Journalism plays a fundamental role in curbing corruption. News media exert their watchdog role mainly by investigating and reporting cases of bribery and abuse of power, but also through the way they contribute to the social construction and understanding of corruption in the public debate. Media perform a double role, as an arena for the public debate, and an active participant in it. Media framing affects citizens’ perceptions and attitudes, and exert power in the development and application of public policies regarding specific issues. Therefore, investigating media representations of corruption is fundamental for the understanding of how the issue is socially constructed in specific contexts.
This paper approaches media framing of corruption through a comparative study of significantly different cases, so as to allow contrasts and hidden structures to emerge more clearly. Print media representations of corruption are therefore investigated in two modern democracies (New Zealand and Italy) which respectively rank 1st and 60th in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index 2016 (CPI). Historically, both New Zealand and Italy have maintained similar positions in the CPI, with New Zealand ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, and Italy positioned at the bottom of the European countries.
In a social constructionist perspective, a qualitative framing analysis of the coverage of two major corruption scandals (the “Expo scandal” in Italy, and the “Taito Phillip Field scandal” in New Zealand) is conducted, matched by a historical analysis of the coverage of the CPI over a period of 20 years (1996-2016). The analysis shows that corruption is differently framed in the two countries. Specifically, print media in New Zealand tends to depict corruption as an individual crime, in opposition to the integrity of politics and society. In New Zealand, individual responsibility is put at the centre of the stage, and so is accountability. On the other hand, in Italy corruption is framed as a systemic problem, and individual responsibility is relegated into the background in favour of a widespread use of personifications, metonymies, hyperboles and metaphors (mainly in the dominions of disease, disaster, and war). Corruption, therefore, is constructed as an entity capable of agency, or as a disaster. Particular attention is given to the use of metaphors and narratives as fundamental framing devices for the media construction of corruption in the two countries.
These highly contrasting frames are discussed considering the different socio-historical features of corruption in the two countries. Moreover, these differences are put in relation with their potential to influence the role of the media in controlling and curbing corruption.
