Accidents, Scandals, Disasters: The Media Framing of Corporate Crime

Many studies have previously examined the issue of corporate crime media narratives across all media sources (Wright et al., 1995), tabloids only (Machin & Mayr, 2012), or a comparison between portrayals in local and national papers (McMullan, 2006). Hupp Williamson (2018) recommends analyzing differences across cases and media outlets and Machin and Mayr (2012) highlight the short supply of research assessing the extent to which corporate crimes (as opposed to scandals) are being conceptualized by the media. To date, there were no studies examining corporate crimes in quality press, presenting a unique opportunity for this research to explore the state of corporate crime in quality press outlets.

I intend to do this by conducting an exploratory study of three instances of corporate offending and their representation in three different UK-based online quality press sources. Doing so will provide an opportunity to explore how online quality press presents these issues and whether there are any differences between their critical engagement with the events. Focusing on cases that are unquestionably criminal – a case of manslaughter, financial fraud and a breaking of environmental law – will offer an introductory insight into whether cases that are clearly criminal (let alone those that are more ambiguous) get framed as lacking in seriousness. My research design will also allow for a small comparison between how even one type of outlets may vary in their framing of corporate crime.

As such, this paper fills a gap in current literature as it develops on the recommendations of several scholars, by providing a valuable contribution at the intersection of corporate crime and mass media studies that employs media theories within criminology. Simply, this paper builds on existing research in three ways: it presents methodology previously overlooked within criminology, it explores sources not often employed in corporate crime media studies, and it examines whether there are any differences across multiple quality news sources. I do this by asking the following research questions:

What frames are given most salience during the first week of coverage in online quality press articles that discuss the LIBOR case, the Volkswagen case, and the Grenfell case?
How do these frames differ in each outlet based on their framing of the perpetrator, cause of crime, extent of victimization, and proposed punishment?

It is found that quality press can be critical of corporate wrongdoing and portray it in a wider context of harmful corporate activities, especially if their political orientation allows them to do so. However, by and large, quality press narratives were found to be hegemonic by being oversimplified, and lacking frames synonymous with crime.

众多研究先前已探讨企业犯罪在各类媒体来源中的叙事问题（Wright 等人，1995 年），仅限于小报（Machin 与 Mayr，2012 年），或对地方报纸与全国报纸中的描绘进行比较（McMullan，2006 年）。Hupp Williamson（2018 年）建议分析不同案例与媒体机构之间的差异，而 Machin 与 Mayr（2012 年）则指出，评估媒体对企业犯罪（而非丑闻）概念化的程度的研究供应不足。迄今为止，尚无研究探讨优质媒体中的企业犯罪，为此项研究提供了独特的机遇，以探索优质媒体机构中企业犯罪的状态。本研究旨在通过考察三个企业犯罪案例及其在英国基于网络的三个优质媒体来源中的呈现，进行一项探索性研究。这样做将提供机会探讨在线优质媒体如何呈现这些问题，以及它们在事件批判性参与方面是否存在差异。聚焦于无可争议的犯罪案例——包括过失杀人、金融欺诈和环境法律违规——将初步揭示明显犯罪（更不用说更模糊不清的犯罪）是否被框架化为缺乏严重性。我的研究设计还将允许对同一类型媒体机构在框架企业犯罪方面的差异进行微小比较。因此，本文填补了当前文献的空白，它基于多位学者的建议，在犯罪学与大众传媒研究交叉领域提供了有价值的贡献，其中运用了犯罪学内的媒体理论。简言之，本文在现有研究的基础上进行扩展，主要体现在三个方面：它提出了在犯罪学领域内被忽视的方法论，它探讨了在企业犯罪媒体研究中很少被采用的来源，并考察了多个优质新闻来源之间是否存在差异。我通过提出以下研究问题来实现这一点：在讨论LIBOR案例、大众汽车案例和格伦费尔案例的在线优质媒体文章的第一周报道中，哪些框架被赋予了最高的显著性？这些框架在每个媒体机构中如何根据其对犯罪者的框架、犯罪原因、受害者受侵害程度和提议的惩罚进行区分？研究发现，优质媒体可以对企业不当行为进行批判性评论，并在更广泛的危害企业活动背景下对其进行描绘，特别是如果其政治倾向允许这样做。然而，总的来说，优质媒体的叙事被发现是霸权性的，表现为过于简化，缺乏与犯罪同义的框架。