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.

过往已有诸多研究针对全媒介语境下的企业犯罪（corporate crime）媒体叙事展开探讨（Wright et al., 1995），亦有研究仅聚焦小报媒体（Machin & Mayr, 2012），或是对比地方报纸与全国性报纸的报道呈现差异（McMullan, 2006）。Hupp Williamson（2018）建议对不同案件与媒体机构（media outlets）间的差异开展分析，而Machin与Mayr（2012）则指出，当前针对媒体如何对企业犯罪（而非企业丑闻）进行概念化的研究仍较为匮乏。迄今为止，尚无研究探讨优质新闻媒体（quality press）中的企业犯罪议题，这为本研究探索优质媒体语境下的企业犯罪现状提供了独特契机。

本研究拟针对三起企业违法案例及其在三家英国本土在线优质新闻媒体中的报道呈现展开探索性研究。此举将有助于探索在线优质新闻媒体如何呈现此类议题，以及不同媒体对事件的批判性解读是否存在差异。本研究聚焦三起明确构成犯罪的案例：过失致人死亡案、金融诈骗案与违反环境法案，借此初步探讨：明确构成犯罪的案件（遑论那些更具模糊性的案件）是否会被媒体框架为缺乏严重性的事件。此外，本研究设计还可实现小型对比分析，即探讨同一类媒体机构在企业犯罪的报道框架上可能存在何种差异。

综上，本研究呼应多位学者的研究建议，填补了当前学术文献的空白：在企业犯罪与大众媒体研究的交叉领域中，本研究将媒体理论引入犯罪学（criminology）研究，从而作出了具有价值的学术贡献。简言之，本研究从三方面拓展了既有研究：其一，采用了犯罪学领域此前被忽视的研究方法；其二，探索了企业犯罪媒体研究中较少使用的媒体来源；其三，探讨了多家优质新闻媒体间是否存在报道框架差异。为此，本研究提出以下研究问题：
在讨论伦敦银行同业拆借利率（LIBOR）案、大众（Volkswagen）案与格伦费尔（Grenfell）案的在线优质新闻报道中，报道发布首周最受重视的报道框架为何？
各家媒体在对犯罪行为人、犯罪成因、受害程度与建议处罚措施的框架上，这些报道框架存在何种差异？

研究发现，优质新闻媒体可对企业不当行为持批判态度，并将其置于更广泛的有害企业活动语境中进行呈现——尤其是当媒体自身的政治立场允许其这么做时。但总体而言，优质新闻媒体的企业犯罪叙事因过度简化、缺乏与犯罪相关的框架而呈现出霸权性特征。