Chau Josephine Y, Kite James, Ronto Rimante, Bhatti Alexandra, Bonfiglioli Catriona
Department of Health Systems and Populations, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia;
Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Public Health Res Pract. 2019 Sep 25;29(3):2931922. doi: 10.17061/phrp2931922.
Objectives and importance of study: News media portrayal of public health issues influences public opinion, policy action and decision making. This study aimed to analyse the use of 'nanny state' frames in Australian news media coverage; identify the stakeholders invoking this frame; determine which public health-related policies attract such framing; and investigate whether 'nanny state' framing is directly challenged in news coverage.
A qualitative framing analysis.
Articles featuring the term 'nanny state' that were published in Australian print newspapers during matched periods between March and September in 2017 and 2018 were sourced through Factiva, coded and analysed for content and 'nanny state' framing. Content analysis was used to identify any public health-related issues that the terminology nanny state was applied to, and who was portrayed as imposing the nanny state. Frame analysis was used to analyse what meanings are co-presented with the phrase nanny state.
Out of 81 print newspaper articles that included the term 'nanny state', 19% linked the term to restricting personal choice or creating dissatisfaction with too many health-related rules and regulations broadly, across a range of issues, including: bike helmets, e-cigarettes, firearm restrictions, seatbelts, pool fences and smoking bans. The next most frequent links were to regulations on alcohol (17%), road safety (14%), obesity-related issues (7%) and tobacco control (6%). Of the 81 articles, 53% appeared in news publications owned by News Corporation Australia, 20% in Fairfax Media (Nine Entertainment) publications, 17% in Daily Mail and General Trust and 10% in publications owned by other organisations. Governments were the entity most frequently framed as imposing the nanny state. Most nanny state framings (73%) were negative towards public health controls and focused on policies and regulations. Nanny state was portrayed as an assault on freedom and choice (14%) and used to attack proponents of nanny state controls (11%), while few articles framed the nanny state (7%) in a favourable light.
'Nanny state' is a rhetorical device commonly used in Australian news media that may contribute to discrediting of the regulation of a range of health-related issues. News Corp publications are a major propagator of nanny state rhetoric in Australian newspaper media. Public health advocates are not commonly represented within nanny state debates within the news media.
研究目的及重要性：新闻媒体对公共卫生问题的报道会影响公众舆论、政策行动和决策。本研究旨在分析澳大利亚新闻媒体报道中“保姆国家”框架的使用情况；确定援引该框架的利益相关者；确定哪些与公共卫生相关的政策会引发此类框架；并调查在新闻报道中“保姆国家”框架是否受到直接挑战。
定性框架分析。
通过Factiva获取2017年3月至9月以及2018年同期在澳大利亚印刷报纸上发表的包含“保姆国家”一词的文章，对其进行编码并分析内容和“保姆国家”框架。内容分析用于确定“保姆国家”这一术语所应用的任何与公共卫生相关的问题，以及被描绘为实施“保姆国家”的主体。框架分析用于分析与“保姆国家”一词共同呈现的含义。
在81篇包含“保姆国家”一词的印刷报纸文章中，19%将该词与限制个人选择或普遍对过多与健康相关的规章制度产生不满联系起来，涉及一系列问题，包括：自行车头盔、电子烟、枪支限制、安全带、泳池围栏和禁烟令。其次最常见的联系是与酒精法规（17%）、道路安全（14%）、肥胖相关问题（7%）和烟草控制（6%）。在这81篇文章中，53%出现在澳大利亚新闻集团旗下的新闻出版物中，20%出现在费尔法克斯媒体（九娱乐）的出版物中，17%出现在《每日邮报》和通用信托中，10%出现在其他组织旗下的出版物中。政府是最常被描绘为实施“保姆国家”的实体。大多数“保姆国家”框架（73%）对公共卫生控制持负面态度，并侧重于政策和法规。“保姆国家”被描绘为对自由和选择的侵犯（14%），并被用于攻击“保姆国家”控制的支持者（11%），而很少有文章以正面的方式构建“保姆国家”框架（7%）。
“保姆国家”是澳大利亚新闻媒体常用的一种修辞手段，可能会导致对一系列与健康相关问题的监管失去公信力。新闻集团的出版物是澳大利亚报纸媒体中“保姆国家”言论的主要传播者。在新闻媒体关于“保姆国家”的辩论中，公共卫生倡导者通常没有被代表。
