Evolution of News Frames During the 2011 Egyptian Revolution

Mubarak and the government

Early in the uprising, some CNN stories present Mubarak as diplomatically close to the United States by referring to him as an ally, detailing how he has helped the United States, and quoting U.S. officials who state Mubarak is a U.S. partner (e.g., CNN Wire Staff, 2011a). Other CNN stories, however, position Mubarak’s regime as an ally, but one who is increasingly a liability because of its human rights violations. Fox News’s early revolution coverage also paints Mubarak as problematic for the United States: “On one side is Mubarak, who has presided over a corrupt government and meager economy without holding free elections. Unfortunately for President Obama, he’s a key U.S. ally” (“As Egyptian Unrest Builds,” 2011, para. 2). As the revolution continues, some stories contain references to Mubarak as ally, but other accounts indicate Mubarak’s status as U.S. friend is waning. A CNN report mid-revolution explains the changed relationship: “Obama’s decision to break with Mubarak, a critical U.S. ally in the Mideast, serves as a warning to U.S. allies that they too are expendable” (Labott & Levs, 2011, para. 19). White House officials do not publicly state Mubarak’s ally status is in jeopardy, although they push Mubarak for reform. Claims regarding Mubarak’s strained ties with the United States are attributed to former officials, off-the-record sources, or have no direct citation. Statements positioning Mubarak as still an ally later in the revolution are attributed to Republican officials criticizing the White House’s handling of Egypt. By revolution’s end, journalists position Mubarak’s political alliance with the United States as something of the past or make no mention of his friendship. Although media accounts make it clear Mubarak is no longer a U.S. friend, they do not indicate the former president is a threat.

Anti-government protesters

Fox News’s and CNN’s early coverage does not focus on protesters’ status as U.S. friend or foe; instead, it explains how protesters’ actions affect the United States. In isolated instances, both news outlets quote protest leaders criticizing the U. S. (e.g., CNN Wire Staff, 2011b; Miller, 2011a); however, news accounts position these statements as evidence of protesters’ frustrations with U.S. support of Mubarak, not an ideological hatred of America. As the revolution progresses, CNN and Fox quote White House and other U.S. officials stating their support for the anti-Mubarak protesters, and Washington later confers the ally status Mubarak once held to the democratic revolutionaries. On the day Mubarak cedes power, Fox states, “Though Mubarak has been a key U.S. ally for decades, Obama did not mention Mubarak by name in his remarks. He cast the power shift as the manifestation of ordinary Egyptians ‘boundless aspirations’ for a better country and government” (“Obama Appeals to Egypt’s,” 2011, para. 4). A CNN story similarly reports, “In Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama said the people of this key U.S. ally have made it clear that ‘nothing less than genuine democracy will carry the day’” (CNN Wire Staff, 2011e, para. 26). The friend frame, then, does not reflect the protesters’ perspective but, rather, the U.S. government’s opinion.

Muslim Brotherhood

Both news outlets employ an enemy frame to describe the Muslim Brotherhood but in different ways. When the Brotherhood joins the uprising, CNN indicates that the group may be a problem for the United States. A CNN story regarding the Brotherhood explains its ties to militant Islam and its opposition to the Iraq War but stops short of claiming the group poses a threat to the United States (Jones, 2011). As it becomes clear that Mubarak will be replaced, CNN’s coverage begins to portray the Brotherhood as a potential U.S. enemy. CNN discusses concerns with the group’s alleged intentions for taking control of Egypt and pushing out Western influence but often refrains from making direct accusations. Its news coverage attributes charges regarding the Brotherhood’s anti-American sentiments to vaguely identified groups or officials, excluding the White House, and follows these claims with rebuttals by the Brotherhood or other officials. A CNN report states: “Some analysts and U.S. politicians argue that the Muslim Brotherhood, which they consider anti-American and anti-Israel, could take over in Egypt” (Cohen, 2011, para. 18). A White House official then counters that the Brotherhood is not the only possible replacement for Mubarak. CNN also attributes claims regarding the Brotherhood to other news outlets:

Fears that the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic umbrella group, could hijack Egypt’s pro-democracy movement have made headlines during the 18 days of protests in the country, but the group has stated more than once that they are not seeking power. (CNN Wire Staff, 2011f, para. 10)

By signaling that it is not making accusations regarding the Brotherhood, by using terms like “could” that indicate uncertainty, and by providing statements to counter accusations against the group, CNN indicates that the Brotherhood is a potential, but not certain, threat to the United States.

Fox News, however, frames the Muslim Brotherhood as an actual U.S. enemy. The media organization refers to the Brotherhood’s position toward U.S. policies and interests in the region as “hostile” (Miller, 2011a) reporting that a Brotherhood-controlled Egypt would jeopardize the country’s “friendliness toward the West” (“As Egyptian Unrest Builds,” 2011, para. 3). Fox News also indicates the Muslim Brotherhood has ulterior motives: “While the Brotherhood has maintained a low profile throughout the mass protests, there are deep concerns within Egypt and Washington about its program, strategy and intentions” (Miller, 2011b, para. 9). After Mubarak cedes power, concerns regarding the Brotherhood continue: “ . . . the possibility that a group like the Muslim Brotherhood—outlawed under Mubarak—could gain bona-fide political power and shift the country away from the West and Israel has some lawmakers nervous” (“Obama Appeals to Egypt’s,” 2011, para. 9). The question regarding the Brotherhood on Fox News is not if the group will be a problem for the United States but when. Most claims regarding the Brotherhood are made without attribution, presented as matter-of-fact, but direct quotes from experts and former officials, particularly Bush-era officials, and statements with vague attribution also add to this frame. The group does not speak for itself.

According to CNN and Fox News, when Mubarak leaves office, he is no longer a U.S. ally, the anti-government protesters are U.S. friends, and the Muslim Brotherhood clearly is not a friend. By employing the U.S. friend/enemy dichotomy in an event that did not directly involve the United States, revolution participants are recast from Egyptians battling for the future of their country to foreign factions affecting the United States. The revolution is not only about Egypt but also the United States.

Mubarak and the government

CNN and Fox News frame Mubarak and the Egyptian government as irrational by stressing Mubarak’s rejection of Western democracy and the leader’s human rights violations. Journalists consistently identify Mubarak as an “authoritarian” leader who has ruled Egypt with an “iron fist” for 30 years and the government as “Mubarak’s regime.” The news outlets present these naming terms with connotations of absolute rule and descriptions that indicate the government belongs to Mubarak and not the people as statements of fact often without sourcing. CNN repeats a regional political joke that simultaneously exemplifies Mubarak’s power obsession and portrays its absurdity: “One of Hosni Mubarak’s advisers finally gets the courage to say, ‘Mr. President, maybe it’s time to think about your farewell address to the Egyptian people.’ Mubarak looks at the adviser and asks, ‘Why? Where are they going?’” (Labott & Levs, 2011, para. 1). Stories also quote regional experts and anti-government protesters who levy account after account of oppression during Mubarak’s “rule” including how, in the words of an anonymous U.S. government source to Fox News, Mubarak’s regime has “killed, gassed, jailed, tortured and generally abused its opponents” (Miller, 2011a, para. 18).

Descriptions of violence by Mubarak’s security forces toward both protesters and journalists covering the revolution further bolster the irrational frame. The websites detail the “regime’s” deadly force against protesters, highlight Mubarak’s retaliation tactics that include kidnapping, and describe government assaults on the media. Media blame the regime for violent crackdowns: “Journalists covering the crisis also became targets—beaten, bloodied, harassed and detained by men, most all in some way aligned with Mubarak” (CNN Wire Staff, 2011c, para. 30). These accounts include statements denouncing Mubarak from human rights advocates and the White House, whose initial measured responses give way to stern rebukes. For readers in the United States where freedom of speech is a constitutional right, coverage regarding violence against journalists and protesters could powerfully signal Mubarak violated norms of democratic leadership. Stories sometimes carry Mubarak’s perspective in which the president states he is trying to safeguard the country, but protesters counter these claims. Fox and CNN’s depiction of Mubarak’s absolute control and rights violations position the regime as irrational.

Anti-government protesters

CNN predominantly frames the anti-government protesters as rational by emphasizing their education, professionalism, and non-violent struggle for secular, democratic goals. Journalists introduce the protesters through regional experts and government officials who vouch for them by presenting them as progressive and, in the words of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, as “well-informed, active, civil society leaders in Egypt” (CNN Wire Staff, 2011a, para. 38). Drawing on these sources and protester statements, CNN portrays the anti-government movement as seeking democratic reform. The news organization also contextualizes many protesters by discussing their college education and professional occupation and stresses the Western connections of protest leaders Mohamed ElBaradei and Wael Ghonim. When including them in stories, CNN identifies ElBaradei as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, a respected Western honor, and Ghonim as an executive for American-based Google.

CNN’s portrayal of protesters as non-violent activists furthers this frame. Journalists refer to anti-government participants as “protesters” and “demonstrators,” labels that do not carry violent connotations, and describe their actions as a revolution. The use of “revolution” draws a connection between the protesters’ actions and the United States’ own struggle for democracy. Equally important, the events are not a “rebellion,” a term with a connotation of anarchy. In explaining violence during the uprising, CNN positions protesters as government victims—“ . . . protesters taking to the streets in Egypt on Wednesday felt the wrath of security forces” (CNN Wire Staff, 2011a, para. 20)—and rationalizes protester violence as a reaction to government aggression. By focusing on the advanced education and professionalism of protesters and their pursuit of democratic reform through revolution, CNN taps into stereotypes associated with rationality in the West.

Much of Fox’s information regarding the anti-government movement is republished from the Associated Press, and initial coverage contains competing portrayals of protesters. An irrational frame is built early through journalists’ descriptions of revolution events they witnessed or viewed second-hand from Egyptian television. These stories present the initial uprising as chaotic and the anti-government movement as leaderless, as youth driven, and as comprising disparate groups with the implication that protesters may not be capable of succeeding (e.g., Griffin, 2011; “Internet, Phones Down,” 2011). Information republished from the AP also portrays anti-government protesters as perpetrators of violence. For example, protesters who were “wielding rocks, glass and sticks chased hundreds of riot police” (“Five People Killed,” 2011, para. 18) and also “torched a fire station and looted weapons that they then turned on police” (“Internet, Phones Down, ” 2011, para. 12). AP accounts attribute some violence to Mubarak forces but, overall, position anti-government protesters as aggressors. Limited aspects of Fox’s early coverage challenge this frame. Stories describe ElBaradei in a manner similar to CNN and refer to anti-government participants through more favorable naming terms such as “protester.” These stories also stress protesters’ secular goals for a democratic Egypt. Still, the early picture of protesters is of a fractured group acting out their frustrations through chaos and violence.

As the revolution continues, the portrayal of the anti-government protesters shifts to the rational frame. AP content identifies participants by their professional occupations and highlights the participation of members of elite professions: “Tens of thousands were massed in Tahrir Square itself, joined in the morning by striking doctors who marched in their white lab coats from a state hospital to the square and lawyers . . .” (“Anger in Egypt as Mubarak,” 2011, para. 20). News stories continue to focus on the heterogeneous nature of the protesters but now show how diverse protesters are working together for a common cause. AP descriptions of later protests stress the non-violent nature of the protesters and detail their organization and orderliness (e.g., “Day of Departure,” 2011). By the revolution’s end, both news outlets similarly portray the revolutionaries as rational.

Muslim Brotherhood

CNN and Fox News frame the Muslim Brotherhood through an irrational frame but to varying degrees. The media build this frame by focusing on the group’s religious agenda, violent past, and potential for future violence. Similar to their labeling of Mubarak, the news outlets routinely assign descriptions and names to the Brotherhood that are presented as factual without citation. CNN identifies the Muslim Brotherhood as an “Islamist umbrella group” (CNN Wire Staff, 2011d), whereas Fox coverage ignores the Brotherhood’s self-identification and bestows the group with new names including “Islamist Muslim Brotherhood” (“As Egyptian Unrest Builds,” 2011) and, from the AP, “Islamic fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood” (“Five People Killed,” 2011). The redundancy of combining Islam and Muslim emphasizes the group’s religious nature. Fox journalists assert the group wants to create an Islamic state and quote Christian Egyptians arguing the Brotherhood would jeopardize democracy (Vittert, 2011). In the United States, the separation of church and state is predominantly viewed as a cornerstone for rational society, and by stressing the Brotherhood’s alleged aims for an Islamic state, CNN and, to a greater extent, Fox News juxtapose the Brotherhood against U.S. ideals, positioning it as irrational.

The media also highlight the Brotherhood’s status as a banned organization in Egypt, its violent past, and ties to terrorism. CNN describes the group as the “forerunner of modern militant Islamism” (Jones, 2011), and both websites connect the group to terrorists. Allegations of the Brotherhood’s nefarious intentions are countered by Brotherhood officials or political experts on CNN and by experts or vague sources on Fox News, but even the veracity of the Brotherhood’s defense is questioned. After explaining the Brotherhood has “renounced violence,” Fox News states, “However, terror groups like Hamas spawned from the decades-old organization and Usama bin Laden deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri used to be a member” (“As Egyptian Unrest Builds,” 2011, para. 15). The use of “however” indicates an alternative perspective to a peaceful Brotherhood and references to terrorists easily recognizable to U.S. audiences further undermines claims of reform. Although the reporting process routinely involves explaining a group’s background, CNN and Fox hone in on the organization’s violent past instead of its present operations. Overall, both websites focus on the Brotherhood’s theocratic ambitions and its connections to violence, framing it as irrational.