Cargando…

A comparative content analysis of newspaper coverage about extreme risk protection order policies in passing and non-passing US states

BACKGROUND: Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws are a tool for firearm violence prevention (in effect in 19 states), often enacted in the wake of a public mass shooting when media coverage of gun violence tends to spike. We compared news media framing of ERPOs in states that passed and those t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aubel, Amanda J., Pallin, Rocco, Knoepke, Christopher E., Wintemute, Garen J., Kravitz-Wirtz, Nicole
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9109361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35578227
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13374-8
_version_ 1784708883887947776
author Aubel, Amanda J.
Pallin, Rocco
Knoepke, Christopher E.
Wintemute, Garen J.
Kravitz-Wirtz, Nicole
author_facet Aubel, Amanda J.
Pallin, Rocco
Knoepke, Christopher E.
Wintemute, Garen J.
Kravitz-Wirtz, Nicole
author_sort Aubel, Amanda J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws are a tool for firearm violence prevention (in effect in 19 states), often enacted in the wake of a public mass shooting when media coverage of gun violence tends to spike. We compared news media framing of ERPOs in states that passed and those that considered but did not pass such laws after the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of 244 newspaper articles about ERPOs, published in 2018, in three passing (FL, VT, RI) and three non-passing states (PA, OH, CO). Measures included language used, stakeholders mentioned, and scientific evidence cited. We use chi-square tests to compare the proportion of articles with each measure of interest in passing versus non-passing states. RESULTS: Compared to newspaper coverage of non-passing states, news articles about ERPOs in passing states more often used only official policy names for ERPOs (38% vs. 23%, p = .03), used less restrictive language such as “prevent” to describe the process of suspending firearm access (15% vs. 3%, p < .01), mentioned gun violence prevention advocacy groups (41% vs. 28%, p = .08), and referenced research on ERPOs (17% vs. 7%, p = .03). Articles about passing states also more often explicitly stated that a violent event was or could have been prevented by an ERPO (20% vs. 6%, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Media messaging that frames gun violence as preventable, emphasizes identifiable markers of risk, and draws on data in conjunction with community wisdom may support ERPO policy passage. As more states consider ERPO legislation, especially given endorsement by the Biden-Harris administration, deeper knowledge about successful media framing of these life-saving policies can help shape public understandings and support. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13374-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9109361
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91093612022-05-17 A comparative content analysis of newspaper coverage about extreme risk protection order policies in passing and non-passing US states Aubel, Amanda J. Pallin, Rocco Knoepke, Christopher E. Wintemute, Garen J. Kravitz-Wirtz, Nicole BMC Public Health Research BACKGROUND: Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws are a tool for firearm violence prevention (in effect in 19 states), often enacted in the wake of a public mass shooting when media coverage of gun violence tends to spike. We compared news media framing of ERPOs in states that passed and those that considered but did not pass such laws after the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of 244 newspaper articles about ERPOs, published in 2018, in three passing (FL, VT, RI) and three non-passing states (PA, OH, CO). Measures included language used, stakeholders mentioned, and scientific evidence cited. We use chi-square tests to compare the proportion of articles with each measure of interest in passing versus non-passing states. RESULTS: Compared to newspaper coverage of non-passing states, news articles about ERPOs in passing states more often used only official policy names for ERPOs (38% vs. 23%, p = .03), used less restrictive language such as “prevent” to describe the process of suspending firearm access (15% vs. 3%, p < .01), mentioned gun violence prevention advocacy groups (41% vs. 28%, p = .08), and referenced research on ERPOs (17% vs. 7%, p = .03). Articles about passing states also more often explicitly stated that a violent event was or could have been prevented by an ERPO (20% vs. 6%, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Media messaging that frames gun violence as preventable, emphasizes identifiable markers of risk, and draws on data in conjunction with community wisdom may support ERPO policy passage. As more states consider ERPO legislation, especially given endorsement by the Biden-Harris administration, deeper knowledge about successful media framing of these life-saving policies can help shape public understandings and support. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13374-8. BioMed Central 2022-05-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9109361/ /pubmed/35578227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13374-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Aubel, Amanda J.
Pallin, Rocco
Knoepke, Christopher E.
Wintemute, Garen J.
Kravitz-Wirtz, Nicole
A comparative content analysis of newspaper coverage about extreme risk protection order policies in passing and non-passing US states
title A comparative content analysis of newspaper coverage about extreme risk protection order policies in passing and non-passing US states
title_full A comparative content analysis of newspaper coverage about extreme risk protection order policies in passing and non-passing US states
title_fullStr A comparative content analysis of newspaper coverage about extreme risk protection order policies in passing and non-passing US states
title_full_unstemmed A comparative content analysis of newspaper coverage about extreme risk protection order policies in passing and non-passing US states
title_short A comparative content analysis of newspaper coverage about extreme risk protection order policies in passing and non-passing US states
title_sort comparative content analysis of newspaper coverage about extreme risk protection order policies in passing and non-passing us states
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9109361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35578227
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13374-8
work_keys_str_mv AT aubelamandaj acomparativecontentanalysisofnewspapercoverageaboutextremeriskprotectionorderpoliciesinpassingandnonpassingusstates
AT pallinrocco acomparativecontentanalysisofnewspapercoverageaboutextremeriskprotectionorderpoliciesinpassingandnonpassingusstates
AT knoepkechristophere acomparativecontentanalysisofnewspapercoverageaboutextremeriskprotectionorderpoliciesinpassingandnonpassingusstates
AT wintemutegarenj acomparativecontentanalysisofnewspapercoverageaboutextremeriskprotectionorderpoliciesinpassingandnonpassingusstates
AT kravitzwirtznicole acomparativecontentanalysisofnewspapercoverageaboutextremeriskprotectionorderpoliciesinpassingandnonpassingusstates
AT aubelamandaj comparativecontentanalysisofnewspapercoverageaboutextremeriskprotectionorderpoliciesinpassingandnonpassingusstates
AT pallinrocco comparativecontentanalysisofnewspapercoverageaboutextremeriskprotectionorderpoliciesinpassingandnonpassingusstates
AT knoepkechristophere comparativecontentanalysisofnewspapercoverageaboutextremeriskprotectionorderpoliciesinpassingandnonpassingusstates
AT wintemutegarenj comparativecontentanalysisofnewspapercoverageaboutextremeriskprotectionorderpoliciesinpassingandnonpassingusstates
AT kravitzwirtznicole comparativecontentanalysisofnewspapercoverageaboutextremeriskprotectionorderpoliciesinpassingandnonpassingusstates