This dissertation examines U.S. news coverage of ten historically significant wildfires 2003 – 2013. Using framing theory with support from the Issue Attention Cycle, this historical study examines how wildfire (also referred to as "wildland fire" and "forest fire") is framed within the nation's print media over time and includes measures of news flow as well as five functions of frames: problem (including actor), attribution of responsibility, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation. The coding protocol employs five frames: fire danger or threat; loss; conflict; resources, and recovery. Rarely have aspects of this news coverage, such as framing or news flow, been studied even though it crosses areas of high interest in communication, such as, hazard, crisis, risk, and public perception. From aggregate levels of data, this dissertation establishes that framing the severity of wildfire incidents ranges from a measure in terms of human capital, such as homes, historic structures, and other property, to loss in terms of life, such as firefighting personnel, unaffiliated citizens, wildlife, domestic animals, companion animals, and livestock. Other frames dominating the coverage suggest severity is framed by size, such as acres threatened or lost, the number of personnel involved in fire suppression, or environmental impact, such as air quality threats, water pollution, loss of timber, and conflicts over salvage timber sales. This result aligns with prior research on environmental reporting that suggests environmental news is framed in terms of capital value.This dissertation also poses a question about journalist source usage in coverage of wildfire; results show journalists rely in equal amounts on agency personnel (federal, state, local, or volunteer jurisdictions) and unaffiliated citizens who are either affected by a wildfire or are expected to be in harm's way. Interestingly, firefighters themselves appeared more often than expected as in other hazard reporting: press comments tend to be restricted to persons in authority (an Incident Commander would be a preferred source in major incidents, such as those selected for this study). Scientists have a high frequency, but rarely in the same article as a fire chief. Industry, such as insurance or timber sources, has minimal appearance despite the 15-month data collection timeframe per incident to allow for discussion of recovery and rebuilding.Whether space was allotted to discussion of fire prevention (such as the "Firewise Communities" campaign), preparation for emergency situations, and prediction of fireseason as a whole varied by state. Those with lesser population, such as Idaho and Nevada, saw the most coverage of fireseason predictions, preparation for fire conditions, and guidelines for preparing and updating supplies. Discussion of fire as necessary for biological systems did not appear as part of efforts to provide balanced coverage of wildfire. While this discussion might be appropriate for coverage of recovery, it would not be expected to appear as part of breaking news of a wildfire. Results show this discussion appears when journalists interview biologists, foresters, or silviculturists in discussions of fire exclusion or strategy.Finally, results show frame and source usage are tied to stages of the news cycle, Applying an adapted model of Anthony Downs' Issue Attention Cycle reveals that as the lifecourse of the issue progresses, different sources dominate news coverage but appear at nearly predictably stages of the news cycle.
Read
