Media framing of the Social Security privatization debate (1993 to 2004)

This research examines the extent to which the print media play an autonomous role in framing public policy debates by using their own messages or those derived by policy elites. Specifically, it analyzes national print media coverage of the Social Security privatization debate from 1993 to 2004 and evaluates whether the media provided balance coverage of the risks and benefits of privatizing Social Security.;Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and examined from a content analysis of media coverage from USA Today, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal . Articles meeting specific search criteria were retrieved from the Nexis database, resulting with 350 articles being coded. These articles were analyzed with a model designed to evaluate "media autonomy." Media balance was measured by the number of mentions of risks and benefits of private accounts.;The analyses produced mixed results. There was some evidence that the media relied on policy elite frames, particularly the generational equity frame, but most media frames emphasized the political strategies surrounding the debate, with little discussion of substantive content. While more risks than benefits were identified, the direction of coverage on private accounts shifted from more positive in the early years of the debate to negative after 2001. Thus, the media's role and direction of coverage changed when policy reform appeared imminent. The coverage of the risks and benefits stressed personal gain, suggesting that media discourse on Social Security moved further from the notion of collective responsibility and toward individualism.;These findings illustrate that the national print media did not play an autonomous role in framing the Social Security debate. Instead, they reported on political conflicts, which allowed them to remain impartial. The findings also challenge the assumption that the dominant frames in Social Security debate are based on generational issues. By emphasizing political conflict over content, the media may be omitting important information needed by the public to make informed decisions about policy reforms.