Abstract:
The way information is presented to us may dramatically alter the way in which we understand that information. The imposition of different culturally resonant narrative structures, or "frames", upon facts may change the way in which we interpret, for example, certain important issues or events. If the public is exposed to only one framing of an issue or event by the mass news media, there is a greater likelihood that the public may understand that issue or event according to that framing. A news media that present only a limited range of issue frames can, thus, hinder the public's ability to make well-informed decisions about issues that affect them.
Recognising the potential the media have to affect public opinion, political actors strive to have their framing of an issue feature prominently in the mass news media, hoping that in so doing there is a greater chance of the public adopting their interpretation of the issue, and thus supporting them at the ballot box. This thesis examines the presentation of political party-presented frames by the mass news media in the context of the 2005 general election campaign in New Zealand, and asks whether one political party's frames dominated the print news media's coverage of ""Maori issues"". The frames used by political actors to discuss "Maori issues" in the build-up to the election are identified in this research, and the print news media's coverage of "Maori issues" is analysed to identify whether one party's framing of these issues was adopted or reported most prominently. The findings suggest that the New Zealand print news media were relatively impartial and balanced in their coverage of the "Maori issues" debate during the 2005 campaign, in relation to the coverage of party-presented frames. However, the frames supported by parties opposed to National's "Maori issues" policies did appear most frequently in the news media coverage, despite the National Party instigating the debate in the context of the 2005 election campaign.
