Musician Courtney Love (right) is being sued for libelous comments she posted on her Twitter account, as well as MySpace and Etsy, an online marketplace site. The allegedly libelous comments were aimed at Love's former fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir.
The mainstream frame
The Washington Post covered the story with hard-news objectivity, if not balance or fairness. The headline is concise and informative -- Designer sues Courtney Love over Web rants -- and gives the first impression that the story, while entertainment-focused, will center on a noteworthy lawsuit based on Love's celebrity status.
The story ultimately frames Love as hypocritical and irresponsible:
"Love approached the designer last year to create clothing and apparel for her, but later refused to pay for the work and unleashed her verbal attacks, Simorangkir's lawsuit states."Despite the absence of adjectives, the use of words like "unleash" and "attack" do enough of the job: they frame Love as hostile and out of control.
Despite the Post's attempt to contact Love for comment, they were unsuccessful. This skews the story overwhelmingly toward Simorangkir. Although the Post could have conferred with sources close to Love, or find and include direct quotes from the allegedly libelous posts, they did not -- which contributes to the story's frame. Instead, the Post simply notes the type of comments Love made:
"The fashion designer's lawsuit accuses Love, the widow of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, of spreading false statements online that Simorangkir is a drug dealer, a racist, an unfit mother and a homophobe."A story aiming to remove itself from this frame wouldn't have published without comments from the singer/actress or verifying and reporting on the exact content of Love's online posts.
The alternative/blog frame
Salon.com reported on the story with the bold headline Courtney Love, trailblazer, which obviously communicates the writer's perspective on the celebrity who has sparked the first Twitter-related lawsuit.
This article provides straight quotes from Love's allegedly libelous comments (accusing Simorangkir of being a "nasty, lying, hosebag thief"), which is more explicit and objective than the Post's story, but also includes the blog-staple of personal opinion. This obvious personal perspective slant gives the story its frame.
Writer Rebecca Traister qualifies the story as newsworthy because Love is
"...the first person ever to find herself on the business end of a Twitter-related libel suit. You can't make this stuff up, people."Furthermore, Traister refers back to the current news landscape -- citing the economic crisis -- in downplaying why Love might have defamed her former fashion designer.
No comments:
Post a Comment