Skip to main content

Table 2 Distribution of different frames across the coverage (N = 1,322 statements)

From: Advocates, interest groups and Australian news coverage of alcohol advertising restrictions: content and framing analysis

  PRE POST PRE EXCL. ALCOPOPS
  n % n % n %
SUPPORTIVE FRAMES: Advertising restrictions as….
· The sensible public health response e.g. ““First, the Government needs to ban alcohol advertising, especially on television, as was done for tobacco” 139 17.1 103 20.3 119 16.9
· Necessitated by the disingenuous drinks industry e.g. “…industries will never agree to effective controls on their irresponsible promotions” 78 9.6 77 15.2 76 10.8
· Indispensable counter to pervasive advertising culture e.g. “Now I have seen it all, an Australian Digger and Victoria Cross winner used to market beer” 63 7.7 45 8.9 61 8.7
· Crucial in sport e.g. “four out of five people wanted to see an end to alcohol sponsorship in all local sports clubs, provided there were funds to replace the lost revenue.” 178 21.9 38 7.5 132 18.8
· Necessary protection for children e.g. “Should alcohol advertising be banned? No, certain types should be, such as those that particularly target young people. I'm a wine drinker so I like to learn about different varieties from their ads.” 62 7.6 34 6.7 59 8.4
· Total supportive 520 63.9 297 58.5 447 63.5
· UNSUPPORTIVE FRAMES: Advertising restrictions as…
· Overkill and unwarranted for a responsible drinks industry that contributes to the community e.g. “In terms of responsibility, we are absolutely like any other promoter out there in ensuring that we're doing everything we can…” 180 22.1 92 18.1 163 23.2
· Pointless, ineffective, politically unfeasible and nannyist e.g. “it's our right to rejoice in the pleasures of Aussie family life and mateship over a drink or two, and we should resent having that right trampled by do-gooder politicians and nanny-state troopers” 49 6.0 37 7.3 47 6.7
· An attack on commercial freedom, creativity and jobs e.g. “This is not the sort of policy a government would want to impose on struggling media companies in the middle of a major global economic recession” 28 3.4 32 6.3 26 3.7
· Non-urgent and not government’s preferred policy e.g. “While the government is supportive of limiting the exposure of children to advertising that may unduly influence them, the government will not consider regulatory action at this time” 29 3.6 10 2.0 18 236
· Total unsupportive 294 36.1 171 33.7 254 36.1
· NEUTRAL FRAMES       
· New ideas e.g. “Junk food and alcohol advertisements should be hit with a levy to force companies to market less harmful products” - - 27 5.3 - -
· Neutral 7   13 2.5 3 0.4
TOTAL 814 100.0 508 100.0 704 100.0