A Comparative Analysis of European Media Coverage of Children and the Internet Leslie Haddon Department of Media and Communication LSE Gitte Stald Innovative Communication Group IT University of Copenhagen

Agenda for presentation  Research context and media analysis  Aim of study  Hows and whys  Methodological challenges  Four stories: 1) Amount of coverage 2) Common: negative articles 3) International stories 4) Risk coverage varies by country  Summary Media(ted) perspective? or opportunities risks

Research contexts & media analysis CountryTotal Austria72 Belgium79 Bulgaria9 Denmark21 Estonia116 Germany112 Greece44 Ireland50 Italy90 Norway104 Portugal56 Slovenia79 Spain130 UK63 Total1025 Media analysis as part of WP2 – research contexts: Which cultural factors and political, economic, and research strategies shape research in children’s and young people’s acces to and uses of online media? 14 participating countries Four newspapers – national, regional, popular Two months – november and December 2007

Aim of study General patterns of media coverage, which applied in many countries if not necessarily in all. Do certain aspects of the internet receive more media attention? Do negative stories tend to be more newsworthy? Are the voices and views of some groups more likely to be reported in the press than others?

Aim of study Questions relating to cross-national variation: Might differences in media coverage help to explain some of the different perceptions across countries of the Internet as a ‘place’ where children can spend time, of the opportunities open to them and of the risks that they might encounter? Are the experiences of children online simply less visible in some national media compared to others? Do some national press provide a more optimistic picture of children’s life online? Are any ‘problems’ portrayed as something that happens in other countries? Or is the media message, “could it happen here?”

”how” is easy – ”why” is a challenge Answers to why we find differences and similarities and what they mean are difficult Patterns of press coverage regarding extent, attitudes and impact depend on a complex combination of factors such as culture, traditions of public discourses and debate, communication and market strategies, reader interests, etc. These all make an uncertain foundation upon which to build a comparative analysis of causes and consequences.

”how” is easy – ”why” is a challenge Methodological challenges to conducting this type of study Attempts to be representative through balancing choice quality and popular/tabloid press, as well as regional press proved difficult. Data gathering through paper or online versions may provide different results Issues of inter-coder reliability across national teams

Story 1: Amount of coverage  Few countries with very similar levels of low coverage: Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece and Portugal, 8-9 articles per newspaper over 2 months.  The majority of countries had about 20.  Outliers: Italy (30) Spain (over 40).

Common levels of coverage  Bulgaria, Greece and Portugal had lower internet penetration rates.  Denmark is an anomaly  Apart from the outliers, where the internet is more established there appears to be a similar level of reporting

Story 2: Common: negative articles  A few countries were the cumulative coverage was positive  Some where it was balanced or mixed  There were many countries where coverage was negative, quite extreme in some cases

Why?  Different awareness raising campaigns?  National media find it newsworthy to show how the virtual world can be a dangerous place?  Bad news generally more newsworthy?

Importance of legal reporting  Overall and in most countries coverage was mostly dominated by court cases/police actions/ crime  Crime, court cases or police operations were clearly the most significant source and basis of the story  It is the police and legal representatives who are most often cited.

Risks vs opportunities  Far more on risks than opportunities  2/3 risks  1/5 opportunities  Content risks 50%  Conduct 30%  Contact: 20%

Cross-cultural variation  Denmark is the most outstanding case: only 14% crime, etc reporting  Is this because: (a) there is less crime/reported crime (b) there is less media coverage of the crime that exists To what extent do these two factors more generally explain cross-cultural variation?

Story 3: International stories  2 major international stories in this time period  a) the hunt of and capture of a paedophile posting online images  b) a massacre in a Finnish school posted on YouTube

National coverage of these events  Coverage of both stories varied substantially  This would to an extent affect the overall statistics  To what extent do particular stories affect the cross- national pattern?  In some countries the proportion of international news is high that such stories have a large influence on the figures

Story 4: Risk coverage varies by country  Although content risks predominate in many countries, there is some variation  This may in part be accounted for by particular stories e.g. conduct risks were high in Norway because of the Finnish massacre

Variation in risk coverage  BUT it may also reflect media or wider values in different countries e.g. content coverage is low in Norway, including sexual content.  In Norway there is a notion of ‘natural childhood’ where sexuality is less of a risk (but where children’s rights are emphasised)

Consequences of variation  Apart from reflecting values, different media coverage in different countries helps to sensitise the different populations to different risks

Summary  There is more in the paper on other results, methodological challenges, how to proceed.  The 3 main stories covered here were: - Common levels of coverage - The significance of crime etc reporting - Reporting of international events - National variation in coverage of risks

A Comparative Analysis of European Media Coverage of Children and the Internet Leslie Haddon Department of Media and Communication LSE Gitte Stald Innovative Communication Group IT University of Copenhagen