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.

过往已有诸多研究探讨了全媒介语境下的企业犯罪（corporate crime）媒体叙事问题，研究样本涵盖所有媒体来源（Wright等人，1995）、仅针对小报媒体（Machin与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）建议针对不同案件与媒体渠道展开差异分析，而Machin与Mayr（2012）则指出，当前针对媒体如何构建企业犯罪（而非企业丑闻）认知的研究仍较为匮乏。截至目前，尚无针对高质量报刊（quality press）中企业犯罪议题的相关研究，这为本研究探索高质量新闻渠道中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件及其在三家不同英国本土在线高质量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高质量报刊如何呈现此类议题，以及不同媒体对相关事件的批判性介入是否存在差异。本研究聚焦于确凿无疑的刑事案件——包括过失致人死亡案、金融诈骗案与违反环境法案件——这将帮助我们初步厘清，明确的刑事犯罪案件（遑论那些更为模糊的案件）是否会被框架化为严重性不足的事件。此外，本研究设计还可实现小型对比分析，以考察同一类型的媒体渠道在企业犯罪报道框架上的差异。

有鉴于此，本研究填补了当前学术文献的空白：本研究吸纳多位学者的研究建议，将媒介理论融入犯罪学研究，在企业犯罪与大众媒介研究的交叉领域做出了具有价值的学术贡献。简言之，本研究从三个维度拓展了既有研究：其一，采用了犯罪学领域此前被忽视的研究方法；其二，探索了企业犯罪媒介研究中较少被使用的媒体来源；其三，考察了多家高质量新闻媒体在报道框架上是否存在差异。为此，本研究提出如下研究问题：
在报道LIBOR案、大众汽车案与格伦费尔事件的在线高质量报刊文章中，首周报道阶段最受重视的报道框架是什么？
各家媒体在报道施害者、犯罪成因、受害程度与拟议处罚时，其报道框架存在何种差异？

研究发现，高质量报刊可对企业不当行为持批判态度，并将其置于有害企业活动的更广泛语境中进行呈现，尤其当媒体的政治立场允许其开展此类报道时。但总体而言，高质量报刊的媒体叙事仍呈现出霸权性特征：其报道过度简化，且缺乏与犯罪行为相关的典型框架。