Framing In News Media; From Pillarization To Polarization
No Comments yet
Aalt Smienk – Beeldvorming in Berichtgeving; Joden toen, Moslims nu – Amsterdam, Rozenberg Publishers, 2022
07-27-2026 ~ Framing in news media is probably as old as news media themselves. In social sciences framing is usually used to describe a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies in general organize, perceive, and communicate about reality. Framing plays an important role in interpersonal communication like in social and news media. In short, frames may be seen as mental representations, interpretations and simplifications of the reality.
Since news media, next to different other social media, play an important role in the public debate about current issues, it is worthwhile to pay attention to the way in which minority groups are framed in news media, particularly at moments when there rises an issue or debate on conflicts in society.
An example of framing of Muslims is the presentation in 2008 of the anti-Islam production Fitna by Geert Wilders, chair and only member of the Dutch rightwing party PVV. This Internet film tries by way of selected excerpts from Surahs (chapters) of the Qur’an, and interspersed with media clips and newspaper cuttings showing or describing violent acts by muslims worldwide, to demonstrate that Qur’an followers are motivated to hate all who violate Islamic teachings. Fitna pretends to describe the influence of Islam in The Netherlands in particular. The narrative may be summarized as follows: Islam encourages acts of terrorism, antisemitism, violence against women, and violence against LGBT people. Therefore Islam and Muslims should be excluded from our country.
In his PhD dissertation ‘Framing Differences in the News; Jews then, Muslims now‘ (Beeldvorming in Berichtgeving; Joden toen, Moslims nu) (2022) Smienk investigated by way of content analysis, the framing of Muslims in Dutch newspapers (1990-2013) and compares this with the framing of Jews in Dutch newspapers (1890-1910). The analysis took into account the way in which the media landscape has developed during the last century.
In the past decades, Muslims and Islam have frequently been in the news.
At the end of the 19th century, the position of Dutch Jews, at that time being the largest non-Christian religious minority group, was discussed in Dutch newspapers in a more or less comparable way in which Dutch Muslims were discussed one century later.
The comparison of the news coverage of both groups provided insight into the process of emancipation into Dutch society, then and now. Although we pay in this contribution some attention to framing of Jews then, we focus particularly on the framing of Muslims now.
The content analysis of 52748 articles about Muslims or Islam in different newspapers (NRC, Trouw, De Volkskrant, De Telegraaf and Het Algemeen Dagblad) focussed on a specific part of the framing, namely the reporting on the position of Muslims in Dutch society. Muslims as a social category, although with a totally different background as Jews around 1900, may likewise be considered a religious minority, a group that is ‘knocking on society’s door’.
The analysis, carried out both quantitatively (amount of attention for Muslims, their social position, and related current issues) and qualitatively (different narratives) took as a point of departure the theoretical concepts: assimilation, segregation, integration and dominance as a possible description of the position of Muslims in society. These four concepts were used to construct four ideal-typical frames of reference to analyse how the position in society of the two minorities, Jews (back then) and muslims (presently) is represented in the news.
Previous research findings show that there are various factors and criteria that may influence the process of selection and production of news. Most of these factors, like agenda setting and framing, proved to be relevant to this research. Agenda setting is the process in which media decide what to report. When media not only select what readers should know, but also describe how readers should think about events (the narrative), this process is called framing.
The place of today’s newspapers in the media landscape and their role in society is different from that of the newspapers at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. The first part of the 20th century was characterized by the division of Dutch society along political and religious lines, also known as pillarization. The newspapers in this period were often dominated by religious, political and/or social movements, which has been described as a period of political logic: what is news and how the news is presented to the readers is predominantly determined by representatives of the political, societal and religious currents within society. For example a catholic newspaper addressed, through Catholic journalists, Catholic readers; a Socialist newspaper addressed Socialist readers.
From the nineteen seventies onwards newspapers were no longer dominated by religious, political and/or social movements; their historical ideological ties with the various social movements gradually disappeared. The reader was considered more as a citizen who needs to be informed, to be able to act as a responsible citizen. Around 2000, newspapers changed their attitude towards their readers from citizens that need to be informed into consumers who need to be entertained. So media themselves decided more on what readers would like to know and in that respect they were or became more competitive towards each other. The number of readers and ‘having the scoop’ became more important criteria for the selection of news items. The way newspapers selected their news in the first decade of the 20th century is usually called media logic. One could say that news around 1900 was more politicized and around 2000 more entertainment and reader or customer oriented.
Another relevant difference between the current media landscape and that of one century ago is the position of the newspaper within the field of all different news media. Whereas at, the end of the 19the century, newspapers were the most important and fastest way for readers to keep abreast of the news, today newspapers are no longer the only providers of news, and certainly no longer the fastest way to get informed about the outside world. Nowadays radio, tv, and increasingly social media, like X and TikTok, play a prominent role.
The analysis of framing in the news of Jews, around 1900, showed that their images were initially problematic, connected to the ‘Dreyfus affair’, the rise of antisemitism in Western Europe, the prosecution of jews in Eastern Europe, and even polarizing around the late nineteenth century, but became significantly less negative in the beginning of the twentieth century. That could, at least partly, be explained by the fact that Dutch Jews were not the only emancipating group in Dutch society at that time; also women, workers, Catholics and Protestants, Socialists, organized themselves separately from each other in similar ways – the start of pillarization – and with similar goals, striving for a more equal position in Dutch society, and in their struggle they sometimes allied with other groups. In short, the emancipation of Jews in Dutch society did not differ from that of other religious, political and/or social minorities. Therefore it was not considered a social problem, nor was it described or depicted as such in newspapers.
Dutch Muslims’ emancipation efforts on the other hand, were increasingly considered outdated at the end of the 20th century since it this took place in a period in which religion was losing significance in Dutch society and religious parties no longer dominated Dutch governments. The strategy of strengthening one’s own identity by organizing as a movement – accepted and seen as successful in the earlier period of pillarization and pacification – was considered counterproductive and an obstacle to their successful integration into society.
The results of the analysis of framing of Muslims during the period 1990-2013 led to an opposite picture compared to the framing of Jews one century ago. Those results show an increase in the use of word roots ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islam’ from 2000 onwards. At the same time, the increased use of the four frames of reference mentioned earlier shows that after 2000, news coverage of Muslims focuses more on their position in society. Until the year 2000, this reporting was mainly about integration – Muslims were comparatively described as people trying to find their way in a multicultural society. The Sebrenica disaster was the main international news event in which Muslims were described as victims of a genocide.
Most news articles published before 2000 started from the perspective that minorities were to become part of Dutch society in the same ways other minorities had done this in the past. So by bonding in religious and cultural networks, Muslims would find their way in Dutch society. In that decade more critical views on the integration of Muslims in Dutch society, like the late liberal politician Frits Bolkenstein delivered in his ‘Luzern speech’ for the European Liberals in September 1991, were seen as non- or contra productive to this process. That view was heavily criticized in news reports. Twenty years later Bolkestein could repeat his points of view with much less criticism. From being marginalized, his views were much more in the center of the discussion about Muslims and the previous more optimistic views on the integration was gradually marginalized and almost disappeared in Dutch news articles.
An example of such an optimistic view in which integration while maintaining own identity, is an article by Willy Reedijk, titled: ‘Minorities should just remain themselves’ (De minderheden moeten gewoon zichzelf blijven) (Trouw, April 21, 1994).
After criticizing people who “until recently expressed nuanced views on the multicultural society, she argues:“In reality, mutual influence between cultures and civilizations has always taken place throughout history. Christianity has been extensively influenced and enriched by the world of Islam. Islam, in turn, built upon the insights of the ancient Greeks and adopted Jewish precepts. Where Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived and worked together in peace, civilization flourished, as in Islamic-Andalusian Spain from the eighth to the fifteenth century.”
The ideal of a multicultural society appears in Reedijk’s concluding remarks, referring to the late Algerian philosopher Arkoun (1928-2010):“The Islamologist Mohamed Arkoun shows us that we are dealing not so much with‘divisions’ as with‘distinctions’. Mutual differences exist, but they are not of such a nature that we must declare them insurmountable contradictions.”
Later, after 2000, the news reporting on their position in society focused more on what may be called their ‘dominance’: Muslims were comparatively more portrayed as ‘perpetrators’, moreover ‘Muslims do not want to integrate, they want to impose their lifestyle, norms and values, upon “us”’. This increase is also visible in the amount of attention given to issues, especially in the use of problematic issues such as ‘nuisance’ or ‘terrorism’, often in combination with the issue of ‘religion’, and in the used terminology.
In the news the attention for ‘Islam critics’ also increased after 2000. The domestic news events, the political rise and success of Pim Fortuyn (2001/2002), his violent death (May 2002), the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh (2004), and the release of the internet film ‘Fitna’ (2008), play an important role in the representation of Muslims in the by Smienk investigated newspapers. In short, the analysis shows that the image of Muslims became more negative after 2000.
According to Smienk’s analysis, the article by Paul Scheffer (the Multicultural Drama, NRC Handelsblad, 29 January 2000) played a key role in this change. Scheffer concluded that the multicultural society is a mere illusion. The 9/11 drama only confirmed this ongoing development in Dutch news media. The qualitative content analysis of a random variety of news articles showed that in each of them, one of the frames of reference was paid attention to, but the analysis confirmed also the shifts in representation of Muslims over the period. Thus the former more pluralistic spectrum of opinions about Muslims narrowed after 2000. The reporting on the latter became increasingly unequivocal, negative, portraying Dutch Muslims as mere stereotypes.
In short, Muslims were framed as outsiders, not willing to become part of Dutch society.
An example of the changing narrative can be illustrated by an article of Marcel Ten Hoven (Trouw, February, 18, 2000). Ten Hoven discusses in his article ‘the illusion of equality’ (De illusie van gelijkheid) the way in which minorities should integrate in order to become part of our society.
His main point is: “The ideal of integration while preserving one’s own identity is no longer tenable. A new, immigrant underclass can only be avoided if the minorities assimilate”. According to him, norms and values enshrined in the Constitution are non-negotiable. The cultural contribution of the newcomers is subordinate to Dutch culture and Western civilization. This implies that newcomers must adapt to the dominant culture and thus assimilate. One’s own cultural and religious identity is not desired in the public sphere but should remain confined to the private sphere. Like he writes: “the multicultural ideal of the gradual development of a new, common culture in the Netherlands, in which native and immigrant lifestyles have harmoniously merged, is unattainable.”
The lack of ideological differences between the newspapers and the absence of a Muslim newspaper in the period 1990-2013, can be seen as one of the explanations for the more uniform and negative reporting on Muslims and illustrates the ‘media logic’. In short, news media tend to copy each other’s way of reporting.
The effect of news reporting on public opinion was not part of the content analysis of news on Muslims. The least we may conclude is that news reporting after 2000, by increasing negative framing of Muslims, has contributed to polarization in public opinion and in society.
One of the most striking results of the analysis of news reports about Muslims is the nearly total absence of the issue ‘Islamophobia’ in the news. While antisemitism was explicitly mentioned as an underlying sentiment in news reports about Jews, hundred years ago, and is still used in connection to criticism on Israel, Islamophobia appears to be a blind spot in news reports about Muslims in Dutch society. Given the negative stereotypes and framing of Muslims, one would have expected more attention for the topic of Islamophobia.
But as far as there is some attention, it is usually not very positive.
Take for example the recent debates in the House of Representatives in the Netherlands regarding Islamophobia. They are characterized by sharp contrasts. On the one hand, parties such as D66, DENK, PRO and Volt are deeply concerned about a rise in the number of anti-Islamic incidents and hatred of Muslims. On the other hand, right-wing and Christian parties such as the PVV, JA21, and SGP are just pushing for a tougher line against the Muslim Brotherhood and fiercely oppose the recognition of the term ‘Islamophobia’. To illustrate, In June 2026, a motion by SGP MP André Flach was adopted in the Dutch House of Representatives. The motion calls on the government to deliberately refrain from recognizing and actively mentioning the International Day for the Elimination of Islamophobia.
One of the effects of framing of Muslims became very visible in a recent incident concerning riots in November 2024 in the center of Amsterdam around a football match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv (MTA) where people were harassed. The incident started when Israeli hooligans of MTA, amongst them IDF soldiers and Israeli reservists who came to visit the match. Entering the center of Amsterdam before the match, they removed a Palestinian flag from a house, and proudly started singing “kill all the Arabs”, and, even worse, “there are no schools left in Gaza, because there are no children left”.
The same evening a taxi driver with Moroccan background was molested because of his ethnic background.
After the match the conflict escalated. Fireworks, thrown by the hooligans were answered with attacks with iron pipes by ‘boys on scooters’ while shouting like “this is for the children” and “free Palestine|”. Instead of describing what happened, trying to check the facts, Dutch and international press immediately published their judgements. Nuisance was altered into hatred and planned antisemitism, and people involved were reduced to victims and attackers. Local politicians like the Mayor of Amsterdam and politicians in Parliament were jumping over each other claiming for severe punishment of the scum. In short, the clash was framed as a pogrom. Even the Israeli government immediately prepared ‘evacuation’ of the Israeli hooligans from their hotels in Amsterdam. A plane with armed ‘supervisors’ was quickly made ready for take off in Tel Aviv to ‘evacuate’ their Jewish citizens.
When the smoke cleared, the story was not as digitized as it seemed in the beginning, but the news reports were almost never rectified. Only the mayor of Amsterdam generously rectified her first ‘pogrom’ judgment. So, at the end of the day, the image of the Israeli Jewish victims and Dutch Moroccan perpetrators sustained (see for good analysis, based on facts ‘Against Forgetting’ (Tegen het Vergeten) by Rachida Azough (November 2024, De Groene Amsterdammer).
The question may rise whether there are possibilities for changing the current discussion on Muslims and related issues in Dutch newspapers, and in news coverage of conflicts in general. That at least implies a journalistic approach that pays more attention to dialogue and less to polemic, choosing a high instead of a low road. Such an approach from a peace perspective, like advocated by Galtung and Fisher (2013), could pay attention to all the different parties and opinions in the debate. Such an approach may generate or at least contribute to a change in the discussion by focusing upon solutions to problems rather than upon the victors of a struggle. Such an approach, may describe Muslims not primarily as enemies or adversaries, but rather as neighbours and fellow citizens.
About the authors
Dr. Aalt Smienk, VU University in Amsterdam – Lecturer, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Organization Sciences, Lecturer, Network Institute & Lecturer, Research Programmes – Social Sciences, Mobilities, Beliefs and Belonging: Confronting Global Inequalities and Insecurities (MOBB)
Kees (CG) van der Veer, currently connected to TPU and Galtung Institute (Grenzach-Wyhlen) is also director of the Cultural Studies Foundation in Amsterdam, is a former research fellow from the International Peace Research Institute Oslo and emeritus from VU University in Amsterdam. He studied Sociology, Peace Research, and (Social) Psychology in Amsterdam, Groningen (NL) and Oslo (NO), and received his PhD at the University of Amsterdam in 1986, with a dissertation on Ideology and Mass Media.
You May Also Like
Comments
Leave a Reply