) And now a word from op-ed. The New York Times, 1 February. Available at: www.nytimes.com (accessed 9 April 2008).

67.

Shoemaker

Reese

(1996) Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content, 2nd edn. White Plains, NY: Longman.

68.

Signitzer

Wasmer

(2006) Public diplomacy: A specific government public relations function. In: Botan

Hazelton

(eds) Public Relations Theory 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 435–464.

69.

Smith

Heath

(1990) Moral appeals in Mobil Oil’s op-ed campaign. Public Relations Review 16: 48–53.

70.

Socolow

(2010) A profitable public sphere: The creation of the New York Times op-ed page. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 87(2): 281–296.

71.

Sommer

Maycroft

(2008) Influencing public policy: An analysis of published op-eds by academics. Politics and Policy 36(4): 586–613.

72.

Song

(2003) Homogeneity and diversity in op-ed pages: A comparative analysis of op-ed pages of the Washington Post and the Washington Times. In: Annual Meeting of the Newspaper Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, MO, August.

73.

Song

(2004) Freelance op-ed pieces show newspapers’ political slant. Newspaper Research Journal 25(3): 38–49.

74.

Stephens

(2011) Being Hosni Mubarak. The Wall Street Journal, 2 February, 15.

75.

Store

(2011) The West’s takeaway from Tahrir Square. The New York Times , 14 February, 7.

76.

Tenore

(2011) Why women don’t contribute to opinion pages as often as men and what we can do about it. 25 February. Available at: www.poynter.org (accessed 17 November 2011).

77.

Wanta

Y-H

(1993) The agenda-setting effects of international news coverage: An examination of differing news frames. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 5(3): 250–264.

78.

Wanta

Golan

Lee

(2004). Agenda setting and international news: Media influence on public perceptions of foreign nations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 81(2): 364–377

79.

Wilcox

(2009) Public Relations Writing and Media Techniques, 6th edn. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

80.

Zappala

Carden

(2004) Public Relations Worktext: A Writing and Planning Resource, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.