Breaking the language barrier? Comparing TV news frames across texts in different languages

Introduction

The analysis of language is fundamental to formulating an understanding of news frames. Robert Entman (1993: 52) recommends identifying news frames by ‘the presence or absence of certain keywords, stock phrases, stereotyped images, sources of information and sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgments’. Shah et al. (2002) also emphasize the importance of language and quotations in determining the frame. The choice of adjectives and descriptions used in a journalistic report, whether written or broadcast, is one that is measured by the individual journalist or, in cases where media control is exercised, by the news organization or any external influences that might affect its output. Thus, the analysis of language and how it is used is an essential component when conducting framing analyses that aim to compare journalistic texts.

A layer of complexity is added to the process when one approaches the analysis of journalistic texts covering the same stories but in different languages, in particular when these languages belong to different language families, such as English and Arabic. Some studies that have applied framing analysis to Arabic and English language media texts have compared them through the analysis of visual imagery, such as Shahira Fahmy’s (2010) comparison of the American International Herald Tribune and the Saudi Al Hayat, with regard to their coverage of 9/11 and the Afghan War. While Fahmy’s study yielded important insights into how two publications from different linguistic, ideological and cultural contexts might cover the same (controversial) story, it focused on the role of visuals in mediating the story, rather than language. Both language and visuals are rooted in choices made by journalists, which are central to the way we interpret these news frames (Entman, 1991). While this article focuses primarily on how emotive language and tone might ultimately affect the construction of news frames, the larger study was one that gave equal measure to both language as well as visuals (Al Nahed, 2014). Of particular significance to the findings of the research was how language and visuals worked together to form the frames; for example, through juxtaposition or through the use of graphic footage along with emotive language. This can be seen through the example provided below, where Shaikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi made an appeal to kill Gaddafi, which was accompanied by a montage of graphic footage from across Libya. It is essential to consider the role of both visual and verbal elements as the nature of coverage, and in turn the framing, can only be assessed when the visual and the verbal are considered together (Robinson et al.; 2010a: 52). However, the topic of this particular article draws on how emotive language, as one element in the construction of the frame, affects the study of news frames and indeed how this emotiveness may be measured and assessed. Tone is another important element for framing building and its significance will also be analysed and assessed. Both emotive language and tone are particularly significant when analysing the story’s position, or what might be described as slant.

This article will consider the impact of both tone and emotive language on frames, while drawing on the above-mentioned research involving Al Jazeera’s and the BBC’s broadcast news coverage of the 2011 Arab uprisings (Al Nahed, 2015). Since translation from Arabic to English was a key component of the research, this article will also consider the challenges faced when translating broadcast news texts from Arabic to English in order to allow for comparability of findings. The research also considered the impact of reporter tone on news frames as this was considered a highly influential element in the framing process. The emotive nature of the Arabic language in particular rendered a complexity to the framing analysis, which this article will work towards reconciling via the analysis of broadcast news case studies from the Arab uprisings, in particular the 2011 Libyan uprising, across Al Jazeera (Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English) and the BBC (BBC Arabic and BBC World News).

Methodology

The sample from which the data for this study has been extrapolated involves four weeks of coverage of the Libyan uprising and ensuing NATO intervention. The sample involved four broadcast news channels across two networks: Al Jazeera Arabic, Al Jazeera English, BBC Arabic and BBC World News. This included the first week of the uprising (starting 17 February 2011), the week prior to the first day of the NATO intervention in Libya (19 March 2011), and the week following the first day of the NATO intervention. The last 10 days of the NATO intervention were also included in the sample, starting with the day Muammar Gaddafi was killed (20 October 2011), and ending with the day when NATO officially announced the end of its military operations in Libya (31 October 2011). The aim was to establish how Al Jazeera (Arabic and English) and the BBC (Arabic and World News) framed the Libyan uprising and the subsequent NATO intervention. Tone and emotive language were particularly significant in determining these news frames.

Several elements were coded across the sample; however, the three primary categories involved story tone, reporter tone, and the explanations and arguments that worked towards either legitimizing or delegitimizing both the revolution and the NATO intervention. Emotive language, as well as sensationalistic language, were also coded since both were significant in determining tone in these news stories. For example, the use of emotive language (such as ‘glorious’) to describe the revolution and its aims would indicate a positive tone that was supportive of the Libyan uprising and the protesters (or the rebels once the uprising became militarized). Similarly, the use of emotive language to describe the Libyan regime or Gaddafi himself (such as ‘tyrant’ or ‘mad’) would also indicate support for the uprising and the protesters. This in turn went towards building news frames that were supportive of the Libyan uprising and its aims, paving the way for the legitimization of this ‘revolution’ in the reporting of the particular channel or network.

An example would be the Revolution Frame, which was most present on Al Jazeera Arabic – a channel that particularly utilized emotive language in its descriptions of the Libyan uprising, the protesters and, later on, the rebels. In addition to the use of the words ‘revolution’ and ‘revolutionaries’ by journalists/guests (both loaded words which implied legitimacy), the channel also incorporated headlines that were quite emotive in their tone. An example would be ‘Libya … The Revolution and the Path of Confrontation’. Other examples of emotive language on Al Jazeera Arabic involved the presenter describing Gaddafi as ‘the voice who has always blinded Libya; and which has led to the oppression of millions in the country … it is a voice who will not stop shedding Libya’s blood’ (23 March 2011). This type of emotive language implies a presenter tone that is supportive of the uprising as a legitimate revolution against a tyrant. Both emotive language as well as tone worked along with several explanations and arguments to frame Gaddafi as an illegitimate leader, ultimately leading to the construction of the Revolution Frame.

The sections below will detail how the use of emotive language as well as tone were determined in this sample, and how they worked towards either legitimizing or delegitimizing the 2011 Libyan revolution and the ensuing NATO intervention.

Translation and the emotive nature of the Arabic language

It is first essential to consider that Arabic and English have different linguistic roots, with Arabic being a Semitic language and English being a Germanic language, which makes the translation process more complex. The fact that the two languages stem from different cultures also further complicates this process as culture in and of itself influences language. Another important aspect to consider when comparing Arabic and English language texts, in particular those that are broadcast, is the role religion might play in spoken Arabic news texts. While Islam is not the only religion in Arabic-speaking countries, it is the dominant one. Al Jazeera Arabic, for example, is based in Qatar, a country with a Sunni Muslim majority Arab population. The use of terminology such as ‘Allah willing’ or ‘with Allah’s blessing’ is also enmeshed within Arabic language and the incorporation of such terminology in colloquial Arabic (across the Middle East and North Africa) is part and parcel of the culture. This type of terminology is also common to Arab Christians, such as the Copts in Egypt.

This is one aspect to consider when approaching the translation process. Another is the emotive nature of Arabic as a language. Emotive language in the context of this study indicates the use of particular words to evoke emotion in the viewer, thus eliciting certain reactions and responses, such as nationalism, pride, sadness, anger, or a sense of injustice. In that sense, some might argue that emotive words are not objective. In the context of Western journalism, the inclusion of emotive words that might evoke certain responses, but also the use of such words (by journalists themselves) might constitute un-objective coverage. In many cases, such words would potentially trigger many emotions and are bound to moral values which could ultimately lead to value judgements (Macagano, 2014; Stevenson, 1937). For example, the use of the word revolution to describe the uprising would imply legitimacy of the movement, evoking a sense of passion which may translate into action. The use of the word ‘tyrant’ to describe former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi would imply illegitimacy and might conceivably ignite a sense of injustice in viewers. In the case of Libyan viewers, the use of this word might ultimately lead to collective action in a push towards socio-political change. In the same vein, describing dead Libyan protesters (or protesters in other Arab countries undergoing socio-political change in 2011) as martyrs would imply that they died fighting for a moral cause, especially given the religious connotations that such a word would imply.

Other emotive words used in coverage might invoke on behalf of the viewer (and indeed imply on behalf of the journalist) feelings of patriotism or national identity by playing on emotional sentiment and affinity for one’s country. In the context of the Arab uprisings, such sentiments could (and did indeed) broaden across national boundaries, with emotive language invoking feelings of a shared Arab identity. This latter type of coverage in particular very much encapsulates Al Jazeera’s (in particular Al Jazeera Arabic’s) coverage of the Arab uprisings of 2011. This was clear throughout much of the channel’s coverage through the use of mobilizing footage and emotive language that evoked revolutionary sentiment that was not merely nationalistic but also pan-Arab (Al Nahed, 2014).

The emotive nature of the Arabic language poses a particular problem for translatability due to the fact that emotions are ‘controversial’ and it can be difficult to reach a consensus or agreement when trying to determine what they might signify (Mahasneh, 2016: 270). Ultimately, the implications and meanings behind emotions very much lie in the cultural context within which they are based and from the role they play in the local culture (Harré, 1998). As such, when it comes to translating emotiveness within a particular language, it is important that the translator is not only experienced in the language itself, but is also aware of the various connotations some words might carry within the culture itself. For example, the word ‘dog’ might (and in most cases does) have a pejorative significance when used to describe someone in Arabic, as opposed to English, for example. This lies very much in the religious context of Arabic culture, whereby Muslims who have handled a dog must cleanse themselves (through ablutions) prior to praying (Mahasneh, 2016: 271). Thus, the word can be used as a slur. This a good example of how religion as well as the cultural context might come to affect emotiveness within the language, in particular the Arabic language where religion and religious connotation are very much enmeshed with each other. Another aspect that contributes to the emotive nature of Arabic is the centrality of poetry to the culture, with poetry being one of the strongest emotional literary genres (Alon, 2005; Mahasneh, 2016).

So an important element to consider when approaching the translation process is the need to retain as much as possible the original meaning of the text, especially when grappling with finding the right equivalent to the connotative meaning (Bell, 1991; Mahasneh, 2016). This is sometimes impossible and highlights the necessity of taking culture into account in the process of translation, as well as the need to go beyond literal understandings when conducting framing analyses that involve emotive languages such as Arabic, or indeed any two languages that are embedded in vastly differing cultural contexts. Mahasneh (2016: 272) argues that the translator must have a good background knowledge of both languages and cultures in order to compensate for any missing meanings or connotations in an effective way. Another possible way of retaining as much meaning as possible would be via inter-coder reliability, whereby two or more translators translate the texts for the purpose of the framing analysis.

Translation and framing in practice: Case studies from the Arab uprisings

Emotive language was very much present in coverage of the 2011 Libyan uprising and intervention, also in the coverage of Gaddafi’s death. This was determined via the methodology detailed above, which considered emotive language as a key component for determining tone and the larger frames within these news stories (Al Nahed, 2014). In the case of Libya, Al Jazeera Arabic was the most emotive in its coverage, as well as the most supportive of the opposition and the uprising. BBC Arabic was the most balanced, while BBC World News and Al Jazeera English lay somewhere in the middle (Al Nahed, 2014, 2015). First, it is important to consider that the political context had clear implications for these channels’ coverage of the Arab uprisings, also for the type of language used to describe the uprisings, the protesters and indeed the ‘revolutions’ and the ‘revolutionaries’ (Al Nahed, 2015). Here the political context refers to the particular political circumstances within which these news networks lie. In the case of Al Jazeera, it would be Qatar and the country’s internal and foreign policy aims. The significance of the political context in the case of Al Jazeera is that the network is completely funded by its government, namely the Qatari emir. This indicates a certain alignment between the network (in particular, its Arabic edition) and the political goals and geopolitical aims of its home country. In the case of Al Jazeera English, alignment has also been demonstrated, albeit to a lesser degree (Al Nahed, 2014, 2015). The BBC has also exhibited an alignment between its coverage of the Libyan uprising and the foreign policy goals of its home country. The key reasons behind the alignment between the two networks, their coverage of Libya in 2011 and the foreign policy aims of their home countries was due to the fact that both Qatar and the UK were active participants in the NATO intervention in Libya, whether financially or militarily, and in the implementation of the No Fly Zone over Libya in that year. Thus, coverage more or less followed the policies of the respective political contexts, especially in Libya where both the UK and Qatar were active participants in the military operation. It is worth noting here that the first so-called independent Libyan television channel, Libya Al Hurra, aired in 2011 from its headquarters in Doha, Qatar. In order to fully understand the significance of this, one must first understand Al Jazeera’s role in Qatar itself.

Qatar is a relatively small but very wealthy country, with the highest GDP per capita coupled with the biggest reserves of natural gas in the world. Surrounding it are two large and very powerful neighbours, Saudi Arabia and Iran. This positioning, between the reigning Sunni and Shia powers, has led the tiny nation to create innovative ways to establish itself diplomatically, chief among them establishing Al Jazeera as its media arm. The Al Jazeera channel, established in 1996, came at a prime moment in the history of Arab media and provided a counter-narrative to national news and pan-Arab media, which the Arab public largely distrusted as government-sponsored propaganda (El Nawawy and Iskander, 2002; Lynch, 2006; Miles, 2005; Rugh, 2004). Al Jazeera thus filled a void within Arab media as it identified a market demand in the Arab world for independent journalism and capitalized on addressing issues relating to political matters of key concern to their Arab viewers (El Nawawy and Iskandar, 2003: 33). Zayani (2005: 5) argues that Al-Jazeera succeeded in ‘providing food for an audience that is hungry for credible news and serious political analysis’. Such political matters included the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Iraq War, the War in Afganistan, and finally culminating in the 2011 Arab uprisings.

Al Jazeera Arabic, in particular, is a very appropriate case study when considering the topic of this article due to the emotive nature of its coverage across the Arab political issues mentioned above. In the case of the Arab uprisings, especially, the channel exhibited some very emotive language, which was very revolutionary in its nature (Al Nahed, 2014). It is important here to define what is meant by revolutionary language in order to assess its implications on the emotiveness of the coverage as well as the tone of the coverage. Revolutionary language would involve mobilizing words or tones used by presenters, correspondents, or guests who appear on news segments. For example, the use of the word ‘revolutionaries’ to describe people involved in protests in Egypt, Syria and Yemen, and the use of the same word to describe fighters in Libya, implies a certain type of angle to the coverage which is very much pro-uprisings. By describing the uprisings as revolutions and by assigning the mantle of a revolutionary to a protester or fighter, the channel/network is clearly giving legitimacy to the movement and the people involved. In addition to this type of emotive coverage, the channel also included mobilizing ‘promos’. These involve short segments or montages showing a variety of mobilizing images and words and they would precede and end each of the uprisings covered. Thus, there were promos dedicated to Libya, Yemen, Egypt and Syria. Perhaps unsurprisingly there were none dedicated to Bahrain and here the role of the political context becomes clear as Qatar and thus Al Jazeera would not be supportive of an uprising and political upheaval taking place next door. Bahrain was also never framed as a revolution.

This type of Qatari-aligned coverage was also present in Al Jazeera’s (particularly Al Jazeera Arabic’s, but also Al Jazeera English’s) coverage of the 2013 military coup that removed former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi from power (Dreyfuss, 2013). Due to Qatari support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Jazeera’s coverage itself was largely sympathetic to the deposed president and his supporters. So much so that three of Al Jazeera English’s staff were arrested and detained in December 2013 under charges of destabilizing Egypt and spreading false news. With Syria, there were similar circumstances, as Al Jazeera’s coverage was highly supportive of the disorganized Syrian opposition (Hashem, 2012), and this coverage fell in line with Qatar’s own support of the opposition (Lynch and Gearan, 2012). Thus, it may be argued that Al Jazeera’s coverage became more biased towards Qatari national and foreign interests as Qatar’s profile in the international diplomatic arena increased.

Returning to the key issue of language and its effect on coverage and framing, one must draw a distinction between descriptions or words that are clearly angled towards a cause and language that is emotive due to its linguistic and cultural context. This is of particular significance in the translation process, which is a step within the comparative framing analyses. In the case of Al Jazeera Arabic’s coverage of the Arab uprisings, it can be seen that the use of words such as ‘revolution’ and ‘revolutionaries’ is particularly loaded as it implies legitimacy. Thus, when these words were present in the coverage, it would be clear that the framing had a pro-revolutionary tone. The presence of the above mentioned promos would enhance these tones, leading to a story or package that framed the uprisings as a revolution. This highlights the role of the translators and their expertise in the language in decoding this difference whereby they would be able to establish whether the words used have loaded meanings (due to the political context, for example) or that the words merely reflect their cultural context.

Two examples here from Al Jazeera Arabic’s coverage of the Libyan uprising will help make this distinction clearer. The first involves Libyan cleric Shaikh Sadik Al Ghiryani, who, by using emotive language, was able to utilize Al Jazeera Arabic as a platform to call for the Libyan people to rise against Gaddafi. On 20 February 2011, during the first week of the uprising, Shaikh Ghiryani said:

What is happening in Libya is unbearable … it is a heavy-handed war apparatus being unleashed against bare-breasted civilians, who peacefully raise their hands above their heads as the regime shoots them brutally with live ammunition … these are scenes we only witness when the Zionists attack Gaza … a horrible and outrageous situation … Everyone must stand up to this; every Muslim is obligated to do whatever is in his [sic] power to stop this bloodshed; it is a horrendous massacre.

Al Jazeera Arabic also frequently invited Muslim cleric Shaikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi as a source and commentator, where he exhibited very emotive language, which drew on religious sentiment. Shaikh Qaradawi is an Egyptian cleric who is head of the Global Union for Muslim Scholars and is currently exiled in Doha; he also presented the Al Jazeera Arabic Islamic programme Sharia and Life. On 21 February 2011, Qaradawi issued a religious edict against Gaddafi’s order to his people to kill the protesters. He followed this with a fatwa to kill Gaddafi himself, describing him as ‘insane’. Qaradawi said:

I am protecting the people and I issue a fatwa to whoever is able to kill Gaddafi and relieve Libya and its people from his evil and his danger. It is forbidden to any man, whether he is a soldier or a pilot, to follow this man’s orders in evil and in sin and in injustice.

Accompanying this fatwa was a montage of very graphic footage of victims of Gaddafi’s brigades’ assaults on various cities in Libya. The presenter commented on the graphic nature of this footage, further augmenting its impact:

And usually in such instances, the viewing of such images becomes emotionally draining to any journalist, because unfortunately, some of it is absolutely unbearable.

In the cases of the two examples above, both religious sentiment and emotive language were used in order to give legitimacy and promote the cause of the Libyan protesters. While there is a clear pro-revolutionary sentiment in both reports, in particular from the emotional comments of the presenter above, it is complicated by the role played by Al Jazeera Arabic’s political context. A further layer of complexity is added when one considers that this type of coverage was present at the moment Qatar was beginning to have a role in Libya. It is essential to bear this type of impact in mind when conducting framing analyses in order to determine not only the frame, but also some of the elements that might lead to the construction of the frame itself.

To make the distinction above clearer, it would be helpful here to bring in the example of BBC Arabic. BBC Arabic first aired in 2008 and, up until 2014, the channel was funded by the UK Foreign Office. After that date, the UK government required the BBC to take over the funding of the channel. This means that, during the time of the 2011 Arab uprisings, BBC Arabic was funded by the Foreign Office, a government entity, thus heightening the impact of its political context. BBC Arabic’s coverage of the Arab uprisings was generally much tamer and less emotive than that of most Arab news channels/networks, in particular Al Jazeera Arabic (Al Nahed, 2014, 2015). This was due in large part to the ethos and professional environment of the BBC itself. An example would be the BBC’s Middle East Glossaries whose nomenclature implies its association with covering conflict in the Middle East (Barkho, 2008: 126–127). The BBC’s Middle East Glossaries, in its ‘Guide to Facts and Terminology on Israel and the Palestinians: Key Terms’ instructs news workers at channels across the BBC to cover the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in a particular manner and to avoid loaded terms such as ‘martyrs’ to describe Palestinian casualties.

This type of coverage from BBC Arabic is in stark contrast to the rest of the Arab news media environment, whereby the word ‘martyrs’ and ‘martyrdom’ are consistently used in relation to the Palestinians (on Al Jazeera and elsewhere). This also largely mirrors the expectations of Arab audiences as the Palestinian cause is one that is central to the Arab identity. However, irrespective of cultural expectations, BBC Arabic is instructed to describe dead Palestinians as casualties (rather than martyrs), regardless of the expectations or desires of an Arabic-speaking audience who might feel passionate about the Palestinian cause. It is worth noting that Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic do have separate Middle East Glossaries, and where Al Jazeera Arabic does describe Palestinian casualties as martyrs, Al Jazeera English does not (Barkho, 2008). Here it is clear that there are organizational influences that affect the way language might be used – the difference between Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English is a case in point – and it is important for scholars conducting framing analyses between two such channels to be aware of how these organizational influences might come to affect linguistic choices used by journalists during their reports, which in turn would have an impact on the frames present in news reports.

The above further relates to coverage of the 2011 Arab uprisings. While, as stated above, Al Jazeera (both English and Arabic) consistently framed some revolutions (namely Libya, Syria, Egypt and Yemen) as revolutions, BBC Arabic and BBC World News did not. This came as a result of instruction from the BBC itself to the broadcasting channels (Al Nahed, 2015). This certainly set BBC Arabic apart from Arab language news channels at that time as there was this consistent type of framing across Arab news media – of uprisings as revolutions and fighters or protesters as revolutionaries.

The difference outlined between BBC Arabic and Al Jazeera Arabic highlights another important element with regard to the use of emotive language in which clearly BBC Arabic’s own cultural British context has led to a more tempered stance in coverage. This meant that, throughout the Arab uprisings, BBC Arabic’s use of Arabic differed from that of Al Jazeera Arabic. This difference was enhanced by Al Jazeera Arabic’s tendency to use dramatic descriptions, also the emotional nature of Arabic news reports in Arab media generally. Barkho (2008: 125) comments on Al Jazeera Arabic’s use of emotive language and its impact on their viewership:

The best way to exercise ideological power in a conservative region like the Arab Middle East, where Al Jazeera is most influential, is to learn how to traverse language with the social power by relying on cultural and religious signs. This is what makes Al Jazeera Arabic’s culture and religion-based discourse legitimate and natural in the eyes of millions of its viewers.

This statement correlates with a study by Lawrence Pintak (2011) in which, through his study of Arab journalism, he found Arab journalists’ ‘cultural truth’ had a big impact on the way they cover stories, particularly stories from the Middle East. This implies that, within Arab journalism, there is an articulation of the Arab identity that is present in coverage and which in turn resonates with Arab audiences. An example would be the above-mentioned use of the word ‘martyrs’ to describe Palestinian casualties, the use of the word ‘occupier’ to describe the Israeli presence in Palestine and indeed the use of the word ‘revolution’ to describe the successive uprisings that gripped the Middle East and North Africa in 2011. While the use of such words might be deemed controversial to Western audiences and critics (Ajami, 2001; Kessler, 2012), since they deviate from the parameters of the western journalistic ethic of objectivity, they are the norm in the Middle East due to their cultural context. Pintak (2011: 3) describes this as a ‘self-identity’ within Arab journalism, and while he finds that this ‘self-identity’ must lie at the core of any discussion about Arab journalism, he does not find it implies biased coverage. However, this lack of bias does not imply an absence of framing, and he describes framing as:

The particular angle from which the reporter approaches the story, which is in turn, dictated by the reporter’s unique worldview – the personal baggage we all carry, shaped by kindergarten, culture, and community. Nor does it mean a universal agreement on what ‘objectivity’ even means. (p. 4)

Here, an example from Al Jazeera English’s coverage of the 2011 Egyptian uprising would help further clarify how this might translate into coverage. Al Jazeera English’s coverage of the 2011 Egyptian revolution that unseated former President Hosni Mubarak was contextual and far less emotional than coverage on Al Jazeera Arabic, save for a few instances. For example, on 11 February 2011, the day Mubarak fell, AJE correspondent Rawya Rageh held back tears of joy and said that since she was born, she had never known an Egyptian president other than Hosni Mubarak. Thus, while Al Jazeera English might be less affected by the cultural context from within which it operates, there are still instances when Arab journalists, such as Rawya Rageh mentioned above, might still articulate their Arab identity on screen. It is worth noting here that Al Jazeera Arabic’s reports were far more emotive and very confrontational about oppositional voices with a strong sense of Arab identity that was very clear in the linguistic choices made by journalists (Al Nahed, 2014). While this type of coverage was mainstream to Al Jazeera Arabic’s viewers and was present in coverage of a variety of other Arabic news channels, it would not be the case with Western channels such as the BBC. While, in the case of Egypt in particular, there was a somewhat euphoric sense about the fall of Mubarak (such as on BBC World News, for example) there are clear differences in the way the uprising was covered by Arab journalists and the way it was covered by journalists in English-speaking countries. Through the above, we can gain further insight into the necessity of taking the cultural context (and how it might translate into emotive language) into account when conducting framing analyses across texts of different languages. This cultural context, as demonstrated here, may translate into key areas such as the perceived professional mission of the journalist and the emotive nature of the language itself, which would ultimately impact on how news workers frame stories.

The analysis of tone

A way forward with regard to weighing up the impact of emotive language on frame building is by incorporating an analysis of tone as well, in particular reporter tone. Negative or positive tones are also, along with linguistic choices, an essential part of the makeup of a frame. Here it would be useful to return to the methodology defined at the outset and examine how it was employed to determine the tone in news reports from the 2011 Libyan uprising.

As stated earlier, in order to determine the frames present in the Libya sample, several aspects of the story were measured and assessed. These involved presenter and/or correspondent tone and story tone, as well as any rationales that gave legitimacy to the uprising and/or the intervention. Examples of rationales could, for example, involve emotive footage or particularly emotive commentary surrounding human suffering as inflicted by the Gaddafi regime. This type of coverage would in turn give legitimacy to the military operation as well as to the protesters’ aims to depose Gaddafi. Tone was particularly tricky to establish, largely due to how it fluctuated throughout the news stories. A tone scale was developed drawing on previous framing research that studied UK media coverage of the 2003 Iraq war (Robinson et al., 2010a, 2010b). Story tone and presenter/correspondent tone were each placed on a scale ranging from heavily pro-revolution or heavily pro-intervention, to heavily anti-revolution or heavily anti-intervention. The aim was to establish presenter or correspondent tone, as well as story tone, towards the uprising, on the one hand, and towards the NATO intervention, on the other. Thus, the tones towards both were deemed necessary to the frame. The tone scale was as follows: heavily pro, somewhat pro, neutral, mixed, evaluative, somewhat anti, heavily anti.

The tone of the story and the tone of the journalist here refer to its stylistic character, as well as the qualities and opinions that might be contained within – whether implicitly or explicitly. For example, an explicit tone would be verbalized through linguistic choices (via emotive language, for example) and word choice either by the presenter or the correspondent, or by the expert/guest. An implicit tone would not be verbalized but might be implied through physical cues or non-verbal hints, which might for example denote agreement or disagreement. Both reporter tone and story tone contribute greatly to the construction of the frame, by reinforcing the frame through tones that fall in line with the frame itself.

Presenter or correspondent tone was part and parcel of story tone; however, it was the most explicit and straightforward way to determine the frame of the stories within the sample. When journalists, for example, expressed pro-revolutionary views, this ultimately went towards constructing frames that were pro-revolutionary in nature and which framed the uprising as a legitimate revolution with legitimate aims. Similarly, with the intervention when journalists expressed pro-interventionist views or tones, this ultimately went towards constructing pro-interventionist frames, such as frames that were cheerleading towards the intervention or frames that established the intervention as legal and necessary. The type of language used by the journalist, especially in cases where it is emotive or indeed passionate, is an essential step towards understanding the tone within the story, which is a step towards establishing what types of frames might be present within the story. This is especially the case when fluctuating tones are present within the story. For example, the story tone could range from heavily pro-revolution to neutral or mixed. This may come as a result of having several journalists (with varying tones) present within the broadcast news package. It might also come as a result of guests or experts using tones that might conflict with the journalists’ tone or the overarching story tone. However, when especially emotive language is used by the journalists in the report, it becomes more or less straightforward to determine the tone present in the story due to the weight this type of emotive language would give to the construction of the frame.

This ties in with the above mentioned study by Pintak (2011) as well as a further study by Pintak and Ginges (2008) in which they found in their analysis of 600 Arab journalists that 75 percent of them understand their professional mission to be socio-political change. It also correlates with the points mentioned earlier in this article which posited that culture itself has an impact on language and linguistic choices. If a large majority of Arab journalists perceive their mission to be socio-political change, this would ultimately affect the language that they would use during politically turbulent times such as the 2011 Arab uprisings.

The example from BBC Arabic below is illustrative of how reporter tone might affect the construction of the frame. A news report from 22 February 2011 included footage from Libyan state television which showed pro-Gaddafi rallies in Tripoli. The presenter introduced these live images from Tripoli as footage ‘of what Libyan television claims are supporters of Muammar Gaddafi’. This description, and indeed tone, denoted that the presenter doubted the genuine support of these pro-government supporters, thus indicating his doubts of any remaining support for the Colonel in Libya. Thus, the tone contributed to framing that implied that the country, or at least the majority of it, was united in its uprising against Gaddafi.

Finally, emotive language and tone regularly work together to contribute to frame building as the example below from Al Jazeera Arabic exhibits. On 23 March 2011, four days after the start of the NATO mission in Libya, a segment on Al Jazeera Arabic exhibited revolutionary framing by first explicitly describing the uprising as a revolution. This was established by the headline, ‘Libya … The Revolution and the Path of Confrontation’, accompanied by a promo preceding the correspondent’s report that also contained the same headline. The correspondent then proceeded to explicitly describe the uprising as a ‘revolution’. Commenting on Gaddafi’s address in Bab Al Azizia, the correspondent said:

It is the voice that had always blinded Libya, and had led to the oppression of millions of people in Libya, as well as the country’s natural resources and economic capabilities, all in the name of the one leader and his sons. It is also the voice that will not stop shedding Libya’s blood and fails to recognize the changes that have been imposed by the past 35 days of revolution. (Al Jazeera Arabic, 23 March 2011)

Correspondent tone above is pro-revolutionary; this is due to linguistic choices (the explicit use of the word ‘revolution’) as well as the use of emotive words such as ‘blinded’, ‘oppression’ and ‘blood shedding’. Ultimately, the reporter’s tone and his use of emotive language heavily influenced the framing of the news story itself, which framed the uprising in Libya as a legitimate revolution aimed at deposing a tyrannical regime.

Conclusion

This article has examined some of the complexities that might arise when comparing news frames across broadcast news texts of different languages, particularly when these two languages come from different cultural or social contexts. Emotive language is an especially complex aspect of the translation process and Arabic is one such language where emotiveness is part of the language’s identity. Thus, this article proposes looking past literal translations when conducting framing analyses of this kind, while also keeping the cultural context of the language itself in mind through the translation and framing process.

Another aspect to consider is the differences with which journalists might view their profession, as exemplified in Pintak and Ginges’ (2008) study of 600 Arab journalists, of whom the majority cited their professional mission to be socio-political change. This would ultimately affect the linguistic choices and the tone these journalists might use, especially in reports involving socio-political upheaval. The 2011 Arab uprisings are a good example to draw on here as they presented a moment when revolutionary spirit gripped Arab news media, particularly with networks such as Al Jazeera where news reports exhibited pro-revolutionary framing, much of which was attributed to the emotive language used by journalists in their reports. Thus, while it is important to move beyond literal meanings of emotive language when conducting framing analyses, it is also important to measure the impact that such emotive language might have on tone and ultimately its impact on the frame present in the story. It is also essential to establish the influences that might lead to journalists using such emotive language, such as the political context, as exemplified by Al Jazeera’s coverage of the 2011 Libyan uprising as well the 2013 coup that removed former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi.

This article has aimed to bridge some of these methodological gaps by drawing on examples, and indeed differences, between the Al Jazeera network (Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English) and the BBC network (BBC Arabic and BBC World News) in terms of their framing of the 2011 Libyan uprising. This was particularly in relation to the linguistic choices made by the Arabic language channels and how their choice of language might have affected the tone of their stories. Ultimately, while both Al Jazeera Arabic and BBC Arabic operate in the (in many cases emotive) Arabic language, Al Jazeera Arabic utilized far more emotive language than BBC Arabic. These linguistic choices, which ultimately led to pro-revolutionary coverage, were largely rooted in Al Jazeera’s political context, which was politically and economically involved in the Libyan intervention. The Arab journalistic professional mission discussed earlier also had an impact. As for BBC Arabic, its more tempered stance was largely rooted in its organizational context, which was bound by the organizational and professional culture of the BBC itself.