The Media and Public Opinion - Theoretical and Methodological Analysis of the Debate on National Identity: This article deals with the “great debate on national identity” initiated by the Ministry of Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Mutually-Supportive Development in the winter of 2009-2010. Using the theory of framing (Bateson, 1972; Entman, 1993; Chong and Druckman, 2007), it seeks to identify the relationship between permeability and public debate as it is shown on the Web and the media coverage of the latter. To do this, a crossed lexicometric analysis of two corpora was done: on one hand, the 18,240 contributions posted on the dedicated ministerial site; on the other, the 1,436 press articles published from 25 October to 2 December 2009. A descending hierarchical classification was done with the Iramuteq software and identified, by their lexicon, places of permeability between personal and media frameworks in the apprehension of the debate, but also the specific universes of discourse to one or other corpora. We present them here in a detailed manner while proposing explanatory approaches of their dynamics.
BatesonG (1972) Vers une écologie de l’esprit. Tome 1. Paris : Seuil, trad. française1977.
2.
BaumgartnerFRMahoneyC (2008) The Two Faces of Framing: Individual-Level Framing and Collective Issue Definition in the European Union. European Union Politics9(3): 435–49.
3.
BergerPLLuckmannT (1966) The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday, trad. française 1986, Paris: Librairie des Méridiens Klincksieck.
4.
ChongDDruckmanN (2007) A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments. Journal of Communication57: 99–118.
5.
DupuyPOMarchandP (2009) Débat de l’entre-deux tours 2007 - La conquête de l’espace lexical. Mots - Les langages du politique89 : 105–17.
6.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
7.
EntmanRM (1996) Reporting Environmental Policy Debate. The Real Media Biases. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics1(3): 77–92.
8.
EntmanRM (2004) Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
GamsonW (1992) Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
GamsonWModiglianiA (1989) Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. American Journal of Sociology95(1): 1–38.
11.
GilesDShawRL (2009) The Psychology of News Influence and the Development of Media Framing Analysis. Social and Personality Psychology Compass3(4): 375–93.
12.
GitlinT (1980) The Whole World Is Watching. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
13.
GoffmanE (1974) Les cadres de l’expérience. Paris : Editions de Minuit, trad. française 1991.
14.
IyengarS (1991) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
LamalleCSalemA (2002) Types généralisés et topographie textuelle dans l’analyse quantitative des corpus textuels. In Actes des sixièmes Journées d’Analyse des Données Textuelles, Saint-Malo, 403–12.
16.
LevinIPSchneiderSLGaethGJ (1998) All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes76(2): 149–88.
17.
MarchandPRatinaudP (2012) Être français aujourd’hui. Les mots du « grand débat » sur l’identité nationale. Paris: Les Liens qui Libèrent.
18.
MartyE (2010) Journalismes, discours et publics - Une approche comparative de trois types de presse, de la production à la réception de l’information. Toulouse : Université de Toulouse, thèse de doctorat NR en sciences de l’information et de la communication.
19.
MatthesJKohringM (2008) The Content Analysis of Media Frames: Toward Improving Reliability and Validity. Journal of Communication58: 258–79.
20.
PriceVTewksburyDPowersE (1997) Switching Trains of Thought: The Impact of News Frames on Readers’ Cognitive Responses. Communication Research24: 481–506.
21.
ScheufeleD (1999) Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication49: 103–22.
22.
SnowDABenfordRD (1988) Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization. In KlandermansBKriesiHTarrowS (eds) International Social Movement Research: From Structure to Action. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 197–218.
